Induction Training AEO

1. 30 June 2015
Parho Punjab Barho Punjab
Revised District Ranking Methodology

2. 11
Agenda
• The new district ranking system
• Core indicators
• Retention indicators
• Infrastructure indicators
• Management & monitoring indicators
• Administrative ranking system

3. 22
The new rankings system is based on a) Administrative
indicators b) Quality indicators
Administrative
indicators
Quality
indicators
1 2 coaching visits per school
2 Separate quality ranking based on this indicator for district which is not part of the quarterly rating used for bonus award
1
2
 Categorized into Core, Retention, Infrastructure
and Monitoring & management indicators
 Sub categorized into 13 metrics
 Focus mainly on achieving administrative
excellence at the school level
 Top performing districts to be rewarded financially
 Consists of 4 metrics
 Focus mainly on accessing quality of Learning &
Education at the school level

4. 33
The Administrative indicators are the following
Core indicators
3
Student attendance (1-12)1
Teacher presence2
Functioning facilities3
Administrator visits4
MEA visits
2 Overcrowding and multigrade (OCMG) due to classrooms
Infrastructure
indicators
1 Overcrowding and multigrade (OCMG) due to teachers
3 Dangerous building
Monitoring &
management
indicators
2 DTE visits1
1 AEO span of control
Retention
indicators
1 Student attendance (Kachi)
2 Retention (Kachi)
3 Student attendance (1-5)
4 Retention (1-5)
Not
included in
district
rankings
1 2 coaching visits per school
A
C
D
B
1

5. 44
The quality indicators are the following
Learning
Indicators
LND results1
Punjab Examination Commissioning (PEC) exams2
Six monthly assessment3
MVF form4
Currently not
included in
district
rankings
1 2 coaching visits per school
E
2

6. 55
Agenda
• The new district ranking system
• Core indicators
• Retention indicators
• Infrastructure indicators
• Management & monitoring indicators
• Administrative ranking system

7. 66
District will be ranked out of a total score of 13
Definitions ValueMetrics1
Functioning facilities
Teacher presence
Student attendance (Kachi)
Retention (Kachi)
Student attendance (1-5)
Retention (1-5)
OCMG due to teachers
OCMG due to classrooms
Dangerous buildings
AEO span of control
DTE visits
Functioning & available facilities2 as a % of total required facilities
Teachers present as a % of total teachers
Student present as % of total students enrolled
Current enrolment as % of baseline enrolment retained
Student present as % of total students enrolled
Current enrolment as % of baseline enrolment retained
Student present as % of total students enrolled
Schools with inadequate3 number of primary teachers as a % of total schools4
Schools with inadequate3 number of classrooms as a % of total schools4
Schools with dangerous buildings as a % of total schools
Average number of schools per AEO
% of schools with adequate3 number of coaching visits by DTEs
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A2
A3
B1
B2
B3
B4
C1
C2
C3
D1
D2
Student attendance (1-12) 1A1
District administrator visits % of schools4 visited by district administrators 1A4
1 All the metrics are calculated on a monthly basis
2 Includes electricity, boundary wall, drinking water and toilets
3 Step function defined in the backup section of the document
4 with primary section
Core
Retention
Infra-
structure
Monitoring &
Management
Indicators
1

8. 77
District ranking
SOURCE: PMIU
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.5
NAROWAL
RAJANPUR
RAWALPINDI
D.G. KHAN
RAHIMYAR KHAN
FAISALABAD
SIALKOT
ATTOCK
BHAKKAR
KHUSHAB
OKARA
MIANWALI
GUJRANWALA
SHEIKHUPURA
LAHORE
MUZAFFARGARH
LAYYAH
GUJRAT
JHANG
BAHAWALNAGAR
HAFIZABAD
PAKPATTAN
T.T.SINGH
NANKANA SAHIB
CHINIOT
LODHRAN
CHAKWAL
KASUR
MANDI BAHA UD DIN
KHANEWAL
MULTAN
JHELUM
VEHARI
BAHAWALPUR
SARGODHA
SAHIWAL
Performance (out of 13)District
1 Based on average score of April & May
Average district score, baseline1

9. 88
Performance on most core indicators remains strong…
SOURCE: PMIU, May data
Teacher presence
Teachers present as a % of total teachers
District administrator visits
% of schools2 with visited by district
administrators
Functioning facilities
Functioning & available facilities as a % of total
required facilities1
A4A3
A2 93.1%
Student attendance (1-12)
Student present as % of total students
enrolled
89.5%
95.9%95.5%
A1
1 electricity, drinking water, toilet and boundary walls
2 with primary section

10. 99
…. but lags on some of the new indicators (1/2)
SOURCE: PMIU, May data
Student attendance (K)
Student present as % of total students
enrolled
Student attendance (1-5)
Student present as % of total students
enrolled
Retention1 (Kachi)
Current enrolment as % of baseline2 enrolment
Retention1 (1-5)
Current enrolment as % of baseline2 enrolment
82.9%
88.7% 99.7%
100%
OCMG due to classrooms
Schools with inadequate3 number of
classrooms as a % of total schools
OCMG due to teachers
Schools with inadequate3 number of primary
teachers as a % of total schools4
62%65%
B4B3
C2C1
B2B1
1 Retention for the month of April is taken as 100% (start of school academic year) 2 Peak enrolment month of the current school year
3. Step function defined in backup section of the document 4. With primary section

11. 1010SOURCE: PMIU, May data
…. but lags on some of the new indicators (2/2)
1 Two visits per school per month 2 Slightly inflated due to Layyah’s high AEO span of control (138)
3. Defined as life threating to teachers or/and students, further details in the “Training on dangerous building” document for MEAs
Dangerous Buildings
Schools with dangerous3 buildings as
a % of total schools
DTE Visits
% of schools with adequate1 number
of coaching visits by DTEs
AEO Span of Control
Average number of schools per AEO
D2
D1C3 9.3% 472
100%
MEA visits
% of schools visited by monitoring
officers for data collection
D3 98.1%

12. 1111
Agenda
• The new district ranking system
• Core indicators
• Retention indicators
• Infrastructure indicators
• Management & monitoring indicators
• Administrative ranking system

13. 1212
Past performance on core indicators (1/2)
Student attendance
Students present as a % of total students enrolled
Teacher presence
Teachers present as a % of total teachers
SOURCE: PMIU, May data
86.8
90.1
88.9 89.5
89.9
92.991.9 93.6
2011 2012 2013 20152014
2011 2012 2013 20152014
On-duty

14. 1313
Availability and functioning of facilities
Functioning & available facilities as a % of total required facilities1
District administration visits
% of schools2 visited by district administrators
SOURCE: PMIU, May data
92.6 93.3
87.8
95.5
95.4
82.0
96.0 95.9
Past performance on core indicators (2/2)
1 Includes electricity, boundary wall, drinking water and toilets
2 With primary section
2011 2012 2013 20152014
2011 2012 2013 20152014

15. 1414
-4.6
-2.9
-2.0
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.4
-1.0
-0.7
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
2.0
2.3
2.6
2.8
2.9
3.1
A1. Student attendance (1-12)
SOURCE: PMIU, May data
93.1% 90.0%
Jhelum 92.9% 90.0%
Chakwal 92.8% 90.0%
Pakpattan 92.6% 90.0%
Bahawalnagar 92.3% 90.0%
Lodhran 92.0% 90.0%
Chiniot 91.6% 90.0%
Khanewal 91.4% 90.0%
Multan 91.4% 90.0%
Nankana Sahib 91.3% 90.0%
Bahawalpur 91.2% 90.0%
Vehari 91.2% 90.0%
Hafizabad 91.1% 90.0%
Mandi Baha Ud Din 91.0% 90.0%
Khushab 90.9% 90.0%
Jhang 90.7% 90.0%
Layyah 88.7% 88.0%
Gujrat 90.5% 90.0%
Rawalpindi 88.4% 88.0%
Muzaffargarh 88.3% 88.0%
Mianwali 88.2% 88.0%
T.T.Singh 90.1% 90.0%
Rahimyar Khan 85.1% 85.0%
Okara 89.9% 90.0%
Sahiwal 89.8% 90.0%
Lahore 89.7% 90.0%
Sargodha 89.6% 90.0%
Sheikhupura 89.3% 90.0%
Faisalabad 89.0% 90.0%
Attock 88.6% 90.0%
Sialkot 88.6% 90.0%
Narowal 86.4% 88.0%
Gujranwala 88.2% 90.0%
Bhakkar 86.0% 88.0%
D.G. Khan 82.1% 85.0%
Kasur
Rajanpur 80.4% 85.0%
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
SahiwalKhanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
On or above target
Below target by more than
2% but less than 4%
Student present as a % of total students enrolled
May 2015
District TargetPerformance Delta
Below target by less than 2%
Below target by more than 4%

16. 1515
A2. Teacher presence
SOURCE: PMIU, May data
0.2
0.8
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.7
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.7
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.2
6.9Chiniot 96.9% 90.0%
Lodhran 95.2% 90.0%
Pakpattan 95.2% 90.0%
Vehari 95.1% 90.0%
Multan 95.0% 90.0%
Jhelum 95.0% 90.0%
Layyah 94.7% 90.0%
Jhang 94.5% 90.0%
Chakwal 94.4% 90.0%
Khushab 94.4% 90.0%
Sahiwal 94.0% 90.0%
Khanewal 93.7% 90.0%
Gujrat 93.6% 90.0%
Kasur 93.6% 90.0%
Nankana Sahib 93.5% 90.0%
Bhakkar 93.5% 90.0%
Attock 93.4% 90.0%
Rajanpur 93.3% 90.0%
Hafizabad 93.3% 90.0%
Faisalabad 93.3% 90.0%
D.G. Khan 93.2% 90.0%
Bahawalnagar 93.1% 90.0%
Sheikhupura 93.1% 90.0%
Bahawalpur 93.0% 90.0%
T.T.Singh 92.6% 90.0%
Muzaffargarh 92.6% 90.0%
Rahimyar Khan 92.6% 90.0%
Gujranwala 92.5% 90.0%
Sargodha 92.5% 90.0%
Narowal 91.9% 90.0%
Mandi Baha Ud Din 91.7% 90.0%
Okara 91.6% 90.0%
Rawalpindi 91.4% 90.0%
Mianwali 91.3% 90.0%
Lahore 90.8% 90.0%
Sialkot 90.2% 90.0%
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
SahiwalKhanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
Teachers present as a % of total teachers
May 2015
District TargetPerformance Delta
Greater than or equal to 90%
Less than 86%
Less than 88% but greater
than or equal to 86%
Less than 90% but greater
than or equal to 88%

17. 1616
A3. Functioning Facilities
-6.2
-4.2
-4.0
-2.6
-1.8
-1.4
-1.4
-0.9
-0.8
0.2
0.3
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.5
-13.0
SOURCE: PMIU, May data
Lahore 99.5% 95.0%
Gujrat 99.0% 95.0%
Vehari 98.9% 95.0%
Jhelum 98.8% 95.0%
Khanewal 98.6% 95.0%
Layyah 98.5% 95.0%
Faisalabad 98.5% 95.0%
Chiniot 98.5% 95.0%
Kasur 98.1% 95.0%
Multan 98.0% 95.0%
Mandi Baha Ud Din 98.0% 95.0%
Chakwal 97.8% 95.0%
Sargodha 97.3% 95.0%
T.T.Singh 97.2% 95.0%
Attock 97.2% 95.0%
Pakpattan 97.2% 95.0%
Gujranwala 97.2% 95.0%
Lodhran 97.1% 95.0%
Muzaffargarh 96.5% 95.0%
Okara 96.4% 95.0%
Sialkot 96.4% 95.0%
Sheikhupura 96.1% 95.0%
Hafizabad 96.0% 95.0%
Sahiwal 95.6% 95.0%
Bahawalpur 95.3% 95.0%
Nankana Sahib 95.2% 95.0%
Bhakkar 94.2% 95.0%
Jhang 94.1% 95.0%
Narowal 93.6% 95.0%
Rawalpindi 93.6% 95.0%
Mianwali 93.2% 95.0%
Bahawalnagar 92.4% 95.0%
Khushab 91.0% 95.0%
Rahimyar Khan 90.8% 95.0%
Rajanpur 88.8% 95.0%
D.G. Khan 82.0% 95.0%
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
SahiwalKhanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
Functioning & available facilities as a % of total required facilities1
May 2015
District TargetPerformance Delta
Greater than or equal to 95%
Less than 85%
Less than 90% but greater
than or equal to 85%
Less than 95% but greater
than or equal to 90%
1 Includes electricity, boundary wall, drinking water and toilets

18. 1717
A4. District administrator visits
SOURCE: PMIU, May data
-8.2
-2.7
1.7
2.0
2.5
3.3
5.2
5.3
5.7
5.8
6.2
6.3
6.5
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.8
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.3
9.0
9.0
9.5
9.6
9.8
9.9Chiniot 99.9% 90.0%
Jhelum 99.8% 90.0%
Pakpattan 99.6% 90.0%
Chakwal 99.5% 90.0%
Nankana Sahib 99.0% 90.0%
Kasur 99.0% 90.0%
Khanewal 98.3% 90.0%
Multan 98.2% 90.0%
Sahiwal 98.2% 90.0%
Hafizabad 98.1% 90.0%
Lodhran 98.1% 90.0%
Vehari 97.8% 90.0%
Mandi Baha Ud Din 97.8% 90.0%
Jhang 97.7% 90.0%
Sheikhupura 97.7% 90.0%
Bahawalpur 97.6% 90.0%
Layyah 97.4% 90.0%
Khushab 97.3% 90.0%
Rawalpindi 97.2% 90.0%
T.T.Singh 97.0% 90.0%
Bhakkar 96.9% 90.0%
Okara 96.8% 90.0%
Attock 96.7% 90.0%
Faisalabad 96.5% 90.0%
Gujrat 96.3% 90.0%
Muzaffargarh 96.2% 90.0%
Mianwali 95.8% 90.0%
Bahawalnagar 95.7% 90.0%
Rahimyar Khan 95.3% 90.0%
Narowal 95.2% 90.0%
Sargodha 93.3% 90.0%
Gujranwala 92.5% 90.0%
Lahore 92.0% 90.0%
D.G. Khan 91.7% 90.0%
Rajanpur 87.3% 90.0%
Sialkot 81.8% 90.0%
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
SahiwalKhanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
% of schools1 visited by district administrators
April 2015
District TargetPerformance Delta
Greater than or equal to 90%
Less than 86%
Less than 88% but greater
than or equal to 86%
Less than 90% but greater
than or equal to 88%
1 With primary section

19. 1818
Agenda
• The new district ranking system
• Core indicators
• Retention indicators
• Infrastructure indicators
• Management & monitoring indicators
• Administrative ranking system

20. 1919SOURCE: PMIU, May data
-15.7
-15.0
-13.0
-13.0
-12.8
-10.6
-10.5
-10.3
-10.0
-9.0
-8.9
-8.8
-7.8
-7.5
-7.3
-6.9
-6.7
-6.1
-5.8
-5.7
-4.9
-4.8
-4.8
-3.0
-2.9
-2.9
-2.5
-2.4
-2.0
-2.0
-1.7
-1.4
-1.3
-0.8
-0.4
1.4CHAKWAL 91.4% 90.0%
JHELUM 89.6% 90.0%
LODHRAN 89.2% 90.0%
LAHORE 88.7% 90.0%
KASUR 88.6% 90.0%
KHANEWAL 88.3% 90.0%
BAHAWALNAGAR 88.0% 90.0%
BAHAWALPUR 88.0% 90.0%
VEHARI 87.6% 90.0%
MULTAN 87.5% 90.0%
PAKPATTAN 87.1% 90.0%
JHANG 87.1% 90.0%
HAFIZABAD 87.0% 90.0%
LAYYAH 83.2% 88.0%
RAWALPINDI 83.2% 88.0%
KHUSHAB 85.1% 90.0%
ATTOCK 84.3% 90.0%
OKARA 84.2% 90.0%
SARGODHA 83.9% 90.0%
MANDI BAHA UD DIN 83.3% 90.0%
NANKANA SAHIB 83.1% 90.0%
GUJRAT 82.7% 90.0%
SAHIWAL 82.5% 90.0%
MUZAFFARGARH 80.2% 88.0%
CHINIOT 81.2% 90.0%
FAISALABAD 81.1% 90.0%
T.T.SINGH 81.0% 90.0%
SHEIKHUPURA 80.0% 90.0%
RAHIMYAR KHAN 74.7% 85.0%
NAROWAL 77.5% 88.0%
GUJRANWALA 79.4% 90.0%
SIALKOT 77.2% 90.0%
MIANWALI 75.0% 88.0%
D.G. KHAN 72.0% 85.0%
BHAKKAR 73.0% 88.0%
RAJANPUR 69.3% 85.0%
District Performance Target Delta
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
SahiwalKhanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
B1. Student attendance (Kachi)
Students present as a % of total students enrolled
May 2015
On or above target
Below target by more than
2% but less than 4%
Below target by less than or
equal to 2%
Below target by more than 4%

21. 2020SOURCE: PMIU, May data
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.6
5.6
5.7
5.9
6.4
6.6
7.0
7.0Pakpattan 100.0% 93.0%
Lahore 100.0% 93.0%
Khanewal 100.0% 93.4%
Bahawalnagar 100.0% 93.6%
Rajanpur 100.0% 94.1%
Rawalpindi 100.0% 94.3%
Nankana sahib 100.0% 94.4%
Attock 100.0% 95.4%
Gujranwala 100.0% 95.6%
Hafizabad 100.0% 95.7%
Chiniot 100.0% 95.8%
Muzaffargarh 100.0% 96.1%
Sargodha 100.0% 96.2%
Sahiwal 100.0% 96.3%
Jhelum 100.0% 96.3%
Sialkot 100.0% 96.4%
Mandi baha ud din 100.0% 96.4%
Vehari 100.0% 96.7%
D.G. Khan 100.0% 96.7%
Bahawalpur 100.0% 96.9%
Khushab 100.0% 96.9%
Multan 100.0% 97.0%
Jhang 100.0% 97.1%
T.T.Singh 100.0% 97.2%
Bhakkar 100.0% 97.3%
Sheikhupura 100.0% 97.4%
Narowal 100.0% 97.6%
Rahimyar khan 100.0% 97.7%
Lodhran 100.0% 97.7%
Faisalabad 100.0% 98.2%
Layyah 100.0% 98.3%
Okara 100.0% 98.3%
Gujrat 100.0% 98.7%
Kasur 100.0% 98.7%
Mianwali 100.0% 98.7%
Chakwal 100.0% 98.9%
`
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
SahiwalKhanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
B2. Retention (Kachi)
Current enrolment as a % of baseline1 enrolment
May 2015
District TargetPerformance2 Delta
1 Peak month enrolment of the current school year 2. Enrolment in April is taken as 100% (start of school year)
On or above target
Below target by more than
1.5% but less than 3%
Below target by less than or
equal to 1.5%
Below target by more than 3%

22. 2121SOURCE: PMIU, May data
-7.4
-5.8
-3.6
-3.4
-3.3
-2.8
-2.0
-2.0
-1.9
-1.9
-1.0
-1.0
-0.9
-0.8
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.1
0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.7Chakwal 92.7% 90.0%
Pakpattan 92.7% 90.0%
Kasur 92.5% 90.0%
Jhelum 92.3% 90.0%
Hafizabad 92.1% 90.0%
Lodhran 91.8% 90.0%
Bahawalnagar 91.6% 90.0%
Khanewal 91.1% 90.0%
Bahawalpur 91.0% 90.0%
Nankana sahib 90.9% 90.0%
Rawalpindi 88.6% 88.0%
Vehari 90.6% 90.0%
Khushab 90.3% 90.0%
Lahore 90.3% 90.0%
Multan 90.2% 90.0%
T.T.Singh 90.2% 90.0%
Chiniot 90.2% 90.0%
Mandi baha ud din 90.0% 90.0%
Layyah 87.9% 88.0%
Jhang 89.6% 90.0%
Okara 89.4% 90.0%
Rahimyar khan 84.2% 85.0%
Sargodha 89.2% 90.0%
Muzaffargarh 87.1% 88.0%
Gujrat 89.0% 90.0%
Sahiwal 89.0% 90.0%
Mianwali 86.1% 88.0%
Faisalabad 88.1% 90.0%
Attock 88.0% 90.0%
Sheikhupura 88.0% 90.0%
Narowal 85.2% 88.0%
Bhakkar 84.7% 88.0%
Gujranwala 86.6% 90.0%
Sialkot 86.4% 90.0%
D.G. Khan 79.2% 85.0%
Rajanpur 77.6% 85.0%
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
SahiwalKhanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
B3. Student attendance (1-5)
Student present as a % of total students enrolled
May 2015
District TargetPerformance Delta
On or above target
Below target by more than
2% but less than 4%
Below target by less than or
equal to 2%
Below target by more than 4%

23. 2222SOURCE: PMIU, May data
0.9
2.2
2.3
2.7
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.4
4.5
4.6
5.0
5.6
5.7
5.8
6.3
6.4
6.7
7.0
7.1
7.4
8.6
8.7
8.7
8.9
9.4
9.4
11.0
11.3
11.8
12.1
13.0
13.0
`
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
SahiwalKhanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
B4. Retention (1-5)
Current enrolment as a % of baseline1 enrolment
May 2015
PAKPATTAN 100.0% 87.0%
LAHORE 100.0% 87.0%
ATTOCK 100.0% 87.9%
JHELUM 100.0% 88.2%
RAJANPUR 100.0% 88.7%
BAHAWALNAGAR 100.0% 89.0%
GUJRANWALA 100.0% 90.6%
KHUSHAB 100.0% 90.6%
NANKANA SAHIB 100.0% 91.1%
SAHIWAL 100.0% 91.3%
LODHRAN 100.0% 91.3%
BAHAWALPUR 100.0% 91.4%
JHANG 100.0% 92.6%
MUZAFFARGARH 100.0% 92.9%
BHAKKAR 100.0% 93.0%
D.G. KHAN 100.0% 93.3%
RAHIMYAR KHAN 100.0% 93.6%
MULTAN 100.0% 93.7%
HAFIZABAD 100.0% 94.2%
RAWALPINDI 100.0% 94.3%
KHANEWAL 100.0% 94.4%
CHINIOT 100.0% 95.0%
SIALKOT 100.0% 95.4%
VEHARI 100.0% 95.5%
LAYYAH 100.0% 95.6%
SARGODHA 100.0% 95.9%
MANDI BAHA UD DIN 100.0% 96.5%
SHEIKHUPURA 100.0% 96.6%
OKARA 100.0% 96.9%
FAISALABAD 100.0% 96.9%
MIANWALI 100.0% 97.0%
T.T.SINGH 100.0% 97.0%
CHAKWAL 100.0% 97.3%
KASUR 100.0% 97.7%
NAROWAL 100.0% 97.8%
GUJRAT 100.0% 99.1%
District Performance2 Target Delta
1 Peak month enrolment of the current school year 2. Enrolment in April is taken as 100% (start of school year)
On or above target
Below target by more than
3% but less than 6%
Below target by less than or
equal to 3%
Missed target by more than 6%

24. 2323
Agenda
• The new district ranking system
• Core indicators
• Retention indicators
• Infrastructure indicators
• Management & monitoring indicators
• Administrative ranking system

25. 2424
SOURCE: PMIU, May data
Lodhran
Chakwal
Jhang
Pakpattan
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawal
nagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Chiniot
Sahiwal
Khanewal
T.T.
Singh Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
GujranwalaHafizabad
Lahore
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Nankana
Sahib
Sheikhupura
73,9
Sheikhupura 73,4
Rahimyar khan
79,5
Vehari
85,6
Bhakkar 80,8
Pakpattan 80,2
Layyah
80,2
Muzaffargarh
Okara 77,5
75,2
Rajanpur 74,9
Kasur 74,6
D.G. Khan
Nankana sahib
62,3
Sargodha
Multan
Mianwali
70,1
Bahawalnagar
66,6
70,4
Chiniot
64,6
Sahiwal
Lodhran
66,0
69,4
Jhang
62,1
66,6
Faisalabad
Hafizabad
69,3
Bahawalpur
Mandi Baha Ud Din
T.T.singh
65,0
60,8
60,6
46,7
Gujranwala
37,4
56,7
45,2
Sialkot
Khushab
55,6
Attock
Jhelum
54,3
59,7
Narowal
54,8
58,0
Gujrat
46,4
Khanewal
60,1
56,5
Chakwal
Lahore
Rawalpindi
Less than 5%
Greater than 5% but less
than or equal to 25%
C1. Overcrowding & multigrade due to teachers
% of schools1 with inadequate2 number of primary school teachers
May 2015
District
% of schools with
inadequate number of
primary school teacher
Greater than 50%
Greater than 25% but less than
or equal to 50%
1. With primary section
2 0-30 enrolment: 2 teachers, 30-45 enrolment: 3 teachers, 45-180 enrolment: 4 teachers, 180-300 enrolment: 6 teachers, 300-400 enrolment: 8 teachers,
>400 enrolment : primary STR of 50
1,413
3,125
1,534
1,963
956
1,272
2,036
1,048
1,133
1,368
1,984
1,573
1,746
2,669
3,325
1,199
2,491
1,368
1,929
1,674
1,083
2,892
3,642
1,800
1,207
1,258
2,326
2,654
2,416
1,898
2,680
2,856
3,874
5,803
1,754
2,331
Number of additional
teachers required
Target 2018: 0%

26. 2525SOURCE: PMIU, May data
Lodhran
Chakwal
Jhang
Pakpattan
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawal
nagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Chiniot
Sahiwal
Khanewal
T.T.
Singh Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
GujranwalaHafizabad
Lahore
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Nankana
Sahib
Sheikhupura
Rahimyar khan
Kasur
D.G. Khan 77,1
Muzaffargarh
76,7
75,0
76,2
74,1
70,1
65,5
Okara
Bhakkar
Jhang
Bahawalnagar
71,3
69,5
Multan
72,4
69,8
66,5
Pakpattan
Rajanpur
Layyah
Chiniot
74,1
Faisalabad
67,7
Bahawalpur
Sheikhupura
Mianwali
65,8
73,3
68,5
Vehari
55,7
63,9
Khushab
Narowal
Attock
Gujranwala
59,9
Lodhran
Sargodha
56,0
58,5
58,7
Khanewal
55,9
Nankana sahib
Hafizabad
62,8
62,2T.T.Singh
Sahiwal
56,7
Sialkot 64,3
Lahore
55,6
53,8
Mandi Baha Ud Din 52,6
Gujrat 50,2
Jhelum 35,5
Rawalpindi 35,4
Chakwal 32,9
51,4
C2. Overcrowding & multigrade due to classrooms
% of schools with inadequate1 number of classrooms
May 2015
District
% of schools with
inadequate number
of teachers
1 0-30 enrolment: 2 classrooms, 30-45 enrolment: 3 classrooms, 45-150 enrolment: 4 classrooms, 150-230 enrolment: 6 classrooms, 230-310 enrolment:
8 classrooms, >310 enrolment: total enrolment/50
Less than 5%
Greater than 5% but less
than or equal to 25%
Greater than 50%
Greater than 25% but less than
or equal to 50%
Number of additional
classrooms required
633
3,415
1,551
578
1,671
1,352
1,021
989
942
1,093
2,947
2,665
1,886
1,685
2,656
1,874
2,017
1,044
1,900
3,121
2,109
2,526
2,303
1,523
5,312
2,816
3,795
1,369
2,461
2,997
2,854
2,225
1,946
3,718
3,235
5,618
Target 2018: 0%

27. 2626SOURCE: PMIU, May data
District
17.3
14.4
13.6
13.2
13.1
12.7
11.9
11.5
11.3
11.2
10.9
10.3
10.0
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.2
9.1
8.8
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.1
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.1
6.5
6.1
5.7
5.5
4.8
3.6
Khushab
Nankana sahib
Lodhran
Layyah
Rawalpindi
D.G. Khan
Mandi Baha Ud Din
Hafizabad
Khanewal
Rahimyar khan
Sialkot
Attock
Sheikhupura
Vehari
Faisalabad
Rajanpur
Muzaffargarh
Bahawalpur
Chakwal
Bahawalnagar
Chiniot
Okara
Narowal
Pakpattan
Gujranwala
Mianwali
Lahore
Gujrat
Sahiwal
Sargodha
Kasur
Jhelum
Bhakkar
T.T.singh
Jhang
Multan
1 Includes both critically dangerous and partially dangerous buildings
C3. Dangerous buildings
% schools with dangerous buildings
November 2014
Lodhran
Chakwal
Jhang
Pakpattan
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawal
nagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Chiniot
Sahiwal
Khanewal
T.T.
Singh Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
GujranwalaHafizabad
Lahore
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Nankana
Sahib
Sheikhupura
26
Number of schools with
dangerous buildings
166
69
38
127
73
128
133
80
169
109
107
97
161
253
108
139
122
107
123
79
143
192
116
146
127
153
187
101
142
101
213
257
220
110
105
% of schools with dangerous
buildings1
Less than 1%
Greater than 1% but less
than or equal to 2%
Greater than 5%
Greater than 2% but less than
or equal to 5%
Target 2018: 0%

28. 2727
Agenda
• The new district ranking system
• Core indicators
• Retention indicators
• Infrastructure indicators
• Management & monitoring indicators
• Administrative ranking system

29. 2828
SOURCE: PMIU, May data
-45,0
-39,0
-20,0
-20,0
-18,0
-115,0
-17,0
-27,0
-25,0
-48,0
-21,0
-32,0
-20,0
-52,0
-38,0
-37,0
-50,0
-16,0
-16,0
-16,0
-16,0
-15,0
-15,0
-14,0
-13,0
-11,0
-8,0
-16,0
-11,0
-20,0
-17,0
-17,0
-17,0
-17,0
-4,0
-7,0
KHUSHAB 27 23
LAHORE 30 23
JHANG 31 23
BAHAWALPUR 34 23
CHINIOT 34 23
NANKANA SAHIB 36 23
OKARA 37 23
JHELUM 38 23
VEHARI 38 23
KASUR 39 23
LODHRAN 39 23
NAROWAL 39 23
PAKPATTAN 39 23
T.T.SINGH 39 23
ATTOCK 40 23
BHAKKAR 40 23
CHAKWAL 40 23
FAISALABAD 40 23
MUZAFFARGARH 40 23
MULTAN 41 23
BAHAWALNAGAR 43 23
MIANWALI 43 23
RAJANPUR 43 23
RAWALPINDI 43 23
MANDI BAHA UD DIN 44 23
SARGODHA 48 23
SAHIWAL 50 23
HAFIZABAD 55 23
GUJRANWALA 60 23
KHANEWAL 61 23
D.G. KHAN 62 23
RAHIMYAR KHAN 68 23
SIALKOT 71 23
SHEIKHUPURA 73 23
GUJRAT 75 23
LAYYAH2 138 23
D1. AEO Span of control
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
SahiwalKhanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
Average number of schools per AEO
May 2015
District Target1Performance Delta
1 Assuming a total AEO count of 2000 for a total of 46,341 schools 2. Probably due to empty posts
Less than or equal to 25
Greater than 25 but less
than or equal to 27
Greater than 28
Greater than 27 but less than
or equal to 28
Number of
additional AEOs
required
37
40
66
80
28
29
61
30
59
60
33
50
36
44
47
54
46
81
85
96
57
49
71
32
75
45
29
64
50
74
131
78
58
53
67
55

30. 2929
D2. DTE visits
SOURCE: PMIU, May data
Attock 100.0% 90.0%
Bahawalnagar 100.0% 90.0%
Bhakkar 100.0% 90.0%
Chakwal 100.0% 90.0%
Chiniot 100.0% 90.0%
Faisalabad 100.0% 90.0%
Hafizabad 100.0% 90.0%
Jhang 100.0% 90.0%
Jhelum 100.0% 90.0%
Kasur 100.0% 90.0%
Khanewal 100.0% 90.0%
Layyah 100.0% 90.0%
Lodhran 100.0% 90.0%
Mandi baha ud din 100.0% 90.0%
Multan 100.0% 90.0%
Muzaffargarh 100.0% 90.0%
Nankana sahib 100.0% 90.0%
Narowal 100.0% 90.0%
Okara 100.0% 90.0%
Pakpattan 100.0% 90.0%
Sheikhupura 100.0% 90.0%
T.T.Singh 100.0% 90.0%
Vehari 100.0% 90.0%
Rajanpur 99.0% 90.0%
Rahimyar khan 99.0% 90.0%
Lahore 98.0% 90.0%
D.G. Khan 98.0% 90.0%
Mianwali 98.0% 90.0%
Sialkot 98.0% 90.0%
Rawalpindi 96.0% 90.0%
Sahiwal 94.0% 90.0%
Bahawalpur 94.0% 90.0%
Gujrat 91.0% 90.0%
Gujranwala 87.0% 90.0%
Khushab 84.0% 90.0%
Sargodha 82.0% 90.0% -7.9
-5.6
-3.2
1.0
3.7
4.3
5.6
7.7
7.8
8.1
8.3
9.4
9.4
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
SahiwalKhanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
% of schools with adequate1 number of coaching visits2 by DTEs
April 2015
District TargetPerformance Delta
1 Defined as 2 visits per school
2 Calculation includes additional visits conducted for the quality drive 3. Defined as 2 coaching visits per teacher per school
90% or above
Less than 80%
Less than 85% but greater
than or equal to 80%
Less than 90% but greater
than or equal to 85%
Currently using the Old DTE metric, the new3 metric
would be operationalized once DTE hiring takes place

31. 3030SOURCE: PMIU, May data
-0.6
2.9
3.5
3.7
4.5
5.0
5.8
6.9
8.1
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.8
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.7
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.9
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0Lodhran
Attock
Bhakkar
Chakwal
Gujranwala
Jhelum
T.T.Singh
Mandi baha ud din
Kasur
Nankana sahib
Mianwali
Jhang
Lahore
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Khushab
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Muzaffargarh
Khanewal
Sahiwal
Chiniot
rahim yar khan
Narowal
Gujrat
Layyah
Multan
Sialkot
Sargodha
D.G. Khan
Okara
Bahawalnagar
Rajanpur
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Sheikhupura
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%
99.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.8%
99.7%
99.7%
99.6%
99.6%
99.5%
99.5%
99.5%
99.2%
99.1%
99.0%
98.8%
98.5%
98.5%
98.4%
98.1%
96.9%
95.8%
95.0%
94.5%
93.7%
93.5%
92.9%
89.4%
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
SahiwalKhanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
D3. MEA visits
% of schools visited by monitoring officers for data collection
May 2015
District TargetPerformance Delta
90% or above
Less than 80%
Less than 85% but greater
than or equal to 80%
Less than 90% but greater
than or equal to 85%

32. 3131
Backup

33. 3232
Student attendance
Source: Team analysis
Evaluation criteria
On or above target
Below target by less than or equal to 2%
Below target by more than 4%
Total students present
divided by the total
enrolment (as per class
register)
Calculation
Baseline
Average student
attenance for 2014
2018
Target
Districts classified into
three categories of
performance (high,
moderate & low) and
targets assigned
accordingly (90%, 88% &
85%)
Student present as a % of
total students enrolled
Definition
Metric detail
Below target by more than 2% but less
than or equal to 4%

34. 3333
Teacher presence
Source: Team analysis
Evaluation criteria
Greater than or equal to 90%
Less than 90% but greater than or equal
to 88%
Less than 86%
2018
Target
90%
Teachers present as a % of
total teachers
Definition
Metric detail
Less than 88% but greater than or equal
to 86%
Definition
Average teacher presence
for 2014
Baseline

35. 3434
Retention
Source: Team analysis
Evaluation criteria
On or above
target
Below target by
less than or
equal to 1.5%
Below target by
greater than 3%
Baseline
Peak month enrolment for
current school year
2018
Target
Reduce dropout to lower
of the following:
▪ Retention floor
– Kachi: 7%
– Grade 1-5: 13%
▪ 50% of a district’s
baseline dropout1 rate
Current enrolment as a % of
baseline enrolment
Definition
1 Drop out is calculated as the difference between month with highest enrolment and any subsequent month with lowest enrolment, based on enrollment from 2012-2013,
2013-2014, 2014-2015 – All enrolment figures are adjusted for MEA coverage
Metric detail
Below target by
greater than 1.5%
but less than or
equal to 3%
On or above
target
Below target by
less than or
equal to 3%
Below target by
greater than 6%
Below target by
greater than 3%
but less than or
equal to 6%
Kachi Grade 1-5

36. 3535
Administrator visits
Source: Team analysis
Evaluation criteria
2018
Target
90%
% of schools1 visited by
district administrators
Definition
Metric detail
Greater than or equal to 90%
Less than 90% but greater than or equal
to 88%
Less than 86%
Less than 88% but greater than or equal
to 86%
1 With primary section

37. 3636
Overcrowding & multigrade due to teachers
Source: Team analysis
Evaluation criteria
2018
Target
0% of schools with
overcrowding and
multigrade due to teachers
% of schools with
inadequate1 number of
primary school teachers
Definition
Metric detail
Less than or equal to 5%
Greater than 5% but less than or equal
to 25%
Greater than 50%
Greater than 25% but less than or equal
to 50%
1 0-30 enrolment: 2 teachers, 30-45 enrolment: 3 teachers, 45-180 enrolment: 4 teachers, 180-300 enrolment: 6 teachers, 300-400 enrolment: 8 teachers,
>400 enrolment : primary STR of 50

38. 3737
Overcrowding & multigrade due to classrooms
Source: Team analysis
Evaluation criteria
2018
Target
0% of schools with
overcrowding and
multigrade due to
classrooms
% of schools with
inadequate1 number of
classrooms
Definition
Metric detail
Less than or equal to 5%
Greater than 5% but less than or equal
to 25%
Greater than 50%
Greater than 25% but less than or equal
to 50%
1 0-30 enrolment: 2 classrooms, 30-45 enrolment: 3 classrooms, 45-150 enrolment: 4 classrooms, 150-230 enrolment: 6 classrooms, 230-310 enrolment:
8 classrooms, >310 enrolment: total enrolment/50

39. 3838
Functioning facilities
Source: Team analysis
Evaluation criteria
2018
Target
Functioning & available
facilities as a % of total
required facilities1Definition
Metric detail
1 Each school should have 4 facilities including electricity, boundary wall, drinking water and toilets.Total possible is a product of 4 and the total number of
schools
95% of total possible
facilities should be
functional and available
Greater than or equal to 95%
Less than 95% but greater than or equal
to 90%
Less than 85%
Less than 90% but greater than or equal
to 85%

40. 3939
Dangerous buildings
Source: Team analysis
Evaluation criteria
2018
Target
Schools with dangerous1
buildings as a % of total
schools
Definition
Metric detail
• 0% of dangerous
buildings in a district
• Intermediary target of
2% in June 2016
Less than or equal to 1%
Greater than 1% but less than or equal
to 2%
Greater than 5%
Greater than 2% but less than or equal
to 5%
1 Defined as life threating to teachers or/and students, further details in the “Training on dangerous building” document for MEAs

41. 4040
AEO span of control
Source: Team analysis
Evaluation criteria
Less than or equal to 251
Greater than 25 but less than or equal to
27
Greater than 28
2018
Target
232
Average number of schools
per AEO
Definition
Metric detail
Greater than 27 but less than or equal to
28
1 The districts are allowed a 10% deviation from target
2 Conditional upon hiring of additional 1000 AEOs

42. 4141
DTE visits
Source: Team analysis
Evaluation criteria
2018
Target
% of schools with
adequate1 number of
coaching visits by a DTE
Definition
Metric detail
90%
Greater than or equal to 90%
Less than 90% but greater than or equal
to 85%
Less than 80%
Less than 85% but greater than or equal
to 80%
1 Defined as two visits per school

43. 4242
LND results
Source: Team analysis
Evaluation criteria
2018
Target
% of correct responses by
students
Definition
Metric detail
85%
Greater than or equal to 85%
Less than 85% but greater than or equal
to 75%
Less than 65%
Less than 75% but greater than or equal
to 65%

44. 4343
Percentage of correct responses
March 2015
69.2
74.8
75.2
75.7
76.5
77.0
77.6
77.6
78.5
79.0
79.4
79.8
80.4
80.5
80.5
80.5
81.3
81.6
81.9
81.9
82.6
82.7
83.3
83.4
84.1
84.3
84.6
85.0
85.1
85.9
86.0
86.1
86.6
87.5
88.0
88.6
Bahawalpur
Rahimyar Khan
Muzaffargarh
Vehari
Sahiwal
Gujrat
Mianwali
Lodhran
Kasur
Sargodha
Narowal
Chakwal
Jhelum
Jhang
Okara
D.G. Khan
Layyah
Sheikhupura
T.T.Singh
Rajanpur
Multan
Bhakkar
Bahawalnagar
Faisalabad
Mandi Baha Ud Din
Hafizabad
Khanewal
Pakpattan
Sialkot
Khushab
Lahore
Attock
Rawalpindi
Gujranwala
Chiniot
Nankana Sahib
District
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
Sahiwal
Khanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
Source: LND May data
LND results – Maths (1 digit multiplication)
Performance
Greater than or equal to 85%
Less than 65%
Less than 75% but greater
than or equal to 65%
Less than 85% but greater
than or equal to 75%

45. 4444
59.0
65.0
65.0
66.0
71.0
73.0
73.0
74.0
75.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
77.0
77.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
79.0
79.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
82.0
82.0
83.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
85.0
Khushab
Jhelum
D.G. Khan
Bhakkar
Okara
Jhang
Attock
Mianwali
Lodhran
Vehari
Rahimyar Khan
Bahawalpur
Muzaffargarh
Gujrat
Sahiwal
Layyah
Kasur
Sheikhupura
Rawalpindi
Narowal
T.T.Singh
Nankana Sahib
Gujranwala
Chiniot
Mandi Baha Ud Din
Pakpattan
Khanewal
Rajanpur
Chakwal
Sialkot
Lahore
Bahawalnagar
Sargodha
Multan
Hafizabad
Faisalabad
District Performance
Percentage of correct responses
April 2015
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
Sahiwal
Khanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
Source: LND April data
LND results – Maths (1 digit multiplication)
Greater than or equal to 85%
Less than 65%
Less than 75% but greater
than or equal to 65%
Less than 85% but greater
than or equal to 75%

46. 4545
District Performance
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
Sahiwal
Khanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
58.0
59.0
60.0
60.0
62.0
63.0
64.0
65.0
65.0
66.0
66.0
67.0
67.0
67.0
67.0
68.0
68.0
68.0
68.0
68.0
70.0
70.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
72.0
73.0
73.0
75.0
76.0
78.0
Gujrat
Rahimyar Khan
Chakwal
Okara
Muzaffargarh
Bahawalnagar
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Sahiwal
Sargodha
Lodhran
Gujranwala
Sheikhupura Not enough information
Nankana Sahib Not enough information
Kasur Not enough information
Bahawalpur
Jhelum
Multan
Jhang
Rawalpindi
Mianwali
Layyah
Bhakkar
Vehari
Hafizabad
Pakpattan
Narowal
D.G. Khan
T.T.Singh
Lahore
Mandi Baha Ud Din
Sialkot
Khushab
Chiniot Not enough information
Attock1 Not enough information
Khanewal
Footnote 1: Coverage less than 10% in Not enough information districts. In other districts, coverage ranged from 12% to 45%
Source: LND March data
LND results– English (overall)
Percentage of correct responses
March 2015
Greater than or equal to 85%
Less than 65%
Less than 75% but greater
than or equal to 65%
Less than 85% but greater
than or equal to 75%

47. 4646
District Performance
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
Sahiwal
Khanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
48.0
48.0
49.0
50.0
53.0
54.0
54.0
54.0
55.0
55.0
55.0
56.0
56.0
57.0
57.0
57.0
57.0
57.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
61.0
62.0
62.0
63.0
66.0
67.0
69.0
Nankana Sahib
Kasur Not enough information
Chiniot
Not enough information
Sargodha
Rajanpur
Jhang
Gujranwala
Vehari
Rahimyar Khan
Not enough information
Attock Not enough information
Pakpattan
Khanewal
Not enough informationSheikhupura
Faisalabad
Chakwal
Bhakkar
Sahiwal
Mandi Baha Ud Din
Layyah
Mianwali
Lodhran
Lahore
Khushab
D.G. Khan
Okara
Gujrat
Rawalpindi
Bahawalnagar
T.T.Singh
Bahawalpur
Jhelum
Multan
Muzaffargarh
Narowal
Hafizabad
Sialkot
Source: LND March data
LND results – English (Sentence Completion)
Percentage of correct responses
March 2015
Greater than or equal to 85%
Less than 65%
Less than 75% but greater
than or equal to 65%
Less than 85% but greater
than or equal to 75%

48. 4747
District Performance
Hafizabad
Bahawalpur
Rajanpur
Bahawalnagar
D.G. Khan
Rahimyar Khan
Rawalpindi
Bhakkar
Layyah
Attock
Muzaff-
argarh
Khushab
Chakwal
Lodhran
Vehari
Multan
Mianwali
Jhelum
Gujrat
Jhang
Chiniot
Sahiwal
Khanewal
TT Singh
Okara
Kasur
Narowal
Sialkot
Gujranwala
Lahore
Pakpattan
Faisalabad
Sargodha
M.B. Din
Sheikhupura
Nankana
Sahib
68.0
68.0
69.0
70.0
70.0
71.0
71.0
74.0
74.0
74.0
75.0
75.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
78.0
79.0
79.0
80.0
81.0
81.0
82.0
84.0
84.0
85.0
85.0
88.0
Rawalpindi
Bahawalnagar
Okara
Rahimyar Khan
Bahawalpur
Bhakkar
Lodhran
Layyah
Jhang
Lahore
T.T.Singh
Sargodha
Pakpattan
Narowal
Khushab
Rajanpur
Mandi Baha Ud Din
Muzaffargarh
Faisalabad
Nankana Sahib Not enough information
Kasur Not enough information
Chiniot Not enough information
Attock Not enough information
Khanewal
Hafizabad
D.G. Khan
Sialkot
Sahiwal
Vehari
Mianwali
Gujranwala
Not enough informationSheikhupura
Gujrat
Multan
Jhelum
Chakwal
Source: LND March data
LND results – English (Picture Recognition)
Percentage of correct responses
March 2015
Greater than or equal to 85%
Less than 65%
Less than 75% but greater
than or equal to 65%
Less than 85% but greater
than or equal to 75%