Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Policy Options to Improve
Educational Outcomes and Address
Lifecycle Vulnerabilities of SCTP
Households in Malawi
Virtual ...
Education Study: Research Questions
• What are underlying causal factors that affect primary and secondary
school enrolmen...
Life Cycle Vulnerability Study: Research
Questions
• Does the SCTP design consider and respond to vulnerabilities of all
S...
Study Design: Mixed Methods Approach
• Qualitative approach
• Education: Focus Group Discussions with in- and out-of-schoo...
Study plan finalized at Inception Workshop
May 2019, Lilongwe
October 2018 –
March 2019
May 2019 June – August
2019
September
2019
September
2019 - now
Project
conception &
research
qu...
Mulanje (Q2)
Nkanda
Mthiramanja
Salima (Q2)
Ndindi
Maganga
Nkhata Bay
Fukamapiri
Mankhambira
(Quantitative only)
Study Sit...
Happy Researchers
Maxton
Kaku
Courtney
Findings from the Education Study
School availability and quality are not favourable
School availability and quality are not favourable
Enrolment rates are high, regular attendance is moderate and so
effective enrolment is quite low (2018/2019 school year)
Regular Attendance does not differ by school term or sex
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
Age group Male Female Total Male Fe...
Effective enrolment appears to be increasing for the 6-13 year age
group but flat for the 18-23 year age group
2016-2017 2...
Majority of students are too old for their grade
– resulting from late entry and repetitions
SCTP education bonus is small relative to
the estimated cost of schooling (9% and
12% for primary and secondary school
res...
SCTP Amount affects Enrolment but not other
Schooling Outcomes
SCTP Amount and Education Expenditure (1)
SCTP Amount and Education Expenditure (2)
Non-monetary barriers to education
 Supply side
 Proximity to school increases both enrolment and progression rates
 Sc...
Non-monetary barriers to education
Qualitative Results: Financial barriers
 Mtukula Pakhomo helps pay for essential school supplies such as fees, clothes, s...
Qualitative Results: Socio-Cultural barriers
 Lack of parental/guardian support
“Some parents see that their daughter, on...
Qualitative Results: Barriers within schools
 Over-punishment and mocking by teachers
“Instead of giving you punishment y...
Proposed policy options
Policy options education bonus size and coverage
 Increase the overall value of the transfer and ...
Proposed policy options
Policy options on education bonus system design
 Labelled child bonus in lieu of educational bonu...
Questions/Clarifications/Comments
Findings from the Lifecycle
Study
Unique demographic profile of SCTP households
More youth and elderly, fewer children under 5 compared to rural
ultra-poor
...
3 important subsets of beneficiary household
members were identified as potentially requiring
further support
 Adolescent...
Heads of household in SCTP households are older, more likely to be
female, less likely to have ever attended school and mo...
Chronic conditions: SCTP population versus
rural ultra-poor by gender
Implication: Youth have more responsibilities, which...
There is a penalty on household monthly expenditure in the
presence of one or more of these vulnerable groups
(not all SCT...
What is the probability for a child/adolescent to do more than 28
hrs of Household chores in a week? (By Gender of the Chi...
What is the probability for a child/adolescent to do Ganyu work?
(By Gender of the Child)
Elderly and Disabled People
Vulnerabilities
More money spent on medical
expenses
“The money we make after selling
the firewood, it keeps me going…Its
...
Vulnerabilities
Sole Caregivers
“What I can complain about them
it’s when they are sick. I go to
hospital with them alone....
Potential Solutions
Within Scope of SCTP
• Formalize the way the transfer is passed on if main
beneficiary dies
“If anythi...
Children age 0-5
30% of children age 0-5 are not the child of the
head--many SCTP households have ‘sub-families’
that are not officially re...
Vulnerabilities
Effects of low education/dropping out
“I do regret most of the time…Education
is good, there is a lot of p...
Vulnerabilities
Lack of hope
Instead of going to school or doing
something that can bring money
in your life you just stay...
SCTP Response
Receiving part of the transfer
“I have benefited a lot, as I get what I
lacked like soap and lotion…[my
moth...
Potential Solutions
Within Scope of SCTP
• Better explanation of incentive
“if I can find someone to support me
and pay my...
• MNSSP II calls for a social protection system that responds to lifecycle
vulnerabilities
• SCTP is a narrowly targeted p...
What if SCTP slowly transformed into a broad-based categorical
program? This figure shows the number of ultra-poor rural
h...
Can Malawi afford a categorical programme?
Annual cost of programme under alternative targeting approach
0
10000
20000
300...
Policy options
 Directly target lifecycle vulnerability – the ‘big’ decision
 Support specific vulnerabilities within th...
Team:
Ashu Handa
Frank Otchere
Kaku Attah Damoah
Maxton Tsoka
@TransferProjct
transfer.cpc.unc.edu
ZIKOMO.
Education Study Qualitative Design
Salima Mulanje
In-school Males (2 groups) Males (2 groups)
Females (2 groups) Females (...
Life Cycle Vulnerability Study: Qualitative
Design
Salima Mulanje Total
Elderly heads with chronic conditions or disabilit...
Quantitative Design
• A total of 1520 beneficiary households were sampled for both Education
and Lifecycle studies.
• Give...
Distribution of Sampled Households and Final Data
DISTRICT TA Number of Sampled
HH
Number of HH in Final
Data
Response Rat...
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Index
Trend in Total Enrolment from 1980 – 2017
Index (1980=100)
Introduction of free
Primary ...
.4.6.8
1
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age
Baseline Midline
Endline
Control
.4.6.8
1
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age...
Enrolment by Age-group, Gender, and Academic year
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
Age group Male Female Total Male Female To...
Effective Enrolment by Age-group, Gender, and Academic year
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
Age group Male Female Total Male...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Policy Options to Improve Educational Outcomes and Address Lifecycle Vulnerabilities of SCTP Households in Malawi

Policy Options to Improve Educational Outcomes and Address Lifecycle Vulnerabilities of Social Cash Transfer Programme Households in Malawi. Presented in August 2020.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Policy Options to Improve Educational Outcomes and Address Lifecycle Vulnerabilities of SCTP Households in Malawi

  1. 1. Policy Options to Improve Educational Outcomes and Address Lifecycle Vulnerabilities of SCTP Households in Malawi Virtual Dissemination August 20, 2020
  2. 2. Education Study: Research Questions • What are underlying causal factors that affect primary and secondary school enrolment, attendance and drop-out rates for children in SCTP households? • How does the currently provided SCTP school bonus relate to and impact SCTP children’s schooling (enrolment, attendance, retention, progression)? • What are school attendance tracking options suitable for the unconditional Malawi SCTP? • How can the SCTP be modified to increase the educational impact of the SCTP on enrolment, attendance and retention of SCTP children, particularly of adolescent girls?
  3. 3. Life Cycle Vulnerability Study: Research Questions • Does the SCTP design consider and respond to vulnerabilities of all SCTP household categories and household types? • How does the SCTP design address the continuously changing vulnerabilities of different categories of individuals living in SCTP households? • What are the policy and programme options for the SCTP to better respond to the vulnerabilities of all SCTP household categories and individuals?
  4. 4. Study Design: Mixed Methods Approach • Qualitative approach • Education: Focus Group Discussions with in- and out-of-school youth; In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) with caregivers of school-age youth • Life Cycle Vulnerability: IDIs with three vulnerable groups identified from previous impact evaluation data and confirmed with participants at inception meeting • Elderly caregivers with health issues; adolescents; pre-school children whose caregivers are not recipients • Quantitative approach • Survey of ~1500 beneficiary households • Detailed analysis of schooling outcomes and barriers • Quantify outcomes of specific vulnerable groups
  5. 5. Study plan finalized at Inception Workshop May 2019, Lilongwe
  6. 6. October 2018 – March 2019 May 2019 June – August 2019 September 2019 September 2019 - now Project conception & research questions & team formation Inception workshop to finalize study objectives and implementation plan Data collection and analysis Study reference group workshop in Salima to discuss findings and recommendations; discuss additional analysis Review and finalization of report and policy briefs Research timeline
  7. 7. Mulanje (Q2) Nkanda Mthiramanja Salima (Q2) Ndindi Maganga Nkhata Bay Fukamapiri Mankhambira (Quantitative only) Study Sites
  8. 8. Happy Researchers Maxton Kaku Courtney
  9. 9. Findings from the Education Study
  10. 10. School availability and quality are not favourable
  11. 11. School availability and quality are not favourable
  12. 12. Enrolment rates are high, regular attendance is moderate and so effective enrolment is quite low (2018/2019 school year)
  13. 13. Regular Attendance does not differ by school term or sex 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Age group Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 6-13 years 1st term 0.55 0.57 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.60 2nd term 0.55 0.58 0.56 0.57 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.59 0.59 3rd term 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.60 0.59 0.59 Academic year 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.55 0.55 0.55 14-17 years 1st term 0.58 0.57 0.58 0.57 0.61 0.59 0.60 0.65 0.62 2nd term 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.60 0.58 0.59 0.63 0.61 3rd term 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.61 0.59 0.58 0.64 0.61 Academic year 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.52 0.56 0.54 0.54 0.60 0.57 18-23 years 1st term 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.60 0.56 0.59 0.64 0.60 0.62 2nd term 0.55 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.62 0.60 0.61 3rd term 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.60 0.57 0.59 0.63 0.57 0.61 Academic year 0.51 0.53 0.51 0.55 0.53 0.54 0.60 0.55 0.58
  14. 14. Effective enrolment appears to be increasing for the 6-13 year age group but flat for the 18-23 year age group 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Age group Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 6 - 13 years Rate 0.45 0.47 0.46 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.55 0.54 0.54 N 1,361 1,369 2,730 1,245 1,274 2,519 1,128 1,172 2,300 14 - 17 years Rate 0.46 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.49 0.47 0.48 0.52 0.50 N 599 535 1,134 669 606 1,275 714 681 1,395 18 - 23 years Rate 0.34 0.26 0.31 0.33 0.26 0.30 0.32 0.24 0.28 N 305 234 539 455 370 825 599 483 1,082 Total Rate 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.47 0.47 0.47 N 2,265 2,138 4,403 2,369 2,250 4,619 2,441 2,336 4,777
  15. 15. Majority of students are too old for their grade – resulting from late entry and repetitions
  16. 16. SCTP education bonus is small relative to the estimated cost of schooling (9% and 12% for primary and secondary school respectively) Primary, 106,627 Secondary, 152,125 Primary, 9,600 Secondary, 18,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 Primary Secondary Projected Education Cost Per Child SCTP Education Bonus Per Child Average SCTP education bonus is less than what households currently spend on education 27960 27606 27400 27500 27600 27700 27800 27900 28000 Average expnediture on schooling Average education bonus
  17. 17. SCTP Amount affects Enrolment but not other Schooling Outcomes
  18. 18. SCTP Amount and Education Expenditure (1)
  19. 19. SCTP Amount and Education Expenditure (2)
  20. 20. Non-monetary barriers to education  Supply side  Proximity to school increases both enrolment and progression rates  School quality increases both enrolment and progression  Violence from teachers affects males; violence from peers affects females  Inadequate hygiene facilities for females during menstruation  Sexual harassment from some school authorities  Household and individual level factors  Low material well being leads to lower participation in school  Demand to spend more time on chores reduces effective enrolment
  21. 21. Non-monetary barriers to education
  22. 22. Qualitative Results: Financial barriers  Mtukula Pakhomo helps pay for essential school supplies such as fees, clothes, shoes, soap for bathing, and food. Some of these are more important for females than males “You use [shoes] wisely. After classes when you are back home, you remove [them] and keep [them] so that it should last long.” -in-school male , Mulanje “We encourage [our caregivers] to get us soap for our clothes so that we can go to school”. “Having no soap for clothes, I miss[ed] school”  Proper clothing and hygiene more important for girls than boys “We are different from boys, who are ok to go to school with torn clothes as compared to girls” –in-school female, Mulanje  Hunger is a barrier to learning “You go to school without taking breakfast and coming from school, you find no lunch. You go hungry, you come back [and] you stay hungry, so you conclude that, ‘I better quit school. Maybe I can do some casual labor and buy food for myself’.” – in-school male, Mulanje
  23. 23. Qualitative Results: Socio-Cultural barriers  Lack of parental/guardian support “Some parents see that their daughter, one day, will be pregnant like the [others] in the community, [so] they prefer not to support a girl knowing that they will lose money for nothing, in terms of school fees.”  Lack of role models in the society “When you go to school, they say ‘Look at her, what is that? You think you will finish school? You are no different from us, you will find us here’”  Peer pressure “…We want to enjoy the time we have to be in class [but] if we hear that ‘So and so sells water at [the] trading centre’ then we want to be like him. ‘I should also go and do the same’ [I say to myself]. When realizing [leaving school is a] disaster, we are already in it. You start blaming one another, [saying], ‘You are the one who made me to do this!’ So, the problem is that we entice others to follow you if you drop out from school”
  24. 24. Qualitative Results: Barriers within schools  Over-punishment and mocking by teachers “Instead of giving you punishment you deserve, they give you a punishment that you will fail to do it.“ ‘mbuli iwe’ [unintelligent you are] ‘amagokutailira kwanu’ [they do not caution you at home]  Sexual abuse “[Girls] drop out from school because they go at school without any motive. They meet with a teacher and [the teacher] ask[s] love to them, [girls] deny. [Girls] prefer to stay at home. Asking them; ‘Why not going to school?’, they say ‘My teacher proposed me. So I better stay away from him’ “ - In-school CG, Mulanje  Teachers not motivated, low quality education “Teachers are not teaching as they deserve. I think because they are not well paid. They just tell their learners to say ‘teach one another’ and they go out and have a chat outside the classroom. We have low quality education.” –Out-of-school CG, Mulanje
  25. 25. Proposed policy options Policy options education bonus size and coverage  Increase the overall value of the transfer and school bonus  Early enrolment bonus  Automatic secondary school fee waivers for SCTP children  Direct incentives for school progression  Incentives for girls’ education
  26. 26. Proposed policy options Policy options on education bonus system design  Labelled child bonus in lieu of educational bonus  Condition the school bonus on minimum school attendance  Strengthen linkages with Ministry of Education  Linkages for young adult dropouts
  27. 27. Questions/Clarifications/Comments
  28. 28. Findings from the Lifecycle Study
  29. 29. Unique demographic profile of SCTP households More youth and elderly, fewer children under 5 compared to rural ultra-poor Few children under age 5 More youth More elderly
  30. 30. 3 important subsets of beneficiary household members were identified as potentially requiring further support  Adolescents and young people age 15-24 years, and their caregivers;  Elderly household heads with special needs or a chronic health condition  Children under age five years and their young caregivers
  31. 31. Heads of household in SCTP households are older, more likely to be female, less likely to have ever attended school and more likely to have a chronic condition compared to IHS4 ultra poor households 57.12 70 61 38 44.77 32 82 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Age (years) Female Ever attended school Has a chronic condition Study sample IHS4 comparison sample
  32. 32. Chronic conditions: SCTP population versus rural ultra-poor by gender Implication: Youth have more responsibilities, which affects their schooling outcomes
  33. 33. There is a penalty on household monthly expenditure in the presence of one or more of these vulnerable groups (not all SCTP households are the same) 11000 10264 11054 8379 8470 9398 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Young mother Elderly with chronic condition/disability One or both None One or more
  34. 34. What is the probability for a child/adolescent to do more than 28 hrs of Household chores in a week? (By Gender of the Child)
  35. 35. What is the probability for a child/adolescent to do Ganyu work? (By Gender of the Child)
  36. 36. Elderly and Disabled People
  37. 37. Vulnerabilities More money spent on medical expenses “The money we make after selling the firewood, it keeps me going…Its enough for me to buy pain killer. “ Limited work capacity “If you are sickly you cannot develop… You cannot do anything if you are sickly.” SCTP as the only source of income “Oh no I do not source money on my own. if I have the only channel that I make or receive money is through this social cash transfer program.” Lack of support “I can say I am stressed up to say ‘I am alone now; I am the one remaining. What should I do then’ I am much affected. Elders are dying and I am alone remaining now. I have no relations. I am alone now without anyone to hold my hand”
  38. 38. Vulnerabilities Sole Caregivers “What I can complain about them it’s when they are sick. I go to hospital with them alone. No one else helps me.” “It has not been easy to raise them. I think of them how to make them live and survive. This is the reason why I developed BP.” Unique Worries as Caregivers “I think of them how I will support them if they move to other levels in their studies. If I die, what will they do?”
  39. 39. Potential Solutions Within Scope of SCTP • Formalize the way the transfer is passed on if main beneficiary dies “If anything is when a beneficiary die. If you go and report, then the household stops receiving the transfers...People fight for the money when the real beneficiary dies”. • Ensuring that bonus is unconditional “I do receive MWK 14 400. I was receiving MWK 16 000 but they have deducted my transfers…The school going children did not attended school for a month. Then I realize the payment has been deducted.” Beyond SCTP • Implementation of Pension Program • Linkage and referral to supplementary programs
  40. 40. Children age 0-5
  41. 41. 30% of children age 0-5 are not the child of the head--many SCTP households have ‘sub-families’ that are not officially recognized Age 20 years and below (median age at first birth 15 years)
  42. 42. Vulnerabilities Effects of low education/dropping out “I do regret most of the time…Education is good, there is a lot of programs that comes in our communities that requires someone who knows how to write.” “There were a lot of problems, getting married at a young age and having more children at young age, that’s due to dropping out.” “As my parents had died a long time, and I was left at a very young age, so due to poverty and having no place to stay, I found a man to marry me and we indeed got married and that’s for my first child.” Barriers to re-entry When I look at our household, I feel that my parents can’t manage to send me back to school because I would also be imposing on them another responsibility when the household is already lacking. Who will the children find at home after school, as I am their only parent I am old now, imagine I dropped out school in standard 2, so now is impossible to go back to school
  43. 43. Vulnerabilities Lack of hope Instead of going to school or doing something that can bring money in your life you just stay at home, all your dreams dies, so I wasn’t happy. Social Isolation The challenge I face, people laughs at me, they say that I gave birth when I was too young […] I just stay at home; I don’t even answer them. People and even friends talk about you most of the time [...] they can call you names like ‘you are a prostitute’
  44. 44. SCTP Response Receiving part of the transfer “I have benefited a lot, as I get what I lacked like soap and lotion…[my mother] gives everyone the money to buy for themselves” Insufficient amount with addition of child “When we started receiving social cash transfer money, there have been improvements but not entirely, the money is not enough according to the number of people in our family.”
  45. 45. Potential Solutions Within Scope of SCTP • Better explanation of incentive “if I can find someone to support me and pay my school fees I can go back to school.” • Nutrition bonus for child 0-5 • Separate transfer for young mothers (sub-family) “When they receive, they give me at least K2000 to go and buy what I want.” Beyond SCTP • Young Mothers Groups • Adult School • Intervention from groups like YONECO
  46. 46. • MNSSP II calls for a social protection system that responds to lifecycle vulnerabilities • SCTP is a narrowly targeted program that only explicitly addresses one recognized vulnerability in MNSSP II (labor-constraints) • Elderly, chronically ill, disabled and youth are indirectly reached; children 0-5 are under-served • Will the SCTP remain a small program with a narrow target group, or evolve into the flagship social protection pillar for Malawi, addressing lifecycle vulnerability directly – this is the ‘big’ decision • As countries develop their social protection systems, they typically move from narrow programs to broad-based programs that reach a wider constituency Strategic decision facing GoM regarding future of SCTP and relationship to MNSSP II
  47. 47. What if SCTP slowly transformed into a broad-based categorical program? This figure shows the number of ultra-poor rural households reached under alternative categorical targeting approach
  48. 48. Can Malawi afford a categorical programme? Annual cost of programme under alternative targeting approach 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Current SCTP 65+ 0-2 years 65+ and 0-2 years 0-5 years 65+ and 0-5 years Annual Transfer Costs (MK millions) Old transfer level New transfer level
  49. 49. Policy options  Directly target lifecycle vulnerability – the ‘big’ decision  Support specific vulnerabilities within the current targeting approach via linkages and complementary services  Nutrition bonus for children age 5 years and under  Support to mother-child sub-families within SCTP households
  50. 50. Team: Ashu Handa Frank Otchere Kaku Attah Damoah Maxton Tsoka @TransferProjct transfer.cpc.unc.edu ZIKOMO.
  51. 51. Education Study Qualitative Design Salima Mulanje In-school Males (2 groups) Males (2 groups) Females (2 groups) Females (2 groups) Out-of school Males (2 groups) Males (2 groups) Females (2 groups) Females (2 groups) Caregivers In-school (1 group) In-school (1 group) Out-of-school (1 group) Out-of-school (1 group) Total FGDs 10 10 155 individual participants
  52. 52. Life Cycle Vulnerability Study: Qualitative Design Salima Mulanje Total Elderly heads with chronic conditions or disability 5 IDIs 5 IDIs 10 IDIs Caregivers of adolescent/youth 5 IDIs 5 IDIs 10 IDIs Caregivers of young children 5 IDIs 5 IDIs 10 IDIs Adolescents/young adults (combined with Education) 8 FGDs 8 FGDs 16 FGDs
  53. 53. Quantitative Design • A total of 1520 beneficiary households were sampled for both Education and Lifecycle studies. • Given the objectives of the two studies, we identified beneficiary households with children of school going-age as a common denominator for the two studies. • After identifying households that meet the common denominator we computed the proportional distribution of these households by Traditional Authority and Village Cluster in each District. • For Mulanje and Nkhata Bay the sampled HHs were drawn from the MIS administrative data • For Salima the sampled were drawn from the Impact Evaluation dataset.
  54. 54. Distribution of Sampled Households and Final Data DISTRICT TA Number of Sampled HH Number of HH in Final Data Response Rate (%) Mulanje Mthiramanja 196 194 98.98 Nkanda 317 316 99.68 Nkhata Bay Fukamapiri 235 227 96.60 Mankhambira 271 270 99.63 Salima Maganga 222 221 99.55 Ndindi 279 277 99.28 Total 1,520 1,505 99.01
  55. 55. 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Index Trend in Total Enrolment from 1980 – 2017 Index (1980=100) Introduction of free Primary School Source: Authors Elaboration based on data from World Development Indicators. The Big Push in 1994/1995 and the Introduction of MSCTP
  56. 56. .4.6.8 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age Baseline Midline Endline Control .4.6.8 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age Baseline Midline Endline Treatment School Enrolment Impacts (6-17 year olds) Impacts at: -Midline: 11.4 pp*** -Endline: 8.9 pp** No difference between boys and girls
  57. 57. Enrolment by Age-group, Gender, and Academic year 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Age group Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 6 - 13 years Rate 0.86 0.87 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.94 N 1,384 1,384 2,768 1,281 1,302 2,583 1,187 1,222 2,409 14 - 17 years Rate 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 N 607 542 1,149 676 611 1,287 721 685 1,406 18 - 23 years Rate 0.66 0.49 0.59 0.60 0.49 0.55 0.54 0.42 0.48 N 306 240 546 459 378 837 603 493 1,096 Total Rate 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.82 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.82 N 2,297 2,166 4,463 2,416 2,291 4,707 2,511 2,400 4,911
  58. 58. Effective Enrolment by Age-group, Gender, and Academic year 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Age group Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 6 - 13 years Rate 0.45 0.47 0.46 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.55 0.54 0.54 N 1,361 1,369 2,730 1,245 1,274 2,519 1,128 1,172 2,300 14 - 17 years Rate 0.46 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.49 0.47 0.48 0.52 0.50 N 599 535 1,134 669 606 1,275 714 681 1,395 18 - 23 years Rate 0.34 0.26 0.31 0.33 0.26 0.30 0.32 0.24 0.28 N 305 234 539 455 370 825 599 483 1,082 Total Rate 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.47 0.47 0.47 N 2,265 2,138 4,403 2,369 2,250 4,619 2,441 2,336 4,777

×