THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP) Corporate Social Responsibility initiative of ITC
OUR TEAM SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM Meera Balachandran Director meera.balachandran@eqfi.org +91 98102 43625 Arijit Ghosh Vice President arijit.ghosh@eqfi.org +91 98739 73159 OTHER TEAM MEMBERS Tanya Khanduri Manager – Projects tanya.khanduri@eqfi.org +91 98738 29504 Munish Gupta Manager – Data Analyst munish.gupta@eqfi.org +91 88823 56393 Puneet Kumar Sharma Manager – Data Analyst puneet.sharma@eqfi.org +91 98910 19322 Niti Sidana Subject Specialist – Mathematics niti.sidana@eqfi.org +91 98110 35393 Anuradha Mishra Subject Specialist – Hindi anuradha.mishra@eqfi.org +91 97180 35599 Richa Programme Executive richa@eqfi.org +91 99710 04792
Cover and this page image: Freepik
ABOUT THE ORGANISATIONS
ITC LIMITED ITC is one of India’s leading private sector companies. With a diversified presence in Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), Hotels, Paperboards and Packaging, Agri Business and Information Technology businesses, ITC is widely acknowledged as one of India’s most valuable business corporations. ITC through its social investment programme, Mission Sunehra Kal, strengthens rural livelihoods by: Ÿ ITC e-Choupal Ÿ Wasteland Development through Social Forestry Ÿ Soil & Moisture Conservation Programmes Ÿ Livestock Development Initiatives It also builds skills and social infrastructure through: Ÿ Primary Education, Health & Sanitation Ÿ Women’s Empowerment & Gender Equality
LEARNING LINKS FOUNDATION Learning Links Foundation was born out of the idea that every child, youth and citizen should have an opportunity to learn and rise to their potential. It is a non-profit organisation dedicated to enhancing quality, promoting innovation and developing future-ready citizens. The organisation believes that the best possible way to achieve the goal is by delivering measurable and sustainable change in the education and innovation ecosystem. LLF's work in the education sector covers the entire lifecycle, from primary to higher education, including formal and non-formal segments. It focuses to deliver solutions that address the multiple challenges around quality and learning faced by learners, service providers and Governments. The organisation's goal is to create a future where everyone has equal opportunities by empowering students to make the most of their talent, preparing educators to transform teaching, and skilling youth to be self-reliant.
EDUCATION QUALITY FOUNDATION OF INDIA The Education Quality Foundation of India (EQFI) was founded in 2007 to ensure that every student is given an opportunity to reach their potential. The core of every educational experience is rooted in quality. A difference in education systems can be made to help students reach their potential by ensuring quality. The team at EQFI has a rich experience and expertise in education, with a deep understanding of educational systems, curriculum, content and pedagogy. EQFI believes in catalysing and enabling paradigms of excellence in the school education system and facilitating the transformation of schools through collaboration, creating a path of excellence, building accountability in school systems, professional development, and measuring impact of programmes EQFI offers solutions to schools which are holistic and target quality improvement. Some of the offerings are accreditation, teacher skill audit, assessment of learning outcomes, teacher training, quality school assessment, technology audit, quality programme assessment, and research.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The Teacher Empowerment Program (TEP) is a Corporate Social Responsibility initiative of ITC under the "ITC Mission Sunehra Kal", to bring about a sustainable transformation within the surrounding area of the production unit of ITC, Rampur, Assam. This project is contributory by nature which aims at benefiting the community with the help of educational intervention and is implemented by Learning Links Foundation in collaboration with the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Assam, to develop the educational ecosystem of the region. The Teacher Empowerment Program intends to improve teaching-learning transactions in classrooms and thereby increase the teaching effectiveness contributing to enhanced learning. This program aims at developing students' academic performances through capacity building of teachers, headmasters and CRCCs/ BRCs/ DIET faculties of the concerned educational blocks which leads to strengthening the existing education eco-system (teachers, cluster/ block resource persons capacitated) and sustainable beyond the project period. The program upholds the belief that a strong professional development on the part of each teacher supported with the onsite monitoring and mentoring by the resource persons will build teaching expertise in every classroom leading to the overall development of teachers' capacity, which will eventually create a positive teaching-learning ambience.
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Assessment is an integral part of a student's educational experience. The primary goal of assessment is to evaluate the present status of each student's cognitive level and subsequently build on improving student learning levels through the needful intervention. The assessment results, when analysed and interpreted properly provides valuable information which could be crucial in designing educational opportunities to promote student achievement and meet the needs of all the learners. EQFI undertook the task of designing the assessment tools for testing students' literacy (English) an numeracy (Mathematics) skills for grades 3, 4 and 5, mapping them according to the subject content and subject specific competencies. The test papers were based on MCQ format comprising 25 questions each. The objective of the assessment was to find out the existing level of students' learning in terms of literacy and numeracy as per their respective grades. The tool for literacy focused on assessing reading recognition and reading comprehension and for numeracy, basic mathematical applications and conceptual level of the students were measured. A baseline assessment for literacy (English) and numeracy (Mathematics) was conducted from the 18th of April to 12th of June, 2018, in all the 50 schools of Rampur and Chhaygaon blocks under Kamrup ® district, selected under intervention and treatment category after the need analysis.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Analysis of learning assessment data is crucial in stating what students know and can do in a specific content area. There is a need to make the assessment analysis data relevant and usable for the concerned intervention authorities, teachers and other related stakeholders for better planning, execution and implementation of the program objectives, thereby meeting its overarching goal of enhancing the quality of education. EQFI has undertaken the task of devising a report that highlights the performance of the students across varied analysis parameters in English and Mathematics for grades 3, 4 and 5. This report is an effort to gauge the student performance across grade and content specific learning gaps, distribution of student scores across a 5-point grade scale, comparison across groups, blocks and gender, Gunotsav rating performance, all depicted through different representational graphs/styles. It is hoped that by bringing focus on students' performance on the assessment tool will provide a valuable insight into concerns that need further attention and that such findings will lead into in-depth planning of interventions at various levels of school education.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
4
OVERALL FINDINGS Ÿ
The mean percentage for Mathematics is better than the mean percentage of English.
Ÿ
There is a positive effect of intervention on the group of study as scores of intervention groups are better than those of control groups. While the mean percentage score of students in the intervention group is 27.9%, the same for control group students is a dismal 17.4%
Ÿ
In Mathematics, Patterns, Data Handling, and Geometry topics need special focus in class 3. There is a lack of positive reinforcement of concept of fractions in class 4 as it shows a marginal decrease in mean scores from 27.7% to 27%.
Ÿ
The intervention methodologies for Fractions and Geometry require introspection as control group has scored more than intervention group in class 3.
Ÿ
Classes 4 and 5 show remarkable difference as intervention depicts major positive influences over the control group in all areas of mathematics.
Ÿ
In English, there has been a consistent increase in the positive influence on the intervention group as compared to the control group.
Ÿ
In Mathematics, Chhaygaon clock has performed better than Rampur block; while for English the results have reversed and Rampur block has edged out Chhaygaon block with their performance. Overall, Rampur block students have marginally edged the students from Chhaygaon block.
Ÿ
Overall, boys part of this study have performed better than the girls in both Mathematics as well as in English.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS The project study was primary focused on mapping the learning levels of students across the primary grades of 3, 4 and 5 denoting that there is a need to provide specialised focus on effective teaching-learning practices catering to the primary level. The learning of languages is developmental. New learning must always be built on students' existing knowledge and understanding. It is highly important to acknowledge that a child has prior knowledge and understanding of language from within and outside school. In order to develop proficiency in the language, it is important to use language in context rather than as isolated facts. For instance, the results suggest that students need extra support in the area of Grammar. Grammar rules can be made easier if they are given in a context rather than as mere structural form. The 21st century approach of communicative competence requires language to be used as a communication tool, hence, it becomes an imperative that students are provided maximum opportunities to deal with language in meaningful and relevant tasks that are associated with real-life based experiences. With the ever changing classroom scenarios and focus on the adoption of inquiry based learning, mathematics teaching has taken a new form. The traditional way of teaching mathematics required figuring out equations and numbers in abstraction with the aim of computation. However, in inquiry-based learning, teachers use questions, problems and scenarios to help students learn through individual thought and investigation. Instead of simply presenting facts, the teacher encourages students to talk about a problem and draw on their intuition to understand it. Such an approach also supports students in developing a crucial 21st century skill of asking their own questions. The project study result suggested that students need guidance in two important concepts of Fractions and Geometry. Using audio-visual aids like videos, images, models and other related tangible resources to explain such abstract concepts will help prove beneficial in helping students visualize and understand the concept in a much concrete manner and they will also be able to relate it with situations from daily life.
5
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
HOW TO READ GRAPHS EXAMPLE: 1: BAR GRAPH A bar graph is used to represent data visually using bars of different heights or lengths. Data is graphed either horizontally or vertically, allowing viewers to compare different values and draw conclusions quickly and easily. A typical bar graph has a label, axis, scales, and bars, which represent measurable values such as amounts or percentages.
40
30 19.9 20
16.4
10
The bar graph shows the comparison between mean percentages of Mathematics & English subjects in Grade: 3, Mathematics student's performance is good as compare to English subjects students of grade: 3.
0 Mathematics
English
EXAMPLE 2: STACKED BAR GRAPH Stacked bar graph is used to break down and compare the parts of a whole. Each bar in the graphs represents a whole, and segments in the bar represent different categories of that whole. The different colors are used to illustrate the different categories in the bar.
English
Mathematics
In the following stacked bar graph there are subject wise population distribution of two categories i.e Mathematics & English Subjects of Grade: 3, in each bar. The mean percentage of student population is divided in ďŹ ve different segments and each segment has different colors. Intervention Group
22.0
42.6
Control Group
27.1
47.3
Intervention Group
38.2
31.5
Control Group 10
20
14.5
48.1
18.3
68.2 0
8.3
30
27.3 40
50
60
70
80
2.2 4.5
90
100
EXAMPLE 3: BAR GRAPH 46.8
50 40
48.8
36.7
30
26.2
27.0
Factors & Multiples
Fraction
20 10 0 Number System
Pattern
Pictographs
Mathematics Overall Mean 36.9%
In the above bar graph, the strands and intervention Group wise performance of students is compared in mathematics grade 3. Each bar shows the strands wise mean percentage of student's, here we also comparing the overall mean percentage of mathematics, and in middle blue line shows the overall mean percentage of mathematics grade 3. THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
6
EXAMPLE 4: SUNBURST GRAPH Sunburst graph is used to visualize hierarchical data, depicted by concentric circles. The circle in the centre represents the root node, with the hierarchy moving outward from the center. A segment of the inner circle bears a hierarchical relationship to those segments of the outer circle which lie within the angular sweep of the parent segment. In the Sunburst graph, Block and Grade wise comparison is done between the Intervention and control group student' performance in Mathematics grade 3, 4 and 5. We can see, the minimum and maximum score automatically arranged at the corner of the circle and rest of score is coming between the minimum and maximum score.
Rampur
Chhaygaon
EXAMPLE 5: BOX PLOT GRAPH I nterquartile Range Upper
whiskers
88.57
Outliers
84.00 77.14
Maximum (88.6)
Mathematics Overall Score
71.43 65.71 60.00 54.29
25%
48.57
Third Quartile ( 42.9 )
44.00 37.14
25%
Middle Quartile/ Median
32.00 28.00
(34.3)
25%
22.86
First Quartile (20.0)
16.00 11.43
25%
5.71 .00
Minimum (0.0)
Lower whiskers
Box Plot is the visual representation of the statistical ďŹ ve number summary of a given data set. A Five Number Summary includes: 1. Minimum 2. First Quartile 3. Middle/Median (Second Quartile) 4. Third Quartile 5. Maximum In the above box plot graph, grade wise performance of students in mathematics subject is compared. To begin with, scores are sorted. Then four equal sized groups are made from the ordered scores. That is, 25% of all scores are placed in each group. The lines dividing the groups are called quartiles, and the groups are referred to as quartile groups. Usually we label these groups 1 to 4 starting at the bottom.
7
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
MINIMUM The minimum is the far down of the graph, at the tip of the down whisker. For this graph, the down whisker end is at 0.0. FIRST QUARTILE Twenty-five percent of scores fall below the first quartile. For this graph, in this case first quartile at 20.0. MIDDLE/MEDIAN (SECOND QUARTILE) The median (middle quartile) marks the mid-point of the data and is shown by the line that divides the box into two parts. Half the scores are greater than or equal to this value and half are less. In this boxplot, it can be found at about 34.3. THIRD QUARTILE Seventy-five percent of the scores fall below the third quartile. Third quartile about 42.9 in this box plot. MAXIMUM The maximum is the end of the “whiskers”: in this graph, at approximately 88.6 LOWER AND UPPER WHISKERS The lower and upper whiskers represent scores outside the middle 50%. Whiskers often (but not always) stretch over a wider range of scores than the middle quartile groups. INTERQUARTILE RANGE The middle “box” represents the middle 50% of scores for the group. The range of scores from lower to upper quartile is referred to as the inter-quartile range. The middle 50% of scores fall within the interquartile range. An outlier is an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data. When reviewing a boxplot, an outlier is defined as a data point that is located outside the fences (“whiskers”) of the boxplot (e.g: outside 1.5 times the interquartile range above the upper quartile and bellow the lower quartile).
EXAMPLE 6: PICTORIAL GRAPH A pictograph is the representation of data using images. Pictographs represent the frequency of data while using images or symbols that are relevant to the data. This is one of the simplest ways to represent data.
20.7%
19.1%
Boys
Girls
In the above graph, the gender wise performance of students in mathematics. Red colors image represents the boy's performance similarly pink colors image represent the girl's performance in mathematics grade 3.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
8
MAIN FINDINGS
SUBJECT WISE MEAN PERCENTAGE GRADE 3 40
30 19.9 20
16.4
10
0 Mathematics
English
GRADE 4 40 33.8 30
25.5
20
10
0 Mathematics
English
GRADE 5 40 33.3 27.3
30
20
10
0 Mathematics Mathematics
English
English
Across all the grades, performance in Mathematics is better in comparison to English. The mean % in Mathematics is below 35% across all the grades. The mean % in English is below 30% across all the three grades. The lowest mean % is in grade 3 in both the subjects.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
10
SUBJECT WISE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION GRADE 3 Mathematics
57.1
English
35.6
71.0
0
10
20
30
7.3
22.0
40
50
60
70
80
5.2 1.8 90
100
GRADE 4 Mathematics
31.7
English
31.1
43.9
0
10
20
25.3
12.0
37.4
30
40
50
60
16.9
70
80
90
1.7
100
GRADE 5 Mathematics
26.0
English
41.9
37.2
0
Below 20%
10
20
21-40%
25.1
44.8
30
40
41-60%
50
60
61-80%
7.0
16.1
70
80
90
1.9
100
Above 80%
Across the grades, majority of the student population is distributed in the low scoring ranges i.e. Below 20% and 21-40% in both English and Mathematics. The performance in Mathematics is better than English across all the grades. In grade 3, more than 90% of the student population is distributed below the 40% range in both the subjects. Performance of grade 4 is comparatively better across both the subjects in comparison to grade 3 and grade 5.
11
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
SUBJECT WISE COMPARISON BETWEEN INTERVENTION AND CONTROL GROUP GRADE 3 40 30 20
20.2
18.5
17.4 12.0
10 0 Intervention Group
Control Group
Intervention Group
Mathematics
Control Group
English
GRADE 4 40
36.9 27.7
30 20.5
20
15.9
10 0 Intervention Group
Control Group
Intervention Group
Mathematics
Control Group
English
GRADE 5 40
35.5 29.3
30 21.5 20
16.6
10 0 Intervention Group
Control Group
Mathematics
Intervention Group
Control Group
English
Mathematics Intervention Group
Mathematics Control Group
English Intervention Group
English Control Group
Across all the grades, performance of Intervention Group is better across both the subjects in comparison to the Control Group. The performance in Mathematics is better in comparison to English across all the grades and both the groups. The mean % of 36.9% in grade 4 Mathematics (Intervention Group) is highest across all the grades. In English, the mean % is below 30% in grades 4 and 5 and below 20% in grade 3 in the Intervention Group. In Control Group, the mean % is below 20% across all the grades.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
12
English
GRADE 3
Mathematics
SUBJECT AND GROUP WISE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
Intervention Group
57.6
Control Group
55.3
Intervention Group
Control Group
Mathematics English
Intervention Group
Mathematics English
10
20
30
25.9
50
60
70
Intervention Group
20
22.0
50
60
Intervention Group
70
21-40%
20
30
8.3
41-60%
27.3 40
50
61-80%
60
100
18.3
68.2 10
90
14.5
48.1
Control Group 0
80
38.2
31.5
2.1 8.1
27.1
47.3
1.6
19.0
42.6
Control Group
16.3
25.2 40
100
14.4
40.3
30
5.7
90
26.0
66.7 10
80
27.4
38.6
Control Group
Below 20%
40
56.1
Intervention Group
5.1 2.2
13.8
32.2
Control Group
3.3
23.9
80.5
0
GRADE 5
8.2
41.5
68.9
0
GRADE 4
34.2
70
80
2.2 4.5
90
100
Above 80%
Across the grades, majority of the student population is distributed in the low scoring ranges i.e. Below 20% and 21-40% in both the subjects and both the groups except in grade 4 and grade 5 Mathematics (Intervention Group). Across the grades, performance of Intervention Group is better than the Control Group in both the subjects. Across the classes, performance of grade 4 is better in both the subjects across both the groups in comparison to grade 3 and 5.
13
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
STRAND WISE COMPARISON: INTERVENTION AND CONTROL GROUP INTERVENTION GROUP: MATHEMATICS: GRADE 3 40 27.7
30 20.6
17.2
20 10.2 10 2.0 0 Basic Number
Data Handling
Fractions
Geometry
Pattern
Mathematics Overall Mean 20.2%
CONTROL GROUP: MATHEMATICS: GRADE 3 39.8 40 30.1 30 20
18.2 9.3
10
1.0 0 Basic Number
Data Handling
Fractions
Geometry
Pattern
Mathematics Overall Mean 18.5%
Across the groups, Fractions has the highest mean % in comparison to other strands. The mean % in Basic Number is close to the respective overall mean % of both the groups. The mean % in Pattern is really low in comparison to other strands across both the groups. Across the groups, performance in Basic Number, Data Handling and Pattern is better in Intervention Group while in Control Group, the performance in Fractions and Geometry is better.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
14
STRAND WISE COMPARISON: INTERVENTION AND CONTROL GROUP INTERVENTION GROUP: MATHEMATICS: GRADE 4 46.8
50 40
48.8
36.7
30
26.2
27.0
Factors & Multiples
Fraction
20 10 0 Number System
Pattern
Pictographs
Mathematics Overall Mean 36.9%
CONTROL GROUP: MATHEMATICS: GRADE 4 50 40 30 22.0 20
21.7
18.4
17.9
Fraction
Pattern
Pictographs
13.0
10 0 Number System
Factors & Multiples
Mathematics Overall Mean 20.5%
Overall, Pictographs in the Intervention Group has the highest mean % in comparison to other strands. The mean % in Factors and Multiples is the lowest in comparison to other strands across both the groups. Across the groups, performance across all the strands is better in Intervention Group in comparison to the Control group.
15
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
STRAND WISE COMPARISON: INTERVENTION AND CONTROL GROUP INTERVENTION GROUP: MATHEMATICS: GRADE 5 40
37.5
38.2
31.9
34.4
30 22.3 20
10
0 Basic Number
Data Handling
Decimals
Fractions
HCF & LCM
Mathematics Overall Mean 35.5%
CONTROL GROUP: MATHEMATICS: GRADE 5 40
30 23.9
23.9
18.2
20 13.4
15.5
10
0 Basic Number
Data Handling
Decimals
Fractions
HCF & LCM
Mathematics Overall Mean 21.5%
Overall, Data Handling in the Intervention Group has the highest mean % in comparison to other strands. The mean % in Decimals is the lowest in comparison to other strands across both the groups. The second lowest mean % is in Fractions across both the groups. Across the groups, performance across all the strands is better in Intervention Group in comparison to the Control group.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
16
STRAND WISE COMPARISON: INTERVENTION AND CONTROL GROUP INTERVENTION GROUP: ENGLISH: GRADE 3 40 30 20.1
17.7
20
16.9
10.1 10 0 Factual
Grammar
Inference Vocabulary English Overall Mean 17.4%
CONTROL GROUP: ENGLISH: GRADE 3 40 30 20
13.6
10.3
10.3
7.8
Factual
Grammar
Inference
Vocabulary
10 0 English Overall Mean 12.0%
Across the groups, Factual strand has the highest mean % in comparison to other strands. The mean % in Grammar is lowest in the Intervention Group while in the Control Group, the lowest mean % is of Vocabulary strand. Across the groups, performance across all the strands is better in Intervention Group while in comparison to the Control Group, there is a marginal difference in the Grammar strand.
17
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
STRAND WISE COMPARISON: INTERVENTION AND CONTROL GROUP INTERVENTION GROUP: ENGLISH: GRADE 4 40
34.9
32.4
27.3
30 17.6
20
10
0 Factual
Grammar
Inference
Vocabulary
English Overall Mean 27.7%
CONTROL GROUP: ENGLISH: GRADE 4 40 30 20
19.5
18.6
16.1 10.1
10 0 Factual
Grammar
Inference
Vocabulary
English Overall Mean 15.9%
Across the groups, Inference strand has the highest mean % in comparison to other strands. The mean % in Vocabulary is close to the respective overall mean % of both the groups. The mean % in Grammar is lowest across both the groups. Across the groups, performance across all the strands is better in Intervention Group in comparison to the Control Group.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
18
STRAND WISE COMPARISON: INTERVENTION AND CONTROL GROUP INTERVENTION GROUP: ENGLISH: GRADE 5 39.9 40 26.6 30 24.6
24.4
20 10 0 Factual
Grammar
Inference
Vocabulary
English Overall Mean 29.3%
CONTROL GROUP: ENGLISH: GRADE 5 40 30 22.9 13.0
20
17.9 10.3
10 0 Factual
Grammar
Inference
Vocabulary
English Overall Mean 16.6%
Across the groups, Factual strand has the highest mean % in comparison to other strands. The mean % in Grammar and Vocabulary is lower in the Intervention Group while in the Control Group, the lowest mean % is of Vocabulary strand. Across the groups, performance across all the strands is better in Intervention Group in comparison to the Control Group.
19
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
BLOCK WISE GRADE COMPARISON BETWEEN INTERVENTION & CONTROL GROUP MATHEMATICS
Rampur
Chhaygaon
Overall, the performance of Intervention Group is better in all the grades in comparison to the Control Group across both the blocks. Across the groups, performance of Chhaygaon block is comparatively better in the Intervention group as compared to the Rampur block. In the Control group, Rampur block has higher mean % in grades 3 and 5. The highest mean % is in grade 4 of the Intervention Group in the Chhaygaon block while the lowest mean % is in grade 4 of the Control group.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
20
BLOCK WISE GRADE COMPARISON BETWEEN INTERVENTION & CONTROL GROUP ENGLISH
Rampur
Chhaygaon
Overall, the performance of Intervention Group is better in all the grades in comparison to the Control Group across both the blocks. Across the groups, performance of Rampur block is comparatively better in the Intervention group as compared to the Chhaygaon block except in grade 4. In the Control group, Rampur block has higher mean % in grades 3 and 5. The highest mean % is in grade 5 of the Intervention Group in the Rampur block while the lowest mean % is in grade 3 of the Control group of Chhaygaon block.
21
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
GUNOTSAV RATING WISE PERFORMANCE IN MATHEMATICS AND ENGLISH GRADE 3
50 40 30 20
23.5
22.9 18.6
16.1 15.0
14.8 14.9
10
15.4
12.9
12.3
6.0 6.7
0 A+
GRADE 4
A
B+
B
C
D
50 41.1 40
37.6
36.0 30.3
30
30.3
26.5 21.0
22.6 21.2
20
15.4
10
17.8
4.8
0 A+
GRADE 5
A
B+
B
C
D
50 37.6
40 31.1 30
35.3 30.1 26.1
25.4
27.0 28.5
17.4
20 Mathematics
12.9 14.2 8.4
10 English 0 A+
A
B+
B
C
D
In grade 3, across all the ratings, Mathematics has a comparatively higher mean % in comparison to English except in the ratings A+ and B+. The highest mean % is in A rating across both the subjects. The lowest mean % is in B+ rating for both the subjects. In grade 4, across all the ratings, Mathematics has a comparatively higher mean % in comparison to English except in the rating D. The highest mean % is in A rating across both the subjects. The lowest mean % is in B+ rating for English and D rating for Mathematics. In grade 5, across all the ratings, Mathematics has a comparatively higher mean % in comparison to English except in the rating C and D. The highest mean % is in A rating across both the subjects. The lowest mean % is in B+ rating for English and D rating for Mathematics.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
22
GENDER AND GUNOTSAV RATING WISE PERFORMANCE IN MATHEMATICS AND ENGLISH GRADE 3 11.8
A+
16.1
A
8.0
B+ B Boys
25.0
19.6 10.7 13.6
C
13.7
D
18.1 17.3 22.5
11.8
A+
19.7
12.9
A
17.7
22.1
4.0 2.7
Girls
B+
14.5 16.2
B C
11.6
D
14.4 23.2
13.7 0
10
20
30
40
50
Mathematics English
Across all the ratings, mean % of Boys is better than Girls across both the subjects except in A+ and D rating (Mathematics) and rating B and D (English) where mean % of Girls is better. Boys and Girls have secured a comparatively higher mean % in Mathematics in comparison to English except in the ratings A+ and B+ (Boys) and rating B (Girls). The highest mean % is in A rating across both the subjects for Boys and Girls except rating D in Mathematics (Girls).
23
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
GENDER AND GUNOTSAV RATING WISE PERFORMANCE IN MATHEMATICS AND ENGLISH GRADE 4 39.1
A+
24.7 42.3
A
30.7 48.0
B+
2.0 33.1
Boys
B
22.3 25.5
C
20.9 17.2 19.5
D
32.9
A+
28.4 40.1
A
29.9 30.7
B+ Girls
6.7 26.8
B
19.4 19.9 21.3
C
13.8 D
16.4 0
10
20
30
40
50
Mathematics English
Across all the ratings, mean % of Boys is better than Girls in Mathematics. In English, mean % of Girls is better in the ratings A+, B+ and C. Boys and Girls have secured a comparatively higher mean % in Mathematics in comparison to English except in the ratings D (Boys) and rating C and D (Girls). The highest mean % is in B+ rating in Mathematics and A in English for Boys. For Girls, the highest mean % is in rating A across both the subjects. The lowest mean % is in D rating in Mathematics for both Boys and Girls. In English, the lowest mean % is in the B+ rating for both boys and girls.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
24
GENDER AND GUNOTSAV RATING WISE PERFORMANCE IN MATHEMATICS AND ENGLISH GRADE 5 29.8
A+
24.8 40.0
A
32.8 18.9
B+
8.8 32.8
Boys
B
23.5 25.6 26.2
C
19.6
D
12.9 32.3
A+
25.8 35.5
A
27.9 16.0
B+ Girls
8.0 37.1
B
28.0 28.6
C
31.2 8.7
D
15.1 0
10
20
30
40
50
Mathematics English
Across all the ratings, mean % of Girls is better than Boys across both the subjects in A+, B and C (Mathematics) and A+, B, C and D (English). Boys and Girls have secured a comparatively higher mean % in Mathematics in comparison to English except in the ratings C for both Boys and C and D for Girls. The highest mean % is in A rating across both the subjects for Boys. For Girls, the highest mean % is in rating B in Mathematics and C in English. The lowest mean % is in B+ rating across both the subjects for Boys and Girls except for D rating in Mathematics where the mean % for Girls is lower.
25
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
GENDER WISE COMPARISON MATHEMATICS: GRADE 3
ENGLISH: GRADE 3
20.7%
19.1%
17%
15.9%
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
MATHEMATICS: GRADE 4
ENGLISH: GRADE 4
35.8%
31.7%
25.8%
25.1%
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
MATHEMATICS: GRADE 5
ENGLISH: GRADE 5
33.8%
32.9%
27.6%
27.1%
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Across all the grades, performance of Boys is comparatively better than Girls.
Across all the grades, performance of Boys is comparatively better than Girls.
The mean % is below 35% for both Boys and Girls across all the grades except grade 4 Mathematics where the mean % is 35.8% for Boys.
The mean % is below 30% for both Boys and Girls across all the grades.
The lowest mean % is in grade 3 for both Boys and Girls as compared to grade 4 and 5.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
The lowest mean % i.e. below 20% is in grade 3 for both Boys and Girls as compared to grade 4 and 5.
26
BLOCK WISE GENDER COMPARISON MATHEMATICS: GRADE 3 19.8%
20.4%
21.7%
18.0%
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
MATHEMATICS: GRADE 4 33.4%
28.7%
38.2%
34.6%
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
MATHEMATICS: GRADE 5 32.7%
32.2%
35.1%
33.5%
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Rampur Boys
Rampur Girls
Chhaygaon Boys
Chhaygaon Girls
Across all the blocks, performance of Boys is comparatively better than Girls in all the grades except grade 3 where Girls in Rampur block have performed better than Boys. The performance of Chhaygaon block is better across the grades for both Boys and Girls except in grade 3 where the mean % of Girls in Rampur block is comparatively higher. The highest mean % is in grade 4 in Chhaygaon block for both Boys and Girls in comparison to grade 3 and grade 5 across the blocks. The lowest mean % is in grade 3 in Rampur block for Boys and Chhaygaon block for Girls in comparison to rest of the grades. 27
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
BLOCK WISE GENDER COMPARISON ENGLISH: GRADE 3 19.8%
19.5%
14.0%
12.8%
25.3%
27.7%
25.7%
25.8%
ENGLISH: GRADE 4 26.4%
22.5%
ENGLISH: GRADE 5 29.3%
Rampur Boys
28.2%
Rampur Girls
Chhaygaon Boys
Chhaygaon Girls
Across all the blocks, performance of Boys is comparatively better than Girls in all the grades except grade 4 and grade 5 where Girls in Chhaygaon block have performed comparatively better than Boys. The performance is Rampur block is better across the grades for both Boys and Girls except in grade 4 where the mean % of Girls in Rampur block is comparatively lower. The highest mean % is in grade 5 in Rampur block for both Boys and Girls in comparison to grade 3 and grade 5. The lowest mean % is in grade 3 in Chhaygaon block for both Boys and Girls in comparison to grade 4 and grade 5.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
28
GROUP WISE GENDER COMPARISON MATHEMATICS: GRADE 3 21.3%
19.3%
18.4%
18.6%
20.2%
20.6%
23.9%
20.0%
MATHEMATICS: GRADE 4 39.1%
34.7%
MATHEMATICS: GRADE 5 35.3%
Intervention group: Boys
35.7%
Intervention group: Girls
Control group: Boys
Control group: Girls
Across all the groups, the performance of Intervention Group is better across the grades for both Boys and Girls in comparison to the Control Group. The performance of Boys in the Intervention Group is comparatively better than Girls in all the grades except grade 5 where the mean % of Girls is marginally higher than Boys. The highest mean % is in grade 4 for Boys and grade 5 for Girls in the Intervention Group. The lowest mean % is in grade 3 for both Boys and Girls in the Control Group.
29
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
GROUP WISE GENDER COMPARISON ENGLISH: GRADE 3 17.7%
17.1%
13.8%
10.3%
16.9%
15.1%
16.8%
16.5%
ENGLISH: GRADE 4 27.7%
27.8%
ENGLISH: GRADE 5 29.2%
Intervention group: Boys
29.4%
Intervention group: Girls
Control group: Boys
Control group: Girls
Across all the groups, the performance of Intervention Group is better across the grades for both Boys and Girls in comparison to the Control Group. The performance of Boys and Girls in the Intervention Group is comparative across all the grades. The highest mean % is in grade 5 for both Boys and Girls in the Intervention Group in comparison to rest of the grades. The lowest mean % is in grade 3 for both Boys and Girls in the Control Group.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
30
SUBJECT WISE AND GRADE WISE DISTRIBUTION THROUGH BOXPLOT MATHEMATICS MATHEMATICS OVERALL MEAN % Grade: 3 Median
Grade: 4
Grade: 5
18.0
32.0
34.3
Minimum
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maximum
56.0
92.0
88.6
25th Percentiles
8.0
16.0
20.0
50th Percentiles
18.0
32.0
34.3
75th Percentiles
32.0
52.0
42.9
100 – 90 –
Mathematics Overall Score
80 – 70 – 60 – 50 – 40 – 30 – 20 – 10 – 0
–
GRADE 3
GRADE 4
GRADE 5
Across the grades, students have secured the minimum score of 0.0%. The highest score has been 92% in grade 4 in comparison to other grade students. In grade 4 & 5, near about one third of students are in the second quartile. In grade 3 only 20% of the students are in the second quartile. Overall, the performance of grade 4 and 5 is better in comparison to Grade 3 students.
31
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
SUBJECT WISE AND GRADE WISE DISTRIBUTION THROUGH BOXPLOT ENGLISH ENGLISH OVERALL Grade: 3 Median
Grade: 4
Grade: 5
12.0
24.0
28.0
Minimum
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maximum
96.0
80.0
88.0
25th Percentiles
4.0
12.0
16.0
50th Percentiles
12.0
24.0
28.0
75th Percentiles
24.0
36.0
36.0
110 – 100 –
Mathematics Overall Score
90 – 80 – 70 – 60 – 50 – 40 – 30 – 20 – 10 – 0
–
GRADE 3
GRADE 4
GRADE 5
Across the grades, students secured the minimum score of 0.0%. The highest score has been 96% in grade 3 in comparison to other grade students. In grade 4 & 5, near about one third of students are in the second quartile. In grade 3, only 12% of the students are in the second quartile. Overall, the performance of grade 4 and 5 is better in comparison to Grade 3 students.
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
32
QUESTION WISE ANALYSIS MATHEMATICS GRADE: 3 Question No.
33
Key
Level of Item
Option 'A'
Option 'B'
Option 'C'
Option 'D'
Multiple Response
No Response
01
D
Difficult
23.2
5.8
42.4
4.2
4.5
19.9
02
C
Difficult
9.8
8.5
19.9
1.9
4.2
55.7
03
D
Difficult
16.8
6.5
11.3
15.5
12.9
36.9
04
C
Average
2.7
6.4
68.5
2.5
2.1
17.9
05
B
Difficult
7.7
11.0
12.9
36.0
2.1
30.2
06
B
Difficult
15.3
27.8
13.8
4.3
2.2
36.5
07
A
Difficult
29.9
5.2
17.4
8.9
4.5
34.1
08
D
Difficult
8.2
12.8
25.1
18.9
2.4
32.6
09
A
Difficult
12.2
13.5
29.8
6.7
1.6
36.2
10
A
Difficult
18.0
7.1
14.9
11.8
7.0
41.2
11
B
Difficult
5.7
31.5
8.5
9.8
2.1
42.4
12
C
Difficult
24.7
5.5
28.4
3.0
.9
37.5
13
C
Difficult
9.8
15.8
25.1
6.3
.6
42.4
14
D
Difficult
6.5
18.2
14.4
14.6
1.3
44.9
15
D
Difficult
10.6
17.4
15.8
8.5
2.1
45.7
16
B
Difficult
10.6
30.4
14.1
4.3
.6
40.0
17
C
Difficult
3.7
5.4
29.8
14.1
.3
46.7
18
C
Difficult
8.8
8.6
10.3
9.4
12.9
50.0
19
B
Difficult
3.4
13.1
12.8
14.3
1.5
54.9
20
D
Difficult
1.0
7.3
43.5
3.0
3.9
41.4
21
B
Difficult
3.1
18.5
12.9
14.1
4.0
47.3
22
C
Difficult
4.6
10.9
29.9
6.7
1.5
46.4
23
A
Difficult
4.8
6.8
35.0
3.3
.9
49.3
24
C
Difficult
4.0
15.2
13.8
8.0
1.9
57.0
25
D
Difficult
32.1
4.2
6.5
9.7
3.3
44.2
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
QUESTION WISE ANALYSIS MATHEMATICS GRADE: 4 Question No.
Key
Level of Item
Option 'A'
Option 'B'
Option 'C'
Option 'D'
Multiple Response
No Response
01
B
Average
8.9
36.0
8.7
18.6
2.5
25.3
02
C
Difficult
12.1
30.4
29.3
4.3
1.1
22.7
03
C
Difficult
18.5
25.5
30.6
3.3
2.3
19.9
04
D
Average
11.5
14.3
8.1
46.0
.9
19.3
05
C
Difficult
16.5
11.0
32.3
10.1
1.7
28.4
06
C
Average
6.5
13.2
48.6
5.9
.9
24.8
07
B
Average
13.5
33.7
10.4
7.1
2.2
33.1
08
D
Average
9.0
6.5
7.8
50.9
1.9
23.9
09
A
Average
36.8
28.0
6.8
4.5
1.7
22.2
10
C
Difficult
1.9
2.8
24.4
42.2
2.5
26.2
11
B
Average
6.7
36.2
5.3
16.6
3.1
32.1
12
B
Average
10.2
36.8
11.2
7.3
1.2
33.2
13
C
Difficult
23.6
7.5
24.4
5.3
3.0
36.3
14
D
Difficult
6.5
16.8
11.6
23.0
6.8
35.2
15
C
Difficult
11.6
26.7
15.1
10.2
1.1
35.2
16
D
Average
10.4
8.2
9.9
38.4
6.2
26.9
17
C
Average
2.2
6.4
47.4
12.9
1.4
29.8
18
C
Average
5.7
9.2
46.0
8.1
2.5
28.6
19
B
Average
12.7
37.0
11.3
3.0
1.4
34.6
20
A
Difficult
29.8
8.2
17.4
4.7
.9
39.0
21
B
Average
9.3
36.8
14.9
5.9
.8
32.3
22
A
Average
40.1
7.6
6.7
7.0
1.4
37.3
23
C
Average
5.9
10.4
37.0
3.1
.9
42.7
24
A
Difficult
6.2
17.7
26.2
5.7
1.4
42.7
25
B
Difficult
22.2
21.3
6.5
6.4
2.2
41.5
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
34
QUESTION WISE ANALYSIS MATHEMATICS GRADE: 5 Question No.
35
Key
Level of Item
Option 'A'
Option 'B'
Option 'C'
Option 'D'
Multiple Response
No Response
01
B
Average
6.3
58.9
10.7
5.8
2.0
16.3
02
B
Average
13.1
38.5
19.3
8.1
1.0
20.0
03
A
Average
33.5
5.7
11.1
25.8
.9
23.0
04
A
Difficult
6.6
40.9
18.1
2.0
5.0
27.4
05
D
Average
16.1
2.9
10.7
47.2
2.6
20.5
06
B
Average
3.9
64.5
9.7
5.1
.4
16.4
07
C
Average
8.8
4.3
60.5
4.6
5.3
16.5
08
B
Average
6.1
60.8
6.7
7.8
1.7
16.8
09
A
Difficult
31.2
43.2
3.6
4.3
1.7
16.0
10
B
Difficult
18.3
31.4
10.7
13.3
1.0
25.4
11
C
Difficult
21.3
19.1
27.1
9.8
1.1
21.5
12
A
Average
38.9
16.8
11.8
5.7
1.9
24.8
13
D
Average
4.3
16.3
15.1
33.2
1.4
29.7
14
C
Average
11.0
5.1
58.5
7.0
1.7
16.7
15
C
Difficult
13.3
16.4
29.0
11.7
2.1
27.5
16
A
Average
43.2
14.1
10.3
2.7
1.4
28.2
17
C
Average
14.7
10.8
46.1
11.6
2.0
14.8
18
B
Difficult
19.4
19.8
15.1
17.1
1.3
27.2
19
B
Difficult
7.8
19.8
38.2
6.3
.9
27.0
20
C
Difficult
7.8
14.3
17.7
28.4
.7
31.1
21
B
Difficult
7.0
16.0
12.7
35.5
.9
28.0
22
B
Average
10.4
38.8
9.6
10.6
2.0
28.7
23
C
Difficult
7.7
15.5
31.4
12.7
1.0
31.7
24
A
Difficult
20.8
18.0
14.4
7.4
.9
38.5
25
C
Difficult
22.0
7.8
25.2
11.8
.7
32.4
26
A
Difficult
26.1
19.0
17.8
5.8
1.7
29.5
27
C
Difficult
14.6
11.0
27.8
17.3
2.0
27.4
28
B
Average
6.1
41.9
9.6
12.4
1.1
28.8
29
C
Difficult
17.8
17.3
19.0
12.7
1.3
32.0
30
D
Average
8.6
10.7
12.8
39.1
.7
28.1
31
D
Difficult
11.3
10.7
17.3
22.5
.9
37.4
32
B
Difficult
11.3
15.8
25.5
9.8
.4
37.1
33
D
Difficult
19.5
15.0
18.7
17.0
1.6
28.2
34
B
Average
10.6
44.2
9.6
7.3
.6
27.8
35
D
Difficult
25.4
8.3
18.3
14.3
.9
33.0
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
QUESTION WISE ANALYSIS ENGLISH GRADE: 3 Question No.
Key
Level of Item
Option 'A'
Option 'B'
Option 'C'
Option 'D'
Multiple Response
No Response
01
C
Average
9.8
12.2
42.6
8.9
14.4
12.1
02
D
Difficult
13.8
14.9
12.4
21.1
10.1
27.7
03
A
Difficult
19.6
13.5
13.8
6.8
9.7
36.5
04
B
Difficult
13.1
12.8
12.5
8.6
10.1
42.9
05
A
Difficult
15.2
12.8
10.0
7.1
8.3
46.6
06
A
Difficult
25.4
11.0
8.6
5.8
9.8
39.3
07
A
Difficult
12.6
12.2
13.8
7.4
6.8
47.0
08
C
Difficult
9.7
11.2
17.4
9.1
8.6
44.0
09
A
Difficult
12.2
11.5
12.1
10.6
6.7
47.0
10
A
Difficult
10.3
12.5
11.3
9.1
6.0
50.9
11
B
Difficult
13.5
10.3
16.2
8.8
7.1
44.0
12
A
Difficult
13.1
13.7
9.4
10.7
7.6
45.5
13
A
Difficult
13.7
10.4
11.0
9.2
7.7
47.9
14
A
Difficult
18.0
7.7
6.8
7.1
4.8
55.5
15
B
Difficult
6.1
11.6
12.2
8.3
4.9
56.8
16
A
Average
34.2
10.6
4.6
2.1
6.3
42.3
17
C
Difficult
7.3
10.1
24.0
7.9
6.0
44.8
18
C
Difficult
4.3
2.5
19.5
6.0
13.1
54.6
19
D
Difficult
11.6
6.1
11.9
10.6
6.4
53.4
20
A
Difficult
22.5
9.4
5.8
6.4
5.7
50.3
21
D
Difficult
5.7
14.9
8.5
9.1
5.8
56.1
22
D
Difficult
13.2
6.7
7.1
7.0
6.1
59.8
23
C
Difficult
5.2
7.7
12.9
5.1
4.8
64.3
24
B
Difficult
6.0
6.4
10.6
5.8
4.9
66.4
25
A
Difficult
7.9
4.9
7.6
7.9
4.8
67.0
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
36
QUESTION WISE ANALYSIS ENGLISH GRADE: 4 Question No.
37
Key
Level of Item
Option 'A'
Option 'B'
Option 'C'
Option 'D'
Multiple Response
No Response
01
A
Average
48.6
10.1
15.2
9.3
7.1
9.6
02
B
Average
19.6
37.0
10.4
7.6
5.7
19.7
03
D
Average
11.5
10.2
13.8
34.8
5.3
24.4
04
D
Difficult
20.0
22.4
16.8
12.9
4.8
23.1
05
C
Difficult
11.6
10.6
28.1
18.8
5.6
25.3
06
B
Difficult
8.1
29.7
23.9
10.1
5.4
22.8
07
A
Average
41.0
7.9
9.0
9.6
4.5
28.0
08
B
Difficult
18.3
25.5
15.1
9.0
3.0
29.2
09
B
Difficult
23.4
19.6
12.3
11.5
3.0
30.3
10
B
Difficult
13.2
15.4
19.7
17.2
2.5
32.0
11
C
Difficult
30.0
15.4
15.8
9.2
2.3
27.3
12
D
Difficult
11.5
20.7
16.9
17.7
1.9
31.4
13
B
Difficult
14.3
12.7
25.6
13.5
2.0
31.8
14
A
Average
48.4
11.3
5.4
2.5
2.8
29.5
15
A
Average
39.0
8.9
9.3
7.8
2.3
32.8
16
A
Average
37.6
8.9
12.3
12.3
3.7
25.3
17
D
Difficult
19.1
10.4
10.6
27.8
3.1
29.0
18
C
Difficult
28.3
12.4
18.2
7.5
4.2
29.5
19
D
Difficult
16.5
10.6
12.0
24.4
3.9
32.8
20
C
Difficult
21.9
10.4
18.0
13.4
2.6
33.7
21
C
Difficult
7.8
9.6
17.9
25.9
3.4
35.4
22
A
Difficult
19.9
20.5
9.8
10.2
2.8
36.8
23
B
Difficult
10.6
13.0
16.5
16.8
2.5
40.7
24
A
Difficult
16.6
12.1
12.9
12.4
2.6
43.3
25
D
Difficult
11.8
10.6
14.6
17.5
2.6
42.9
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
QUESTION WISE ANALYSIS ENGLISH GRADE: 5 Question No.
Key
Level of Item
Option 'A'
Option 'B'
Option 'C'
Option 'D'
Multiple Response
No Response
01
C
Average
8.3
7.6
73.2
3.6
2.0
5.4
02
A
Average
43.8
18.4
13.7
8.1
1.4
14.6
03
B
Difficult
35.8
22.4
16.3
10.1
2.3
13.1
04
C
Average
7.1
23.3
35.9
9.0
1.1
23.5
05
C
Difficult
9.1
19.8
26.4
17.5
1.0
26.1
06
D
Difficult
14.6
15.4
20.4
31.1
1.6
17.0
07
B
Difficult
24.7
26.5
13.0
17.3
2.0
16.5
08
A
Difficult
27.4
9.7
24.7
11.3
2.3
24.7
09
C
Difficult
22.0
16.4
20.8
14.6
2.0
24.3
10
C
Difficult
17.8
13.7
29.1
11.1
.7
27.5
11
C
Difficult
23.3
21.7
26.4
10.6
.9
17.3
12
B
Difficult
16.1
21.5
17.4
18.3
1.0
25.7
13
A
Difficult
13.8
29.1
12.0
15.5
.6
29.0
14
B
Average
18.4
42.1
11.1
7.4
1.4
19.5
15
C
Difficult
19.3
24.1
26.4
9.6
1.3
19.4
16
A
Difficult
28.4
15.3
16.0
10.6
2.1
27.7
17
B
Difficult
10.4
28.2
23.8
9.4
1.7
26.4
18
C
Difficult
16.1
16.8
18.5
16.7
1.7
30.1
19
B
Difficult
26.0
19.8
18.5
8.6
1.0
26.1
20
B
Difficult
10.1
27.1
17.4
13.3
1.0
31.1
21
C
Difficult
9.0
17.4
19.5
19.8
.9
33.4
22
C
Difficult
12.3
20.4
25.2
10.1
1.1
30.8
23
B
Difficult
17.5
19.7
16.0
15.4
.4
31.0
24
A
Difficult
17.0
21.7
16.3
12.8
.3
32.0
25
B
Difficult
14.0
12.7
24.3
13.6
.4
35.1
THE TEACHER EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (TEP): BASELINE REPORT 2018
38
Education Quality Foundation of India Plot No 804, Sector 38, Subash Chowk Behind Sadar Police Station, Gurugram Haryana 121001 www.eqďŹ .org @EQFI_India