Latest Trends in Enrolment June August 12, 2015

Transcription

1 Latest Trends in Enrolment June 2015 August 12, 2015

2 Agenda Detailed Nielsen analysis Observations from the field 1

3 Agenda Detailed Nielsen analysis Observations from the field 2

4 Enrolment for 5-9 year olds has increased by 1.1% School participation rate 5-9 year olds (%) 90.4% 89.3% 1.1% 88.2% 86.1% 86.8% 85.9% 84.8% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011 to June

5 Enrolment ( Nov Jun 2015) School participation rate Urban Areas 5-9 year olds (%) 94.7% 92.2% 92.9% 93.1% 92.7% 92.6% 93.1% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 School participation rate Rural Areas 5-9 year olds (%) 81.9% 83.5% 84.4% 83.2% 86.5% 87.8% 88.7% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 4

6 Enrolment has increased significantly over the last 4 years, with a proportionate increase observed for across all age groups Enrolment Percent 100% Jun 2015 Nov % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Age No. of years SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011; June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 5

7 35 districts in Punjab show improvement since November 2011 District % Change since November 2011 Rahim Yar Khan Lodhran Bahawalnagar Bahawalpur Pakpattan Sheikhupura Layyah Sahiwal Mianwali Sargodha Khushab Bhakkar Multan Dera Ghazi Khan Chiniot Vehari Toba Tek Singh Kasur Rajanpur Jhang Okara Muzaffargarh Nankana Sahib Mandi Bahauddin Gujrat Khanewal Lahore Attock Narowal Chakwal Gujranwala Rawalpindi Faisalabad Hafizabad Sialkot Jhelum 0.1% 13.1% 13.0% 12.1% 10.9% 9.9% 9.7% 9.2% 9.1% 9.0% 8.2% 7.7% 7.5% 6.5% 6.5% 5.7% 5.7% 5.0% 4.8% 4.6% 4.4% 4.3% 3.9% 3.7% 3.2% 2.8% 2.5% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 1.9% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 15.4% >3.1% <3.1 % 25 districts show a % change in enrolment since Nov 2011 which is greater than the margin of error of 3.1 % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011; June 2015; Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval

8 Enrolment by District (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, % June %< 90<95% 85-<90% <85% District Performance Chakwal Gujrat Narowal Attock Gujranwala Jhelum Rawalpindi Sheikhupura Toba Tek Singh Sialkot Khushab Mandi Bahauddin Lahore Sargodha Kasur Mianwali Hafizabad Bahawalnagar Pakpattan Jhang Okara Nankana Sahib Faisalabad Sahiwal Bhakkar Layyah Multan Chiniot Bahawalpur Vehari Khanewal Lodhran Rahim Yar Khan Muzaffargarh Dera Ghazi Khan Rajanpur Rahimyar Khan Bahawalpur Jhang Muzaffargarh D.G. Khan Khanewal Rajanpur Layyah Mianwali Bhakkar Multan Lodhran Khushab T T Singh Vihari Attock Chakwal Chiniot Shekhupura Nankana Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Sahiwal Rawalpindi Pakpattan Bahawalnagar Jhelum Gujrat M.B. Din Sialkot Sargodha Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Okara Kasur Punjab Participation Rate ( June 2015) 90.4 % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 7

9 Enrolment by District (Nov 2014) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, % November %< 90<95% 85-<90% <85% District Performance Chakwal Jhelum Attock Gujrat Narowal Sialkot Gujranwala Rawalpindi Mandi Bahauddin Toba Tek Singh Hafizabad Nankana Sahib Kasur Sheikhupura Sargodha Bhakkar Lahore Okara Sahiwal Mianwali Jhang Faisalabad Khushab Layyah Pakpattan Vehari Chiniot Bahawalnagar Khanewal Multan Bahawalpur Dera Ghazi Khan Lodhran Muzaffargarh Rahim Yar Khan Rajanpur Rahimyar Khan Mianmali Bhakkar Bahawalpur Jhang Muzaffargarh D.G. Khan Khanewal Rajanpur Layyah Multan Lodhran Khushab T T Singh Vihari Attock Chakwal Chiniot Shekhupura Nankana Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Sahiwal Rawalpindi Pakpattan Bahawalnagar Jhelum Gujrat M.B. Din Sialkot Sargodha Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Okara Kasur Punjab Participation Rate ( Nov 2014) 89.3 % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2014 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 8

10 24 Districts across Punjab show improvement since November 2014 District Performance % Change since November Chakwal Gujrat Narowal Attock Gujranwala Jhelum -1.0 Rawalpindi Sheikhupura Toba Tek Singh 1.6 Sialkot Khushab Mandi Bahauddin Lahore Sargodha Kasur Mianwali Hafizabad Bahawalnagar Pakpattan Jhang Okara Nankana Sahib Faisalabad Sahiwal Bhakkar Layyah Multan Chiniot Bahawalpur Vehari Khanewal Lodhran Rahim Yar Khan Muzaffargarh Dera Ghazi Khan Rajanpur SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2014; June 2015; Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 9

11 Male Female Split ( Nov Jun 2015) Male - Female split Female Male 47.0% 46.2% 47.8% 46.9% 47.4% 48.0% 47.5% 53.0% 53.8% 52.2% 53.1% 52.6% 52.0% 52.5% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 10

12 Enrolment by Gender School participation rate Male 86.9% 87.6% 88.4% 87.1% 89.4% 90.3% 91.8% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun School participation rate Female 82.5% 84.4% 85.1% 84.6% 87.0% 88.3% 88.9% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 11

13 Enrolment by District Male (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds Male, % June %< 90<95% 85-<90% <85% District Performance Chakwal Attock Khushab Rawalpindi Narowal Gujrat Sialkot Gujranwala Jhelum Toba Tek Singh Sargodha Sheikupura Mianwali Hafizabad Mandi Bahauddin Lahore Jhang Bhakkar Kasur Faisalabad Chiniot Bahawalnagar Nankana Sahib Okara Pakpattan Bahawalpur Layyah Sahiwal Multan Vehari Khanewal Lodhran Rahim Yar Khan Dera Ghazi Khan Muzaffargarh Rajanpur Rajanp ur Muzaffargarh D.G. Khan 35 Rahimyar Khan Layyah Mianwali Bhakkar Bahawalpur Jhang Khanewal Multan Lodhran Khushab T T Singh Vihari Attock Chakwal Shekhupura Chiniot Nankana Sahib Faisalabad Lahore Sahiwal Rawalpindi Pakpattan Bahawalnagar Jhelum Gujrat M.B. Din Sialkot Sargodha Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Okara Kasur Punjab Male Participation Rate (June 2015) is 91.8 % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 12

14 Only a few districts have shown improvements greater than the margin of error 95%< 90<95% 85-<90% <85% >0% <0% District Performance % Change since November 2014 Chakwal Attock Khushab Rawalpindi Narowal Gujrat Sialkot Gujranwala Jhelum Toba Tek Singh Sargodha Sheikupura Mianwali Hafizabad Mandi Bahauddin Lahore Jhang Bhakkar Kasur Faisalabad Chiniot Bahawalnagar Nankana Sahib Okara Pakpattan Bahawalpur Layyah Sahiwal Multan Vehari Khanewal Lodhran Rahim Yar Khan Dera Ghazi Khan Muzaffargarh Rajanpur SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2014; June 2015; 4 Margin of Error 13

15 Enrolment by District Female (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds Female, % June %< 90<95% 85-<90% <85% District Performance Chakwal Gujrat Jhelum Gujranwala Narowal Mandi Bahauddin Sheikupura Rawalpindi Lahore Toba Tek Singh Attock Sialkot Kasur Sargodha Khushab Bahawalnagar Mianwali Sahiwal Pakpattan Hafizabad Okara Nankana Sahib Layyah Faisalabad Multan Jhang Bhakkar Lodhran Vehari Bahawalpur Chiniot Khanewal Muzaffargarh Rahim Yar Khan Dera Ghazi Khan Rajanpur Rahimyar Khan Bahawalpur Jhang Muzaffargarh D.G. Khan Khanewal Rajanpur Layyah Mianmali Bhakkar Multan Lodhran Khushab T T Singh Vihari Attock Chakwal Chiniot Shekhupura Nankana Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Sahiwal Rawalpindi Pakpattan Bahawalnagar Jhelum Gujrat M.B. Din Sialkot Sargodha Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Okara Kasur Punjab Female Participation Rate (June 2015) is 88.9 % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 14

16 Change in Female Enrolment since November 2014 District Performance % Change since November 2014 Chakwal Gujrat Jhelum Gujranwala Narowal Mandi Bahauddin Sheikupura Rawalpindi Lahore Toba Tek Singh Attock Sialkot Kasur Sargodha Khushab Bahawalnagar Mianwali Sahiwal Pakpattan Hafizabad Okara Nankana Sahib Layyah Faisalabad Multan Jhang Bhakkar Lodhran Vehari Bahawalpur Chiniot Khanewal Muzaffargarh Rahim Yar Khan Dera Ghazi Khan Rajanpur SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2014; June 2015; 4 Margin of Error 15

17 Public Private Split ( Nov Jun 2015) Public Private split Public Private 53.4% 54.2% 54.8% 54.3% 54.0% 52.5% 52.9% 46.6% 45.8% 45.2% 45.7% 46.0% 47.5% 47.1% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 Footnote : Excluding Madrassas SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 16

18 Public Private Split ( Nov Jun 2015) Public Private split, Urban Areas Public Private 29% 31% 30% 31% 30% 33% 33% 71% 69% 70% 69% 70% 67% 67% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 Public Private split, Rural Areas 64% 64% 65% 65% 65% 61% 62% 36% 36% 35% 35% 35% 39% 38% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 Footnote : Excluding Madrassas SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 17

19 Public Private Split (Jun 2015) District Public Private split of 5-9 year olds, % June %< 50<60% 40-<50% <40% District Public Private split Bahawalnagar Chiniot Bhakkar Pakpattan Rahim Yar Khan Jhang Mianwali Khushab Hafizabad Vehari Khanewal Layyah Toba Tek Singh Sahiwal Rajanpur Bahawalpur Nankana Sahib Gujrat Muzaffargarh Mandi Bahauddin Attock Lodhran Sargodha Okara Chakwal Jhelum Dera Ghazi Khan Multan Kasur Faisalabad Rawalpindi Narowal Sheikhupura Sialkot Gujranwala Lahore 74.2% 72.2% 71.2% 68.8% 68.7% 66.5% 66.2% 65.6% 65.2% 63.5% 63.5% 63.5% 63.4% 63.3% 62.9% 60.1% 59.7% 58.8% 58.7% 58.4% 58.3% 56.9% 56.8% 56.7% 54.7% 52.2% 49.5% 49.3% 45.8% 45.1% 44.8% 42.1% 41.4% 34.6% 32.5% 26.8% D.G. Khan 35 Rajanpur Rahimyar Khan Layyah Muzaffargarh Mianmali Bhakkar Bahawalpur Jhang Khanewal Multan Lodhran Khushab T T Singh Vihari Attock Chakwal Chiniot Shekhupura Nankana Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Sahiwal Rawalpindi Pakpattan Bahawalnagar Jhelum Gujrat M.B. Din Sialkot Sargodha Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Okara Kasur Punjab Public Private Split (June 2015) is 52.9 % Public and 47.1% Private SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 18

20 Rural Urban Split ( Nov Jun 2015) Rural Urban split Urban Rural 30.1% 29.6% 29.8% 30.3% 30.1% 30.4% 29.9% 69.9% 70.4% 70.2% 69.7% 69.9% 69.6% 70.1% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 19

21 Enrolment by District Urban Areas (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, % June %< 90<95% 85-<90% <85% District Performance Toba Tek Singh Chakwal Muzaffargarh Kasur Khushab Bahawalnagar Sargodha Nankana Sahib Sheikhupura Lahore Faisalabad Gujranwala Rawalpindi Attock Narowal Gujrat Jhang Layyah Jhelum Mianwali Mandi Bahauddin Multan Pakpattan Bhakkar Sialkot Dera Ghazi Khan Khanewal Rajanpur Okara Hafizabad Lodhran Rahim Yar Khan Vehari Bahawalpur Chiniot Sahiwal SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June % 97.8% 97.4% 97.4% 96.6% 96.6% 96.3% 95.9% 95.7% 95.7% 95.6% 95.5% 95.2% 95.1% 95.1% 95.0% 94.9% 94.9% 94.8% 94.6% 94.3% 94.1% 94.0% 94.0% 93.3% 93.3% 93.2% 92.6% 92.3% 92.2% 92.0% 90.8% 90.4% 90.3% 89.5% 89.4% 35 Rahimyar Khan Bahawalpur Jhang Muzaffargarh D.G. Khan Khanewal Rajanpur Layyah Mianmali Bhakkar Multan Lodhran Khushab Gujrat M.B. Din Sialkot Sargodha Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad T T Singh Vihari Attock Chakwal Chiniot Shekhupura Nankana Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Sahiwal Rawalpindi Pakpattan Bahawalnagar Jhelum Okara Kasur Punjab Urban Participation Rate (June 2015) is 94.7 % Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 20

22 Enrolment by District Rural Areas (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, % June %< 90<95% 85-<90% <85% District Performance Chakwal Gujrat Gujranwala Rawalpindi Jhelum Narowal Attock Sialkot Sheikhupura Mandi Bahauddin Toba Tek Singh Khushab Sargodha Hafizabad Mianwali Kasur Lahore Bahawalnagar Okara Pakpattan Nankana Sahib Sahiwal Jhang Bhakkar Layyah Faisalabad Chiniot Bahawalpur Vehari Multan Lodhran Khanewal Rahim Yar Khan Muzaffargarh Dera Ghazi Khan Rajanpur 60.4% 98.0% 97.5% 97.4% 97.4% 97.2% 97.0% 96.9% 96.3% 95.5% 95.5% 94.9% 94.9% 93.9% 92.9% 92.9% 92.9% 92.4% 91.6% 91.0% 91.0% 90.6% 90.4% 90.2% 89.3% 89.2% 87.5% 87.5% 86.7% 85.4% 85.0% 83.6% 83.4% 80.1% 79.6% 76.7% D.G. Khan 35 Rajanpur Rahimyar Khan Layyah Muzaffargarh Mianmali Bhakkar Bahawalpur Jhang Khanewal Multan Lodhran Khushab Gujrat M.B. Din Sialkot Sargodha Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad T T Singh Vihari Attock Chakwal Chiniot Shekhupura Nankana Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Sahiwal Rawalpindi Pakpattan Bahawalnagar Jhelum Okara Kasur Punjab Rural Participation Rate (June 2015) is 88.7 % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 21

23 Enrolment by District Urban Areas (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, Males/Females % June 2015 District Khushab Toba Tek Singh Muzaffargarh Mianwali Kasur Bahawalnagar Chakwal Attock Mandi Bahauddin Faisalabad Hafizabad Gujranwala Sargodha Rawalpindi Layyah Nankana Sahib Rajanpur Bhakkar Jhang Sialkot Sheikhupura Narowal Jhelum Gujrat Lahore Pakpattan Khanewal Multan Lodhran Chiniot Okara Dera Ghazi Khan Bahawalpur Vehari Rahim Yar Khan Sahiwal Performance Males 99.2% 99.0% 98.6% 98.1% 97.4% 97.3% 97.2% 97.1% 96.9% 96.2% 96.1% 95.8% 95.7% 95.6% 95.5% 95.2% 95.2% 95.2% 95.2% 95.1% 95.0% 94.7% 94.6% 94.5% 94.2% 93.9% 93.3% 92.7% 92.7% 92.6% 92.4% 92.2% 89.8% 88.3% 87.5% 86.7% Performance Females Khushab Toba Tek Singh Muzaffargarh Mianwali Kasur Bahawalnagar Chakwal Attock Mandi Bahauddin Faisalabad Hafizabad Gujranwala Sargodha Rawalpindi Layyah Nankana Sahib Rajanpur Bhakkar Jhang Sialkot Sheikhupura Narowal Jhelum Gujrat Lahore Pakpattan Khanewal Multan Lodhran Chiniot Okara Dera Ghazi Khan Bahawalpur Vehari Rahim Yar Khan Sahiwal 86.1% 87.7% 94.0% 96.7% 96.3% 91.3% 97.4% 95.7% 98.4% 92.8% 91.0% 94.9% 89.8% 95.2% 96.7% 94.7% 94.0% 96.4% 92.8% 94.7% 91.6% 96.5% 95.4% 95.0% 95.6% 97.5% 94.0% 93.1% 95.4% 91.0% 92.1% 94.7% 90.7% 93.1% 94.3% 92.6% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June 2015 Margin of Error < 5% with a 95 % confidence interval 22

24 Enrolment by District Rural Areas (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, Males/Females % June 2015 District Chakwal Rawalpindi Attock Gujrat Narowal Sialkot Jhelum Lahore Gujranwala Khushab Sheikhupura Sargodha Toba Tek Singh Mianwali Mandi Bahauddin Hafizabad Jhang Bhakkar Chiniot Bahawalpur Kasur Nankana Sahib Okara Pakpattan Bahawalnagar Faisalabad Sahiwal Layyah Vehari Multan Khanewal Rahim Yar Khan Lodhran Dera Ghazi Khan Muzaffargarh Rajanpur Performance Males SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June % 98.5% 98.1% 97.9% 97.2% 96.9% 96.9% 96.7% 96.7% 96.4% 95.4% 95.3% 95.2% 94.4% 94.3% 94.3% 94.1% 93.7% 92.8% 92.1% 92.1% 92.0% 92.0% 91.6% 91.5% 90.8% 90.1% 90.1% 88.1% 86.9% 86.9% 84.7% 84.0% 82.8% 81.2% 67.3% Chakwal Rawalpindi Attock Gujrat Narowal Sialkot Jhelum Lahore Gujranwala Khushab Sheikhupura Sargodha Toba Tek Singh Mianwali Mandi Bahauddin Hafizabad Jhang Bhakkar Chiniot Bahawalpur Kasur Nankana Sahib Okara Pakpattan Bahawalnagar Faisalabad Sahiwal Layyah Vehari Multan Khanewal Rahim Yar Khan Lodhran Dera Ghazi Khan Muzaffargarh Rajanpur Performance Females 53.3% Margin of Error < 5% with a 95 % confidence interval 97.5% 96.0% 95.4% 97.1% 96.7% 95.7% 97.5% 87.8% 98.1% 93.4% 95.6% 92.2% 94.7% 91.2% 96.8% 91.6% 85.8% 84.4% 81.9% 81.2% 93.6% 89.3% 89.9% 90.4% 91.7% 84.4% 90.6% 88.2% 82.3% 83.1% 79.7% 75.3% 83.1% 70.2% 77.7% 23

25 Households with a higher monthly income are more likely to send their children to school Enrolment Percent 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Jun % 0 Rs 1 Rs 4,999 per month Rs 5,000 Rs. 9,999 per month Rs. 10,000 Rs. 14,999 per month Rs. 15,000 Rs. 19,999 per month Rs. 20,000 Rs. 24,999 per month Rs. 25,000 Rs. 49,999 per month Rs. 50,000 Rs. 99,999 per month Rs. 100,000 Rs. 199,999 per month Over Rs. 200,000 per month Monthly Household Income PKR SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 24

26 Top three reasons for not enrolling a child in school ( Jun 2015) Top three reasons for a child not going to school 5-9 year olds, 4 16 year olds (%), Ages 4-16 Ages 5-9 Financial (Prohibitive cost of school uniform and books) 12.9% 21.0% Access (Distance of school from household) 6.0% 10.3% Mindset (Child considered too young for school) 9.3% 10.0% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 25

27 Enrolment Trend Lines - ( Nov 2011 Jun 2015) Segment A Consistently performing districts with > 95 % Enrolment in June % 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% 75.0% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 Chakwal Gujrat Narowal Attock Gujranwala Jhelum Rawalpindi Sheikhupura Toba Tek Singh Sialkot Khushab Mandi Bahauddin SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 26

28 Enrolment Trend Lines - ( Nov 2011 Jun 2015) Segment B Moderate performing districts with 90 < 95% Enrolment in June % 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% 75.0% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 Lahore Sargodha Kasur Mianwali Hafizabad Bahawalnagar Pakpattan Jhang Okara Nankana Sahib Faisalabad Sahiwal SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 27

29 Enrolment Trend Lines - ( Nov 2011 Jun 2015) Segment C Low performing districts with < 90% Enrolment in June % 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% 75.0% 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% 55.0% 50.0% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 Bhakkar Layyah Multan Chiniot Bahawalpur Vehari Khanewal Lodhran Rahim Yar Khan Muzaffargarh Dera Ghazi Khan Rajanpur SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 28

30 Agenda Detailed Nielsen analysis Observations from the field 29

31 Our approach In order to understand the difference in enrolment between districts, we selected the following set of districts from the Nielsen June 2015 survey : 5 districts with increase in enrolment of 3% 1 or greater, and 3 control districts with no significant change or decrease in enrolment DFCs conducted detailed interviews with the EDOs and AEOs in these districts to determine the differences in enrolment strategies (if any) Change in enrolment %, 5-9 age group Bahawalnagar 7.0 Khushab 5.0 Multan 4.2 Rahim yar khan 4.2 Bahawalpur 3.4 Khanewal -0.1 Sahiwal -0.6 D.G. Khan Margin of error at district level is 3% SOURCE: Team, Nielsen survey 2014 and

32 Following areas were explored in discussion with district officials Areas explored Any specific activities that were used and worked in the enrolment campaign Any focused strategies for improving enrolment in rural or urban areas Any focused strategies for improving enrolment for males or females Any intervention by NGO, community service organisation or external parties Any extra reward or punishment for teachers imposed by the district for enrolment work SOURCE: Team 31

33 Interviews reveal the following set of activities were carried out during the enrolment drive District officials Began the enrolment drives with an inauguration event at district and tehsil level Assigned focal persons at cluster or Markaz level Assigned targets at Tehsil, Markaz and school level Involved politicians and other notable figures to increase impact Mobilised school councils in local communities Followed-up on regular basis Issued appreciation letter for high performers and show-cause for low performers External parties NCHD 1 arranged district level meeting of education officials at regular basis NCHD provided training to teachers in some districts UNICEF provided funds to teachers to carry out doorto-door survey in RYK Other organisations printed pamphlets and arranged walks at school or Markaz level Teachers Led door-to-door campaign and made efforts to enrol children Collected information on out of school children Engaged with local community to convince parents 1 National commission for human development SOURCE: Survey results 32

34 With the exception of Rahim Yar Khan where teachers were paid Rs 5/house by UNICEF to identify 1 out of school children, and assignment of teachers to non-functional schools in Bahawalpur, the set of activities carried out during the enrolment drive are largely the same as previous years, for districts showing an increase and for control districts 1 Despite identification, enrolment remained a challenge SOURCE: Team, survey results 33

35 EDO interview details (1/2) Question Khushab Bahawalnag -ar R.Y. Khan Multan Bahawalpur Khanewal Sahiwal D.G. Khan Enrolment % change +5.0% +7.0% +4.2% +4.2% +3.4% -0.1% -0.6% -4.8% Specific list of activities performed during the campaign District level inauguration ceremony, Tehsil level seminars. Banners near every school. Publicity by AEOs and teachers by door-to-door visits Show-cause notice for teachers who did not meet enrolment target Follow-up with Head Teachers and parents. Awareness through print media Enrolment rallies in Marakaz and meetings with local community. Involved MPAs and met with the local Namabardaars Sent teachers to areas where schools were non-functional No special intervention other than UNICEF providing funds to teachers for door-to-door survey Inauguration event at district level with DCO, MNAs and MPAs as part of the event. Door-to-door campaign focused on enrolling children to school Cluster and school wise target The only thing new was that the teachers were reminded that enrolment is part of their contract Punjab Barho Punjab also played a vital role DCO and MNA played a small role Targets were given at school level based on last year survey Enrolment walks were conducted in all the Tehsils MNAs, MPAs and NGOs were involved in the process. Local communities and school Councils were sensitized. Weekly meetings of officials were conducted and progress was tracked In every UC a focal person was made collecting new data, following up with old data and arranging events Walks were organized and NGO/Ullema also helped in this process MNAs were also invited but none participated. Enrolment data was verified by literacy schools, focal person and DEO District and Division level inauguration ceremony, chaired by the DCO and the Commissioner Banners in schools and offices District and school wise targets Daily reporting of enrolment number on daily basis Teachers have been sensitized to effectively execute the campaign NGOs and NCHD have been asked to support Ceremonies at district level Awareness through print media AEOs regularly contacted influential people for support in villages Did you try anything different for females or males? (specific strategies) We used the same strategy No specific strategy No, we did not have any targeted strategy. Nothing was different between them, same instructions No specific strategy Separate targets for male and female DEOs, and similarly for male and female AEOs A similar strategy was adopted for both males and females. Overall same strategy was adopted. SOURCE: Survey results 34

36 EDO interview details (2/2) Question Khushab Bahawalnag -ar R.Y. Khan Multan Bahawalpur Khanewal Sahiwal D.G. Khan Enrolment % change +5.0% +7.0% +4.2% +4.2% +3.4% -0.1% -0.6% -4.8% Did private schools play any role in enrolment campaign? Role of private schools is limited. They campaign for themselves. DEO elementary male held meeting with private school association for support Private school associations were called for support. They provided some data regarding enrolment of children in private schools. Private schools claim they have registered more enrolment than compared to previous years. They provided officials with enrolment data. They supported the education officials. Private schools provided officials with enrolment data, and held meetings. What do you think about enrolment? Has the enrolment increased? Nothing can be confirmed at the moment, but it might have increased. It is increasing and number is greater in government schools. Yes, the enrolment is definitely increasing. However, the main challenge is not enrolling students, it's controlling the dropout rate. Teachers were asked to attract people by telling them the government school teachers are new and qualified. Fake enrolment was also controlled. Nothing definite about results Yes it is increasing significantly It has increased. Yes, significantly. Overall the enrollment remained stable and neither increased nor decreased drastically. We have controlled fake enrolment in our registers SOURCE: Survey results 35

37 AEO interview details (1/2) Question Khushab Bahawalnag -ar R.Y. Khan Multan Bahawalpur Khanewal Sahiwal D.G. Khan Enrolment % change +5.0% +7.0% +4.2% +4.2% +3.4% -0.1% -0.6% -4.8% How did you execute the enrolment campaign? (list of activities) We were assigned a target of 10 students per teacher per Markaz. Teachers conducted doorto-door campaign Teachers contacted parents of children who were absent for 3 days We were assigned targets based on the last year survey. We used to check enrolment numbers on daily basis. A target of 3800 students were assigned Targets were then cascaded down to teachers School council meetings were regularly held We focused on younger siblings of children already going to schools Banners were placed in school Public meetings by headmaster, SC and numberdar Ullema urged to encourage the people of society Survey children from the previous years for OSC were contacted Meeting parents of children in the community. Nothing new. Routine banners, walks, meetings with local communities Banners in schools, walks and seminars at UC level Influentials and numberdars took part in the events Ulemas were also approached Aghai Mohims with the help of NGOs Distributed markaz wise targets among teachers; Accounted for population this time - higher targets for high population areas and vice versa Also monitored the door-to-door campaigns and enrolment figures. Survey is carried out and OSC list is compiled. After data collection, teachers contact the parents of children for enrollment We call members of school council to convince parents Any major intervention by NGO or other major community mobilization? No NGOs or other parties were involved. No NGOs or other parties were involved in my Markaz but some were active in other Markaz No NGOs were involved in running the enrolment campaign. STAR engaged in a media/radio/new spapers Awaz foundation & SPO also created awareness. Teacher were trained by the NGO, they trained SC, how to get parents involvement No NGOs were involved NCHD awareness events; they worked very closely with the schools throughout the process No NGOs were involved NCHD and Sudhar working but they have a limited impact in enrolling out of school children SOURCE: Survey results 36

38 AEO interview details (2/2) Question Khushab Bahawalnag -ar R.Y. Khan Multan Bahawalpur Khanewal Sahiwal D.G. Khan Enrolment % change +5.0% +7.0% +4.2% +4.2% +3.4% -0.1% -0.6% -4.8% What role did teachers play in the enrolment campaign? Teachers do all the work, we just guide them. They involved local influencers and also used their personal contacts to convince parents Teachers played a significant role. Most of the teachers have met the target The teachers carried out the door-to-door activity They mobilized the school council meetings. Teachers focused more on enrolling students, compared to collecting data. Meetings and social mobilizations by teachers. Teachers do have a major role to play in the enrolment campaign. Teacher-wise targets were given and teachers tried to meet these targets Each teacher was assigned his/her own specific target to achieve. Teacher compiles the out of school children data Teacher tries to enrol out of school children Any penalties or rewards for teachers for doing enrolment work or for increasing enrolment in school? Appreciation letters to the outperformers. Warnings, show cause etc. for defaulters, but there hasn't been any such case in my experience. Just appreciated teachers verbally. No reward for outperformers Show cause notices for low performers Schools with enrolment less than 30 have been given warning notice, and asked to increase enrolment Those who could not meet the target have been asked to meet the target in second phase Letter of appreciation for those who met the targets Few teachers were penalized for not achieving the targets but no rewards were given They have been pushed and asked to meet the targets in 2 nd phase Appreciation letter for those who completed the targets. No such incentive/penalty has been imposed so far although there is a plan to give out certificates to teachers who have met their targets, once the summer vacations end. No reward for high performance Penalties for low performance SOURCE: Survey results 37

39 Backup 38

40 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Attock LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE (5-9) DISTRICT ATTOCK 0.11% 40.26% 56.23% 96.59% TEHSIL ATTOCK 0.00% 22.84% 68.53% 91.37% TEHSIL FATEH JANG 0.00% 53.57% 44.90% 98.47% TEHSIL HASAN ABDAL 0.00% 31.40% 68.60% % TEHSIL JAND 0.00% 34.42% 64.29% 98.70% TEHSIL PINDI GHEB 0.83% 39.67% 58.68% 99.17% CITY CITIES 0.00% 54.05% 41.08% 95.14% CITY ATTOCK MC 0.00% 70.59% 23.53% 94.12% CITY FATEH JANG MC 0.00% 35.29% 58.82% 94.12% CITY GHUR GHUSHTI TC 0.00% 26.32% 68.42% 94.74% CITY HASAN ABDAL MC0.00% 39.29% 46.43% 85.71% CITY HAZRO MC 0.00% 58.33% 41.67% % CITY JAND TC 0.00% % 0.00% % CITY KAMRA CANTT. 0.00% 70.97% 29.03% % CITY PINDI GHEB TC 0.00% 12.50% 87.50% % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

41 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Bahawalnagar LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC DISTRICT BAHAWALNAGAR 3.61% 22.91% 65.87% 92.39% TEHSIL % 14.15% 78.30% 93.40% TEHSIL BAHAWALNAGAR TEHSIL 3.07% 18.09% 69.28% 90.44% TEHSIL CHISHTIAN TEHSIL 7.63% 20.61% 64.12% 92.37% TEHSIL HAROONABAD TEHSIL 1.60% 25.53% 64.89% 92.02% TEHSIL MINCHINABAD TEHSIL 5.84% 18.30% 67.37% 91.51% CITY CITIES 0.97% 41.75% 53.88% 96.60% CITY BAHAWALNAGAR MC 1.47% 30.88% 63.24% 95.59% CITY CHISHTIAN MC 2.17% 50.00% 45.65% 97.83% CITY DONGA BONGA TC 0.00% 36.84% 63.16% % CITY FAQIRWALI TC 0.00% 57.89% 42.11% % CITY FORTABBAS TC 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% % CITY HAROONABAD MC 0.00% 41.18% 50.00% 91.18% PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

42 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Bahawalpur LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT BAHAWALPUR 7.88% 31.83% 47.89% 87.60% TEHSIL AHMADPUR EAST TEHSIL 11.23% 27.15% 43.86% 82.25% TEHSIL BAHAWALPUR TEHSIL 6.37% 36.27% 46.08% 88.73% TEHSIL HASILPUR TEHSIL 5.59% 37.76% 50.35% 93.71% TEHSIL KHAIRPUR TAMEWALI TEHSIL 27.03% 12.16% 37.84% 77.03% TEHSIL YAZMAN TEHSIL 0.63% 25.16% 67.30% 93.08% CITY CITIES 5.02% 39.81% 45.45% 90.28% CITY AHMADPUR EAST MC 0.00% 41.67% 50.00% 91.67% CITY BAHAWALPUR M.CORP. 7.45% 36.17% 46.28% 89.89% CITY HASILPUR MC 0.00% 39.47% 50.00% 89.47% CITY KHAIRPUR TAMEWALI TC 0.00% 56.25% 37.50% 93.75% CITY UCH SHARIF TC 16.67% 41.67% 25.00% 83.33% CITY YAZMAN MC 0.00% 58.82% 35.29% 94.12% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

43 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Bhakkar LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT BHAKKAR 0.44% 25.79% 63.73% 89.96% TEHSIL BHAKKAR TEHSIL 0.22% 21.34% 65.30% 86.85% TEHSIL DARYA KHAN TEHSIL 1.03% 19.07% 69.07% 89.18% TEHSIL KALUR KOT TEHSIL 0.75% 19.55% 71.43% 91.73% TEHSIL MANKERA TEHSIL 0.56% 14.53% 78.77% 93.85% CITY CITIES 0.00% 63.25% 30.72% 93.98% CITY BHAKKAR MC 0.00% 76.92% 21.54% 98.46% CITY DARYA KHAN TC 0.00% 56.00% 34.00% 90.00% CITY DULLEWALA TC 0.00% 50.00% 35.00% 85.00% CITY KALUR KOT TC 0.00% 68.75% 31.25% % CITY MANKERA TC 0.00% 40.00% 53.33% 93.33% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

44 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Chakwal LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT CHAKWAL 0.11% 44.31% 53.56% 97.98% TEHSIL CHAKWAL TEHSIL 0.23% 39.21% 58.70% 98.14% TEHSIL CHOA SAIDAN SHAH TEHSIL 0.00% 50.00% 48.57% 98.57% TEHSIL TALA GANG TEHSIL 0.00% 47.71% 50.00% 97.71% CITY CITIES 0.00% 50.00% 47.76% 97.76% CITY CHAKWAL MC 0.00% 37.93% 60.92% 98.85% CITY TALA GANG MC 0.00% 72.34% 23.40% 95.74% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

45 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Chiniot LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT CHINIOT 1.08% 24.10% 62.72% 87.91% TEHSIL CHINIOT TEHSIL 1.04% 18.92% 67.57% 87.53% CITY CITIES 1.27% 45.15% 43.04% 89.45% CITY CHINIOT MC 1.76% 47.65% 38.82% 88.24% CITY LALIAN TC 0.00% 38.81% 53.73% 92.54% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

46 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - DG Khan LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT DG KHAN 3.85% 37.89% 37.09% 78.84% TEHSIL DE-EXCLUDED 0.91% 21.82% 37.27% 60.00% TEHSIL DERA GHAZI KHAN TEHSIL 6.27% 31.20% 38.48% 75.95% TEHSIL TAUNSA TEHSIL 1.75% 39.15% 41.65% 82.54% CITY CITIES 1.12% 70.79% 21.35% 93.26% CITY DERA GHAZI KHAN MC 1.59% 71.43% 20.63% 93.65% CITY TAUNSA TC 0.00% 69.23% 23.08% 92.31% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

47 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Faisalabad LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT FAISALABAD 0.18% 49.82% 40.89% 90.89% TEHSIL CHAK JHUMRA TEHSIL 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% % TEHSIL FAISALABAD CITY TEHSIL 0.00% 33.33% 61.11% 94.44% TEHSIL FAISALABAD SADAR TEHSIL 0.00% 54.49% 39.89% 94.38% TEHSIL JARANWALA TEHSIL 0.00% 17.99% 60.43% 78.42% TEHSIL SAMMUNDRI TEHSIL 0.00% 50.00% 48.61% 98.61% TEHSIL TANDLIAN WALA TEHSIL 0.53% 23.53% 55.61% 79.68% CITY CITIES 0.22% 69.08% 26.32% 95.61% CITY CHAK JHUMRA TC 0.00% 64.00% 32.00% 96.00% CITY FAISALABAD M.CORP. 0.29% 67.62% 28.08% 95.99% CITY JARANWALA MC 0.00% 78.13% 9.38% 87.50% CITY MAMOON KANJAN TC 0.00% 56.52% 39.13% 95.65% CITY SUMMUNDRI MC 0.00% 92.59% 7.41% % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

48 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Gujranwala LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT GUJRANWALA 0.48% 64.75% 31.23% 96.46% TEHSIL GUJRANWALA TEHSIL 0.54% 69.73% 25.95% 96.22% TEHSIL KAMOKE TEHSIL 2.75% 47.71% 47.71% 98.17% TEHSIL NOWSHERA VIRKAN TEHSIL 0.00% 40.41% 56.16% 96.58% TEHSIL WAZIRABAD TEHSIL 0.00% 50.53% 49.47% % CITY CITIES 0.20% 76.23% 19.06% 95.48% CITY ALIPUR CHATTA TC 0.00% 82.35% 17.65% % CITY DHONKAL TC 0.00% 83.33% 0.00% 83.33% CITY GHAKKHAR TC 0.00% 43.75% 50.00% 93.75% CITY GUJRANWALA M.CORP 0.29% 78.24% 17.35% 95.88% CITY KAMOKE MC 0.00% 77.36% 18.87% 96.23% CITY LUDHEWALA WARRAICH TC 0.00% 93.75% 0.00% 93.75% CITY NOWSHERA VIRKAN TC 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% % CITY WAZIRABAD MC 0.00% 51.72% 41.38% 93.10% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

49 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Gujrat LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT GUJRAT 0.58% 39.65% 56.59% 96.82% TEHSIL GUJRAT TEHSIL 0.80% 34.48% 61.80% 97.08% TEHSIL KHARIAN TEHSIL 0.00% 31.25% 66.12% 97.37% TEHSIL SARAI ALAMGIR TEHSIL 0.00% 29.49% 70.51% % CITY CITIES 1.07% 58.57% 35.36% 95.00% CITY GUJRAT MC 1.54% 59.23% 34.62% 95.38% CITY JALALPUR JATTAN MC 0.00% 38.46% 50.00% 88.46% CITY KHARIAN 0.00% 56.76% 35.14% 91.89% CITY KUNJAH TC 0.00% 56.00% 36.00% 92.00% CITY LALA MUSA MC 0.00% 75.86% 24.14% % CITY SARAI ALAMGIR MC 3.03% 60.61% 36.36% % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

50 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Hafizabad LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT HAFIZABAD 1.00% 31.93% 59.76% 92.70% TEHSIL HAFIZABAD TEHSIL 0.40% 25.25% 66.87% 92.53% TEHSIL PINDI BHATTIAN TEHSIL 1.95% 24.68% 66.88% 93.51% CITY CITIES 1.02% 50.85% 40.27% 92.15% CITY HAFIZABAD MC 0.00% 71.79% 24.36% 96.15% CITY KALEKE TC 2.27% 34.09% 47.73% 84.09% CITY PINDI BHATTIAN TC 0.00% 20.00% 68.00% 88.00% CITY SUKHEKE TC 4.65% 27.91% 58.14% 90.70% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

51 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Jhelum LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT JHELUM 0.61% 45.83% 50.00% 96.44% TEHSIL JHELUM TEHSIL 0.00% 43.88% 53.96% 97.84% TEHSIL PIND DADAN KHAN TEHSIL 0.38% 38.85% 57.31% 96.54% TEHSIL SOHAWA TEHSIL 0.00% 35.51% 61.59% 97.10% CITY CITIES 1.62% 58.12% 35.06% 94.81% CITY DINA MC 6.52% 52.17% 41.30% % CITY JEHLUM 1.09% 62.30% 31.69% 95.08% CITY KHEWRA TC 0.00% 46.15% 42.31% 88.46% CITY PIND DADAN KHAN TC 0.00% 37.04% 48.15% 85.19% CITY SOHAWA TC 0.00% 73.08% 26.92% % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

52 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Jhang LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT JHANG 0.33% 30.43% 60.53% 91.29% TEHSIL JHANG TEHSIL 0.54% 21.30% 67.69% 89.53% TEHSIL SHORKOT TEHSIL 0.00% 27.73% 63.47% 91.20% CITY CITIES 0.36% 52.35% 42.24% 94.95% CITY BAGH TC 0.00% 42.22% 57.78% % CITY GARH MAHARAJA TC 0.00% 58.33% 27.78% 86.11% CITY JHANG MC 0.61% 58.54% 36.59% 95.73% CITY SHORKOT 0.00% 28.13% 65.63% 93.75% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

53 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Kasur LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT KASUR 1.67% 49.96% 42.16% 93.78% TEHSIL CHUNIAN TEHSIL 2.87% 40.50% 49.46% 92.83% TEHSIL KASUR TEHSIL 0.79% 48.55% 42.74% 92.08% TEHSIL PATTOKI TEHSIL 1.19% 46.83% 46.03% 94.05% CITY CITIES 2.16% 67.10% 28.14% 97.40% CITY CHUNIAN TC 0.00% 51.52% 42.42% 93.94% CITY KASUR MC 1.01% 79.80% 19.19% % CITY KOT RADHA KISHAN TC 0.00% 61.29% 35.48% 96.77% CITY PATTOKI MC 0.00% 75.00% 21.43% 96.43% CITY RAJA JANG TC 10.00% 47.50% 37.50% 95.00% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

54 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Khanewal LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT KHANEWAL 1.98% 30.32% 52.71% 85.01% TEHSIL JAHANIAN TEHSIL 5.00% 33.13% 53.13% 91.25% TEHSIL KABIRWALA TEHSIL 3.24% 27.84% 51.08% 82.16% TEHSIL KHANEWAL TEHSIL 0.71% 21.43% 61.43% 83.57% TEHSIL MIAN CHANNU TEHSIL 0.33% 26.33% 54.00% 80.67% CITY CITIES 0.52% 45.55% 47.12% 93.19% CITY ABDUL HAKIM TC 4.55% 45.45% 50.00% % CITY KABIRWALA TC 0.00% 56.00% 44.00% % CITY KHANEWAL MC 0.00% 49.30% 42.25% 91.55% CITY MIAN CHANNU MC 0.00% 33.33% 40.74% 74.07% CITY SARAI SIDHU TC 0.00% 52.63% 47.37% % CITY TULAMBA TC 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

55 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Khushab LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT KHUSHAB 0.30% 32.73% 62.31% 95.34% TEHSIL KHUSHAB TEHSIL 0.00% 30.83% 64.95% 95.78% TEHSIL NOORPUR TEHSIL 1.46% 17.56% 73.66% 92.68% CITY CITIES 0.00% 50.21% 46.41% 96.62% CITY HADALI TC 0.00% 27.59% 70.69% 98.28% CITY JAUHRABAD TC 0.00% 54.55% 45.45% % CITY KHUSHAB MC 0.00% 74.12% 22.35% 96.47% CITY MITHA TIWANA MC 0.00% 25.93% 62.96% 88.89% CITY NOORPUR THAL TC 0.00% 41.18% 52.94% 94.12% CITY NOWSHERA TC 0.00% 47.06% 52.94% % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

56 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Lahore LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT LAHORE 0.77% 68.94% 25.22% 94.92% TEHSIL LAHORE CANTT TEHSIL 0.00% 52.21% 38.94% 91.15% TEHSIL LAHORE CITY TEHSIL 1.63% 56.91% 34.96% 93.50% CITY CITIES 0.74% 73.11% 21.81% 95.66% CITY KAHNA NAU TC 0.00% 76.92% 19.23% 96.15% CITY LAHORE M.CORP. 0.79% 73.85% 20.89% 95.53% CITY RAIWIND TC 0.00% 40.00% 60.00% % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

57 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Layyah LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT LAYYAH 0.23% 32.74% 56.90% 89.87% TEHSIL CHOUBARA TEHSIL 0.61% 20.25% 67.48% 88.34% TEHSIL KAROR LAL ESAN TEHSIL 0.00% 30.67% 60.80% 91.47% TEHSIL LAYYAH TEHSIL 0.17% 29.54% 58.23% 87.95% CITY CITIES 0.64% 62.82% 31.41% 94.87% CITY CHOWK AZAM MC 0.00% 78.13% 18.75% 96.88% CITY FATEHPUR TC 0.00% 82.22% 17.78% % CITY LEIAH MC 1.27% 45.57% 44.30% 91.14% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

58 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Lodhran LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT LODHRAN 8.64% 32.85% 43.41% 84.89% TEHSIL DUNYAPUR TEHSIL 5.28% 34.51% 50.35% 90.14% TEHSIL KAHROR PACCA TEHSIL 16.17% 26.81% 34.89% 77.87% TEHSIL LODHRAN TEHSIL 9.84% 28.67% 44.21% 82.73% CITY CITIES 1.01% 49.75% 41.21% 91.96% CITY DUNYAPUR TC 0.00% 49.06% 39.62% 88.68% CITY KAHROR PACCA TC 2.90% 40.58% 47.83% 91.30% CITY LODHRAN MC 0.00% 58.44% 36.36% 94.81% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

59 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Mandi Bahauddin LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT MANDI BAHAUDDIN 0.38% 39.52% 55.38% 95.29% TEHSIL MALAKWAL TEHSIL 0.00% 46.03% 47.70% 93.72% TEHSIL MANDI BAHAUDDIN TEHSIL 0.68% 37.50% 56.76% 94.93% CITY PHALIA TEHSIL 0.30% 30.51% 66.47% 97.28% CITY CITIES 0.57% 51.15% 42.53% 94.25% CITY MANDI BAHUDDIN MC 0.96% 59.62% 33.65% 94.23% CITY PHALIA TC 0.00% 35.29% 55.88% 91.18% CITY QADIRABAD TC 0.00% 41.67% 55.56% 97.22% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

60 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Mianwali LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT MIANWALI 0.49% 31.34% 61.41% 93.24% TEHSIL ISAKHEL TEHSIL 0.00% 20.00% 73.55% 93.55% TEHSIL MIANWALI TEHSIL 1.26% 29.90% 61.31% 92.46% TEHSIL PIPLAN TEHSIL 0.00% 23.14% 69.87% 93.01% TEHSIL TARAG QH 0.00% 52.94% 41.18% 94.12% CITY CITIES 0.00% 48.65% 45.95% 94.59% CITY DAUD KHEL TC 0.00% 66.67% 20.83% 87.50% CITY KAMAR MASHANI TC 0.00% 55.32% 40.43% 95.74% CITY LIAQUATABAD TC 0.00% 41.46% 58.54% % CITY MIANWALI MC 0.00% 38.37% 56.98% 95.35% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

61 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Multan LEVEL TITLE MADRAS AH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT MULTAN 3.75% 43.05% 41.93% 88.74% TEHSIL JALALPUR PIRWALA TEHSIL 5.52% 8.59% 62.58% 76.69% TEHSIL MULTAN CITY TEHSIL 4.51% 38.35% 45.11% 87.97% TEHSIL MULTAN SADDAR TEHSIL 5.90% 26.55% 53.69% 86.14% TEHSIL SHUJABAD TEHSIL 7.55% 58.49% 24.53% 90.57% CITY CITIES 0.78% 63.01% 30.33% 94.13% CITY MULTAN M.CORP. 0.85% 63.62% 30.00% 94.47% CITY QADIRPUR RAN TC 0.00% 66.67% 26.67% 93.33% CITY SHUJABAD MC 0.00% 50.00% 38.46% 88.46% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

62 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Muzaffargarh LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT MUZZAFARGARGH 4.86% 31.66% 45.07% 81.59% TEHSIL ALIPUR TEHSIL 0.53% 38.42% 37.37% 76.32% TEHSIL JATOI TEHSIL 11.52% 29.84% 36.13% 77.49% TEHSIL KOT ADDU TEHSIL 4.95% 28.65% 51.04% 84.64% TEHSIL MUZAFFARGARH TEHSIL 5.25% 21.92% 50.23% 77.40% CITY CITIES 0.65% 60.65% 36.13% 97.42% CITY JATOI TC 0.00% 81.48% 18.52% % CITY KHANGARH TC 2.94% 50.00% 44.12% 97.06% CITY KOT ADDU MC 0.00% 54.90% 41.18% 96.08% CITY MUZAFFARGARH MC 0.00% 62.79% 34.88% 97.67% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

63 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Nankana Sahib LEVEL TITLE MADRAS AH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT NANKANA SAHIB 0.70% 36.39% 54.01% 91.10% TEHSIL NANKANA SAHIB TEHSIL 0.76% 35.11% 54.77% 90.65% CITY CITIES 0.00% 50.00% 45.92% 95.92% CITY NANKANA SAHIB MC 0.00% 54.35% 41.30% 95.65% CITY WARBURTON TC 0.00% 46.15% 50.00% 96.15% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

64 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Narowal LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT NAROWAL 0.16% 55.94% 40.66% 96.77% TEHSIL NAROWAL TEHSIL 0.00% 48.93% 46.80% 95.73% TEHSIL SHAKARGARH TEHSIL 0.33% 62.00% 35.67% 98.00% CITY CITIES 0.00% 55.74% 39.34% 95.08% CITY NAROWAL MC 0.00% 57.45% 40.43% 97.87% CITY QILA SOBHA SINGH TC 0.00% 35.48% 48.39% 83.87% CITY SHAKARGARH MC 0.00% 68.18% 31.82% % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

65 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Okara LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT OKARA 1.13% 39.05% 51.09% 91.27% TEHSIL DEPALPUR 0.70% 27.92% 61.43% 90.05% TEHSIL OKARA TEHSIL 1.23% 41.80% 49.18% 92.21% TEHSIL RENALA KHURD TEHSIL 0.00% 41.89% 50.68% 92.57% CITY CITIES 2.57% 58.46% 31.25% 92.28% CITY BASIRPUR TC 2.86% 57.14% 34.29% 94.29% CITY HAVELI LAKHA WASAWEWALA TC 0.00% 57.89% 34.21% 92.11% CITY HUJRA SHAH MUQEEM TC 6.38% 51.06% 40.43% 97.87% CITY OKARA MC 2.56% 64.10% 22.22% 88.89% CITY SADDAR GOGERA TC 0.00% 51.43% 42.86% 94.29% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

66 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Pakpattan LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT PAKPATTAN 2.09% 27.84% 61.37% 91.30% TEHSIL ARIF WALA TEHSIL 2.21% 21.18% 69.24% 92.63% TEHSIL PAKPATTAN TEHSIL 1.92% 23.65% 63.65% 89.23% CITY CITIES 2.26% 71.43% 20.30% 93.98% CITY ARIF WALA MC 0.00% 70.21% 27.66% 97.87% CITY PAKPATTAN MC 3.49% 72.09% 16.28% 91.86% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

67 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Rahimyar Khan LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT RAHIMYAR KHAN 3.85% 24.46% 53.77% 82.08% TEHSIL KHANPUR TEHSIL 5.85% 16.59% 60.00% 82.44% TEHSIL LIAQUAT PUR TEHSIL 6.09% 14.34% 62.01% 82.44% TEHSIL RAHIM YAR KHAN TEHSIL 3.66% 17.75% 56.06% 77.46% TEHSIL SADIQABAD TEHSIL 3.11% 23.53% 52.94% 79.58% CITY CITIES 0.80% 52.80% 37.20% 90.80% CITY KHANPUR MC 1.64% 57.38% 31.15% 90.16% CITY KOT SAMABA TC 0.00% 71.88% 28.13% % CITY LIAQUAT PUR TC 0.00% 37.50% 46.88% 84.38% CITY RAHIM YAR KHAN MC 1.06% 51.06% 36.17% 88.30% CITY ZAHIRPUR TC 0.00% 45.16% 51.61% 96.77% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

68 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Rajanpur LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT RAJANPUR 4.17% 22.43% 38.07% 64.67% TEHSIL DE-EXCLUDED 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TEHSIL JAMPUR TEHSIL 4.08% 20.66% 40.69% 65.43% TEHSIL RAJANPUR TEHSIL 7.33% 21.33% 41.00% 69.67% TEHSIL ROJHAN TEHSIL 3.76% 4.23% 30.99% 38.97% CITY CITIES 0.99% 53.96% 37.62% 92.57% CITY FAZILPUR TC 1.89% 58.49% 20.75% 81.13% CITY JAMPUR MC 1.37% 47.95% 46.58% 95.89% CITY KOT MITHAN TC 0.00% 61.90% 38.10% % CITY RAJANPUR MC 0.00% 54.55% 41.82% 96.36% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

69 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Rawalpindi LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT RAWALPINDI 0.92% 52.61% 42.68% 96.21% TEHSIL GUJAR KHAN TEHSIL 0.76% 53.79% 45.45% % TEHSIL KAHUTA TEHSIL 0.00% 51.61% 48.39% % TEHSIL KOTLI SATTIAN TEHSIL 2.63% 42.11% 52.63% 97.37% TEHSIL MURREE TEHSIL 0.00% 65.38% 34.62% % TEHSIL RAWALPINDI TEHSIL 0.00% 47.13% 45.86% 92.99% TEHSIL TAXILA TEHSIL 0.00% 19.05% 80.95% % CITY CITIES 1.35% 56.92% 36.92% 95.19% CITY GUJAR KHAN 0.00% 61.90% 38.10% % CITY JEHLUM 0.00% % 0.00% % CITY KAHUTA 4.17% 66.67% 25.00% 95.83% CITY RWP/ISB 1.43% 58.10% 35.71% 95.24% CITY WAH CANTT 0.00% 40.74% 51.85% 92.59% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

70 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Sahiwal LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT SAHIWAL 1.06% 32.75% 56.43% 90.23% TEHSIL % 28.31% 58.45% 87.90% TEHSIL SAHIWAL TEHSIL 0.91% 29.43% 61.97% 92.32% CITY CITIES 1.32% 57.62% 30.46% 89.40% CITY CHICHAWATNI MC 0.00% 51.85% 33.33% 85.19% CITY KAMIR TC 3.23% 45.16% 29.03% 77.42% CITY SAHIWAL MC 1.08% 63.44% 30.11% 94.62% SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June

71 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Sargodha LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5-9) DISTRICT SARGODHA 0.68% 40.53% 53.32% 94.53% TEHSIL BHALWAL TEHSIL 0.00% 46.39% 46.99% 93.37% TEHSIL SAHIWAL TEHSIL 0.00% 30.17% 65.52% 95.69% TEHSIL SARGODHA TEHSIL 2.54% 28.81% 61.44% 92.80% TEHSIL SHAHPUR TEHSIL 0.00% 29.82% 63.16% 92.98% TEHSIL SILLANWALI TEHSIL 0.00% 34.96% 60.98% 95.93% CITY CITIES 0.37% 58.74% 37.17% 96.28% CITY BHALWAL MC 0.00% 76.00% 24.00% % CITY MIANI TC 0.00% 37.04% 59.26% 96.30% CITY SAHIWAL TC 0.00% 42.31% 50.00% 92.31% CITY SARGODHA 0.62% 60.87% 34.16% 95.65% CITY SILLANWALI TC 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% % SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey June