This is a short summary of the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) of a recently-closed World Bank project. The full text of the ICR is available on the Bank’s website. To access this document, go to www.worldbank.org/reference/ and then opt for the Documents & Reports section.

Third District Primary Education Project

Approval Date: 12 April 1997 Closing Date: 31 March 2006 Total Project Cost: US$M 191.80 Bank Financing: US$M 130.00 Implementing Agency: Jharkhand Shiksha Pariyojana Parishad, Bihar Shiksha Pariyojana Parishad and Ministry of Human Resource Development Outcome:  Satisfactory Risk to Developement Outcome:  Moderate Bank Performance:  Moderately Satisfactory Borrower Performance:  Satisfactory

Context
Low education enrollment, high drop-out rates and unacceptable low levels of education attainments were considered major constraints to the social and economic improvement of the poor and socially disadvantaged groups. This Project in Bihar and Jharkhand was part of the Government of India’s District Primary Education Program (DPEP) introduced in 1994. Over the course of a decade this program was implemented in 18 Indian states.

Project Development Objectives
The Project assisted the Government of Bihar to build and strengthen state, district and sub-district institutional capacity to ensure that more children, especially from socially disadvantaged groups complete a five-year primary education cycle of appropriate quality in districts with low levels of literacy.

Project Components

• Expanding access to primary education, particularly for the disadvantaged groups;
• Increasing retention and improving learning achievement in the primary school; and
• Improving state and district capacity to manage primary education.

Other Significant changes
 In 2000, an independent state of Jharkhand was carved out of the existing state of Bihar. After the bifurcation, out of the 17 Project districts, 11 districts remained in Bihar, while six were included in Jharkhand under DPEP III. The Project was also extended by 2.5 years. This was all the more relevant given that both the states in 2003 were at the threshold of accelerating their pace of implementation, and hence withdrawal of funds at this time would have unnecessarily hampered progress.

Achievements
Expanding access to primary education, particularly for disadvantaged groups: 
400,000 additional children in the age group 6-10 years, especially from disadvantaged groups were to be enrolled from 2000 onwards. The total number of additional children enrolled in school from 2000 onwards in both Bihar and Jharkhand was approximately 1,650,452 in the formal system and an additional estimated 1,100,000 in Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) and Alternative Schools (AS). This increase is almost seven times the targeted increase in school enrollments.

The Projectassisted Biharand Jharkhandto ensure thatmore children,especiallyfrom sociallydisadvantagedgroups completea five-yearprimaryeducation cycle

 Increased retention and improved learning achievement in primary schools: 
Retention: Retention at Project commencement was 37.9 percent and this was to increase to 43.6 percent by the end of the Project. Taking retention in Grade V at the end of the Project, in Bihar in 2001, 1,250,366 students enrolled in Grade I of which 673,567 reached Grade V by 2005, giving a gross retention rate of 54 percent. In Jharkhand, out of 425,815 children enrolled in Grade I in 2000, 170,914 reached Grade V in 2004, giving a retention rate of 45 percent. It is important to note here that since the creation of the state, Jharkhand concentrated on expanding access to disadvantaged communities (which included its sizable Scheduled Tribe populations) through the AS and EGS schools, and so was not able to substantially improve retention in formal schools after the state was formed.

Learning Achievement:
In Jharkhand the difference between the Baseline Assessment Study (BAS) and the Terminal Assessment Study (TAS) for Grade II represented a 50 percent improvement in the mean test score for both mathematics and language, with corresponding 43 percent difference for the mathematics score in Grade V.

The high performance on learning outcomes in Bihar is surprising, but the results have also been corroborated by a report by PRATHAM, which found that while overall learning in India was low, the achievements of Bihar was comparable or higher than levels in other more advanced Indian states.

Improved state and district capacity to manage primary education: 
In spite of severe constraints because of incomplete staffing, this objective has been achieved as evidenced in the improved implementation in the second half of the Project period and in the full utilization of the Credit.

•  A dedicated Project unit responsible for implementation was critical, though the implications of scaling up were not sufficiently understood. There was a significant lack of personnel and focus in the education department when the Project was prepared. Therefore, a separate implementation unit was critical to Project implementation.

• A PRATHAM report found that while overall learning in India was low, the achievements of Bihar was comparable or higher than levels in other more advanced Indian states

  The need for a more comprehensive and accurate definition and monitoring of Project outcomes. The Education Management Information System (EMIS) must include data on private schools, EGS and AS in order to provide an accurate reflection of school education.
• Supervision must have an adequate focus on issues related to procurement and Financial Management (FM). Procurement and FM were not sufficiently reviewed in DPEP projects. It will be important to include these aspects in the supervision framework and SSA has begun to do this by the inclusion of persons with the relevant expertise in the Joint Review Missions.
• The involvement of partner institutions was critical for implementation and encouraging participation of disadvantaged communities. UNICEF played an important role at the state level to both dialogue with the state and facilitate implementation.
• Mobilizing community partnerships and the participation of PRIs will require strong commitment from the state. Commitment to supporting the PRIs as a statutory body lending legitimacy to community involvement in schools is important, whilst ensuring that VSSs are empowered to carry out their roles and responsibilities. There is a need to build capacity of VSSs to go further in monitoring student learning achievement as well as monitoring student and teacher attendance.
• There is need to understand the connections between teacher training and improving quality of classroom practice. In order to improve education quality, extensive and systematic training was provided to teachers in the Project. While there was improvement in test scores, the extent to which training influenced change in pedagogy is unclear. Systematic evaluation, analysis, and reflection on the content, length and frequency of training and the supports required to bring about change in classrooms are critical to ensure efficient use of resources.
• Project design must be inclusive of state structures. In a federal system, policy reforms at the state level and the roles of the state and district resource institutions outside the direct control of the Project needs to be clearly defined.
• Each DPEP state has had a distinctive set of factors affecting implementation and outcomes. A careful analysis, especially of risks associated with project implementation, needs to be made in the project design particularly related to the legal and political constraints at the state level that might restrict Project implementation.
  
  In the case of Bihar, the constraints were severe and included the hiring of new teachers, the allocation of land for new school construction, and the appointment of Project staff.