Ot 25093 - 00 Oac Sai-Shwe

Submitted to Prof. H.K.
Mishra
1. INTRODUCTION
The earthquake of 2001: Educational infrastructure and processes were affected in 18 districts
by the earthquake, especially, in Kutch, Rajkot, Surendranagar, Jamnagar, Ahmedabad and
Patan. The lives of educational administrators, teachers and students were disrupted both
physically and emotionally. While the psychological toll of the earthquake is difficult to
quantify, the following is an assessment that
consolidates the damage on educational
infrastructure.
The total amount of damage to assets in the

education sector is approximately Rs.670 crores
($144 million). Considerable damage had been
sustained in the earthquake in all sub sectors in
education-more extensively in elementary and secondary than higher and technical education.
A large number of buildings were either damaged or destroyed. According to the
Government, 910 elementary, 37 secondary, 3 higher and 21 technical education students
died as a result of the earthquake in the state; 1,051 elementary education students were
injured, 31 teachers lost their lives and 95 were injured.
Elementary Education: In the elementary education sub sector 9,593 municipal and Zilla
Panchayat schools were completely demolished or required repair, amounting to 38 percent
schools in 18 affected districts. In Kutch and Surendranagar over 90 percent of the schools
were unusable. The cost for reconstruction and repair for these schools amounted to about
Rs.307 crores ($66 million). Other asset damage costs in the elementary education sub sector
included the reconstruction and repair of government and government aided teacher training
institutions Rs.14.9 crores ($3.2 million) and kitchen sheds that provide midday meals for
elementary school students Rs.3.7 crores ($0.8 million).
Table 1: Summary of Damage Assessment (in rupees)
Public Private Urban Rural
Cost estimate in Rs. Crores ($ million) 461(99.2) 208(44.8) 376(80.8) 294(63.2)
Source: http://www.education.nic.in/htmlweb/gujrateartquakereport.htm
1 S.Sairam and Shwetambara

Submitted to Prof. H.K.Mishra
Table 2: Summary of Damage Assessment
Assessment Damage
Sub sector No.of Institutions Affected Estimated cost Rs.Crores ($
million)
Primary Education
Primary Schools 9593 307 (66.0)
Source: http://www.education.nic.in/htmlweb/gujrateartquakereport.htm
1.1 Operation Blackboard
This scheme launched in 1987, is aimed at improving the school environment and enhancing
retention and learning achievement of children by providing minimum essential facilities in
all primary schools. The scheme has brought about a remarkable quantitative and qualitative
improvement in primary education. In all, 523,000 primary schools have been covered as
originally envisaged. These schools have been provided with central assistance.
The immediate need as a result of earthquake, coupled with the long term objective of
providing support to mainstream education by providing facilitating environment resulted in
LIFE taking up rebuilding of primary schools in these worst affected districts. Government of
Gujarat has assigned this great task to various NGOs under the 'Operation Black-Board'
(OBB) and Rebuilding of Health Care projects. LIFE (Rajkot) is one of these NGOs to help
the Government of Gujarat. The challenge is threefold:
• Time Performance
• Physical Inputs Management
• Financial Performance
Government neither had 'Time Performance' required infrastructure nor logistics to undertake
the rebuilding of nearly 250 Primary Schools (about 5000 class rooms) and requested various
NGOs to participate in rebuilding and rehabilitation process.
LIFE has accepted this multiple challenge and has already fulfilled part of the total
commitment of rebuilding 21 schools and 3 Primary Health Centers. Out of which work in 16
Primary schools has already been handed over to the Government of Gujarat. The
construction surpasses the government's basic recommendations for re-building. It includes
additional facilities like each classroom (size 18' x 22' - clear height 12') having 2 fans, and 2

tube lights, 8' corridor, toilet facilities, water tank, and compound-wall and sport facilities.
The total construction area for each classroom is approximately 650 square feet. Schools in
Saurashtra region is in seismic zone IV and at Bhuj District is in seismic zone V, hence the
design and the construction will be as per the seismic zone requirements.
LIFE’s goal is to provide excellent educational infrastructure facilities in primary schools in

rural areas through encompassing triangular partnership of LIFE, government and the citizens
with easy and cost effective mode of replicability and scalability. These activities are to be
carried on ensuring community participation and capacity building.
The Reporting Officer was interviewed who threw light on major programmes through which
LIFE is trying to accomplish its objective of providing basic education facilities in the rural
areas of Saurashtra region. The programmes are as follows:
1. Rebuilding of dilapidated school structures into state of art educational institutions.
2. Scholarships of Rs 500/= to deserving students in the rebuilt schools.
3. Positively influencing habits and hygiene of primary school students by distribution

of hygiene kits.
4. Providing IT platform in the hitherto remote primary schools to provide basic

technological inputs in education.
5. Child education development programme: Supporting a Child’s education all through

schooling by providing necessary financial and non monetary support.
There are many more programmes that LIFE is running in Gujarat. Only the major few
have been mentioned here.
2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
Survey based research was designed keeping in view the purpose behind the project. The 18
rebuilt schools were surveyed across 3 districts. The required survey involved collection of
data by interviewing principals, teachers and parents followed by focused group discussions
with upper primary school children in a group size of 8 (4 boys and 4 girls). A focused group
discussion is an interview conducted among a small group of respondents in an unstructured
and natural manner. A checklist containing broad topics to be discussed was prepared which
acted as a guideline for administering the focused group discussion with the children.

The reason for taking 4 girls and 4 boys was to have optimum group size for the discussion
(the optimum group size is 8-12) and equal representation of both boys and girls. The
rationale behind interviewing principals, teachers, parents and students was to have the
viewpoints of all the stakeholders of the primary education. The research design involved
developing questionnaire, pre testing it, revising the instrument and then carrying out the
survey. For measuring the attitudinal opinions of the respondents i.e. their satisfaction level
for various school facilities, a pictoral representation was used. The reason was that most of
the respondents especially parents were unable to rate their satisfaction on 5-point likert scale
directly. A face showing the satisfaction with the curve of the lip was easily comprehended by
them. This helped in reducing the margin of error in getting satisfaction level of the
respondents.
2.1 The management problem
To measure the socio-economic impact of the integrative school rebuilding programme.
2.2 Research objectives
To study whether the integrated school rebuilding programme has resulted in any positive
change in the following desired key variables under three heads of School rebuilding,
Scholarships & Hygiene Kits and provision of IT platform.
• Satisfaction level of parents, teachers and students.
• Attendances, performance, drop out rates and enrollment.
• Impact on qualitative variables like concentration level, motivation, concern for

hygiene etc. on teachers and students.
• Economic impact on beneficiaries of scholarships.
• To what extent the project has achieved the objective of ensuring community
participation and capacity building.
• Which of the facilities provided by LIFE have significant impact on satisfaction level
of parents and teachers.

2.3 Scope of study
• 18 Rebuilt government primary schools in 3 districts of Rajkot, Surendranagar and

Kutch.
• Schools under construction
2.4 Limitations
• Language: Communicating with respondents not well versed in Hindi.
• Time and distance: School timings and coverage of 2 schools in a day restricted the
possibility of including a larger sample size.
• Many parents were interviewed in school premises which could have resulted in
biased responses.
• Parents’ absence in the programmes conducted by LIFE in the school premise

owing to their engagements in household activities has resulted in some missing
values for the questionnaire administered.
2.5 Data requirements
Data was collected on both quantitative and qualitative variables. These included socio-
economic variables like household profile, nature of assets etc.; data pertaining to schools
such as comparing facilities available pre and post rebuilding, enrollment, attendance
percentage, drop outs etc. Besides these, qualitative data on level of satisfaction of parents
and teachers for various facilities provided under the programme were also collected.
2.6 Sources of data
2.6.1 Primary sources
1. Data collected from questionnaires administered on parents, teachers and principals in

government primary schools.
2. Focused group discussion of a group of 8 students comprising of 4 boys and 4 girls
from upper primary classes.
3. In depth interviews with staff responsible for project implementation.
(Refer to Annexure A, B & C for list of parents, teachers and principals interviewed during survey.)

2.6.2 Secondary sources
1. Internet.
2. Publications of LIFE
3. School documents pertaining to enrollment, drop-outs, performance and attendance.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
This study is a descriptive study, being conducted to understand the impact of school
rebuilding programme on the beneficiaries. Perceptions on various facilities and concomitant
satisfaction level of various beneficiaries were aimed to be gauged
3.1 Sampling plan
All the 18 rebuilt primary schools were surveyed in the three districts of Rajkot,
Surendranagar and Kutch. In each school 5 respondents were administered, two parents (one
of them being recipient of scholarship) of school children, two teachers and the principal.
Focussed group discussion was conducted in 4 schools in a group of 8 students (4 boys and 4
girls), all belonging to upper primary classes. The teachers were selected randomly from the
list provided by the school. One of the parents (the one receiving scholarship) was selected
randomly from the total 12 recipients, the other parent was again chosen from a random
procedure .First one class was chosen randomly out of 7 classes and from the selected class
one child was selected randomly, whose parent was interviewed randomly.
The analysis do not include the data of Kotharia as it was the first school where pilot testing
was done and most of the data were missing. Besides, school in Vishipara was under
construction, though classes had started. As such data pertaining to post reconstruction like
pass percentage, dropout rate etc., were not available. In addition to this, the school surveyed
in Bhujodi village in Kutch district was also excluded from analysis since it was a residential
school which was different from sample of the study.
3.1.1 Location
Three districts Rajkot, Surendranagar and Kutch were covered under the study. All 18 rebuilt
schools were covered under the study. The villages surveyed were: Lakdhirnagar ,
Ghunuda(s) , Ghanteshwar, Kharachiya , Kotharia, Ratanpur, Lodhika, Mota dahisara , Moti
barar , Jasapar , Geetanagar, Olak , Zorawarnagar, Bhujodi, Vishipara and Morthala.

The districts covered in the survey have been darkened in map given below:
Figure 1: Districts covered in the survey.
 Districts of Rajkot, Surendranagar and Kutch.

3.2 Framework of study
The performance of a development programme can be characterized as a function of the

fit achieved between beneficiaries, programmes and assisting organization. In more
specific terms a given development programme is likely to perform poorly in terms of
advancing the well being of a specific group unless there is a close correspondence
between: beneficiary needs and programme output; programme task requirements and the
distinctive competence of the assisting organization; and the mechanisms for beneficiary
demand expressions and the decision processes of the assisting organization. The figure
below is the schematic representation of the fit requirements.
Figure no 2: David C Korten’s Framework of Fit Requirements
PROGRAM
OUTPUTS TASK REQUIREMENTS
NEEDS
COMPETENCIES
STAKEHOLDERS ORGANISATION
EXPRESSION DECISION PROCESS
Source: The learning process approach by David C Korten
The above fit emerges as a long term learning process in which the beneficiaries and the
members of assisting organization share their knowledge an resources to create a fit between
needs, actions and the capacities of the existing organization. In each instance the overall
process can be broken down into three stages, each with its own unique learning requirement.

Stage 1: Learning to be effective: Ability to identify the “vital” and getting the energy and
resources for this vital.
Stage 2: Learning to be efficient: Achieving more with less or same resources.
Stage 3: Learning to expand: Building into the organization the supporting skills,
management systems, structures and values for expansion.
3.3 Instruments used
1. Structured questionnaire for school principal, teachers and parents.
2. Checklist for focused group discussion with students.
3. In-depth interviews with employees responsible for implementation of project.
4. Statistical package for social sciences (spss) for analyzing the data obtained.
(Refer to Annexure D, E & F for questionnaire used during survey.)
(Refer to Annexure G for checklist used for focused group discussion.)
3.3.1 Questionnaire
Three questionnaires were prepared (one each for parent, teacher and principal). The areas
covered under questionnaires were related to following aspects:
• Household profile of parents.
• Awareness of the facilities provided by LIFE in parents and teachers.
• Comparison of facilities existing in school pre and post rebuilding.
• Satisfaction level of parents, teachers and principal with the facilities.
• Extent of community participation and capacity building measures pre and post
rebuilding.
• Data pertaining to enrollment, attendance, performance and dropouts pre and post
rebuilding.
• Qualitative aspects such as change in concentration level, interest, learning attitude

etc. in students, teachers and parents.

At the beginning we started with some general quantitative data and than we moved to
specific questions on different qualitative aspects. The questionnaire was pilot tested and
changes were incorporated before using it for survey. SPSS was used to find correlation
between responses pertaining to satisfaction with various facilities. This was done to identify
the strength of association between satisfaction levels for individual facilities are satisfaction
with overall change.
4. AREA PROFILE [GUJARAT]
Boundaries of Saurashtra and Kutch regions of Gujarat form the scope of our study. Rajkot
and Surendranagar districts fall in the Saurashtra region where major operations of LIFE are
done. Bhujodi, the village intervened in the Kutch was the sole village outside Saurashtra
region that we surveyed.
A look into the socio-economic profile of the three districts reveal that Surendranagar and
Kutch are more or less at the same level on literacy front while Rajkot is ahead of them with
a literacy rate of 74.2% which is above the state literacy rate of 69.14%. As far as gender
parity is concerned, Kutch shows a better picture with 942 female per 1000 males.
Majority population in all the three districts are involved in other works which comprises of
barber, priest etc. In case of Surendranagar, agriculture is also an important source of
livelihood with majority population involved in cotton growing. Migration is a common
phenomenon among lower castes in the villages of Surendranagar and Rajkot and thus an
important reason for dropping out in the schools that we surveyed in these two districts.
Graphs 1-6 provided highlight the scenario of primary education in the state of Gujarat.
Literacy rate of the state is 69.14%. 80% of the schools have pucca building with 84% of the
classrooms being in good condition in primary with upper primary schools. 38.69% of
primary schools have toilet facilities and 64.29% have drinking water facilities. In 22% of the
schools, more than 60 students gain education in one classroom. Drop-out rate is more in
upper primary than in lower primary, the reason being children have to do baby-sitting when
the parents are away on work. As far as pupil-teacher ratio is concerned, Rajkot and Kutch
districts are closer to the state figure while Surendranagar showing a better picture than the
state.

In short, the data emboss that Gujarat is serious about primary education and is trying to
provide better environment and facilities for the students and the teachers. Except for the
toilet facility and drop-out rate, other data favor this statement. Table 4 gives an overview of
the socio-economic profile of villages covered in the study. 5 villages have literacy rate less
than the state average of 69.2 % with morthala having an abysmally low literacy rate of
40.2%. Comparing sex ration in villages covered with the state average of 883 reveals all
except Bhujodi outperform the state average. Only in 5 villages less than one third of the
population was engaged in Casual labour whereas distribution of population engaged in
house hold industries is almost even across the villages surveyed and forms a very small part
of total population. Share of population engaged in other works ranged from 15.8 % in
Ghunuda to 93.1% in Ghanteshwar. In six villages less than 10% of the population is engaged
in agricultural labour.

Submitted to Prof H.K.Mishra
The tables and charts given below indicate the socio – economic profile of the area surveyed
(Divided into State, District and village level data)
4.1 State and District level indicators
Table 3: Socio-economic profile of districts Rajkot, Surendranagar and Kutch

Sr District Number of Populatio Litracy(% Househol Sex CL(% AL(% HHI(% OW(%)
n household n ) d Size Rati ) ) )
o s o
1. Rajkot 597990 3169881 74.2 5.3 930 29.6 14.4 2 54
2. Surendranaga 277667 1515148 61.6 5.5 924 29.7 32.3 2.1 35.9
r
3. Kutch 320588 1583225 59.8 4.9 942 18.6 23.6 5 52.9

Graph 1: Area wise primary schools
1351 1451
1500
926
1000
481
232 185
500
0
Kutch Rajkot Surendranagar
Rural area Urban area
Source: http://gujarateducation.gswan.gov.in/
Graph 2: Number of primary schools by building type
8036
10000
8000
6000
72 1103 372
4000 391 47
2000
0
Pucca Partially Kuccha Tent Multiple No
pucca type building
Source: dpepmis.org/webpages/reports&studies.htm
Graph 3: Quality of classrooms
60000 52245
50000 43938
T otal classrooms
40000
Good condition
30000
Minor repair
20000 13592 10017
5746 2560 Major repair
10000 2432 1128
0
Primary only Primary with upper primary

Graph 4: Facility indicators
12000
10017
10000
8000 6440
6000 3876
4000 2223
500
2000
0
T otal schools Single SCR>60 Common Drinking water
classroom toilets
Graph 5: Pupil-Teacher ratio
Surendranagar
Rajkot
Kutch
Gujarat
0 20 40 60
Source: http://gujarateducation.gswan.gov.in/
Graph 6: Drop out Rate in Primary Education

39.16 35.28
40
20.46 20.53
30
20
10
0
Boys Girls Boys Girls
STD 1 TO 5 STD 1 TO 7
Source: http://www.education.nic.in (2001-2002)
Table 4: Socio-economic profile of villages covered
Sr Village Number of Population Litracy(%) Household Sex CL(%) AL(%) HHI(%) OW(%)
no households Size Ratio
1. Lakdhirnagar 286 1795 69.7 6.3 943 29 22.6 .2 48.3
2. Ghunuda(s) 457 2580 58.2 5.6 904 63.4 20.3 .4 15.8
3. Ghanteshwar 920 4087 87.9 4.4 891 3.1 .4 3.4 93.1
4. Kharachiya 324 1787 60.6 5.5 909 60.9 13.5 3.1 22.6
5. Kotharia 2019 9848 71 4.9 897 9.3 4.8 2.0 83.8
6. Ratanpur 225 1366 70.3 6.1 951 47.8 8.2 .9 43.2
7. Lodhika 845 4472 72.3 5.3 988 41.7 22.7 4.4 31.1
8. Mota 1070 5182 62.7 4.8 964 40.4 32.1 1.2 26.3
dahisara
9. Moti barar 287 1145 66.1 4 871 40.6 39.2 .2 20.1
10 Jasapar 328 1168 65.2 3.6 887 43.6 38.7 .3 17.4

.
11. Geetanagar 1701 9234 74.3 5.4 951 5.6 6.6 2.9 84.8
12 Olak 352 2074 57.1 5.9 928 38.2 41.1 1.3 19.4
.
13 Morthala 444 2661 40.2 6 905 37.1 6.4 1.9 54.6
.
14 Bhujodi 339 2244 74.2 6.6 614 0.5 4.6 60.6 34.4
.
Source: India, Census 2001

5. PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE
5.1 Profile of respondents (socio-economic & perceptions)
18 schools across three districts form the sampling frame of the survey where parents,
teachers and principals were interviewed. The aim was to have a diversified sample in terms
of religion, caste, sex, occupation, income level, assets, education level etc. The reason
behind taking such a mix is to capture a wide variety of responses which could help to assess
the impact in a more better and comprehensive manner. Besides, aim was also to study how
these factors affect the perception of parents towards education in general and primary
education in particular and to what level their satisfaction towards facilities provided in the
school post-reconstruction, is influenced by these factors.
75% of the household respondents were males since the questionnaires were administered in
the school premise and males were frequent visitors to schools. Apprehension about the type
of questions that could be posed might also have acted as a deterrent for the females to
participate.
Religion wise the sample mostly comprised of Hindus with just 3% coming from Muslim
community. A look into the caste break-up of the sample reveals that 59% of those
interviewed came from OBC while the remaining 41% form the forward caste, SC and others.

Chart 3 and 6 highlight the attempt to include people following different occupation and
having different income levels. The income level of the respondents falls between the range
of Rs.2500 and Rs.10000.
Asset profile of the households in terms of area of land provided in chart 7 brings to light
why just 22% of the respondents were involved in farming. Majority of the respondents was
better-off in terms of physical possession as revealed in graph 9.
As far as education level is concerned, out of 30 households, in 14 households highest

education level is up to secondary. Also, in 12 out of 30 households, education level of the
household head is up to secondary. Importance of primary education among people can be
best assessed from chart 8 which shows that 59% of the respondents consider primary
education as the most important infrastructure facility to be provided in a village. However a
look into the data provided in graphs 11-14 give a contradictory picture. As reasons for
students not attending schools and students dropping out, both parents and teachers
considered parents’ indifference towards education and involvement of children in household
activities as prime ones.
Thus it can be inferred that people value education just as knowledge about how to read and
write but do not see it as a source of livelihood. Besides poor economic status can also be
attributed as a factor for parents stopping their child’s education.
If we look into the developmental activities that have taken place in last 5 years in the
villages that we surveyed, it is found that construction of roads has been the major activity
followed by construction of private schools and aaganwadi (clubbed under other education).
Setting up of telephone booths in these villages is another significant activity that has taken
place in these villages.
Only in 38% of the total villages surveyed, any new primary health center or new water
connection has been provided and in just 31% of the villages a new secondary school has
been erected. Thus although education wise some concrete measures have been taken in the
form of aaganwadi and private schools, activity in the field of government schools and thus in
primary education is somewhat slow. LIFE’s intervention as providing integrative educational
infrastructure in rebuilt government schools is thus an effort towards providing affordable

education to the children of these areas.
5.2 Comparison of school facilities (pre versus post intervention)
Comparison of school facilities pre versus post LIFE’s intervention throws light on positive
impact on teaching environment in primary schools. Out of 15 schools surveyed, 53% did not
have pucca building. In 80% of surveyed schools there was no provision of separate
classrooms while in 87% cases classrooms were small and less spacious than those at present.
In 60% schools there has been a reduction in noise due to new building having separate and
spacious classrooms. Also in 93% of schools the quality of board has improved after LIFE’s
intervention. 67% of schools did not have drinking water facility previously which was made
available with community participation after reconstruction. None of the schools had a
computer before.

Chart 1: Sex-wise breakup (in %)
Female
25%
Male
75%
Chart 2: Religion-wise breakup (in %)
Muslim
3%
Hindu
97%
Chart 3: Income-wise breakup (in %)
3%
16%
<=2500
47% 2501-5000
5001-10000
>=10001
34%

Chart 4: Caste-wise breakup (in %)
3%
22%
Forward
SC
OBC
16%
59% Others
Chart 5: House-type breakup (in %)
Tiled
3%
Kuchha
41%
Pucca
56%
Chart 6: Occupation breakup (in %)
Farmer
16% 22% Trader
Govt Employee
Pvt. Employee
27% 13%
Labourer
13% Others
3% 6%
Not working

Graph 7: Highest education level of household
2
Graph 8:
Post graduate
3
Graduate
8
Higher Secondary
14
Secondary
2
Primary
3
Illiterate
0 5 10 15
Education level of household head
12
12
10 7
6
8 5
6
4 1 1
2
0
Illiterate Primary Secondary Higher Graduate Post
Secondary graduate
Chart7: Asset profile of households (Other)

[Landsize in acres]
9%
3%
Landless
16% <=2.5
2.5-5
6% 5-10
66%
>10

Graph 9: Asset profile of households (Land)
% of respondents 68%
58%
32% 29%
19% 19% 19%
e
le
et
io
cl
ne
le
v
tt
ss
T
cy
ad
yc
ca
ho
A
or
C
P
ch
on
ot
il
ti
M
M
ga
ri
Ir
Chart 8: Most important infrastructure facility
15% 7%
4%
15%
Primary school
Clinic
Market
59% Water Source
Phone
Graph 10: Infrastructure built in last 5 years
60% 56%
44% 44%
50%
38% 38%
40%
31%
30%
13% 13%
20%
6%
10%
0%
l
e
o
t
o
e
d
k
e
ic
te
ffi
h
n
e
n
rk
li n
o
c
o
a
a
r
h
s
B
W
C
t
M
P
th
s
.
c
o
O
e
P
S

Graph 11: Reasons for students not attending school (Teachers)
Not ap p licable 10%
Ot hers 3%
Convey ance p roblem 3%
Parents dont value educat ion 20%
Children need to work at home 50%
Educat ion not affordable 13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Graph 12: Reasons for students not attending school (Parents)
Not ap p licable 13%

Dnt know 13%
Others 6%
Quality 3%
Convey ance 3%
Parents dont value education 23%
Baby -sitting 19%
Education not affordable 19%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Graph 13: Reasons for students dropping out (Teachers)
Not applicable 10%
Migration of parents 47%
Children need to w ork at

37%
home
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Graph 14: Reasons for students dropping out (Parents)

Not ap p licable 6%
Dnt know 6%
Others 3%
Students not p erforming well 3%
M igration 23%
Parents dont value education 6%
Children baby sit 42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Comparison of school facilities (pre vs post intervention)
Village Pucca Separate Spacious Drinking Computer Noise Blackboard

building classrooms classrooms water disruption quality
Pr Post Pre Post Pre Post Pr Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
e e
Khodiyarnagar √ √ × √ × √ × √ × √ √ × × √
Ghanteshwar √ √ × √ × √ × √ × √ √ × × √
Geetanagar √ √ × √ × √ × × × √ √ × × √
Kharachiya × √ × √ × √ × √ × √ √ × × √
Mota dahisara × √ × √ × √ × √ × √ √ × × √
Mota dahisara √ √ × √ × √ × √ × √ √ × × √
Moti barar √ √ × √ √ √ × × × √ √ √ × √
Jasapar × √ × √ × √ √ √ × √ √ √ × √
Jorawarnagar × √ √ √ √ √ √ √ × √ × √ × √
Ratanpur √ √ √ √ × √ × √ × √ × √ × √
Lodhika × √ × √ × √ √ √ × √ × √ √ ×
Ghunda (S) √ √ √ √ × √ √ √ × √ × √ × √
Lakhdheernagar × √ × √ × √ × √ × √ × √ × √
Olak × √ × √ × √ × √ × √ × √ × √
Morthala × √ × √ × √ √ √ × √ × √ × √

6. SATISFACTION RATINGS FOR VARIOUS FACILITIES

(Teachers versus Parents)
The study tried to measure the satisfaction level of both parents and teachers about the facilities
provided in the new rebuilt schools. Some of the facilities were provided by LIFE while others
were either provided by the village community or by other NGOs working in the field of child
education. However in order to have a holistic picture all facilities were included and assessment
of parents’ and teachers’ perception about them was undertaken so as to understand how
adequate educational infrastructure can help in providing quality education to children.
The facilities included pucca building constructed by LIFE, drinking water facility and separate
toilets generally provided by government and in some schools provided by LIFE during
rebuilding. Playground and compound walls mostly created with community participation and
provision of saplings; hygiene kit, scholarship and computer by LIFE. Besides the satisfaction
level of parents and teachers also measured keeping in mind the over all change in new schools.
Satisfaction was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from highly satisfied to highly
dissatisfied. In order to make it comprehendible for parents, we used “smiling face” technique
(provided in annexure).
The figures mostly speak of beneficiaries’ satisfaction towards LIFE’s intervention. Both parents
and teachers seemed to be highly satisfied with pucca building which is a state of art in the
whole village. Spacious classrooms with large windows, long and wide lobby, good quality
blackboards, two fans and tubelights in each room and prayer halls in a few schools have played
a vital role in making primary education attractive and alluring for both parents and students.
Besides these facilities have also boosted the morale of teachers and have provided a better
environment for teaching.
Out of 18 schools surveyed, only in 2 schools dissatisfaction was observed. The problem was
water seepage which became evident during heavy showers. One peculiar case was that of
Vishipara (the school which is still under construction but classes have started), where the black
surface of blackboard is giving way to the inner white surface causing great problem for both
teachers and students, the reason being this year’s heavy monsoon in Gujarat.
53% of teachers and 63% of parents were found to be totally satisfied with the provision of water
facility. In some of the schools this facility was not present before but seeing the grand school
building the village community came forward and provided the facility within the school
campus. Thus in these areas LIFE’s activities have helped in ensuring community participation
in the field of primary education.
Major dissatisfaction among beneficiaries as far as water is concerned was about inadequate
water storage. Scarcity of drinking water was a major problem in most of the villages that we
surveyed. Water used to be supplied twice or thrice a week which needed to be stored and used
for both drinking and cooking mid-day meal.
High satisfaction was observed in 50-53% of beneficiaries for toilet facilities. In two schools
(Indo American and Shri Ratnamani Primary School), there were no separate toilets while in one
school (P M Koticha Kumar Shala) the door was not there resulting into dissatisfaction among
parents and teachers. In one case (K L Modi Primary School) only a four walled structure with a
roof was found which is being constructed in the name of toilet.
Data pertaining to playground highlight that 40% of teachers and 47% of parents were highly
satisfied with the facility. Major dissatisfaction was observed in villages where community has
not participated in beautification of playground. Schools like Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalaya, Shri
K K Koticha primary school and Bhartiya Temple Michigan primary school are examples of
parents’ and teachers’ contribution in making playground attractive for students.
Analysis of responses about hygiene kit distribution brought to light that just 50% of teachers
were completely satisfied with it. However 81% of the parents said that they were totally
satisfied with the kit and expected that LIFE should take up more of such activities for the
overall development of students.
Major reason for dissatisfaction among teachers was that hygiene kit failed to serve its purpose.
Some teachers responded that most of the students had stopped using the kit once the things
present in it got exhausted owing to poor economic status of the households; thus the kit should
be provided annually. In schools where students were indulging in chewing tobacco, hygiene kit
could not help in getting rid of the bad habit, the reason being that parents themselves enjoyed
chewing tobacco. Teachers of some schools said that provision of booklets giving information
about hygienic practices along with the kit would have been beneficial for both teachers and
students.
Both teachers and parents seemed to be highly satisfied with the scholarship programme of
LIFE. The organization has played an important role in making primary education affordable for
poor students studying in upper primary. Lateral effects of the scholarship programme are
increase in competitiveness, regularity and sincerity among students. The programme has also
helped in molding parents’ perception positively towards primary education as far as girls are
concerned.
LIFE distributed computers in the rebuilt schools with an objective to provide an IT platform for
the students of rural areas. However in the absence of adequate technical training, beneficiaries
(teachers and students) are not able to make use of this facility. This resulted in just 40% of
teachers being satisfied with provision of computers. Major reason why just 25% of parents were
satisfied with this facility was that majority of them were unaware of this facility being present
in the school. In some schools it was found that the computer delivered was never in a workable
state which shows the sheer callousness and lack of any monitoring in project implementation. In
a these schools the school authorities has tried to contact LIFE for replacement but no action has
been taken so far on the feedback which has resulted in severe dissatisfaction in two schools.
However in 3 schools the school authorities have taken initiative in mobilizing funds from
school members and arranged for repair and teacher training from private institutions, for them
just the fact that computer with accessories was made available in schools was enough a
motivation to take these initiatives.

Graph 15: Rating for overall change
Highly
Dissatisfied
3%
Neither 17% Teachers
satisfied nor Households
13%
25%
67%
Highly
satisfied 72%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Graph 16: Rating for Pucca building
Somewhat dissat isfied

16%
Neit her sat isfied nor

dissat isfied 6%
Teachers
Households
Somewhat sat isfied
13%
Highly sat isfied 87%

78%
0% 50% 100%
Graph 17: Rating for Drinking water facility
Highly Dissat isfied 20%

13%

13%
19%
Neit her sat isfied nor Teachers

dissat isfied 3% Households
Somewhat sat isfied

13%
3%

63%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Graph 18: Rating for toilet facility

17%
Highly Dissatisfied
13%
13%
Somewhat dissat isfied 6%
Neither sat isfied nor 3% Teachers

dissat isfied 6%
Households
Somewhat satisfied 17%

19%
50%
Highly satisfied
53%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Graph 19: Rating for Playground
Highly Dissatisfied 10%

3%
Somewhat dissatisfied 3%
13%
Neither satisfied nor 17% Teachers
dissatisfied 6% Households

28%
Highly satisfied 40%

47%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Graph 20: Rating for Hygiene kits

3%
Neither sat isfied nor 13%

dissatisfied 6%
Teachers
Households
37%
Somewhat satisfied
9%
50%
Highly satisfied
81%
0% 50% 100%

Graph 21: Rating for scholarships
Not ap p licable
22%
Somewhat dissatisfied 3%
3%
Neither satisfied nor 7% Teachers
dissatisfied 3% Households

3%
73%
Highly satisfied
69%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Graph 22: Rating for computer facility
Not ap p licable
38%
Highly Dissat isfied 20%

16%
Somewhat dissat isfied 20%

13% Teachers
Neither satisfied nor 7% Households
dissat isfied 0%
Somewhat sat isfied 13%

9%

25%
0% 20% 40% 60%

7. IMPACT OF NEW BUILDING ON STUDENTS AND PARENTS
Charts 9-12 give information about the positive impact of new pucca building on both parents
and students. Parents were the respondents.
84% of the respondents said that the new school building has increased enthusiasm among
children and most of them are so much obsessed by the spacious classrooms and tiled floor that
they prefer to stay long in the school and play in premises even after classes are over.
Responding to the impact on parents’ perception towards education post reconstruction, 94%
responded positively saying that the building with better facilities has been the major attractive
force for the parents to take more interest in school activities. The private schools which were a
major source of attraction pre intervention are no more sought after as the new school facilities
are state of art and safer for children.
Data reveals that the building and the facilities provided by LIFE have played a pivotal role in
improving the performance of students in the village. Positive response regarding this came from
72% of the parents interviewed. Children now enjoy going to school which has positively
affected their performances in exams. This statement can be substantiated with 81% of the
respondents rating the better infrastructure as key factor in increasing interest among children
towards going to school.
In all the schools surveyed the school building was the most prominent building in the whole
village. This could be inferred from the fact that now the school premises are used by both
village community and government authorities for conducting meetings and training sessions. In
many schools exhibitions and fairs of other schools are conducted in school premises rebuilt by
LIFE.

Chart 9: Positive change in enthusiasm the Chart10: Positive change in parents attitude
child showed post rebuilding towards education post rebuilding
16%
Yes
No
84%
6%
Yes
No
94%
Chart 11: Positive change in performance of Chart 12: Rating for increase in interest due to
children in village post rebuilding new infrastructure

3% Yes 16% 3% Most

25% important
No Somew hat
important
72%
Don’t know 81% Not
important

8. IMPACT OF NEW BUILDING ON TEACHING ENVIRONMENT

In order to gauge the impact of new school building on teaching, teachers were interviewed to
find out their views regarding lateral effects of the building. Questions were also posed about
impact on students in order to get another picture from teachers’ perspective. Charts 13-18
throw light regarding the same.
Data speaks of positive impact on all important aspects of education. 87% of the teachers
interviewed responded that the new building with better facilities in terms of structure, area,
blackboard, floor, fans and tubelights have provided them with a good environment where
they enjoy teaching. This in turn has helped teachers in paying more attention on individual
students (as revealed in chart 15). Reduction in noise disruption (chart 17) due to separate and
spacious classrooms was another advantage being pointed out by teachers.
Initially in most of the schools, classes used to be suspended during rainy seasons owing to
kuchha building. Now with new pucca building, students do not have to lag behind in studies
during rains. This was another positive impact of new building that came into light during our
study.
Parent-teacher meetings were not held regularly due to lack of parents’ interest in school. The
new building has played a key role in this field. 80% of the teachers said that the new
building has provided a better place for the meetings to be held. Parents’ interest in school
activities and their participation has increased remarkably seeing the new grand school as
stated by 70% of the respondents.
The new building has succeeded in alluring the students. 81% of the teachers believed that
the new environment has definitely improved the concentration level of students while 77%
of them were of the view that attendance has improved post reconstruction. There has also
been significant positive change in the learning attitude of students after they started getting
education in the new school. 94% of teachers interviewed confirmed this statement.
LIFE has done a good job by providing state of art school buildings as 53% of teachers were
of the view that school infrastructure boost the morale of teachers and hence help students in
getting good education.
Chart 13: Positive impact on teaching Chart 14: Positive impact on children concentration
(Teachers) (Teachers)
13% 19%
Yes Yes
No No
87% 81%
Chart 15: Positive impact on attention to Chart 16: Positive impact on attendance
individual students
10% 23%
Yes Yes
No No
90% 77%
Chart17: Positive impact on noise disruption Chart18: Positive impact on learning

attitude

6%
23%
Yes Yes
No No
77% 94%
Chart 19: Most important factor affecting Chart 20: Parents participation in activities of
morale of teachers School post rebuilding
School
Infrastructure
23% Parents
cooperation
7% 53% Students
17% performance
Teahing learning
materials
30%
Yes
No
70%

Chart 21: Positive impact on conducting

meetings with parents
20%
9. IMPACT OF
Yes
HYGIENE KIT
No
In order to measure
80% the impact of hygiene
kit distributed by
LIFE in the
reconstructed school, both parents and teachers were interviewed. Questions were asked
considering the following aspects:
• Awareness about hygiene kit distribution among parents
• Change in the habits of students post distribution
• Increase in enthusiasm among students
• Change in bad habits (if applicable) like chewing of tobacco
• Increase in interest among students towards coming to school
94% of parents were aware of the kit distribution indicating LIFE’s attempt to cover a large
number of students for making them aware about good hygiene practices. Both parents and
teachers strongly believed that hygiene kit has brought about marked improvement in the
habits of children. Brushing teeth regularly, use of soap after toilet and before meal, combing
hair properly, use of napkin etc. have now become common among students.

The kit has also increased enthusiasm among students and as revealed by respondents, this
enthusiasm is based on their expectation that LIFE would distribute more of such kits if they
keep themselves neat and clean.
As far as bad habits are concerned, 70% of the teachers said that children were indulging in
chewing “Pan-mix”, a local tobacco. Out of this in 43% responded that they left this habit
after getting hygiene kits. However teachers confirmed that though they do not chew tobacco
within school campus, they carry this habit after classes since parents themselves carry this
habit.
Charts 22-28 show that hygiene kit has helped in increasing awareness about benefits of
hygienic practices. 52% of the respondents rated it as the most important factor indicating
that hygiene kit is one of the important factors in attracting the students, though there is still
some room for improvement in the programme.

Chart 22: Change in habits due to hygiene kits Chart 23: Change in habits due to hygiene
(Teachers) kits (Parents)
13%
16%
Yes
Yes
No
No
87% 84%
Chart 24: Awareness of hygiene kits -distribution
6%
Yes
No
94%
Chart 25: Increase in enthusiasm in coming Chart 26: Rating for increase in interest of
to school due to hygiene kits (parents) students due to hygiene kits (parents)

16% Most important
6%
Yes 13% Somew hat
important
52% Less important
No 29%
Not important
84%
Chart 27: Indulgence in bad habits Chart 28: Change in bad habits
(Pre-intervention) (Post-intervention)

30%
Yes
No
70%
30%
Yes
No
27% Not applicable
43%

10. IMPACT OF COMPUTER
LIFE has distributed computers in the rebuilt schools under its integrative education
infrastructure provision programme to provide an IT platform to the students of rural areas.
Survey was conducted to measure the extent to which the programme has met its objective.
Both parents and teachers were interviewed regarding the same. Results showed that in 11 out
of 15 schools, computers were not working .In some schools the computers were installed
without checking whether the computers are working and in others teachers were not trained
to operate them so they were lying idle. In the 4 schools where the machine is being put to
use, the reason was that there were computer-trained teachers who could make productive use
of this facility being provided.
Since in 70% of the case computers were not being used teachers response regarding its
impact on child’s learning and awareness became irrelevant and thus has been dropped from
study. However parents’ views have been included to assess their awareness about computers.
Data revealed that 41% of parents were unaware of the computer facility being provided in
the school. As a result majority responded negatively regarding the impact of computers on
child’s learning, enthusiasm and awareness. 40% of the respondents thus rated it as “not
important” factor in increasing interest among students for going to school.
In most of the schools the provision of computers has not brought about any positive changes.
The school authorities have tried to contact LIFE for getting these computers repaired but no
follow up action has been taken till now. In two schools the school authorities were highly
dissatisfied with LIFE’s work just because they had promised something and did something
else. However in some schools school authorities have themselves managed to mobilize the
money and get these computers repaired and provided teachers training from private
institutes.

Chart 29: Parents awareness of computer facilities at school
41% Yes
59% No
Chart 30: Increase in awareness in child after provision of

Computer facilities
31% Yes
50% No
19% Don’t know
Chart 31: Increase in enthusiasm in child at school
Yes
44% 47%
No
Don’t know
9%

Chart 32: Rating for computer facility after provision of computer facilities at school
(as a reason for increase in interest)
Most important
6%
Somew hat
38% important
40% Not important
16%
Don’t know

11. IMPACT OF SCHOLORSHIP

As highlighted by the data obtained, LIFE’s scholarship programme has been a success. 56%
of the respondents (inclusive of both the recipients and non-recipients) were aware of this
programme being conducted annually in the school by LIFE. Those who were unaware were
mainly because they were absent when the programme was held in schools.
44% of the respondents were the recipients and 100% of them confirmed that the scholarship
has increased the enthusiasm, competitiveness and learning attitude of their wards.
56% of the non-recipients when asked about the feelings of their children responded that
though the children did not receive scholarship yet it has sown a seed of competitiveness in
their hearts. Now they are regular to school and work hard to get the scholarship. However
during discussions with teachers it was pointed out by the teachers that even though there are
many positive fallout of the program but the benefit is not reaching the neediest as the
scholarship is only performance based. This is contrary to LIFE’s objective of providing need
based support. It was pointed out that in most of the schools the students who came in the
first three ranks belonged to well off families.
Thus the enrollment rates and performance could be further improved if the distribution of
scholarships could be based on a combination of need and performance based parameters. In
the focused group discussions children confirmed that they have acquired a competitive
attitude after the scholarship program was started in the school. The children confirmed that
the scholarship amount was spent in buying study materials and in some cases the money had
been deposited in bank in their name.

Chart 33: Awareness for scholarships Chart 34: Respondents who received
(Out of those who haven’t received) scholarships (in percentage)
44% Received
44% Yes
56%
56% No
Not Received
Chart 35: Positive change in enthusiasm/learning attitude

after receiving scholarship
Yes
100%

12. TEACHER’S RATINGS

(Reason for increase in children’s interest in coming to school)
Assessing the role played by different facilities provided by LIFE (other than the new pucca
building) in developing interest among children for school was another part of the study. For
this the responses of teachers were taken they were asked to rate the responsible factors on a
scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being most important and 5 being not important.
Results highlighted that scholarship of Rs.500 to the three deserving students every year for
classes 4-7 has been the most important motivating factor, followed by hygiene kit which has
been rated most important factor by 30% of the teachers. Provision of computers emerged as
the third factor in this field while change in parents’ perception came out to be last since just
23% of respondents rated it as the most important factor.
Hygiene kits were only provided once and teachers were of the view that this was not enough
to bring about a change in habits of children over a long time period. However 84% of the
parents were on the view that this intervention has brought about a change in habits in
children (chart 25). The change in perception of parents towards the school could be mainly
attributed to the new building which has positively impacted the image of the school in the
village. The other reason could be the contribution of 20% LIFE takes from the villages in
which the schools are rebuilt besides other contributions in terms of shramdan, paid work etc.
This has created a stake in school activities for the villagers and they have started sending the
children to rebuilt schools instead of private schools.
Graphs 23-26 thus throw light on the positive impact of LIFE’s attempt to provide
educational infrastructure in rural areas. The facilities provided have served their purpose in
most of the cases. Flaws are there in some programmes which could be corrected with
appropriate follow-up and feedback.

Graph 23: Hygiene kit-ratings Graph 24: Change in parents’

perception- ratings
Not applicable 3%
Not important 17%
Less important 7%
Neutral 17%
Somew hat important 27%
Most important 30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Not applicable 10%

Not important 7%
Less important 10%
Neutral 13%
Somew hat important 43%
Most important 17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Graph 25: Scholarships-rating Graph 26: Computer facility-rating

Not applicable 3%
Not important 3%
Less important 10%
Neutral 13%
Somewhat important 13%
Most important 57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Not applicable 17%

Not important 17%
Less important 3%
Neutral 7%
Somewhat important 33%
Most important 23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

13. IMPACT OF LIFE INTERVENTIONS ON EDUCATION

The study highlighted the positive impact that LIFE’s interventions have brought about in the
field of education in the villages it has rebuilt schools.
Graphs 27-33 give information about the change in various educational indicators post
reconstruction. Attendance has improved in almost all the cases, reason being better
environment for attracting students and increase in competitiveness due to provision of
scholarship. The change in attendance has been calculated by averaging out attendance on
one day in each quarter for a year and calculating the average of four quarters, both for pre
and post intervention years.
Enrollment has dropped in quiet a few cases. In one of the schools, the village was divided
resulting into the drop while in another case the school was divided into “Kumar Shala” and
“Kanya Shala”. In all other cases there was genuine drop.
A look into the pupil-teacher ratio brings to light a better picture post rebuilding. Student-
classroom ratio after rebuilding of schools shows that in most of the cases the figure is around
the state average of 41. In cases where it has exceeded 60, it points out that there is a need for
more classrooms to be built.
Number of teachers however, has dropped in quiet a few cases owing to the fact that it
depends on the enrollment and since there was a drop in enrollment, the consequent effect on
the number of teachers is obvious. Comparing the drop-out rates in LIFE’s schools with state
averages, data reveal a much better picture with a drop-out of just 5%. The pupil-teacher ratio
in LIFE’s schools is 34.42 where as the averages for the districts Kutch, Rajkot and
Surendranagar are 35,36 and 47 respectively.
If we compare the enrollment in primary schools in total Gujarat with schools in which LIFE
has intervened (graph 34) we find that only 27.4% schools in Gujarat have enrollment
exceeding 300 whereas 60% of LIFE’s schools have crossed the 300 figure within 2-3 years .
The graph shows that still in around 8.4% schools the enrollment is less than 60 students.
Whereas in none of the schools in which LIFE has intervened less than 60 students are
enrolled. Graph 35 further shows the change in pass percentage (number of students clearing
exams) in the schools in which LIFE has intervened, it shows except 6 schools pass % has
increased. Graph 36 shows the gender parity in LIFE schools and it can be seen that except 5
schools gender parity has increased or has remained the same. The main reason for this was
provision of separate toilet facilities for boys and girls in the school and change in perception
of parents for the school (they now find the building more safe for girl child).
Overall LIFE’s activities have undoubtedly brought about some positive changes in the
education of the villages it has intervened.

Graph 27: Change in attendance Graph 28: Change in enrollment

(in percentages) (in percentages)
45 40 120 95
40
35
100 81
31
30 28 80
25 60
19 17 18 40
20 19
% change in
enrollment
14
13 20 6 10 3 12
15 10 10 10 2
10 0
5 0 0 1 -20 -12 -18 -6
0 -25 -20 -23 -11
-40
-5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-4 Schools
-10
Graph 29: Pupil-teacher ratio (Pre vs Post) Graph 30: Student- classroom ratio (Post)
100 100
91
80 80
60 61
60 60
40 56 51
40 44 29 29
20 26 34
27
20 20
0 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
PTR-PRE PTR-POS

Graph 31: Change in number of teachers Graph 32: Drop-out rates

(in percentage) (State averages vs LIFE’ schools)
37.22
350
300 40 20.53
250 30 8.07
200
20
150
10
100
50 0
Upto 5 Upto 7 LIFE's
0
schools
-50
-100 State averages
Graph 33: Pupil- teacher ratio

(District averages vs LIFE schools)
47
50
36 34.42
35
40
30
20
10
0
Kutch Rajkot Surendranagar LIFE schools

No. of students Graph 34: Enrollment: State vs LIFE
>300 60
27.4
19
221-300
18.7
141-220 7
22.2
7 LIFE
101-140
12.6 Overall
61-100 7
10.2
21-60 7.9
1-20 0.5
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0

% Schools
Graph 35: Change in pass percentage
105 99
100 99 99
Pass %
100 94 100 92
98 98 100 94 100
95 96 95
93 93
90 90 90 91
88 89 88
85 84 91 92
80 84
75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Schools
Pre Post
Graph 36: Change in gender parity
Ge nde r Parity Ratio
3
2.63
2.5
2 2.03
1.5 1.39 1.36

1.02 0.93 1.07 0.91
0.85 0.62 1.00
1 0.86 0.92
0.89
0.93
1.00
0.87 0.77 0.95 0.92 0.57
0.5 0.89
0.86
0
Pre 54 Post S.Sairam and Shwetambara

15. ASSESSING CORRELATION AMONG DIFFERENT TARGET

VARIABLES
After the data was collected an attempt was made to summarize the strength of association
between different variables that were used. The idea was to find out whether any relationship
exists between any two variables and if present what is the strength of that association. The
findings thus obtained would help LIFE in prioritizing the factors influencing its school
rebuilding project so that appropriate planning could be done for its success.
For this Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used as a tool to analyze the
collected data. The variables tested were collected on interval scale since the objective of the
study was to analyze attitudinal data obtained from the stakeholders (principals, teachers and
parents) for which interval scale is the most suitable from marketing research point of view.
Product moment correlation or Pearson correlation coefficient (the most appropriate method
for data collected on interval scale) was used to find the strength of association.
In order to make the findings easily interpretable and understandable, especially to those who
is not statistically-oriented, cross-tabulation has been used. The objective was to provide
clarity of interpretation so that if required, managerial action could be taken in line with the
research results.
15.1 Correlation overall satisfaction and satisfaction for pucca building (teachers):
Cross-tabulation points out (annexure I: table 1) that, 20 out of 30 respondents were highly
satisfied with the overall changes in the education infrastructure as well as with the new
pucca building. The result is a strong association between the two (Pearson R being 0.798)
indicating that new pucca building provided by LIFE has been the major factor in giving
satisfaction to the teachers post reconstruction.
15.2 Correlation overall satisfaction and satisfaction for drinking water facility (teachers):
Analysis revealed that a strong positive relationship existed between teachers’ satisfaction
with overall changes and drinking water facility (annexure I: table 2) with a correlation of
.600 significant with 99% confidence. The finding points out the influence of this facility in
providing satisfaction to the teachers. Drinking water emerged out as the most important
factor after school building and scholarship influencing the satisfaction level of teachers.

15.3 Correlation overall satisfaction and satisfaction for Hygiene kits (teachers):
Pearson correlation for hygiene kit and overall satisfaction level of teachers came out to be
0.447, indicating there is a positive association between the two but the strength is not that
strong (annexure I: table 3). In other words, distribution of more hygiene kits in schools is not
going to significantly satisfy the teachers. The reason is that distribution of hygiene kits was
one-time intervention. Moreover, it was not giving any material benefit to the teachers, unlike
parents who at least saved some money in getting the kit free of cost.
15.4 Correlation overall satisfaction and satisfaction for scholarships (teachers):

Correlation coefficient for scholarship came out to be 0.647 indicating a strong and positive
association between the overall satisfaction level of teachers and this facility being provided
by LIFE (annexure I: table 4). It highlights that LIFE’s attempt to make primary education
lucrative and affordable in rural areas has met its objective.
15.5 Correlation overall satisfaction and satisfaction for computer facilities (teachers):
Computer also emerged out as an important factor in influencing the satisfaction level of the
teachers (annexure I: table 5). Data reveals that it is more strongly (.521) associated to
satisfaction level compared to provision of hygiene kit. The point is that LIFE should plan
provision of computers in more schools to meet the satisfaction level of the beneficiaries.
However just provision of computers is not going to serve the purpose. LIFE needs to make
an effort to provide computer training to teachers or other such programmes supporting the
provision of computers so that beneficiaries could make productive use out of these
machines.
15.6 Correlation between overall satisfaction and satisfaction for pucca building (parents):
Analysis of data from household survey highlights that like teachers, parents satisfaction was
also strongly influenced (.701) by the state of art building built by LIFE which speaks of
LIFE’s success as far as new school building is concerned(annexure J: table 6).
15.7 Correlation between overall satisfaction and satisfaction for drinking water facility
(parents):

Pearson correlation between parents’ satisfaction for overall changes and drinking water
provision in the school is 0.582 indicating a strong positive link between the two. Better the
drinking water facility, more satisfied parents will be (annexure J: table 7).
15.8 Correlation between overall satisfaction and satisfaction for Hygiene kits (parents):
Compared to teachers, parents’ satisfaction was more strongly associated with the hygiene kit
provision as indicated by the Pearson correlation of 0.506(annexure J: table 8). They were
more satisfied with this facility and distribution of more of such kits although may not
significantly satisfy the teachers, it may influence the satisfaction of parents.
15.9 Correlation overall satisfaction and satisfaction for scholarships (parents):

Pearson correlation of 0.637 for overall satisfaction and scholarship reveals that both of them
are strongly associated. After the new pucca building this facility has been the key factor in
influencing the satisfaction of parents (annexure J: table 9).
The overall impact of target variables can thus be summarized as follows:

• The school building undoubtedly has played a role in pulling students and changing
the perception of parents and teachers regarding primary education.
• There is scarcity of drinking water in the Saurashtra region and thus after survey it
emerged as an important facility that should be present in primary schools.
• Distribution of hygiene kits satisfied the parents but not the teachers. Teachers were of
the view that just provision of such kits would not serve the purpose. A booklet giving
information about hygiene practices should also be provided so that students can refer
to it and get information even when teachers are not around.
• Provision of scholarship has been a good step by LIFE which is appreciated by both
parents and teachers. It has helped in bringing about some sort of competitiveness
among students.
• Computers have not served their objective of providing students preliminary
information about Information Technology. Both parents and teachers were
dissatisfied since in 11 out of 15 schools covered, computers were not working.

16. GAP ANALYSIS
Requirements Status Actions taken to fill up the gap
Lack of adequate infrastructure

8306 School structures are 1985 Schools are Building state of art buildings in
dilapidated in Gujarat and conducted either in shifts consultation with experts in the field
most of them are not usable during rainy season or such buildings are usable all round the
during the rainy season classes are cancelled year
Lack of adequate number 1985 schools conduct Building separate and spacious
of classrooms in 2723 classes on shared basis classrooms for each standard along
schools , drinking water and the student classroom with provision of drinking water and
facility is not available in ratio is greater than 60 in separate toilet facilities (ensuring
3577 schools and there is 2223 schools. Students community contribution )
no separate toilets for boys either fetch water from
and girls in 3876 schools their home (which is
inadequate or have to use
water from unhygienic
sources). Students go to
toilet in open
IT Platform
There is no exposure to Parents send children to A computer equipped with necessary
information technology in private schools which are programmes and gadgets is provided
hitherto remote areas equipped with computer to primary schools.
equipment. These schools
charge a fee of Rs 200/-
per month just for the
computer education.

Most of the parents in poor Thus students of poor CD’s containing necessary
rural areas cannot afford economic background are programmes are provided to facilitate
computer education in lagging behind in latest teaching in an interactive manner.
private schools. developments in field of
education.
Concern for hygiene

The schools are located Many children are still Providing hygiene kits to students which
in remote rural areas not familiar with the contain toothbrush, towel, combs, etc. In
,having low purchasing benefits of hygiene addition teachers are counseled to educate the
power and very limited related activities such students on the usage of kits.
access to information as regular brushing of
on hygiene teeth, using clean
towels and napkins etc.
This is further
aggravated by the fact
that majority of the
parents work as
laborers and are not
able afford to pay for
amenities needed for
hygiene maintenance
Inability to afford educational expenses
Though school books Drop-out rate as high A scholarship of Rs 500 per annum to 3
are free and fees at as 39.16% for boys and deserving students in each class of 4, 5, 6 and
primary level is 35.28 for girls in 7. As of now the scholarship has been given
exempted many primary schools. in 18 schools.
students are not able to
attend school due to
inability to pay for
study materials , this is
especially applicable to
students in the upper
primary classes

17. SWOT ANALYSIS
SWOT analysis summarizes the key issues from the environment and the strategic capability
of an organization that are most likely to impact on strategy development. It helps in
identifying the extent to which the current strengths and weaknesses are relevant to, and
capable of, dealing with the threats or capitalizing on the opportunities in the environment.
The SWOT done for School Rebuilding project of LIFE is as follows:
Resource strengths and competitive capability
Easy access to funds: The biggest challenge for any project is availability of funds but there is
no dearth of funds for the School Rebuilding project owing to LIFE’s financially strong board
and smart international networking.
Capability to build state of art school building: The blueprint of the school building was
designed by the civil engineer who was employed in TCS. The design was approved by the
government which is replicated every where with minor changes. This saves a lot of time as
far as reconstruction of school rebuilding is concerned. In all the villages surveyed the school
building was one of its own kinds and was the centre of attraction.
Good relations with bureaucrats: For the school rebuilding project, LIFE maintains good
relationship with the officials of education department of state government. It helps in quick
settlement of all legal matters concerning the construction and thus speeds up the process of
rebuilding. Moreover they keep in touch with the bureaucrats and not with politicians for the
simple reason that even if the political party changes, there is no impact on the functioning of
the programme.
Resource weakness and competitive capacity
Kinks in the chain of feedback: There is no formal feedback mechanism for beneficiaries.
Even if the feedback comes through informal channels, it is not taken as a source of
information to remove the glitch. This has resulted into simmering dissatisfaction which if
not corrected will have a negative impact on the project.

Lack of standardization in programme output: Though the new school buildings were
attractive, they differ from one another in terms of number of classrooms, area of lobby, area
of playground, quality of blackboard etc. Comparison on these ground have increased
expectations among those who have less facilities which when not met result into
dissatisfaction among them.
Inputs from staff working at project implementation level are not incorporated in decision
making: LIFE’s School Rebuilding Project Team has quality personnel who are skilled and
have innovative ideas. Unfortunately, the organization has failed to garner maximum out of
them. Their ideas are listened to by senior management but rarely implemented, the reason
being that the project operates from donor’s perspective and from beneficiaries’ perspective.
Potential opportunities
Out of 10017 primary schools in Gujarat, more than 500 schools are single classroom
schools, more than 2223 schools have SCR>60, 3876 schools lack separate toilet facilities
and around 3577 schools do not have any drinking water facility. Thus there is immense
opportunity for construction and revamping of primary schools where School Rebuilding
programme of LIFE could make apt use of its resources.
Potential external threat
Most of the programmes of LIFE are running under the favourable policies of the state
government. A change in these policies due to change in power or any other reason may
hamper the smooth functioning of the School Rebuilding programme.

18. PROBLEMS AND DEFICIENCIES
18.1 Interventions have been haphazard with poor standardization

Though the management staff stated that LIFE selected a school for intervening based on a
report by state government identifying most needy schools, the primary survey indicated that
school selection was done on the basis of connections of school authorities with trustees.
Though the plan for school building (of 5, 6 & 7 rooms) has been standardized there is no
standardized plan for construction of other facilities like separate toilets, drinking water
facility etc. This has resulted in absence of these facilities in some schools (in dire need) and
reconstruction of facilities in some schools which already had these infrastructures in good
shape before intervention. In two schools more than one computer in working condition have
been provided (these schools already had a full fledged computer lab) whereas in others the
only computer provided is not working.
18.2 Lack of systems to monitor implementation and work on feedback

There is no process in place to monitor progress of construction work. In few schools it was
found that the newly constructed facilities had been left incomplete resulting in
dissatisfaction among the school authorities. There is also no system to take constant
feedback from beneficiaries and in some cases where the school authorities had themselves
tried to contact the organization no action was taken on the feedback.
18.3 Lack of synchronization between the stated mission and how it is interpreted by the
people responsible for implementation
The management said they believed that there interventions are all need based and they are
targeted at hitherto remote villages but the staff responsible for implementation believes that
the beneficiaries do not possess the knowledge to identify there needs and thus they identify
needs for beneficiaries and also prioritize them. This can easily bee seen in implementation of
the scholarship scheme and distribution of hygiene kits. Scholarships are given to top three
students and in most of the schools teachers were of the opinion that these students did not
fall in the category of needy students. Similarly LIFE distributes hygiene kits in all rebuilt
schools without collecting any information whether these villages actually need these
amenities.

18.4 Deviance is not treated as information which is leading to dissatisfaction among

beneficiaries
The organization does not treat deviance as information. This could be inferred form the fact
that enrollment has actually gone down in many of the schools and there have been constant
negative feedback about computer facilities in many schools. The management on the other
hand believes that beneficiaries will always have expectations which can never be fulfilled
completely. This clearly shows that the approach to interventions has not been participatory.
Applying the “Learning process approach framework” to the programme it is evident that the
fit between programme output and beneficiary needs does not exist for scholarship and
hygiene kits distribution., however this fit was clearly visible in case of reconstruction of
school building and computer facility. The fit between task requirements and capacity of
organization was not found in case of computer facility as the computers are not in working
conditions in majority of schools; this is due to total dependence of LIFE on donors for
computers due to which they are not able to replace computers which are not working. The fit
between beneficiary demand expression and decision making process in the organization was
only found in case of reconstruction of school building. This was due to the policy of
compulsory contribution by village community in reconstruction and decision making
mechanism based on extensive meeting with village community.

19. RECOMMENDATIONS
19.1 A resource driven systems approach is needed for the School Rebuilding programme.
The entire programme should be divided into five functions – designing, planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation. For each function processes should be
defined and roles and responsibilities of the concerned employee should be
demarcated. This programme requires the School Rebuilding Team to be in constant
touch with the beneficiaries, in other words the programme is operating in the open
system. Thus effectiveness of the system requires the presence of feedback and
control mechanism.
19.2 Scholarship programme should be made need-based instead of just performance-

based. For this participation of teachers, principal and personal visits by programme
staff are required to identify needy but deserving students. Majority of the
respondents view the scholarship programme positively and their participation in the
decision making process will further enhance the satisfaction with the intervention.
19.3 Computer training should be provided to teachers to make productive use of the
computers that are distributed and one time distribution of hygiene kit has not served
the purpose. There is an immediate need to check the quality of computers that have
been provided. In most of the schools computers are not serving the desired purpose
either because the school staff is not technically trained or the computers are not on
workable condition. Hygiene kits have been provided in every rebuilt school without
scanning the village regarding whether a need exists for such amenities. Further the
distribution being a one time intervention most respondents are of the view that it has
not brought about a sustained positive change.

Ot 25093 - 00 Oac Sai-Shwe

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ot 25093 - 00 Oac Sai-Shwe

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Submitted to Prof. H.K.

The total amount of damage to assets in the

Table 1: Summary of Damage Assessment (in rupees)

Public Private Urban Rural

Cost estimate in Rs. Crores ($ million) 461(99.2) 208(44.8) 376(80.8) 294(63.2)

1 S.Sairam and Shwetambara

Table 2: Summary of Damage Assessment

Primary Schools 9593 307 (66.0)

1.1 Operation Blackboard

2 S.Sairam and Shwetambara

LIFE’s goal is to provide excellent educational infrastructure facilities in primary schools in

1. Rebuilding of dilapidated school structures into state of art educational institutions.

2. Scholarships of Rs 500/= to deserving students in the rebuilt schools.

3. Positively influencing habits and hygiene of primary school students by distribution

4. Providing IT platform in the hitherto remote primary schools to provide basic

5. Child education development programme: Supporting a Child’s education all through

2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN

3 S.Sairam and Shwetambara

2.1 The management problem

To measure the socio-economic impact of the integrative school rebuilding programme.

2.2 Research objectives

• Satisfaction level of parents, teachers and students.

• Attendances, performance, drop out rates and enrollment.

• Impact on qualitative variables like concentration level, motivation, concern for

• Economic impact on beneficiaries of scholarships.

4 S.Sairam and Shwetambara

2.3 Scope of study

• 18 Rebuilt government primary schools in 3 districts of Rajkot, Surendranagar and

• Schools under construction

• Language: Communicating with respondents not well versed in Hindi.

• Parents’ absence in the programmes conducted by LIFE in the school premise

2.5 Data requirements

2.6 Sources of data

2.6.1 Primary sources

1. Data collected from questionnaires administered on parents, teachers and principals in

2. Focused group discussion of a group of 8 students comprising of 4 boys and 4 girls

from upper primary classes.

3. In depth interviews with staff responsible for project implementation.

5 S.Sairam and Shwetambara

2.6.2 Secondary sources

3. School documents pertaining to enrollment, drop-outs, performance and attendance.

3.1 Sampling plan

6 S.Sairam and Shwetambara

Figure 1: Districts covered in the survey.

 Districts of Rajkot, Surendranagar and Kutch.

7 S.Sairam and Shwetambara

3.2 Framework of study

The performance of a development programme can be characterized as a function of the

Figure no 2: David C Korten’s Framework of Fit Requirements

OUTPUTS TASK REQUIREMENTS

EXPRESSION DECISION PROCESS

Source: The learning process approach by David C Korten

8 S.Sairam and Shwetambara

resources for this vital.

Stage 2: Learning to be efficient: Achieving more with less or same resources.

management systems, structures and values for expansion.

3.3 Instruments used

1. Structured questionnaire for school principal, teachers and parents.

2. Checklist for focused group discussion with students.

3. In-depth interviews with employees responsible for implementation of project.

(Refer to Annexure D, E & F for questionnaire used during survey.)

(Refer to Annexure G for checklist used for focused group discussion.)