Government of the People's Republic of BangladeshDirectorate of Nonformal Education

Submitted by:

Uniconsult International Limited, Bangladesh15 February 1998

n\ *

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Integrated Nonformal Education Program

1. The Integrated Nonformal Education Program (INFEP), extending over 82 thanas(spread over 64 districts), was implemented during July 1991 - June 1997 at a total cost ofTk. 875.235 million of which 28% came as GOB grant and 72% as project aid from fourdonors viz. UNICEF, UNDP, NORAD, and SIDA.

2. INFEP's principal objective was eradication of illiteracy through a nonformaleducation system that would be parallel to the formal system. To achieve the objective, thefollowing programs were implemented for providing literacy and nonformal education (NFE)to 1.61 million people:

a. A one-year pre-primary program for the 4-5 age group that would facilitateentry into formal grade 1;

b. A two-year basic education for the 6-10 age group remaining outside theformal primary education system;

c. A two-year NFE program for adolescents of the age group 11-14 remainingoutside the formal school system;

d. A 10-month adult literacy program for the 15-45 age group; and

e. Post-literacy and continuing education for the neoliterates graduating from theabove programs (a, b, c, and d).

Evaluation of INFEP

3. The purpose of this study was to find out how far INFEP's objective has beenachieved. It aimed at determining the strengths and weaknesses of INFEP in terms of specificindicators, highlighting answers to such questions as: Were the objectives of INFEP achieved?To what extent? Was the program cost-effective? What were some of the factors associated

xxiv

If

with performances at various levels? What were the divergences between the intended targetsand achievements?

4. The evaluation addressed three of the five programs mentioned above viz. (i) NFE foradolescents (ii) adult literacy, and (iii) continuing education for the neoliterates. The tworemaining programs viz. pre-primary education for the 4-5 age group and nonformal basiceducation for the 6-10 age group were not included in this study, as these were evaluatedearlier.

5. According to the given terms of reference, the evaluation addressed a number ofdimensions: (a) organization, (b) management, (c) program effectiveness, (d) training, (e)workshops and seminars, (f) materials development, (g) consulting services, (h) continuingeducation, (i) procurement and financial system, and (j) other relevant matters.

Methodology

6. The study covered different dimensions of INFEP, its qualitative and quantitativeaspects, attitudinal changes of the learners, teachers and supervisors, socioeconomicdeterminants of the Program, and functional and structural variables influencing theeffectiveness of the Program.

7. The study is based on both primary and secondary data. Apart from the primary data,the following basic documents were obtained and reviewed:

(a) The Project Pro forma of INFEP, annual development programs, anddevelopment budgets;

(b) Earlier evaluation and monitoring reports;

(c) The materials developed including the primers, teachers' guides, trainingmanuals, and continuing education materials;

(d) Reports on workshops and seminars organized; and

(e) Terminal reports of the consultants.

xxv

8. For collecting primary data, a sample survey was conducted in 14 thanas during theperiod 24 August - 20 September 1997.

9. The Sample Size. The samples of the study included: (i) 505 learning centers (156for adolescents and 349 for adults), (ii) 4,990 learners (1,552 adolescents and 3,438 adults),(iii) 503 literacy teachers, (iv) 93 literacy supervisors, (v) 124 illiterates not enrolled in anylearning center, (vi) 102 dropouts, (vii) 545 key persons including community leaders, NGOrepresentatives, and officials at the thana and district levels, (viii) 36 rural libraries or GramShikkha Milan Kendras (GSMKs), (ix) 36 librarians of GSMKs, (x) 12 supervisors ofGSMKs, (xi) 21 members of GSMK management committees, (xii) 84 neoliterates, (xiii) 24illiterate learners of GSMKs, (xiv) 12 District Coordinators, and (xv) 21 ProgramCoordinators of NGOs.

10. Prior to selection of samples, stratification was done according to: (i) administrativedivision; (ii) government-managed and NGO-run learning centers; (iii) centers for males andfemales; and (iv) earlier and recent centers.

11. The Instruments. The study used a total of 21 instruments (achievement tests: 8;questionnaires: 13). The achievement tests for the learners covered four areas: (i) reading, (ii)writing, (iii) numeracy, and (iv) life skills. Separate tests based on Chetana (for those whowent through a 10-month/6-month adult literacy program) and Kishore-Kishori Pathmala (forthose who went through a 2-year program for adolescents) were given.

12. To administer the tests and the other instruments, 6 field supervisors and 38investigators having sufficient experience of socioeconomic surveys were recruited andtrained. In addition to the data generated through these instruments, the consultants hadopportunities of discussing with selected officials and non-officials some of the INFEP-relatedproblems and issues during their 5-day visit to the sample areas. The consultants alsoexchanged ideas with the relevant DNFE and PMED officials.

13. Besides field survey, a two-day workshop (24-25 October 1997) was organized togenerate thinking on INFEP's curricula, teaching-learning and training materials, and itsmonitoring and evaluation system including its MIS.

14. The data collected through field investigation were edited and their consistencychecked. Computer entry was carried out in dBase IV and analysis in SPSS/PC+. Lotus 1-2-3and Excel were used in some cases.

xxvi

Review of INFEP

15. A review of INFEP under 10 heads was undertaken. The major targets andachievements of INFEP are given below:

MAJOR TARGETS AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF INFEP(As of 30 June 1997)

Program

1. Preprimary Education (2,500)

2. Nonformal Basic Education (5,000)

3. NFE for Adolescents:

A. Government-Managed (900)

B. NGO-run (6,900)

Total: (7,800 against the target of 10,000)

4. Innovative Program in Dhaka City (50)

5. Adult Literacy:

A. Government-Managed:

a. Center-Based (6,535)

b. TLM (21,418)

c. Model Thanas (4,067)

B. NGO-run (14,260)

Total: (46,280)

6. Voluntary Organizations (Book Distribution)

Target(Learners)

75,000

150,000

-

-

300,000

1,500

-

-

-

1,388,400

500,000

Achievement(Learners)

63,000

149,100

27,000

207,000

234,000

1,500

196,050

642,540

121,757

427,800

1,388,147

499,993

Notes:

The figures in parentheses give the numbers of learning centers opened.The number of GSMKs was 935 against the target of 690.

16. Implementation of Programs. While the programs for preprimary education andnonformal basic education were implemented through the NGOs, the implementation of NFEfor adolescents and adult literacy involved both INFEP/DNFE (INFEP converted into DNFEon 3 September 1995) and selected NGOs. The implementation of the continuing educationprogram was undertaken exclusively by DNFE. A total of 199 NGOs (including 80 Dhaka-based NGOs) were involved in INFEP's implementation.

17. Management. The management structure of INFEP involved four levels: PMED,DNFE, District/Thana Administration, and NGOs. While PMED was the sponsoring ministry

xxvn

of INFEP responsible for policy-making, DNFE acted as the national-level executing agency.The District/Thana Administration served as implementing agency at district/thana level andthe NGOs acted as contractors of the executing agency.

18. Training. INFEP's training activities were conducted at four levels. A selected groupof core trainers trained master trainers. The latter trained locally appointed supervisors who,in tern, trained the teachers of the learning centers for a period of 10 days. Eleven primarytraining institutes were involved in the foundation and refresher training of the literacypersonnel. The librarians and supervisors of GSMKs also had a short course of training,generally ranging from 2-5 days. There is a consensus that the duration of training for mastertrainers, supervisors, teachers of the learning centers, and librarians and supervisors of GSMKswas not adequate.

19. Workshops, Seminars, and Materials Development. A number of workshops wereorganized on various aspects of INFEP. Based on the recommendations of the workshops,curricula for the programs were developed. This was followed by the preparation of literacyprimers, training manuals, and materials for continuing education. INFEP produced a totalof 85 titles. For monitoring purposes, it designed a number of monitoring formats and amonitoring manual.

20. Management Information System. INFEP created the nucleus of a managementinformation system that is yet to be developed. The MIS unit has not yet been able to classifyand computerize all the essential data needed for planning and decision-making.

21. Manpower and Consulting Services. INFEP's manpower at its headquartersconsisted of 46 professionals and a supporting staff of 78 members. At the district level, ithad 64 District Coordinators and a supporting staff of 128 persons. It also had the servicesof 4 international consultant (36 person-months) and 3 local consultants (18 person-months).

22. Procurement and Financial Management. INFEP's procurement and financialmanagement followed GOB's financial rules, a tender committee being involved in theprocurement of goods. The selection of NGOs was done by an Intel-ministerial SubventionCommittee, following definite criteria. At times the release of funds was delayed, resultingin a delay in implementation.

XXV11I

Socioeconomic Profiles of Respondent Groups

23. The socioeconomic profiles of the five respondent groups viz. (i) the learners; (ii) theteachers of learning centers; (iii) the supervisors of learning centers; (iv) the dropouts; and (v)selected illiterates are summarized below.

(a) Household Size of Learners. The average household size of the adolescentlearners was 6.39 persons (male: 3.25; female: 3.14). In the case of the adultlearners, the average household size was 5.94 (male: 3.09; female: 2.85). Theproportions of households with 5 members or more were 85.88% foradolescents and 73.01% for adults.

(b) Age of Learners, Teachers, and Supervisors. The average age of the adolescentlearners was 12.67 years (male: 12.79; female: 12.57) with 77.58% in the agegroup 11-14. The average age of the adult learners was 25.08 years (male:24.97; female 25.16) with 69.64% in the age group 15-29.

(c) Although the adult learners and the literacy teachers were in the same agerange, the average age of the supervisors was slightly higher than those ofadult learners and teachers. The average ages of the teachers of the adult andadolescent learning centers were 24.76 years and 23.45 years respectively,while the average age of the supervisors was 29.52 years.

(d) Marital Status of Learners. Most of the adolescent learners were unmarried(97.81%), while a large number of adult learners were married (57.91%). The34 married adolescent learners of the sample included 29 females and 5 males.This showed that the girls were married off earlier than the boys. The adultlearners belonging to the divorced, separated, and abandoned categories(numbering 31) were all females.

(e) Literacy and Educational Level of the Parents of Learners. The literacy ratesof fathers and mothers of adolescent learners were 33.76% and 19.85%respectively. In the case of adult learners, the corresponding proportions were30.51% and 14.98% respectively. The educational level of 5.8% of the fathersof adolescents and 4.02% of the fathers of adults was SSC and above. Thecorresponding proportions for mothers were 1.03% and 0.52%.

(f) Qualifications of Teachers and Supervisors. The educational level of 20% ofthe teachers of the adolescent learning centers and 25% of the teachers of the

xxix

adult learning centers was below SSC, while the academic qualification of89.47% of the supervisors was HSC.

(g) Present Occupation of Learners. Among the adolescent learners, 54.83%belonged to the "student" category and among the adult learners, 38.89%belonged to the "housewife" category. The majority of the adult male learnerswere engaged in farming (42.58%), while in the case of female adult learners,household work was the dominant occupation (65.89%).

(h) Only 7.03% of the adolescent and 23.60% of the adult learners were involvedin IGAs other than their main present occupation. Involvement of the femalelearners in IGAs was higher (10.83% for adolescents and 30.66% for theadults) than that of the male learners (3.22% for adolescents and 16.54% foradults).

(i) Household Income of Learners. Teachers, and Supervisors. The averagemonthly household incomes of the adolescent and adult learners were Tk.2,754.10 and Tk. 2,745.86 respectively. While the monthly household incomeof 57.09% of the adolescent and 59.13% of the adult learners was between Tk.500 and Tk. 2,500, the monthly income of an insignificant proportion ofhouseholds exceeded Tk. 5,000. There was no significant difference betweenthe learners' household income and household expenditure.

(j) While a total of 200 teachers out of 503 did not report having any individualmonthly income, the average monthly income of the sample teachers of theadolescent and adult learning centers was Tk. 573.35 and Tk. 761.17respectively. The average monthly income of the supervisors was Tk. 1,789.42.

(k) Land Distribution Pattern of Learners' Households. The average sizes ofhousehold cultivable land of the adolescent and adult learners were 73.13decimals and 59.36 decimals respectively. Most of the learners (bothadolescents and adults) came from "landless" and "marginal" families. Theproportion of learners from the "medium" and the "large" categories was rathertoo small.

(1) The Dropouts. The average household sizes of the adolescent and the adultdropouts were 6.03 and 5.35 persons respectively, the corresponding averagesizes of cultivable land for the two groups being 40.71 decimals and 27.30decimals. An overwhelming majority of the parents of the dropouts (97%)were illiterate.

xxx

The average ages of the dropouts were 13.97 years for adolescents and 27.75years for adults. The proportions of the two groups involved in occupationswere 45.16% and 45.07% respectively. This showed that the dropouts did notimmediately get employed. Furthermore, only a small proportion of them werefound to be engaged in IGAs.

(m) The Illiterates. To compare the learners' achievement and socioeconomiccondition with those of others, a sample of 126 illiterates (adolescents: 29 andadults: 97) was selected as a control group. The average household size ofadolescent illiterates was higher (6.66 persons) than that of adult illiterates(5.71 persons). Most of the illiterates belonged to the "landless" category(adolescents: 85.71%; adults: 78.13%) with a low monthly household incomeranging from Tk. 500 to Tk 2,500. The data showed that the socioeconomiccondition of the learners was better than that of the illiterates. Among theilliterates, 53.57% of the adolescents and 51.54% of the adults were engagedin some occupation and the rest were unemployed.

Learning Environment of INFEP

24. General Environment. An overwhelming proportion of the learners (adolescents:99.55%; adults: 99.04%) were satisfied with the environment of the learning centers. One cantranslate this satisfaction in terms of timely availability of books and other reading materials,well-motivated teachers, availability of physical space for the center, and a supportive role bythe community.

25. Training of Teachers. The training given to the teachers was found to be inadequate.Both the teachers and the supervisors favored a longer-duration training program for theteachers.

26. Teaching-Learning Materials. About 97% of the supervisors of the learning centersreported that the teaching-learning materials were supplied on time. While 81 % thought thatthe supply was adequate, 92% felt that the quality of the materials was very good or good.

27. Course Duration. About 70% of the sample adolescent learners and 47% of thesample adult learners considered their respective course durations to be adequate.

28. Supervision. When a comparison was made between the government-managed and theNGO-run centers, it was found that the latter were more frequently visited by the supervisors.While a government-managed center was visited about 3.8 times a month, an NGO-run center

xxxi

was visited 4 times a month. While visiting the centers, the supervisors observed a numberof weaknesses: low learner attendance, unsatisfactory progress of learners, infrequentmanagement committee meetings, inadequate refresher training for teachers, and less than theideal teaching method. The supervisors reported a number of problems in discharging theirduties efficiently, e.g., lack of transport, distance between learning centers, and lack ofadequate support from the senior officials.

29. Timely Payment of Honoraria. A significant proportion of the teachers (15 to 25%,depending on whether they were engaged in adult or adolescent centers) did not receive theirmonthly honoraria on time. A relatively higher proportion (20%) of the supervisors of NGO-run centers vis-a-vis the supervisors of government-managed centers reported that they did notreceive their monthly compensation on time.

Enrollment, Attendance, and Dropouts

30. Attendance. In most of the learning centers for adolescents and adults, 30 learnerswere enrolled, but the average daily attendance in most of the centers was 21-25 learners.There was hardly any difference in the attendance of males and females. However, averagedaily attendance in government-managed adult literacy centers was higher than in the NGO-run centers (government-managed centers: 26.58; NGO-run centers: 23.37).

31. Dropout Rate. The dropout rate was calculated from the difference in the number oflearners enrolled and the number completing the course. The overall dropout rates foradolescents and adults were found to be 7.76% and 9.17% respectively. The female dropoutrate was slightly higher than that of males. No significant difference was found in thedropout rates of government-managed and NGO-run centers.

32. The major causes of dropping out of the learning centers were reported to be: (i) clashwith household work and (ii) effect on income earning.

Achievement of Learners

33. The achievement of the learners at the internal examinations and at the tests given bythis study may be summarized as follows:

(a) The success rates at the internal final examinations for adolescent and adultlearners were 87.22% and 86.09% respectively.

xxxii

(b) At the tests given by this study, the overall mean scores were 65.40 foradolescents and 65.48 for adults. The proportions of adolescents and adultsachieving a total score of 60 and above (out of 100) were 64.76% and 66.22%respectively.

(c) The overall mean scores for adolescent and adult learners of the Sylhet divisionwere the highest and those of the Dhaka division, the lowest.

(d) For the adolescent learners, the overall mean score for females was higher thanthat of males, but for adult learners, the overall mean score for males washigher than that of females.

(e) In the case of both adolescent and adult learners, the overall achievement ofthe recent phase (January 1995-June 1997) was higher than that of the earlierphase (July 1991-December 1994).

(f) No significant difference was found between overall mean scores of adultlearners of government-managed and NGO-run centers.

(g) In the case of both adults and adolescents, achievement in numeracy was thehighest and achievement in life skills, the lowest.

(h) Adolescent learners of the age range 11-14 and adult learners of the age range15-19 obtained the highest overall mean scores.

Continuing Education

34. The rural libraries or GSMKs, set up under INFEP, also served as literacycenters for the illiterates as well as those who dropped out of INFEP or failed to achieve theminimum literacy level. The following were the major findings on GSMKs:

(a) The librarians of GSMKS mentioned that the neoliterates visited GSMKsmainly for reading books and newspapers, practicing the literacy skills,listening to the news and other radio programs, and participating in recreationalactivities.

(b) In the absence of a GSMK in close proximity, a major section of theneoliterates never visited a GSMK.

xxxm

(c) In most of the cases, the GSMKs uere set up in rented houses. Of the 36sample GSMKs, 34 were based in rented houses. The sitting capacity of aGSMK varied from 20 to 30 persons.

(d) The major tasks of the librarian included: (i) ensuring functioning of the libraryfor 6 hours a day (3 pin - 6 pm for females; 6 pm - 9 pm for males); ( i i )teaching the neoliterates for 3 days a week; ( i i i ) helping the neoliterates inpracticing their literacy skills; ( iv) running an adult literacy center in GSMKfor a group of 10 illiterates; and (v) performing other activit ies related tocontinuing education.

(e) One supervisor was responsible for monitoring the ac t iv i t ies of 10 GSMKs ina thana. Each GSMK was supposed to have a managing committee. This studyrevealed that in some cases, there \vcre no managing committees and in someother cases, the committees did not function properly (Of the 36 sampleGSMKs, 3 reported that they did not have a managing committee).

(0 The average age of the male librarians was 27.83 years as against the averageage of 23.29 years for female librarians. The supervisors included in thesample had an average age of 28.42 years. The 25-29 age range emerged as thesingle major age group of the supervisors as against the age group of 20-24 inthe case of librarians.

(g)

(h)

While INFEP's project proforma provided that the qualif ications of thelibrarians and supervisors of GSMKs would be HSC and bachelor's degreerespectively, the qualifications of the sample librarians and supervisors wereas follows:

Qualification

Below SSC

SSC

HSC

Bachelor's Degree and above

Total

Librarians

3

914

10

36

Supervisors

2

10

12

While 83.33% of the librarians were of the opinion that GSMK was sufficientfor continuing education and post-literacy activities, 16.67% considered it tobe not sufficient. Most of the supervisors also were of the opinion that theGSMKs were adequate for the purpose of retaining the literacy skills.

xxxiv

(i) The librarians and supervisors made the following recommendations: foreffective functioning of GSMKs: (i) establishing permanent GSMKs; (ii)increasing honoraria of librarians and supervisors (iii) supplying TV and morenewspapers to GSMKs; (iv) introducing credit facilities in GSMKs; and (v)imparting training on income-generating activities.

(j) While 96.15% of the illiterates felt that their expectations from GSMKs wereattained, 75.61% of the neoliterates held the same opinion.

(k) A small proportion of the neoliterates (18.29%) and illiterates (3.85%) felt thatthe cooperation received from the librarians was adequate.

(1) An overwhelming majority of the neoliterates (92.68%) and illiterates (96.15%)considered GSMK to be adequate as a means of sustaining literacy skills.

(m) To strengthen the post-literacy and continuing education program, the local keypersons made following recommendations:

(i) coordinating with various government organizations and NGOs throughspecific committees;

(ii) introducing income-generating activities, credit programs, andeducational and awareness-building programs;

(iii) giving responsibility for running GSMKs to NGOs and givingmonitoring responsibility to government organizations; and

(iv) involving the local administration (under the leadership of the DeputyCommissioner) in the management of GSMKs.

Impact of INFEP

35. Learners' Views. While 65.12% of the learners believed that their social status hadimproved as a result of their enrollment in learning center, 53.67% felt that their participationin the program had a positive influence on their standard of living. The most perceptibledifference took place in the realm of life-skill-related matters (both for adolescents and adults)e.g., in the knowledge of sanitary latrine, dowry (as a social crime), and early marriage ofgirls (as undesirable).

xxxv

36. Views of Kev Persons. About 85% of the key persons considered INFEP to besuccessful and about 95% of them thought that the program left a positive impact on thelearners. On the degree of INFEP's quality (in terms of its performance vis-a-vis popularexpectation), 34.31% of the respondents considered it to be very good and 65.69% rated itto be good, and none rated it as bad.

37. An overwhelming majority of the key persons (95.22%) felt that the success of INFEPgave a fillip to enrollment in the mainstream primary schools.

38. Views of Teachers. To make INFEP more successful, the teachers observed that moreconsciousness-raising social movement, complimentary credit program, better training forteachers/supervisors, more effective participation of the local community, improved physicalspace for learning centers and other similar complimentary arrangements were required.

Conclusions

39. INFEP has been a reasonably successful experiment. It has created an enthusiasm andhas led to new projects in nonformal education: NFE1, NFE2, NFE3 and NFE4. The resultsof the experiment lead to the following broad conclusions:

*

(a) It should be possible to eradicate illiteracy in Bangladesh within a period of 10years or even earlier.

(b) It should also be possible to raise the adult literacy rate for people aged 15 andabove to 80% by the year 2002.

(c) It will be difficult to ensure universal functional literacy through the formalprimary system alone. There will be a need, over the next one decade, to havea nonformal education channel parallel to the formal system to cater for thehard-to-reach and the out-of-school children as well as illiterate adults of theage group 15 and above.

(d) INFEP has covered 82 thanas. It will be necessary to bring the remaining 408thanas under similar or more effective programs/projects.

(e) In the course of execution of INFEP, a number of strengths and weaknessesin implementation have been revealed. These need to be taken intoconsideration in the subsequent programs/projects.

xxxvi

Recommendations

40. This study made a number of recommendations for strengthening nonformal educationin Bangladesh (Chapters 2 and 10). The following are some of the major recommendations:

(i) A high priority should he accorded to NFE and adult literacy over the next onedecade. To this end, there is a need for formulating new policies and strategiesin the following areas: (a) restructuring DNFE; (b) designing an effectivetraining program for the literacy personnel at various levels; (c) strengthening,monitoring, supervision, and MIS; (d) developing appropriate teaching-learning-lcsting materials; (e) establishing viable cont inuing education centers;(0 l ink ing the literacy program wi th programs for f ighting poverty; (g)increasing involvement of NGOs and organized local groups in NFE; and (h)establishing linkage between NFE and the formal school system.

( i i ) Some of the specific recommendations are: (a) transforming DNFE into anautonomous body; (b) s t reamlining DNFE's documentation and MIS sections;(c) creating the post of a Materials Development Specialist at DNFEheadquarters; (d) f i l l i n g 25% of the senior positions of DNFE through directrecruitment; (e) pub l i sh ing DNFE's detailed annual report; (0 creating anautonomous National Academy for Mass Education; (g) strengthening thedistrict and thana-level management and supervision of NFE by creating theposts of Assistant District Coordinator and Thana Nonformal Education Officer(TNEO); (h) organizing, through a research institute, an intensive initialtraining program of 2-3 months' duration for DNFE's professionals; (i)requiring the trained personnel to remain with DNFE for at least 3 years; (j)increasing the duration of prc-scrvice training of literacy teachers andsupervisors to at least 15 days; (k) creating facilit ies for a database at thedistrict level through provision of one data entry operator and onemicrocomputer for each district; (1) establishing permanent GSMKs withfinancial support from the concerned ministries; (m) evaluating existingteaching-learning materials by an appropriate research cell; (n) developing newresearch-based teaching-learning-testing materials; (o) involving more localNGOs and local groups in NFE by reducing their experience requirement; and(p) taking steps at appropriate level to equate NFE programs with the schoolprograms so that the NFE learners can move into the formal school system.

CHAPTER 5

THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT OF INFEP

An Overview

1. The learning environment of a literacy center is a function of a number of physical,human, and social factors. A clean space is required where the learners can sit together. Thespace has to he protected against rain, storm, heat, and cold. In the socioeconomic realitiesof Bangladesh, the sitting place of a learning center may he a modest house with corrugatediron sheet roof and bamboo wall. The floor may he brick-laden (if it is low). A goodnumber of the learning centers visited were located in the outhouses of relatively well-to-dofamilies. In some cases, people created new bamboo-made houses for the learning centers.The reading materials were available free of cost from the concerned District Coordinatorof DNFE. The most important human element of the program was the teacher. A motivatedand well-trained teacher can raise the spirit of the learners and educate them effectively. Thesocial dimension of a learning center was mainly the role of the Center ManagementCommittee (CMC) - how it facilitated the learning center by arousing and sustaining interestamong the learners and arranging physical facilities and other related things.

2. An overwhelming percentage of learners (both adolescents and adults) weresatisfied with the environment of the learning centers. (Tables 5.1 and 5.2). It means thatthe learners obtained the hooks/reading materials supplied by DNFE on time; the teacherswere motivated and imparted education successfully; the modest sitting places of the learningcenters served the purpose; and the social role of the community leaders was helpful .

Training of Teachers and Supervisors

3. The teachers of the learning centers were trained for 10 days by a supervisor and thelater was trained by a master trainer. The supervisors of government-managed centers cameto the District Coordinator's office at the beginning of each month to submit their monthlyreport and receive their salary. If any need arose, the District Coordinator imparted trainingon a crash basis to the supervisors during the monthly meeting, A regular (monthly) refreshert ra ining for the teachers was required. The refresher training provided by the supervisor atthe thana level was intended to rehash the training already given, keep up the morale, andintroduce new elements (if there is any). Both the teachers and the supervisors, in theiropinion survey, recommended a longer duration of training for the teachers.

5 - 1

Teaching-Learning and Training Materials

4. DNFE supplied the necessary teaching-learning and training materials to the DistrictCoordinator and the Program Coordinator of the concerned NGO and through them downto the supervisors and the teachers of the learning center more or less on time and inadequate quantity. Tables 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 present the supervisors' opinions on thequantity, quality, and timeliness of supply of educational materials. Similar opinions alsocame from the sample teachers, District Coordinators, and Program Coordinators of NGOs(Tables 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, and 5.9).

Honoraria to Teachers and Supervisors

5. The monthly honorarium received by the teachers was reported to be Tk. 250 or Tk.400, while the supervisor's monthly honorarium was fixed at Tk. 1,000. About 99% of theteachers received Tk. 400 as monthly compensation for their work (Table 5.10). A greatmajority of the teachers (85.06%) of the adult learning centers received their salary on time.Analyzing the situation from the opposite angle, the proportion of teachers (both belongingto the adolescent and the adult learning centers) not receiving monthly financial compensationon time was also quite high, ranging between 15 to 25 percent of the teachers (Table 5.11).

6. A large proportion of the supervisors (85.26%) of the learning centers reported thatthey received their honoraria on time (Table 5.12). A higher proportion (96.37%) ofgovernment-managed supervisors said so when compared with a relatively lower proportion(80%) of supervisors of NGO-run centers.

Standard of Teaching and Learning

7. What is meant by the standard of teaching? Generally, course content, pedagogy, andteacher performance (whether he/she is motivated or not) - all of these dimensions, incombination, determine the standard of teaching. The opinions of the learners (both adultsand adolescents) on the teaching method are given in Tables 5.13 and 5.14. It is observedthat all types of learners (male or female, belonging to government-managed or NGO-runcenters) were of the opinion that in about 99% of the cases, the teaching method was eithergood or very good. An overwhelming majority of the sample learners (about 98%) said thatthe teachers took their classes on time (Table 5.15).

8. Complementary to the teaching method is the behavioral aspect of the teacher. On thiscount, an overwhelming majority (about 99%) of the learners (both adolescents and adults),

5 - 2

belonging to government-managed or NGO-run learning centers, opined that the teacherswere either good or very good (Tables 5.16 and 5.17).

Course Duration

9. Was'the course duration adequate? A substantial majority of the adolescent learners(69.27%) thought that the course duration was adequate. On the other hand, 47.15% of theadult learners considered that the course duration was adequate (Table 5.18). Analyzing theobtained data, two observations followed:

(a) The adults vis-a-vis the adolescents were slow learners. Therefore, they werecomplaining about the shorter duration of the course.

(b) In particular, the female learners and the learners of the NGO-run centerswere not happy with the course duration.

10. The sample learners who considered the course duration to be inadequate were askedto suggest an ideal duration for the course. In response, 60.37% of the adult learners optedfor a 19-24 month duration, while 73.17% of the adolescent learners opted for a relativelylonger duration of 31-48 months (Tables 5.19 and 5.20).

Supervision of Learning Centers

11. Proper and regular supervision of the learning centers was a key to the success of thewhole program. INFEP built in a whole series of supervision involving different functionariesat different levels. It involved Supervisors, District Coordinators, Program Coordinators ofNGOs, Thana Nirbahi Officers, Deputy Commissioners, Additional Deputy Commissioners,Monitoring Associates and other DNFE personnel, and different NGO officials. The mainsupervisory work remained with the supervisor, who was located in the hierarchy just abovethe teacher. Analyzing the supervisor's activities as revealed by the field survey, it was foundthat in 64.21% of the cases, the sample supervisors visited the learning centers within theircommand every week (i.e., not daily) (Table 5.21). The NGO-run learning centers werevisited more frequently (they were visited daily in 41.54% of the cases) than the government-managed learning centers. The higher level of supervision of the NGO-run learning centersis also shown in Table 5.22. It is shown that on an average, a government-managed learningcenter for males was visited 3.89 times a month, while a government-managed learningcenter for females was visited 3.67 times. In the case of the NGO-run centers, thecorresponding figures were 4.02 and 4.00.

5 - 3

12. The weaknesses observed by the supervisors included the following (Table 5.23):

(i) low learner attendance;

( i i ) unsatisfactory progress of learners;

(iii) low frequency/lack of management committee meetings;

(iv) inadequate monthly refresher training for teachers; and

(v) teacher's failure to present things properly to the learners.

13. It may be mentioned that the supervisors had in their frame of mind a number ofthings to check while visiting the learning centers. Table 5.24 reports the priorities thesupervisors attached to different duties. The priorities can be arranged in the followingdescending order:

(i) check whether the teacher followed given training properly;

(ii) check attendance of both teachers and learners;

(iii) check whether the learners got the reading materials on time;

(iv) check progress of the learners; and

(v) other things (quality of learning materials, timeliness of learning center-operation, management committee meetings, etc.).

14. Though the supervisor's visits of learning centers were more frequent, there wereother visits by DCOs, Program Coordinators of NGOs, government officials (DC, ADC, andTNO). The DNFE personnel visited the government-managed centers more frequently thanthe NGO-run centers (Table 5.25). Tables 5.26, 5.27, 5.28, 5.29, 5.30, and 5.31, whichgive average number of visits of learning centers by different government and NGO-officials,show that the adolescent learning centers were visited more frequently than the adultlearning centers.

Problems Faced by Teachers and Supervisors

15. The teachers and supervisors of the learning centers faced a number of problems indischarging their duties or running the program efficiently. Tables 5.32, 5.33, and 5.34

5 - 4

catalog the problems reported by the sampled teachers and supervisors. The major problemsfaced by the teachers in order of importance were:

(i) learners not attending classes on time;

(ii) others in the society creating obstacles for the learners;

(iii) learners not preparing lessons at home; and

(iv) difficulty with the laggards in the class.

16. The supervisors reported the following major problems in a descending order ofimportance:

(i) lack of transport for smooth movement;

(i i) distance between the learning centers under their supervision; and

(iii) lack of adequate support from senior officials.

5 - 5

£ \Af-V-

•£>Jf-^r

CHAPTER 6

ENROLLMENT, ATTENDANCE, AND DROPOUTS

Enrollment

1. It is revealed from Table 6.1 that 98.06% of the learning centers for adolescentsenrolled 30 learners. A few (0.65%) enrolled below 30 and some (1.29%) enrolled morethan 30. However, on an average, the enrollment per learning center was 30.02 (30.06 formale centers and 29.99 for female centers).

2. Most of the adult learning centers (77.87%) enrolled 30 learners and some (22.13%)enrolled more than 30. The average enrollment per adult learning center was 32.07 (32.21for male centers and 31.98 for female centers; Table 6.2). INFEP's project documentprovided for enrollment of 40 learners in a government-managed center and 30 learners inan NGO-run center. Against these targets, average enrollments in the government-managedand the NGO-run centers were 36.34 learners and 30.43 learners respectively.

Attendance

3. Table 6.3 shows that the average daily attendance of the adolescent learning centerswas 23.75 (male: 23.38; female: 24.02). For 65.16% of the centers, the average dailyattendance was 21-25, while for 23.23% of the centers, the average daily attendance was 26and above. The average daily attendance in the government-managed centers was 23.20 asagainst 23.79 in the NGO-run centers.

4. For the adult learning centers, the average daily attendance was 24.25 (male: 24.27;female: 24.24) but for 48.56% of the centers, the attendance was 21-25 (Table 6.4). A goodnumber of the learning centers (31.90%) had daily attendance of 26 and above. An analysisof daily attendance in the government-managed and the NGO-run adult literacy centers leadsto the conclusion that the NGO-run centers had an edge over the government-managedcenters.

Dropout Rate

5. The dropout rate was calculated from the difference in the number of learners enrolledand the number of learners who completed the course. The overall dropout rate for the

6- 1

adolescent learning centers was found to he 7.76% (males: 1.22%; females: 8.13%). Table6.5 shows that the dropout rates for the government-managed and the NGO-run centers were4.67% and 7.97% respectively.

6. For the adult learners, the dropout rates of males and females came to 8.91% and9.35% respectively, the overall dropout rate being 9 .17%. In the case of adult learners, thedropout rate at government-managed centers (9.86%) was higher than that of NGO-runcenters (8.87%) (Table 6.6).

Success Rate at Internal Final Examination

7. Table 6.7 shows that for the adolescent learning centers, the overall success rate atthe internal final examination was 87.22% (87.40% for males and 87.09% for females), therebeing no significant difference in the success rates of males and females.

8. For the adult learning centers, the overall success rate was 86.09% (87.39% for malesand 85.19% for females: Table 6.8).

9. Tables 6.7 and 6.8 also reveal that there was no significant difference in the successrate of the government-managed and the NGO-run centers of either category (for adolescentsand for adults).

Illiterates - Causes of Non-enrollment

10. Most of the illiterate adolescents (92.86%) and adults (88.24%) knew about INFERbut did not get themselves enrolled in a learning center because they could not find time forattendance due to long working hours. The second cause was poverty and the third was theirown unwillingness (Tables 6.9 and 6.10). Most of the il l i terate adolescents (86.66%) andadults (83.51%) had regrets for not being enrolled. All of the adolescents and 88.66% ofthe adults reported their willingness to avail of another opportunity for enrollment in alearning center.

Causes of Dropping Out of Literacy Program

11. The main causes of dropping out of the learning center on the part of the adolescentswere reported to be as follows: (a) household work was affected by engaging in learning; (b)earning was affected; and (c) parents' objection. The female learners also identified these

6 - 2

as the main causes that led to their dropping out before completing the literacy course (Table6.11).

12. The adult learners identified clash with household work and effect on earning as thetwo major causes of their dropping out of the literacy program . As the third cause, theyreported that they found reading and writing to be too difficult. The female learnersidentified two other causes viz. imposition of restriction on attendance by the husbands anddistance of the learning center from home (Table 6.12).

13. Almost all of the adolescent and adult dropouts had regrets for not completing theliteracy course and wanted to be benefitted by the next available opportunity.

Measures to Combat Dropping Out of Literacy Program

14. As possible measures to combat dropping out of NFE and the literacy program, theteachers, supervisors, and community members recommended the following:

(a) social mobilization and motivation (including discussion meetings at variouslevels; meetings with the female learners in the presence of their husbands andcommunity leaders);

(b) creating awareness of the difficulties faced by the illiterates;

(c) strengthening monitoring and professional supervision;

(d) selection of learners with adequate care and attention;

(e) building up rapport with the learners by the literacy organizers, teachers, andsupervisors; and

(f) recognizing completion of the course as a condition for obtaining assistancefrom the local government organizations, NGOs, banks, etc.

6 - 3

J?7^

X-"i-r*

CHAPTER 7

THE ACHIEVEMENT OF LEARNERS

Literacy Areas

1. This study involved two categories of learners (adolescents and adults) and both hadto attain literacy skills in four areas: (i) reading, (ii) writing, ( i i i) numeracy, and (iv) lifeskills. Each of the two categories was given a separate achievement test involving the fourareas. The sample included a total of 4,990 learners (male adolescents: 684; femaleadolescents: 868; male adults: 1,409, female adults: 2,029). The tests for both adolescentsand adults consisted of 100 marks (reading: 25; writing: 25; numeracy: 25; and life skills:25).

Overall Performance

2. The mean scores for adolescents and adults were found to be 65.40 and 64.48respectively (Tables 7.1 and 7.2). It is revealed that 24.23% of the adolescent learnersachieved an overall score of 80+ out of 100 and 64.76% achieved a score of 60 and above.In the case of the adults, 20.59% scored 80+ and 66.22% achieved 60 and above (Tables7.3 and 7.4). The overall performance of both groups is viewed as satisfactory.

Divisionwise Performance

3. In the case of both the adolescents and the adults, wide variations in achievementamong the learners of the six divisions were observed. The overall mean score of theadolescent learners of the Sylhet division was the highest (74.24), while the overall meanscore of the adolescent learners of the Dhaka division was the lowest (56.09). For the Dhakadivision, overall mean scores of the adolescent learners of both government and NGO-runcenters were the lowest. The mean score of female adolescents of the Barisal division wasthe highest (74.30) while the mean score of the male adolescents of the Sylhet division wasthe highest (77.23). The mean score of the adolescent learners of government-managedcenters of the Chittagong division was the highest (91.50). In the case of the NGO-runcenters, the mean score of the Sylhet division came on top (76.68) (see Table 7.1).

7 - 1

4. The overall mean scores of the adult learners of the six division are given in Table7.2. The Sylhet division had the highest mean (77.82) and the Dhaka division had the lowestmean (59.85).

Managementwise Performance

5. The overall mean scores of the adolescent learners of the government-managed andthe NGO-run centers were 66.95 and 65.29 respectively. The learners from the government-managed centers performed better than the learners of the NGO-run centers in theChittagong, Khulna, and Rajshahi divisions. For the other divisions, the performance of thelearners of the NGO-run centers was better than that of the government-managed centers(Table 7.1).

6. No significant difference was found between the overall mean scores of adult learnersof government-managed centers (mean: 64.43) and NGO-run centers (mean: 64.51). Themean scores of the government-managed adult centers of three divisions (Chittagong, mean:71.86; Sylhet, mean: 81.53; and Rajshahi, mean: 65.47) were found to be higher than thoseof the NGO-run centers (Chittagong, mean: 64.91; Sylhet, mean: 76.39; and Rajshahi, mean:62.00). In the remaining divisions, overall mean scores of the adult learners of the NGO-runcenters were found to be higher than those of the government-managed centers (Table 7.2).

Genderwise Performance

7. As stated earlier, the overall mean scores of the adolescents and the adults were 65.40and 64.48 respectively. For the adolescents, the overall mean score (66.34) of females wassignificantly higher than that of males (64.21). In the case of the adults, the overall meanscore (65.39) of males was significantly higher than that of females (63.85). In both cases,the t-test at the 0.05 level was used in determining significance. Female adolescent learnersof government-managed centers performed better (mean: 70.73) than the female adolescentlearners of the NGO-run centers (mean: 66.01) (see Table 7.1).

8. In the case of adults, the female learners of the NGO-run centers had a higher meanscore (64.07) than the female learners of the government-managed centers (63.27) (Table7.2).

7 - 2

Phasewise Performance

9. INFEP programs for the two categories of learners (adolescents and adults) wereimplemented in two phases: earlier (1991-94) and recent (1995-97). Phasewise performanceof the learners is given in Tables 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, and 7.8. In the case of both categories, theoverall performance of the recent phase was better (mean: 66.50 for adolescents and 67.58for adults) than that of the earlier phase (mean: 62.44 for adolescents and 57.82 for adults).For adults, the mean achievement of the recent phase was significantly higher than that ofthe earlier phase. The gap in mean achievement of the two phases for the adolescents wasless than in the case of adults.

10. In the case of the recent phase, the proportions of adolescents and adults with a scoreof 80-f were 19.91% and 17.80% respectively, while for the earlier phase, thecorresponding proportions were 4.32% and 2.79% (Tables 7.9, 7.10, 7.11, and 7.12).

11. Two factors appear to be responsible for the wide differences. First, the earlierphase, being an organizational phase, the program was yet to be well organized. Second,in the absence of facilities for continuing education, the earlier-phase learners could notpossibly retain the literacy level they attained.

Achievement in Four Skills

12. In the cases of both adolescents and adults, achievement in numeracy was the highest(mean for adolescents: 18.62; mean for adults: 17.89) and achievement in life skills, thelowest (mean for adolescents: 12.58; mean for adults: 13.09). The female adolescentlearners achieved higher mean scores than the males in each of the four areas. In contrast,the male adult learners achieved higher scores than the females in three areas viz. reading,writing, and numeracy (Tables 7.13 and 7.14).

13. The divisionwise achievements in the four skills are shown in Tables 7.15 and 7.16.The achievement in each of the four skills of adolescent learners in the Dhaka division wasthe lowest (reading: 14.95; writing: 13.75; numeracy: 16.62; life skill: 10.76). In the caseof reading and writing, mean scores of the learners of the Sylhet division were the highest(reading: 21.45; writing: 18.37). In numeracy, the mean score of the adolescent learners ofthe Barisal division was the highest (20.87) and in life skills, adolescent learners of theChittagong division achieved the highest mean score (14.36).

7- 3

14. Among the adults, the learners of the Sylhet division had the highest mean scores inall the four areas, while the learners of the Dhaka division obtained the lowest mean scorein each of the four areas.

15. The lowest performance of the learners of the Dhaka Division (for both adolescentsand adults) tends to suggest that the program in that division was not yet well organized.

Agewise Performance

16. Table 7.17 shows that in the case of the adolescent learners, those of the age range11-14 obtained the highest overall mean score (66.21) and those of the age range 15-19obtained the lowest overall mean score (62.15). For age ranges of 11-14 and 15-19, thefemale learners achieved higher overall mean scores than those of male learners. For thelowest age range (6-10), the male learners achieved a higher mean score than the femalelearners.

17. It is revealed from Table 7.18 that the overall mean scores of the adult learners of theage range 15-19 obtained the highest overall mean score (67.67). The age range of 20-24achieved the next highest overall mean score (66.56). The lowest overall mean score (57.34)was obtained by the age range 46 + . The female learners of the age ranges 11-14 and 15-19achieved higher overall mean score as compared to male learners of same age ranges. Forother age ranges, the male learners achieved higher mean scores than the female learners.

7 - 4

<sC

"S3

CHAPTER 8

CONTINUING EDUCATION: SUSTAINABILITY OF LITERACY

Gram Shikkha Milan Kendras (GSMKs)

1. Continuing education is a means of sustaining and consolidating the literacy skills ofthe learners attained through nonformal education. Unless the neoliterates have opportunitiesof using their newly acquired reading, writing, and numeracy skills, it will be hardly possiblefor them to retain them for long, and within a couple of years, the investment on the literacyprogram will cease to be meaningful. Besides serving as continuing education centers, theGram Shikkha Milan Kendras (GSMKs) can serve as literacy centers for the illiterates andthose who drop out of INFEP or fail to achieve the minimum literacy level. Consequently,the establishment of GSMKs has been viewed as a critical component of INFEP.

2. This study shows that the GSMKs set up under INFEP aimed at serving as post-literacy centers as well as nonformal education centers for the illiterates. Furthermore, theywere intended to be utilized as community centers and as centers for promotingsocioeconomic, cultural, and developmental activities in the rural areas.

3. To assess the relevance and utility of the GSMKs, 36 librarians responsible for therunning of their respective GSMKs were asked to mention whether the neoliterates and theother beneficiaries used to visit the libraries. In reply, all the librarians mentioned that theneoliterates visited the GSMKs. In the case of the other beneficiaries, the correspondingfigure was 77.78% (Table 8.1). The librarians were also asked to report the purposes ofvisits to GSMKs. The answer given was that the neoliterates visited GSMKs mainly forreading books and newspapers, practicing the literacy skills, listening to the news and otherradio programs, and participating in recreational activities (Table 8.2).

The Functioning of GSMKs

4. As stated in Chapter 2, it was planned to set up 10 GSMKs in each of 69 thanas.Against the project target of 690 GSMKs, a total of 935 GSMKs were set up in 76 thanas.In the absence of a GSMK in close proximity, a major section of the neoliterates nevervisited a GSMK. In reply to the question whether there was a GSMK in their locality,80.83% of the adult learners and 92.65% of the adolescent learners answered in the negative(Table 8.3). Almost similar proportions of teachers and supervisors of the adult and

adolescent learning centers gave the same reply. The non-availability of a GSMK is believedto have a negative effect on the retention capability of the neoliterates.

5. For each GSMK, a librarian was recruited. The major tasks of the librarian included:(i) ensuring functioning of the library for 6 hours a day (3 pm - 6 pm for females and 6 pm -9 pm for males); (ii) teaching the neoliterates for 3 days a week; (iii) helping the neoliteratesin practicing their literacy skills; (iv) running an adult literacy center in GSMK for a groupof 10 illiterates; and (v) performing other activities related to continuing education includingmaking GSMK a center for socioeconomic uplift of the rural population.

6. One supervisor was responsible for monitoring the activities of 10 GSMKs in a thana.Besides, for smooth functioning, each GSMK was supposed to have a managing committee.The study revealed that in some cases, there were no managing committees and in someother cases, the committees did not function properly. Table 8.4 shows that 8.33% of thelibrarians denied the existence of any managing committee for their GSMK.

7. In most of the cases, the GSMKs were set up in rented houses. As reported by thelibrarians, 94.44% of the libraries were based in hired premises, while 5.56% were set upin primary schools/premises of various government and social organizations. All of thefemale librarians reported that the GSMKs were located at rented premises (Table 8.5).During the field visit of the consultants, it was found that the sitting capacity of a GSMKvaried from 20 to 30 persons.

Profile of Librarians of GSMKs

8. Age. The sample of this study included 36 librarians (male: 29; female: 7). Anoverwhelming majority of them (80.55%) belonged to the age range 20-34. This age rangeemerged as the single major age group of the librarians. The average age of the malelibrarians was 27.83 years as against the average age of 23.29 years for female librarians.The age data are summarized in Table 8.6.

9. Academic Qualification. The educational level of 8.33 % of the librarians was belowSSC, while the proportions having SSC, HSC, and higher qualifications were 25%, 38.89%,and 27.78% respectively. Table 8.7 gives breakdown of the academic qualifications of thelibrarians. Clearly, one-third of the sample librarians had lower qualification than thatrequired.

10. Occupation. Among the librarians, 38.89% were unemployed youths; 13.89% wereengaged in agriculture; 13.89% were students; 1 1 . 1 1 % were housewives; and the rest wereinvolved in service and petty business (Table 8.8).

1 1 . Monthly Income. While 14 librarians (38.89%) reported a monthly household incomeof less than Tk. 2,501, only 5 librarians (13.89%) had a household income of above Tk.5,000, the average for the sample librarians being Tk. 3,692.64 (Table 8.9).

Profile of Supervisors of GSMKs

12. Age. The 12 supervisors (all male) included in the sample of this study had anaverage age of 28.42 years. The highest and the lowest ages were 45 years and 23 yearsrespectively. The 25-29 age range emerged as the single major age group of the supervisorsas against the age group of 20-24 in the case of the librarians (Table 8.6).

13. Academic Qualification. Among the supervisors, 16.67% had an HSC qualification;an overwhelming majority (66.67%) had a bachelor's degree, and 16.67% had higher degrees(Table 8.7).

14. Occupation. Among the supervisors, 41.67% were housewives; 25% were students;16.67% reported service to be their main occupation; 8.33% were engaged in agriculture;and the rest (8.33%) were involved in small business (Table 8.8).

15. Monthly Income. The average monthly household income of the supervisors was Tk.4,416.67, the incomes ranging from Tk. 1,000 to Tk. 10,000. Table 8.9 shows breakdownof the monthly household income of the supervisors.

Opinions on GSMKs

16. A sample of neoliterates and illiterates attending continuing education and post-literacyprograms, librarians and supervisors of GSMKs, teachers and supervisors of learning centers,and local key people were asked to give their opinions and recommendations on certainaspects of GSMKs. These are summarized below.

17. Opinions of Neoliterates and Illiterates The following were some of the opinionsof the sample neoliterates and illiterates:

(a) While 96.15% of the illiterates felt that their expectations from GSMK wereattained, 15.6\LZ of the neoliterates held the same opinion (Table 8.10).

8 - 3

(b) All of the neoliterates and 96.15% of the illiterates reported that newspapersand magazines were regularly available at GSMK (Table 8.11).

(c) An overwhelming majority of the neoliterates and illiterates (about 95%) wereof the opinion that the librarians of GSMKs took classes regularly and on time(Tables 8.12 and 8.13).

(d) While 79.27% of the neoliterates reported the behavior of the librarians to begood, 20.73% reported that their behavior was very good. The correspondingresponses of the illiterates were 84.62% and 15.38% respectively (Table8.14).

(e) A small proportion of the neoliterates (18.29%) and illiterates (3.85%) feltthat the cooperation received from the librarians was adequate (Table 8.15).

(f) While 24.39% of the neoliterates reported that the environment of GSMK wasvery good, 75.61% of them considered it to be good and 3.85% of theilliterates felt that the environment was bad (Table 8.16).

(g) An overwhelming majority of the neoliterates (92.68%) and illiterates(96.15%) considered GSMK to be adequate as a means of sustaining literacyskills (Table 8.17).

18. Opinions of Librarians. The following were some of the opinions expressed by thelibrarians of GSMKs:

(a) While 83.33 % of the librarians were of the opinion that GSMK was sufficientfor continuing and post-literacy activities, 16.67% considered it to be notsufficient (Table 8.18).

(b) As a means of enhancing the effectiveness of GSMKs, the librariansrecommended an increase in the supply of reading and play materials andrecreational facilities including provision of TV. Some of them recommendedintroduction of credit programs and "Food for Education". Some alsorecommended establishment of an adequate number of permanent GSMKs.

(c) The librarians expressed their concern about establishing linkages withorganizations such as BRDB, the Directorate of Youth and Sports, theMinistry of Health and Family Planning, the Ministry of Social Welfare, theDirectorate of Women's Affairs, and various NGOs.

8 - 4

19. Opinions of Supervisors of GSMKs. The following were some of the opinionsexpressed by the supervisors of GSMKs:

(a) The librarians were regular in discharging their duties and their efficiencylevel was also high (91.67%) or very high (8.33%).

(b) The supervisors were asked to report whether they received cooperation fromthe community in implementing the continuing education program. In reply,an overwhelming majority (about 92%) replied in the affirmative. Motivatingthe neoliterates to visit GSMK was the commonest type of cooperation.

(c) Most of the supervisors were of the opinion that the GSMKs were adequatefor the purpose of retaining the literacy skills. They, however, recommendedthe following steps for effective functioning of GSMKs: (i) establishingpermanent GSMKs; (ii) increasing honoraria of the librarians and supervisors(iii) supplying TV and more newspapers to GSMK; (iv) establishing linkageswith various government and non-governmental organizations; (v) arrangingcredit facilities; and (vi) imparting training on income-generating activities(IGAs).

20. Opinions of Teachers of Learning Centers. The following were some of theopinions expressed by the teachers of adult and adolescent learning centers:

(a) In reply to the question, "What were the learners doing to retain their literacyskills?", 13.51% of the teachers of adult learning centers and 4.52% of theteachers of the adolescent learning centers mentioned "visit to GSMK" as themain activity for the purpose (Tables 8.19 and 8.20).

(b) Teachers who mentioned that there was a GSMK in their locality were askedto report the number of learners visiting a GSMK. As reported, on anaverage, 17.51 learners of the adult learning centers got themselves enrolledin GSMK as against 12.50 learners from the adolescent learning centers. Inthe case of both adult and adolescent centers, the average enrollment of malesin GSMKs was higher than that of females and average enrollment of learnersfrom the government-managed centers exceeded the number of learners fromNGO-run centers (Tables 8.21 and 8.22).

(c) The majority of the teachers reported that the environment of GSMK wasgood or very good. While 14.29% of the teachers of the adolescent centersreported the environment to be bad, the proportions of teachers of adult

8 - 5

centers reporting the environment to be bad or very bad were 5.80% and1.45% respectively (Tables 8.23 and 8.24).

(d) The recommendations of the teachers for enhancing the effectiveness ofGSMK were almost similar to those of the librarians of GSMKs.

21. Opinions of Supervisors of Learning Centers. "What were the learners of thelearning centers doing to retain their literacy skills?" In reply to this question, only 23.16%of the supervisors mentioned "visit to GSMK" as the main activity for the said purpose. Theresponse was higher in the case of female supervisors (50%) than in the case of malesupervisors (21.98%). A relatively higher proportion of supervisors of government-managedcenters mentioned "visit to GSMK" as the main activity (Table 8.25).

22. While 82.14% of the supervisors of the learning centers considered the environmentof GSMK to be good, 10.71 % considered it to be very good and 7.14% felt that it was bad(Table 8.26).

23. To enhance the effectiveness of GSMK, the supervisors suggested that linkages withvarious government and non-governmental organizations should be established. Makingarrangements for permanent GSMKs, supplying TV and increasing recreational facilities, andcreating opportunities for access to credit were the other important recommendations for thepurpose.

24. Opinions of Local Key People. To strengthen the post-literacy and continuingeducation program, the local key people made following recommendations:

(a) coordinating with various government and non-governmental organizationsthrough specific committees;

(b) introducing income-generating activities, credit programs, and educational andawareness-building programs;

(c) conducting the activities of GSMKs, reposing implementation responsibilityon NGOs and monitoring responsibility on government organizations; and

(d) involving the local administration at all levels under the leadership of theDeputy Commissioner, the aim being making GSMK a center for promotionof rural uplift.

- 6

25. Opinions of Consultants. The consultants of this study felt that INFEP should havegiven greater attention to providing GSMKs. The small, unfurnished, rented outhouse of amember of the community used as GSMK had hardly anything to attract the neoliterates andthe illiterates. It was too small; had too few facilities; and at times it was at a considerabledistance from the learners' homes (particularly for the female learners). Perhaps a moremeaningful GSMK could be provided by pooling together the resources provided by variousministries. Greater attraction would have been possible through providing opportunities oftraining on IGAs as well. Perhaps the involvement of NGOs and union councils in theprovision and management of GSMKs would have proved helpful. The consultants wouldemphasize that the success of the NFE projects will be greatly dependent on the provisionof viable GSMKs in which the local community can play an effective role.

8 - 7

$\ A(JH-