Lahore: Punjab Examination Commission. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved on April
I
Education & Literacy Department Government of Sindh
Standardized Achievement Test (SAT) - III Sindh Government Schools' Student Achievement - Class V & VIII Subject: Language, Math & Science Technical & Statistical Analysis Report 2014-15
Conducted by:
Sukkur Institute of Business Administration (www.iba-suk.edu.pk)
This material is based on work supported by Reform Support Unit-Education & Literacy Department, Government of Sindh under Sindh Education Reform Program-II funded by World Bank Pakistan.
I
Copyright@ 2015 Reform Support Unit-Education & Literacy Department Government of Sindh, Pakistan & Sukkur Institute of Business Administration.
All rights reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the permission in writing from the copyright holder.
The copies of the Student Achievement in Language, Math and Science of class V & VIII, Technical & Statistical Analysis Report can be obtained from:
Office of the Chief Program Manager Reform Support Unit Education & Literacy Department, Government of Sindh NJV School Building, M.A Jinnah Road Karachi, Pakistan www.rsu-sindh.gov.pk Telephone: +92-21-99216400
Department of Education Sukkur Institute of Business Administration Airport Road, Sukkur-65200, Sindh, Pakistan www.satsindh.net.pk Telephone: +92-71-5630272 Ext 173 Email:
[email protected]
The soft copies of the report can also be accessed on www.rsu-sindh.gov.pk & www.satsindh.net.pk
II
Authors: Dr. Fida Hussain Chang (Ph. D Education, Assistant Professor Sukkur IBA)
Dhani Bux Shah Jilani (M. Ed., Assistant Professor Sukkur IBA)
Reviewers: Dr. Fida Hussain Chang (Ph. D. Education, Assistant Professor Sukkur IBA)
Ms. Unaeza Alvi (MS Education, Assistant Professor Sukkur IBA)
Ms. Sheena Muzafar (World Bank Consultant for SAT Project)
Support Staff Mr Hamid Ali Shaikh - Senior Programme Officer in SAT Project. Mr Muhammad Ubaid - Senior Project Officer in SAT Project Sukkur IBA. Mr Farhan Mehboob - Senior Project officer in SAT Project Sukkur IBA. Mr Agha Farooq - Senior Project Officer in SAT Project Sukkur IBA. Mr Farrukh Hussain - Senior Project Officer-Graphics and Design in SAT Project Sukkur IBA. III
Acknowledgement This study would not have been possible without the help of many people in the districts and regions we studied.
We appreciate and applaud the efforts of Secretary Education, Chief Program Manager, RSU, Deputy Program Manager RSU, Regional Director Education (All Regions), District Officer Education (All Districts), Assistant District Officer Education (Male/Female-All Talukas), Supervisors, Head teachers, Consultants and Coordinators of Local Support Unit (All districts) in smooth execution of project activities.
We are also thankful to faculty members of Department of Education-Sukkur IBA for their assistance in technical work.
Further we are indebted to Director Sukkur IBA Office,
Registrar Office, IT department, Procurement Office, Engineering wing and Marketing department of Sukkur IBA for their profound support and cooperation.
IV
Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... XII SECTION ONE: Test Development and Administration .......................................................... 1 1.
Overview of Standardized Test ......................................................................................... 3
2.
Background of SAT Project .............................................................................................. 4
3.
SAT PHASE III (2014-15) TEST DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES..................................................................................................................... 6
3.1. SAT III (2014-15) Pilot Test............................................................................................. 6 3.2. SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test Specification, Development and Structure ..................... 7 3.3. Managing Logistics ........................................................................................................... 9 3.3.1.
Test Printing ................................................................................................................. 9
3.3.2.
Packaging of Test Booklets ........................................................................................ 10
3.3.3.
Dispatching of Test Booklets ..................................................................................... 11
3.4. Selection and Training of Taluka/Town Coordinators and Test Invigilators ................. 12 3.5. Identifying the Clusters of Centre Secondary School and Nearby Feeding Primary Schools ............................................................................................................................ 14 3.6. Preparing Test Field Plans .............................................................................................. 15 3.7. SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test Information Dissemination ........................................... 16 3.7.1.
Publication of Sample/Model Papers and Advertisements in Newspapers ................ 16
3.7.2.
Regional Workshops .................................................................................................. 16
3.7.3.
Telephone Calls to Head Masters/Mistresses of Government Secondary and Primary Schools by SAT TCs ....................................................................................................... 17
4.
Administration of SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test .......................................................... 17
4.1. Test Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 19 4.2. Test Assessment .............................................................................................................. 20 4.3. Preparing and Distributing Student Report Cards to the Parents .................................... 21 4.4. Development of Background Questionnaires ................................................................. 22 V
4.4.1.
Head Teacher Background Questionnaire (HTBQ) ................................................... 23
4.4.2.
Teachers’ Background Questionnaire (TBQ) ............................................................. 24
4.4.3.
Parent’s Socio Economic Status and Background Questionnaire (PSESBQ) ............ 24
4.4.4.
Administration of Instruments.................................................................................... 25
4.5. Addition of 1500 Application Level Items to Online Item Data Bank ........................... 26 4.5.1.
Review of Uploaded Items ......................................................................................... 28
4.5.2.
Maintenance of Project Website................................................................................. 26
5.
Challenges Faced During SAT III (2014-15) ................................................................. 28
SECTION TWO: Descriptive Results ..................................................................................... 30 6.
RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 31
7.
Analysis of Dispersion and Distribution of SAT III Student Scores .............................. 32
7.1. Data Dispersion Class V ................................................................................................. 32 7.2. Data dispersion class VIII ............................................................................................... 35 7.3. Data distribution Class V ................................................................................................ 38 7.4. Data distribution class VIII ............................................................................................. 40 8.
Provincial Content Strand Based Results ....................................................................... 43
8.1. Province level overall and content strand based student achievement at class V ........... 43 8.2. Province level overall and content strand based student achievement class VIII........... 44 9.
Regional Content Strand Based Results ......................................................................... 45
9.1. Region level language content strand based results class V ........................................... 45 9.2. Region level math content strand based results class V ................................................. 47 9.3. Region level science content strand based results class V .............................................. 48 9.4. Region level language content strand based results class VIII ....................................... 49 9.5. Region level math content strand based results class VIII ............................................. 50 9.6. Region level science content strand based results class VIII .......................................... 51 10.
District Level Contented Strand based Results Class V ................................................. 52
10.1. District level language content strand based results class V........................................... 53 VI
10.2. District level math content strand based results class V ................................................. 55 10.3. District level science content strand based results class V ............................................. 59 11.
District Level Content Strand based Results Class VIII ................................................. 61
11.1. District level language content strand based results class VIII....................................... 62 11.2. District level math content strand based results class VIII ............................................. 64 11.3. District level science content strand based results class VIII ......................................... 67 12.
Gender based analysis of results ..................................................................................... 69
13.
Location based analysis of results................................................................................... 71
14.
School type based analysis of results .............................................................................. 72
15.
District based analysis of SEF schools results class V ................................................... 73
15.1. SEF school districts’ content strand based analysis of results language class V ............ 74 15.2. SEF school districts’ content strand based analysis of results math class V .................. 75 15.3. SEF school districts’ content strand based analysis of results science class V .............. 76 SECTION THREE: Comparative Results ............................................................................... 78 16.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RESULTS .............................................................. 79
16.1. Province level language content strand based comparison between class V and class VIII scores ....................................................................................................................... 79 16.2. Province level math content strand based comparison class V and class VIII ............... 81 16.3. Province level science content strand based comparison class V and class VIII ........... 84 17.
District-based Inter-subject Comparisons ....................................................................... 86
18.
Performance (grade) based analysis of districts’ scores ................................................. 89
18.1. Districts’ performance level based proportions of students in language ........................ 89 18.2. Districts’ performance level based proportions of students in math............................... 93 18.3. Districts’ performance level based proportions of students in science ........................... 97 19.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SATI, SAT II AND SAT III RESULTS .............. 100
19.1. Province level comparison between SAT II and SAT III ............................................. 100 19.2. District based comparison between SAT I, SAT II, and SAT III language scores ....... 101
VII
19.3. District based comparison between SAT I, SAT II, and SAT III math scores ............. 103 19.4. District based comparison between SAT I, SAT II, and SAT III science scores ......... 105 20.
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 108
20.1. Capacity Building of Teachers...................................................................................... 108 20.2. Enhancing Quality of In-service Teacher Education and Teacher Preparation ............ 111 20.3. Research ........................................................................................................................ 112 References .............................................................................................................................. 114 Appendix A (SAT Phase III (2014-15) Actual Test Specifications) ..................................... 115 Appendix B (ToRs of Taluka/Town Coordinator)................................................................. 121 Appendix C (Taluka/Town Coordinator Undertaking).......................................................... 122 Appendix D (Manual for Taluka/Town Coordinators and Invigilators) ................................ 124 Appendix E (Monitoring Report Pro-forma) ......................................................................... 136 Appendix F (Development, Printing and Dispatch Plan for SAT III Student Report Cards) 139 Appendix G (Head Teacher Background Questionnaire) ...................................................... 142 Appendix H (Teacher’s Background Questionnaire) ............................................................ 147 Appendix I (Parent’s Socio-Economic Status and Background Questionnaire) ................... 153 Appendix J (District Profiles of Class V & VIII) .................................................................. 155 Appendix K (Gender Wise Content Strand Based Results)................................................... 205 Appendix L (Location Wise Content Strand Based Results)................................................. 209 Appendix M (School Type Wise Content Strand Based Results) ......................................... 213
VIII
List of Tables Table 1 Region wise details of class V and VIII students, who appeared in SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test. ...................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2 Details of SAT III booklets printed .................................................................................. 10 Table 3 Details of selected TCs and Invigilators in all 24 districts of Sindh ................................. 14 Table 4 Region based number of test centers ................................................................................ 15 Table 5 Break Up of HTBQ, TBQs and PSESBQ for each selected center .................................. 26 Table 6 Number of schools performing at various levels in class V ............................................. 35 Table 7 Number of schools performing at various levels in class VIII ......................................... 37 Table 8 Provincial level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in class V .................. 43 Table 9 Provincial level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in class VIII .............. 45 Table 10 Regional level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in language of class V ........................................................................................................................................ 47 Table 11 Regional level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in math of class V ..... 48 Table 12 Regional level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in science of class V . 49 Table 13 Region level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in language of class VIII ........................................................................................................................................ 50 Table 14 Regional level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in math of class VIII . 51 Table 15 Regional level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in science of class VIII ........................................................................................................................................ 52 Table 16 Districts level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in language of class V 54 Table 17 District level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in math of class V ...... 57 Table 18 District level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in science of class V .... 60 Table 19 District level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in language of class VIII ........................................................................................................................................ 63 Table 20 District level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in math of class VIII ... 66 Table 21 District level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in science of class VIII 68 Table 22 Provincial level gender based analysis of students’ scores in class V ............................ 70 Table 23 Provincial level gender based analysis of students’ scores in class VIII ........................ 70 Table 24 Provincial level location based analysis of students’ scores in class V .......................... 71 Table 25 Provincial level location based analysis of students’ scores in class VIII ...................... 72 Table 26 Provincial level school type based analysis of students’ scores in class V ..................... 72 Table 27 Provincial level school type based analysis of students’ scores in class VIII ................. 73
IX
Table 28 SEF schools’ district wise content strand based analysis of students’ scores in language of class V ........................................................................................................................ 75 Table 29 SEF schools’ district wise content strand based analysis of students’ scores in math of class V ............................................................................................................................ 76 Table 30 SEF schools’ district wise content strand based analysis of students’ scores in science of class V ............................................................................................................................ 77 Table 31 Comparative content strand based results of language of class V & VIII ...................... 80 Table 32 Comparative content strand based resultsof math class V & VIII .................................. 82 Table 33 Comparative content strand based results of math class V & VIII ................................. 83 Table 34 Comparative content strand based results of science class V & VIII ............................. 85 Table 35 District-based inter-subject comparison of performance class V ................................... 87 Table 36 District-based inter-subject comparison of performance class VIII ............................... 88 Table 37 District-based proportion of students at various language performance levels class V .. 90 Table 38 District-based proportion of students at various language performance levels class VIII ........................................................................................................................................ 92 Table 39 District-based proportion of students at various math performance levels class V ........ 94 Table 40 District-based proportion of students at various math performance levels class VIII .... 96 Table 41 District-based proportion of students at various science performance levels class V ... 98 Table 42 District-based proportion of students at various science performance levels class VIII 99 Table 43 Comparative results of SAT-I, SAT-II & SAT-III of class V and VIII ........................ 101 Table 44 District-based comparative analysis of SAT-I, SAT-II & SAT-III language results.... 102 Table 45 District-based comparative analysis of SAT-I, SAT-II & SAT-III math results .......... 104 Table 46 District-based comparative analysis of SAT-I, SAT-II & SAT-III science results ...... 106
X
List of Figures Figure 1 Data dispersion based on school average scores in language of class V................... 33 Figure 2 Data dispersion based on school average scores in math of class V ......................... 34 Figure 3 Data dispersion based on school average scores in science of class V ..................... 34 Figure 4 Data dispersion based on school average scores in language of class VIII............... 36 Figure 5 Data dispersion based on school average scores in math of class VIII ..................... 36 Figure 6 Data dispersion based on school average scores in science of class VIII ................. 37 Figure 7 Distribution of school average scores in language of class V ................................... 38 Figure 8 Distribution of School average scores in math of class V ......................................... 39 Figure 9 Distribution of school average scores in science of class V ...................................... 40 Figure 10 Distribution of school scores language class VIII ................................................... 41 Figure 11 Distribution of school average scores in math of class VIII ................................... 42 Figure 12 Distribution of school average scores in science of class VIII ................................ 42 Figure 13 Scattered representation of districts' overall scores of class V ................................ 53 Figure 14 Districts' class V language difference from province's overall language average score......................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 15 Districts' class V math difference from province's overall math average score ...... 58 Figure 16 Districts' class V science difference from province's overall science average score ................................................................................................................................. 61 Figure 17 Scattered representation districts' overall scores of class VIII ................................ 62 Figure 18 Districts' class VIII language overall score difference from province's overall language average score ............................................................................................ 64 Figure 19 Districts' class VIII math overall score difference from province’s overall math average score ........................................................................................................... 67 Figure 20 Districts' class VIII science overall score difference from province’s overall science average score ........................................................................................................... 69 Figure 21 Scattered representation of SEF districts' overall scores of class V ........................ 74
XI
Executive Summary Reform Support Unit of Education and Literacy Department: Government of Sindh commissioned a large scale study to assess students’ achievement in class V and VIII for all government schools of the Sindh province. For this purpose, a test was devised entitled as Standardized Achievement Test (SAT) to assess students’ performance in three subjects including Language (Sindhi/Urdu/English), Math and Science. The SAT has been administered on a large student population of class V and class VIII, covering 285,624 students (Class V: 177,276 & Class VIII: 108,348) in 2014-15. This study was carried out as the third phase of the project; entitled as SAT III (2014-15).
The underlying aim of the SAT Project is to assess the performance of the students’ learning in aforementioned subjects. Results are aimed to identify gaps in student achievement and to inform reforms targeting improvement in education delivery at district and provincial level. On the basis of these results, various policy and program reforms are recommended to improve the quality of educational delivery, in order to improve the learning outcomes of students, studying in the public sector schools of the province.
This report has three main sections; section one contains the procedural and technical details related to each deliverable of phase III of the project. It includes the detailed description about overall planning of the project, test construction, test administration, test monitoring and test scoring (or marking) of Pilot and Actual tests. Moreover, section one also contains the description about Student Report Cards (SRCs), Head Teachers’ Background Questionnaires (HTBQs), Teachers’ Background Questionnaires (TBQs) and Parents’ Socio Economic Status and Background Questionnaires, development and review of item data bank and project website.
Section two presents different analysis of results including content strand-based analysis at province, region, and district level as well as analysis of students’ achievement based on gender, location, and school type. Mostly descriptive statistics are provided in analysis such as averages, percentages, and standard deviations. Averages (mean scores) are given as percentage scores instead of actual score points to facilitate reader understand performance levels and comparisons clearly. XII
Data dispersion and distribution analysis revealed almost normal distribution of school scores in Language, whereas right-skewed in Math and Science; however, several schools turned out to be high-performing as these schools performed significantly higher than average scores. Generally students’ Language average scores were around 40%, Math average scores were around 20% and Science average scores were around 15%. On a data dispersion graph, many schools’ blocks go beyond 60% score in Language and Math, and beyond 40% in Science, which seems to be a strong area for further systematic exploration. Specifically exploration should target understanding what makes these schools perform higher and how knowledge about these schools can help to improve low-performing schools. While right-skewed distribution of Math and Science scores suggests several schools performing relatively higher than mean scores, peaked up kurtosis suggests that most of the schools’ scores are concentrated around mean of schools’ scores.
Content strand based analysis at district, region, and province level for classes V and VIII revealed a pattern of performance across the province: Language scores highest, followed by Math, and lowest scores for Science. Moreover, reading scores higher for both grades (around 55%) in contrast to very low writing scores (around 11% for class V and around 25% for class VIII) suggest that there is too much emphasis on teaching reading comprehension and a little focus on developing students’ writing
skills. Severely low
performance in writing seems to be result of note-dictating strategy traditionally used by teachers to teach writing in which students copy a written piece and reproduce it, which does not develop students' ability to write a piece of information or write a story on their own. Engaging students to write on their own instead of note-dictating needs to be taught to the teachers.
Math scores were found low in all content strands but severely low in geometry across the province, regions, and districts, with a few variations. Geometry being one of the last few units in curriculum and textbooks seems to be less covered in teaching; however, reasons need to be studied systematically for low performance in each content strand. Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge as well as skills may not be up to the required level. Science scores were also low, with few variations, in all content strands and relatively low in physical science. Generally smaller standard deviations in comparison to mean scores were found, which suggests small variations in scores, but there were several XIII
high-performing and outlier schools. Another pattern that emerged across districts was rural districts such as Tharparkar, Mirpur Khas, Badin, Umerkot performing relatively higher, whereas districts with high urban population performing somewhere in the lowest district ranks. For example region-based analysis showed that Mirpur Khas region excelled in almost all content strands while Karachi region performed higher only in writing, geometry, and earth & space science. These differences need to be systematically studied further.
Analysis based on gender, location, and school type showed that girls were slightly ahead in Language, whereas girls and boys performed almost same in other subjects. Girls’ schools also scored relatively higher in Language, but no significant difference was found in other subject areas. There appeared to be no significant differences between rural and urban groups as well, because variations in scores are nominal. Similar performance of students’ different groups suggests that schooling conditions are almost uniform across the province and most probably same strata of population attend these schools. In order to improve scores, schooling conditions need to be improved and schools should be able to attract students from all strata of the population. SEF schools’ district based analysis revealed that there was more variation among SEF school districts compared to main districts. Generally, SEF school districts followed similar pattern of performance; higher in language, low in math and science. However, in an overall comparison with main districts, SEF school districts performed slightly higher in math but lower in language and science.
Comparative analysis included comparison between class V and class VIII, intersubject comparison, performance level comparisons, and comparison between results of different SAT phases. Class V and class VIII comparison in math, language, and science revealed that class VIII students scored on average higher in language; moderately higher in reading comprehension and significantly higher in writing. While class VIII was found performing slightly higher in overall math scores, class V scored higher in geometry and measurement and class VIII scored higher in information handling. In science, class VIII students performed slightly higher in physical Science and moderately higher in life science, whereas class V students performed significantly higher in earth & space science.
XIV
Inter-subject comparison revealed districts following a pattern: highest score in language, followed by math, and lowest score in science. Most of the districts’ performance also was found moderately narrow as most of the districts’ scores varied maximum 5 percent points higher or lower from their highest ranked score in a subject. Moreover, districts students’ scores were pooled in four performance levels proportional groups: low, mediocre, high, and exceptional. Students across districts mostly fell in low and mediocre levels, but reasonable percent of students fell in high in language and a tiny proportion in exceptional level. For Math and Science, relatively higher percent was found performing at low and mediocre levels. A small number of students were found getting to exceptional level in Math but none was found for Science. Nonetheless, students and schools performing at high and exceptional level need attention in further exploration as studying them may lead to breakthroughs in understanding and to work on school improvement and enhancing students’ achievement.
Comparative analysis of SAT II and SAT III scores showed slightly higher scores in SAT III but it needs to be used and explained carefully as two populations are different. There was considerable variation among districts’ scores, as many of them scored higher in SAT III but some of them scored less in SAT III, and in some cases, a district scored high in one subject whereas low in other subject.
Graphical representations as followed provide an overall picture of class V and class VIII students’ performance across the province in three subject areas.
XV
L = Language M = Math S = Science
XVI
L = Language M = Math S = Science
XVII
SECTION ONE: TEST DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
1
Acronyms and Abbreviations ADOE: Assistant District Officer Education DC: District Coordinator DOE: District Officer Education GSTA: Government Secondary Teachers’ Association LSU: Local Support Unit PEC: Punjab Examination Commission PIRLS: Progress in International Reading Literacy Study PISA: Program for International Student Achievement PTALIF: Primary Teachers’ Association RSU: Reform Support Unit RDE: Regional Director Education SAT: Standardized Achievement Test SBA: Shaheed Benazir Abad SEF: Sindh Education Foundation SIBA: Sukkur Institute of Business Administration SPE: Supervisor Primary Education TEO: Taluka Education Officer TC: Taluka/Town Coordinator SRC: Student Report Card STAR: Standardized Testing and Reporting TIMSS: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2
1.
Overview of Standardized Test As a general understanding, standardized achievement tests are designed and
administered for a large student population under standard conditions and with standardized procedures. Students respond to identical questions under similar standard procedural conditions. Standardized testing is wide spread throughout the globe. Globally, TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) has been measuring trends in achievement of Math and Science at the fourth and eighth grades from the past 20 years. It has been conducted on a regular 4-year cycle since 1995, making TIMSS 2011 the fifth assessment of Mathematics and Science subjects’ achievement trends. TIMSS conducts comprehensive state-of the-art assessments of student achievement supported with extensive data about country, school, and classroom learning environments. More than 60 countries took part in TIMSS 2011. PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) was inaugurated in 2001 as a follow-up to International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) 1991 Reading Literacy Study. For the past 15 years, PIRLS has measured trends in reading comprehension at the fourth grade. First assessed in 2001, PIRLS has been on a regular 5-year cycle since then. Most recently, PIRLS was expanded in 2011 to include prePIRLS, which is a less difficult version of PIRLS. Over 60 countries and sub-national, benchmarking entities are participating in PIRLS 2016, including many that have participated in previous assessment cycles since 2001. In general, participating countries use TIMSS and PIRLS in various ways to explore educational issues, including: monitoring system-level achievement trends in a global context, establishing achievement goals and standards for educational improvement, stimulating curriculum reform, improving teaching and learning through research and analysis of the data, conducting related studies (e.g. monitoring equity or assessing students in additional grades), and training researchers and teachers in assessment and evaluation (TIMSS & PIRLS, 2015). Likewise, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development launched Program for International Student Achievement (PISA) in 1997 to evaluate education systems worldwide, by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students. To date, 3
students representing more than 70 countries and economies have participated in the assessment (OECD: Programme for International Student Assessment). In California, for example, Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) has been established by Department of Education, whose sole task is to help schools improve academic excellence of their students (California Department of Education, 2012). In the context of Pakistan; the government of Punjab has established an autonomous body named Punjab Examination Commission (PEC) to assess students learning achievement at Class V and VIII levels in the province of Punjab. The data collected from 36 districts of the province provide feedback to the system, policy decision-making, educational managers and teachers for improving student learning (Secondary Analysis of Examination Results, 2010).
2.
Background of SAT Project In 2012 Reform Support Unit-Education and Literacy Department, Government of
Sindh announced SAT project for Sindh Province to evaluate performance of students studying in public sector schools in Class V and VIII. Sukkur IBA applied to get this project and after a competitive bidding process, the project was won by Sukkur IBA. The aim of the project is to serve following main purposes: 1. Knowing students’ achievement 2. Linking educational reforms to output/outcome rather than input 3. Informing parents, educational administration, civil society and government about the status of education in the province The first and second phases of the project, entitled as SAT I and SAT II, were successfully completed by Sukkur IBA in 2012-13 and 2013-14. The results of SAT I (201213) and SAT II (2013-14) were uploaded on the project dedicated website, www.satsindh.net.pk and were shared to the parents by sending individual Student Report Card to them, through school head masters/mistresses. The third phase of the project, entitled as SAT III (2014-15) started in September 2014, after the formal signing of the contract extension between RSU and Sukkur IBA on
4
September 26, 2014. In the third phase of SAT project, Sukkur IBA conducted the Pilot Test in December 2014 from the students of class VI and IX, as students in these grades had completed class V and class VIII curriculum. Whereas Actual test was conducted by the end of academic year (2014-15) so the participants were students of class V and VIII in the subjects of Language, Math and Science. Moreover, the SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test was also conducted from 2,699 students of class V from Sindh Education Foundation (SEF) managed government schools. The organization is running schools under Public Private Partnership throughout the Sindh province.
Table 1 Region wise details of class V and VIII students, who appeared in SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test.
Region
Expected Number of Students
Sukkur
Class V 62,972
Class VIII 46,305
Larkana
64,094
Mirpur Khas
Appeared Number of Students
109,277
Class V 37,660
Class VIII 21,259
41,575
105,669
34,726
52,260
31,357
83,617
Hyderabad
87,581
56,256
Karachi
34,061
SEF Grand Total
Percentage of Students Appeared
59.80%
Class VIII 45.91%
53.92%
53,273
54.18%
44.61%
50.41%
16,530
45,541
55.51%
52.72%
54.46%
48,982
28,021
77,003
55.93%
49.81%
53.53%
73,184
24,199
23,990
48,189
71.05%
61.32%
65.85%
-
5,616
2,698
1
2,699
-
-
48.06%
214,616
515,584
177,276
108,348
285,624
58.90%
50.48%
55.40%
Total
Total
Class V
58,919
18,547
29,011
143,837
39,123
300,968
Total
The assessment results provide a base to identify and understand the gaps in the student achievement and lead to diagnose the real gaps and problems of public sector education standards in province of Sindh. The assessment results can help to address the problems and issues affecting the quality education delivery process, by suggesting appropriate research-based scientifically driven reform initiatives. The results of SAT III are directly shared with the students, parents, teachers, head teachers/ principals and other educational stakeholders to create a grassroots level and mass awareness about student achievement. Following measures are taken to share the results:
Sending Student Report Cards (SRCs) to of class VIII students’ parents through school head masters/mistresses. Sukkur IBA directly dispatches the SRCs to the head masters/mistresses of all elementary and secondary schools of Sindh.
5
Sending Student Report Cards to class V students’ parents through ADOEs/TEOs. Sukkur IBA dispatches the SRCs to the taluka/town level offices of all ADOEs/TEOs (Male & Female) of Sindh province. Then ADOEs/TEOs dispatch these SRCs to the parents of students through head masters/mistresses of their respective taluka’s primary schools all over the Sindh province
Sending the hard copies of final report to school head masters/mistresses, RSU, World Bank Officials, district, regional and provincial educational officers and prominent educationalists of the Sindh province and Pakistan.
Uploading the results on project’s dedicated website i.e. http://www.satsindh.net.pk for the wider audience.
3.
SAT PHASE III (2014-15) TEST DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES SAT Pilot Test provides the base for the construction of SAT Actual Test. Compared
to Actual Test, Pilot test contains 3 to 4 times more items in every subject area of language, math and science. The main aim of having more items in the pilot test is to create enough pool of appropriate items needed to extract Actual Tests. As many items are dropped out on the basis of their facility value and/or Discrimination Index, based on the statistical analysis of SAT Pilot Test, piloting 3 to 4 times more items helps in getting enough number of appropriate items for Actual Test. The detailed description about the development of SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test is penned down in the forthcoming paragraphs of this report. However, the description of SAT III (2014-15) Pilot Test is described below in order to develop readers’ acquaintance with different series-wise activities of SAT project, which begin from the development and administration of the SAT Pilot Test.
3.1.
SAT III (2014-15) Pilot Test SAT III (2014-15) Pilot Test was conducted in 40 schools of six districts; including
three districts from North Sindh (Jacobabad, Naushero Feroze and Sukkur) and three districts from South Sindh (Hyderabad, Mirpur Khas and Karachi) from December 17 to 19, 2014. A sample of 2000 students was selected from 40 schools on the basis of Gender (Male-Female) Location (Urban-Rural) and Medium (Sindhi-Urdu-English) of schools. Out of 2000 sampled students a number of 1866 students appeared in the pilot test from all 40 schools. Thus the 6
students’ appearance ratio in SAT III (2014-15) Pilot Test remained 93%. Sukkur IBA has provided a comprehensive report on SAT III (2014-15) Pilot Test to RSU in the month of February 2015. The report has four main sections,
Section one; deals with sample selection criteria for the Pilot Test
Section two; contains construction of Pilot Test
Section three; describes administration of Pilot Test and
Section four; includes statistical analysis of Pilot Test Items/Questions The main purpose of this Pilot Test was to standardize the large-scale actual test. SAT
III Pilot Test contained three/four times more items than the actual test. The statistical analysis of the results of SAT III Pilot Test provided information regarding validity, reliability and difficulty level of test items. This process resulted in the loss of many Pilot Test items. Finally, the process led to construct a well-structured standardized large-scale SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test.
3.2.
SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test Specification, Development and Structure The process of Actual Test construction was initiated with the activity of statistical
analysis of Pilot Test Items result. The assessment experts looked at the validity, reliability and difficulty level of Pilot test items’ results, by focusing on the discrimination index and facility value statistics of each pilot test item. Piloted items were used for most of the Actual Test versions, since a reasonable number of pilot test items were found at desirable level, ranging from 60% to 97% items in the three subjects. In few cases items for math and science were repaired, and were included in the Actual Test based on item-balancing logic as explained below. Facility Value explained (key): 1) 0.2 - 0.8 is considered appropriate facility value 2) Below 0.2 is considered low facility value (item difficult for most of the students). In rare cases items were included when there were not enough items with facility value within 0.2 - 0.8. Usually these items were used to balance the test. For example 1 item with below 0.2 were combined with 1 item of above 0.8 to create a balance.
Facility Value: Also known as difficulty index, indicates difficulty (or easiness) of an item. Index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher the index, easier the item, and lower the 7index, difficult the item.(Anderson and Morgan, 2008)
3) Above 0.8 is considered high facility value (too easy for most of the students). In rare cases, items with above 0.8 facility value are used to balance the test. For example 1 item with above 0.8 can be combined with 1 item of below 0.2 to create a balance. Discrimination Index explained (key): 1) Item with discrimination index within 0.4 - 0.8 are considered appropriate and strong to include in the test 2) Below 0.4 is considered weak discrimination index. In rare cases these items were included when there were not enough items with discrimination index within range of 0.4 - 0.8. In few cases, such items were used to balance with items above 0.8 discrimination index. Above 0.8 is considered high item discrimination index (items highly favoring high-achieving students). For example 1 item with above 0.8 discrimination index were combined with 1 item of below 0.4 to create a balance. In order to develop reasonable test papers for SAT actual test, the assessment experts selected items/questions with having facility value and discrimination index within the appropriate range as explained in above-mentioned paragraphs. In few cases in which items were out of appropriate range, the assessment experts underwent a rigorous exercise of item/question repairing to contextualize and make them closer to the textbooks and appropriate for the students. The Actual Test was constructed, keeping in mind the test specification guidelines, mentioned in SAT TORs. The detailed test specification and structure for all three subjects; languages, math and science is attached to Appendix A of this report. The idea of an achievement test is to measure the effect of the instruction, what teachers are doing in classrooms, and it is common observation that teachers are unlikely to be following the national curriculum in Sindh province. However, to explore this issue further and to get a measure of the effect of curriculum versus text book alignment an effort was made to include questions in the Actual Test from both sources; curriculum and text books. The language of the test was the medium of instruction of the school/class; Sindhi, Urdu or English. Item Discrimination Index: Item discrimination is ability of an item to discriminate between low achievers and high achievers. Index ranges from -1 to 1; however, positive item discrimination is desirable.(McApline, 2002)
8
The test consisted of a practice test and a separate section for each subject; Language, Math and Science. The Test was of three hours duration.The distribution of the time was as under,
Filling-up Face sheet
10 min
Practice Test
10 min
Invigilator’s Review Time
10 min
Language test
50 min
Math test
45 min
Science test
45 min
Break after the language and Math Sections 10 min
Total Time
180 minutes (3 hours)
Keeping in mind the test specification framework, the final selected items/questions for Actual Test were allotted to two different test booklets, entitled as Booklet A and Booklet B with having totally different items/questions.
3.3.
Managing Logistics
3.3.1. Test Printing Sukkur IBA adapted Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (SPPRA) rules and regulation in procuring the printing and dispatch of test booklets services. Transparency was ensured throughout the procurement process. In this regard Sukkur IBA published a tender in Daily Jang, Daily Dawn& Daily Kawish on November 01, 2014 for the printing and dispatch of Pilot and Actual Test booklets. After a competitive bidding process, TCS Pvt Limited won the printing as well as dispatch project of test booklets. The Printing Specifications for SAT III booklets are as under:
A3 paper of 80 gms, this was folded and stapled in the center to make an A4 size booklet
A3 paper of 160 gms, with having 4 colors for cover and back sheet of the test booklets were printed in three mediums; English, Sindhi & Urdu
Two different booklets named as A and B were used for each medium in class V and VIII for Actual Test.
9
Every test booklet has four sections; Practice Test, Language Test, Math Test & Science Test
Barcodes are printed on the every page of test booklets, which contain following fields, Test Paper-ID: Five (5) alphanumeric characters e.g.SAT03 Paper-ID: Three (3) digits e.g. 531 Booklet-ID: Six (6) digits (instead of Student-ID, it was URN (unique running number) e.g. 141009 Page No: Two (2) digits (different page numbers on every page of test booklet) e.g. 01, 02...32 Furthermore, the booklet-wise printing details are provided in Table 2, Table 2 Details of SAT III booklets printed S#
Class
Medium
Booklet
Booklet ID
No of A3 pages
No of A4 Pages
1
5
English
A
511
9
36
2
5
English
B
512
9
36
3
5
Urdu
A
521
8
32
4
5
Urdu
B
522
8
32
5
5
Sindhi
A
531
8
32
6
5
Sindhi
B
532
8
32
7
8
English
A
811
9
36
8
8
English
B
812
8
32
9
8
Urdu
A
821
8
32
10
8
Urdu
B
822
8
32
11
8
Sindhi
A
831
9
36
12
8
Sindhi
B
832
9
36
3.3.2. Packaging of Test Booklets
There was one or more box(es) for each school, identified by new SEMIS-ID
Each box has a capacity of 30 booklets
Sukkur IBA provided the required quantity of booklets per school, per class and per medium to TCS.
Booklets were printed/packed with alternate versions in sequence, so that the test invigilators are not required to randomize the version during distribution of booklets. 10
The tail/content sheet in each box contained columns of,
Barcode
Booklet ID
Student Name: Blank, to be filled at the time of receiving booklet from a particular student
Booklet used: Check Box
The tail/content sheet is aimed to help in reconciliation at the time of collection of booklets from the candidates, as well as during processing of booklets for assessment.
As these test booklets were to be tested throughout the Sindh province, a confidentiality agreement was signed between Sukkur IBA and TCS Pvt limited, in order to maintain and ensure the complete security and safety of the test booklets.
3.3.3. Dispatching of Test Booklets The tender for dispatch of test booklets was published together with tender for printing on November 1, 2014 as mentioned earlier in Section 3.1 (Printing of Test Booklets). After a competitive bidding process TCS Private limited won dispatch project for SAT test booklets. The dispatch and distribution mechanism of test booklets were in following order,
Sharing final test field plans to TCS by SAT office Sukkur IBA
Finalizing the dispatch plan by TCS
Packaging of Centre boxes, by keeping Centre school test papers box/es and feeding primary schools boxes
Dispatching the centre boxes to each taluka/town TCS office in entire Sindh province on daily basis.
Handing over the centre boxes to identified SAT Taluka/Town Coordinators (TCs) (after verifying their names and CNIC numbers) by TCS taluka/town offices.
Distribution of test booklets to identified test centers as per test field plan by SAT TCs before 10 am (test start time).
Collecting the filled test booklets boxes, unfilled test booklets and attendance sheets from centers by TCs.
11
Dispatching the collected filled test booklets boxes, unfilled test booklets and attendance sheets to SAT office Sukkur IBA by TCs on daily basis.
3.4.
Selection and Training of Taluka/Town Coordinators and Test Invigilators SAT office Sukkur IBA selected local qualified individuals for the positions of
Taluka/Town Coordinators (TCs) from every taluka/town of entire Sindh province. Later on, these TCs, in coordination with SAT Project Officers, selected a team of local UC and taluka/town based invigilators in their respective talukas/towns on a ratio of one invigilator for 25-35 students. After completing the selection process, SAT office Sukkur IBA organized day-long training workshops for TCs and Test Invigilators. The focus of TCs training workshops, which were conducted by SAT Project Coordinator and SAT Programme Officer was on following important elements,
Introduction and purpose of SAT project
Test administration mechanisms
ToRs of TCs during test administration (Please see Appendix B)
Undertaking by TCs (Please see Appendix C) After TCs’ training workshops, which were conducted at Sukkur, Hyderabad, Mirpur
Khas and Karachi, SAT Programme officer & project officers offered training workshops to selected test invigilators by visiting every district of Sindh province. The SAT Programme Officer & Project officers organized these training workshops along with the respective TC of the taluka/town. SAT office prepared a comprehensive manual for taluka coordinators and test invigilators, which were also shared with them during the training program (Please see Appendix D)
12
Exhibit 1. Taluka/Town Coordinators Training in different regions of Sindh
The details of selected TCs and Invigilators in all 24 districts of Sindh are given in Table 3
13
Table 3Details of selected TCs and Invigilators in all 24 districts of Sindh S No
District
TCs
SAT III Invigilators
1
Sukkur
4
85
2
Khairpur
8
146
3
Ghotki
5
106
4
Naushero Feroze
5
129
5
Larkana
4
129
6
Qambar Shahdadkot
7
116
7
Shikarpur
4
106
8
Jacobabad
3
80
9
Kashmore
3
69
10
Mirpur Khas
6
115
11
Sanghar
6
100
12
Umerkot
4
54
13
Tharparkar
4
110
14
Thatta
4
52
15
Sujawal
4
34
16
Hyderabad
4
71
17
Badin
5
107
18
Tando Muhammad Khan
3
29
19
Matiari
3
53
20
Tando Allahyar
3
52
21
Shaheed Benazir Abad
4
110
22
Jamshoro
4
56
23
Dadu
4
117
24
Karachi
18
392
Total
119
2418
3.5.
Identifying the Clusters of Centre Secondary School and Nearby Feeding Primary Schools The SAT Programme Officer & Project Officers were deputed to identify and prepare
the clusters of centre secondary schools and nearby feeding primary schools in every taluka/town of entire Sindh province. In order to facilitate the student of primary schools, SAT Office developed a clear policy of linking primary school with that secondary school which is maximum 1 to 1.5 kilometers away. These SAT Project Officers stayed in every taluka/town for two days and during their stay they and respective TCs held daylong workshops in every taluka/town with the Supervisors Primary Education (SPEs) Male and
14
Female in the offices of ADOE/TEO (M&F) in order to prepare Center-Feeding schools’ linkages. Furthermore, large government primary schools were also selected as test centers in those UCs, where the secondary school was either not in the proximity of 1 to 1.5 kilometers or it was found closed or unavailable. Adopting the mentioned mechanism SAT Project Officers and TCs prepared clusters of centre and feeding schools in every taluka/town of Sindh province. After the finalization of centre-feeding schools’ clusters preparation the Project Officers got the signatures and stamps of SPEs and ADOEs/TEOs of the respective talukas/towns on the hard copies of prepared clusters. Following this, the SAT Project Officers converted the hard copies of final clusters into the soft copies to prepare final test field plans.
3.6.
Preparing Test Field Plans SAT office Sukkur IBA organized workshops at every region of Sindh province in
order to prepare the final test field plans. TCs, SAT Project Officers and SAT Programme Officer carried out this activity. The test field plans were prepared by keeping in mind the criteria that the test should be completed in every taluka/town in maximum ten (10) days. Consequently, on an average 4 to 5 test centres were included in the test field plan on every test day. These test centres were finalized with the close coordination of respective local TC, keeping in mind two important criteria of their distance from one to each other and being on same route. As soon as the final field plans were prepared, they were sent to TCS as it could prepare the printing & dispatch plan accordingly. The details of region-wise selected test centres during SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test are given in Table 4.
Table 4Region based number of test centers S. No
Region
Number of Test Centers
1
Sukkur
1,039
2
Larkana
766
3
Hyderabad
4
Mirpur Khas
967
5
Karachi
976
1,655
Total
5,403
15
3.7.
SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test Information Dissemination SAT office Sukkur IBA adapted following three modes to inform the students,
teachers, head masters/mistresses and other educational stakeholders of the Sindh province in order to pre-inform them about the administration of SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test.
3.7.1. Publication of Sample/Model Papers and Advertisements in Newspapers SAT office Sukkur IBA published advertisements about the administration of SAT Actual Test in leading national and local newspapers including, Daily Dawn, Daily Jang, Daily Awami Awaz, Daily Ibrat, Daily Kawish and Daily Sobh on December 06, 2014 and February 02, 2015. The main aim of these publications was to inform the students, teachers, head masters/mistresses, RDEs, DOEs, ADOEs/TEOs (M & F), SPEs and other educational stakeholders of the Sindh province about the administration of SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test. 3.7.2. Regional Workshops SAT office arranged orientation workshops for the Regional Director Education (RDE), DOEs, ADOE/TEOs (M & F) & Supervisors in every region of Sindh province, before starting the administration of SAT III (2014-15) actual test. The underlying aim of these workshops was to inform the above-mentioned district level educational stakeholders about the purpose of SAT project and also to handover them the test field plans containing the final schedule of the test administration. As, these stakeholders could pre-inform the head masters/mistresses of secondary, elementary and primary schools about the actual days and dates of test administration.
Exhibit 2. Regional Workshops in Hyderabad and Mirpur Khas Regions
16
3.7.3. Telephone Calls to Head Masters/Mistresses of Government Secondary and Primary Schools by SAT TCs SAT office Sukkur IBA assigned the task of making telephone/mobile calls to the head masters/mistresses of every centre secondary and primary as well as feeding primary schools in order to inform them about the specific days, dates of SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test administration. The local SAT TCs in every taluka of the Sindh province were assigned this responsibility to make these calls two days before the administration of the test.
4.
Administration of SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test SAT office Sukkur IBA started administration of the Actual Test after completing
above mentioned tasks. Following process was followed by SAT office Sukkur IBA for the administration of Actual Test. The TCs collected test booklets from their respective TCS offices in the evening or morning of the test day; they kept the test booklets in a safe and secured place. Then, the TCs dispatched the test booklets to test centres on the day of test before test starting time, which was 10.00 am After handing over the test booklets to head invigilator on one centre, TC moved to next centre and so on. Thus, after completing the distribution, TC used to pay monitoring visits to test centres. As soon as test completed, the TC again visited every centre and collected filled test booklets, unfilled test booklets and attendance sheets from the centres and dispatched them to SAT office Sukkur IBA on the same day through TCS courier services. SAT office Sukkur IBA provided transport allowance to every TC to hire a taxi car/van/jeep to perform all above mentioned activities. The test was conducted region-wise in following order, Sukkur and Larkana Regions:
February 06 to 17, 2015
Mirpur Khas Region, Thatta & Sujawal districts:
February 18 to 28, 2015
Hyderabad Region:
February 20 to March 04, 2015
Karachi Region:
February 23, 2015 to March 07, 2015
17
In this way, SAT office Sukkur IBA completed the test in entire Sindh province in 26 days from February 06, 2015 to March 07, 2015. Exhibit 3. Test Administration in different regions of Sindh
18
4.1.
Test Monitoring SAT office Sukkur IBA prepared an effective monitoring mechanism to ensure the
quality and transparency of the actual test. Doing so, a monitoring team, based on SAT project coordinator, programme officer, project officers, Sukkur IBA faculty members and Alumni of Sukkur IBA and selected competent TCs (of those talukas where test was already administered) was formulated. SAT office provided training to the monitoring team members, before sending them to the field. SAT office prepared a “Monitoring Report Proforma” and shared to all monitoring officers, during the training programme (Attached in Appendix E). By using this Proforma, Monitoring officers collected field issues and other relevant information during their monitoring visits. Following this, SAT Project Officers collected the identified field issues from the Monitoring Officers on daily basis, consolidated them, shared the issues to their respective TCs, as they should be minimized on the next day of the test and sent the consolidated field monitoring issues to the office of SAT Project Coordinator on daily basis, along-with the suggested solution of the identified issues. Some of the key issues reported by the monitoring officers are as under,
Non-cooperation of government head teachers and teachers at some centre schools
Less number of students turn out in the test
Lack of information about the test schedule to head masters/mistresses by their respective DEO and ADOE/TEO (M &F) offices
Hindrances created by GSTA and PTALIF members at some talukas of Sindh province, especially in Khairpur District, by not allowing SAT test administration teams to administer the test
SAT office Sukkur IBA reported these issues on daily basis to RSU and got its support to address these issues effectively.
Exhibit 4 Monitoring Officers of Sukkur IBA and RSU visiting the test centres
19
4.2.
Test Assessment SAT TCs dispatched the filled test booklets to SAT office Sukkur IBA on the
evening of every test day through TCS. The test booklets were received at SAT office and handed over to assessment experts of Sukkur IBA for electronic marking. The assessment experts adapted following mechanism for the assessment of test booklets, “All scripts were scanned into an electronic archive. The electronic copies were split with candidate identifiers, which cannot be accessed or read by the markers. The separated questions were then routed to the appropriate marking team. Each team consisted of a EMarkers, Reviewers and a Super Reviewer who were specialized in the evaluation of responses to specific question guided by a context specific marking scheme which contained analytical rubric, and one example answer (in case of Constructed Response Questions {CRQs}) for every question/item of the test which was always available on screen. As a result, the written responses of a student were evaluated by at least 3 different layers in any subject. 20
Alongside this e-marking of Constructed Response Questions (CRQs) and Fill in the Blanks (FIBs), the marking of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) was automatically done by the E-Marking Software. The assessment experts then verified the automatically marked MCQs in order to confirm the authenticity and efficiency of the process. After the completion of the test booklets assessment, SAT office started the activity of data punching from the face sheets of students’ test booklets on a customized software. The main aim of the activity was to prepare the student and school-wise results of all those students of class V and VIII who appeared in SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test. The data that were extracted from the face sheet by the Data Entry officers were as under, i.
Name of Student
ii.
Father Name
iii.
Father’s/Guardian’s Phone Number
iv.
SEMIS ID of School
v.
Head Teacher’s Name
vi.
Language Teachers’ Name
vii.
Math Teacher’s Name
viii.
Science Teacher’s Name
ix.
Gender
x.
Age
After completing the data punching activity, SAT office provided the data to assessment experts, who then released subject-content strand result of each student, with having all above-mentioned information.
4.3.
Preparing and Distributing Student Report Cards to the Parents As soon as SAT office Sukkur IBA received the students’ results from the assessment
experts, it engaged the IT team in order to prepare and produce the soft files of Student Report Cards (SRCs). The SRC contains the data of student as mentioned in point No. I to X in the previous heading of “Test Assessment”. In addition to this, the subject content-strandwise obtained marks of individual student are also given, with having a comparison chart of 21
percentage average marks obtained by the students of that UC, taluka, district and province. Having generated the soft files of student report cards, these files were shared to TCS for printing. After getting printed, two copies of SRCs (one original for parents and one photocopy for school record) were packed in school-wise envelopes. Then, the envelopes were dispatched to every secondary school having the result of their class VIII students and every elementary school, having the result of class V and VIII students. Moreover, SRCs of class V were sent to ADOE/TEOs (M & F) of every taluka/town of Sindh province, as they could disseminate the same to the respective Primary school head masters/mistresses, either through SPEs or by holding meetings with the respective head masters/mistresses of their respective talukas/towns. SAT office Sukkur IBA also sent one letter with every school envelope, requesting school head masters/mistresses to organize a Result Day at their school by inviting parents to the school and the original copy of the SRC should be given to parents in that program, while received signature should be taken by the parents on the photocopy of SRC and it should be kept in school record. However, it was also suggested in the letter that if for certain reasons school management cannot arrange Result Day at school, then the original and photocopy of SRC should be sent to the parents of the students through students/teachers/school management committee members, by instructing that the original SRC should be kept by parents, while its photocopy should be sent back to school after putting receiving signature of the parent (Please see Appendix F for the development, printing and dispatch mechanism of SRCs).
4.4.
Development of Background Questionnaires There is a great debate around the world on how can we make a conducive learning
environment for students? How do we provide quality education to students? How can we impart the learning dynamics in an effective way? To explore the underlying mechanics, the academic scholars and practitioners are going in and out of the learning domain in order to understand the factors influencing student learning and achievement in a class. One of the most important aspects discussed yet in the academic literature is the contextual factors (i.e. Teachers Knowledge, Skills, Abilities (KSAs) teacher’s development, class room climate and effective teaching and learning tactics etc.). Similarly, head teacher’s leadership and management style has significant influence on maintaining a conducive learning environment for students. Consequently, this affects students’ performance in long 22
run. Moreover, student’s background factors such as socio-economic status of their parents, financial constraints/resources, support and guidance from their parents in studies are also turned out to be integral factors to effect student achievement. Considering the fact, SAT office Sukkur IBA developed three instruments comprising Head Teachers’ Background Questionnaire (HTBQ), Teachers’ Background Questionnaire (TBQ) and Parents SocioEconomic Status and Background Questionnaire (PSESBQ) to identify and examine the background information entailing their demographic, attitudinal and behavioral attributes, which directly or indirectly affects the student learning and performance. The key points of these three instruments are mentioned as under and the samples of these instruments are attached in appendices.
4.4.1.
Head Teacher Background Questionnaire (HTBQ) HTBQ was used to collect data from head teachers of identified center schools. The
purpose was to examine, what conditions or factors are inducing or constraining their school administration process? Whether or not they are experiencing adequacy/deficiency of school resources i.e physical, human and academic resources? What kind of leadership style they are implementing at their schools? As school administration can have a direct or indirect influence on student performance at the micro level. For meeting the prevailing standards of school administration, HTBQ was developed. The HTBQ is consisting of 5 interest categories such as, 1) Head Teachers demographics 2) Economic outlook of area where school is operating 3) Shortage and adequacy of school resources 4) Frequent problems faced by them from Teachers i.e arriving late, leaving early, absenteeism etc. 5) Leadership and Administration style i.e Autocratic or Democratic Way, Control and Monitoring, Feedback or Follow ups about student performance from both teachers and parents, decision making and so on All factors from 2 to 5 rated on four point rating scale except factor 1 where most of the questions are of dichotomous and category type (Please see Appendix G for the sample of HTBQ)
23
4.4.2. Teachers’ Background Questionnaire (TBQ) TBQ was used to collect data for the study. The questionnaire was divided into Five sections of 1,2,3,4, 5. Section 1 items were based on school information such as name, level, type, location, status and medium of school. Section 2 items were on teachers’ background information including name, age, gender, experience, academic and professional qualification, subject taught, and training received. Section 3 consist of various attitudinal and behavioral items, designed to explore the way teacher thinks, feels and behaves on various facets of their job, which directly or indirectly influence their teaching style, preference, interest and performance. For measuring the mentioned characteristics, a 5-point Likert scale anchored with “Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree” was developed to collect responses from teachers. Sample Items are as “You have been assigned the classes you prefer to teach”
“School building, classrooms and grounds are spacious and in good
condition” “You enjoy teaching” “School administration addresses the needs and concerns of you and do cooperate with you” and so on. Section 4 of the questionnaire consists of Student Assessment attributes highlighting the assessment strategies implemented by teachers during their academic session. Moreover, the following section also contains a set of questions exploring the assessment aims and objectives e.g ‘Evaluate whether teaching activities achieve their objectives’, ‘Understand students’ progress’, ‘Evaluate teaching effectiveness’ and so on. Section 5 denotes the perceived student performance measure anchored with 5-point rating scale ranging from poor (low) to excellent (High) performance. Item is as “How would you rate overall performance of the students”. In this part, teachers have been assigned to rate the performance of students as per their overall performance at school. Finally, Section 6 consists of 5- point scale measuring the overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction level of teachers towards job (Please see Appendix H for the sample of TBQ)
4.4.3. Parent’s Socio Economic Status and Background Questionnaire (PSESBQ) Keeping in mind the aim of exploring the underlying mechanics of student achievement, one of the important features affecting his or her study is their home environment especially, their parents’ background. For the purpose, Parent’s Socio-Economic 24
Status and Background Questionnaire (PSESBQ) was developed to collect data. The Questionnaire entails the following important aspects of student’s parents such as, 1) Student Profile (Name, Father’s Name, Class, School etc.) 2) Parents Demographics including (Gender, Mother Language and Education) 3) Socio-Economic information (Number of Children, Number of Children go to school, Student mean of going to school and Income per month) 4) Background Information containing parents’ guidance and support for students in their education, capacity to bear educational expenses, satisfaction with student performance and future intent of continuity of their children education. The content mentioned in point 1 to 3 are mostly nominal type of questions, while few are open ended as well. However, point 4 consists of dichotomous scale where parents have to respond the questions as ‘Yes or No’ In addition, three versions (English, Urdu and Sindhi) of questionnaires of same questionnaire were developed for convenient data collection from parents (Please see Appendix I for the sample of PSESBQ). SAT Office Sukkur IBA developed the above-mentioned three instruments and after their development they were sent to the office of SAT Technical Advisor, in order to get his feedback on these instruments. After receiving his feedback, SAT office incorporated the feedback in all three instruments. Following this, the instruments were sent to RSU-Expert Review Committee for their feedback, review and approval for the administration of these instruments under SAT project. Afterwards, the feedback and suggestions of RSU Expert Committee were incorporated to the final version of instruments.
4.4.4. Administration of Instruments SAT office Sukkur IBA has administered these three instruments by adopting the stratified sampling strategy based on the taluka-wise, gender-wise and medium wise distribution of schools’ population characteristics. The proposed sampling strategy adapted by SAT office Sukkur IBA is mentioned as under,
25
Taluka/Town wise strata; eight centre secondary schools from each taluka/town were identified, keeping in view the characteristics of gender and medium wise proportion. The sample size of proposed eight centers was selected by using the strategy recommended by Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson (2010) on case wise bases
Gender wise strata; this represents the stratification of the population according to the overall proportion of boys and girls schools in Sindh province. In our data, 22% of the schools were of girls while 78% of them constitute the boys schools.
Medium wise strata, based on the relative proportion of the medium wise distribution of school in Sindh province. According to the data, 72% of the schools are Sindhi medium, 27% are Urdu, while only 1% of them are English medium, as there are minimum number of English medium government schools in Sindh province.
Breakup is as under, Table 5 Break Up of HTBQ, TBQs and PSESBQ for each selected center
Description
HTBQs to be filled
TBQs to be filled
PSESBQ to be filled through (Tele Interview)
Questionnaire to be filled at one Center each
1 each
3 from each (Language, Math &Science teachers)
5 each
Total Required
940
2820
4700
Moreover, after having a comprehensive discussion, SAT Office decided to conduct tele-interview of acquiring parents’ background information of identified centre schools. For the purpose, parents of five students (who appeared in SAT III 2014-15 Actual Test) were accessed via phone.
SAT office Sukkur IBA will write an analytical report featuring the correlation of students’ performance with the data acquired through these three instruments; HTBQ, TBQ and PSESBQ. The report will be submitted as a separate report to RSU.
4.4.5. SAT Project Website A separate domain for SAT project has been purchased with domain address www.satsindh.net.pk. 26
Website has following features;
Online data bank from class V to class VIII in the subjects of Language, Math and Science
SAT Project brief
Students can attempt online test (MCQs) and measure their efficiency
The data of each subject is available class wise, and medium wise
Teachers can make their own user name and password to use the data as per their requirement.
After log in, teachers can prepare question papers of Languages, Math and Science for classes V to VIII
Newsletters, events, updates and announcements about SAT are available
Final Reports of SAT-I(2012-13), SAT II (2013-14) and SAT III (2014-15) are uploaded
User counter enabled which helps RSU and Sukkur IBA to measure the reach and frequency of target users
School profiles have been activated
School wise, taluka wise, District wise, region wise, and subject wise results of SAT-I (2012-13), SAT II (2013-14) and SAT III (2014-15) have been uploaded on website. Moreover, comparative analysis of results i-e: comparison of schools within same UC, comparison of taluka with in same district, and comparison of districts within same regions is also available on the website
Individual SRCs of every student of classes V and VIII are uploaded, who appeared in SAT III (2014-15) test
Sample papers of SAT tests are also available in Sindhi, Urdu and English mediums, which will help the teachers, head masters/head mistresses and educational stakeholders to prepare/guide students for SAT tests
Facebook page of SAT has been linked to SAT website
Quick links of RSU, NTS, Govt of Sindh and Sukkur IBA are also activated
Logo of Government of Sindh is included
SAT team profiles have been updated
Contact us option is available on website
27
4.4.5.1 Online Item Data Bank Sukkur IBA has developed a test data bank from class V to class VIII in the subjects of Languages (Sindhi, Urdu and English), Math and Science. The items in these three subjects are developed in three mediums including, Sindhi, Urdu and English. For each subject in each class, 1000 test items consisting of MCQs, FiBs and CRQs are developed. Following the ToRs, SAT office has added 1500 more application level items of Languages, Math & Science subjects to already developed item data bank, during SAT project phase III (2014-15). Doing so, Item Development Workshops were arranged at Sukkur IBA in the leadership of assessment experts to develop the items. The subject specialists of IBA Community Colleges and Sukkur IBA Alumni under the supervision of assessment experts of Sukkur IBA Department of Education developed these items. After development of the items, these were reviewed by the assessment experts of Sukkur IBA and after review, these items are uploaded on SAT website, www.satsindh.net.pk.
4.4.5.2 Review of Uploaded Items SAT office Sukkur IBA has conducted an online review of all items of Languages, Math and Science from classes V to VIII, which are uploaded during the first and second phase of the SAT project.
5
Challenges Faced During SAT III (2014-15) During the implementation of SAT Project Phase III (2014-15), Sukkur IBA faced
following challenges,
Delay in the release of funds. As per the ToRs, Sukkur IBA submitted the invoices of incurred expenses after the completion of deliverables (mentioned in the Contract document, under the heading of, payment procedure: section IV). However, several times installment amount was not released to Sukkur IBA on time. The project activities were jeopardized because of these delays.
28
The local district based educational stakeholders including RDEs, DOEs, ADOEs/TEOs (M&F) did not inform the head masters/mistresses of centre schools as well as feeding primary schools about SAT III (2014-15) test schedule in about 80 percent cases. Despite the fact, that SAT office Sukkur IBA provided them the test schedules of SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test about 10 days before the test administration. As a result, just 55% of students’ turned up on the test day. The appearance of 55% of students also occurred because of plan B of SAT office Sukkur IBA, in which our local SAT Taluka/Town Coordinators made phone calls to every head master/mistress of centre school and feeding primary school and shared the test schedule to them.
Some members of the GSTA and PTALIF specifically in Khairpur district created issues for the Sukkur IBA test administration teams, by not allowing them to take the test and made several demands; One of their core demands was that one government teacher of the centre school should also be engaged in the invigilation along-with the SAT office Sukkur IBA invigilator. This demand was not accepted by SAT office Sukkur IBA, as it could affect the transparency of the testing process. In some cases, the test was also cancelled and re-scheduled, after the resolution of this issue with the facilitation of RSU and local educational authorities.
Non-cooperation of some of the LSU staff members specifically in Sanghar, Mirpur Khas and Shaheed Benazirabad districts. Consequently, it disturbed the work of SAT office Sukkur IBA test administration teams.
29
SECTION TWO: DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
30
6
INTRODUCTION OF RESULTS’ ANALYSES SAT III test was purposed to assess multiple dimensions of student achievement. The
test focused on assessing class V and class VIII students’ achievement in three subject areas including Language, Math, and Science. Each subject test comprised of several content strands or main content areas of learning. Content strands were same for both classes. Two main content strands for Language were Reading comprehension and Writing. Math test was based on five content strands including Numbers and Operation, Algebra, Measurement, Geometry, and Information Handling. Science test comprised of three content strands, Life Science, Physical Science, and Earth and Space Science. This section presents analysis of data dispersion and distribution patterns and descriptive analysis of student results at various levels including province-based, regionbased, and district-based statistics. All results analysis are presented separate for class V and class VIII. In order to understand overall performance in terms of student background markers, further analysis consist of gender based (female and male), location based (rural and urban), and school type based (boys schools and girls schools) comparison of student achievement. Apart from analysis of overall achievement in each subject area, several analyses present content strand based achievement of students to highlight strengths and shortcomings in specific main learning areas within each subject. In various analyses, differences in relation to overall scores are also provided to indicate if the performance at a specific level or category is higher or lower in comparison to the overall performance in same category at province level. The section is structured in six main categories of results analysis. It begins with presentation of analysis of data dispersion and distribution based on schools’ average scores for class V and class VIII. Followed by this, analysis is provided for general results of SAT III which indicate overall percent averages and content strand based overall percent averages of students’ performance at province, region, and district levels. Next three categories provide analyses of overall province level performance of students in the three subjects, based on gender of students, location of schools, and school type. Last part of the section presents district based analyses of students’ performance in schools executed by Sindh Education Foundation (SEF).
31
7
Analysis of Dispersion and Distribution of SAT III Student Scores Understanding nature of data, particularly its dispersion and distribution, is important
in order to understand results (parameters or estimates) appropriately. SAT III data is mainly students’ test scores in class V and class VIII in three subject areas: language, math, and science. Overall analysis of dispersion and distribution reveals two important aspects of results. First many schools appear to be scoring relatively much higher than the mean (average) score, and several of them appear to be outliers (scoring above 80%). Second most of the scores are concentrated around the mean score which means if high-performing and outliers are excluded, variance is quite low. Following are analysis of dispersion and distribution patterns of subject based overall SAT III schools’ average (mean) scores.
7.4
Data Dispersion Class V Figure 1 to 3 present spread of schools’ mean scores in class V language, math, and
science. Horizontal axis shows number of schools and vertical axis shows average percent scores. Number of schools in class V is 24,931 and maximum average score possible for a school is 100%. Blue blocks (Figure 1) represent language average scores, green blocks (Figure 2) show math average scores, and yellow blocks (Figure 3) show science average scores. In addition, Table 6 presents schools’ performance at various levels, which is referred to elaborate data dispersion trends. Data dispersion graphs of schools’ average scores illustrate an overall picture of schools’ performance, and are particularly helpful in locating the concentration of scores as well as showing and approximating relatively high-performing schools. As we can see that schools’ language averages (Figure 1 blue color blocks) are mostly concentrated between 0and 60 lines; however, many blue blocks (about 4% of schools’ scores as given in Table 6) go beyond 60 line and some of them go up to 80line or beyond, which are relatively highperforming schools in language. Similar trend appears to be occurring with schools’ math averages (Figure 2 green blocks) as scores are concentrated between 0 and 40 lines, but several blocks (about 1.5% schools’ scores as given in Table 6) go beyond 60 line, indicating significantly highperforming schools (compared to overall average around 18%), and few of them even go beyond 80 line, which are relatively exceptional performing schools. Moreover, there are 32
around two thousand schools (about 8% of all as given in Table 6) which scored above 35%, which also can be considered relatively high-performing schools in math since their scores are more than double the overall math average (around 18%) for class V. Schools’ science scores dispersion, as shown in yellow blocks (Figure 3) indicates that most of the scores are concentrated between 0 and 30 lines; however, about 5% schools scored between 34% and 60% scores which could be considered high-performing schools in relation to 16% class V overall average score in science. More specific details about proportions of schools performing at different levels is illustrated in Table 6.
Figure 1 Data dispersion based on school average scores in language of class V Avg. Lang. Overall Perc. 120 100 80 60 40 20
1 757 1513 2269 3025 3781 4537 5293 6049 6805 7561 8317 9073 9829 10585 11341 12097 12853 13609 14365 15121 15877 16633 17389 18145 18901 19657 20413 21169 21925 22681 23437 24193
0
33
1 757 1513 2269 3025 3781 4537 5293 6049 6805 7561 8317 9073 9829 10585 11341 12097 12853 13609 14365 15121 15877 16633 17389 18145 18901 19657 20413 21169 21925 22681 23437 24193 1 757 1513 2269 3025 3781 4537 5293 6049 6805 7561 8317 9073 9829 10585 11341 12097 12853 13609 14365 15121 15877 16633 17389 18145 18901 19657 20413 21169 21925 22681 23437 24193
Figure 2 Data dispersion based on school average scores in math of class V Avg. Maths Overall Perc.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 3 Data dispersion based on school average scores in science of class V
Avg. Science Overall Perc.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
34
Although an initial analysis shows that students’ appearance ratio was relatively lower in high-performing and exceptional performing schools, it will be worth exploring to understand what made these schools perform relatively higher. Table 6 shows that 983 schools performed between 60% and 80% scores in language, and about 49 schools performed above 80% scores that warrants a systematic exploration which may lead to identify characteristics of high performing schools. In similar studies, schools performing between 34% and 60% (and beyond) in science should be focus of systematic investigation.
Table 6 Number of schools performing at various levels in class V
Class V Range
Language (Mean = 33%)
Math (Mean = 18%)
Science (Mean = 16%)
80-100
49(0.2%)
15(0.06%)
0(0.00%)
60-79.99
983(3.94%)
221(0.89%)
34(0.14%)
34-59.9
10,836(43.46%)
2,244(9.00%)
1,365(5.48%)
0- 33.99
13,063(52.40%)
22,451(90.05%)
23,532(94.39%)
24,931
24,931
24,931
Total
7.5
Data dispersion class VIII Figure 4 to 6 present dispersion of schools’ mean scores in class VIII language, math,
and science. In addition, Table 7 presents schools’ performance at various levels, which is referred to elaborate data dispersion trends. Although concentration of schools’ averages in class VIII somewhat differs from class V, dispersion graphs clearly show a number of schools performing relatively higher than averages. Schools’ language averages (Figure 1 blue color blocks) in class VIII are mostly concentrated between 0 and 50 lines; however, many blue blocks (about 6% of schools’ scores as given in Table 7) go beyond 60 line and some of them go up to 80 line or beyond, which are relatively high-performing schools in language. Similarly schools’ math averages (green blocks in Figure 5) are concentrated between 0 and 30 lines; whereas, many blocks (about 8% schools’ scores as given in Table 7) go beyond 30 line, indicating relatively high-performing schools (compared to overall math 35
average around 17%), and few schools’ scores go beyond 60 line, which are relatively exceptional performing schools in class VIII math. Schools’ class VIII science averages dispersion, as shown in yellow blocks (Figure 6) indicates that most of the scores are concentrated between 0 and 20 lines; however, about 2% schools scored between 34% and 60% scores which could be considered high-performing schools in relation to 17% overall average score in science. Figure 4 Data dispersion based on school average scores in language of class VIII Avg. Lang. Overall Perc. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 1 134 267 400 533 666 799 932 1065 1198 1331 1464 1597 1730 1863 1996 2129 2262 2395 2528 2661 2794 2927 3060 3193 3326 3459 3592 3725 3858 3991 4124 4257
0
Figure 5 Data dispersion based on school average scores in math of class VIII Avg. Maths Overall Perc. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 1 134 267 400 533 666 799 932 1065 1198 1331 1464 1597 1730 1863 1996 2129 2262 2395 2528 2661 2794 2927 3060 3193 3326 3459 3592 3725 3858 3991 4124 4257
0
36
Figure 6 Data dispersion based on school average scores in science of class VIII
Avg. Science Overall Perc. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
1 134 267 400 533 666 799 932 1065 1198 1331 1464 1597 1730 1863 1996 2129 2262 2395 2528 2661 2794 2927 3060 3193 3326 3459 3592 3725 3858 3991 4124 4257
0
Table 7 provides number of schools performing at various levels. In class VIII language, 273 schools performing between 60% and 80%, and in math and science respectively 341 schools and 94 schools performing between 34% and 60% scores invite for further systematic exploration. Even if student appearance ratios are low in these schools, individual student performances need to be systematically studied to understand what makes these schools or students in these schools perform significantly higher than rest of the schools.
Table 7 Number of schools performing at various levels in class VIII
Class VIII
80-100
Language (Mean = 40%) 12(0.27%)
Math (Mean = 18%) 1(0.02%)
Science (Mean = 17%) 0(0.00%)
60-79.99
273(6.22%)
26(0.59%)
0(0.00%)
34-59.9
2,647(60.31%)
341(7.77%)
94(2.14%)
0-33.99
1,457(33.20%)
4021(91.62%)
4,295(97.86%)
Total
4,389
4,389
4,389
Range
37
7.3.
Data distribution Class V Figure 7 presents distribution of schools’ class V language average scores. The figure
depicts symmetry of data distribution to a major extent; however, a few observations around 80 indicate slight positive skewness with value of 0.228, which is considered approximate normal distribution. Nonetheless, slight skewness means that there are a few schools which perform significantly higher than the average score as given in Table 6 earlier. Proportion of these schools appears to be smaller as most of the blocks around 80 are very small compared to the ones which are in the exact sympatric portion (0 to 66.44) of distribution; however, these schools need to be explored further to understand what makes them perform exceptionally higher. The value of distribution kurtosis is -0.26 which also indicates almost symmetric distribution.
Figure 7 Distribution of school average scores in language of class V
Figure 8 presents distribution of schools’ class V math average scores, which suggests two important points about the schools’ performance. Distribution is right-skewed, with skewness value of 1.5 indicating substantial positive skewness. Positive skewness suggests many schools scored significantly higher than the average score, as given in Table 6 earlier and observations can be seen going beyond 40 and quite a few reaching to 60 compared to 18.61% mean of schools’ average scores. Distributions’ kurtosis with value of 3.25 indicates 38
that most of the schools’ mean scores are close to average of schools’ mean scores making the blocks around the mean very high (peaked up). Nonetheless, many schools’ relatively higher mean scores stretch to make a tail on right side of the distribution.
Figure 8 Distribution of School average scores in math of class V
Figure 9 presents distribution of schools’ class V science average scores. Similar to distribution of schools’ class V math averages, distribution of science averages is rightskewed (with skewness value of 1.2) and peaked up (with kurtosis value of 2.25); however, very few school blocks seem to be making beyond 60 score. Even then, distribution shows that many schools’ averages significantly stretch away from the mean of schools’ averages (15.5%) suggesting that many schools (as given in Table 6 earlier) performed significantly higher than the mean score. Particularly schools scoring 35% and beyond may be targeted for further exploration to understand what makes them perform higher. In contrast, schools with less than 5% (or 10%) scores also can be studied to figure out what makes them perform low.
39
Figure 9 Distribution of school average scores in science of class V
7.4.
Data distribution class VIII Figure 10 presents distribution of schools’ class VIII language average scores. The
distribution appears almost symmetric (normal distribution) as indicated by skewness score of 0.05 and kurtosis score of 0.23 (0 score of both of these measures means perfect symmetry). The reason for normal distribution of schools’ average scores seems high mean score (about 40%), suggesting that schools performed relatively higher in class VIII language. Kurtosis is slightly peaked up suggesting proportionally a few more schools’ averages concentrated around or close to mean score.
40
Figure 10 Distribution of school scores language class VIII
Figure 11 presents distribution of schools’ class VIII math average scores. Distribution is substantially right-skewed (with skewness score of 1.9), and highly peaked up (with kurtosis score of 4.9) suggesting many schools stretching away from schools’ mean score (17.73%) to right and concentration of most of the scores around the mean of schools’ percent averages. Several schools, as mentioned earlier in Table 7, appear to be scoring 40% and beyond, which may be an area of interest for further exploration. Schools scoring significantly lower than mean (17.73%) also can be targeted in further explorations to understand systematically problems and issues leading to low schools’ and students’ performance.
41
Figure 11 Distribution of school average scores in math of class VIII
Figure 12 presents distribution of schools’ class VIII science average scores. Distribution appears modestly right-skewed with skewness score of 0.9; indicating several schools performing higher than mean score (16.77%), particularly schools scoring beyond 35 need attention. High kurtosis (with value of 2.9) suggests concentration of school averages around the mean indicating that most of the schools performed with a narrow variance as depicted by low standard deviation (6.67) of school averages.
Figure 12 Distribution of school average scores in science of class VIII
42
8
Provincial Content Strand Based Results Overall and content strand based students achievement in language, math, and science
is analyzed at province, region, and district levels. Content strand based scores and overall scores for each subject are provided in weighted percent averages instead of actual score points. Total score for each subject test was 40 points which were distributed among different content strands. Percent averages were calculated for each content strand and overall subject percent average score was calculated while accounting for weight of each content strand. Further, standard deviation for each subject based overall score is provided to indicate spread of scores. 8.4
Province level overall and content strand based student achievement at class V Province based analysis of results shows that performance in language is relatively
higher followed by math and science; however, overall average scores are significantly low in all subjects. While language overall percent average scores are just short of 33%, math and science percent average scores are only around 18% and 15% respectively. Table 8 shows province’s overall averages and content strand based averages for class V students. Table 8 Provincial level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in class V
Subject
Content Strand
Content Strand Average (%)
Subject& Overall Average (%)
Reading
54.16*
Writing
11.47†
Language Number & Operation
32.81
18.6
18.22
12.78
15.26
11.04
22.10
11.79
18.70 37.74*
Measurement Math Geometry
14.65 11.56†
Information Handling Life Science Science
Standard Deviation
14.76
Physical Science
14.49†
Earth & Space Science
28.46*
Overall Students’ Score (%)
Notes: 1. * represents the content strand wise highest score attained in class v across province 2. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in class v across province
43
Content strand based analysis, as provided in Table 8, shows three content areas reading, measurement, and earth & space science - in which students performed significantly higher than their subject averages. While average scores were higher in reading, scores were severely low in writing, about a 3rd of province’s language overall average score. In math, average score for measurement was found highest and significantly above the subject average, and scores for number and operations were almost equal to the subject average, whereas average scores for geometry and information handling were significantly lower than the subject average. In science, earth and space science score was found significantly higher, whereas life science and physical science were lower than science subject average score.
8.5
Province level overall and content strand based student achievement class VIII Class VIII students’ performance in language was relatively higher; whereas, overall
percent average score were found significantly low for math and science. Table 9 provides details for class VIII student achievement. Similar to students’ performance at class V, math and science overall performance was found below 20% at class VIII. Analysis of content stand based results revealed that students’ reading scores were significantly higher than writing scores and the language subject overall average. While class VIII students writing scores were significantly lower than the subject average, class VIII students performed relatively better than class V in writing. Looking at math content strand analysis, measurement and information handling scores were found significantly higher than subject average. Algebra scores were slightly below, whereas geometry fell significantly below the subject average. Looking at students’ science scores, there is not a strong variation in science content strands based performance of students. Life science and earth &space science were a little above and physical science fell slightly below subject average.
44
Table 9Provincial level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in class VIII
Subject
Content Strand
Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
55.94*
Writing
25.01†
Language
Math
Number & Operation
19.56
Algebra
15.86
Measurement
27.58
Geometry
4.26†
Standard Deviation
40.48
20.88
17.62
12.77
17.17
9.5
25.09
11.68
29.39*
Information Handling Life Science Science
Subject& Overall Average (%)
20.82
Physical Science
15.58†
Earth & Space Science
21.15*
Overall Students’ Score (%)
Notes: 1. * represents the content strand wise highest score attained in class v across province 2. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in class v across province
9
Regional Content Strand Based Results Although reading scores were found moderately high, with slight variations, overall
performance of six major regions of the province was found low in all subject areas; particularly severely low in math and science.
9.4
Region level language content strand based results class V Content strand based analysis of regions’ language scores in class V revealed that
Karachi took the lead in writing with score of 20.97% as well as in overall language performance with the score of 35.29%, whereas Mirpur Khas took the lead in reading comprehension with score of 59.24% of total test score in the respective content strand. See Table 10 for details. In contrast to higher score in writing, interestingly Karachi performed 45
lowest in reading comprehension with score of 49.62%, while Larkana performed lowest in writing skills with score of 8.31% of total test score in the respective content strand. Overall, all regions have performed relatively higher in reading comprehension; whereas, all regions have scored significantly low in writing. The high and low scoring contrast between reading comprehension and writing may mean that there is high emphasis on teaching reading skills compared to low focus on developing students’ writing skills. Traditionally, teachers have been also commonly observed dictating notes to students based on already written piece for writing tasks rather than engaging students to develop assigned writing on their own. Low writing score may also mean that language textbooks, which are the only resource for students and teachers in most of the schools, contain less than required number of writing tasks. These assumptions, and may be more, need to be studied systematically.
46
Table 10Regional level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in language of class V
S No
Region
Reading Average (%)
Writing Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From Province's Overall Average (%)
Standard Deviation
1
Karachi
49.62†
20.97
35.29
2.48
17.95
2
Mirpur Khas
59.24*
9.83
34.53
1.72
17.80
3
Hyderabad
56.74
11.08
33.91
1.10
18.33
4
Sukkur
54.97
10.28
32.62
-0.19
19.23
5
Shaheed Benazirabad
54.58
10.46
32.52
-0.29
18.64
6
Larkana
50.90
8.30†
29.60
-3.21
18.73
Notes: 1. * represents the content strand wise highest score attained in class V across regions 2. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in class V across regions
9.5
Region level math content strand based results class V Mirpur Khas took the lead in performance on math content strands except geometry in
which Karachi topped; whereas, Larkana performed lowest in all the content strands of class V math. Although regions’ scores in all content strands were found significantly low, measurement scores were relatively higher, and information handling scores were relatively lower across the regions. No significant differences were found among regions in overall math scores as difference from lowest to highest score turned out only 7.6 percent points, which indicates fewer variations among regions. Table 11 provides detailed analysis of class V region based scores.
47
Mirpur Khas
24.50
43.83*
16.54
15.70*
22.86
4.64
15.88
2
Karachi
18.43
37.21
17.24*
15.31
19.15
0.93
11.41
3
Hyderabad
19.52
39.34
15.05
11.98
18.95
0.73
13.20
4
Sukkur
18.48
37.91
14.49
10.05
17.88
-0.34
12.23
5
Shaheed Benazirabad
18.12
36.67
13.75
10.6
17.48
-0.74
12.76
6
Larkana
15.59
34.00
12.37
8.39
15.26
-2.96
10.68
Region
Standard Deviation
Geometry Average (%)
Difference From Province's Overall Average (%)
Measurement Average (%)
1
S. No
Overall Average (%)
Number & Operation Average (%)
Information Handling Average (%)
Table 11Regional level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in math of class V
Notes: 1. * represents the content strand wise highest score attained in class V across regions 2. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in class V across regions
9.6
Region level science content strand based results class V Mirpur Khas continued to take the lead in science overall as well as content strand
based scores except earth & space science in which Karachi topped. Table 12 provides details. Larkana region continued to perform lowest as its content strands based scores as well as overall scores were found lowest. All regions performed relatively higher in earth & space science; nonetheless, scores of the regions in all content strands were significantly low and difference between high scoring and low scoring regions were reasonably narrow, suggesting consistency of results. Variation among regions also appears to be low as difference between high score and low score was found only six percent points.
48
Table 12Regional level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in science of class V
S. No
Region
Life Science Average (%)
Physical Science Average (%)
Earth & Space Science Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From Province's Overall Average (%)
Standard Deviation
1
Mirpur Khas
18.39
17.62
32.06
18.56
3.30
13.10
2
Karachi
15.70
16.85
35.61*
17.47
2.21
10.11
3
Hyderabad
15.87
15.15
28.80
16.03
0.77
11.66
4
Sukkur
13.92
13.60
26.18
14.32
-0.94
10.55
5
Shaheed Benazirabad
13.87
13.42
27.06
14.23
-1.03
10.81
6
Larkana
12.42†
12.14†
24.45†
12.84
-2.42
9.38
Notes: 1. * represents the content strand wise highest score attained in class V across regions 2. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in class V across regions
9.7
Region level language content strand based results class VIII Content strand based analysis revealed that Mirpur Khas scored highest in reading
comprehension with a 5 percent point lead from the second highest scorer (Sukkur) and 12 points lead from the lowest scorer (Karachi). Shaheed Benazirabad scored highest in writing with score of 26.53% which is slightly higher from writing scores for Karachi and Sukkur regions. Table 13 provides details. Looking at contrast between lowest reading comprehension and writing scores, Karachi performed lowest in reading comprehension; whereas, Mirpur Khas performed lowest in writing with very slight difference from Hyderabad and Larkana. Difference between highest scoring and lowest scoring region is 12 percent points in reading comprehension compared to very low difference of 3 points in writing, suggesting severe deficiency of writing skills across the regions. Similar to class V performance, all regions performed higher on reading comprehension, whereas significantly lower in writing skills; although, writing scores are higher for class VIII compared to class V. While Mirpur Khas topped in the overall language scores, other regions are quite close as difference with Karachi, the lowest performing region, is only 4 points. Narrow differences suggest less variance and similarity in terms of high scores in reading comprehension and low scores in writing suggest consistency in results.
49
Table 13Region level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in language of class VIII
S.No
Region
Reading Average (%)
Writing Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From Province's Overall Average (%)
Standard Deviation
62.38*
23.32†
42.85
2.37
20.41
Sukkur
57.10
26.47
41.78
1.30
21.95
3
Shaheed Benazirabad
55.99
26.53
41.26
0.78
22.10
4
Hyderabad
57.98
23.45
40.72
0.24
20.35
5
Larkana
55.52
23.56
39.54
-0.94
21.67
6
Karachi
50.70†
26.44
38.57
-1.91
19.12
1
Mirpur Khas
2
Notes: 1. * represents the content strand wise highest score attained in class VIII across regions 2. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in class VIII across regions
9.8
Region level math content strand based results class VIII Mirpur Khas topped in all content strands of class VIII math except information
handling in which Karachi surpassed other regions; whereas, Larkana scored lowest in all content strands except measurement in which Shaheed Benazirabad scored lowest. Table 14 provides the details. All regions performed relatively higher in measurement and information handling compared to other three content strands; however, overall scores of all regions were found significantly low. Difference between lowest performing and highest performing regions is about 8.5 percent points suggesting small variation among the regions. Following earlier discussed trend, Mirpur Khas region continued to excel, whereas Larkana region continued to score lowest. Mirpur Khas’s difference from province’s average seems significant, indicating that there may be some outliers, which needs to be studied to learn and get some insights about future educational reforms.
50
Measurement Average (%)
Information Handling Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
21.83*
36.97*
6.64*
34.72
23.78
6.16
17.31
Hyderabad
20.56
16.08
28.07*
4.28
28.35
18.22
0.60
13.15
3
Karachi
19.44
16.05
28.78*
5.50
37.03*
18.16
0.54
11.67
4
Shaheed Benazirabad
18.59
15.27
24.35†
3.49
25.43
16.50
-1.12
12.45
5
Sukkur
17.77
14.29
25.64*
3.17
25.52
15.89
-1.73
11.20
6
Larkana
16.87†
13.78†
24.53
2.86†
24.50†
15.12
-2.50
10.67
Region
1
Mirpur Khas
2
Standard Deviation
Algebra Average (%)
26.47*
S. No
Geometry Average (%)
Number & Operation Average (%)
Difference From Province's Overall Average (%)
Table 14Regional level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in math of class VIII
Notes: 1. * represents the content strand wise highest score attained in class VIII across regions 2. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in class VIII across regions
9.9
Region level science content strand based results class VIII Analysis of class VIII content strand based and overall science scores confirm the
earlier performance trend as Mirpur Khas region continued performing at top in three content strands as well as overall scores, and Larkana region continued to fell in the very bottom of region based scores. However, overall scores for all regions are severely low as highest average score in any content strand is 24.24%.See Table 15 for details. Among three content strands, life science and earth & space science scores appear to be within same bracket of performance; however, physical science scores of all regions are slightly lower than other two content strands. Looking at overall averages, difference of 5 percent points between highest scoring and lowest scoring regions indicates smaller variation among regions’ scores.
51
Table 15Regional level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in science of class VIII
S No
Region
Life Science Average (%)
Earth & Space Science Average (%)
Physical Science Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From Province's Overall Average (%)
Standard Deviation
23.84*
19.55*
24.24*
20.86
3.69
11.62
Hyderabad
21.23
16.03
22.08
17.63
0.46
9.41
3
Karachi
21.60
15.85
20.54
17.53
0.36
9.22
4
Sukkur
20.28
15.03
20.42
16.61
-0.56
9.12
5
Shaheed Benazirabad
19.84
14.30
20.55
16.00
-1.17
9.17
†
†
†
15.53
-1.64
8.54
1
Mirpur Khas
2
6
Larkana
18.90
14.00
20.17
Notes: 1. * represents the content strand wise highest score attained in class VIII across regions 2. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in class VIII across regions
10
District Level Contented Strand based Results Class V Figure 13 depicts patterns in district based overall scores in language, math, and
science for class V. Relatively, language scores for all districts are significantly higher than math and science scores. With a few exceptions, most of the districts appear to be performing between 30% and 37% language average scores. With small variations, districts’ math and sciences average scores appear to be concentrated around 20% and 15% respectively. Detailed district based comparisons and content based achievements are discussed in subsequent parts. Further detailed profile for each district based on its performance in different content strands and taluka-based is provided in Appendix J.
52
Figure 13 Scattered representation of districts' overall scores of class V
District based overall student average score class V 45.00 Student Average Score
40.00
Overall Language
35.00 30.00
Overall Math
25.00 20.00 15.00
Overall Science
10.00 5.00 0.00 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Districts
10.4
District level language content strand based results class V Between the content strands of language, reading comprehension scores were
significantly higher than writing scores in all districts. Table 16 shows district based analysis and comparison between language content strands. Significantly higher scores in reading comprehension may mean that there is over-emphasis on teaching reading skills and very little focus on developing students’ writing skills in the targeted school population. Nonetheless, it is positive that 20 districts’ performance on reading comprehension was above 50% averages scores. Looking at top and bottom scores in reading comprehension, Sujawal performed on top and Hyderabad performed lowest; whereas, Karachi topped and Shikarpur scored lowest in writing. Severity of low performance in writing is obvious from the fact that only one district scored around 20% and rest of the districts performed below 14% with seven districts performing below 10% average score in writing. District based overall class V language average scores range from 25% to 39.65%, in which district Sujawal topped followed by several other rural districts, whereas Hyderabad performed lowest followed by several other districts with high urban population such as Sukkur and Larkana. However, Karachi scored 35.29%, which is few points below the bunch of higher scoring districts.
53
Table 16 Districts level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in language of class V
S.N o
District
1
Sujawal
2
Reading Average (%)
Writing Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From Province's Overall Average (%)
Standard Deviation
65.82*
13.49
39.65
6.72
18.65
Tando Muhammad Khan
60.80
13.11
36.96
4.03
18.89
3
Matiari
60.53
12.35
36.44
3.51
18.52
4
Jamshoro
60.25
11.74
35.99
3.06
17.77
5
Badin
61.24
10.41
35.82
2.89
17.34
6
Umerkot
61.24
10.23
35.74
2.81
17.44
7
Dadu
60.94
10.48
35.71
2.78
17.69
8
Khairpur
59.62
11.67
35.64
2.71
18.87
9
Shaheed Benazirabad
59.62
11.57
35.60
2.67
18.37
10
Karachi
49.62
20.97*
35.29
2.36
17.95
11
Mirpur Khas
57.61
11.89
34.75
1.82
18.33
12
Tharparkar
59.57
7.59
33.58
0.65
17.46
13
Jacobabad
54.93
12.13
33.53
0.71
19.93
14
Kashmore
55.78
11.06
33.42
0.49
20.39
15
Thatta
55.81
10.18
32.99
0.06
19.18
16
Ghotki
55.50
10.04
32.77
-0.16
19.20
17
TandoAllahyar
53.53
11.67
32.60
-0.33
17.52
18
NausheroFeroze
52.98
9.96
31.47
-1.46
19.13
19
QambarShahdadkot
54.01
8.33
31.17
-1.76
18.11
20
Sanghar
51.31
9.88
30.60
-2.33
17.89
21
Larkana
48.36
6.61
27.49
-5.44
17.85
22
Sukkur
44.48
7.64
26.06
-6.87
18.41
25.25
-7.68
17.16
25.03
-7.90
17.18
†
23
Shikarpur
44.59
5.92
24
Hyderabad
39.94†
10.11
Notes: 1. Districts are ranked from 1 to 24 (highest to lowest) based on overall average score. 2. *represents the content strand wise highest score attained in Language of class V across districts 3. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in Language of class V across districts 4. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit.
In column 6 of Table 16, positive difference means district performance above provincial average score, whereas negative difference means district performance below 54
provincial average score. Figure 14 illustrates more clearly the districts’ differences from the province’s mean score. Most of the districts’ standard deviations gathered around 17 to 18, which indicates similar and a modest variance of districts’ scores.
Figure 14 Districts' class V language difference from province's overall language average score 8 6 4 2
Hyderabad
Shikarpur
Sukkur
Larkana
Sanghar
Naushero Feroze
Tando Allahyar
Ghotki
Thatta
Kashmore
Jacobabad
Tharparkar
Mirpur Khas
Karachi
Dadu
Badin
Jamshoro
Umerkot
Khairpur
Matiari
Qambar Shahdadkot
-6
Shaheed Benazirabad
-4
Tando Muhammad Khan
-2
Sujawal
0
-8 -10
10.5
District level math content strand based results class V District level content strand based results analysis of class V math shows that all
districts performed significantly higher on measurement compared to other three content strands of math; nonetheless, measurement scores are below 50% ranging from 29.39% (Hyderabad) to 45.17% (Sujawal). See Table 17 for details. All districts also performed relatively higher on number and operations; however, top performing district (Mirpur Khas) scored only 25.75%, whereas lowest performing district (Shikarpur) scored 13.7% of maximum score for this content strand all districts performed significantly low on geometry and information handling, as score on these two content strands ranged from 12.06% 55
(Shikarpur) to 17.24% (Karachi) for geometry and 6.84% (Shikarpur) to 16.04% (Mirpur Khas) for information handling. Districts’ overall performance in class V math ranged from 13.7% to 23.78% average scores, where district Mirpur Khas performed highest and district Shikarpur performed lowest. An important aspect of districts’ overall math performance is that rural far-off districts such as Tharparkar, Umerkot, and Badin were among the top-performing districts, whereas districts with more urban population such as Hyderabad, Sukkur, and Larkana were among lowest performing districts, while district Karachi, with biggest urban population, scored somewhere around the middle. Although districts vary in content strand based as well as overall math performance, an indicator of overall variation (difference between lowest performing district and highest performing district) are considerably low, indicating low dispersion and consistency of results across the province. For example, consider these differences between lowest performing district and highest performing district: number and operations 12% points, measurement 16% points, geometry 5% points, information handling 9% points, and overall districts’ scores 10% points. Standard deviations also indicate somewhat smaller variance among districts.
56
Geometry
Information Handling
Overall
45.06
16.94
16.04*
23.78
5.54
15.72
Tharparkar
23.79
42.39
16.49
15.76
22.36
4.12
16.89
3
Badin
23.55
42.69
16.79
15.14
22.25
4.01
15.45
4
Umerkot
23.71
44.25
15.99
15.08
22.24
4.00
14.32
5
Sujawal
21.54
45.17*
15.97
12.60
20.80
2.56
13.40
6
Shaheed Benazirabad
21.66
42.26
15.68
14.29
20.79
2.55
15.05
7
Tando Muhammad Khan
20.46
41.61
15.78
13.01
19.95
1.71
12.97
8
Matiari
20.15
41.15
16.13
13.53
19.89
1.65
12.79
9
Dadu
20.36
41.90
16.02
11.64
19.80
1.56
14.30
10
Ghotki
20.02
40.55
15.14
10.86
19.19
0.95
12.85
11
Karachi
18.43
37.21
17.24*
15.31
19.15
0.91
11.41
12
Khairpur
19.38
39.38
15.02
10.63
18.70
0.46
12.46
13
Jamshoro
18.97
39.28
14.65
10.70
18.38
0.14
11.92
14
Kashmore
18.69
41.28
13.21
10.85
18.04
-0.20
12.62
15
TandoAllahyar
18.42
37.18
13.98
12.07
17.93
-0.31
11.71
16
Thatta
18.14
39.93
12.90
11.56
17.64
-0.60
12.19
17
Jacobabad
17.77
39.03
12.71
10.42
17.18
-1.06
11.76
18
NausheroFeroze
16.76
33.21
13.30
8.91
16.15
-2.09
12.22
19
Sanghar
16.08
34.84
12.32
8.77
15.64
-2.60
9.92
20
QambarShahdadkot
15.57
34.34
11.92
7.75
15.09
-3.15
10.38
21
Sukkur
14.67
31.57
12.58
7.82
14.56
-3.68
10.23
22
Larkana
14.29
30.27
12.33
7.70
14.18
-4.06
10.02
12.23
8.03
13.87
-4.37
8.48
12.06†
6.84†
13.70
-4.54
8.86
District
1
Mirpur Khas
2
23
Hyderabad
13.83
24
Shikarpur
13.72†
29.39
†
30.43
Notes: 1. Districts are ranked from 1 to 24 (highest to lowest) based on overall average score. 2. *represents the content strand wise highest score attained in Language of class V across districts 3. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in Language of class V across districts 4. All districts of Karachi are combined since it is considered as one administrative unit.
57
Standard Deviation
Measurement
25.75*
S.No
Difference From Province's Overall
Number & Operations
Table 17District level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in math of class V
Looking at another indicator of distribution of districts’ scores, pattern in difference from province’s average, six districts appear performing significantly above and seven districts below the province’s average, whereas rest fall somewhere in the middle. This pattern indicates somewhat symmetry in distribution or district scores. See Figure 15 for clear illustration of districts’ differences from the provinces’ mean score.
Figure 15 Districts' class V math difference from province's overall math average score 8 6 4 2
58
Shikarpur
Hyderabad
Larkana
Sukkur
Qambar Shahdadkot
Sanghar
Naushero Feroze
Jacobabad
Thatta
Tando Allahyar
Kashmore
Jamshoro
Khairpur
Karachi
Ghotki
Dadu
Matiari
Sujawal
Badin
Umerkot
Tando Muhammad Khan
-6
Shaheed Benazirabad
-4
Tharparkar
-2
Mirpur Khas
0
10.6
District level science content strand based results class V Students’ achievement scores for earth & space science were found comparatively
higher than other two content strands across the districts; however, overall science subject scores for all the districts were severely low as the highest scoring district (Mirpur Khas) scored only 20% in class V. District scores in life science ranged from 11.63% to 19.98%, in physical science ranged from 11.45% to 19.5%, and in earth and space science ranged from 23.56% to 35.61% of total respective subject’s test score. Karachi topped and Qambar Shahdadkot performed lowest in earth & space science. Mirpur Khas scored highest and Larkana performed lowest in both life science and physical science. See Table 18 for more details. Although variance among districts’ performance is visible, the difference of percent points between lowest performing and highest performing district in content strands as well as in overall results is approximately less than 10 per cent points, which indicates low variance among districts and consistency in results. Consistency in results is also reinforced by higher performance of all districts in earth and space science compared to other two content strands.
59
Table 18District level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in science of class V
S. No
District
Life Science Average (%)
Physical Science Average (%)
Earth & Space Science Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From Province's Overall Average (%)
Standard Deviation
19.98*
19.50*
35.31
20.42*
5.11
13.36
Umerkot
18.71
17.86
33.41
18.88
3.57
12.64
3
Sujawal
17.43
18.05
32.89
18.62
3.31
12.26
4
Badin
18.76
16.94
29.64
18.08
2.77
13.12
5
Tando Muhammad Khan
17.99
16.96
29.68
17.88
2.57
12.57
6
Karachi
15.70
16.85
35.61*
17.47
2.16
10.11
7
Shaheed Benazirabad
16.75
15.94
29.97
16.87
1.56
12.91
8
Tharparkar
16.67
15.67
28.10
16.57
1.26
12.86
9
Matiari
15.90
15.27
32.02
16.28
0.97
10.84
10
Dadu
15.73
15.40
26.94
16.07
0.76
12.16
11
TandoAllahyar
15.93
14.88
30.98
15.97
0.66
10.64
12
Jamshoro
15.74
14.78
28.44
15.73
0.42
11.17
13
Thatta
14.64
14.99
27.94
15.54
0.23
12.21
14
Ghotki
14.78
14.32
27.92
15.12
-0.19
10.80
15
Khairpur
14.49
14.03
26.00
14.76
-0.55
10.91
16
Kashmore
14.49
13.77
26.35
14.59
-0.72
10.38
17
Jacobabad
13.31
13.05
24.73
13.70
-1.61
9.56
18
Sanghar
12.93
12.61
26.59
13.40
-1.91
8.97
19
NausheroFeroze
12.08
11.84
24.81
12.56
-2.75
9.75
20
Shikarpur
11.71
11.97
24.80
12.55
-2.76
8.77
21
QambarShahdadkot
12.36
11.66
23.47†
12.46
-2.85
9.21
22
Sukkur
11.67
11.80
24.41
12.39
-2.92
9.12
23
Hyderabad
11.93
11.47
26.03
12.33
-2.98
8.21
24
Larkana
11.58†
11.42†
24.00
12.10
-3.21
9.16
1
Mirpur Khas
2
Notes: 1. Districts are ranked from 1 to 24 (highest to lowest) based on overall average score. 2. *represents the content strand wise highest score attained in Language of class v across districts 3. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in Language of class v across districts 4. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit.
60
Looking at difference from overall province’s average (Column 6 in Table 18), six districts’ perform significantly higher and almost same number of districts performed significantly lower than province’s overall science average score, which suggests modest symmetric distribution of districts’ class V science scores. See Figure 16 for clear illustration of districts’ differences from the provinces’ mean score.
Figure 16 Districts' class V science difference from province's overall science average score 6 5 4 3 2
11
Larkana
Hyderabad
Sukkur
Qambar Shahdadkot
Shikarpur
Naushero Feroze
Sanghar
Jacobabad
Kashmore
Khairpur
Ghotki
Thatta
Jamshoro
Dadu
Matiari
Tharparkar
Karachi
Badin
Tando Allahyar
-4
Shaheed Benazirabad
-3
Sujawal
-2
Umerkot
-1
Mirpur Khas
0
Tando Muhammad…
1
District Level Content Strand based Results Class VIII Figure 17 depicts patterns in district based overall scores in language, math, and
science for class VIII. Relatively, language scores for all districts are significantly higher than math and science scores. With a few exceptions, most of the districts appear to be performing between 38% and 45% language average scores. Districts’ math and science average scores appear to be concentrated between 15% and 20%, except a few districts performing above 20%. Detailed district based comparisons and content based achievements are discussed separately in subsequent parts.
61
Figure 17 Scattered representation of districts' overall scores class VIII
District based overall average scores class VIII 50
Student Average Score
45
Overall Language
40 35 30
Overall Math
25 20
Overall Science
15 10 5 0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
District
11.4
District level language content strand based results class VIII Consistent with contend strand based language performance of class V, all districts
scored significantly higher in reading comprehension compared to writing scores. See Table 19 for details. Reading comprehension scores ranged from 47.7% to 67.57% and writing scores ranged from 18.93% to 29.68%, with Tharparkar and Sujawal performing highest, whereas Sukkur and Hyderabad performing lowest in reading comprehension and writing respectively. Significantly low writing scores indicate severe deficiency of students in writing skills in the school population targeted in this assessment. Another important observation is that, in reading comprehension, many rural districts including Badin, Umerkot, Sujawal, Qambar Shahdadkot emerged as relatively higher scoring districts, whereas most of the districts with high urban population such as Sukkur, Hyderabad, Karachi, and Larkana scored among relatively lower scoring districts. There was not much variation in writing scores as most of the scores fell in the range of twenties; however, similar to reading comprehension scoring patterns, relatively high scoring districts in writing were also with high rural population such as Sujawal, Khairpur and Naushero Feroze. While Karachi performed among the relatively moderate performing districts, Hyderabad and Sukkur fell in relatively lower performing districts in writing.
62
District level class VIII overall language scores ranged from 33.56% to 46.51%, while Sujawal scored highest and Hyderabad scored lowest. Rural districts such as Sujawal, Tharparkar, Khairpur and Qambar Shahdadkot continued to lead the scores; whereas, districts with high urban population such as Sukkur, Hyderabad, Larkana and Karachi continued to perform in the bottom of district ranking.
Table 19District level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in language of class VIII
S.No
1 2 3 4 5
District
Sujawal Tharparkar Khairpur QambarShahdadkot Jamshoro
63.35 67.57* 61.20 62.00 62.85
29.68* 23.12 29.29 26.60 25.19
46.51 45.35 45.24 44.30 44.02
Difference From Province's Overall Average (%) 6.02 4.86 4.75 3.81 3.53
Reading Average (%)
Writing Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Standard Deviation
21.83 20.43 21.84 20.55 19.90
6 7 8 9 10 11
Umerkot Tando Muhammad Khan Shaheed Benazirabad Matiari Badin Dadu
63.27 60.37 60.28 60.86 61.65 61.67
23.83 26.47 26.25 25.59 24.68 23.44
43.55 43.42 43.27 43.22 43.16 42.56
3.06 2.93 2.78 2.75 2.69 2.07
20.52 19.87 21.32 20.79 19.56 20.22
12 13 14 15 16 17
NausheroFeroze Ghotki Thatta TandoAllahyar Kashmore Mirpur Khas
54.44 57.88 57.87 57.61 56.73 57.98
28.92 23.84 23.92 23.84 24.36 23.18
41.68 40.86 40.89 40.72 40.55 40.58
1.19 0.39 0.42 0.23 0.07 0.11
23.17 20.84 20.59 19.48 22.15 20.11
18 19 20 21 22 23
Jacobabad Sanghar Larkana Karachi Sukkur Shikarpur
56.12 54.04 54.19 50.70 47.70† 50.10
22.42 24.41 23.99 26.44 22.66 19.68
39.27 39.23 39.09 38.57 35.18 34.89
-1.22 -1.26 -1.40 -1.92 -5.30 -5.59
21.01 21.46 22.14 19.12 21.49 20.93
24
Hyderabad
48.18
18.93†
33.56
-6.93
19.29
Notes: 1. Districts are ranked from 1 to 24 (highest to lowest) based on overall average score. 2. *represents the content strand wise highest score attained in Language of class V across districts 3. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in Language of class V across districts 4. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit.
63
Standard deviations of districts appear to be mixed up which may mean that variance within districts did not follow a consistent pattern. Since districts’ differences with province’s average tend to be more positive compared to number of negative differences, it may mean slightly positively skewed distribution of districts’ language scores. See Figure 18 for clear illustration of districts’ differences from the provinces’ mean score. However, smaller difference 8 percent points between overall highest mean score and lowest mean score indicate that most of the score are concentrated around the mean score.
Figure 18 Districts' class VIII language overall score difference from province's overall language average score 12 10 8 6 4
11.5
Sukkur
Shikarpur
Larkana
Naushero Feroze
Kashmore
Thatta
Hyderabad
Jacobabad
Sanghar
Khairpur
Ghotki
Qambar Shahdadkot
Dadu
Tando Allahyar
Jamshoro
Karachi
Shaheed Benazirabad
Sujawal
Matiari
Umerkot
-6
Badin
-4
Mirpur Khas
-2
Tharparkar
0
Tando Muhammad…
2
District level math content strand based results class VIII Districts performance patterns show that all districts performed relatively better on
measurement and information handling compared to other content strands. See details in Table 20. Tharparkar topped in measurement and information handling with scores of 40.91% and 38.3% respectively; whereas, Shikarpur performed lowest in measurement with score of 21.48% and Sukkur performed lowest in information handling with score of 21.98%.Tharparkarcontinued to excel in other three content strands with scores of 30.39% on number and operations, 25.99% on algebra, and 8.73% on geometry, while Sukkur continued to perform lowest on these content strands with score of 14.86% on number and operations, 11.96% on algebra, and 2.49% on geometry. Although the analysis shows that scores in all content strands of class VIII math are significantly low, all districts performed severely low 64
on geometry, as scores ranged from 2.49% to 8.73%. Similarity the patterns of performance by districts in all content strands indicate consistency of content strand based results. Districts’ overall math scores ranged from 13.3% to 27.48% of total test score, indicating an overall low performance of all districts in class VIII math. While overall scores are low, rural districts such as Tharparkar, Umerkot, Badin, and Mirpur Khas continued to perform relatively higher, and urban districts such as Sukkur, Hyderabad and Larkana fell in the bottom of the performance rank, whereas Karachi performed somewhere in the middle.
65
Overall
Tharparkar
30.39*
25.99*
40.91*
8.73*
38.30*
27.48
9.85
19.98
2
Mirpur Khas
24.98
19.43
35.58
5.87
33.39
22.23
4.60
15.29
3
Badin
24.80
20.04
33.74
5.61
33.34
22.14
4.51
15.84
4
Umerkot
23.80
20.48
34.11
5.17
32.22
21.53
3.90
15.99
5
Matiari
23.08
17.93
27.51
5.69
29.40
20.22
2.59
14.85
6
Sujawal
21.25
15.24
27.58
3.91
30.95
18.54
0.91
12.61
7
Shaheed Benazirabad
20.78
17.09
27.13
4.26
25.79
18.37
0.74
13.34
8
Karachi
19.44
16.05
28.78
5.50
37.03
18.16
0.53
11.67
9
Jamshoro
20.37
15.43
31.95
3.57
28.72
18.11
0.48
12.15
10
TandoAllahyar
20.39
15.27
29.74
3.66
28.87
17.99
0.36
12.79
11
Dadu
20.46
15.53
26.45
4.38
26.99
17.91
0.28
13.69
12
QambarShahdadkot
18.83
15.25
30.19
2.93
24.55
16.83
-0.80
12.50
13
Ghotki
18.84
15.23
26.35
3.19
26.62
16.77
-0.86
11.40
14
Khairpur
18.72
15.01
27.17
3.49
26.74
16.76
-0.87
12.12
15
Sanghar
17.92
14.74
23.08
3.08
25.97
15.91
-1.72
11.06
16
Jacobabad
17.71
14.70
26.25
2.66
24.66
15.86
-1.77
10.78
17
Hyderabad
17.65
14.45
24.19
3.78
26.06
15.85
-1.78
9.95
18
Thatta
17.71
14.03
26.63
2.86
25.76
15.82
-1.81
11.72
19
Kashmore
17.78
14.40
25.04
2.75
23.20
15.71
-1.92
11.64
20
NausheroFeroze
17.47
14.32
23.35
3.28
24.60
15.58
-2.05
12.85
21
Tando Muhammad Khan
17.62
13.38
24.15
3.21
22.22
15.40
-2.23
10.11
22
Larkana
15.89
12.93
22.34
3.00
24.91
14.33
-3.30
9.72
23
Shikarpur
15.61
12.92
21.48
2.72
24.23
14.06
-3.57
9.38
24
Sukkur
14.86†
11.96†
21.77†
2.49†
21.98
13.30
-4.33
8.20
Notes: 1. Districts are ranked from 1 to 24 (highest to lowest) based on overall average score. 2. *represents the content strand wise highest score attained in Language of class v across districts 3. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in Language of class v across districts 4. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit.
66
Standard Deviation
Information Handling
Difference From Province's Overall
Geometry
1
S.No
Algebra
District
Number & Operations
Measurement
Table 20District level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in math of class VIII
Pattern of districts’ difference from province’s overall math average indicate mostly symmetric distribution of district scores, as six differences are significantly positive and five differences are significantly negative, whereas rest of the differences are not so significant, indicating majority scores concentrated around the mean score. See Figure 19 for pattern of districts’ differences from the province’s mean score. Pattern of districts’ standard deviation show that standard deviation lower as districts’ scores lower, indicating concentration of results around the mean and consistency in variation of results.
Figure 19 Districts' class VIII math overall score difference from province’s overall math average score 12 10 8 6 4 2
11.6
Sukkur
Shikarpur
Larkana
Tando Muhammad Khan
Naushero Feroze
Kashmore
Thatta
Hyderabad
Jacobabad
Sanghar
Khairpur
Ghotki
Qambar Shahdadkot
Dadu
Tando Allahyar
Jamshoro
Karachi
Sujawal
Matiari
Badin
Shaheed Benazirabad
-6
Umerkot
-4
Mirpur Khas
-2
Tharparkar
0
District level science content strand based results class VIII Content strand based analysis of class VIII science scores suggests that districts
continued to perform low as scores for life science ranged from 18.02% to 23.89%, for physical science ranged from 13.05% to 20.89%, and for earth & space science ranged from 18.42% to 26.02% of respective content strand’s maximum test scores. Almost all districts performed relatively higher in earth and space science and relatively lower in physical science. Tharparkar led in physical science and earth and space science, whereas Badin performed on top in life science.
67
Districts’ overall scores for class VIII science ranged from 14.68% to 21.88%, while Tharparkar scored highest and Naushero Feroze scored lowest. Looking at relatively high performing and low performing districts, rural districts continued to perform higher compared to urban districts. Table 21District level content strand based analysis of students’ scores in science of class VIII
S.N o
District
Life Science Average (%)
Earth & Space Science Average (%)
Physical Science Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Differenc e From Province' s Overall Average (%)
Standard Deviatio n
1
Tharparkar
23.86
20.87*
26.02*
21.88
4.71
13.44
2
Mirpur Khas
23.68
19.39
22.89
20.64
3.47
10.82
3
Badin
23.89
19.18
24.19
20.62
3.45
10.64
*
18.05
24.26
19.88
2.71
10.13
4
Umerkot
5
TandoAllahyar
22.43
16.64
25.21
18.51
1.34
9.39
6
Sujawal
21.90
16.11
22.47
17.87
0.70
9.49
7
Karachi Tando Muhammad Khan Khairpur
21.60
15.85
20.54
17.53
0.36
9.22
21.55
15.79
21.15
17.50
0.33
8.38
21.07
15.88
20.34
17.40
0.23
9.56
10
Jamshoro
21.30
15.71
20.69
17.36
0.19
8.53
11
Dadu
20.66
15.72
20.80
17.21
0.04
9.55
12
Matiari
20.14
15.83
21.00
17.19
0.02
9.13
13
QambarShahdadkot
20.75
15.58
20.88
17.14
-0.03
8.71
14
Sanghar
21.07
15.09
23.11
16.99
-0.18
9.23
15
Ghotki
20.33
15.03
21.39
16.67
-0.50
8.96
16
Shaheed Benazirabad
20.40
14.76
19.97
16.43
-0.74
8.96
17
Thatta
19.25
15.07
20.79
16.40
-0.77
8.92
18
Hyderabad
19.81
14.03
21.46
15.85
-1.32
8.40
19
Jacobabad
19.07
13.91
19.59
15.48
-1.69
8.71
20
Larkana
18.59
13.71
20.10
15.25
-1.92
8.72
13.60
19.71
15.01
-2.16
7.63
18.55
13.21
19.81
14.88
-2.29
8.00
†
†
20.60
14.67
-2.50
8.35
14.63
-2.54
9.11
8 9
21
Shikarpur
22
Sukkur
23 24
Kashmore NausheroFeroze
24.10
18.02 18.02
†
18.11
13.05
13.11
18.42
†
Notes: 1. Districts are ranked from 1 to 24 (highest to lowest) based on overall average score. 2. *represents the content strand wise highest score attained in Language of class V across districts 3. † represents the content strand wise lowest score attained in Language of class V across districts 4. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit.
68
Districts’ difference from province’s overall science average indicate overall symmetric distribution of district scores, with five differences significantly positive and four differences significantly negative. Rest of the differences are close to the province’s average score, which indicates that majority district scores are concentrated around the mean of districts’ scores. See Figure 20 for pattern of districts’ differences from the provinces’ mean score. Pattern of districts’ standard deviation show that standard deviations lower as districts’ scores lower, indicating concentration of results around the mean and consistency in variation of results.
Figure 20 Districts' class VIII science overall score difference from province’s overall science average score 6 5 4 3 2 1
12
Naushero Feroze
Kashmore
Sukkur
Shikarpur
Larkana
Jacobabad
Hyderabad
Thatta
Shaheed Benazirabad
Ghotki
Sanghar
Qambar Shahdadkot
Matiari
Dadu
Jamshoro
Khairpur
Tando Muhammad Khan
Karachi
Sujawal
Badin
Tando Allahyar
-3
Umerkot
-2
Mirpur Khas
-1
Tharparkar
0
Gender based analysis of results Province level gender based analysis of overall results for class V and class VIII
indicate girls slightly ahead of boys in language with 3.42% percent points difference in class V and 3.67% percent points difference in class VIII. Statistical significance of the variance in two groups’ (mean scores) in language achievement is not tested; therefore, it should be kept in view while interpreting the results. See Table 22 and Table 23 for details. Although province level average scores for math and science appear to be very slightly different for girls and boys, it may not be considered a difference in performance as scores are extremely 69
close. The overall scores of boys and girls in SAT III test show that girls performed slightly higher than boys, as evident from girls’ positive difference from province’s overall average in both classes. Girls’ high performance in overall scores could be an effect of girls’ higher mean scores in language. Standard deviation value for girls and boys are also very close which indicates a similar overall variation for both groups. Province level content strand based analysis shows that girls performed slightly higher in writing in both classes; however, rest of the content strands scores appear showing no apparent difference between girls and boys. See Appendix K for details. However, there may have been differences in performance at school, district, and region level in overall scores as well as scores based on different content strands within each subject, which need to be studied further. Table 22 Provincial level gender based analysis of students’ scores in class V
S. No
Gender
Language Average (%)
1
Female
2
Male
Note:
Difference from Province Overall Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
35.01*
17.89
15.47*
22.79
0.69
11.51
31.59
18.42*
15.15
21.72
-0.38
11.93
Standard Deviation
1. *represents the subject wise highest score attained in class V across gender
Table 23 Provincial level gender based analysis of students’ scores in class VIII
S. No
Gender
Language Average (%)
1
Female
2
Male
Note:
Difference from Province Overall Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
42.65*
18.15*
18.04*
26.28
1.19
11.31
38.98
17.26
16.57
24.27
-0.82
11.85
1. *represents the subject wise highest score attained in class VIII across gender
70
Standard Deviation
13
Location based analysis of results Analysis of results based on rural and urban locations shows no significant difference
between performances of students in these two localities as difference between location based averages is less than 1 percent point except in class VIII language, which is 2.33 percent points higher for rural students. Table 24 and Table 25 provide details of location based analysis of results. The slight difference in class VIII language performance needs to be studied further. Almost same results for both locations indicate that in general conditions of schooling and student background may be closely similar for two population groups in the schools targeted in SAT III assessment. A province level content strand based analysis of urban and rural students, provided in Appendix L, indicates that urban students performed slightly higher in writing and earth and space science content strands in class V, whereas rural students performed slightly higher in class VIII reading comprehension. Further, district based and region based analysis of content strands may reveal differences in specific content strands between the two location based student groups.
Table 24 Provincial level location based analysis of students’ scores in class V
S. No
Location
1
Rural
2
Urban
Note:
Language Average (%)
Difference from Province Overall Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
32.74
18.41*
15.11
22.09
-0.01
12.17
33.11*
17.87
15.68*
22.22
0.12
10.89
1. *represents the subject wise highest score attained in class V across gender
71
Standard Deviation
Table 25 Provincial level location based analysis of students’ scores in class VIII
S. No
Location
1
Rural
2
Urban
Language Average (%)
Difference from Province Overall Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
41.61*
17.90*
17.09
25.54
0.45
12.05
39.28
17.34
17.26*
24.63
-0.91
11.25
Note:
1. *represents the subject wise highest score attained in class VIII across gender
14
School type based analysis of results
Standard Deviation
Analysis based on school type, as provided in Table 26, revealed no major differences among students in three types of schools. In class V language, students in girls’ schools performed higher followed by students in boys’ schools and mixed schools. Class V math students in mixed schools performed equal to boys’ schools; however, slightly higher than students’ in girls’ schools. Analysis of science scores also revealed no difference between students in girls’ schools and boys’ schools, however students in both of these school types performed slightly higher than students in mixed schools.
Table 26 Provincial level school type based analysis of students’ scores in class V
S. No
School Type
Language Average (%)
1
Boys’ Schools
2 3 Note:
Overall Average (%)
Difference from Province Overall Average (%)
Standard Deviation
Math Average (%)
Science Average (%)
32.37
18.53
15.27
22.06
-0.04
11.93
Girls’ Schools
35.08*
17.13
15.49*
22.57
0.47
11.29
Mixed Schools
28.05
18.56*
13.29
19.97
-2.13
10.53
1. *represents the subject wise highest score attained in class V across gender
72
There are two types of schools at class VIII – girls’ schools and boys’ schools. Class VIII scores illustrate that, in language and science, students in girls’ schools performed slightly higher than students in boys’ schools. Difference in class VIII science performance did not appear significant between two types of schools. Similarly girls’ schools performed slightly higher in overall average scores. See Table 27 for more details. Province level content strand based analysis of two types of schools reveals that girls performed slightly higher in writing across the classes, whereas rest of the content strand based differences were not large enough. See Appendix M for details. Further content based analysis at district and region level may reveal more content strand specific differences.
Table 27 Provincial level school type based analysis of students’ scores in class VIII
S. No
School Type
Language Average (%)
1
Boys Schools
2
Girls’ Schools
Overall Average (%)
Difference from Province Overall Average (%)
Standard Deviation
Math Average (%)
Science Average (%)
39.25
17.44
16.63
24.44
-0.65
11.88
42.93*
18.01*
18.24*
26.40
1.31
11.16
Note:
1. *represents the subject wise highest score attained in class VIII across gender
15
District based analysis of SEF schools results class V SEF school students of only class V from nine districts appeared in SAT III test.
Patterns in SEF school districts performance are not as visible as reported in main districts analysis; however, most of the SEF districts seem to be performing relatively higher in language followed by math, and lowest in science. Most of the scores are below 30% except three districts’ score in language and one district’s score in math. Figure 21 illustrates overview of overall SEF districts’ scores. A few districts’ math scores are also high, while a couple of districts seem to be performing relatively lower in language.
73
Figure 21 Scattered representation of SEF districts' overall scores of class V 45 40 Student Average Score
35
Avg. Lang. Overall Perc.
30 25
Avg. Maths Overall Perc.
20 15 10
Avg. Science Overall Perc.
5 0 0
2
4
6
8
10
Districts
15.4
SEF school districts’ content strand based analysis of results language class V SEF schools of district Dadu performed significantly higher on reading
comprehension, writing, and overall language scores compared to SEF schools in other nine districts. Table 28 provides content strand based analysis of SEF schools in ten districts. Following general performance trends in districts of the province, SEF schools across the districts performed higher in reading comprehension and significantly lower in writing skills. Severity of SEF schools’ low performance in writing is visible by the fact that seven out of nine districts scored below 10% average score in writing. Looking at overall performance in language, SEF schools appeared performing lower than other school types targeted in SAT III assessment as seven out of nine SEF schools’ districts have negative difference with respective district’s overall average score and province’s average score.
74
Table 28SEF schools’ district wise content strand based analysis of students’ scores in language of class V
S No
District
1
Dadu
2
Reading Average (%)
Overall Language Average (%)
Writing Average (%)
Difference with Main District Average (%)
Difference with Province Average (%)
65.42*
16.44*
40.93
5.22
8.00
Tharparkar
55.62
12.19
33.91
0.33
0.98
3
Thatta
53.37
10.82
32.10
-0.89
-0.83
4
Qambar Shahdadkot
48.53
8.59
28.56
-2.61
-4.37
5
Khairpur
49.08
7
28.04
-7.60
-4.89
6
Umerkot
42.19
8.53
25.36
-10.38
-7.57
7
Larkana
41.57
6.72
24.14
-3.35
-8.79
8
Shaheed Benazirabad
40.32
5.17
22.74
-12.86
-10.19
†
†
17.64
-18.18
-15.29
9
Badin
32.7
2.58
Notes: 1. *represents the subject content wise highest score attained in class V across SEF school 2. †represents the subject content wise lowest score attained in class V across SEF school
15.5
SEF school districts’ content strand based analysis of results math class V SEF district Tharparkar took the lead in number & operations and information
handling, whereas Thatta and Dadu scored higher in measurement and geometry respectively. Larkana and Shaheed Benazirabad performed lowest in math among SEF districts. See Table 29 for details. Similar to trends in main districts, SEF districts performed higher in measurement; however, scores for some districts are significantly higher. A couple of SEF districts, Tharparkar and Dadu, also appeared performing significantly higher in number and operations compared to main districts. Four SEF districts performed higher than their comparable main districts’ overall averages and six SEF districts performed higher than province’s overall average score suggesting slightly higher overall performance of SEF districts in class V math.
75
Information Handling Average (%)
Overall Math Average (%)
Difference with Main District Average (%)
Difference with Province Average (%)
District Standard Deviation
Tharparkar
Geometry Average (%)
1
District
Measurement Average (%)
S No
Number &Operation Average (%)
Table 29SEF schools’ district wise content strand based analysis of students’ scores in math of class V
41.48*
58.33
12.50
23.75*
33.28
10.92
15.04
3.66
*
21.45
25.80
6.00
7.56
10.17
2
Dadu
27.55
56.98
3
Thatta
22.58
60.25*
10.74
15.52
21.56
3.92
3.32
11.69
4
Khairpur
23.3
42.94
13.43
12.63
20.97
2.27
2.73
12.73
5
Umerkot
22.91
33.33
13.71
15.28
20.44
-1.8
2.2
10.76
6
Badin
19.37
43.17
12.46
11.8
18.48
-3.77
0.24
7.95
7
QambarShahdadkot
16.95
35.92
9.97
8.09
15.52
0.43
-2.72
9.09
8
Shaheed Benazirabad
17.29
28.17†
6.94†
10.42
14.66
-6.13
-3.58
7.69
14.39
0.21
-3.85
8.97
9
Larkana
15.91
†
30.88
14.76
10.33
5.95
†
Notes:1. *represents the subject content wise highest score attained in Math of class V across SEF school 2. † represents the subject content wise lowest score attained in Math of class V across SEF school
15.6
SEF school districts’ content strand based analysis of results science class V Similar to performance trend in all districts, SEF school districts also performed
relatively higher in earth and space science, while their scores are approximately similar in life science and physical science. Dadu topped in physical science and earth & space science followed by Tharparkar in life science, whereas Shaheed Benazirabad scored lowest in all content strands. SEF districts modestly varied in overall scores as indicated by difference of about eleven percent points between relatively high-performing and low-performing SEF districts. Overall, SEF school districts appeared to be performing slightly lower than main districts as indicated by negative difference of six out of nine SEF districts’ scores with
The difference with province and district has been extracted by deducting the SEF subject average % from overall province subject average % and overall district subject % average. The subject standard deviation is calculated at district level.
76
relevant main districts. Approximately same is indicated by analysis of SEF districts’’ difference with province’s overall averages. See Table 30 for details.
Dadu
18.86
*
20.28
0.00
†
District Standard Deviation
36.49*
Difference with Province Average (%)
20.49*
Difference with District Average (%)
18.48
Overall Science Average (%)
Earth & Space Science Average (%)
1
District
Physical Science Average (%)
S No
Life Sciences Average (%)
Table 30SEF schools’ district wise content strand based analysis of students’ scores in science of class V
20.73
4.66
5.42
7.65
18.88
2.31
3.57
7.26
2
Tharparkar
3
Umerkot
16.28
15.04
27.84
16.02
-2.86
0.71
9.40
4
Thatta
17.62
15.15
16.3
15.89
0.35
0.58
10.32
5
Badin
14.31
12.91
24.59
13.88
-4.2
-1.43
16.63
6
Khairpur
12.81
12.95
24.66
13.49
-1.27
-1.82
10.00
7
Qambar Shahdadkot
12.78
10.98
22.7
12.06
-0.4
-3.25
9.03
8
Larkana
9.55
10.3
18.6
10.51
-1.59
-4.8
9.51
9
Shaheed Benazirabad
8.88†
9.69†
16.55
9.81
-7.06
-5.5
8.22
Notes:1.*represents the subject content wise highest score attained in Science of class V across SEF school 2.†represents the subject content wise lowest score attained in Science of class V across SEF school
The difference with province and district has been extracted by deducting the SEF subject average % from overall province subject average % and overall district subject % average. The subject standard deviation is calculated at district level.
77
SECTION THREE: COMPARATIVE RESULTS
78
16
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RESULTS This section presents different comparative analyses. District-based analysis of
comparison between class V and class VIII is provided based on performance in different content strands and separate for each subject. Since assessment framework for both grades was same in the three subjects, comparative analysis of content strand based scores (and overall scores) illustrates an overall comparative performance of the two classes. Further comparative analysis comprises of district-based inter-subject comparison of student scores, district-based comparison of four performance levels ranging from low to exceptional levels, and comparative analysis of SAT I, SAT II, and SAT III results. Comparative analyses identify several areas for further exploration and research.
16.4
Province level language content strand based comparison between class V and class VIII scores Content strand based comparison between class V and class VIII performance (in
terms of scores) provides each district’s scores in both grades as well as positive or negative differences based on how higher or lower class VIII performed in comparison to class V. Hence, positive difference means class VIII’s higher score in percent points; whereas, negative difference means class VIII’s lower score in comparison to corresponding class V scores. As provided in Table 31, content strand based comparative analysis of language revealed that class VIII performed moderately higher in reading comprehension with positive difference in 22 districts(out of 24) and significantly higher in writing with positive difference in all districts. Class VIII’s positive differences in reading comprehension ranged from 0.33 to 8.24 percent points with 12 districts’ differences significantly higher, ranging from 2 to 8.24 percent points. Districts’ differences in writing scores ranged from 11.3 to 18.95 percent points suggesting all districts’ performance significantly higher in class VIII writing that is possibly because of relative higher emphasis on writing in class VIII curriculum and instructions. Although differences in districts’ performance in writing are significantly higher for class VIII, overall performance in writing is significantly low for all districts in both classes. This may mean that, across the classes, there is higher emphasis on reading in grade level 79
curricula, teaching, assessment and so on that needs to be further studied systematically. Another important aspect revealed in the comparative analysis is the significantly lowperforming districts in class V writing have scored quite higher in class VIII writing that asks for further systematic exploration. Table 31 Comparative content strand based results of language of class V & VIII Reading Comprehension
Writing
Class
S
District
No
V
VIII
VIII’s Difference
Class V
VIII
VIII’s Difference
to V
to V
1
Tharparkar
59.57
67.57
8.00
7.59
23.12
15.53
2
Sujawal
65.82
63.35
-2.47
13.49
29.68
16.19
3
Umerkot
61.24
63.27
2.03
10.23
23.83
13.59
4
Jamshoro
60.25
62.85
2.60
11.74
25.19
13.46
5
Qambar Shahdadkot
54.01
62.00
7.99
8.33
26.60
18.27
6
Dadu
60.94
61.67
0.73
10.48
23.44
12.96
7
Badin
61.24
61.65
0.41
10.41
24.68
14.27
8
Khairpur
59.62
61.20
1.58
11.67
29.29
17.62
9
Matiari
60.53
60.86
0.33
12.35
25.59
13.24
10
Tando Muhammad Khan
60.80
60.37
-0.43
13.11
26.47
13.36
11
Shaheed Benazirabad
59.62
60.28
0.66
11.57
26.25
14.68
12
Mirpur Khas
57.61
57.98
0.37
11.89
23.18
11.30
13
Ghotki
55.50
57.88
2.38
10.04
23.84
13.80
14
Thatta
55.81
57.87
2.06
10.18
23.92
13.74
15
Tando Allahyar
53.53
57.61
4.08
11.67
23.84
12.17
16
Kashmore
55.78
56.73
0.95
11.06
24.36
13.30
17
Jacobabad
54.93
56.12
1.20
12.13
22.42
10.29
18
Naushero Feroze
52.98
54.44
1.46
9.96
28.92
18.95
19
Larkana
48.36
54.19
5.82
6.61
23.99
17.38
20
Sanghar
51.31
54.04
2.73
9.88
24.41
14.53
21
Karachi
49.62
50.70
1.08
20.97
26.44
5.48
22
Shikarpur
44.59
50.10
5.51
5.92
19.68
13.76
23
Hyderabad
39.94
48.18
8.24
10.11
18.93
8.82
24
Sukkur
44.48
47.70
3.22
7.64
22.66
15.02
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
80
16.5
Province level math content strand based comparison class V and class VIII Table 32 presents comparison of math scores in “number and operations” and
“measurement” as well as percent point differences between class V and class VIII district scores. Overall districts appeared to be performing slightly higher in class VIII with 15 positive differences compared to corresponding scores in class V. Positive differences ranged from 0.1 to 6.6 percent points whereas negative differences ranged from - 0.06 to – 2.84 percent points indicating most of the districts performing higher or lower with narrow margin. While class VIII students seem to be performing slightly higher than class V, overall scores of all districts for both grades are significantly lower, mostly concentrated around 20% with variation of few points higher or lower. Differences between districts’ scores in class VIII and class V measurement are all negative ranging from - 4.15 to - 17.59 percent points, which means class V performed significantly higher. While interpreting these differences, curriculum of grades must be taken into account. Class V curriculum have very limited contents in measurement compared to class VIII that has many concepts mostly integrated with geometry. So relatively simpler content in class V could be a reason for relative higher performance in class V. Measurement is also mostly integrated with geometry; therefore, it makes more sense while presented in integration with geometric concepts. Separation of measurement concepts from geometry may have led to relative moderate performance in both grades and relative higher performance in class V in which measurement is more clearly visible in the curriculum and textbooks. Nonetheless, reasons for differences need to be studied systematically.
81
Table 32 Comparative content strand based results of math class V & VIII Number & Operations
Measurement
Class
S
District
No
V
VIII’s
VIII
Difference
Class V
VIII
VIII’s Difference
to V
to V
1
Badin
23.55
24.80
1.25
42.69
33.74
-8.95
2
Dadu
20.36
20.46
0.10
41.90
26.45
-15.45
3
Ghotki
20.02
18.84
-1.18
40.55
26.35
-14.20
4
Hyderabad
13.83
17.65
3.81
29.39
24.19
-5.20
5
Jacobabad
17.77
17.71
-0.06
39.03
26.25
-12.78
6
Jamshoro
18.97
20.37
1.41
39.28
31.95
-7.33
7
Kashmore
18.69
17.78
-0.91
41.28
25.04
-16.25
8
Khairpur
19.38
18.72
-0.66
39.38
27.17
-12.21
9
Larkana
14.29
15.89
1.60
30.27
22.34
-7.93
10
Matiari
20.15
23.08
2.94
41.15
27.53
-13.62
11
Mirpur Khas
25.75
24.98
-0.76
45.06
35.58
-9.48
12
Naushero Feroze
16.76
17.47
0.70
33.21
23.35
-9.86
13
Qambar Shahdadkot
15.57
18.83
3.26
34.34
30.19
-4.16
14
Sanghar
16.08
17.92
1.84
34.84
23.08
-11.76
15
Shaheed Benazirabad
21.66
20.78
-0.88
42.26
27.13
-15.12
16
Shikarpur
13.72
15.61
1.88
30.43
21.48
-8.95
17
Sujawal
21.54
21.25
-0.28
45.17
27.58
-17.59
18
Sukkur
14.67
14.86
0.19
31.57
21.77
-9.80
19
Tando Allahyar
18.42
20.39
1.96
37.18
29.74
-7.43
20.46
17.62
-2.84
41.61
24.15
-17.46
20
Tando Muhammad Khan
21
Tharparkar
23.79
30.39
6.60
42.39
40.91
-1.48
22
Thatta
18.14
17.73
-0.41
39.93
26.63
-13.29
23
Umerkot
23.71
23.80
0.09
44.25
34.11
-10.15
24
Karachi
18.43
19.44
1.01
37.21
28.78
-8.43
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
All districts also performed higher in class V geometry compared to class VIII as differences emerged all negatives, ranging from - 7.71 to – 14.49 percent points. Table 33 provides details. High negative differences are partially because of very low performance by 82
all districts in class VIII geometry compared to other content strands. Another reason could be sequence of grade level math curriculum (and math textbooks) in which geometry is usually one of the last couple of units, which increases the probability of no coverage for geometry in teaching of math in an academic year.
Table 33 Comparative content strand based results of math class V & VIII Geometry
Information Handing
Class
S
District
No
V
VIII
VIII’s Difference
Class V
VIII
VIII’s Difference
to V
to V
1
Badin
16.79
5.61
-11.18
15.14
33.34
18.20
2
Dadu
16.02
4.38
-11.65
11.64
26.99
15.35
3
Ghotki
15.14
3.19
-11.95
10.86
26.62
15.76
4
Hyderabad
12.23
3.78
-8.46
8.03
26.06
18.03
5
Jacobabad
12.71
2.66
-10.04
10.42
24.66
14.24
6
Jamshoro
14.65
3.57
-11.08
10.70
28.72
18.02
7
Kashmore
13.21
2.75
-10.46
10.85
23.20
12.35
8
Khairpur
15.02
3.49
-11.53
10.63
26.74
16.11
9
Larkana
12.33
3.00
-9.33
7.70
24.91
17.21
10
Matiari
16.13
5.69
-10.43
13.53
29.40
15.87
11
Mirpur Khas
16.94
5.87
-11.07
16.04
33.39
17.35
12
Naushero Feroze
13.30
3.28
-10.02
8.91
24.60
15.69
13
Qambar Shahdadkot
11.92
2.93
-8.98
7.75
24.55
16.80
14
Sanghar
12.32
3.08
-9.24
8.77
25.97
17.20
15
Shaheed Benazirabad
15.68
4.26
-11.41
14.29
25.79
11.50
16
Shikarpur
12.06
2.72
-9.34
6.84
24.23
17.39
17
Sujawal
15.97
3.91
-12.07
12.60
30.95
18.35
18
Sukkur
12.58
2.49
-10.09
7.82
21.98
14.16
19
Tando Allahyar
13.98
3.66
-10.32
12.07
28.87
16.80
20
Tando Muhammad Khan
15.78
3.21
-12.58
13.01
22.22
9.20
21
Tharparkar
16.49
8.73
-7.76
15.76
38.30
22.54
22
Thatta
12.90
2.86
-10.05
11.56
25.76
14.20
23
Umerkot
15.99
5.17
-10.82
15.08
32.22
17.14
24
Karachi
17.24
5.50
-11.74
15.31
37.03
21.73
Note:
1.Class V National Curriculum and text books do not cover direct learning of Algebra, hence it is being excluded from comparative analysis of Class V & VIII. 2. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
83
Contrary to measurement and geometry, Table 33 shows that class VIII performed relatively and significantly higher in information handling as all differences were positive and quite high for all districts ranging from 7.89 to 26.18 percent points. It seems, differences were high partially because performance for this content strand in class V was quite low possibly an effect of placing information handling as the last unit in class V curriculum that increases the chance of non-coverage of this unit in the teaching of math. Nonetheless, these all assumptions offered to explain differences need to be studied systematically in order to inform future reforms in math.
16.6
Province level science content strand based comparison class V and class VIII Comparative analysis between two grades revealed that class VIII students performed
slightly higher in physical science and moderately higher in life science, whereas class V students performed significantly higher in earth & space science. See Table 34 for details. There are 18 positive differences in physical science that means 18 districts performed comparatively higher in class VIII; however, only 6 positive differences are above 2 percent points suggesting that overall performance is just slightly higher for class VIII. These are comparisons based on overall mean scores of classes, curriculum differences should be considered while interpreting these differences. All of the differences in life science are positive and ranged from 3.53% to 8.39%, with 16 districts’ differences higher than 5 percent points, suggesting class VIII students performed significantly higher in life science. Another important aspect is that some lowperforming districts in class V life science such as Sukkur, Shikarpur, Larkana, Hyderabad, and Qambar Shahdadkot performed reasonably higher in class VIII life science. District based comparison for earth & space science shows that all districts performed relatively higher in class V as all of the differences are negative ranging from -3.08% to 15.07% with 19 districts’ differences less than -5 percent points. Nature of curriculum and learning material could affect the scores, as earth & space portion is quite small in curriculum for both classes and relatively even smaller for class V, the differences should be interpreted cautiously. Nonetheless, comparison of scores for two classes showed clearly that all districts scored higher in class V which warns further investigation of reasons behind this pattern of difference. 84
Table 34 Comparative content strand based results of science class V & VIII
VIII
V
VIII
Class VIII to V
V
Difference from
VIII
Class VIII to V
V
Earth & Space Science
Difference from
District
No
Life Science Class VIII to V
S
Difference from
Physical Science
1
Badin
16.94
19.19
2.25
18.76
23.89
5.13
29.64
24.19
-5.45
2
Dadu
15.40
15.72
0.32
15.73
20.66
4.93
26.94
20.80
-6.14
3
Ghotki
14.32
15.03
0.71
14.78
20.33
5.55
27.92
21.39
-6.53
4
Hyderabad
11.47
14.03
2.56
11.93
19.81
7.88
26.03
21.46
-4.57
5
Jacobabad
13.05
13.91
0.86
13.31
19.07
5.77
24.73
19.59
-5.14
6
Jamshoro
14.78
15.71
0.94
15.74
21.30
5.56
28.44
20.69
-7.75
7
Kashmore
13.77
13.05
-0.72
14.49
18.02
3.53
26.35
20.60
-5.74
8
Khairpur
14.03
15.88
1.85
14.49
21.07
6.58
26.00
20.34
-5.67
9
Larkana
11.42
13.71
2.29
11.58
18.59
7.01
24.00
20.10
-3.89
10
Matiari
15.27
15.85
0.58
15.90
20.16
4.25
32.02
21.02
-11.00
11
Mirpur Khas
19.50
19.39
-0.11
19.98
23.68
3.71
35.31
22.89
-12.42
12
Naushero Feroze
11.84
13.11
1.27
12.08
18.11
6.04
24.81
18.42
-6.39
13
Qambar Shahdadkot
11.66
15.58
3.91
12.36
20.75
8.39
23.47
20.88
-2.59
14
Sanghar
12.61
15.09
2.48
12.93
21.07
8.14
26.59
23.11
-3.48
15
Shaheed Benazirabad
15.94
14.76
-1.18
16.75
20.40
3.65
29.97
19.97
-10.00
16
Shikarpur
11.97
13.60
1.62
11.71
18.00
6.29
24.80
19.71
-5.09
17
Sujawal
18.05
16.11
-1.94
17.43
21.90
4.47
32.89
22.47
-10.42
18
Sukkur
11.80
13.21
1.41
11.67
18.55
6.89
24.41
19.81
-4.60
19
Tando Allahyar
14.88
16.64
1.76
15.93
22.43
6.50
30.98
25.21
-5.76
16.96
15.79
-1.17
17.99
21.55
3.56
29.68
21.15
-8.53
20
Tando Muhammad Khan
21
Tharparkar
15.67
20.87
5.20
16.67
23.86
7.19
28.10
26.02
-2.08
22
Thatta
14.99
15.07
0.08
14.64
19.25
4.60
27.94
20.79
-7.15
23
Umerkot
17.86
18.05
0.19
18.71
24.10
5.39
33.41
24.26
-9.15
24
Karachi
16.85
15.85
-1.00
15.70
21.60
5.91
35.61
20.54
-15.07
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
85
17
District-based Inter-subject Comparisons Districts were ranked based on their overall score in each subject. Super script number
on each score indicates a district’s ranking in concerned subject, as shown in Table 35. Some overall patterns are visible in district based inter-subject comparison of performance. Most of the districts emerged following this order in their subject based average scores: highest score in language, followed by score in math, and lowest score in science. This pattern indicates consistency of performance and scoring in different subject based tests. Another pattern, with few variations, is that districts’ scores in three subjects vary 3 to 5 ranking points up or down compared to their highest score in a subject. For example Sujawal is ranked 1st in language, whereas it is ranked 5thin math and ranked 3rdin science. Similarly Karachi is ranked 10th in language, 11th in math, 6th in science. Example of an exception includes Jamshoro which is 4th in language, 12th in science and 13th in math. Khairpur, Mirpur Khas, and Tharparkar also deviate from the pattern of performance, scoring relatively quite high or quite low from their highest ranking.
86
Table 35 District-based inter-subject comparison of performance class V S. No
District
Language
Math
Science
Overall
Average (%)
Average (%)
Average (%)
Average (%)
1
Sujawal
39.651
20.805
18.623
26.361
2
Mirpur Khas
34.7511
23.781
20.421
26.322
3
Umerkot
35.746
22.244
18.882
25.623
4
Badin
35.825
22.253
18.084
25.394
5
Tando Muhammad Khan
36.962
19.957
17.885
24.935
6
Shaheed Benazirabad
35.609
20.796
16.877
24.426
7
Matiari
36.443
19.898
16.289
24.207
8
Tharparkar
33.5812
22.362
16.578
24.178
9
Karachi
35.2910
19.1511
17.476
23.979
10
Dadu
35.717
19.809
16.0710
23.8610
11
Jamshoro
35.994
18.3813
15.7312
23.3711
12
Khairpur
35.648
18.7012
14.7615
23.0312
13
Ghotki
32.7716
19.1910
15.1214
22.3613
14
Tando Allahyar
32.6017
17.9315
15.9711
22.1714
15
Thatta
32.9915
17.6416
15.5413
22.0615
16
Kashmore
33.4214
18.0414
14.5916
22.0216
17
Jacobabad
33.5313
17.1817
13.7017
21.4717
18
Naushero Feroze
31.4718
16.1518
12.5619
20.0618
19
Sanghar
30.6020
15.6419
13.4018
19.8819
20
Qambar Shahdadkot
31.1719
15.0920
12.4621
19.5720
21
Larkana
27.4921
14.1822
12.1024
17.9221
22
Sukkur
26.0622
14.5621
12.3922
17.6722
23
Shikarpur
25.2523
13.7024
12.5520
17.1723
24
Hyderabad
25.0324
13.8723
12.3323
17.0824
Notes: 1. Districts are ranked from 1 to 24 (highest to lowest) based on overall average score. 2. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
There seems to be more variation in class VIII district based rankings in three subjects. About fourteen districts performance in three subjects varies with margin of maximum 5 rankings; however, rankings of ten districts are more scattered; at least one of their ranking significantly stretching away. Umerkot, Dadu, Thatta and Ghotki are examples
87
of close rankings in three subjects. Tharparkar, Mirpur Khas and Jamshoro are examples of relatively high variation in performance.
Table 36 District-based inter-subject comparison of performance class VIII Language
Math
Science
Overall
Average (%)
Average (%)
Average (%)
Average (%)
Tharparkar
45.352
27.481
21.881
31.571
2
Badin
43.1610
22.143
20.613
28.642
3
Umerkot
43.556
21.534
19.884
28.333
4
Mirpur Khas
40.5816
22.232
20.642
27.824
5
Sujawal
46.511
18.546
17.876
27.645
6
Matiari
43.229
20.235
17.1912
26.886
7
Jamshoro
44.025
18.119
17.3610
26.507
8
Khairpur
45.243
16.7614
17.409
26.478
9
Qambar Shahdadkot
44.304
16.8312
17.1413
26.099
10
Shaheed Benazirabad
43.278
18.377
16.4316
26.0310
11
Dadu
42.5611
17.9111
17.2111
25.8911
12
Tando Allahyar
40.7215
17.9910
18.515
25.7412
13
Tando Muhammad Khan
43.427
15.4021
17.508
25.4413
14
Ghotki
40.8614
16.7713
16.6715
24.7714
15
Karachi
38.5721
18.168
17.537
24.7515
16
Thatta
40.8913
15.8218
16.4017
24.3716
17
Sanghar
39.2319
15.9115
16.9914
24.0417
18
Naushero Feroze
41.6812
15.5820
14.6324
23.9618
19
Kashmore
40.5517
15.7119
14.6723
23.6419
20
Jacobabad
39.2718
15.8616
15.4819
23.5420
21
Larkana
39.0920
14.3322
15.2520
22.8921
22
Hyderabad
33.5624
15.8517
15.8518
21.7522
23
Shikarpur
34.8923
14.0623
15.0021
21.3223
24
Sukkur
35.1822
13.3024
14.8822
21.1224
S No
District
1
Notes: 1. Districts are ranked from 1 to 24 (highest to lowest) based on overall average score. 2. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit.
88
18
Performance (grade) based analysis of districts’ scores Districts’ scores were analyzed based on proportion of their students separated in four
levels of performance (grade) classifications comprising: low performance (students with 0% to 33% of scores), mediocre performance (students with 34% to 60% scores), high performance (students with 61% to 80% scores), and exceptional performance (students with above 80% scores). Hereafter, four performance levels will be mentioned as low, mediocre, high, and exceptional. Table 37 through Table 42 provide details of districts’ performance at different performance levels.
18.4
Districts’ performance level based proportions of students in language Districts’ class V language performance level based analysis revealed that
overwhelming proportion of students (approximately 90%) scored at low performance level and mediocre performance level combined; however, all of districts’ students, with varying proportions, scored at high level and relatively small proportion at exceptional level. Six districts’ approximately 10% students performed at high level with Sujawal’s 13.47% students and twenty one districts’ 5% to 10% students performed at high level. All districts’ less than 1% proportion of students performed at exceptional level. Students performing at high level and exceptional level merit further exploration and investigation in order to understand what factors lead them to perform at high and exceptional levels.
89
Table 37 District-based proportion of students at various language performance levels class V Language of Class V (Proportions of Students) Low
S
District
No
Performance (0%-33.99% score)
Mediocre
High
Performance
Performance
(34%-
(60%-
59.99%
79.99%
score)
score)
Exceptional Performance (80%-100% score)
1
Sujawal
37.16%
49.24%
13.47%
0.14%
2
Jamshoro
43.37%
48.50%
8.07%
0.06%
3
Dadu
43.64%
48.22%
8.07%
0.07%
4
Matiari
43.73%
46.24%
9.87%
0.16%
5
Tando Muhammad Khan
44.13%
44.60%
11.01%
0.26%
6
Badin
44.13%
48.40%
7.32%
0.15%
7
Umerkot
44.59%
47.03%
8.24%
0.15%
8
Shaheed Benazirabad
44.95%
46.18%
8.72%
0.15%
9
Khairpur
45.68%
44.61%
9.47%
0.24%
10
Tharparkar
47.28%
46.83%
5.86%
0.04%
11
Mirpur Khas
47.49%
44.47%
8.00%
0.04%
12
Karachi
49.05%
41.88%
8.96%
0.11%
13
Jacobabad
51.03%
38.88%
9.89%
0.20%
14
Kashmore
51.65%
37.76%
10.19%
0.40%
15
Thatta
51.92%
39.48%
8.56%
0.04%
16
Ghotki
53.01%
38.52%
8.29%
0.18%
17
Tando Allahyar
53.28%
40.34%
6.29%
0.09%
18
Qambar Shahdadkot
54.92%
39.14%
5.91%
0.03%
19
Naushero Feroze
54.94%
37.37%
7.55%
0.14%
20
Sanghar
57.98%
36.50%
5.47%
0.05%
21
Larkana
63.00%
32.78%
4.19%
0.03%
22
Sukkur
67.38%
27.65%
4.92%
0.05%
23
Shikarpur
69.62%
26.88%
3.47%
0.03%
24
Hyderabad
72.35%
24.08%
3.49%
0.08%
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
90
All of the districts have higher proportion of students performing at high and exceptional level in class VIII compared to class V. See Table 38 for details. With Sujawal’s 26.33% students, nine districts’ above 20% students, and twenty districts’ above 15% students performing at high level, proportion ranging from 1.5% to 5.4% of students performed at exceptional level in class VIII language. All of these performances at high and exceptional level invite for further exploration and investigation of different aspects which may have a strong positive correlation with students’ performance.
91
Table 38 District-based proportion of students at various language performance levels class VIII Language of Class VIII (Proportions of Students) S
Low S
District
No
Performance (0%-33.99% score)
Mediocre
High
Performance
Performance
(34%-
(60%-
59.99%
79.99%
score)
score)
Exceptional Performance (80%-100% score)
1
Tharparkar
30.01%
44.52%
20.97%
4.50%
2
Sujawal
32.02%
36.26%
26.33%
5.40%
3
Khairpur
32.20%
38.86%
23.83%
5.10%
4
QambarShahdadkot
32.52%
43.12%
20.30%
4.06%
5
Jamshoro
32.84%
42.96%
20.49%
3.71%
6
Umerkot
33.40%
43.37%
19.03%
4.20%
7
Matiari
33.56%
42.36%
20.26%
3.82%
8
Tando Muhammad Khan
33.79%
43.08%
19.94%
3.19%
9
Badin
33.82%
44.35%
19.07%
2.75%
10
Shaheed Benazirabad
35.03%
40.19%
20.63%
4.15%
11
Dadu
35.60%
41.91%
20.03%
2.46%
12
Mirpur Khas
38.50%
43.43%
15.04%
3.03%
13
Thatta
39.11%
41.07%
16.55%
3.27%
14
Tando Allahyar
39.75%
41.14%
17.18%
1.93%
15
Naushero Feroze
40.00%
34.36%
20.34%
5.30%
16
Ghotki
40.03%
38.81%
18.26%
2.89%
17
Kashmore
42.04%
35.47%
17.88%
4.61%
18
Jacobabad
43.31%
38.49%
15.05%
3.15%
19
Karachi
43.50%
41.83%
12.56%
2.11%
20
Sanghar
44.16%
36.21%
16.43%
3.20%
21
Larkana
44.85%
35.23%
16.05%
3.87%
22
Shikarpur
51.58%
33.90%
12.59%
1.93%
23
Sukkur
52.57%
31.36%
13.49%
2.58%
24
Hyderabad
54.30%
35.53%
8.66%
1.51%
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
92
18.5
Districts’ performance level based proportions of students in math Compared to language, significantly high proportion of students across the districts
performed at low level in class V math ranging from 77.76% to 97.62% of students. See Table 39 for details. Although 9 districts’ more than 10% students scored at mediocre level (ranging from 11.64% to 18.45% of students), overall very small proportion of students scored in mediocre level. Five districts including Tharparkar, Mirpur Khas, Umerkot, Badin, and Shaheed Benazirabad have relatively higher proportion of students in high level of performance, which prompts curiosity for further exploration as all of these districts are rural far-off areas. A few tiny proportions of students in a few districts also performed at exceptional level that needs to be studied for understanding what makes these students perform at exceptional level.
93
Table 39 District-based proportion of students at various math performance levels class V Math of Class V (Proportions of Students)
Low
S
District
No
Performance (0%-33.99% score)
Mediocre
High
Performance
Performance
(34%-
(60%-
59.99%
79.99%
score)
score)
Exceptional Performance (80%-100% score)
1
Tharparkar
77.76%
18.45%
3.36%
0.42%
2
Mirpur Khas
78.17%
18.30%
3.17%
0.36%
3
Badin
80.34%
16.92%
2.48%
0.25%
4
Umerkot
81.75%
15.96%
2.24%
0.04%
5
Shaheed Benazirabad
83.11%
14.55%
2.00%
0.34%
6
Dadu
84.86%
13.50%
1.45%
0.19%
7
Sujawal
86.40%
12.26%
0.83%
0.51%
8
Tando Muhammad Khan
86.79%
11.67%
1.50%
0.04%
9
Ghotki
87.29%
11.64%
1.01%
0.06%
10
Matiari
88.75%
9.61%
1.47%
0.16%
11
Khairpur
89.14%
9.94%
0.83%
0.09%
12
Kashmore
89.77%
9.12%
1.01%
0.11%
13
Jamshoro
89.96%
8.95%
1.08%
0.00%
14
Karachi
90.78%
8.41%
0.71%
0.10%
15
Thatta
90.98%
8.12%
0.78%
0.12%
16
TandoAllahyar
91.38%
7.55%
1.04%
0.03%
17
Jacobabad
91.39%
7.72%
0.71%
0.18%
18
Naushero Feroze
91.92%
7.21%
0.76%
0.10%
19
Sanghar
95.02%
4.72%
0.26%
0.00%
20
Qambar Shahdadkot
95.02%
4.64%
0.33%
0.00%
21
Sukkur
95.56%
3.87%
0.52%
0.05%
22
Larkana
95.86%
3.85%
0.27%
0.02%
23
Shikarpur
97.15%
2.75%
0.09%
0.00%
24
Hyderabad
97.62%
2.22%
0.15%
0.00%
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
94
Class VIII math analysis also revealed districts’ performances similar to class V performance except that relatively higher proportion of students in the rural top-scoring districts such as Tharparkar, Badin, Mirpur Khas, Umerkot performed in high and exceptional levels. Particularly 2.41% of Tharparkar’s students performing at exceptional level is owing more exploration as this probably is the most far-off and under-developed district in the province. In contrast, districts with more urban populations such as Hyderabad, Sukkur, Larkana has zero proportion at exceptional level and almost zero in high performance level. Table 40 provides details of proportion based performance of districts for class VIII math.
95
Table 40 District-based proportion of students at various math performance levels class VIII Math of Class VIII (Proportion of Students) Low
S
District
No
Performance (0%-33.99% score)
Mediocre
High
Performance
Performance
(34%-
(60%-
59.99%
79.99%
score)
score)
Exceptional Performance (80%-100% score)
1
Tharparkar
69.33%
22.32%
5.94%
2.41%
2
Badin
79.82%
16.63%
3.21%
0.34%
3
Mirpur Khas
80.40%
16.72%
2.46%
0.41%
4
Umerkot
82.46%
13.78%
3.22%
0.55%
5
Matiari
83.75%
13.58%
2.62%
0.05%
6
Sujawal
86.60%
12.83%
0.48%
0.10%
7
Shaheed Benazirabad
87.21%
11.49%
1.14%
0.17%
8
Jamshoro
88.41%
10.73%
0.86%
0.00%
9
Tando Allahyar
88.69%
10.18%
1.12%
0.00%
10
Dadu
88.71%
9.17%
1.85%
0.28%
11
Qambar Shahdadkot
89.85%
8.87%
1.22%
0.06%
12
Karachi
89.91%
9.48%
0.58%
0.03%
13
Khairpur
91.06%
7.90%
0.99%
0.05%
14
NausheroFeroze
91.70%
6.77%
1.37%
0.16%
15
Ghotki
92.02%
7.31%
0.58%
0.09%
16
Kashmore
92.16%
7.01%
0.78%
0.05%
17
Thatta
92.16%
7.18%
0.65%
0.00%
18
Jacobabad
92.63%
7.07%
0.30%
0.00%
19
Sanghar
93.34%
5.78%
0.82%
0.07%
20
Tando Muhammad Khan
94.00%
5.91%
0.10%
0.00%
21
Hyderabad
94.12%
5.81%
0.07%
0.00%
22
Larkana
95.26%
4.51%
0.24%
0.00%
23
Shikarpur
96.21%
3.47%
0.32%
0.00%
24
Sukkur
97.39%
2.48%
0.13%
0.00%
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
96
18.6
Districts’ performance level based proportions of students in science Compared to language and math, performance based proportions of students in
science are mostly narrowed down to low level and a relatively small percentage stretches up to mediocre level. Table 41 and Table 42 provide details of performance based proportions for districts. Patterns of performance are closely similar for class V and class VIII science, with districts’ low performance proportions ranging from 83.14% to 98.22% for class V and 82.5% to 98.86% for class VIII. Nonetheless, mediocre level proportions of districts in class V and class VIII show a few variations such as seven districts’ proportions range from 10.28% to 16.42% in class V compared to three districts’ proportions ranging from 11.95% to 16.06% in class VIII. Moreover, sixteen districts’ mediocre level proportions are above 5% in class V compared to only nine districts in class VIII. Continuing with small variations, many districts have small proportions of students performing at high level in class V science compared to a couple of districts in class VIII. However, Tharparkar’s proportion of students performing at high level is 1.41%, which is an outstanding case in class VIII and warns further explorations. In addition, looking at very low overall province average for both classes, proportions of districts’ students performing at mediocre level also make significant cases for further explorations of factors which may have positive correlation with students performance.
97
Table 41 District-based proportion of students at various science performance levels class V Science of Class V (Proportions of Students)
Low
S
District
No
Performance (0%-33.99% score)
Mediocre
High
Performance
Performance
(34%-
(60%-
59.99%
79.99%
score)
score)
Exceptional Performance (80%-100% score)
1
Mirpur Khas
83.14%
16.42%
0.44%
0.00%
2
Umerkot
86.75%
12.97%
0.28%
0.00%
3
Badin
87.43%
11.98%
0.59%
0.00%
4
Tando Muhammad Khan
88.25%
11.32%
0.43%
0.00%
5
Sujawal
88.42%
11.02%
0.55%
0.00%
6
Tharparkar
88.90%
10.73%
0.37%
0.00%
7
Shaheed Benazirabad
89.22%
10.28%
0.49%
0.01%
8
Dadu
91.39%
8.24%
0.37%
0.00%
9
Thatta
92.62%
6.57%
0.62%
0.19%
10
Matiari
93.01%
6.86%
0.13%
0.00%
11
Tando Allahyar
93.38%
6.53%
0.09%
0.00%
12
Karachi
93.43%
6.52%
0.05%
0.00%
13
Jamshoro
93.50%
6.41%
0.10%
0.00%
14
Ghotki
93.56%
6.37%
0.08%
0.00%
15
Khairpur
93.91%
5.98%
0.10%
0.00%
16
Kashmore
94.65%
5.31%
0.04%
0.00%
17
Jacobabad
96.38%
3.61%
0.02%
0.00%
18
Naushero Feroze
96.65%
3.29%
0.07%
0.00%
19
Shikarpur
97.32%
2.68%
0.00%
0.00%
20
Qambar Shahdadkot
97.33%
2.67%
0.00%
0.00%
21
Sukkur
97.35%
2.56%
0.09%
0.00%
22
Sanghar
97.36%
2.59%
0.05%
0.00%
23
Larkana
97.43%
2.57%
0.00%
0.00%
24
Hyderabad
98.22%
1.78%
0.00%
0.00%
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
98
Table 42 District-based proportion of students at various science performance levels class VIII Science of Class VIII (Proportions of Students)
Low
S
District
No
Performance (0%-33.99% score)
Mediocre
High
Performance
Performance
(34%-
(60%-
59.99%
79.99%
score)
score)
Exceptional Performance (80%-100% score)
1
Tharparkar
82.50%
16.09%
1.41%
0.00%
2
Mirpur Khas
87.71%
12.21%
0.09%
0.00%
3
Badin
88.05%
11.95%
0.00%
0.00%
4
Umerkot
90.89%
8.99%
0.12%
0.00%
5
Sujawal
93.83%
6.17%
0.00%
0.00%
6
Tando Allahyar
94.21%
5.79%
0.00%
0.00%
7
Khairpur
94.79%
5.18%
0.04%
0.00%
8
Karachi
94.79%
5.20%
0.01%
0.00%
9
Matiari
94.89%
5.11%
0.00%
0.00%
10
Dadu
95.42%
4.41%
0.18%
0.00%
11
Sanghar
95.42%
4.53%
0.05%
0.00%
12
Jamshoro
96.03%
3.97%
0.00%
0.00%
13
Ghotki
96.04%
3.90%
0.06%
0.00%
14
Qambar Shahdadkot
96.62%
3.38%
0.00%
0.00%
15
Shaheed Benazirabad
96.69%
3.31%
0.00%
0.00%
16
Tando Muhammad Khan
96.71%
3.29%
0.00%
0.00%
17
Thatta
96.95%
3.05%
0.00%
0.00%
18
NausheroFeroze
97.19%
2.81%
0.00%
0.00%
19
Hyderabad
97.23%
2.77%
0.00%
0.00%
20
Jacobabad
97.23%
2.77%
0.00%
0.00%
21
Larkana
97.33%
2.66%
0.01%
0.00%
22
Sukkur
98.26%
1.74%
0.00%
0.00%
23
Kashmore
98.38%
1.62%
0.00%
0.00%
24
Shikarpur
98.86%
1.14%
0.00%
0.00%
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
99
19
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SATI, SAT II AND SAT III RESULTS Comparison is provided between SAT I, SAT II, and SAT III results for class V and
between SAT II and SAT III results for class VIII as class VIII students were not assessed in SAT I. Differences are calculated based on how high or low (in terms of percent points) SAT III scores were compared to SAT II scores. Hence, positive difference means SAT III scores higher and negative difference means SAT III scores lower.
19.4
Province level comparison between SAT II and SAT III Comparative analysis of overall scores at province level found SAT III results slightly
higher in language and math for both classes; however, science scores were slightly lower in class V and equal in class VIII. It is hard to explain the differences because two populations of students assessed in SAT II and SAT III are different and we have very limited information about background of students. Difference could be because of standard errors in test scores of the two population groups. Overall these differences may not be considered significant because scores are not significantly higher. However, there are several significant differences (greater or less than 5) in district based analysis, which need further systematic investigation.
100
Table 43 Comparative results of SAT-I, SAT-II & SAT-III of class V and VIII Class VIII1
Class V SAT-III’s
Subject SAT-I
SAT-II
SAT-III
difference
SAT-III’s SAT-II
SAT-III
to SAT II Language Average (%) Math Average (%) Science Average (%) Overall Average (%)
19.5
difference to SAT II
32
30
32.81
2.81
37.01
40.48
3.47
15
17
18.22
1.22
13.73
17.62
3.89
19
18
15.26
-2.74
17.07
17.17
0.1
22
21
22.10
1.1
22.60
25.09
2.49
District based comparison between SAT I, SAT II, and SAT III language scores Table 44 presents comparative analysis of SAT II and SAT III language scores.
Relatively more districts scored slightly higher in SAT III language scores for class V as 18 districts differences are
positive ranging from 0.08 to 8.25 percent points, whereas 6
districts’ differences are negative ranging from –0.22 to –3.12percent points. Districts which gained significantly (from 5% to 8.25%) include Ghotki, Khairpur, Kashmore, Jacobabad, Shikarpur, Dadu, and Jamshoro. All districts’ differences are positive except Shikarpur in class VIII language indicating that districts performed relatively higher in SAT III as positive differences ranged from 1.25 to 6.99 percent points. Badin, Shaheed Benazirabad, Dadu, Hyderabad, Kashmore, Tando Muhammad Khan, Naushero Feroze districts gained scores ranging from 6.24 to 7.29 percent points. As explained earlier, in order to explain what led to these differences, a systematic study or studies need to be done.
1
As per TORs of SAT Phase-I (2012), the test was conducted from students of grade V only, therefore comparative analysis of grade VIII from SAT Phase-I (2012) is not applicable.
101
Table 44 District-based comparative analysis of SAT-I, SAT-II & SAT-III language results Class V Language S
SAT-III’s
District
No
Class VIII Language
SAT-I
SAT-II
SAT-III
difference
SAT-III’s SAT-II
SAT-III
to SAT II
difference to SAT II
1
Tharparkar
24.89
34.12
33.58
-0.54
42.24
45.35
3.11
2
Mirpur Khas
27.20
34.67
34.75
0.08
38.53
40.58
2.05
3
Badin
24.44
31.85
35.82
3.97
36.83
43.16
6.33
4
Umerkot
32.07
36.03
35.74
-0.29
39.21
43.55
4.34
5
Matiari
25.89
25.67
36.44
10.77
38.81
43.22
4.41
NA
NA
39.65
NA
NA
46.51
NA
[1]
6
Sujawal
7
Shaheed Benazirabad
31.94
33.17
35.60
2.43
37.00
43.27
6.27
8
Karachi
48.03
37.02
35.29
-1.73
35.46
38.57
3.11
9
Jamshoro
33.48
30.60
35.99
5.39
39.99
44.02
4.03
10
Tando Allahyar
27.44
32.98
32.60
-0.38
39.36
40.72
1.36
11
Dadu
25.10
30.21
35.71
5.50
35.27
42.56
7.29
12
Qambar Shahdadkot
26.85
27.04
31.17
4.13
39.76
44.30
4.54
13
Ghotki
21.06
24.52
32.77
8.25
37.73
40.86
3.13
14
Khairpur
30.30
27.59
35.64
8.05
43.58
45.24
1.66
15
Sanghar
24.59
33.72
30.60
-3.12
37.98
39.23
1.25
16
Jacobabad
21.14
26.08
33.53
7.45
37.06
39.27
2.21
17
Hyderabad
34.21
25.25
25.03
-0.22
27.32
33.56
6.24
18
Thatta
26.02
28.38
32.99
4.61
37.01
40.89
3.88
19
Kashmore
21.44
27.02
33.42
6.40
33.88
40.55
6.67
20
Naushero Feroze
25.37
25.47
31.47
6.00
35.40
41.68
6.28
21
Tando Muhammad Khan
27.66
33.79
36.96
3.17
36.43
43.42
6.99
22
Larkana
25.02
23.23
27.49
4.26
37.72
39.09
1.37
23
Shikarpur
20.57
19.92
25.25
5.33
36.05
34.89
-1.16
24
Sukkur
26.10
21.96
26.06
4.10
33.40
35.18
1.78
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit 2. NA means “Not Available”
In SAT Phase-I & Phase-II, Sujawal was part of Thatta district. In SAT Phase-III, Sujawal was made a separate district having Mirpur Bithoro, Jati, Kharo Chann, Sujawal & Shah Bunder Talukas. Therefore, the results of language, Science, and Math in SAT Phase-I and Phase-II in class V & VIII are not given.
102
19.6
District based comparison between SAT I, SAT II, and SAT III math scores District-based math comparative analysis between SAT phases shows that many
districts gained slightly in SAT III class V math scores. Nineteen districts’ differences were positive and ranged from 0.15 to 5.36 percent points. Thatta, Khairpur, Ghotki, Dadu, Matiari, Badin, and Mirpur Khas’s gains ranged from 3.15 to 5.36 percent points, relatively higher than other districts with positive differences. All districts made gains in SAT III class VIII math scores as positive differences ranged from 0.36 to 9.59 percent points. Tharparkar gained most with 9.59 percent points increase in SAT III among fourteen districts significant gains in scores ranging from 3.13 to 9.59 percent points. While Tharparkar and Umerkot made significant gains in SAT III class VIII scores, interestingly they lost few percent points in SAT III class V scores.
103
Table 45 District-based comparative analysis of SAT-I, SAT-II & SAT-III math results Class V Math S No
Class VIII Math SAT-III’s
District SAT-I
SAT-II
SAT-III
difference
SAT-III’s SAT-II
SAT-III
to SAT II
difference to SAT II
1
Tharparkar
15.20
23.66
22.36
-1.30
17.89
27.48
9.59
2
Mirpur Khas
14.07
20.63
23.78
3.15
16.91
22.23
5.32
3
Badin
14.20
18.57
22.25
3.68
13.14
22.14
9.00
4
Umerkot
17.01
24.51
22.24
-2.27
15.81
21.53
5.72
5
Matiari
15.00
14.53
19.89
5.36
13.12
20.23
7.11
6
Sujawal [1] Shaheed Benazirabad
NA
NA
20.80
NA
NA
18.54
NA
13.21
20.31
20.79
0.48
15.41
18.37
2.96
7 8
Karachi
21.45
19.91
19.15
-0.76
15.56
18.16
2.60
9
Jamshoro
15.22
16.81
18.38
1.57
12.43
18.11
5.68
10
Tando Allahyar
16.00
17.86
17.93
0.07
14.54
17.99
3.45
11
13.58
16.28
19.80
3.52
11.96
17.91
5.95
12
Dadu Qambar Shahdadkot
7.82
13.88
15.09
1.21
11.57
16.83
5.26
13
Ghotki
10.46
14.98
19.19
4.21
11.94
16.77
4.83
14
Khairpur
13.83
15.41
18.70
3.29
12.25
16.76
4.51
15
Sanghar
14.00
19.04
15.64
-3.40
15.55
15.91
0.36
16
Jacobabad
10.11
15.34
17.18
1.84
11.24
15.86
4.62
17
Hyderabad
17.23
13.99
13.87
-0.12
13.18
15.85
2.67
18
Thatta
9.59
14.31
17.64
3.33
11.61
15.82
4.21
19
Kashmore
10.45
15.44
18.04
2.60
12.86
15.71
2.85
20
11.37
15.34
16.15
0.81
12.45
15.58
3.13
21
Naushero Feroze Tando Muhammad Khan
11.00
19.12
19.95
0.83
12.74
15.40
2.66
22
Larkana
8.85
14.03
14.18
0.15
11.89
14.33
2.44
23
Shikarpur
12.70
13.34
13.70
0.36
11.67
14.06
2.39
24
Sukkur
14.06
14.16
14.56
0.40
11.85
13.30
1.45
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
In SAT Phase-I & Phase-II, Sujawal was part of Thatta district. In SAT Phase-III, Sujawal was made a separate district having Mirpur Bithoro, Jati, Kharo Chann, Sujawal& Shah Bunder Talukas. Therefore, the results of language, Science, and Math in SAT Phase-I and Phase-II in class V & VIII are not given.
104
19.7
District based comparison between SAT I, SAT II, and SAT III science scores Comparison of district based class V science results shows that twenty one districts
lost slightly as their differences came up negative ranging from -0.67 to -6.59 percent points, with six districts loosing 2 or more percent point scores. With an interesting contrast, relatively high-performing districts in both SAT II and SAT III such as Tharparkar, Umerkot, and Karachi lost significant number of points in SAT III yet remained as one of the highperforming districts. This reinforces earlier analysis that districts overall lost points in SAT III class V science results. Class VIII science results comparison between SAT II and SAT III shows no change in overall achievement as number of districts’ positive and negative differences is almost same. Also most of the districts showed no significant gains or losses in SAT III scores except Badin, Tharparkar, and Umerkot which gained 4.2, 2.49, and 2.56 percent points and Karachi which lost 2.14 points.
105
Table 46 District-based comparative analysis of SAT-I, SAT-II & SAT-III science results Class V Science S
SAT-III’s
District
No
Class VIII Science
SAT-I
SAT-II
SAT-III
difference
SAT-III’s SAT-II
SAT-III
to SAT II
difference to SAT II
1
Tharparkar
17.41
22.59
16.57
-6.02
19.39
21.88
2.49
2
Mirpur Khas
17.63
21.74
20.42
-1.32
19.53
20.64
1.11
3
Badin
17.27
19.51
18.08
-1.43
16.41
20.61
4.20
4
Umerkot
21.02
23.20
18.88
-4.32
17.32
19.88
2.56
5
Matiari
16.50
13.42
16.28
2.86
15.54
17.19
1.65
6
Sujawal [1]
NA
NA
18.62
NA
NA
17.87
NA
7
Shaheed Benazirabad
17.00
19.41
16.87
-2.54
16.82
16.43
-0.39
8
Karachi
28.43
24.06
17.47
-6.59
19.67
17.53
-2.14
9
Jamshoro
21.00
16.49
15.73
-0.76
17.88
17.36
-0.52
10
TandoAllahyar
19.15
18.65
15.97
-2.68
16.52
18.51
1.99
11
Dadu
16.00
16.15
16.07
-0.08
15.72
17.21
1.49
12
QambarShahdadkot
11.00
14.37
12.46
-1.91
16.36
17.14
0.78
13
Ghotki
12.43
14.28
15.12
0.84
15.12
16.67
1.55
14
Khairpur
19.00
15.47
14.76
-0.71
16.80
17.40
0.60
15
Sanghar
16.83
19.24
13.40
-5.84
18.20
16.99
-1.21
16
Jacobabad
12.67
15.17
13.70
-1.47
15.64
15.48
-0.16
17
Hyderabad
20.41
15.80
12.33
-3.47
15.90
15.85
-0.05
18
Thatta
13.86
14.74
15.54
0.80
15.56
16.40
0.84
19
Kashmore
13.00
14.48
14.59
0.11
14.67
14.67
0.00
20
NausheroFeroze
14.40
14.76
12.56
-2.20
14.48
14.63
0.15
15.64
19.03
17.88
-1.15
16.73
17.50
0.77
21
Tando Muhammad Khan
22
Larkana
12.31
14.08
12.10
-1.98
15.15
15.25
0.10
23
Shikarpur
14.35
13.22
12.55
-0.67
15.35
15.00
-0.35
24
Sukkur
16.41
14.45
12.39
-2.06
15.03
14.88
-0.15
Notes: 1. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
In SAT Phase-I & Phase-II, Sujawal was part of Thatta district. In SAT Phase-III, Sujawal was made a separate district having Mirpur Bithoro, Jati, Kharo Chann, Sujawal& Shah Bunder Talukas. Therefore, the results of language, Science, and Math in SAT Phase-I and Phase-II in class V & VIII are not given.
106
The gains and losses or no gains and no losses in scores in SAT III, as explained in the analysis so far, can be based on a range of factors which are hard to explain just based on analysis of results and comparisons. Hypotheses can be offered based on general observations and informed assumptions; however, degree of confidence may not be as strong as it could be established based on findings of systematic research. Research work based on SAT results should be encouraged and sponsored to answer question like who are (and to what extent) responsible for students achievement scores, and what makes students and schools perform higher or lower.
107
20
Recommendations Based on descriptive analysis of students’ test scores, recommendations are framed
for improvement in key educational areas at primary and middle schooling levels in Sindh. SAT III results are helpful in putting forward recommendations for capacity building of existing teachers, enhancing quality of teacher preparation programs, and improvement in schooling conditions, quality improvement of curriculum and teaching resource materials, and further research to understand trends in results to inform future policy and program reforms. However, it is important to note that recommendations are limited to only knowledge based descriptive analysis of results in relation to general observations about schooling practices in Sindh. Several correlation based analysis and further research should be conducted in the specific key areas discussed here to understand the issues systematically and to generate more empirical evidence to inform the reforms.
20.4 Capacity Building of Teachers Traditionally, periodical in-service trainings for teachers are used as an strategy to enhance teachers capacity; however, it is a growing strong understanding among community of teacher educators that use of variety of strategies on an on-going basis is more effective to keep teachers’ knowledge and skills up to mark. Therefore, as a general recommendation, many other strategies along with in-service training should be applied, such as provision of updated teacher learning reading resource materials, provision of alternative textbooks and content knowledge based books, developing peer-coaching and mentoring relationships among teachers, exposure visits to other school systems in other provinces and parts of country, provision and use of online web-based resources, encouraging teachers to do small level studies and publish in teacher district-based newsletters and so on. Some specific recommendations include: a) Creating Continuous Professional Interaction among Teachers of Different Schools, UCs, Talukas, and Districts Performing at Various Levels: Data dispersion and distribution of school mean scores shows that there were many schools which performed high and even few of them at exceptional level. List of specifically high performing schools in each district should be generated. Teachers from lower 108
performing schools should be engaged in interaction with teachers in high performing schools. District-based or taluka-based sessions should be arranged where teachers from high-performing schools can share their practices of teaching and learning in their schools with other teachers. These interactions should be done on regular basis to provide opportunities to the teachers to think and reflect upon their teaching practices and learn from their peers.
b) Creating Balance of Focus between "Reading" and "Writing" Skills and Training Teachers to Develop Students Genuine Writing Skills Instead of Teaching Writing as Note-dictating: Content based analysis of results shows that overall students performed higher in reading comprehension and severely lower in writing. This is clear indication that there is over- emphasis on reading and no or little emphasis on writing. There is need to create a balance in curriculum, textbooks, and teaching and learning of the two skills. Apart from this, it is generally observed that teachers use note-dictating method to teach writing. More specifically, teachers dictate students to copy a written essay, letter, or story in their fair copy and reproduce it in a teacher-made test or exam. In this method, students are not engaged in actual writing in which they think ideas, create outline, develop structure and organize their sentences and parts on their own. Note-dictating is traditional longholding practice of teachers in Pakistani school systems. To change teachers practice, rigorous trainings should be arranged for all teachers teaching language on how to engage students in developing their writing skills by using progressive studentcentered methods.
c) Changing Math Instructions to Focus on Developing Children's "Conceptual Understanding" and "Problem Solving" Skills Instead of Just Remembering the Rules and Procedures: Students’ overall performance is very low in math subject. It has been observed frequently that teacher lack in deeper content knowledge and appropriate pedagogical content knowledge in math to teach this subject effectively. Most of the time, focus in teaching of math is engaging students to remember rules and procedures whereas conceptual understanding and problem solving is neither 109
taught nor learnt by teachers themselves. Teachers teaching math at class V and class VIII should be provided specific trainings on “conceptual understanding” of math content and “problem solving” skills and how to develop both of these math abilities in their students. Moreover, trainings should be given on pedagogies of teaching math as fun and in interesting ways. It is a common observation that students dislike teachers’ traditional methods of lecturing and note-dictating and teachers’ focus on remembering procedures. Teachers should be provided trainings on effective ways of teaching math and should be provided reading materials on effective pedagogies of math at primary and middle school level.
d) Sharing Effective Resources on Teaching and Learning of Geometry with Schools and Training Teachers to Enhance Their Ability to Teach this Leastfocused Content Strand Effectively: Moreover, it seems that geometry is the most neglected area in teaching and learning of math as students’ scores turned out to be severely low in both grades. Specific trainings should be conducted on content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge for teaching geometry. Also several kinds of reading resources should be shared with teachers. UC-based and/or talukabased interaction (workshops, reflective meetings, demonstration of effective lessons followed by critical and reflective discussions) among math teachers focused on teaching and learning geometry also will help in enhancing teachers capacity to teach geometry effectively.
e) Developing Teachers Science Conceptual Knowledge and Science Inquiry Skills by Engaging them in Effective Training and by Sharing Effective Science Reading as well as Science Teaching and Learning Materials: Students performance was found lowest in science and almost in all content strands; specifically quite low in physical science. It is generally observed that most of the teachers engage students in rote learning of science materials instead of developing their conceptual understanding and inquiry and problem solving skills. Teachers should be shared effective reading materials on teaching and learning science focusing on conceptual understanding and inquiry skills and attitude. There are many 110
effective resources available online; teachers should be engaged in utilizing those resources.
f) Training Teachers to Develop Teacher-Made and Standardized Tests and to Analyze Test-based Data to Enhance Students' Learning as well as to Improve Teachers' Own Teaching: Apart from developing teachers’ professional capacity in teaching subject areas, teachers’ test development skills should be developed through engaging them in sessions and development of teacher-made test. Further, teachers’ ability to analyze student scores and to use them for improving students’ learning and improving their own teaching should be enhanced. Training sessions, peer coaching and mentoring could be effective strategies to develop teachers’ capacity in testing and assessment areas.
20.5 Enhancing Quality of In-service Teacher Education and Teacher Preparation Traditionally in-service teacher education and teacher preparation programs have been theoretical in nature and alienated from ground realities of the schools. Moreover, materials and resources have been outdated because of lack of local initiatives to enhance teacher education in the province. However, recent initiatives of four-year B. Ed Honors program for elementary and secondary teachers are good initiatives to prepare effective teachers. These programs should be strengthened by making appropriate provincial educational policies, provision of funding for program participants, and aligning teacher recruitment policies to support quality teacher preparation. Generally, higher secondary graduates, especially high performing students, prepare for getting admissions either in medical colleges or engineering schools. B. Ed. 4-year Program is an effective initiative to attract high-performing students towards teaching profession. However, policies should be made to make schools a conducive work place and reputable grades and compensations should be given to the graduates with B. Ed. 4-year qualifications.
111
20.6 Research Research is hallmark of progressive societies as empirical evidence is used to inform policies and programs. Unfortunately, research culture has not taken strong roots in Pakistan especially because of lack of support in public policies and shortage of funding for research in public institutions. Different phases of SAT project have created wealth of data which could be utilized to conduct different studies. Moreover, many patterns in results and students achievement at district, region, and province level invite research to answer questions arising from analysis of trends and patterns. Some of the areas for research are identified as follows:
Researching What Makes Some Schools Perform Higher than Other Schools: Schools performing at high level and exceptional level of performance as explained in the section three and in data dispersion and distribution graphs invite for research to understand what makes these schools perform to the level significantly higher than overwhelming number of schools which perform low. Findings will help in figuring out strategies and mechanisms which can help to improve low-performing schools.
Studying Very High Performing and Very Low Performing Students: Significantly high-performing and low-performing students also need to be studied to understand what helps high-performing students and what hinders learning of lowperforming students.
Developing Case Studies of Highly Effective Teachers to Inform Teacher Education, Teachers' Professional Development, and Teacher Recruitment: Case studies of teachers whose students perform very high or significantly higher than other students will help in understanding what characteristics should be desired in an effective teacher. Based on findings, in-service teacher education programs and preparation program will be able to define features of their program to prepare effective teachers. Appropriate teacher recruitment criteria also can be developed to identify and to appoint teacher candidates having desired characteristics.
Studying How Weightings are Given to Reading, Writing, Math, and Sciences in Taught Curriculum to Inform and to Develop a Balance in Teaching of Different Subjects. Studies should be done on understanding weighting given to different subjects in implemented or enacted curriculum by teachers. Assumption is 112
that some subject content strands, such as reading, are given too much weight on the cost of important subjects such as math and science and writing skills. Findings may help in creating a balance in teaching of different subjects and skills.
Public-initiated Programs and Allocating Public Funding for Further Research and Utilization of SAT Data/Findings: Generally funding is allocated by competent organizations and authorities to utilize data generated by projects like SAT. Along with funding allocations, consultants should be hired to identify specific areas for research utilizing SAT data. Competent organizations/individual researchers should be supported with appropriate funding to further explore SAT data as well as design and conduct studies based on SAT findings. Results of such studies may inform well in answering many long-standing questions about improving quality of education in the province.
113
References California Department of Education. (2012).Standardized Testing and Reporting .Retrieved April 02,2015,from http://star.cde.ca.gov/
Hair, J. F. Black, WC, Babin, BJ, & Anderson, RE (2010).Multivariate data analysis, 7.
OECD: Programme for International Student Assessment. Retrieved April 02,2015,from http://www.oecd.org/pisa th
Report. (2010).Secondary Analysis of Examination Results 2010: Performance of 5 and 8th Grade students in Punjab, Pakistan. Lahore: Punjab Examination Commission.
TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved on April 02, 2015 from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/index.html
McAlpine, M. (2002). A Summary of Methods of Item Analysis. Published by Computer
Assisted Assessment (CAA) Center, UK.
Anderson, P. and Morgan, G. (2008). Developing Tests and Questionnaires for a National
Assessment of Educational Achievement. The World Bank: Washington DC 20433.
114
Appendix A (SAT Phase III (2014-15) Actual Test Specifications) SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test Specification: Language (Sindhi/Urdu/English) Class V & VIII (Test Booklet A and B) Reading for Literary Experience
Learning Level/Ability
%
Competencies
Forming a general understanding
Developing Interpretation
Making Reader Text Connection
Total Total
24.75
Competency 1
13.75
FIBs
[4 items of
[2 item of
4 marks]
2 marks]
CRQs
0
%
20.25
Competencies
MCQ
FIB
[3 items of
[1 item of 1
3 marks]
mark]
National
[3 items of
[1 item of 1
Curriculum 2006
3 marks]
marks]
Competency 1
(Reading and
(Reading and
Thinking skills) of
Thinking skills) of
National 16.5
MCQs
Reading for Information
Curriculum 2006
[3 items of
[1 item of
3 marks]
1 mark]
0
13.5
Standard 1
Standard 1
&
&
Standard 2
[1 item of 1 mark]
0
55 8 MCQs
3 FIBs
8 Marks
3 Marks
0
11.25
0
45
0
115
Standard 2
[1 item of 1 mark]
0
CRQ
0
0
0
0 7 MCQs
2 FIBS
7 Marks
2 Marks
0
Learning Level
Purposes of Writing
%
Competencies
CRQ
Competency2 (Writing skills) of National Curriculum 2006 Standard 1 Narrative Writing
50
Informative Writing
50
Total
100
I CRQ of 10 marks
1 CRQ of 10 marks
2 CRQs
Total test = 40 marks
116
20 marks
Math (English/ Sindhi/ Urdu Medium) Class: V (Test Booklet A & B) Content strand
MCQs 40%
Marks
FIBs 20%
Marks
CRQs 40%
Marks
Total Marks
Numbers &
10
10
3
3
2
8
21
Conceptual Understanding % 23
Procedural Understanding % 24
Problem Solving % 3
Major Themes/ Competencies
Roman numerals Numbers upto billion
Operations
Four basic operations Solve real life problems using mixed operations Operations and BODMAS rule Find HCF and LCM Fractions Decimals Percentage Unitary Method Algebra*
6
5
4
Measurement
3
3
1
1
1
4
8
4
8
3
Distance, Time, Temperature
Geometry
3
3
1
1
1
4
8
0
7
8
Angles, Triangles, Quadrilaterals, Perimeter and Area
Information
2
2
1
1
0
0
3
1
4
0
Graphs, Define and organize data
Handling Total
Average, Block, Column, and Bar
18 MCQs 18 Marks
6 FiBs 6 Marks
4 CRQs 16 Marks
40
34%
117
48%
18%
Math (English/ Sindhi/ Urdu Medium) Class: VIII (Test Booklet A & B) Content
MCQs
strand
40%
Numbers &
10
Marks
FIBs
Marks
20%
10
3
CRQs
Marks
40%
3
2
8
Total
Conceptual
Procedural
Problem
Marks
Understanding
Understanding
Solving
%
%
%
21
23
24
3
Major Themes/ Competencies
Set, Irrational Numbers, Squares and square roots, Cube and Cube
Operations
Roots, Number Systems, Compound proportion, Banking,Percentage Algebra
3
3
1
1
1
4
8
6
5
4
Algebraic Expression, Basic Algebraic Formulas, Factorization, Simultaneous Linear Equation
Measurement
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
8
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
8
0
7
8
* Geometry
Parallel lines, Polygons, Circle, Construction of Quadrilaterals, Construction of Right-angled Triangle, Area and Volume Demonstrative Geometry Introduction to Trigonometry
Information
2
2
1
1
0
0
3
1
4
0
Measures of Central Tendency
Handling Total
Frequency Distribution
18 MCQs
6 FiBs
4 CRQs
18 Marks
6 Marks
16 Marks
40
34%
118
48%
18%
General Science (English/ Sindhi/ Urdu Medium) Class: V (Test Booklet A & B) Content
MCQs
Marks
FIBs
Marks
CRQs
Marks
strand
Natural
4
4
2
2
1
4
Total
Knowledge
Conceptual
Problem
Marks
%
Understanding
Solving/
%
Application%
12.5
5.7
10
7.8
Major Themes/ Competencies
Classifying living things Seeds: Structure and Germination
Science
Micro-organisms Environmental Pollution Matter and Changes in its States,
Physical Science
12
12
4
4
3
12
28
19.5
31.2
14.3
Force and Mechanisms, Properties and Behaviour of Light, Electricity and Magnetism, Soil
Earth &
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2.7
4.3
2
Solar System Stars and Planets.
Space
Solar System (Sun and Planets).
Science
Natural Satellites in Solar System. Total
18 MCQs
6 FiBs
4 CRQs
18 Marks
6 Marks
16 Marks
40
30
119
48
22
General Science (English/ Sindhi/ Urdu Medium) Class: VIII (Test Booklet A & B) Content
MCQs
Marks
FIBs
Marks
CRQs
Marks
strand
Total
Knowledge
Conceptual
Problem
Marks
%
Understanding
Solving/
%
Application
Major Themes/ Competencies
% Natural
4
4
2
2
1
4
10
7.8
12.5
5.7
Human Organ System-II Heredity in Organisms
Science
Biotechnology Pollutants and the Environment. Chemical Reactions
Physical Science
12
12
4
4
3
12
28
19.5
31.2
14.3
Acids, Alkalis and Salts,Measurement of Physical Quantities Force and Pressure Sources and Effects of Heat Energy, Refraction of Light Lenses Electricity in Action
Earth &
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2.7
4.3
2
Exploring Space Telescope,Space Crafts
Space
Spectroscope
Science
Space,Exploration Total
18 MCQs
6 FiBs
4 CRQs
18 Marks
6 Marks
16 Marks
40
30
120
48
22
Appendix B (ToRs of Taluka/Town Coordinator) He / She will be responsible to,
Conduct survey workshops with ADOE/TEO (M/F) & Supervisors Primary Education for preparing centre schools and feeding primary schools linkages in each UC of respective taluka/town
Collect any other relevant information
Select a team of invigilators as prescribed by SAT Office
Prepare test administration field plan in coordination with SAT team
Collect stationery for TC office use, students’ stationery and attendance sheets from respective TCS office
Collect test booklets from respective TCS office on the evening/morning of each test day
Distribute stationery, test booklets and student’s attendance sheets at every test centre before 10 am
Start the test at all test centres of the taluka/town simultaneously at 10 am on every test day
Collect Head Teacher’s Background Questionnaire, Teacher’s Background Questionnaire (TBQ) and Parent’s Socio Economic Status and Background Questionnaires from respective TCS office after the administration of SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test
Get-filled the above mentioned research tools from sample schools, as advised by SAT office
Monitor the test administration process at test centres
Collect filled and unfilled test booklets and student’s attendance sheets from centre schools, as soon as test completes
Dispatch the filled and unfilled test booklets and student’s attendance sheets to SAT office Sukkur IBA through TCS (Dispatch address for SAT Office Sukkur IBA is mentioned in TC presentation {provided in the personal folders on Training Day}. Do not make any payment for dispatching at TCS office, just instruct TCS representative at the respective TCS office to dispatch the material through SAT office Sukkur IBA account).
Perform all other tasks as mentioned in TC presentation (hard copy is provided in the personal folders on Training Day)
Perform any other task assigned by SAT Office 121
Appendix C (Taluka/Town Coordinator Undertaking) It is stated that I, _________________________________ Taluka/Town Coordinator at Taluka/Town _____________________ of ________________________ District in SAT Project Sukkur IBA take legal obligation for underlying terms and conditions. 1.
I will not select any Government school teacher or any other person who has any association with Education & Literacy Department Government of Sindh or any other department of Government of Sindh as Invigilator in SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test administration under SAT Project Sukkur IBA in any Taluka/Town.
2.
I will collect test booklets one day before the test and will secure these booklets at most safest place and ensure the complete confidentiality, secrecy and sensitivity of the test booklets.
3.
I will ensure that the sealed test booklets boxes will be opened at test centres before the presence Head Teacher/In charge teacher and head invigilator will take signature from the Head Teacher/In charge teacher to ensure that test centre booklet boxes are opened before him/her. Furthermore, the seal of the test booklet boxes of each class/block will be opened in the block before the students.
4.
I will rent a car/van on every test day for the following tasks, a.
receiving of test booklets from TCS office
b.
dispatching of test booklets to every test centre before starting the test
c.
collecting filled, unfilled test booklets and student’s attendance sheets from test centres
d.
dispatching the filled test booklets from my taluka/town to TCS office Karachi
e.
dispatching the filled test booklets, unfilled booklets and attendance sheets to SAT office Sukkur IBA through TCS
f.
5.
for any other relevant task
I ensure that I will perform all duties as prescribed in the Office order reliably and transparently.
122
Full Name of Taluka/Town Coordinator___________________________________________ Signature___________________________________________________________________ CNIC______________________________________________________________________ Witness 1
Witness 2
Name_______________________
Name________________________
CNIC_______________________
CNIC________________________
Signature____________________
Signature_____________________
123
Appendix D (Manual for Taluka/Town Coordinators and Invigilators) Standardized Achievement test is any test, which is given to large student population under standard conditions and with standardized procedures. Students respond to identical or quite similar questions with similar test conditions, directions and time. Standardized testing is very popular throughout the globe. In California, “Standardized Testing And Reporting” (STAR) has been established by Department of Education whose sole task is to help schools improve academic excellence of their students, www.star.cde.ca.gov.
Standardized tests are also taken in many countries together. Program for International Student Achievement (PISA) Launched in 1997 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is an international study which aims to evaluate education systems worldwide, by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students. To-date, students representing more than 70 countries and economies have participated in the assessment,www.oecd.org/pisa.
In 2012, Reform Support Unit-Education and Literacy Department, Government of Sindh announced SAT project for the Province of Sindh to evaluate performance of students, studying in public sector schools in grade V and VIII in the subjects of Languages, Math and Science. Sukkur IBA applied to get this project and after a competitive bidding process the project was won by Sukkur IBA. The aim of the project is to serve following main purposes: 1. Knowing students’ achievement 2. Linking educational reforms to output/outcome rather than input 3. The results are also aimed to review the curriculum of teacher training colleges and teacher recruitment policies. 4. Informing parents, education administration, civil society and government about the status of education in the province Sukkur IBA has successfully completed the first and second phases of the project in 2012 and 2013-14 respectively. The implementation of third phase of the project is started after the formal signing of the contract extension between RSU and Sukkur IBA on September 26, 2014.
124
Orientation to Taluka/Town Coordinator’s about SAT Project Phase III (2014-15) SAT-III (2014-15) Deliverables
Pilot Test
Construction of Pilot Test
Administration of Pilot Test
Statistical Analysis of Pilot Test Results
Actual Test
Construction of Actual Test on the basis of statistical analysis of Pilot Test
Administration of Actual Test
E-Assessment of Actual Test
Result announcement of Actual Test (Workshop @ Karachi)
Development of 1500 Application Level Items of Languages, Math and Science (Class IV-VIII)
Student's Report Cards (SRCs) Printing & Distribution
SAT website maintenance, www.satsindh.net.pk
Pilot Test
Pilot Test was conducted from six districts of Sindh, including Karachi, Hyderabad, MirpurKhas, NausheroFeroze, Jacobabad & Sukkur
Test was administered in 40 schools from Dec 17, 2014 to December 19, 2014
A total number of 1866 students appeared in the Pilot Test out of 2000 sampled students
The students appearance ratio on test day remained 93%
SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test Administration
Test will be taken from class V and VIII students, studying in all Government schools of Sindh
Class V students of Sindh Education Foundation (SEF) schools will also appear in the test from 10 districts of Sindh including, Badin, Dadu, Khairpur, Larkana, QambarShahdadkot, Sanghar, Shaheed Benazirabad, Tharparkar, Thatta and Umerkot
Students of class V will travel to centre secondary schools and appear in the test
125
Secondary schools will be treated as test centers and some of the Primary schools will also serve as test centers in those UCs, where there is no secondary school or secondary school is located on a distance of more than 1.5 or 2 Kilometers
The test will be taken from the subjects of Languages (Sindhi/Urdu/English), Math and Science
Two versions (A and B) of SAT III (2014-15) booklets are prepared to conduct the test
These booklets contain, Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), Fill in the Blanks (FIBs) and Constructed Response Questions(CRQs) of all three subjects (Language, Math and Science)
Student’s have to fill one circle option out of four in response to each MCQ
Student’s will write the missing word in the blank space of each FIB
Student’s will write/construct their response in the given space against each CRQ
These test booklets have dedicated codes such as, (for class V) 0511: class five, English medium, Booklet A 0512: class five, English medium Booklet B 0521: class five, Urdu medium, Booklet A 0522: class five, Urdu medium, Booklet B 0531: class five, Sindhi medium, Booklet A 0532: class five, Sindhi medium, Booklet B
These test booklets have dedicated codes such as, (for class VIII) 0811: class eight, English medium, Booklet A 0812: class eight, English medium, Booklet B 0821: class eight, Urdu medium, Booklet A 0822: class eight, Urdu medium, Booklet B 0831: class eight, Sindhi medium, Booklet A 0832: class eight, Sindhi medium, Booklet B
126
Taluka/Town Coordinator Responsibilities/ToRs
Preparation of Centre-Feeding Schools Linkages in coordination with SAT project officers
Coordinate with SAT Project Officers, ADOEs/TEOs (M/F)
Prepare field plans in coordination with SAT Project Officer
Identify UC-wise and taluka/town-wise team of invigilators (Ideally fresh graduates and not anyone from Education & Literacy Department: Government of Sindh or from any other government department)
Select UC-wise and taluka/town-wise team of invigilators in coordination with SAT Project Officer
Provide training to invigilators in coordination with SAT Project Officer
Collect Student’s Stationary and Student’s Attendance Sheets from the given address to SAT office (local TCS office or personal) one day before the start of the test
Collect test booklets from the given address to SAT office (local TCS office or personal) one day before each test day between 3-7 pm
Every test day distribute the test booklets and Student’s Attendance Sheets at every test centre before 10 am
Start the test at every centre at 10 am daily
Use separate Attendance Sheet for every school (Secondary and Primary)
Every test day collect the filled and unfilled test booklets, Tail Sheet and Student’s Attendance Sheet from centre schools, as soon as test completes.
TCS will provide one Tail Sheet in every box of test booklets
Tail sheet must be filled by invigilator during test
Student Attendance sheet must also be filled by invigilator and must be signed by Center Head teacher/FA/Incharge Teacher
Instruct your each and every Invigilator to write ‘’FILLED COPIES’’ over the boxes of filled test booklets and write ‘’UNFILLED COPIES’’ over the boxes of unfilled test booklets with Green or Red marker pen.
Every test day, dispatch the filled test booklets (with filled Tail Sheet and Student’s Attendance Sheet) and unfilled test booklets to SAT office Sukkur IBA through TCS on following address.
127
Mr. Hamid Ali Sheikh Senior Programme Officer SAT Department of Training & Development: Sukkur IBA, Airport Road, Sukkur-65200
[email protected] Off No. 071-5630272 Ext 178 Cell No. 0333-7353466
Do not make any payment for dispatching at TCS office
Monitor the test administration process
Travel to the homes of identified student’s parents and get filled the “Parents’ Socio Economic Status and Background Information Questionnaire” by asking questions of this form from the parents (TENTATIVE)
Get filled the TBQs and Parents’ Socio Economic Status and Background Information Questionnaire, as per the guidelines of SAT office and return the same back to Sukkur IBA on following Address,
Mr Farhan Mehboob Senior Project Officer SAT SAT Office, Department of Training & Development: Sukkur IBA, Airport Road, Sukkur65200 Off No. 071-5630272 Ext 178 Cell # 0333-7172135
Coordinate with Regional Directors Education (RDEs), District Education Officers (DEOs) and Assistant District Officers Education (ADOEs) or Taluka Education Officers (TEOs) Male & Female and other relevant Government Education Department stakeholders of Talukas/Towns and Districts
Coordinate and facilitate District-based Local Support Unit (LSU) Staff of RSU
Submit Student Appearance Report on daily basis to SAT Responsible Project Officer of respective taluka/town through e-mail or Mobile Phone till 4PM
Coordinate and facilitate Sukkur IBA, Local Support Unit (LSU) of Reform Support Unit (RSU), District level educational officers, Provincial Educational Assessment Centre (PEACE) Staff and RSU Monitoring Teams during their monitoring visits to test centres
Ensure the quality of test administration
Put your Taluka/Town Coordinator Card at the time of entering in school premises
128
Coordinate with head teacher, teachers and other staff members of the school in a humble and professional way
As per the policy of Sukkur IBA there is zero tolerance for cheating during the test or using any other unfair means
If any case of cheating, or any other use of unfair means will be founded at any test centre of your respective taluka/town, then the test of that day will be cancelled and re-test will be arranged at that certain test centre. You and your invigilator/s will also be penalized as per the policy of Sukkur IBA.
Your taluka’s/town’s invigilators’ payment is linked to professionally acting upon the all given instructions in SAT III (2014-15) Actual Test Invigilator Manual and specifically appropriate completion of the following, o Face Sheet o Tail Sheet o Attendance Sheet (with Stamp and Signature of Center Head teacher/F.A/Incharge Teacher)
Ensure to take each and everything from test centre, which you or your invigilator/s have brought there and nothing should be left behind at any test centre
Take 200 extra test booklets (100 of Class V and 100 of Class VIII) with yourself on every test day on daily basis
Provide required copies of test booklets from these extra test booklets at all those test centre where-ever required
It is mandatory that test should be completed within 10 working days in your respective taluka/town. So, prepare the test field plans accordingly.
129
Invigilators’ Manual Instruction for SAT Phase III (2014-15) Actual Test Administration
130
On Test day Arrival at the School
Meet with head teacher or in charge head teacher/First Assistant (FA) of the school
Share with him/her the purpose of your visit and give him/her the Regional Director Education (RDE): Education & Literacy Department: Government of Sindh letter
Ask test day attendance of class V and class VIII from head teacher
Check with the Actual Test enrollment of class V and VIII mentioned in your field plans
The test booklets of class V and VIII have been given to you as per the Actual Test enrollment given in Field Plan, provided to you by SAT office o So, if the number of students of class V and VIII is as per the Actual Test enrollment or less than the mentioned enrollment in the Filed Plan, then you will give the test booklets to students as per their enrollment o But, if the number of students in class V and VIII or anyone of these classes is more than the mentioned Actual Test enrollment in the field plan, then you will provide them extra test booklets (which have been given to you by TC)
Manage class-wise separate test blocks for V&VIII classes
Before Starting the Test
Write following information on the black/white board of the test block o Name of the School o School’s SEMIS ID (MUST) o Taluka o District o Medium o No of students appearing in the test (class-wise)
Distribute the stationary packets (pencil, sharpener, eraser) to students and instruct them to use it carefully, as they have to return it back after completing the test
Make sure that every student has a pencil, sharpener and eraser
Open the sealed boxes, containing test booklets. Information about the school name, district, taluka/town and UC name, SEMIS ID #, class, medium, no of test booklets in boxes is written on the LABEL pasted on each box. The booklets are packed in sealed
131
Poly bags and kept in boxes (class-wise and version-wise (A-B) as per enrolment). Open the boxes and poly bags in the test block. Distribute the booklets version-wise as, A, to student 1, B to student 2 and so on.
Read aloud the instructions written on the front page of the test booklet to the students sitting in your test block.
Starting the Test
Ensure that students correctly fill in the face sheet of the test booklet
Check the following on the answer sheet of every student and if there is any mistake, correct it accordingly before starting the test, o Booklet ID (to be written by the Invigilator) o Student’s Name o Father’s Name o Father’s Contact Number o School Name
(Invigilator should write this on the board)
o School SEMIS ID
(Invigilator should write this on the board)
o Class
(Invigilator should write this on the board)
o Medium
(Invigilator should write this on the board)
o Head Teacher Name o Teacher Name
(Language, Math and Science)
o District Name
(Invigilator should write this on the board)
o Gender o Age
The Actual Test is of three hours duration.The distribution of the time is as under, o Filling-up of Face sheet
10min
o Practice Test
10min
o Invigilator’s Review Time
10min
o Language
50min
o Math
45min
o Science
45min
o Break after the language and Math Sections
10min
o Total Time
180min (3 hours)
132
You will announce the starting and finishing time for each section of the test in your test block. Ensure that every student should be on that specific section in the allotted time.
The last page/pages of the test booklet is for rough work by the students
MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE A TIME KEEPING DEVCE SUCH AS WRIST WATCH
Do not sit on the chair during the invigilation time
The test booklet for students contains four sections; a practice test from three subjects (Language, Math and Science) and three subject sections in following order, Language
Math
Science
Each section of the paper has Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), Fill-in-the-Blanks (FIBs) and Constructed Response Questions (CRQs)
MCQs
You should write on the board that how to fill the circle of MCQ’s
Each MCQ has four options; A, B, C and D. Ensure that the students select one option as the best answer and fill the circle of the selected option with a black pencil/pen in a correct way as shown below:
.
FIBs and CRQs
Ensure that the students write the response to each Fill-in-the-Blank in the given blank space
Ensure that the students write the answer to each Constructed Response Question in the space given below it 133
Students can use black pencil or black pen to write the responses. Students should not use glue or pin on the test booklet
Take Attendance of all students who appeared in the test. Also put your Invigilator’s ID & signature, get signature and stamp of Center Head Teacher/FA/In charge Teacher on the Attendance Sheet
Finishing the Test
Before collecting booklets from students make sure that the students have properly filled the face sheet. Ensure, all aspects of required information have been checked and the students have left nothing unchecked or empty.
Collect the stationary (pencil, sharpener, eraser) from all students, count it and ensure that complete stationary has been returned from students
Ensure the count of test booklets according to the attendance of the students
Ensure that bar coded material is not torn or folded as that makes scanning difficult
Fill the Tail Sheet (provided by TCS in each box with test booklets) at the end of the test and put it in the box along-with filled test booklets
Put your name, ID no and signature on every test booklet of the students
Collect the test booklets pack them in extra available Poly bags(version-wise), keep them in small boxes along with Tail Sheet in each box, seal them, put the sealed small boxes in large boxes and seal them
The unfilled/unused booklets (if any) should be packed in boxes. Attendance Sheets should be packed in the envelope/s. Take all unfilled booklets boxes, Attendance Sheets, Stationary packets or any other material from the school. No material should be left at the school
Keep the collected stationary with yourselves and use it on next test day
Write “FILLED COPIES” over the boxes of filled test booklets and write “UNFILLED COPIES” over the boxes of unfilled test booklets with green or red marker.
134
Some other Important Points
Put your Invigilator Card at the time of entering in school premises
Coordinate with head teacher, teachers and other staff members of the school in a humble and professional way
Cooperate fully with SAT office Sukkur IBA Monitoring teams, who will be visiting your test centers during the test
As per the policy of Sukkur IBA there is zero tolerance for cheating during the test or using any other unfair means
If any case of cheating, or any other use of unfair means will be founded at your test centre then the test of that day will be cancelled and re-test will be arranged at that certain test centre. You will also be penalized as per the policy of Sukkur IBA.
Note that your invigilation payment is linked to professionally acting upon the all given instructions in this manual and specifically appropriate completion of the following,
Face Sheet of Test Booklet (all fields are mandatory, if students have not filled anyone or all of them, then it is Invigilator’s responsibility to fill-in)
Tail Sheet
Attendance Sheet (With Stamp and Signature of Center School Head Teacher/FA/In charge Teacher)
135
Appendix E (Monitoring Report Pro-forma) Sukkur Institute of Business Administration Standardized Achievement Test Project Monitoring Report Pro-forma SAT-III (2014-15) Pilot Test Administration
Date of Visit _________________District__________________Taluka_________________
School Name________________________________________________________________
New SEMIS Code
Monitored Class V
Monitored Class VIII
Invigilators' Names (Class V) __________________________________________________
Invigilators' Names (Class VIII) _______________________________________________ Sr
MONITORING CHECKLIST
1
Invigilator team arrived on time
2
Invigilators were having their ID Cards
3
Test began at the prescribed time
4
Stationery boxes were provided to students
5
Instructions were communicated to students appropriately
6
Students were seated in the appropriate sequence (i.e. as per medium of instruction)
7
Students received test booklets as per their medium of instruction
8
Number of test booklets matched the number of students
136
YES
NO
COMMENTS
9
Students received test booklets in A and B in sequence
10 Students filled their information appropriately on Student Face Sheet and Student Background Information form 11 Students attemptedquestions appropriately 12 Test Centre environment is calm 13 Test Centre is adequately furnished 14 Seats are appropriately arranged in Test Blocks Sr
MONITORING CHECKLIST
YES
NO
COMMENTS
15 Were arrangements made for students with special needs? 16 Did you witness any form of misconduct by the invigilator or the students? 17 Was Head Master/Mistress present in the school at the time of the test? 18 Head Master/Mistress was informed about the schedule of SAT Phase III Test 19 Who informed Head Master/Mistress about the day, date and time of the test
RSU SIB /
Please put a tick mark
A
ELD Have you taken photos of: (a) School main gate 20 (b) Test block boards (c) Students and Invigilators
Did you encounter any issues during test monitoring? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
137
Suggestions for improvement? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
Name of the Monitoring Officer_________________________________________________ Signature of the Monitoring Officer ___________________Date______________________
138
Appendix F (Development, Printing and Dispatch Plan for SAT III Student Report Cards) As per the ToRs, SAT Office Sukkur IBA is required to develop, print and dispatch Student Report Cards (SRCs) to the parents/guardians of every student who appeared in the test through Head Masters/Mistresses. This practice was done in SAT I, (2012-13), SAT II (201314) and same will be replicated in SAT III (2014-15). The devised mechanism for SAT-III SRCs is as under:
Development of SRCs 1. SAT office has developed a software programme to prepare SAT III SRCs, with the support of SAT IT team 2. The software programme has following features, a. Preparation of individual student-wise SRC b. Saving individual student-wise SRC to School folder entitled as, SEMIS Code c. Sorting out the School folders on the basis of talukas/towns d. Saving School folders into respective Taluka/Town folder e. Sorting out Taluka/Town folders on the basis districts f. Saving Taluka/Town Folder into District folders 3. Following this, the soft folders of SRCs are sent to the Printing Company
Printing of SRCs 4. The Printing Company start the printing of SRCs 5. After printing job the company sort out the school-wise SRCs of individual students 6. Prepare school-wise envelopes with having the dispatch address of the school along with the name and contact no of the Head Master/Mistress 7. The Printing Company keeps following documents in each school-wise SRC envelope a. One original SRC of each individual student of the school b. One photocopy of SRC of each individual student of the school c. One copy of SAT Instruction Letter to Head Master/Mistress (Key points mentioned in point no 9: a, b, c) d. One copy of SAT Instruction Letter to Assistant District Officers/Taluka Education Officers (ADOEs/TEOs) Male & Female (Key points mentioned in point no 10: a, b, c)
139
8.
After keeping all above mentioned documents in school-wise envelopes, they are sealed and ready for dispatching
Dispatch of SRCs 9. All those school-wise envelopes which contain class VIII students’ SRCs are directly dispatched to the addresses of school Head Masters/Mistresses by TCS/OCS a. SAT office requests Head Masters/Mistresses to organize a Parent-Teacher Day at their schools and share the SAT results to the parents on this occasion b. SAT office also requests Head Masters/Mistresses to discuss their schools’ SAT result with their teachers and parents and thus try to take school-based reform in order to improve the quality of education delivery at their schools c. However, in some cases, if organizing the Parent-Teacher Day is not possible for Head Masters/Mistresses, then SAT office requests Head Masters/Mistresses to distribute the SRCs of individual students to their parents/guardians through student himself/herself (if he/she is still in the same school in class IX), his/her neighboring student, school teacher or any other staff member of the school 10. All those school-wise envelopes, which contain class V students’ SRCs, are dispatched to the office addresses of Assistant District Officers/Taluka Education Officers (ADOEs/TEOs) Male & Female in entire Sindh province. a. These officers are requested to distribute school-wise SRCs envelopes to the Head Masters/Mistresses of their respective taluka/town by calling meetings with their respective school Masters/Mistresses. b. SAT office also requests all ADOEs/TEOs (M&F) that they should discuss the SAT results with the Head Masters/Mistresses of their talukas/towns and thus try to take school-based reform in order to improve the quality of education delivery in the schools of their respective talukas/towns. c. However, in some cases, If it is not possible for them, then SAT office requests them to distribute the SRCs to their Head Masters/Mistresses through Supervisors Primary Education 11. The entire activity of SRCs distribution is done through TCS/OCS Private limited 12. In case of non-delivery of SRCs in Non Service Areas of TCS/OCS, the SRCs are dispatched through Pakistan Postal Services
140
13. Even, if Pakistan Postal Services could not dispatch the SRCs to some of the schools, then those undelivered SRCs are sent to SAT taluka-based Taluka Coordinators and they are instructed to submit the same to the Head Masters/Mistresses by hand
141
Appendix G (Head Teacher Background Questionnaire) Education and Literacy Department (Govt. of Sindh) Standardized Achievement Test (SAT) Project Conducted by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration Head Teacher Background Questionnaire These questions are about you, your education and your position as school head teacher. In responding to the questions, please mark the appropriate choice(s) 1. Are you female or male? Female Male Stamp
2. How old are you? Please write a number. Years _________
3. What is the highest level of academic education you have completed? Please mark one choice. Bachelor's i. degree Master's ii. 2 degree iii. Doctoral 3 degree or equivalent 4. Highest Professional Qualification a) B.Ed.
b) M. Ed
5. Experience as a head teacher 6. Overall Job Experience
years years
7. Please mention the school name
142
8. SEMIS CODE 9. UC
9.
Taluka
10.
District
10. Details of the Trainings attended in Last three years (Please mention the trainings you attended for Languages, G. Science and Math Subjects) Name of the
Duration
Year
Institution
Training
Place
Was the training related to the subject you are currently teaching? (Yes/No)
11. Number of Teachers in your school
12. What percentage of students in your school has the following background? 12.1. Come from economically poor homes a) 0 -25%
b) 26-50%
c) 51-74%
d) 75%or more
12.2. Come from economically rich homes a) 0 -25%
b) 26-50%
c) 51-74%
143
d) 75% or more
13. Is National Curriculum 2006-07 being implemented in your school a) Yes
b) No
14. How much your school affected by the shortage and inadequacy of the following 14.1. Resource material (e,g text book, note book, stationary) a) Not at all
b) A little
c) Some
d) A lot
c) Some
d)A lot
c) Some
d) A lot
14.2. School buildings and grounds a) Not at all
b) A little
14.3. Class rooms/Instructional Space a) Not at all
b) A little
14.4. Furniture, Desks and Chairs for staff and students a) Not at all
b) A little
c) Some
d) A lot
14.5. Drinking Water, Electricity, Compound wall and Toilets a) Not at all
b) A little
c) Some
d) A lot
c) Some
d) A lot
14.6. Computer Labs/ Science Labs a) Not at all
b) A little
15. To what degree is each of the following a problem among teachers in your school?
Not a Problem Minor Problem
Moderate Problem Serious Problem
Arriving Late Leaving Early Absenteeism
144
16. Please indicate how frequently you engaged in the following in this school during the last 12 months. Please mark one choice in each statement.
a) I collaborated with teachers to solve classroom discipline problems
Never or rarely Sometimes Often Very often
b) I observed instruction in the classroom
c)
I took actions to support cooperation among teachers to develop new teaching practices
d) I took actions to ensure that teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skills e) I took actions to ensure that teachers feel responsible for their students’ learning outcomes f)
I provided parents or guardians with information about the school and student performance
g) I conduct School Management Committee meetings
145
17. How strongly do you agree or disagree with these statements as applied to this school? Strongly disagree a) This school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions
b) This school provides parents or guardians with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions c) I make the important decisions on my own. d) There is a collaborative school culture which is characterized by mutual support. Thanks for your time!
146
Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree
Appendix H (Teacher’s Background Questionnaire) Education and Literacy Department (Govt of Sindh) Standardized Achievement Test (SAT) Project Conducted by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration Teacher’s Background Questionnaire
1. School Information a.
Name of the School: ________________________
b.
UC: _________________c. Tehsil: ___________ d. District: _________________
1.1
Level of School: Primary
Elementary
Middle
Higher Secondary School 1.2
High School
Other ______________________
Type of school: a.
Girls
b.
Boys
c.
Mix
Rural
b.
Urban
1.3
School Location:
a.
1.4
Medium of the school:
a. Urdu
b. Sindhi
c. English
2. Teacher’s Information 2.0
Name of the teacher: _______________________ 2.1
2.2
Gender:
2.3
Contact Number: ___________________ 2.4 CNIC Number: __________________
2.5
Since how long have you been teaching?
2.6
Job Status
2.7
Highest Academic Qualification
a. Male
Age: ______________
b. Female
a. Permanent
Years_____ b. Contractual
a. Bachelor of Arts
b. Bachelor of Science
c. Master of Arts
d. Master of Science
e. Other Specify
2.8
Highest Professional Qualification a. PTC
2.9
b. CT
c. B.ED
d. M.ED
Stamp
How you were recruited to job? 147
e. Other specify_______
a. Through Sukkur IBA test________ b. Through University of Sindh test ______ c. Other (please specify)_________________
2.10
Please tick (√) the subject from following table which you taught during last academic Session
Subject
Grade 5
Grade 8
Medium Sindhi/Urdu/English
English Urdu Sindhi Math General Science Other (Please specify)
2.11
Details of the Trainings attended in Last three years (Please mention the trainings you
attended for Languages, G. Science and Math Subjects) Name of the
Duration
Year
Institution
Training
Place
Was the training related to the subject you are currently teaching? (Yes/No)
148
3. The following statements concern, how you feel about various aspects of your teaching in this school, Please, Indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each of the statement by checking ( √ ) it.
Statements
Strongly Disagree
a. Teaching is my preferable job b. You have been assigned the classes you prefer to teach c. You have been assigned the classes you feel qualified to teach d. You use other teaching material besides the text books e. There are sufficient number of textbooks available for students f. You feel a need of training to enhance your teaching skills g. You ensure to communicate the students’ performance in class tests, midterm examinations and annual examinations with their parents h. School building, class rooms and grounds are spacious and in good condition 149
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
i. Students are punctual and regular in class j. The equipment (Chairs, desks, furniture) meet the needs of the student k. The students need basic skills to perform well in the class l. School administration addresses the needs and concerns of you and do cooperate with you
Statements
Strongly Disagree
m. Do you instruct your students to work by themselves in your classes? n. Do you make sure your students feel good about your teaching? o. Do you expect your students to strictly follow rules and regulations set by the school and yourself p. Do you encourage your students to work on more than one thing at a time q. Are you concerned about curriculum content and following your lesson plans?
150
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
r. Are you seriously interested how your students learn? s. You enjoy teaching
t. You are satisfied with the overall performance/achievement of the students
Student Assessment What type of practices you frequently opt to assess student performance (Check all that apply)
Assess students during class: If yes then what type of it
Yes
No
Oral
Written
Assess students in a period of time, e.g Do not Assess Take Quizzes
Monthly exam Yes
Midterm exam
Final exam
No
If Yes then type of questions in the Quizzes MCQs
FIBs
Short Questions
Others Please Specify…………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………
The purposes of my assessment practices are to: (Check all that apply) Understand students’ learning achievement. Find out more about students’ learning difficulties. Make use of results from assessment as a basis for remedial teaching. Evaluate whether teaching activities achieve their objectives. Understand students’ progress. Evaluate teaching effectiveness. Other, Please Specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 151
How would you rate overall performance of the students? 1. Poor
2. Fair
3. Good
4. Excellent
How would you rate your overall satisfaction level with your job? Please (Tick) any of the following Very
Dissatisfied
Indifferent/Neutral
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Thanks for your Time!
152
Very Satisfied
Appendix I (Parent’s Socio-Economic Status and Background Questionnaire) Education and Literacy Department (Government of Sindh) Standardized Achievement Test (SAT) Project Conducted by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration Parent’s Socio-economic Status and Background Questionnaire
Name of Student Class
Student Booklet ID
School Name with Prefix
Taluka
District
Name of Father/Mother Father:
Literate
Father’s Qualification
Mother Language Illiterate
Mother: Literate
Illiterate
Mother’s Qualification
Number of Children _Number of Children going to school/college/university/madrasah Income per Month: Which mean of transport is used by the children to go to school? Walk
Cycle
Motor Cycle
Car/Van
Have capacity to meet the financial needs of son/daughter in their
Local transport
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
education
Frequently ask for feedback about student performance from respective teachers or from school head teacher Frequently visit son/daughter’s school to inquire about their progress at school
Son/Daughter gives sufficient time to his/her studies after school hours 153
Assist and guide your son/daughter in his/her daily studies at home Yes
No
You want your son/daughter to continue their studies in future as
Yes
No
Distance of school from home is reasonable
Yes
No
You are satisfied with your son/daughter progress in their studies?
Yes
No
well
154
Appendix J (District Profiles of Class V & VIII) District Sujawal Table45: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
65.82
11.66
Writing
13.49
2.01
Number & Operation
21.54
2.83
Measurement
45.17
7.43
Geometry
15.97
1.33
Information Handling
12.60
1.04
Life Science
17.43
2.66
Physical Science
18.05
3.56
Earth & Space Science
32.89
4.42
Language
Math
Science
(%) 39.65
6.84
18.65
20.80
2.58
13.40
18.62
3.35
12.26
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Jati
46.58
6.92
27.83
7.03
23.48
4.86
32.63
6.27
Kharo Chann
45.13
5.47
21.76
0.96
18.81
0.19
28.57
2.21
Shah Bundar
41.20
1.55
19.04
-1.76
18.57
-0.04
26.27
-0.09
Mirpur Bithoro
37.83
-1.82
19.81
-1.00
17.67
-0.95
25.10
-1.26
Sujawal
35.04
-4.61
17.22
-3.58
15.90
-2.72
22.72
-3.64
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
155
Table 46: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII Difference
District’s Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District’s
From
Province’s
Subject
Province’s
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
63.35
7.40
Writing
29.68
4.67
Number & Operation
21.25
1.70
Algebra
15.24
-0.62
Measurement
27.58
0.00
3.91
-0.35
Information Handling
30.95
1.56
Life Science
21.90
1.08
Physical Science
16.11
0.53
Earth & Space Science
22.47
1.32
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 46.51
6.04
21.83
18.54
0.91
12.61
17.87
0.70
9.49
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Kharo Chann
64.42
17.91
15.91
-2.62
14.67
-3.20
31.67
4.03
Shah Bundar
50.25
3.73
21.12
2.58
19.44
1.56
30.27
2.63
Mirpur Bithoro
47.97
1.46
17.04
-1.49
18.14
0.27
27.72
0.08
Jati
44.79
-1.72
21.44
2.90
16.51
-1.36
27.58
-0.06
Sujawal
43.04
-3.47
17.84
-0.70
17.61
-0.27
26.16
-1.48
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
156
District Mirpur Khas Table 47: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
(%)
Reading
57.61
3.46
Writing
11.89
0.42
Number & Operation
25.75
7.04
Measurement
45.06
7.32
Geometry
16.94
2.29
Information Handling
16.04
4.48
Life Science
19.98
5.22
Physical Science
19.50
5.01
Earth & Space Science
35.31
6.84
Language
Math
Science
34.75
1.94
18.33
23.78
5.56
15.72
20.42
5.16
13.36
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Jhuddo
41.66
6.91
31.83
8.05
26.55
6.13
33.35
7.03
Sindhri
38.14
3.39
26.63
2.85
23.70
3.28
29.49
3.17
Digri
38.79
4.04
26.61
2.83
21.93
1.51
29.11
2.79
Kot Ghulam Mohd
32.12
-2.63
21.95
-1.83
19.21
-1.21
24.43
-1.89
Hussain Bux Mari
32.11
-2.64
21.65
-2.13
18.64
-1.79
24.13
-2.19
Mirpur Khas
31.02
-3.73
19.84
-3.94
17.18
-3.25
22.68
-3.64
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
157
Table 48: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII Difference
Subject
Content Strand
District's
From
Content
Province's
Strand
Content
Average
Strand
(%)
Average
Difference District's
From
Subject
Province's
Standard
Average
Subject
Deviation
(%)
Average (%)
(%) Reading
57.98
2.04
Writing
23.18
-1.82
Number & Operation
24.98
5.43
Algebra
19.43
3.57
Measurement
35.58
8.00
5.87
1.61
Information Handling
33.39
4.00
Life Science
23.68
2.87
Physical Science
19.39
3.81
Earth & Space Science
22.89
1.75
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
40.58
0.11
20.11
22.23
4.61
15.29
20.64
3.47
10.82
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Sindhri
45.99
5.40
27.74
5.51
25.56
4.92
33.09
5.28
Jhuddo
40.87
0.28
23.56
1.33
21.33
0.69
28.58
0.77
Digri
41.76
1.18
22.04
-0.19
19.95
-0.69
27.92
0.10
Kot Ghulam Mohammad
42.99
2.41
19.65
-2.58
20.94
0.30
27.86
0.04
Mirpur Khas
37.91
-2.67
22.16
-0.07
19.74
-0.90
26.60
-1.21
Hussain Bux Mari
40.66
0.08
16.79
-5.45
17.17
-3.47
24.87
-2.95
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
158
District Umerkot Table 49: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
(%)
Reading
61.24
7.08
Writing
10.23
-1.24
Number & Operation
23.71
5.00
Measurement
44.25
6.51
Geometry
15.99
1.35
Information Handling
15.08
3.52
Life Science
18.71
3.95
Physical Science
17.86
3.38
Earth & Space Science
33.41
4.94
Language
Math
Science
35.74
2.92
17.44
22.24
4.02
14.32
18.88
3.61
12.64
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Pithoro
38.66
2.92
23.73
1.49
22.72
3.84
28.37
2.75
Kunri
36.83
1.09
25.24
3.00
22.56
3.68
28.21
2.59
Samaro
36.55
0.82
20.48
-1.76
18.46
-0.42
25.16
-0.46
Umerkot
34.74
-0.99
21.49
-0.75
17.22
-1.66
24.49
-1.13
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
159
Table 50: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference From
District's
Province's
Subject
Content
Average
Strand
(%)
Reading
63.27
7.33
Writing
23.83
-1.18
Number & Operation
23.80
4.24
Algebra
20.48
4.62
Math
Measurement
34.11
6.53
5.17
0.91
Information Handling
32.22
2.83
Life Science
24.10
3.29
Physical Science
18.05
2.47
Earth & Space Science
24.26
3.11
Geometry
Science
From
Standard
Province's
Deviation
Subject Average (%)
Average (%)
Language
Difference
43.55
3.07
20.52
21.53
3.90
15.99
19.88
2.72
10.13
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Kunri
43.91
0.37
26.53
5.00
22.47
2.58
30.97
2.64
Umerkot
44.09
0.55
21.47
-0.06
19.69
-0.19
28.43
0.11
Pithoro
44.54
0.99
21.70
0.17
18.85
-1.04
28.36
0.04
Samaro
39.77
-3.77
14.30
-7.23
17.82
-2.06
23.97
-4.36
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
160
District Badin Table 51: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference From
District's
Province's
Subject
Content
Average
Strand
(%)
Reading
61.24
7.08
Writing
10.41
-1.06
Number & Operation
23.55
4.85
Measurement
42.69
4.95
Geometry
16.79
2.14
Information Handling
15.14
3.58
Life Science
18.76
4.00
Physical Science
16.94
2.46
Earth & Space Science
29.64
1.18
Math
Science
From
Standard
Province's
Deviation
Subject Average (%)
Average (%)
Language
Difference
35.82
3.01
17.34
22.25
4.02
15.45
18.08
2.82
13.12
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
TandoBago
41.40
5.58
30.57
5.32
24.91
6.83
32.29
6.36
Matli
35.15
-0.67
20.41
-4.84
15.70
-2.38
23.75
-2.18
Talhar
33.13
-2.69
20.73
-4.52
17.09
-0.99
23.65
-2.28
Badin
33.35
-2.47
18.15
-7.10
15.27
-2.81
22.26
-3.67
Golarchi-S.F.Rao
32.29
-3.53
17.95
-7.30
15.02
-3.06
21.76
-4.17
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
161
Table 52: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
61.65
5.70
Writing
24.68
-0.33
Number & Operation
24.80
5.25
Algebra
20.04
4.18
Measurement
33.74
6.16
5.61
1.35
Information Handling
33.34
3.95
Life Science
23.89
3.07
Physical Science
19.19
3.61
Earth & Space Science
24.19
3.05
(%)
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
43.16
2.69
19.56
22.14
4.51
15.85
20.61
3.45
10.64
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Talhar
46.93
3.77
27.45
5.32
23.27
2.65
32.55
3.91
TandoBago
45.43
2.27
26.54
4.40
22.73
2.11
31.56
2.93
Matli
41.25
-1.91
21.90
-0.23
21.04
0.42
28.07
-0.57
Badin
42.90
-0.26
20.18
-1.95
19.10
-1.52
27.39
-1.24
Golarchi-S.F.Rao
42.06
-1.10
16.26
-5.87
17.69
-2.92
25.34
-3.30
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
162
District Tando Muhammad Khan Table 53: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V Difference
Subject
Content Strand
District's
From
Content
Province's
Strand
Content
Average
Strand
(%)
Average
Difference District's
From
Subject
Province's
Standard
Average
Subject
Deviation
(%)
Average (%)
(%) Reading
60.80
6.64
Writing
13.11
1.64
Number & Operation
20.46
1.75
Measurement
41.61
3.87
Geometry
15.78
1.14
Information Handling
13.01
1.45
Life Science
17.99
3.23
Physical Science
16.96
2.48
Earth & Space Science
29.68
1.21
Language
Math
Science
36.96
4.14
18.89
19.95
1.72
12.97
17.88
2.62
12.57
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Tando Ghulam Hyder
40.80
3.84
24.84
4.90
22.26
4.38
29.30
4.37
Tando Muhammad Khan
34.35
-2.61
18.51
-1.44
17.47
-0.41
23.44
-1.49
Bulri Shah Karim
36.73
-0.23
16.77
-3.17
13.71
-4.17
22.40
-2.53
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
163
Table 54: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
From
District's
Province's
Subject
Content
Average
Strand
(%)
Reading
60.37
4.43
Writing
26.47
1.47
Number & Operation
17.62
-1.93
Algebra
13.38
-2.48
Math
Measurement
24.15
-3.42
3.21
-1.05
Information Handling
22.22
-7.18
Life Science
21.55
0.74
Physical Science
15.79
0.21
Earth & Space Science
21.15
0.01
Geometry
Science
From
Standard
Province's
Deviation
Subject Average (%)
Average (%)
Language
Difference
43.42
2.95
19.87
15.40
-2.23
10.11
17.50
0.33
8.38
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Tando Ghulam Hyder
45.20
1.78
19.75
4.35
18.92
1.42
27.96
2.52
Bulri Shah Karim
46.96
3.54
14.34
-1.05
17.04
-0.46
26.12
0.68
Tando Muhammad Khan
41.31
-2.12
14.05
-1.34
17.11
-0.39
24.15
-1.28
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
164
District Shaheed Benazirabad Table 55: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
(%)
Reading
59.62
5.47
Writing
11.57
0.10
Number & Operation
21.66
2.95
Measurement
42.26
4.52
Geometry
15.68
1.03
Information Handling
14.29
2.73
Life Science
16.75
1.99
Physical Science
15.94
1.46
Earth & Space Science
29.97
1.50
Language
Math
Science
35.60
2.79
18.37
20.79
2.56
15.05
16.87
1.60
12.91
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Sakrand
39.97
4.37
26.83
6.05
20.38
3.52
29.06
4.64
Daur
34.34
-1.26
20.34
-0.44
17.59
0.73
24.09
-0.33
Kazi Ahmed
36.06
0.46
19.50
-1.29
15.65
-1.22
23.74
-0.68
Nawab Shah
32.12
-3.47
16.09
-4.69
13.30
-3.57
20.50
-3.91
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
165
Table 56: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
60.28
4.34
Writing
26.25
1.25
Number & Operation
20.78
1.22
Algebra
17.09
1.23
Measurement
27.13
-0.44
4.26
0.00
Information Handling
25.79
-3.61
Life Science
20.40
-0.42
Physical Science
14.76
-0.82
Earth & Space Science
19.97
-1.18
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 43.27
2.79
21.32
18.37
0.75
13.34
16.43
-0.74
8.96
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Sakrand
46.34
3.07
23.31
4.94
17.46
1.03
29.03
3.01
Kazi Ahmed
48.24
4.98
18.83
0.45
18.07
1.64
28.40
2.37
Daur
41.51
-1.75
15.40
-2.97
15.28
-1.15
24.07
-1.96
Nawab Shah
38.23
-5.04
16.86
-1.51
15.32
-1.12
23.47
-2.56
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
166
District Matiari Table 57: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
60.53
6.37
Writing
12.35
0.88
Number & Operation
20.15
1.44
Measurement
41.15
3.41
Geometry
16.13
1.48
Information Handling
13.53
1.97
Life Science
15.90
1.14
Physical Science
15.27
0.78
Earth & Space Science
32.02
3.55
Language
Math
Science
(%) 36.44
3.63
18.52
19.89
1.67
12.79
16.28
1.02
10.84
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
New Saeedabad
39.08
2.64
21.42
1.53
18.41
2.13
26.30
2.10
Hala
36.69
0.25
22.89
3.00
17.17
0.89
25.59
1.38
Mitiari
34.51
-1.93
16.37
-3.52
14.15
-2.13
21.68
-2.53
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
167
Table 58: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
(%)
Reading
60.86
4.92
Writing
25.59
0.58
Number & Operation
23.08
3.53
Algebra
17.94
2.08
Measurement
27.53
-0.04
5.69
1.43
Information Handling
29.40
0.00
Life Science
20.16
-0.66
Physical Science
15.85
0.27
Earth & Space Science
21.02
-0.13
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
43.22
2.75
20.79
20.23
2.60
14.85
17.19
0.02
9.13
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
New Saeedabad
48.65
5.42
24.17
3.94
19.70
2.51
30.84
3.96
Matiari
43.41
0.19
18.71
-1.51
16.95
-0.23
26.36
-0.52
Hala
39.80
-3.43
19.42
-0.80
15.93
-1.26
25.05
-1.83
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
168
District Tharparkar Table 59: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
59.57
5.41
Writing
7.59
-3.88
Number & Operation
23.79
5.09
Measurement
42.39
4.65
Geometry
16.49
1.85
Information Handling
15.76
4.20
Life Science
16.67
1.90
Physical Science
15.67
1.18
Earth & Space Science
28.10
-0.36
(%)
Language
Math
Science
33.58
0.77
17.46
22.36
4.13
16.89
16.57
1.30
12.86
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Nangarparkar
37.09
3.51
24.72
2.37
19.12
2.56
26.98
2.81
Mithi
36.12
2.54
26.03
3.68
18.56
1.99
26.90
2.73
Diplo
32.44
-1.14
21.68
-0.68
15.97
-0.59
23.37
-0.80
Chachro
30.66
-2.92
18.49
-3.86
14.16
-2.41
21.11
-3.06
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
169
Table 60: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
67.57
11.63
Writing
23.12
-1.89
Number & Operation
30.39
10.83
Algebra
25.99
10.13
Measurement
40.91
13.33
8.73
4.47
Information Handling
38.30
8.90
Life Science
23.86
3.04
Physical Science
20.87
5.29
Earth & Space Science
26.02
4.87
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 45.35
4.87
20.43
27.48
9.85
19.98
21.88
4.71
13.44
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Mithi
49.83
4.48
33.37
5.89
26.17
4.30
36.46
4.89
Diplo
45.09
-0.26
29.87
2.39
21.60
-0.28
32.18
0.62
Chachro
40.88
-4.47
22.07
-5.41
18.28
-3.60
27.08
-4.49
Nangarparkar
42.55
-2.79
17.59
-9.89
17.67
-4.20
25.94
-5.63
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
170
District Karachi Table 61: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
49.62
-4.54
Writing
20.97
9.50
Number & Operation
18.43
-0.28
Measurement
37.21
-0.53
Geometry
17.24
2.60
Information Handling
15.31
3.75
Life Science
15.70
0.93
Physical Science
16.85
2.37
Earth & Space Science
35.61
7.14
(%)
Language
Math
Science
35.29
2.48
17.95
19.15
0.93
11.41
17.47
2.21
10.11
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Town
Language Average (%)
Town Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Bin Qasim Town
38.35
3.05
25.94
6.79
20.53
3.06
28.27
4.30
Saddar Town
38.03
2.74
22.02
2.87
19.59
2.12
26.55
2.57
Orangi Town
38.14
2.85
21.58
2.43
18.09
0.62
25.94
1.97
Gulshan-e-Iqbal Town
37.98
2.69
19.85
0.70
18.57
1.10
25.47
1.49
North Nazimabad Town
37.51
2.21
19.87
0.72
18.89
1.42
25.42
1.45
SITE Town
35.66
0.36
21.41
2.26
18.33
0.86
25.15
1.18
Korangi Town
37.69
2.40
18.72
-0.43
17.74
0.27
24.72
0.75
Jamshed Town
35.08
-0.21
19.36
0.21
19.65
2.18
24.70
0.73
New Karachi Town
36.22
0.93
19.11
-0.04
18.57
1.10
24.63
0.66
Lyari Town
34.96
-0.33
19.79
0.64
17.28
-0.19
24.01
0.04
Gulberg Town
32.98
-2.32
20.13
0.98
16.91
-0.56
23.34
-0.63
171
Shah Faisal Town
35.57
0.28
17.21
-1.94
16.94
-0.53
23.24
-0.73
Liaqatabad Town
35.65
0.36
17.24
-1.90
16.73
-0.75
23.21
-0.76
Kemari Town
32.28
-3.01
17.54
-1.61
17.72
0.25
22.51
-1.46
Malir Town
33.01
-2.28
18.07
-1.08
16.00
-1.48
22.36
-1.61
Gadap Town
33.56
-1.73
17.90
-1.25
15.37
-2.10
22.28
-1.70
Baldia Town
32.90
-2.39
15.54
-3.61
15.10
-2.38
21.18
-2.79
Landhi Town
28.91
-6.38
15.54
-3.61
13.75
-3.72
19.40
-4.57
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points 4. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
172
Table 62: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
50.70
-5.25
Writing
26.44
1.44
Number & Operation
19.44
-0.11
Algebra
16.05
0.19
Measurement
28.78
1.20
5.50
1.24
Information Handling
37.03
7.64
Life Science
21.60
0.79
Physical Science
15.85
0.27
Earth & Space Science
20.54
-0.61
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 38.57
-1.91
19.12
18.16
0.54
11.67
17.53
0.36
9.22
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Town
Language Average (%)
Town Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Bin Qasim Town
37.65
-0.92
27.26
9.10
21.12
3.60
28.69
3.94
Orangi Town
43.37
4.81
17.84
-0.32
19.33
1.81
26.85
2.10
Gulshan-e-Iqbal Town
44.14
5.57
18.98
0.82
17.41
-0.12
26.84
2.09
Saddar Town
38.90
0.33
20.89
2.73
19.63
2.10
26.47
1.72
Gulberg Town
38.93
0.36
21.16
3.00
17.96
0.44
26.02
1.26
Shah Faisal Town
40.34
1.77
18.23
0.07
18.56
1.04
25.71
0.96
Jamshed Town
37.30
-1.27
19.34
1.18
18.52
0.99
25.05
0.30
North Nazimabad Town
41.58
3.01
17.08
-1.08
16.49
-1.03
25.05
0.30
Korangi Town
40.12
1.55
17.35
-0.81
17.25
-0.28
24.91
0.15
Malir Town
39.05
0.48
17.70
-0.46
17.15
-0.38
24.63
-0.12
New Karachi Town
37.76
-0.81
17.46
-0.70
17.45
-0.08
24.22
-0.53
173
SITE Town
37.55
-1.02
17.05
-1.11
17.43
-0.10
24.01
-0.74
Liaqatabad Town
38.06
-0.50
17.15
-1.01
16.70
-0.82
23.97
-0.78
Gadap Town
38.41
-0.16
16.61
-1.55
16.12
-1.40
23.72
-1.04
Kemari Town
35.02
-3.55
18.17
0.01
17.48
-0.04
23.56
-1.20
Landhi Town
36.70
-1.87
15.79
-2.37
16.41
-1.11
22.97
-1.78
Lyari Town
34.30
-4.27
17.58
-0.58
15.41
-2.11
22.43
-2.32
Baldia Town
34.48
-4.09
13.27
-4.89
14.49
-3.04
20.75
-4.01
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points 4. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
174
District Dadu Table 63: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
60.94
6.78
Writing
10.48
-0.99
Number & Operation
20.36
1.66
Measurement
41.90
4.16
Geometry
16.02
1.38
Information Handling
11.64
0.08
Life Science
15.73
0.97
Physical Science
15.40
0.91
Earth & Space Science
26.94
-1.53
(%)
Language
Math
Science
35.71
2.90
17.69
19.80
1.58
14.30
16.07
0.81
12.16
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Dadu
37.87
2.16
22.43
2.63
18.08
2.01
26.13
2.27
Johi
36.28
0.57
19.36
-0.44
15.75
-0.32
23.80
-0.06
Mehar
34.80
-0.91
18.49
-1.31
15.58
-0.49
22.96
-0.90
K N Shah
32.77
-2.94
17.32
-2.48
13.38
-2.69
21.17
-2.69
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points 4. All districts of Karachi are combined, since it is considered as one administrative unit
175
Table 64: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
61.67
5.73
Writing
23.44
-1.56
Number & Operation
20.46
0.91
Algebra
15.53
-0.33
Measurement
26.45
-1.13
4.38
0.12
Information Handling
26.99
-2.40
Life Science
20.66
-0.15
Physical Science
15.72
0.14
Earth & Space Science
20.80
-0.34
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 42.56
2.08
20.22
17.91
0.29
13.69
17.21
0.04
9.55
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Mehar
45.64
3.08
18.72
0.81
17.84
0.64
27.40
1.51
Dadu
43.77
1.21
19.59
1.68
17.92
0.71
27.09
1.20
K N Shah
40.54
-2.01
15.67
-2.24
15.87
-1.34
24.03
-1.86
Johi
33.61
-8.95
13.51
-4.40
15.33
-1.87
20.82
-5.07
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
176
District Jamshoro Table 65: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
60.25
6.09
Writing
11.74
0.27
Number & Operation
18.97
0.26
Measurement
39.28
1.54
Geometry
14.65
0.01
Information Handling
10.70
-0.86
Life Science
15.74
0.98
Physical Science
14.78
0.29
Earth & Space Science
28.44
-0.02
Language
Math
Science
(%) 35.99
3.18
17.77
18.38
0.16
11.92
15.73
0.46
11.17
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Manjhand
41.57
5.58
21.54
3.16
18.87
3.14
27.33
3.96
Thana Bula Khan
39.52
3.53
21.64
3.26
19.25
3.52
26.80
3.44
Sehwan
34.80
-1.19
16.18
-2.20
14.71
-1.01
21.90
-1.47
Kotri
32.98
-3.01
17.54
-0.84
13.72
-2.01
21.41
-1.95
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
177
Table 66: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
62.85
6.90
Writing
25.19
0.19
Number & Operation
20.37
0.82
Algebra
15.43
-0.43
Measurement
31.95
4.38
3.57
-0.69
Information Handling
28.72
-0.68
Life Science
21.30
0.48
Physical Science
15.71
0.14
Earth & Space Science
20.69
-0.45
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 44.02
3.55
19.90
18.11
0.49
12.15
17.36
0.19
8.53
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Manjhand
48.52
4.50
19.29
1.18
18.66
1.31
28.83
2.33
Thana Bula Khan
46.99
2.96
17.79
-0.32
18.63
1.27
27.80
1.31
Sehwan
43.69
-0.34
18.43
0.32
16.88
-0.48
26.33
-0.17
Kotri
41.62
-2.41
17.42
-0.69
16.87
-0.49
25.30
-1.19
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
178
District Khairpur Table 67: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V Difference
District's Content Strand Average (%)
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
59.62
5.46
Writing
11.67
0.20
Number & Operation
19.38
0.68
Measurement
39.38
1.64
Geometry
15.02
0.37
Information Handling
10.63
-0.93
Life Science
14.49
-0.27
Physical Science
14.03
-0.46
Earth & Space Science
26.00
-2.46
(%)
Language
Math
Science
35.64
2.83
18.87
18.70
0.47
12.46
14.76
-0.50
10.91
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Content Strand
From
Overall Average (%)
Subject
Difference
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Kot Diji
37.00
1.36
20.20
1.50
16.57
1.82
24.59
1.56
Kingri
38.10
2.46
20.21
1.52
14.80
0.04
24.37
1.34
Sobho Dero
36.14
0.50
19.65
0.95
14.48
-0.28
23.42
0.39
Mirwah
34.41
-1.24
19.12
0.42
16.13
1.37
23.22
0.19
Gambat
35.82
0.17
17.59
-1.11
13.95
-0.81
22.45
-0.58
Khairpur Mirs
35.42
-0.22
18.72
0.03
13.20
-1.56
22.45
-0.58
Nara
33.95
-1.70
16.65
-2.04
14.93
0.18
21.84
-1.19
Faiz Ganj
33.20
-2.45
14.87
-3.83
12.55
-2.21
20.20
-2.83
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
179
Table 68: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII Difference
District's Content Strand Average (%)
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
61.20
5.25
Writing
29.29
4.28
Number & Operation
18.72
-0.83
Algebra
15.01
-0.85
Measurement
27.17
-0.40
3.49
-0.77
Information Handling
26.74
-2.65
Life Science
21.07
0.26
Physical Science
15.88
0.30
Earth & Space Science
20.34
-0.81
(%)
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
45.24
4.76
21.84
16.76
-0.86
12.12
17.40
0.23
9.56
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Content Strand
From
Overall Average (%)
Subject
Difference
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Kingri
47.16
1.92
20.38
3.61
18.52
1.12
28.69
2.22
Sobho Dero
48.53
3.29
18.38
1.61
18.75
1.34
28.55
2.08
Gambat
48.48
3.24
16.09
-0.67
18.96
1.56
27.84
1.37
Khairpur Mirs
46.45
1.21
19.21
2.45
17.61
0.21
27.77
1.30
Faiz Ganj
48.38
3.13
14.52
-2.25
17.12
-0.28
26.67
0.20
KotDiji
45.87
0.63
15.78
-0.98
17.22
-0.18
26.29
-0.18
Nara
40.73
-4.51
13.21
-3.55
17.22
-0.18
23.72
-2.75
Mirwah
38.72
-6.52
14.51
-2.25
15.39
-2.01
22.87
-3.60
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
180
District Ghotki Table 69: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
55.50
1.34
Writing
10.04
-1.43
Number & Operation
20.02
1.32
Measurement
40.55
2.81
Geometry
15.14
0.50
Information Handling
10.86
-0.70
Life Science
14.78
-0.02
Physical Science
14.32
-0.17
Earth & Space Science
27.92
-0.54
Language
Math
Science
(%) 32.77
-0.04
19.20
19.19
0.97
12.85
15.12
-0.14
10.80
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Ghotki
34.48
1.71
21.29
2.10
16.03
0.91
23.93
1.57
Khan Garh
38.15
5.38
17.81
-1.38
15.14
0.01
23.70
1.34
Ubauro
31.09
-1.68
19.65
0.46
15.11
-0.02
21.95
-0.41
Daharki
31.05
-1.72
17.89
-1.31
15.45
0.33
21.46
-0.90
Mirpur Mathelo
30.87
-1.89
16.92
-2.27
13.41
-1.71
20.40
-1.96
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
181
Table 70: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
(%)
Reading
57.88
1.93
Writing
23.84
-1.16
Number & Operation
18.84
-0.72
Algebra
15.23
-0.63
Measurement
26.35
-1.23
3.19
-1.07
Information Handling
26.62
-2.77
Life Science
20.33
-0.49
Physical Science
15.03
-0.55
Earth & Space Science
21.39
0.24
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
40.86
0.39
20.84
16.77
-0.85
11.40
16.67
-0.49
8.96
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Khan Garh
45.75
4.88
17.81
1.03
17.82
1.14
27.12
2.35
Ghotki
43.19
2.32
17.92
1.15
17.23
0.56
26.11
1.34
Ubauro
41.74
0.88
17.50
0.72
16.56
-0.11
25.27
0.50
Daharki
40.11
-0.75
16.03
-0.74
16.75
0.07
24.30
-0.47
Mirpur Mathelo
35.41
-5.45
14.45
-2.33
15.50
-1.17
21.78
-2.98
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
182
District Tando Allahyar Table 71: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
53.53
-0.63
Writing
11.67
0.20
Number & Operation
18.42
-0.28
Measurement
37.18
-0.56
Geometry
13.98
-0.66
Information Handling
12.07
0.50
Life Science
15.93
1.17
Physical Science
14.88
0.39
Earth & Space Science
30.98
2.51
Language
Math
Science
(%) 32.60
-0.22
17.52
17.93
-0.30
11.71
15.97
0.71
10.64
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Jhando Mari
36.35
3.75
22.80
4.87
19.47
3.50
26.21
4.04
Tando Allah Yar
32.33
-0.26
17.10
-0.82
15.03
-0.94
21.49
-0.68
Chamber
28.85
-3.75
13.90
-4.03
13.70
-2.27
18.82
-3.35
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
183
Table 72: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
57.61
1.67
Writing
23.84
-1.17
Number & Operation
20.39
0.83
Algebra
15.27
-0.59
Measurement
29.74
2.17
3.66
-0.60
Information Handling
28.87
-0.52
Life Science
22.43
1.61
Physical Science
16.64
1.06
Earth & Space Science
25.21
4.07
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 40.72
0.25
19.48
17.99
0.37
12.79
18.51
1.35
9.39
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Jhando Mari
40.69
-0.03
22.62
4.63
20.19
1.67
27.83
2.09
Tando Allah Yar
41.14
0.42
16.55
-1.44
18.48
-0.04
25.39
-0.35
Chamber
39.89
-0.84
14.80
-3.19
16.35
-2.16
23.68
-2.06
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
184
District Thatta Table 73: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
55.81
1.65
Writing
10.18
-1.29
Number & Operation
18.14
-0.56
Measurement
39.93
2.19
Geometry
12.90
-1.74
Information Handling
11.56
-0.00
Life Science
14.64
-0.12
Physical Science
14.99
0.50
Earth & Space Science
27.94
-0.52
Language
Math
Science
(%) 32.99
0.18
19.18
17.64
-0.58
12.19
15.54
0.28
12.21
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Ghorabari
42.86
9.87
24.16
6.52
19.66
4.12
28.90
6.84
Keti Bundar
34.36
1.37
18.69
1.05
17.97
2.43
23.67
1.62
Mirpur Sakro
34.01
1.01
18.47
0.83
15.05
-0.49
22.51
0.45
Thatta
29.86
-3.14
15.49
-2.15
14.53
-1.01
19.96
-2.10
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
185
Table 74: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
57.87
1.92
Writing
23.92
-1.09
Number & Operation
17.73
-1.83
Algebra
14.03
-1.83
Measurement
26.63
-0.94
2.86
-1.40
Information Handling
25.76
-3.63
Life Science
19.25
-1.57
Physical Science
15.07
-0.51
Earth & Space Science
20.79
-0.35
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 40.89
0.42
20.59
15.82
-1.80
11.72
16.40
-0.77
8.92
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Ghorabari
49.76
8.86
24.24
8.41
18.50
2.10
30.83
6.46
Keti Bundar
51.37
10.47
16.04
0.21
17.72
1.32
28.37
4.00
Mirpur Sakro
41.16
0.27
14.97
-0.86
15.77
-0.63
23.97
-0.41
Thatta
38.58
-2.32
14.73
-1.10
16.33
-0.07
23.21
-1.16
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
186
District Kashmore Table 75: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
55.78
1.63
Writing
11.06
-0.41
Number & Operation
18.69
-0.01
Measurement
41.28
3.54
Geometry
13.21
-1.44
Information Handling
10.85
-0.71
Life Science
14.49
-0.28
Physical Science
13.77
-0.72
Earth & Space Science
26.35
-2.12
Language
Math
Science
(%) 33.42
0.61
20.39
18.04
-0.19
12.62
14.59
-0.67
10.38
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Kashmore
36.97
3.55
20.03
2.00
16.56
1.97
24.52
2.50
Kandhkot
32.85
-0.57
16.75
-1.29
13.83
-0.76
21.14
-0.87
Tangwani
29.58
-3.84
16.67
-1.37
12.83
-1.76
19.69
-2.32
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
187
Table 76: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
56.73
0.78
Writing
24.36
-0.64
Number & Operation
17.78
-1.77
Algebra
14.40
-1.46
Measurement
25.04
-2.54
2.75
-1.51
Information Handling
23.20
-6.19
Life Science
18.02
-2.80
Physical Science
13.05
-2.53
Earth & Space Science
20.60
-0.54
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%)
40.55
0.07
22.21
15.71
-1.92
11.64
14.67
-2.50
8.35
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Kashmore
44.43
3.88
20.03
4.32
16.54
1.87
27.00
3.36
Kandhkot
42.44
1.90
14.68
-1.03
14.68
0.01
23.93
0.29
Tangwani
34.37
-6.18
12.75
-2.96
12.82
-1.85
19.98
-3.66
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
188
District Jacobabad Table 77: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
54.93
0.77
Writing
12.13
0.66
Number & Operation
17.77
-0.93
Measurement
39.03
1.29
Geometry
12.71
-1.94
Information Handling
10.42
-1.15
Life Science
13.31
-1.46
Physical Science
13.05
-1.44
Earth & Space Science
24.73
-3.74
Language
Math
Science
(%) 33.53
0.71
19.93
17.18
-1.04
11.76
13.70
-1.56
9.56
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
GarhiKhairo
39.11
5.58
20.64
3.46
14.81
1.11
24.85
3.38
Thull
31.31
-2.21
16.28
-0.90
13.52
-0.19
20.37
-1.10
Jacobabad
31.70
-1.83
15.33
-1.85
12.96
-0.75
20.00
-1.47
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
189
Table 78: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
56.12
0.18
Writing
22.42
-2.59
Number & Operation
17.71
-1.85
Algebra
14.70
-1.16
Measurement
26.25
-1.32
2.66
-1.59
Information Handling
24.66
-4.73
Life Science
19.07
-1.74
Physical Science
13.91
-1.67
Earth & Space Science
19.59
-1.56
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 39.27
-1.21
21.01
15.86
-1.76
10.78
15.48
-1.68
8.71
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Garhi Khairo
42.21
2.94
18.78
2.92
15.54
0.06
25.51
1.97
Jacobabad
40.75
1.48
14.64
-1.22
15.70
0.22
23.70
0.16
Thull
35.97
-3.30
15.33
-0.53
15.23
-0.26
22.18
-1.36
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
190
District Naushero Feroze Table 79: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
52.98
-1.18
Writing
9.96
-1.51
Number & Operation
16.76
-1.94
Measurement
33.21
-4.54
Geometry
13.30
-1.35
8.91
-2.65
Life Science
12.08
-2.69
Physical Science
11.84
-2.64
Earth & Space Science
24.81
-3.65
Language
Math Information Handling
Science
(%) 31.47
-1.34
19.13
16.15
-2.09
12.22
12.56
-2.71
9.75
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Moro
37.20
5.72
18.02
1.88
12.84
0.29
22.69
2.63
Bhirya
31.78
0.31
18.02
1.88
14.41
1.85
21.40
1.34
NausheroFeroze
31.32
-0.15
16.36
0.21
12.27
-0.28
19.98
-0.07
Mehrabpur
28.57
-2.90
14.93
-1.22
12.10
-0.45
18.54
-1.52
Kandiaro
28.26
-3.21
13.82
-2.33
11.57
-0.98
17.88
-2.18
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
191
Table 80: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
54.44
-1.51
Writing
28.92
3.91
Number & Operation
17.47
-2.09
Algebra
14.32
-1.54
Measurement
23.35
-4.23
3.28
-0.98
Information Handling
24.60
-4.79
Life Science
18.11
-2.70
Physical Science
13.11
-2.46
Earth & Space Science
18.42
-2.73
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 41.68
1.20
23.17
15.58
-2.05
12.85
14.63
-2.54
9.11
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Bhirya
42.51
0.83
18.47
2.90
16.21
1.58
25.73
1.77
Moro
44.30
2.62
15.24
-0.34
14.69
0.06
24.74
0.78
NausheroFeroze
42.30
0.62
15.38
-0.19
14.81
0.19
24.16
0.20
Kandiaro
39.67
-2.00
14.78
-0.79
13.67
-0.96
22.71
-1.25
Mehrabpur
38.87
-2.81
14.02
-1.56
14.01
-0.62
22.30
-1.66
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
192
District Sanghar Table 81: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
51.31
-2.85
Writing
9.88
-1.59
Number & Operation
16.08
-2.62
Measurement
34.84
-2.90
Geometry
12.32
-2.32
8.77
-2.80
Life Science
12.93
-1.83
Physical Science
12.61
-1.88
Earth & Space Science
26.59
-1.87
Language
Math Information Handling
Science
(%) 30.60
-2.22
17.89
15.64
-2.59
9.92
13.40
-1.86
8.97
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Khipro
31.26
0.67
16.82
1.18
14.74
1.34
20.94
1.06
Jam Nawaz Ali
31.93
1.33
16.76
1.12
13.92
0.52
20.87
0.99
Tando Adam
30.48
-0.11
17.45
1.82
13.63
0.23
20.52
0.64
Sanghar
31.23
0.64
16.40
0.77
13.91
0.51
20.51
0.63
Sinjhoro
29.95
-0.64
14.32
-1.32
12.95
-0.45
19.08
-0.80
Shahdadpur
29.95
-0.64
13.70
-1.93
12.17
-1.23
18.61
-1.27
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
193
Table 82: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
54.04
-1.91
Writing
24.41
-0.60
Number & Operation
17.92
-1.64
Algebra
14.74
-1.12
Measurement
23.08
-4.50
3.08
-1.18
Information Handling
25.97
-3.42
Life Science
21.07
0.25
Physical Science
15.09
-0.49
Earth & Space Science
23.11
1.97
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 39.23
-1.25
21.46
15.91
-1.72
11.06
16.99
-0.18
9.23
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Khipro
45.00
5.77
21.70
5.79
21.43
4.44
29.38
5.34
Jam Nawaz Ali
40.18
0.96
14.04
-1.87
17.73
0.74
23.98
-0.06
Sinjhoro
38.90
-0.33
14.75
-1.16
17.24
0.26
23.63
-0.41
Sanghar
38.07
-1.16
16.00
0.09
16.51
-0.48
23.53
-0.51
Tando Adam
37.54
-1.68
15.79
-0.12
15.94
-1.04
23.09
-0.95
Shahdadpur
37.89
-1.33
13.43
-2.48
14.63
-2.36
21.98
-2.06
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
194
District Qambar Shahdadkot Table 83: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
54.01
-0.14
Writing
8.33
-3.14
Number & Operation
15.57
-3.13
Measurement
34.34
-3.40
Geometry
11.92
-2.73
7.75
-3.81
Life Science
12.36
-2.41
Physical Science
11.66
-2.82
Earth & Space Science
23.47
-5.00
Language
Math Information Handling
Science
(%) 31.17
-1.65
18.11
15.09
-3.13
10.38
12.46
-2.81
9.21
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Qambar
37.57
6.41
18.03
2.94
14.47
2.01
23.36
3.79
Naseerabad
36.71
5.54
16.58
1.49
15.14
2.68
22.81
3.24
Sijawal Junejo
36.15
4.98
16.46
1.37
14.84
2.38
22.48
2.91
Miro Khan
33.97
2.80
15.30
0.21
13.97
1.51
21.08
1.50
Warrah
34.81
3.64
14.25
-0.84
13.07
0.61
20.71
1.14
Shahdadkot
32.39
1.22
13.23
-1.86
13.22
0.76
19.62
0.04
Qubo Saeed Khan
31.67
0.50
12.28
-2.81
11.95
-0.51
18.63
-0.94
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
195
Table 84: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
62.00
6.06
Writing
26.60
1.59
Number & Operation
18.83
-0.73
Algebra
15.25
-0.61
Measurement
30.19
2.61
2.93
-1.33
Information Handling
24.55
-4.85
Life Science
20.75
-0.07
Physical Science
15.58
0.00
Earth & Space Science
20.88
-0.27
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 44.30
3.82
20.55
16.83
-0.80
12.50
17.14
-0.03
8.71
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Qambar
48.15
3.85
21.66
4.83
18.60
1.47
29.47
3.38
Sijawal Junejo
45.27
0.97
18.60
1.77
19.83
2.69
27.90
1.81
Naseerabad
46.33
2.03
15.81
-1.02
18.56
1.43
26.90
0.81
Miro Khan
42.51
-1.79
17.14
0.31
15.86
-1.28
25.17
-0.92
Warrah
42.46
-1.84
12.95
-3.88
15.94
-1.20
23.78
-2.31
Shahdadkot
39.54
-4.76
12.67
-4.16
15.50
-1.64
22.57
-3.52
Qubo Saeed Khan
39.14
-5.16
10.18
-6.65
13.13
-4.01
20.82
-5.27
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
196
District Larkana Table 85: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
48.36
-5.79
Writing
6.61
-4.86
Number & Operation
14.29
-4.41
Measurement
30.27
-7.47
Geometry
12.33
-2.32
7.70
-3.86
Life Science
11.58
-3.18
Physical Science
11.42
-3.07
Earth & Space Science
24.00
-4.47
Language
Math Information Handling
Science
Difference
(%) 27.49
-5.33
17.85
14.18
-4.05
10.02
12.10
-3.16
9.16
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Rato Dero
29.57
2.08
16.67
2.49
14.15
2.05
20.14
2.21
Larkana
29.17
1.68
13.98
-0.20
11.71
-0.39
18.29
0.37
Bakrani
23.87
-3.62
12.66
-1.51
10.97
-1.13
15.83
-2.09
Dokri
22.41
-5.08
11.26
-2.91
10.21
-1.89
14.63
-3.30
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
197
Table 86: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
54.19
-1.76
Writing
23.99
-1.02
Number & Operation
15.89
-3.66
Algebra
12.93
-2.93
Measurement
22.34
-5.24
3.00
-1.26
Information Handling
24.91
-4.48
Life Science
18.59
-2.23
Physical Science
13.71
-1.87
Earth & Space Science
20.10
-1.04
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 39.09
-1.39
22.14
14.33
-3.30
9.72
15.25
-1.92
8.72
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Rato Dero
42.60
3.51
15.43
1.10
16.52
1.27
24.85
1.96
Larkana
40.51
1.42
14.96
0.63
15.49
0.24
23.66
0.77
Dokri
32.52
-6.57
11.94
-2.39
13.54
-1.71
19.33
-3.56
Bakrani
31.97
-7.11
11.61
-2.72
13.20
-2.05
18.93
-3.96
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
198
District Sukkur Table 87: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
44.48
-9.68
Writing
7.64
-3.84
Number & Operation
14.67
-4.03
Measurement
31.57
-6.17
Geometry
12.58
-2.07
7.82
-3.74
Life Science
11.67
-3.10
Physical Science
11.80
-2.69
Earth & Space Science
24.41
-4.06
Language
Math Information Handling
Science
Difference
(%) 26.06
-6.76
18.40
14.56
-3.66
10.23
12.39
-2.87
9.12
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Salehpat
41.82
15.77
24.23
9.67
17.51
5.12
27.85
10.18
Sukkur City
27.16
1.10
17.17
2.61
16.37
3.98
20.23
2.56
PanoAqil
27.43
1.38
13.50
-1.06
10.77
-1.62
17.24
-0.43
Rohri
23.12
-2.94
12.39
-2.17
10.72
-1.68
15.41
-2.26
New Sukkur
20.80
-5.25
13.18
-1.38
12.08
-0.31
15.35
-2.32
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
199
Table 88: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
47.70
-8.24
Writing
22.66
-2.35
Number & Operation
14.86
-4.69
Algebra
11.96
-3.90
Measurement
21.77
-5.80
2.49
-1.77
Information Handling
21.98
-7.41
Life Science
18.55
-2.26
Physical Science
13.21
-2.37
Earth & Space Science
19.81
-1.34
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
Difference
(%) 35.18
-5.30
21.49
13.30
-4.32
8.20
14.88
-2.29
8.00
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Salehpat
43.00
7.82
18.23
4.93
14.38
-0.49
25.21
4.09
Sukkur City
34.81
-0.37
14.20
0.90
16.35
1.47
21.79
0.67
Rohri
37.17
1.99
12.51
-0.79
14.90
0.03
21.53
0.41
Pano Aqil
35.62
0.44
12.80
-0.50
13.86
-1.02
20.76
-0.36
New Sukkur
31.81
-3.37
12.92
-0.38
14.10
-0.78
19.61
-1.51
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
200
District Shikarpur Table 89: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
44.59
-9.57
Writing
5.92
-5.55
Number & Operation
13.72
-4.98
Measurement
30.43
-7.31
Geometry
12.06
-2.59
6.84
-4.72
Life Science
11.71
-3.05
Physical Science
11.97
-2.51
Earth & Space Science
24.80
-3.66
Language
Math Information Handling
Science
(%) 25.25
-7.56
17.16
13.70
-4.52
8.86
12.55
-2.72
8.77
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Khanpur
28.59
3.34
15.77
2.07
13.62
1.07
19.35
2.18
Garhi Yasin
28.51
3.26
14.95
1.25
14.12
1.57
19.19
2.02
Shikarpur
24.41
-0.85
13.18
-0.52
12.26
-0.29
16.62
-0.55
Lakhi
21.05
-4.20
11.89
-1.82
10.68
-1.87
14.54
-2.63
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
201
Table 90: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
50.10
-5.85
Writing
19.68
-5.33
Number & Operation
15.61
-3.95
Algebra
12.92
-2.94
Measurement
21.48
-6.10
2.72
-1.54
Information Handling
24.23
-5.17
Life Science
18.00
-2.81
Physical Science
13.60
-1.98
Earth & Space Science
19.71
-1.43
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
(%) 34.89
-5.59
20.93
14.06
-3.57
9.38
15.00
-2.16
7.63
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s
Overall Average (%)
Subject Average (%)
Difference From District’s
Science Average (%)
Subject Average (%)
Difference From District’s
Math Average (%)
Subject Average (%)
Difference From District’s
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Shikarpur
36.78
1.89
13.73
-0.32
16.08
1.07
22.20
0.88
Garhi Yasin
35.69
0.81
14.32
0.27
15.10
0.10
21.71
0.39
Lakhi
32.99
-1.89
14.03
-0.03
13.83
-1.17
20.28
-1.03
Khanpur
30.50
-4.38
14.82
0.76
14.20
-0.81
19.84
-1.48
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
202
District Hyderabad Table 91: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class V Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
Difference
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
39.94
-14.21
Writing
10.11
-1.36
Number & Operation
13.83
-4.87
Measurement
29.39
-8.35
Geometry
12.23
-2.41
8.03
-3.54
Life Science
11.93
-2.83
Physical Science
11.47
-3.01
Earth & Space Science
26.03
-2.43
(%)
Language
Math Information Handling
Science
25.03
-7.79
17.18
13.87
-4.35
8.48
12.33
-2.94
8.21
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class V
Qasimabad
37.39
12.36
15.08
1.21
14.22
1.89
22.23
5.15
Hyderabad City
24.77
-0.26
14.93
1.06
13.50
1.17
17.74
0.66
Hyderabad
24.30
-0.73
12.69
-1.18
10.83
-1.50
15.94
-1.14
Latifabad
22.36
-2.67
13.40
-0.47
11.84
-0.49
15.87
-1.21
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
203
Table 92: All Subjects Content Strand Based Analysis and Taluka Based Overall Scores of Class VIII Difference
District's Content Subject
Content Strand
Strand Average (%)
From
District's
From
Province's
Subject
Province's
Standard
Content
Average
Subject
Deviation
Strand
(%)
Average
Average (%)
Reading
48.18
-7.76
Writing
18.93
-6.08
Number & Operation
17.65
-1.91
Algebra
14.45
-1.41
Measurement
24.19
-3.39
3.78
-0.48
Information Handling
26.06
-3.33
Life Science
19.81
-1.01
Physical Science
14.03
-1.55
Earth & Space Science
21.46
0.32
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
Difference
(%) 33.56
-6.92
19.29
15.85
-1.77
9.95
15.85
-1.32
8.40
Difference From District’s Overall Average (%)
Overall Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Science Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Math Average (%)
Difference From District’s Subject Average (%)
Taluka
Language Average (%)
Taluka Based Overall Average Percentage of Class VIII
Qasimabad
47.92
14.37
17.22
1.36
18.67
2.82
27.94
6.18
Latifabad
33.34
-0.22
17.18
1.33
16.86
1.01
22.46
0.71
Hyderabad
35.66
2.11
14.92
-0.94
14.66
-1.18
21.75
0.00
Hyderabad City
30.46
-3.10
15.17
-0.69
15.26
-0.58
20.30
-1.46
Notes: 1. The Talukas are ranked on the basis of overall average (%) of Talukas 2. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 3. All averages and differences are given in percent points
204
Appendix K (Gender Wise Content Strand Based Results) Table 93: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Female Students of Class V
Subject
Content Strand
Gender Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
54.86
0.70
Writing
15.15
3.68
Number & Operation
18.15
-0.55
Measurement
35.33
-2.41
Geometry
15.05
0.40
Information Handling
11.99
0.43
Life Science
14.80
0.04
Physical Science
14.69
0.20
Earth & Space Science
29.68
1.22
Language
Math
Science
Gender Subject Average (%)
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
35.01
2.20
18.52
17.89
-0.33
12.46
15.47
0.21
11.10
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
205
Table 94: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Female Students of Class VIII
Subject
Content Strand
Gender Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
56.74
1.25
Writing
28.55
3.54
Number & Operation
19.97
0.41
Algebra
16.16
0.30
Measurement
28.92
1.34
5.03
0.77
Information Handling
30.98
1.59
Life Science
22.60
1.78
Physical Science
16.21
0.63
Earth & Space Science
20.72
-0.43
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
Gender Subject Average (%)
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
42.65
2.17
19.92
18.15
0.53
12.60
18.04
0.87
9.70
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
206
Table 95: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Male Students of Class V
Subject
Content Strand
Gender Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
53.78
-0.38
Writing
9.40
-2.07
Number & Operation
19.02
0.32
Measurement
39.12
1.38
Geometry
14.42
-0.23
Information Handling
11.32
-0.24
Life Science
14.75
-0.01
Physical Science
14.38
-0.11
Earth & Space Science
27.78
-0.68
Language
Math
Science
Gender Subject Average (%)
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
31.59
-1.22
18.53
18.42
0.20
12.95
15.15
-0.11
11.01
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
207
Table 96: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Male Students of Class VIII
Subject
Content Strand
Gender Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
55.41
-0.08
Writing
22.55
-2.46
Number & Operation
19.27
-0.29
Algebra
15.66
-0.20
Measurement
26.65
-0.93
3.73
-0.53
Information Handling
28.29
-1.10
Life Science
19.58
-1.24
Physical Science
15.14
-0.44
Earth & Space Science
21.45
0.30
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
Gender Subject Average (%)
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
38.98
-1.50
21.39
17.26
-0.37
12.87
16.57
-0.60
9.32
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
208
Appendix L (Location Wise Content Strand Based Results) Table 97: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Rural Students of Class V
Subject
Content Strand
Location Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
55.76
1.60
Writing
9.72
-1.75
Number & Operation
19.14
0.44
Measurement
38.58
0.84
Geometry
14.32
-0.33
Information Handling
11.24
-0.32
Life Science
14.80
0.04
Physical Science
14.33
-0.16
Earth & Space Science
27.28
-1.18
Language
Math
Science
Location Subject Average (%)
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
32.74
-0.07
18.71
18.41
0.19
13.38
15.11
-0.15
11.45
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
209
Table 98: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Rural Students of Class VIII
Subject
Content Strand
Location Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
58.83
3.34
Writing
24.39
-0.62
Number & Operation
20.06
0.50
Algebra
16.16
0.30
Measurement
27.68
0.10
4.14
-0.12
Information Handling
27.79
-1.60
Life Science
20.35
-0.47
Physical Science
15.63
0.05
Earth & Space Science
21.18
0.03
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
Location Subject Average (%)
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
41.61
1.13
21.20
17.90
0.28
13.64
17.09
-0.08
9.70
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
210
Table 99: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Urban Students of Class V
Subject
Content Strand
Location Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
50.71
-3.45
Writing
15.51
4.04
Number & Operation
17.76
-0.94
Measurement
35.95
-1.79
Geometry
15.44
0.79
Information Handling
12.33
0.77
Life Science
14.72
-0.04
Physical Science
14.91
0.42
Earth & Space Science
31.27
2.81
Language
Math
Science
Location Subject Average (%)
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
33.11
0.30
18.33
17.87
-0.35
11.33
15.68
0.42
10.03
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
211
Table 100: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Urban Students of Class VIII
Subject
Content Strand
Location Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
52.87
-2.62
Writing
25.69
0.68
Number & Operation
19.04
-0.52
Algebra
15.56
-0.30
Measurement
27.48
-0.10
4.38
0.12
Information Handling
31.09
1.70
Life Science
21.33
0.51
Physical Science
15.53
-0.05
Earth & Space Science
21.13
-0.02
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
Location Subject Average (%)
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
39.28
-1.20
20.46
17.34
-0.28
11.76
17.26
0.09
9.28
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
212
Appendix M (School Type Wise Content Strand Based Results) Table 101: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Boys Schools’ Students of Class V
Subject
Content Strand
Boys’ Schools Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
54.47
0.31
Writing
10.27
-1.20
Number & Operation
19.12
0.42
Measurement
38.67
0.93
Geometry
14.69
0.04
Information Handling
11.52
-0.04
Life Science
14.79
0.03
Physical Science
14.50
0.01
Earth & Space Science
28.15
-0.31
Language
Math
Science
Boys’ Schools Subject Average (%)
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
32.37
-0.44
18.52
18.53
0.31
13.10
15.27
0.01
11.11
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
213
Table 102: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Boys Schools’ Students of Class VIII
Subject
Content Strand
Boys’ Schools Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
55.73
0.24
Writing
22.77
-2.24
Number & Operation
19.43
-0.13
Algebra
15.81
-0.05
Measurement
27.08
-0.50
3.87
-0.39
Information Handling
28.52
-0.87
Life Science
19.71
-1.11
Physical Science
15.20
-0.38
Earth & Space Science
21.29
0.14
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
Boys’ Schools Subject Average (%)
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
39.25
-1.23
21.27
17.44
-0.18
13.06
16.63
-0.54
9.45
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
214
Table 103: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Girls Schools’ Students of Class V
Subject
Content Strand
Girls’ Schools Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
53.72
-0.44
Writing
16.45
4.98
Number & Operation
17.09
-1.61
Measurement
34.26
-3.48
Geometry
14.76
0.11
Information Handling
11.79
0.23
Life Science
14.86
0.10
Physical Science
14.66
0.17
Earth & Space Science
30.19
1.73
Girls’ Schools Subject Average (%)
Language
Math
Science
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
35.08
2.27
18.74
17.13
-1.09
11.54
15.49
0.23
10.88
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
215
Table 104: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Girls Schools’ Students of Class VIII
Subject
Content Strand
Girls’ Schools Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
56.40
0.91
Writing
29.46
4.45
Number & Operation
19.82
0.26
Algebra
15.98
0.12
Measurement
28.59
1.01
5.05
0.79
Information Handling
31.12
1.73
Life Science
23.03
2.21
Physical Science
16.34
0.76
Earth & Space Science
20.88
-0.27
Girls’ Schools Subject Average (%)
Language
Math
Geometry
Science
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
42.93
2.45
19.86
18.01
0.39
12.17
18.24
1.07
9.53
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
216
Table 105: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Mixed Schools’ Students of Class V
Subject
Content Strand
Mixed Schools Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
47.99
-6.32
Writing
8.10
-3.45
Number & Operation
20.43
1.73
Measurement
39.89
2.14
Geometry
11.65
-3.06
Information Handling
11.31
-0.27
Life Science
13.12
-1.68
Physical Science
12.61
-1.92
Earth & Space Science
23.43
-5.14
Mixed Schools Subject Average (%)
Language
Math
Science
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
28.05
-4.88
17.75
18.56
0.32
11.18
13.29
-2.02
9.71
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points
217
Table 106: All Subject Content Strand Based Analysis of Mixed Schools’ Students of Class VIII
Subject
Content Strand
Mixed Schools Content Strand Average (%)
Difference From Province's Content Strand Average (%)
Reading
90.00
34.04
Writing
75.00
49.98
Number & Operation
36.46
16.89
Algebra
0.00
-15.87
Measurement
0.00
-27.58
Geometry
0.00
-4.26
Information Handling
50.00
20.61
Life Science
30.00
9.18
Physical Science
23.57
7.99
Earth & Space Science
50.00
28.85
Mixed Schools Subject Average (%)
Language
Math
Science
Difference From Province's Subject Average (%)
Standard Deviation
82.50
42.01
0.00
24.38
6.75
0.00
26.50
9.33
0.00
Notes: 1. Positive difference means score points higher than district’s overall average (%) and negative difference means score points lower than district’s overall average (%) 2. All averages and differences are given in percent points 3. There is one student appeared from Class VIII of Mixed Schools
218
219
