India - Second District Primary Education Project

Document of The World Bank Report No. 15496-IN STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT INDIA SECOND DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION PROJECT May 9, 1996 South Asia Country Department II (Bhutan, India, Nepal) Population and Human Resources Operations Division  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of March 1, 1996) Currency Unit = Rupee US$1.00 = Rupee 34.70 US$ .029 = Rupee 1.00 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES I Meter (m) = 3.28 Feet (fit.) I Kilometer (km) = 0.62 miles GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEAR April 1 - March 31  -i- ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget BRC '3lock Resource Center CRC Cluster Resource Center DEO District Education Officer DIET District Institute of Education and Training DOE Department of Education DPEP District Primary Education Program DPEP II Second District Primary Education Project DPEP I States Assam, Harvana, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu DPO District Project Office EC European Community ECE Early Childhood Education EMIS Educational Management Information System ESW Economic Sector Work GER Gross Enrollment Rate GOI Government of India GON Government of The Netherlands ICDS Integrated Child Development Scheme MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development MLL Minimum Levels of Learning NCERT National Council of Education Research and Training New DPEP States Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa NFE Non-Formal Education NGO Non-Government Organization NIEPA National Institute of Education Planning and Administration ODA United Kingdom Overseas Development Administration OBB Operation Blackboard PMIS Project Management Information System PRI Panchayat Raj Institutions Project States Assani, Gujarat, Haryana. Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa. Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh PWD Public Works Department SC Scheduled Caste SCERT State Council of Educational Research and Training SIDA Swedish International Development Agency SIEMT State Institute of Educational Management and Training SIS State Implementation Society SPO State Project Office ST Scheduled Tribe TLC Total Literacy Campaign TSG Technical Support Group UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund UPBEP Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project UPE Universal Primary Education VEC Village Education Committee   -ii- INDIA SECOND DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Paee No. CREDIT AND PROJECT SUMMARY .............................. iv I. SUB-SECTORAL BACKGROUND, ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES 1.... A. Background 1..... B. Issues ....2 C. Policy and Policy Implementation . . . . 9 D. IDA Strategy and Rationale for Involvement . . .11 E. External Financing ....12 F. Lessons Learned ....12 II. THE PROJECT .14 A. Objectives ..14 B. Scope and Approach ..14 C. Project Description . .15 Building State Institutional Capacity ..15 Improving the Quality of, Reducing Dropout from, and Expanding Access to Primary Education . 18 Distance Education Program ... 26 National Management Structure Support for DPEP ..27 This report is based on an appraisal mission that visited India in February-March 1996, and consisted of. World Bank Staff: Adriaan Verspoor (Education Adviser NDO and Task Manager); Juan Prawda (Senior Education Specialist), Kevin Casey (Architect/Implementation Specialist), Keith Hinchliffe (Senior Economist), and N.K. Jangira (Education Specialist, NDO); Consultants: Donna Bjerregaard (Social Development Specialist), Roger Bonner (Civil Works Specialist), Philip Cohen (Textbooks Specialist), Sudesh Mukhopadhyay (Education Specialist), Vijay Rewal (Civil Works Specialist), and Clayton Vollan (Distance Education Specialist). Ms. Gita Poyck joined the appraisal mission on behalf of the Government of the Netherlands. General Coordination and Support: Hemamalini Kanugo, Mark Schlagel and Gertrude Stubblefield assisted in preparing the document. Sudesh Ponnappa assisted in the mission's preparation. Peer Reviewers: Thomas Eisemon (HDD), Harry Patrinos (HDD), Robert Prouty (AF5PH), and Jane Hannaway (Urban Institute, External Reviewer). The project was endorsed in the South Asia Country Department II (Bhutan, India, Nepal), by Richard Skolnik, Division Chief, Population and Human Resources Division; Kazuko Uchimura, Project Adviser; and Heinz Vergin, Director.  -iii- m. PROJECT COST, FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION .................... 32 A. Cost Estimates ....................................................... 32 B. Financing Plan ....................................................... 34 C. State Investment Capacity, Additionality and Recurrent Cost Implications ....................................................... 34 D. Project Implementation ....................................................... 37 E. Project Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................... 39 F. Status of Preparation . ........................................................ 41 G. Procurement ....................................................... 43 H. Disbursements ....................................................... 48 I. Environmental Aspects .................................................. 49 J. Land Acquisition ....................................................... 49 K. Audits and Accounting ....................................................... 50 IV. BENEFITS AND RISKS ....................................................... 51 A. Benefits ...................................... ............... 51 B. Program Objective Categories .................................................... 52 C. Risks .................................................... 52 V. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION .54 ANNEXES 1. Education Statistics ..57 2. Project Costs and Procurement ..63 3. Disbursement Profile ..71 4. Implementation Plans and Schedules ..73 5. Performance Indicators ..97 6. Project Management ..108 7. Management Development Plan ..126 8. DPEP Guidelines ..138 9. District Profiles ..141 10. Institutional Development .................................................... 145 11. Quality Improvement .................................................... 154 12. Distance Education .................................................... 163 13. Civil Works .................................................... 168 14. Economic and Financial Issues .................................................... 174 15. Social Assessment and Participation ....................... ............................. 191 16. Supervision Plan .................................................... 202 17. Country at a Glance and Basic Indicators for Fifteen Large States ....................... 212 18. Selected Documents in Project Files ..215  -iv- INDIA SECOND DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION PROJECT CREDIT AND PROJECT SUMMARY Borrower: India, acting by its President Beneficiaries: Government of India (GOI) and the Governments of Assam, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. The Gujarat component is expected to be financed by the Government of the Netherlands. Amount: SDR 291.7 Million (US$425.2 million equivalent) Poverty: Program of Targeted Interventions (PTI). The proposed project would contribute to the alleviation of poverty by improving primary education outcomes in about 70 districts in Project states. Beneficiaries of the project would overwhelmingly be poor children, especially children with mild to moderate disabilities, girls, and SC/ST students for whom specific strategies to reduce dropout, increase access and enhance learning achievement are included in the project. Terms: Standard, with 35 years maturity On-Lending Terms: The GOI would make the proceeds of the Credit available as grants to the States of Assam, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. GOI would assume foreign exchange risk.. Description: The proposed project will have four components: (a) Building and Strengthening State Institutional Capacity in Project states to: (i) appraise and supervise the implementation of district-level programs designed to improve the quality and efficiency of primary education; and (ii) provide technical support for program management, instructional materials development, improved teaching, improved planning and management and research and evaluation; (b) Improving the Quality of, Reducing Dropout from, and Expanding Access to Primary Education by strengthening the capacity of district and sub-district institutions to plan and manage program delivery; developing community  participation and awareness; improving teacher in-service training, learning materials and teaching aids; implementing targeted interventions for girls, children with mild to moderate disabilities, scheduled castes (SC) and scheduled tribes (ST) students and early childhood education; and constructing new classrooms and improving existing school facilities in participating districts; (c) Developing a Distance Education Program to support DPEP in-service teacher training activities; and (d) Continuing the National Management Structure Support for DPEP designed and implemented under DPEP I to strengthen the capacity of national institutions to appraise, monitor, assist and evaluate state and district investment proposals. Benefits: The proposed credit would be the second investment in a longer- term program to improve literacy and numeracy skills in India, particularly of the rural poor, and hence to increase productivity and welfare. The total number of beneficiaries would be more than double the number to be reached by DPEP I. The proposed project aims to improve the quality of instruction and learning achievement for approximately 10 million children per year. It is expected that more than 50 percent of the children benefiting from the project would be girls. Another objective of the proposed credit is to raise the proportion of primary school completers by improving access to, and reducing dropout from, primary schools. The project would provide access to primary education for an estimated one million additional children per year and would enable more than 4 million more children per year to complete primary education. The economic and social benefits from raising the proportion of primary school completers are large. In addition, many of the economic and social benefits have spillover effects beyond the child and his/her parents. The economic impact of primary schooling in India has been demonstrated in several ways. The most recent rate of return study of primary schooling has indicated a return of 13 percent. More recent studies have demonstrated the impact of schooling on the utilization of new technology, and its outcomes in agriculture. For every one rupee increase in profit due to exogenous technical change, those households having a member with primary schooling gained an additional 1.38 rupees. In addition, farmers with little or no schooling benefited from their more schooled neighbors who were the first to adopt the new practices. Bank studies on poverty in Indian states conclude that levels of literacy have had long term effects on both consumption levels and poverty reduction. A recent study to disaggregate the sources of growth in the Indian  -vi- economy during the 1970s indicated that education in general, and primary education in particular, had a major impact. Evidence of the social impact of primary schooling is very strong and has been augmented by the recent National Family Health Surveys for each state. The impact of mothers' schooling on the total fertility rate, the ideal number of children, infant and child mortality, child immunization rates and nutritional status is very strong within each state. Further, comparisons across states strongly suggest that the impact has increasing returns once some threshold coverage of primary schooling has been attained. Since the districts funded under DPEP are by definition poorly developed in terms of educational coverage, the social benefits are likely to be high. An additional benefit of the project will be an increase in the internal efficiency of the school system. On average, a provision of 8.5 years of schooling is required to produce one completer of the five year primary school cycle. DPEP places a major emphasis on increasing the quality of education and reducing the drop out rate in primary schools. On the assumption that increases in the quality of inputs will reduce repetition and dropout levels by half, a total of 6.3 years would be required. This would reduce the costs per graduate by 25 percent or around Rs. 2,200. Across the 70 project districts, a total of about 11.8 million children are enrolled. These figures imply a 'saving' in the schooling of these children equal to US$790 million over approximately six years, which can be utilized both to enroll additional children and to increase the inputs per child. Risks: The ability of states to sustain the incremental recurrent costs at the end of the project on non-plan budgets will essentially depend on the future strength of the economy and the methods used to adjust to underlying unsustainable trends in revenue growth and expenditures evident. in several project states. Assuming a continuation of past real rates of growth in non-plan expenditures to the end of the project for the new states, the annual recurring costs in the year following the end of the project are estimated to be equal to less than 12 percent of the normal increase in expenditures for that year in Gujarat and Orissa, and just over 40 percent in Himachal Pradesh. On this assumption, the additional costs would be comfortably covered in each state. Previous analysis suggests that in each DPEP I state, apart from Haryana and Assam, the incremental costs might just be covered by the normal departmental increment. The most serious problems are likely to arise for Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Both are among the group of poorest states. The need to improve the  -vii- public finances of these states will be intensified by this project. Currently, there is clear evidence of an increased commitment to provide the resources for universal primary schooling by both central and state governments. Furthermore, the experience of UPBEP and the DPEP I are very encouraging in this regard. The National Development Council has made a commitment to increase resources for education from the current level of under four percent of GDP to six percent by the end of the Ninth Plan. In addition to the project's financial sustainability risk, there are a number of project managerial and implementation risks, among which the most important are to ensure that: (a) state and district management capacity are in place at the start-up phase of project irnplementation; (b) the DPEP experience gained by the DPEP Bureau and the Technical Support Group (TSG) during DPEP I implementation is channeled to the participating DPEP I states; and (c) accountability in participating states and districts is based on project monitoring and is performance based. These risks are being addressed in the project by: (a) establishing and staffing State Implementation Societies (SISs), State Project Offices (SPOs) and District Project Offices (DPOs) with key qualified personnel before the appraisal consideration of any district investment proposals; (b) ensuring that there will be a progressive transfer of responsibility from the DPEP Bureau to the SPOs for project supervision; and (c) making eligibility requirements for all DPEP II expansion districts contingent upon good prior project implementation performance under DPEP I, or, in the case of Uttar Pradesh, under UPBEP. The project monitoring and information system designed and implemented under DPEP I financing will be used to monitor and evaluate this requirement.  -viii- Estimated Project Costs:' Local Foreign Total -------------USS Million----- Building State Institutional Capacity 7.0 0.3 7.3 Improving the Quality of, Reducing Dropout from and Expanding Access to Primary Education Improving Quality 184.5 5.6 190.1 Reducing Dropout and Expanding Access 281.6 11.3 292.9 Distance Education Program 4.2 0.1 4.3 National Management Structure Support for DPEP 1.4 - 1.4 Total Base Cost 478.7 17.3 496.0 Physical Contingencies 38.3 1.7 40.0 Price Contingencies -3.1 1.5 -1.6 TOTAL PROJECT COST 513.9 20.5 534.4 Financing Plan: Local Foreign Total ---------US$ Million ------- IDA 405.6 19.6 425.2 Govt. of the Netherlands2 24.9 0.9 25.8 Govt. of India 83.4 0.0 83.4 TOTAL PROJECT COST 513.9 20.5 534.4 Estimated Disbursements: IDA FISCAL YEAR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 -------------US $ Million---------- Annual 15.0 38.5 54.2 75.9 105.8 88.6 47.2 Cumulative 15.0 53.5 107.7 183.6 289.4 378.0 425.2 Economic Rate of Return: Not applicable. l Including taxes and duties estimated at US$20.6 million equivalent. 2 The Netherlands' Minister for Development Cooperation confirmed to IDA during negotiations the intention of the Govemment of the Netherlands (GON) to contribute the above-mentioned grant, through a joint financing arrangement with IDA, for executing DPEP II in the districts of Dangs, Banashkanta and Panchmahal in Gujarat, as well as the state component, under IDA's procurement and disbursement guidelines. This grant contribution is pending an intemal approval process by GON and signature by the Netherlands' Minister for Development Cooperation in the near future.   INDIA SECOND PRIMARY EDUCATION PROJECT I. SUB-SECTORAL BACKGROUND, ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES A. Background 1.1 Substantial gains have been made in providing access to education to Indian children over the past four decades. Particularly encouraging has been the rapid increase in female enrollment and the corresponding rise in the gross enrollment rate in recent years. Also noteworthy is the fact that, nationwide, virtually all primary students have timely access to textbooks. Nonetheless, ongoing Economic and Sector Work (ESW) carried out as a collaborative effort between IDA staff and national researchers demonstrates that much remains to be done. The literacy rate in 1991 for those aged seven years and above was 64 percent for males and 39 percent for females (Annex 1, Table 1-1). The number of illiterates increased from 302 to 324 million between 1981 and 1991. About 33 million children in the 6-10 years age-cohort, 60 percent of them girls, remain out of school (Annex 1, Table 1-2); about half of these - especially those living in remote rural areas, belonging to hard to reach groups or requiring special education needs, never enroll, while many others are enrolled but do not attend regularly. Enrollment expansion in India has not been matched by a comparable expansion of educational facilities. Surveys in educationally disadvantaged districts show that learning achievement is very low, even in states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu, that have achieved full enrollment and comparatively low dropout rates. 1.2 In 1992, 97.7 million children were enrolled in 575,000 lower primary schools.' Another 40 million children were enrolled in 156,000 upper primary schools. Provisional statistics from the 1993 Sixth All-India Education Survey indicate a gross enrollment ratio (GER) at the primary level of 95.9 percent, up from 91.2 percent in 1987. Particularly encouraging is the rapid increase in female enrollment, which resulted in a GER for girls of 85 percent in 1993, up from 77.6 percent in 1987. In addition, approximately 250,000 non-formal education (NFE) centers provided primary education for an estimated seven million children in the 9-14 age group who either do not enter or who drop out of school. ' Elementary education in India consists of four or five years of lower primary school, depending on the state, plus three years of upper primary schooling. A child is expected to enter Grade I at the age of 6 and to complete eight years of schooling by age 14.  - 2 - 1.3 Primary education in India is the joint responsibility of the central and state governments, although almost 96 percent of the funding is provided by the states. In the Seventh Five Year Plan (1985-1990) the states provided 63 percent of the plan (investment) resources in primary education and 100 percent of non-plan (recurrent) costs. States differ in administration and definition of the steps on the educational ladder, but most have adopted the national model of five years of lower primary plus three years of upper primary schooling; some states have adopted a four plus three structure for lower and upper primary schooling. Together, lower and upper primary cycles and non-formal education are referred to in India as elementary education. 1.4 With the exception of a few southern states, notably Kerala and Tamil Nadu, rural primary education is largely public. Less than three percent of rural primary schools were government-aided private schools (usually receiving grants for teacher salaries) and about one percent were private un-aided schools. In contrast, 40 percent of urban primary schools were government-aided or fully private. 1.5 The National Policy on Education (1986) set the stage for an increasingly important role for the central government in primary education. The policy explicitly recognized the need for a concerted effort to expand and improve basic education, including both formal and non-formal primary education, as well as adult literacy education. At the primary level, the policy called for priority attention to reducing the disparities in enrollment for girls, scheduled caste (SC) and scheduled tribe (ST) students. To implement the policy, the Department of Education (DOE) of the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MBRD) of the Government of India (GOI) created the following sets of centrally sponsored grant schemes to provide assistance to states with the development of basic education: (a) Operation Blackboard (OBB), to construct an additional classroom, post an additional teacher to single teacher schools, and distribute a pre-determined standardized package of teaching materials and aides; (b) Minimum Levels of Learning (MLL), to identify basic competencies in language, mathematics and social/environmental studies to be taught in the primary grades for each state and to develop and distribute accordingly new textbooks; (c) District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs), to help primary school teachers improve their effectiveness; and (d) Total Literacy Campaigns (TLCs), to provide adult literacy instruction along with vocational skills training in selected district centers. 1.6 Two autonomous national resource institutions are financed by the GOI to provide professional and academic leadership in education. These are the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT), and the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA). Recently, GOI established the National Council for Teacher Education as an apex institution to provide national teaching training programs. These institutions, all located in New Delhi, work closely with counterpart organizations in the states, providing training, research and planning support. B. Issues 1.7 This section is based on the extensive economic and sector work (ESW) carried-out in collaboration with the DOE/GOI, the District Primary Education Program  - 3 - (DPEP) Bureau of the DOE/GOI and major Indian research institutions and scholars, in particular NCERT and NIEPA, during the preparation of DPEP I and throughout the past three years. The ESW concludes that it is imperative to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of primary education in India. Weak educational outcomes signal low returns to investment and a failure to capture the significant benefits in poverty reduction, economic development and social returns that primary education has been shown to generate, internationally and in India. Over the past decade a large body of evidence has accumulated to suggest that when a critical minimum of educational attainment across the population has been achieved, particularly, though not exclusively for girls, it pays substantial returns to society in terms of: (a) raising the productivity of workers; (b) generating substantial additional social benefits in the form of improved family health and welfare; and (c) contributing to lower fertility and slower rates of population growth. As long as the education system fails to deliver good quality primary education to a large proportion of the population, India will find it difficult to accelerate and sustain a process of equitable social and economic development. 1.8 The DPEP program is designed to address the following principal constraints on sub-sector efficiency and effectiveness: (a) shortfalls in access, indicated by the large number of children that never enroll and a continuing high level of illiteracy; (b) low internal efficiency, reflected by high repetition and dropout rates; (c) unacceptably low levels of quality, as evidenced by low levels of learning achievement; (d) inequities, as manifested by considerable variations of educational disadvantages due to gender, caste and tribal affiliation; and (e) sub-sector constraints, as displayed by historically inadequate financing and weak management at the national, state and district levels. 1.9 Access. Despite substantial improvements since 1986, the literacy rate in 1991 for those aged seven years and above was 64 percent for males and 39 percent for females. In four major states (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan) the overall female literacy rate was below 30 percent. By contrast, Kerala, which has the highest literacy rates in India (94 percent for males and 86 percent for females), has achieved universal enrollment and comparatively high levels of completion of the lower primary cycle (Annex 1, Table 1-1). 1.10 The percentage of school-age children who participate in primary schooling has been steadily increasing in India in the last decade. However, major challenges remain despite the progress in the expansion of access to primary education. The total GER of 90-95 percent suggests at first sight that access to primary education is no longer an issue, especially among 6-10 year old males. However, this ratio obscures problems of age-cohort undercounts2, over-age student enrollment, low attendance, a gap in female primary education coverage, especially in impoverished rural areas, and insufficient coverage of children with disabilities. Although gaps in access and completion have been reduced in recent years nationwide, a disproportionate number of non-enrolled and dropouts are from the poorest households, girls, learning disabled students and members of SCs and STs. 2 The primary school GER of 104.5 percent reported in the Selected Educational Statistics 1993-94 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (1994) is overestimated because its denominator relies on an age- cohort estimated from the 1981 census, which experts agree suffered from severe undercounting.  - 4 - 1.11 Primary schools in India enroll a considerable number of over-aged students. The official GER also overestimates school enrollment of the age cohort by including in the numerator an estimated 20 percent of the enrolled students who fall outside the official range of 6-10, most of whom in India are over age. At least 16 million children in the 6-10 age- cohort, approximately 60 percent of them girls, never enroll in primary schools. Most of these children live in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan; a large majority are likely to live in low female literacy districts in these states. Also, many of the out-of-school children live in remote areas in these and other states and belong to SC and ST groups, and/or have special education needs. 1.12 In addition, access problems are exacerbated by student non-attendance. A significant proportion of children who are enrolled do not attend classes regularly, and -- for all intents -- can be considered 'but of school" The exact number is not known, but it is estimated that about 16 million children age 6-10 (of which about two thirds are girls) fall in this category. It is possible that some of these children attend non-formal classes, which offer a two-year condensed program which for only a few results in learning achievement equivalent to primary schools. The lowest attendance rates are found in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan which together contain two thirds of the primary school-age children who do not attend. It is clear that progress towards the goal of universal primary education (UPE) will critically depend on progress in expanding school enrollment and regular attendance in these states. 1.13 According to estimates, about 4 percent of children age 6-10 suffer from various kinds of disabilities in varying degrees. A majority of them have mild (learning) to moderate disabilities and can be integrated and mainstreamed in primary school. GOI has promulgated in 1996 an Act which mandates provision of access to children with disabilities who can be integrated in primary school. The National Policy on Education also provides for integrated education for such children. Universalization of primary education in India, which is the main objective of DPEP, will remain incomplete in the absence of such integrated education. 1.14 Improving access to primary schooling will also require continuing efforts to provide classroom and teacher capacity to accommodate all children of primary age. In some states that have almost achieved UPE coverage, like Kerala, existing physical capacity is largely adequate. But that is not the case in other states. The physical space shortage to accommodate the potential total primary education enrollment of 105.7 million children has been estimated at about one million classrooms (Annex 1, Table 1-3). In addition, much of the stock of available classrooms is in poor repair, and many schools lack water supply and adequate sanitary facilities (Para. 1.20). 1.15 Similarly, more primary education teachers will be needed to staff the classrooms and teach the increasing number of children. In 1993 there were almost 2 million primary education teachers in India, an increase of 9 percent since 1986. However, this increase has not been enough to make progress toward the full enrollment of the age group or keep up with the growth of enrollment (14 percent) during that period. As a result, the  - 5 - student to teacher ratio increased from about 45:1 in 1986 to 49:1 in 1993. Reversing this trend and bringing the ratio down to an average of 40:1 (the norm adopted for DPEP) would require the creation of an additional 450,000 teaching positions. To achieve UPE would require 200,000 teaching positions beyond that. The teacher shortage problem is compounded when, as is often the case in rural schools with high dropout, the higher student- teacher ratios are found in the first few grades and when, as is also frequently the case, the least experienced teachers are assigned to those grades. 1.16 Internal Efficiency. Repetition is high among primary education students. International experience suggests that students who repeat are more likely to drop out. It is estimated that as a result of repetition and dropout, about 8.5 years per student are currently spent to provide the regular five year primary cycle. Policies on repetition vary considerably between states. Some states (Maharashtra and Karnataka) follow an automatic promotion policy, while others follow a policy of no repetition up to grade 2 (Haryana) or grade 3 (Uttar Pradesh). Where repetition does occur it is highest among first and second graders. In addition, even where automatic promotion policies have been adopted, informal repetition remains frequent. Data collected in baseline studies suggests that from 20 to 40 percent of students in low-literacy districts have repeated at least one year. Repetition is a significant cause of inefficiency as it results in school places occupied by average repeaters not being available to students of the expected age, without substantial crowding. 1.17 Dropping out of school leads to a substantial waste of scarce resources. While average dropout rates in grade I in India have come down from 22 percent in 1985 to 7.8 percent in 1990, recent data show that overall primary cycle dropout rates remain unacceptably high, and in some states such as Gujarat and Orissa, they are staggering at about 51 percent for female students. A particular cause for concern is the fact that more than half of dropouts occur in grades 1 and 2, well before students can be expected to have learned much of the curriculum. 1.18 Low Educational Quality. The recent large-scale, sample-based learning achievement studies conducted in 42 low-literacy districts in seven states under DPEP I, and currently being conducted in 12 districts of three new states (Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa) conclude: (a) students are poorly prepared for school; (b) the quality of school inputs is low; and (c) the effectiveness of the existing teacher corps is very limited. As a consequence, many of the students who do complete primary school learn relatively little. Studies of student learning achievement in the second and final year of lower primary school in seven states show that, on average, students have mastered fewer than a quarter of the curriculum objectives. 1.19 First graders are poorly prepared for school. In low literacy districts, two- thirds or more of students are first-time learners from illiterate homes. Early childhood education (ECE) reaches about 40 percent of such children through the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) and other state-run pre-primary education and nutrition programs. Research in India and elsewhere has found that high quality ECE improves primary  - 6 - school attendance and learning achievement. But in many states in India, the potential of ECE is constrained by inappropriate curricula and learning materials, untrained teachers, and inadequate supervision. 1.20 The quality of school inputs is low. Textbooks are overly difficult, with many students unable to read them; their publication quality is low, and state textbook publication systems suffer, in varying ways and to varying extent, from inefficient practices. While there are blackboards, consumable supplies and educational aids are conspicuous by their absence and, when present, by low utilization. Appropriate instructional teaching and learning materials for the integration of children with disabilities into primary school are lacking in India. Buildings are poorly designed and inadequately maintained. According to a 1986/87 national survey, 44 percent of lower primary schools did not have proper buildings, 74 percent lacked libraries, and 95 percent lacked toilets. 1.21 The effectiveness of the existing teacher corps is very limited. Although most teachers have 10 or more years of education and have formal pre-service training, very few have adequate pedagogical skills and demonstrate good teaching practices. Many primary teachers possess little understanding of the materials they teach and have not studied such core subjects as mathematics or the language of instruction beyond grades 8 or 10. Moreover, most are ill-prepared to address effectively the challenge of teaching in multi-grade classrooms groups of students who vary greatly in age, ability and achievement. Primary school teachers are not appropriately trained to detect and assess children with disabilities and to assist them into their integration to school. A survey some years ago noted that less than 6 percent of teachers had received any in-service training. In some states, weak supervision leads to high rates of teacher absenteeism; in small schools, this results in high effective student-teacher ratios and, too often, children without teachers. A student to teacher ratio of 49:1 makes the introduction of more effective teaching and learning strategies difficult and places an undue burden on the teachers, especially in multi-grade and multi-age situations that are common in rural areas of India. 1.22 Inequities. There are large variations in primary education enrollment, attendance, retention and learning achievement rates. Three relevant gaps are most evident: gender, poverty, and SC/ST. 1.23 There is ample evidence that girl suffer severe educational disadvantages in India. Literacy rates for females aged seven years and above (39 percent) are substantially lower than those for males (64 percent). In two of the project states (Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) the gender gap for literacy was nearly 30 percentage points (Annex 1, Table 1- 4). Even though the female primary education GER has been increasing steadily over the past 15 years, it is still about 17 percentage points lower than that for males. There is, however, wide diversity among states. In Uttar Pradesh, this gap exceeds 25 percentage points, while in Kerala, Assam, and Tamil Nadu, the gap is less than 7 points (Annex 1, Table 1-5). 1.24 More girls than boys drop out of school at all levels, including primary. According to the most recent DOE statistics (1994), 45 percent of girls and 41 percent of boys dropout between primary grades I and 5. Although the gender gap in dropout appears  - 7 - low and is declining, the impact of even this modest gap is significant, and translates into approximately one million more females than males annually who lack a completed primary education. 1.25 Poverty affects the extent to which children enroll and stay in school. Children from the poorest households are educationally disadvantaged, in comparison with those from wealthier households. Literacy rates are significantly lower for those in the lowest income quintile, for both rural and urban population groups (Annex 1, Table 1-6). Children of poor families, especially in the rural areas, are less likely to be enrolled in schools and drop out four times as often as children of more advantaged families (Annex 1, Table 1-7). Lastly, children from poor households score lower on achievement tests than do children from wealthier households (Annex 1, Table 1-8). The poverty gap, especially in rural areas, is mainly caused by the inability of parents to afford the direct and indirect costs associated with sending their children to school. Recent data suggest that a household could spend up to Rs. 400 per year to send a child to school, not counting foregone labor. 1.26 Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) have historically been disadvantaged socially, economically and educationally, and have been specifically targeted under post independence anti-discrimination legislation. Nonetheless, school participation for both SC and ST children remains significantly lower than that for non-SC/ST children (Annex 1, Table 1-9). The non-attendance gap for SC students ranges from less than one percent in Haryana and Maharashtra to almost 18 percent in Assam and other northeastern states. For ST students, the school non-attendance gap ranges from less than one percent in Orissa and Kerala to almost five percent in Maharashtra. While dropout rates for SC students were indistinguishable from those of the general population, those for ST students were higher - about 17 percentage points for grades I to 5. Finally, both SC and ST students perform less well than non-SC or non-ST students on tests of language and mathematics. 1.27 Recent research has identified several causes of the gaps discussed above. Parents prefer to educate sons rather than daughters. Boys are expected to earn more, and confer higher status to the family. Most importantly, the returns to their education investment will remain with the family. Conversely, the returns to investment in a daughter's education will typically flow to her husband's family. School quality, teaching practices, lack of female teachers, school distance from the household and curriculum also contribute to the gender gap. In addition, girls' contribution to household work often conflicts with schooling. 1.28 The SC gap is caused by both economic factors and past tradition of discrimination. Children from SC households are much more likely to be working than are children in non-SC households. 1.29 The ST schooling gap is caused mainly by cultural discontinuity between family and school, language of instruction, and school quality. Most tribal children are first generation learners, and thus their families are less likely to be familiar with and support school learning. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution establishes that states and local  - 8 - authorities are to provide instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage for all linguistic minorities, including tribal children. However, tribal languages are not widely used as the medium of instruction. Implementation of the policy also has been constrained by the presence of over 400 tribal languages and dialects, only 60 of which are written. Schools with high concentration of ST students are generally less well endowed than those with low concentration of ST students. Finally, the geographical dispersion of tribal children makes implementation of interventions difficult. 1.30 Inadequate Financing and Weak Management. With the issuance of the Revised National Policy on Education and a National Program of Action in 1992, the GOI intensified central leadership and support for primary education development. This had important implications for management of education. This process is expected to accelerate further. The institutional mechanisms needed at all levels of decision making (central, state and district) to manage expanded investment and to provide technical leadership have received, until recently, little attention. Reforms will now need to be carried out in a changing institutional environment caused by the implementation by states of the Seventy-third and Seventy-fourth Amendments to the Constitution of India (1992) that provide for increased responsibility on the part of elected local governments (Panchayat Raj institutions-PRI) for social programs, including education. 1.31 Total state and central government expenditures on education are equal to around 3.7 percent of GDP and 13 percent of all government expenditure. These shares have slowly increased over the past five decades though they remain below the peak reached in 1989/90. State governments contribute nine tenths of the total, though the central governments' share has increased during the past decade and almost 40 percent of plan expenditures are funded by the center. The financial commitment to education varies significantly between states. Expenditures vary between 3.0 and 7.5 percent of state domestic product and between 18 and 28 percent of government expenditure. Since these variations have existed for several decades, the differences in educational development between states, and the financial requirements to address them, differ substantially. 1.32 The distribution of overall educational expenditure between levels has remained constant over the past two decades. In 1993/94, 46 percent was allocated to elementary education. Since 1980 the average annual increase in real expenditure on elementary education has been almost seven percent. Most of this increase, however, has funded more teachers and higher salaries. Roughly 97 and 96 percent of education department expenditures on lower and upper primary schooling, respectively, are for salaries. The second most important input is incentive programs, often funded by other departments. These are equal to around five percent of the overall unit cost. Little remains for providing educational materials and other inputs, such as in-service teacher training and the maintenance of facilities necessary to encourage school attendance and provide an effective learning environment. 1.33 With the launching of the Eighth Plan in 1992, the central government, in particular, planned for a substantial increase in the funding of elementary education. Projected investments were US$3 billion compared to less than US$1 billion over the Seventh Plan period, 1985-90. Between 1992/93 and 1995/96, central government expenditures have more  - 9 - than met the targets. Several state governments have also increased real expenditures. In others states, however, policy changes have not been sufficiently rapid to deal with deteriorating public finances, and increases in plan expenditure for education have been small. The Government has set the goal of ensuring that resources equal to six percent of GDP are provided for the education system by the end of the Ninth Plan period. If current GDP growth rates are maintained, the achievement of this goal would result in very large increases. The challenges will be to ensure that state governments provide their share of the projected increase and that the additional resources are well targeted across the country towards those inputs and interventions which will cost-effectively expand access, and encourage children to attend schools which provide a higher quality schooling. 1.34 At the school level, the central priority will be to establish well-managed schools, including: (i) increased autonomy and accountability for the headteacher as well as responsibility as a school leader and pedagogical resource; (ii) implementation of more effective instructional strategies including the regular monitoring of student learning; and (iii) involvement of the village education committees (VEC) and local PRIs in monitoring enrollment, student and teacher attendance, community activation, school level planning and resource mobilization. 1.35 At the intermediate (state and district) levels, institutions would have to ensure the: (i) formulation of policies and priorities and resource allocation decisions through the PRIs; (ii) provision of technical support and assistance to schools through the cluster and block resource centers, as well as through the DIETs; and (iii) provision of resources and administrative guidance through the PRI and the DOE/GOI. At the central level, a professional base needs to be established to support the strengthening of state institutions by developing national resource teams in key areas with resources drawn from a wide range of institutions, such as inter alia, NCERT, NIEPA, university education and non-education departments and NGOs, and establishing a documentation and dissemination center of educational resources. C. Policy and Policy hnplementation 1.36 Policy. The Revised National Policy on Education (1992) and the 1992 Program of Action provide the basic policy framework for central and state investments in primary education development. The objectives for primary education, in order of priority, are to: (a) reduce dropout; (b) improve learning achievement; and (c) expand access for unserved students. Girls, SC and ST students are to be given priority attention. Decentralization of responsibility for planning and managing primary education development programs at the district level, and strengthening of school/community organizations, are advocated as a means of developing locality specific strategies and implementation plans and of increasing ownership of schooling by communities. The policy framework is thus well aligned with principal sub-sectoral constraints.  - 10- 1.37 Policy Implementation. To achieve these policy objectives, the DOE/GOI, in close consultation with the states, established the District Primary Education Program (DPEP) in 1993 as a cabinet-approved, centrally sponsored program of financial and technical assistance to states and districts for primary education reform. The DPEP management and intervention designs draw explicitly on experience gained through the central schemes and, most significantly, the state education projects in Andhra Pradesh (ODA), Bihar (UNICEF), Rajasthan (SIDA) and Uttar Pradesh (IDA). DPEP finances in selected districts the development and implementation of replicable, sustainable and cost-effective programs to: (i) reduce differences in enrollment, dropout and learning achievement between gender and social groups to less than five percent; (ii) reduce overall primary dropout rates for all students to less than ten percent; (iii) raise average achievement levels by at least 25 percent over measured baseline levels by ensuring achievement of basic literacy and numeracy competencies and a minimum of 40 percent achievement levels in other competencies by all primary school children; (iv) provide access for all children to primary schooling or its equivalent non-formal education; and (v) strengthen the capacity of national, state, and district institutions and organizations for the planning, management and evaluation of primary education. DPEP provides a single window entry for most external assistance to primary education. The program was launched in 42 districts of seven states in 19943 under a grant of 150 million ECU provided by the European Community (EC) covering 19 of those districts, and an IDA Credit of US$265 million approved in 1994, covering the remaining 23 districts. ODA plans to support the expansion of DPEP into additional district projects in West Bengal (5 districts) and Andhra Pradesh (5 districts), while the Dutch Government is expected to provide finance for three districts in Gujarat. 1.38 DPEP is managed at the national level by the DPEP Bureau (established in 1994 in the DOE/GOI), serving as a financial and technical intermediary organization to appraise, finance, monitor and supervise state and district action programs. DPEP finances 85 percent of state and district expenditures, with the balance being provided from state budgets on the basis of six year district and state investment plans4. DPEP also provides national technical assistance, through a Technical Support Group (TSG), and funding for research and development programs to support the development of state and district institutional capacity. Progress is monitored closely and serves as the basis for annual budget allocations to district and state projects. Learning achievement and dropout indicators will be monitored every three years against baseline studies established for each participating district. DPEP Guidelines and an Administrative Program Manual, reviewed by IDA and approved by DOE/GOI in 1995, have been distributed to participating states and districts. 1.39 DPEP differs from other centrally sponsored schemes, which provide resources to states for the implementation of standard program designs, in five principal ways: (i) proposals for financing projects are developed by each participating district and state; (ii) proposals are appraised by the DPEP Bureau against technical, managerial and financial 3 Assam, Karnataka, Kerala, Haryana, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh. Discussions and planning are underway in Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Gujarat and West Bengal. 4 The Finance Ministry and the Planning Commission have approved an increased allocation for primary education of US$650 million to the DOE for implementation of DPEP over the balance of the Eighth Plan period.  criteria; (iii) participating states must make DPEP grants fully additional to normal growth of education budgets; (iv) funds are made available to states and districts annually on the basis of performance reviews and proposals for the next year, allowing for poorly performing districts to be dropped from the program and be replaced; and (v) implementation support and technical assistance are made available to states and districts through contracts with research and development agencies. 1.40 In creating the DPEP, the GOI has established a mechanism to provide financial and technical assistance to participating states and districts to build their capacity, as soon as possible, during a period in which the states implement new forms of decentralized education management while undergoing fiscal adjustment and reform. In addition, it is considered essential to further develop the capacity of national educational research and development institutions to provide an increasingly empirical basis for program design and evaluation, and to take an active role in developing counterpart agencies in the states. Finally, GOI wishes to have a single window for substantial anticipated external assistance to facilitate coordination of donor agencies and to ensure that these investments would be equitably targeted and fully implemented in line with national policy. D. IDA Strategy and Rationale for Involvement 1.41 The proposed project is consistent with the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) Paper, discussed by the Board on June 20, 1995. Promoting economic reform, speeding economic growth and alleviating poverty are central to IDA's CAS. Human resource development is a key element of this overall strategy, with education development playing a central role. IDA aims to improve the access of the poor, scheduled caste (SC), scheduled tribe (ST), and women to investments in human resource development and to improve the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of these investments. Low educational enrollments, high dropout rates, and unacceptably low levels of educational achievement are major constraints to social and economic improvement for the poor and socially disadvantaged groups. IDA's strategy for education is to focus medium-term assistance for education exclusively on primary education, given its underdeveloped status in India, its high returns, and its importance to alleviating poverty, all of which are being demonstrated in ESW. In addition, IDA has the technical expertise and the resources to assist the GOI to take DPEP to the scale necessary to make a visible dent in the problems of low enrollment, low learning achievement and persistent illiteracy. 1.42 Project Readiness. There are three rationales for proceeding with the project at this time. First, there is extensive borrower ownership of the DPEP II program. GOI has worked very closely with the Project states over the last year in preparing the project and there has been widespread participation of research institutions, officials, communities and NGOs in project design. In addition, funding plans are ready. Second, the DPEP I project and the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project (UPBEP) are being implemented  - 12 - satisfactorily5. They are meeting their qualitative aims to a large extent. Third, the project is technically ready to proceed. The detailed framework and program guidelines (Annex 8) for managing the DPEP program and state and district involvement in the program have been used for more than a year and are working effectively. Detailed district investment proposals have been prepared and appraised for 12 of the approximately 70 districts to be involved with the project, and about 20 additional district investment proposals are nearing completion. Based on experience, the management arrangements, auditing plans, and procurement arrangements have been redefined for DPEP. E. External Financing 1.43 The first substantial external assistance for primary education was provided by the United Kingdom Overseas Development Administration (ODA) for a project in Andhra Pradesh; approximately US$35 million was provided through 1992. UNICEF has disbursed around US$5 million from agency funds for the Bihar Education Project, and is providing support in several states for the piloting of innovative models for in-service teacher training. In Rajasthan, the Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA) has provided approximately US$100 million for basic education projects. The Government of the Netherlands is providing approximately US$30 million for Mahila Samakhya, the women's empowerment program managed by the GOI/DOE, and has expressed interest in allocating an additional US$25.8 million to expand DPEP into three districts in Gujarat. IDA approved a credit of US$165 million for the UPBEP in 1993 (Credit 2509-IN). Related to the Program to Strengthen the Social Safety Net (Credit 2448-IN), the EC approved in 1993 ECU 150 million as program support to DPEP; this was the first program of external financing for DPEP. IDA approved in 1994 a Credit of US$265 million (Credit 2661-IN) to support the implementation of the first phase of DPEP. F. Lessons Learned 1.44 DPEP II has been designed incorporating the following key lessons learned from India's efforts in basic education, under donor-assisted state primary education projects in Andhra Pradesh (ODA), Bihar (UNICEF), and Rajasthan (SIDA) and from Operation Blackboard (GOI): (a) the need for integrated education development programs that address inter-related constraints on the availability and quality of basic services; (b) the usefulness of formal annual reviews and work program proposals for management control; (c) the viability of registered societies as mechanisms to reduce delays in contracting and disbursements related to project implementation; and (d) the importance of strengthening the quality of early childhood education, textbooks and learning materials, and teacher in-service training. 5 The implementation performance of DPEP I has been rated as satisfactory according to the latest joint IDA/EC supervision report (September 1995). Total disbursements of US$23 million as of April 30, 1996 amount to about 70 percent of the original SAR forecast. The implementation performance of UPBEP has also been rated as satisfactory according to the fifth and latest IDA supervision report (April 1996). Total disbursements of US$53.8 million as of April 30, 1996 amount to about 96 percent of the original SAR forecast. The above disbursement figures for both projects do not include exchange rate changes that suggest that the project disbursements for DPEP I and UPBEP are even closer to the appraisal estimates.  - 13 - 1.45 Lessons learned from the ongoing Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project (IDA) and DPEP I (IDA/EC) include the need to: (a) overcome an initial slow start-up of project activities and consequent low expenditures and disbursement levels; (b) decentralize increased responsibility for program management and district supervision to the SIS and fine- tune the operationalization of the national, state and district management and planning structures; (c) strengthen the provision of timely technical assistance by the DPEP Bureau to participating states and districts in the development, appraisal, approval and implementation of district and state plans; and (d) enhance community participation in the operation of schools. 1.46 Other lessons learned from IDA-assisted population and human resources projects in India which have been incorporated in the design of DPEP II include the need to overcome: (a) inadequate attention to management aspects; (b) weak supervision; (c) poor maintenance of school buildings; (d) poor procurement; and (e) inadequate attention to qualitative aspects. 1.47 The program would also draw on wider international experience in primary education development6. This experience substantially validates the DPEP emphasis on ECE, improved textbooks and learning materials, intensified in-service teacher training, and enhanced community participation in the operation of schools. 6 These lessons have been summarized in the World Bank Publication by Marlaine E. Lockheed and Adriaan Verspoor: Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Additional lessons of experience from World Bank Project Completion Reports and Audits, and ongoing lending experience for primary education, have been discussed with the GOI and taken into account in program design. Finally, India has played a leading role in follow-up international activities to the Jomtien Conference on Education for All, including hosting of the regional EFA Forum in September, 1993 and the Large Country Initiative Conference in December of the same year. Through these consultations the GOI has been able to systematically review lessons being learned by other countries.  - 14 - II. THE PROJECT A. Objectives 2.1 Capitalizing on the experience gained by the ongoing DPEP I IDA Credit (Credit 2661-IN), the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Credit (Credit 2509-IN) and the current program of ESW, the proposed project would assist the DOE/GOI to extend DPEP into about 50 to 60 new districts chosen from Uttar Pradesh and the seven states already participating in DPEP I, and up to 15 districts in three new states (Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa). Like DPEP I, the proposed Project would build national, state, district and sub- district7 level managerial and professional capacity for the sustainable development of primary education in the project states and would support district-based activities aimed at improving access to primary education, reducing dropout and increasing learning achievement, with special emphasis on interventions that would target female and SC/ST students, as well as children with mild to moderate disabilities. GOI agreed during negotiations that it will carry out, and cause the Project states and State Implementation Societies to carry out, the DPEP in accordance with DPEP Guidelines (para. 5.1(m) and Annex 8) and that it will not make changes to the DPEP or the DPEP Guidelines, which in the reasonable opinion of IDA would adversely affect the project (para. 5.1(c)). B. Scope And Approach 2.2 The proposed specific investment credit, with a strong degree of program and policy content, is designed to continue providing program support to GOI for the development of primary education, with the DPEP Bureau operating as the national management authority which appraises state and district programs, as well as state and district Annual Work Programs and Budgets (AWPBs). Specifically, it would finance program expansion in 50 to 60 districts chosen from Uttar Pradesh and the seven states already participating in DPEP I, and up to 15 districts in three new states (Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, and Orissa). Selected districts will satisfy the eligibility criteria described in Annex 8: DPEP Guidelines. At negotiations, GOI agreed that districts brought into the project will comply with criteria in accordance with the DPEP Guidelines, and that no more than 15 percent of the expansion districts would be in districts that have successfully implemented the Total Literacy Campaign and have female literacy rates above the national average, but below the state average (para. 5.1(d)). Annex 9 describes the profile of the pool of approximately 110 districts in the eleven Project states from which 60 to 70 will be selected for funding by DPEP II. National management, technical support and capacity building components in DPEP I states are being financed by IDA and the EC under DPEP I. Further strengthening of the national management structure to assist the implementation of DPEP in the three new states and Uttar Pradesh will be financed under DPEP II. Additional support for state and district level components is expected to be provided by ODA for Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal. 7Sub-district means a level below the district level, consisting of one or more of the following: Sub-division, block, panchayat and village, as well as an area defined as a cluster by a Project state.  - 15 - During negotiations, the Government of the Netherlands (GON) confirmed its interest to fund the Gujarat DPEP II program through a co-financing arrangement with IDA. C. Project Description 2.3 The proposed project will have four components: (a) Building and Strengthening State Institutional Capacity in Project states to: (i) appraise and supervise the implementation of district-level programs designed to improve the quality and efficiency of primary education; and (ii) provide technical support for program management, instructional materials development, improved teaching, improved planning and management and research and evaluation; (b) Improving the Quality of, Reducing Dropout from, and Expanding Access to Primary Education by strengthening the capacity of district and sub-district institutions to plan and manage program delivery; developing community participation and awareness; improving teacher in-service training, learning materials and teaching aids; implementing targeted interventions for girls, children with mild to moderate disabilities, scheduled castes (SC) and scheduled tribes (ST) students and early childhood education, and constructing new classrooms and improving existing school facilities in participating districts; (c) Developing a Distance Education Program to support DPEP in-service teacher training activities; and (d) Continuing the National Management Structure Support for DPEP designed and implemented under DPEP I to strengthen the capacity of national institutions to appraise, monitor, assist and evaluate state and district investment proposals. BUILDING STATE INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY (US$7.3 MILLION OR 1.5 PERCENT OF TOTAL BASELINE PROJECT COST) 2.4 The proposed project would address the sub-sector financial and management constraints by building state institutional capacity comprising assistance to support the: (a) strengthening of state program management structures; (b) improvement of instructional materials development and production; (c ) improvement of teaching processes, (d) improvement of educational planning and management, and (e) improvement of educational research and evaluation. 2.5 Strengthening of State Program Management Structures. State governments would implement state and district investment programs through SISs.8 These SISs have been registered in the three new states and already operate in the seven DPEP I 8DPEP Guidelines (Annex 8) mandate the establishment of registered SISs in each state to receive, disburse and account for program funds, to manage program implementation, and to monitor and report on progress (Annex 6). Each implementation society is accountable to a General Council chaired by the Chief Minister or Education Minister of the State and an Executive Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary/ Education Secretary of the State. Membership in both bodies includes representatives from other State Government departments and the GOI. These structures under the UPBEP and DPEP I Projects have been shown to have administrative flexibility combined with public accountability.  - 16 - states and Uttar Pradesh. Bank accounts with an initial deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs (US$150,000 equivalent) have been opened in all three new DPEP states.9 2.6 While there would be some variation across states, all SISs would be staffed to carry out academic and administrative tasks related to Project implementation, including the establishment of a Project Management Information System (PMIS) and an Education Management Information System (EMIS) at the state level. Key staff would include the State Project Director and Unit Heads for Civil Works, Planning and Monitoring, State Programs, District Programs, and Finance, Monitoring and Accounting (Annex 6)10. SISs would implement state investment proposals and supervise district-level implementation through AWPBs for cooperating state agencies and district implementation teams, and through contracts for services with NGOs, consulting companies, and individuals. Full-time state project directors have been appointed in the SISs of the three new states. 2.7 Substantial capacity for implementation has been developed in the three new states and 12 districts that have already been appraised through preparation of district investment proposals. To ensure rapid start-up of implementation, state governments in the three new states have also included in their FY95/96 state budgets, earmarked funds for DPEP, sufficient to cover first year state financing obligations. At negotiations, Project states agreed that each Project state shall maintain state project offices (SPOs) with responsibility to coordinate project implementation, with adequate staff, resources and facilities, and shall establish a program of staff training satisfactory to IDA (para 5.2 (a)). Each SPO in Gujarat, Hfimachal Pradesh, and Orissa will be staffed with a financial/procurement officer, a civil works officer and a training specialist not later than March 31, 1997. In already participating DPEP I states and Uttar Pradesh, the state project management structures are in place, fully staffed and operational. The capacity of these existing SPOs to manage an expanded program would be reviewed during the appraisal of the initial batch of expansion districts proposed for DPEP II funding. 2.8 In support of this capacity building component of the project, the credit would finance limited civil works, furniture and equipment, vehicles, consultant services, incremental operating costs, and incremental salaries on a declining basis. 2.9 Improvement of Instructional Materials Development and Production. The proposed project will assist participating states to take steps to improve the quality and 9 These SISs have been established using the model Memoranda of Association and by-laws based on those used for the UPBEP and DPEP I Projects. This model was reviewed by IDA against managerial and legal criteria during the appraisal of DPEP 1. Common accounting, auditing, personnel and procurement regulations would be adopted by all SISs (Annex 6). Financial, personnel and procurement regulations as approved by IDA have been adopted by all SISs. An internal audit function has been established in each society, and accounts would be audited both by an independent chartered accountant satisfactory to IDA and by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). 10 This working group is known as the State Project Office (SPO) in the SIS.  - 17 - efficiency of instructional materials development, production and distribution"' (Annex 11). The nature of these programs would vary depending on state conditions. However, common elements would include: (a) preparation of a new generation of quality instructional materials based on MLL; (b) field tryout of instructional materials prior to publication, (c) improvements in the design, illustration, layout and durability of instructional materials, (d) improvements in distribution efficiency including computerization of stocks; and (e) professional training for instructional materials agency staff. Technical support would be provided by NCERT, or equivalent organizations, to improve pedagogy. Teaching and learning materials studies were completed in the three new states and the results will be analyzed by the Publications Department of NCERT to guide future instructional materials improvement efforts in DPEP II. The credit would finance equipment, training, and consulting services. 2.10 Improvement of Teaching Processes. With support from national technical assistance programs, SCERTs or equivalent organizations, would strengthen their capacities to support the development of improved classroom teaching models and teacher in-service training. At negotiations, each Project state agreed that they will establish and maintain a state level technical resource group to assist in the development and implementation of programs to improve primary education teaching processes (para. 5.2(c) and Annex 10). Strategies would usually include: (a) implementing visioning workshops to enable key stakeholders in primary education to understand more clearly what a child-centered pedagogy entails and what classrooms will look like by the end of the project under this new pedagogical paradigm; (b) providing training and technical assistance to DIETs; (c) adapting national prototype training and classroom materials in regional languages; (d) providing training to assist teachers in the identification, assessment and teaching of children with mild to moderate disabilities; (e) training of master trainers; (f) adapting, testing and disseminating ECE materials; and (g) developing instructional materials in tribal languages, in cooperation with Tribal Welfare Departments and other concerned agencies. The credit would finance limited civil works, furniture, equipment, vehicles, consultant services, educational materials, visioning workshops, training, fellowships, and incremental staff salaries on a declining basis. 2.11 Improvement of Educational Planning and Management. SIEMTs, or equivalent agencies, would be established and staffed to provide technical assistance and training in education planning, school mapping, management and monitoring to state and district education staff (Annexes 7 and 10). Most important would be developing the capacity of district and sub-district level staff to manage the improved school statistics management information system (EMIS), carry out school mapping exercises, consult with parents and community leaders and prepare annual work programs. The credit would finance civil works, equipment and furniture, vehicles, educational materials, consumable supplies, training, consultant services, incremental operating costs, and salaries on a declining basis. 1 Instructional materials include textbooks, student workbooks, supplemental readers. teacher guides and other related materials, as well as appropriate teaching and learning materials designed to assist in the integration and mainstreaming of children with mild to moderate disabilities in primary schools.  - 18 - 2.12 Improvement of Educational Research and Evaluation. With training and technical support from the national program on program evaluation, research and studies, SCERTs would be strengthened and expanded to conduct or contract program evaluation and research studies pertaining to the attainment of DPEP objectives, as well as the effectiveness of the innovations implemented for such purposes (Annex 11). To carry out these studies, Project states may consider contracting-out the services of NGOs, universities and other apex institutions. During negotiations, Project states agreed that each Project state shall select non- governmental and community organizations participating in the project in accordance with criteria and procedures satisfactory to IDA (para 5.2(i)). After a start-up period, these agencies would in turn assist DIETs to develop similar capabilities. The credit would finance civil works, equipment and furniture, vehicles, educational materials, consumable supplies, training, consultant services, incremental operating costs, and salaries on a declining basis. IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF, REDUCING DROPOUT FROM, AND EXPANDING ACCESS TO PRIMARY EDUCATION (US$483.0 MILLION OR 97.4 PERCENT OF TOTAL BASELINE PROJECT COST) Improving the Quality of Primary Education (US$190.1 Million Or 38.3 Percent Of Total Baseline Project Cost) 2.13 Improving the quality and effectiveness of classroom instruction has the highest priority in district investment planning, not only to improve leaming achievement, but also to increase retention. The core activities under this project component are: (a) development of district and sub-district institutional capacity to plan and manage the delivery of a range of program activities; (b) development of training modules for teacher in-service training as the principal means of introducing improved classroom practice, new instructional materials, and new materials for teaching language and mathematics in early grades; (c) delivery of a program of continuous in-service teacher training through the project period; (d) expansion of the variety of learning materials and teaching aids in schools; (e) development and implementation of targeted interventions for girls, children with mild to moderate disabilities, SC and ST students; and (f) careful expansion or introduction of ECE and NFE programs through pilot programs. 2.14 Developing District and Sub-district Institutional Capacity. The capacity of districts and sub-districts to plan and manage program delivery to improve the quality and expand the access to primary education would require the strengthening of: (a) district and sub-district program management structures; and (b) District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs). 2.15 The day-to-day implementation would be managed by a District Project Office (DPO) that would be directed (in most cases) by the District Education Officer (DEO). DIETs would play a key role in the design and implementation of training programs at the district and sub-district levels, in particular, at the block and cluster resource levels. DIETs and DEO staff who participated in the planning teams that developed investment proposals are expected to also play a key role in the actual implementation. The DPOs would receive advances of funds from SISs against AWPBs approved by the state society and after review by the DPEP  - 19 - bureau. Funds would be maintained in separate accounts by the district project director and advanced to schools and communities, as required by individual sub-projects, where they would be maintained in separate dual-signature accounts. The above arrangement would be implemented through local resources with IDA funds disbursed on a reimbursable basis for expenditures incurred. 2.16 The DPO would be staffed by a small team of specialist staff appointed and financed by the SISs. The staff would be headed by a full-time project coordinator and include a finance/procurement officer and a specialist to coordinate the implementation of program components in functional areas (civil works, PMIS, EMIS or training) or in areas of special emphasis. In addition to managing the flow of project funds to project activities and supervising their implementation at the block, cluster, school and village level, key responsibilities of DPO staff would be awareness building activities, school mapping, management of the school statistics and project EMIS and preparation of AWPBs. At negotiations, Project states have agreed that each Project state shall establish and maintain DPOs with responsibilities to coordinate project implementation, with adequate staff, resources and facilities, and shall establish a program of staff training satisfactory to IDA (para. 5.2(a)). Each DPO in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, and Orissa will be staffed with a project coordinator, a financial/procurement officer and an in-service training in-charge not later than March 31, 1997. 2.17 At the sub-district level, DPEP would be implemented by block and cluster level management structures including a block education office and a cluster field office. These offices would be staffed by a few specialists appointed and financed by the SISs to coordinate, supervise and monitor the implementation of the project. Training activities under the project would operate at the block level through a network of Block Resource Centers (BRCs), which would provide the facilities for decentralized training and teacher support activities financed under the project. BRCs would be managed by a senior and experienced upper primary school teacher and/or principal. BRC training teams would be drawn from the faculty of DIETs, colleges and universities, and competent NGOs. Below the BRC level, DPEP would be implemented through Cluster Resource Center (CRCs, each comprising a lead primary school serving a group of about 10 to 15 primary schools). These clusters would provide continuous support to primary school teachers within the cluster through classroom visits and short meetings and pedagogical discussions at the lead school. Continuous support would be supplemented by periodic residential training at the BRCs, with trainers drawn from DIETs. A senior and experienced primary school teacher would be assigned to serve as the cluster resource teacher. 2.18 At the village level, DPEP would be implemented through district-level bodies, including the Panchayati Raj structures and the Village Education Committees (VECs). They would play an increasingly important role in educational management, supervision and monitoring at the village/school level. The constitution of VECs is more or less similar across states and includes the gaon panchayat president, head teachers, headmasters, NGO representatives, members of panchayat, and representatives of parents/guardians of the village.  - 20 - Seats are earmarked for women representatives. At negotiations, Project states agreed that in the case of the 12 appraised Project districts in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa, VECs shall be established in Project districts no later than June 30, 1997, and in the case of Project districts for which investment proposals for financing project activities have not yet been approved, VECs shall be established in Project districts within one year after the Borrower has granted approval to their investment proposals (paras. 2.35 and 5.2(f)). 2.19 In support of district and sub-district level capacity development, the credit would finance limited civil works, vehicles, equipment (including computer equipment for the EMIS), educational materials, consumable supplies, training, consultant services, incremental operating costs and salaries on a declining basis. 2.20 District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) would be developed as the principal technical and professional resource agency for training, materials development, planning and management for district plans and work programs (Annexes 10 and 11). The work of the DIETs would be supported by State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) and/or other expert resource groups. The GOI has recognized that the standard model for DIET organization, staffing and equipment needs to be adapted to the support requirements of DPEP, especially in regard to primary in-service teacher training. In addition, in some states, substantial enhancement of DIET physical facilities would be needed. The credit would finance civil works in selected DIETS, equipment, vehicles, consultant services, educational materials, consumable supplies, incremental operating expenses and salaries on a declining basis. At negotiations, Project states agreed that each Project state shall establish and maintain DIETs or equivalent institutions in Project districts and appoint key staff at such DIETs or equivalent institutions in accordance with a schedule satisfactory to 1DA, in any event not later than six months after the approval by the DPEP Bureau of any investment proposal for financing project activities in a Projeci district (para. 5.2(b) and Annex 10). 2.21 In-Service Teacher Training. Most of the little in-service training that has been provided to primary teachers before the implementation of DPEP I had been delivered through residential programs of limited scope, often as a means of implementing standardized, nationally/state-developed "packages" focused on a limited range of competencies. DPEP is seeking to transform India's approach to in-service training by developing the training systems and infrastructure needed to make training a continuous process based in classrooms and schools. 2.22 Three core activities are being implemented under DPEP I to establish the new in-service training systems: (a) development of initial modules and systems for training trainers, teachers and school principals, based on the results of the new pedagogy visioning exercises carried out at the state level with primary education stakeholders; (b) development of the physical infrastructure needed to bring training to the block and school cluster levels; and. (c) expansion of training modules and materials to incorporate MLL instructional materials, teaching and leaming materials for the integration of children with disabilities into the primary schools and a variety of effective classroom and school management and leadership practices. DPEP II includes a fine-tuned version of these core activities,  - 21 - incorporating lessons learned from the implementation of UPBEP, DPEP I and experimental teacher training programs implemented in several states with UNICEF assistance. Teachers in DPEP districts would be provided with approximately 25 days of training, preferably at the block level, throughout the life of the project, reinforced by monthly meetings/workshops at the cluster level and school visits by cluster resource teachers. 2.23 Key to the success of the program is the development of good training materials and the training of effective master trainers and resource persons. Prototype training designs and materials for school-based in-service training are being developed and tested in several states by the Department of Teacher Education at NCERT and other resource institutions for DPEP I and other primary education projects. Several other states may develop their own training materials. Through the national program to improve in-service training, these materials would be further developed and provided to state agencies as prototypes during the first year of the project. This generation of materials is expected to build teacher awareness and motivation for alternative classroom practices and develop further training strategies for enriching the learning environment. They may include an introduction to child-centered teaching and active learning methods, applications in multigrade settings and possibilities for teacher preparation of teaching aids. These materials may be adapted as needed and translated into regional languages. With the assistance of the national program, master trainer programs would be developed to train DIET faculty and other teacher educators. Master training teams would test materials and approaches on a trial basis in districts using the facilities of DIETs and Teacher Training Institutes. 2.24 To provide the training infrastructure, districts would construct, equip and staff Teacher Resource Centers at the block level and in simple CRCs, each serving about 10 to 15 schools. Construction of these facilities would be completed by the second year of the project. Facilities would be staffed by experienced primary teachers, in some cases retirees, who would receive induction training with initial master trainer materials. In-service teacher training in participating DPEP districts would start in the second year of project implementation and would incorporate the first generation of training materials described above. In later years, additional training modules would be developed with technical support from DIETs and SCERTs, with priority given to multigrade teaching, teaching of reading and mathematics, using new MILL in the instructional materials as they become available, the use of supplementary materials and teacher preparation of educational aids. SCERTs and the National Teacher Training Resource Group would cooperate throughout the process to identify best practices and innovations for dissemination throughout India. Master trainers and resource persons would participate in refresher training as new training modules are developed and introduced. 2.25 The proposed credit would finance civil works, equipment, furniture, vehicles, training, consulting services, educational materials, consumable supplies, incremental operating costs, and salaries for block and cluster staff on a declining basis.  - 22 - 2.26 Learning Materials and Teaching Aids. Evaluations of OBB have shown the weaknesses of delivering pre-determined packages of teaching aids to schools, without training and without involvement of teachers and local education staff. Under DPEP, districts would instead provide annual grants to school/community organizations for the purchase of consumable supplies and materials. Grants of Rs. 2000 would be authorized initially and the amounts would be reviewed periodically by the DPEP Bureau. In addition, annual grants of Rs. 500 would be made to each primary teacher in Project districts to purchase materials to use in preparing teaching aids. Schools and teachers would keep records and receipts for purchases. In-service training in the development of teaching aids would be provided. In addition to these annual grants, the program would provide funding for the development and production of supplementary instructional materials, the establishment of small libraries and book banks (for example, for poor boys who are not covered under existing free book schemes) in schools in Project districts. Special allocations may be considered for materials purchased for one- and two-classroom schools. 2.27 Targeted Interventions for Children with Mild to Moderate Disabilities, Girls, SC and ST Students. The project will provide for integrated education of children with mild to moderate disabilities in primary schools in Project districts. To achieve this aim, the project will finance the development and implementation of strategies to assist primary school teachers in Project districts in the identification and assessment of such children, as well as in the provision of programs and appropriate teaching and learning materials designed to ensure the effective mainstreaming of these children in primary schools. In the case of girls, SC and ST students, social assessment studies investigating the key constraints on education for girls and ST students were completed by project appraisal for two districts in each one of the three new states (Annex 15). The revised versions of such studies comprising the recommendations made during the appraisal mission were proviled by DOE/GOI to IDA prior to negotiations. The findings of these studies would be discussed with state and district planning teams during the first year of the project. On the basis of these discussions, integrated intervention strategies would be adjusted during implementation of the project. At negotiations, Project states agreed that each Project state shall: (i) implement the project in accordance with strategies acceptable to IDA for improving primary education of female students; (ii) implement the project in any tribal area (as designated by such state in accordance with applicable laws), in accordance with procedures and delivery strategies satisfactory to IDA; and (iii) ensure that all investments in Project districts which are classified by the Borrower as tribal districts, or which include blocks classified by the Borrower as tribal blocks, are appraised and implemented in accordance with a plan, satisfactory to IDA, for the delivery of project benefits to tribal people (paras. 3.41 and 5.2(e)). 2.28 Some DPEP I states have been proposing a variety of activities to improve learning achievement for girls, including gender review of curricula and instructional materials and teacher sensitization through training (Annex 15). ECE programs would also contribute (Para. 2.3 1). Scholarship programs for SC students, especially girls and disabled children, are operating in several of the DPEP I Project states. These programs would not be financed by the proposed credit but would continue with state financing.  - 23 - 2.29 Implementing national policy on education for tribal children would require measures to ensure that they have equitable access to basic education services, as well as enhanced efforts to develop materials in tribal languages and to develop strategies to increase the ability of teachers in tribal areas to teach in the language of the home. District proposals have primarily emphasized the establishment of residential schools (Ashrams) for tribal children in order to overcome the constraints caused by the small size and the geographic isolation of many tribal communities. Establishment of a limited number of these schools will be supported by DPEP where community demand can be demonstrated and evaluations of similar schools provide evidence of their effectiveness. 2.30 For these targeted interventions, the proposed credit would finance educational materials, consumable supplies, training, and consultant services. The credit would also finance civil works, furniture and equipment for residential schools that may be approved by IDA in accordance with para. 2.29 above. At negotiations, Project states agreed that each Project state shall allocate project resources for the education of tribal students at least in proportion to the share of the tribal population in the relevant Project district (para. 5.2(d)). 2.31 Selected Expansion of Early Childhood Education (ECE). ECE is an important DPEP strategy to improve readiness to learn, especially for children from illiterate households. ECE is also expected to contribute to enrollment and retention for girls by providing an alternative source of sibling care during school hours. ECE is provided in all Project states by the integrated child development scheme (ICDS). National evaluations have found that participation in the ICDS program improves retention in primary school. However, the timings of schools and ICDS Anganwadi Centers, which provide ECE and supplementary nutrition rarely match, reducing the potential contributions of the program for sibling care. In addition, Anganwadi Centers serve a population of 1000; this catchment area can include as many as three schools, only one of which is likely to be located within easy walking distance. Moreover, ICDS coverage is not universal in any state, and in some, like Assam, coverage is very low. Finally, the ECE component of ICDS is unevenly implemented across the districts, raising concerns for quality. 2.32 Because of these factors, districts have proposed to expand or establish ECE programs for the 0 to 6 age group, often on a large scale. Existing programs have rarely been evaluated systematically, and new programs would involve the creation of materials, training and supervision systems, and facilities. For these reasons, the GOI would require that expanded and new ECE programs be first developed and tested on a pilot basis with concurrent evaluations. Proposals for ECE pilot programs and evaluations would be considered by the DPEP Bureau for financing, beginning with the second year of the project. The proposed credit would finance educational materials, consurr.mble supplies, training and consultant services, furniture and equipment, salaries on a declining basis and limited civil works.  - 24 - Reducing Dropout from and Expanding Access to Primary Education (US$292.9 Million or 59.0 Percent of Total Baseline Project Cost) 2.33 To improve the student access to and retention in primary education, the proposed project will support the: (a) strengthening of school/community organizations; (b) construction of new classrooms and improvement of existing school facilities; (c) development of alternative schooling modalities; and (d) carrying-out of awareness campaigns focused particularly on girls, children with disabilities, SC and ST students. 2.34 Strengthening of School/Community Organizations. All states participating in DPEP I have established schooUcommunity organizations as called for under the Revised National Policy on Education (1992). These organizations, variously known as Village Education Committees (VEC), Parent-Teacher Associations, or School Management Committees, are expected to oversee the operations of schools and NFE centers, conduct annual surveys of village children to identify non-enrollees and dropouts, contribute services and resources to the school and encourage parents to send their children to school and keep them there. These organizations function with varying degrees of effectiveness. In Kerala and Maharashtra, with long traditions of community involvement in schools, they meet regularly and are effective in their tasks. In other states, surveys show that they meet infrequently and are less effective. 2.35 States have defined the functions of community/school organizations and their membership, including reserving at least one third of all places for women. To improve effectiveness, states and districts would provide training and supervision support. Depending on local circumstances, additional activities, such as micro-planning and awareness campaigns may be entrusted to these organizations. During negotiations, Project states agreed that they will establish and maintain VECs with responsibility for assisting with project implementation at the village level (paras. 2.18 and 5.2(f)). 2.36 The proposed credit would finance training, educational materials and consumable supplies for strengthening community/school organizations. 2.37 Construction of New Classrooms and Improvement of Existing School Facilities. Although reducing dropout and . improving learning achievement would have priority under DPEP, the program would also finance expanded access through the construction of new schools and classrooms. Provision for water and waste disposal at classroom sites will be fully integrated into the school construction program. Approximately 850,000 new places would be created with the construction of about 21,100 classrooms financed by the proposed project in all Project states. Furthermore, the project would finance the repair of another 13,900 classrooms. Construction would be mostly undertaken by communities and state construction agencies (Annex 13). At negotiations, Project states agreed that the number of classrooms to be constructed and the number of teachers to be appointed under the project shall be determined based on the projected number of students expected to be served in accordance with state-specific criteria, including for sparsely populated areas (para. 5.2(g)).  - 25 - 2.38 The credit would finance civil works, furniture and equipment, and, on a declining basis, the salaries of about 20,700 additional teachers required in new facilities in all DPEP II states. The credit would also finance, on a declining basis, the salaries of new teachers required by enrollment expansion resulting from project activities. The need for these latter appointments would be documented by each district on the basis of initial enrollments on a school-by-school basis, and would be authorized by DPEP from the third year of the proposed project. New teacher posts in schools not constructed or expanded with project financing would be eligible for financing from the third year of the project only on the basis of evidence of school enrollment increases provided by states. The dilapidated condition of a large proportion of rural schools, combined with the absence of toilets and water supply, often makes school an unattractive place, especially for girls. Repair and rehabilitation of existing schools, along with the installation of toilets, water supply, and electricity, are expected to make a major and visible contribution to the quality of services, and hence to increased retention in schools. These civil works programs would be implemented by community/school organizations and block-level public works departments (Annex 13). The proposed credit would finance school water and sanitation civil works in about 20,350 schools in all DPEP II states, including equipment, costs of electricity connections, and professional services as well as funds needed during the life of the project for the maintenance of all buildings and equipment provided by the project. 2.39 School construction undertaken so far with the support of UPBEP and DPEP I has used traditional building technologies and little progress has been made to develop more cost-effective designs and reduce the unit cost of the buildings. Throughout the country there are many reputable agencies specializing in alternative building technologies and cost effective construction techniques. To assist the states to undertake research, experimentation and evaluation of alternative, 'low cost" techniques for construction of school facilities, a Rs. 50 lakh School Construction Innovation Fund would be established in each Project state. This Innovation Fund would be utilized in part to finance design work though a collaborative effort involving consultant architects, regional polytechnics, educationalists, and state construction agencies. The fund would also finance the actual construction of prototype designs in communities covered by the DPEP II project. Initially, the construction of these prototype schools would be a parallel activity to the ongoing construction of more traditional designs during the early stages of the DPEP II implementation period. However, once an evaluation has been made of successful, replicable techniques in the prototype schools, it is expected that these alternative methods of construction would be incorporated into the school construction program during the remaining project period. 2.40 Development of Alternative Schooling Modalities. The proposed credit would also support the establishment of non-formal primary classes as alternatives to formal schooling for isolated small communities and for working children, and support the design and trial of other means to ensure improved access to primary schools in the rural areas, such as Ashram (residential) schools, escort services and peripatetic teachers. The construction of new classrooms and the refurbishment of existing ones in all DPEP II states would provide access to formal and non-formal instruction to approximately one million additional children  - 26 - per year after project completion. States and districts would not be required to follow the norms of the present GOI-funded NFE program, but would be encouraged to develop locally- specific options and strategies, including those that would involve NGOs in service delivery. 2.41 Carrying-out Awareness Campaigns Focused Particularly on Children with Mild to Moderate Disabilities, Girls, SC and ST Students. Popular participation in the development of district investment proposals has raised awareness among beneficiaries of impending improvements in the quality of schooling. Building from this base, a variety of awareness building activities -- campaigns, community meetings, fairs -- would be undertaken to increase awareness of the program and the benefits to communities and schools. Emphasis would be given to the importance of integrating into primary school children with disabilities, and keeping in school all other children, especially girls, SC and ST students. The proposed credit would finance educational materials, supplies, and consultant services. DISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAM (US$4.3 MILLION OR 0.9 PERCENT OF TOTAL BASELINE PROJECT COST) 2.42 The Distance Education Component proposed for DPEP II will be a decentralized effort to support the ongoing in-service teacher and other training activities currently being carried out by the different states under DPEP I (Annex 12). The distance education approach will help design and deliver tailor-made materials and programs which address the cultural and curricular diversity of the participating DPEP states. The proposed project will assist the capacity building effort by DOE/GOI to develop competencies at the state level to write in-service teacher and other training scripts and to produce, integrate and disseminate distance education materials in the training activities. Implementation of this component would be managed by a small core team of distance clucation experts from the Indira Gandhi National Open University, or similar organizations, and consultants. 2.43 The decentralized, state-service based approach of the Distance Education Component would include the following activities: (a) developing annual workplans with each DPEP state for the required distance education efforts; (b) conducting annual distance education planning meetings in each state to review progress and prepare plans for the coming year; (c) preparing materials for workshops in each DPEP state including the development of video, radio, and printed material; (d) supporting each state distance education planning, training and materials development activity with expert support to provide hands on training and advice; (e) assisting DPEP states in the financing of the actual production of print, audio and video educational materials; (f) training of persons at various levels in the appropriate use of distance education materials; and (g) providing institutions involved in the delivery of DPEP supported training programs with distance education video and audio equipment, such as VCR and tape recorders and other equipment as appropriate. A revised version of the distance education component comprising the recommendations made during the appraisal mission was provided to IDA by DOE/GOI prior to negotiations. At negotiations, GOI agreed that it will establish and maintain a Distance Education Unit with adequate staff and resources to be responsible for implementing the Distance Education Program under the project (para. 5.1(g)).  - 27 - 2.44 This component has neither planned satellite-delivered distance education activities nor provided funds for satellite teleconferencing outreach. However, where such facilities do exist in India, the distance learning component of the proposed project will make use of such communication links to manage, coordinate or train when the use of such technologies can effectively substitute for staff travel and face-to-face meetings. 2.45 The credit would finance technical assistance, training, consultant services, equipment, workshops, study tours, production of distance education materials, consumable supplies, office rental, and salaries on a declining basis. NATIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE SUPPORT FOR DPEP (US$1.4 MILLION OR 0.3 PERCENT OF TOTAL BASELINE PROJECT COST) 2.46 The innovative nature of DPEP requires a national management structure with good policy access, substantial authority, a high degree of flexibility in appointing staff and consultants, strong professional competence, and access to good information on program activities, accomplishments and problems. DPEP II implementation will be integrated with DPEP I and carried out by the national program management organization established under DPEP I, including the DPEP Bureau of DOE/GOI and related governing and support bodies. 2.47 The DPEP General Council reviews policies and progress annually, provides policy direction, and facilitates center-state coordination. The DPEP Project Board has been established and is fully empowered to decide program, financial and staffing approvals (Annex 6). The DPEP Bureau will continue to serve as an intermediary organization and appraise, finance and supervise the implementation of state and district investment plans according to established criteria and procedures. It would be assisted by a technical support group (TSG) and a national core team of experts made up of faculty from NCERT and NIEPA, staff of other public and private sector resource institutions, and consultants to conduct specific project related studies and to provide technical training and support to national, state and district planning teams. Much of this expert support is provided through an umbrella contract with a consultant firm specialized in the provision of education consultant services. Through this contract, the DPEP Bureau has acquired substantial flexibility with respect to appointment of temporary staff and consultants, including levels of remuneration. Through the implementation of DPEP I, GOI and partner institutions have gained the experience needed to conduct large scale field research in primary education, assist states and districts with the preparation of their investment proposals, and carry out the appraisals of such proposals. DPEP II will finance the national management structure only in the last year of project implementation, at the time when the DPEP I Credit will be closed. 2.48 The DPEP Bureau, headed by a Joint Secretary, is responsible to the Project Board and General Council for the implementation of the program within DPEP Guidelines (Annex 8). The DPEP Bureau has the responsibility and authority to appraise, supervise and evaluate district, state and national investment plans and to approve staff appointments to the program technical services. The structure of the DPEP Bureau remains as agreed for DPEP  - 28 - and is fully explained in Annex 6. On the whole the DPEP Bureau has effectively managed the implementation of DPEP I although staffing shortages have, on occasion, slowed down the start-up activities. DOE has appointed well-qualified and experienced staff to the Bureau but the number remains below the level agreed for DPEP I. The workload of the DPEP Bureau is expected to increase rapidly as implementation of DPEP I is now accelerating, and implementation of DPEP II will involve, in addition to the implementation responsibilities carried by the Bureau for DPEP I, the appraisal of 50 to 60 expansion districts in DPEP I states and Uttar Pradesh, and up to 3 more districts in the three new states. To meet these demands, the current staffing of the DPEP Bureau needs to be strengthened. At negotiations, GOI agreed that it will maintain the DPEP Bureau in its DOE, with responsibility to coordinate project implementation, with adequate staff, resources and facilities (para. 5. l(a)). All positions at the level of Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary shall be filled no later than March 31, 1997. 2.49 The full-time senior technical and professional experts on contract, supplemented as needed by short-term consultants, provide the DPEP Bureau with key technical services needed for program management in the areas of: (a) appraisal for state and district investment plans; (b) supervision of project implementation, including civil works and procurement; (c) monitoring and reporting on DPEP inputs, physical targets, and implementation progress; and (d) establishing and monitoring research and evaluation contracts with research organizations and individual consultants (Annex 6). Some strengthening of the long term consultant staff of the TSG may be required however to ensure a timely and effective assistance in the implementation of DPEP I district and state investment proposals, appraising of incoming districts under DPEP II, and the monitoring of the early stages (first 12 to 18 months) of the DPEP II implementation process. A plan for strengthening the TSG was provided to IDA by DOE/GOI prior to negotiations. At negotiations, GOI agreed that it will maintain the TSG in its DOE, with responsibility to coordinate project implementation, with adequate staff, resources and facilities (para. 5.1(a)). All positions at the level of Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary shall be filled no later than March 31, 1997. 2.50 As states participating in DPEP gain experience and state level planning and management capacity develops, the focus of the implementation support of the DPEP Bureau and the TSG can increasingly be on the states, that have recently joined DPEP. At the same time the expansion of the coverage of DPEP makes it imperative to transfer some of the DPEP Bureau and TSG tasks -- especially the appraisal of district AWPBs and the technical support to district planning teams -- to the states. The experience gained by the state project offices (SPO) and other state level institutions with the implementation of DPEP I and UPBEP ensures that this can be done without affecting implementation quality. At negotiations, GOI agreed that it will progressively transfer responsibility for supervision of the project from the DPEP Bureau to the SPOs in accordance with a plan satisfactory to IDA (para. 5.1(b)). This transfer will commence not later than April 1, 1997 by transfer of the responsibility for Project Supervision to the SPO for at least one Project State. 2.51 DPEP II will continue the flow of funds arrangements agreed for DPEP I. Under this arrangement, the total project costs will be shared between the GOI and the state  - 29 - in the ratio of about 85:15 (GOI:State). Advances from the GOI resources to state societies would be made twice annually on the basis of district and state AWPBs prepared and appraised previously and evidence of appropriate use of previously advanced funds. During negotiations, GOI agreed that it will ensure that SISs receive project funds out of the Borrower's resources on a six monthly basis, in a timely manner, for anticipated expenditures under their approved annual work plans (paras 3.57 and 5. 1(f)). 2.52 DPEP II will benefit from the experience gained by the DPEP Bureau, its TSG and national expert teams in: (a) improving the school statistics EMIS; (b) developing the teacher in-service training; (c) building a capacity for evaluation and research; (d) developing and introducing an improved pedagogy; (e) providing technical assistance and training to states and districts in educational planning and management; (f) developing ST educational strategies; and (g) establishing an innovation facility fund. 2.53 School Statistics EMIS. Improving the accuracy and timeliness of school statistics has high priority for monitoring the impact of DPEP reforms. DPEP II will build on the work completed earlier under DPEP I to develop core specifications for computerized EMIS systems for adaptation by states and prototype training courses for use in implementing the new system at national, state and district levels. DPEP II will ensure that state-specific systems are compatible with the proposed EMIS. 2.54 Development of Teacher In-Service Training. States and districts face massive in-service training requirements without organized access to best practices in India and elsewhere. Some prototype materials and training designs have been developed by NCERT and other resource institutions under DPEP I financing, and are being made available to states for adaptation and translation into regional languages (Annex 10). Other materials are being developed against the results of the visioning workshops concerning the new pedagogy carried out in some DPEP I states. NCERT has undertaken the following activities in collaboration with state agencies and DIETS to assist states to improve classroom teaching through in-service training: (a) identification of best practices in in-service teacher training in India, including the evaluation of designs and materials and the dissemination of selected models to states; (b) development of field-tested prototype teacher in-service training designs and materials; and (c) provision of technical assistance to the states in the development of capacity for adapting prototype training designs and materials for developing state and district-specific designs and materials, and for conducting formative evaluation activities aimed at improving in-service courses. In addition, some states have contracted NGOs or state agencies to develop training modules and teaching materials. Complementing the above activities, the distance education component to be carried out under DPEP II financing will support the ongoing in-service teacher training activities of DPEP (paras 2.42 to 2.45). 2.55 Program Evaluation and Research. The DPEP Bureau has contracted with NCERT to: (a) improve the educational research and evaluation capacity of national and state research organizations; (b) organize international conferences and study tours on primary education research and evaluation; (c) conduct or commission systematic studies and  - 30 - evaluations in primary education, including the relative strengths of supply and demand-type interventions; and (d) disseminate the results of studies through reports, seminars and newsletters. In addition, the TSG has the capacity to supervise survey research and carry out thematic evaluation studies. This arrangement will be continued under DPEP II for the three new states and Uttar Pradesh. Under DPEP I, GOI has agreed to provide a revised plan to IDA for review, including terms of reference for the implementation of the national technical assistance program designed to accelerate the national capacity building process in DPEP I states. 2.56 Program for Improved Pedagogy. DPEP I is financing the following activities aimed at improving classroom pedagogy: (a) carrying-out visioning workshops to enable key stakeholders in primary education to understand more clearly what a child-centered pedagogy entails and what classrooms will look like by the end of the project under this new pedagogical paradigm; (b) identifying best teaching practices within India, comprising the assembling of learning materials and information on pedagogical practices and the dissemination of best practices to states through publications, seminars and training programs; (c) accessing international research on teaching primary reading and mathematics competencies, as well as effective multigrade teaching, through journals and participation in international conferences and seminars and disseminating new approaches through the same channels; (d) conducting research on reading readiness of children entering grade 1 and on specific reading difficulties of children in grades I and 2, including the analysis of achievement test scores to identify competencies on which student performance is weak; (e) developing research-based, field-tested prototype packages of instructional materials, auxiliary learning materials and teacher guides based on MILL and integrated and active learning techniques for reading and mathematics skills development in the early primary grades; (f) providing technical assistance to states and districts for the implementation of improved pedagogy in relation to MILL; and (g) improving the design, layout and production of textbooks and teaching/learning materials, including the provision of training and technical consulting services to assist with capacity building for textbook and learning material development and publication in state agencies. The start-up of these activities has been slower than expected, partly because of the need to integrate them with the capacity building program supported by the European Community, but a start has been made in several areas and training of professionals on pedagogy and education research and evaluation methods is expected to start in 1996. 2.57 Technical Assistance and Training in Educational Planning and Management. DPEP I and UPBEP are financing a team of experts drawn from NIEPA and other resource institutions to assist state planning and management units/institutions to develop competencies in the following areas through technical assistance and training: (a) compilation of education statistics; (b) district and sub-district level planning, including civil works, intervention design, costing and implementation planning; and (c) implementation of state and district school statistics information systems. Training of professionals in this area is expected to start in 1996 under the EC assisted program. 2.58 ST Education Development. DPEP I is assisting NCERT, NIEPA and other resource institutions to conduct a number of studies of tribal education (Annexes 10 and 15).  - 31 - These efforts have been intensified and expanded to improve the implementation of national policy for ST education. This work involves various state institutions, such as the Tribal Research Institute in Assam and the Indian Institute of Languages in Karnataka, as well as Tribal Welfare Departments, in order to take advantage of existing expertise and local knowledge. The lessons from experience in planning and implementing these programs are being shared between states in a series of national workshops. 2.59 Innovation Facility Fund. States have proposed a number of innovative but un-tested approaches to improve primary education, including new cost-effective construction designs (para. 3.37). In addition, a number of core intervention strategies, including ECE, would require pilot testing prior to adoption and replication. Other innovations have been emerging during the DPEP I implementation. Lessons learned from the implementation of these innovations will be considered in the execution of DPEP II. P. GOs are already involved in DPEP in a variety of ways, including innovative activities, work with women's groups and the carrying out of non-formal education programs financed under DPEP. A facility called the "Fund for Innovations" has been managed by the DPEP Bureau under DPEP I financing in accordance with the DPEP Guidelines, which appraises proposals from states and districts and commissions independent evaluation studies through the national program of research and evaluation. Innovation funds have been established with SISs (approximately US$60,000 annually) and district implementation teams (approximately US$3,000 annually). At negotiations, GOI agreed that the DPEP Bureau shall approve innovative activities under the program evaluation and research component financed by the project as part of the DPEP Bureau's review of the annual work programs of states (para. 5.1(h)).  - 32 - IH. PROJECT COST, FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION A. Cost Estimates 3.1 Summary of Costs. The total cost of the project is estimated at Rs. 23,563.7 million or US$534.4 million equivalent including taxes and duties estimated at US$20.6 million equivalent. The direct and indirect foreign exchange cost is also estimated at US$20.6 million. The project would finance civil works, furniture, equipment, vehicles, teaching materials, consultant services, information campaigns, training, workshops and fellowships. The project would also finance operational expenses, maintenance of vehicles and equipment purchased with project funds, honoraria to non-salaried workers involved primarily with non- formal educational programs, and salaries of incremental staff, all on a declining basis. Details of cost estimates, the financing plan, procurement arrangements and disbursement plans are shown in Annex 2. 3.2 The breakdown of project costs by components and categories of expenditure are summarized in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 below: Table 3.1 - Cost by Component (Rupee Million) (USS MilL;on) % % Totdal Component Foreign Base Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs Building State Institutional Capacity 243.8 9.9 253.7 7.0 0.3 7.3 4% 1 % Improving the Quality, Reducing Dropout & Expanding Access Improving Quality of Primary Education 6,400.5 196.0 6,596.5 184.5 5.6 190.1 3% 38% ReducingDropout&ExpandingAccess 9,770.6 392.0 10,162.7 281.6 11.3 292.9 4% 59% DistanceEducationProgram 147.0 1.7 148.7 4.2 0.0 4.3 1% 1% National Management Structure Support for DPEP 50.0 - 50.0 1.4 - 1.4 - - Total BASELINE COSTS 16,611.9 599.6 17,211.5 478.7 17.3 496.0 3% 100% Physical Contingencies 1,329.0 59.9 1,388.9 38.3 1.7 40.0 8% Price Contingencies 4,719.3 244.0 4,963.3 -3.1 1.5 -1.6 - Total PROJECF COSTS 22,660.2 903.6 23,563.7 513.9 20.6 534.4 4% 108% 3.3 Basis of Cost Estimates. In all categories of cost, estimates are based largely on the actual experience for similar work now underway as a part of DPEP I. Estimated cost for civil works reflect current unit costs for construction at approximately US$135 per square meter, and costs for furniture, equipment, vehicles, books and teaching materials are based on purchase prices in neighboring districts under the DPEP I program. All estimates for goods purchases include import duties and taxes. Estimated costs for the salaries of additional staff  - 33 - are based on the basic pay scales, including standard allowances for social and other benefits applicable in each of the Project states. Table 3.2 - Cost by Category of Expenditure (Rupee Minlion) (USS Million) % % Total Component Foreign Base Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs Investment Costs Civil Works 3,665.4 362.5 4,027.9 105.6 10.4 116.1 9% 23% Furniture 508.1 - 508.1 14.6 - 14.6 - 3% Equipmenit 376.9 125.6 502.6 10.9 3.6 14.5 25% 3% Vehicles 65.6 21.9 87.4 1.9 0.6 2.5 25% 1% Books & Libraries 776.0 40.8 816.8 22.4 1.2 23.5 5% 5% Teaching Materials 1,747.2 - 1,747.2 50.4 - 50.4 - 10% Consultants 253.3 - 253.3 7.3 - 7.3 - I% Sports Equipment & Amenities 81.9 - 81.9 2.4 - 2.4 - Staff Traininig (Incl TA/DA) 1,834.6 - 1,834.6 52.9 - 52.9 - 11% Awareness Campaign Expenses 333.6 - 333.6 9.6 - 9.6 - 2% Total Investment Costs 9,642.5 550.9 10,193.4 277.9 15.9 293.8 5% 59% Recurrent Costs Salaries of Additional Staff 5,413.0 - 5,413.0 156.0 - 156.0 - 31% Consumables (office expenses, etc) 238.6 12.6 251.1 6.9 0.4 7.2 5% 1% Contingency at DistrictlBRC/Schools 673.3 35.4 708.8 19.4 1.0 20.4 5% 4% Vehicle Operation and Maint 18.9 - 18.9 0.5 - 0.5 - - Equipment Operation and Maint 14.4 0.8 15.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 5% - Civil Works Maint 101.3 - 101.3 2.9 - 2.9 - 1% Honorarium 509.9 - 509.9 14.7 - 14.7 - 3% Total Recurrent Costs 6,969.4 48.7 7,018.1 200.8 1.4 202.3 1% 41% Total BASELINE COSTS 16,611.9 599.6 17,211.5 478.7 17.3 496.0 3% 100% Physical Contingencies 1,329.0 59.9 1,388.9 38.3 1.7 40.0 8% Price Contingencies 4,719.3 244.0 4,963.3 -3.1 1.5 -1.6 - Total PROJECT COSTS 22,660.2 903.6 23,563.7 513.9 20.6 534.4 4% 108% 3.4 Customs Duties and Taxes. All imported goods are subject to customs duties and taxes. The estimated cost of the project includes import duties and taxes valued at about US$20.6 million equivalent. 3.5 Foreign Exchange Component. The estimated foreign exchange component of US$20.6 million is calculated on the basis of estimated foreign exchange proportions as follows: (a) civil works 9%; (b) equipment 25%; (c) book and library materials 5%; (d) locally manufactured vehicles 25%; (e) incremental operating costs 5%; and (f) equipment maintenance 5%.  - 34 - 3.6 Contingency Allowances. Estimated project costs included physical contingencies (US$40.0 million) estimated at 10% for civil works and all physical components, and 5% for all salaries, technical assistance, training and maintenance items. The estimated costs of the project also include price contingencies (-US$1.6 million) to account for expected price escalation at the following rates: Foreign 2.3% in CY1997 Local 8.0% in CY1997 Costs 2.5% in CY 1998 Costs 7.5% in CY 1998 2.5% in CY 1999 7.0% in CY 1999 2.5% in CY2000 6.0% in CY2000 2.5% in CY2001 6.0% in CY2001 2.4% in CY2002 6.0% in CY2002 B. Financing Plan 3.7 The project would be financed by an IDA Credit of US$425.2 million; it is also anticipated that the Government of the Netherlands (GON) would provide DPEP II with a grant of US$25.8 million. The IDA portion of the financing arrangements amount to about 82.8 percent of the total project costs net of taxes. The combined contributions of IDA and GON would amount to 87.8 percent of the total project costs net of taxes. The Government of India, through the governments of Project states, would finance the remaining costs of US$62.8 million plus all taxes and duties (US$20.6 million). 3.8 The credit would be made available to GOI on stardard terms and conditions and made available to the Project states as a grant. C. State Investment Capacity, Additionality and Recurrent Cost Implications 3.9 The DPEP Guidelines require participating states to adhere to three financial conditions: (a) states will contribute around 15 percent of the total cost; (b) program resources will be a net addition to state expenditure on elementary education which must at least be maintained at real 1995/96 levels; and (c) the annual recurrent costs of the project are to be sustainable on state non plan budgets at the end of the period (Annex 14). These conditions are treated separately for the new and existing states. To enable participating states and the TSG to gain understanding of the financial implications of the project, finance studies carried out under terms of reference agreed with IDA are required of each participating state.  - 35 - 3.10 Investment Capacity. All three new DPEP states should have little difficulty funding 15 percent of project cost. As a share of total 1994/95 expenditures on elementary education, the average annual contribution will be under 0.3 percent in Gujarat, 0.7 percent in Orissa and 2.3 percent in Himachal Pradesh. As a share of plan expenditures on elementary education the contributions would be 18.2, 4.2 and 12.1 percent, respectively. Each state should be able to continue the implementation of additional programs outside of the DPEP. 3.11 For the six states participating in DPEP I financed by the IDA credit, the required annual contribution was calculated to be equal to between 2 and 17 percent of their 1993/94 plan expenditures on elementary education, except in Kerala where the absolute level of resources involved was the lowest and equal to just 0.6 percent of non-plan expenditure on elementary education. The first year experience of these states contributing their required share is encouraging. Although the number of DPEP districts in each of these states is likely to double under DPEP II, it is not likely that the requirement to contribute 15 percent of the total project cost will be difficult to meet for any of them. The two other states to be included in DPEP II are Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. In the former, primary education is currently supported in 10 districts under a separate IDA credit. In the latter, 19 districts are being supported within DPEP through an EC grant. The number of additional districts to be proposed in each state is not yet known, but it is likely to be between 10 and 15. In recent years in both states, education expenditures have increased rapidly. In Madhya Pradesh, real total expenditure on elementary education in 1994/95 was 43 percent above the 1991/92 level. In general, if DPEP districts in Madhya Pradesh increase from 19 to 30, the annual state contribution would be around Rs. 30 crores. In 1994/95 plan expenditures on elementary education were Rs. 85 crores and total expenditures Rs. 940 crores. In Uttar Pradesh, state plan expenditures on elementary education over the past four years have been Rs. 53, Rs. 70, Rs. 205 and Rs. 219 crores, respectively. Non plan expenditures increased from Rs. 980 to Rs. 1,468 crores. The additional state requirement if an extra ten districts are added would be Rs. 10 crores. While the required contributions should be feasible, the DPEP Bureau will need to monitor carefully the timeliness of the payment of the state share in the anticipated project cost. 3.12 Resource Additionality. The requirement that the state's contribution to DPEP is a net addition to expenditures on elementary education is central to GOI's intention that the program leads to overall increases in resources for primary education. The concept of additionality adopted for DPEP I reflected the agreement between IDA and GOI for the Social Safety Net arrangement. States' contributions to DPEP were to be in addition to at least a maintenance of real resources for elementary education at their 1991/92 levels. For DPEP II, the GOI has altered the base year to 1995/96. Recent evidence suggests that this condition should not be difficult to achieve for most states. The condition will be most difficult to meet for those states where either planned levels of expansion are significant or where past enrollment and expenditure growth has been highest. 3.13 The real annual rate of growth of expenditures on elementary education in the three new DPEP states (Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa) between 1991/92 and 1994/95  - 36 - was over nine percent in each state. Plan expenditures increased at even higher rates in Orissa and Himachal Pradesh. In Gujarat, real plan expenditures fell. The requirement to at least maintain the real value of total elementary education expenditures, in addition to the DPEP contributions, should pose no problems providing past rates of growth in education expenditures and if overall growth of government revenues are maintained and the overall growth of govemment revenues is buoyant. However, the large budget deficits and debt stocks in Orissa and Himachal Pradesh indicate the need for fiscal adjustment if expenditures on the social sectors are to be supported at previous levels. 3.14 In five of the six DPEP I states financed by IDA, real resources for elementary education increased in 1994/95 over the 1991/92 levels, and the 1995/96 budgets maintain this situation. In Tamil Nadu, real resources in 1994/95 were just maintained at the 1991/92 levels but the 1995/96 budget indicates a reduction. Real plan expenditures in both years are below the 1991/92 level. Existing analysis and recent experiences suggest that the expansion of DPEP to a small number of additional districts in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Haryana would be achievable relatively easily within the additionality requirement. There are severe constraints on plan financing in general in Kerala but the low plan base for elementary education and the strong growth of non-plan expenditures suggest the additionality condition would be met. There will need to be careful monitoring in Assam where plan expenditures have tended to be used to finance recurrent obligations. Any proposed further expansion of districts in Tamil Nadu will require an assessment of actual expenditures in 1995/96 and an acceptable explanation if the real level were to fall below that in 1991/92. 12 In Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, the pressures will be greatest. The high priority given to primary education demonstrated in policy statements and resource allocation decisions, including funding support for the implementation of UPBEP and DPEP I, suggests that the real resources for elementary education are likely to be more than maintained, although a higher share of these resources will be needed to fund the 15 percent requirement than in other states because of the large number of districts to be included in DPEP II. 3.15 Sustainability of Recurrent Costs. The third DPEP financial requirement relates to sustainability. The ability of states to sustain the incremental recurrent costs at the end of the project on non-plan budgets will essentially depend on the future strength of the economy and the methods used to adjust to underlying unsustainable trends in revenue growth and expenditures evident in several Project states. 3.16 For the new DPEP states the annual recurring costs in the year following the end of the project are estimated provisionally to be Rs. 8.5 crores for Gujarat and Rs. 12 crores for Himachal Pradesh and Orissa. Assuming a continuation of past real rates of growth in non-plan expenditures to the end of the project, these costs would be equal to less than 12 percent of the normal increase in expenditures for that year in Gujarat and Orissa, and to just over 40 percent in Himachal Pradesh. On this assumption, the additional costs would be comfortably covered in each state. Current levels of budget deficit and interest payments in 12 Tamil Nadu has experienced a rapid growth in primary enrollments, resulting in a 140% GER. Furthermore, the size of the school age population cohort is declining rapidly. This suggests that further increases in investment expenditures on primary education may not be justified.  - 37 - Orissa and Himachal Pradesh, however, suggest that adjustment will be required in the states' public finances if past rates of growth are to be maintained and if programs to further expand and improve primary schooling are to be introduced more widely across the states. 3.17 Previous analysis suggests that in each state, apart from Haryana and Assam, the incremental costs generated by the expansion of the coverage in IDA supported DPEP I states might just be covered by the normal departmental increment (though leaving few additional resources for non-Project districts). In both Assam and Haryana, expansion would necessitate intensified efforts to increase revenues and alter patterns of expenditure. Assam will be aided by being treated as a Special Category state for which the terms of central transfers are much more favorable. Haryana has the third highest per capita income across the major states. The required increases in the non-plan budget would be within the government's means if the political will exists. Again, the lack of increase in real levels of expenditure in Tamil Nadu will require an acceptable explanation when that state applies for additional funding (see footnote 8) The most serious problems are likely to arise for Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The number of districts being supported, and the required additional levels of non-plan expenditure, will be significantly greater than in other states. Both are among the group of poorest states and are giving a high policy priority to the development of basic education as the foundation of social and economic growth. Uttar Pradesh has the fourth highest fiscal deficit and debt stock as shares of state domestic product across major states and the highest level of interest payments as a share of revenues. The need to improve the public finances of these states will be intensified by this project. 3.18 In addition to a continuous monitoring of the financi; guidelines by the DPEP bureau, there will be a need in the project for a detailed assessment of the recurrent cost liabilities being developed and the actions required to sustain them. During negotiations, GOI agreed that: (i) it will carry out a study, with terms of reference satisfactory to IDA containing a description and assessment of the trends of expenditures incurred by Project states on elementary and other levels of education; (ii) this study shall be carried out twice, once before the first in-depth review (by December 31, 1997), and once before the third in-depth review (by December 31, 2001); and (iii) the study shall be submitted to IDA at least 30 days prior to the date of each such review (para 5.1 (i) and Annex 16). 3.19 Over the past two years, the Government of India has repeated its intention to ensure that the level of public expenditure for education will increase to a level equivalent to six percent of GDP by the end of the Ninth Plan. The current share is under four percent. Depending on how this is to be achieved, the problems of sustaining major programs to achieve universal schooling in the educationally backward states may be partially mitigated. D. Project Implementation 3.20 The size, complexity and degree of innovation involved in the start-up phases of DPEP II are recognized by the GOI and states. Implementation would be through incremental expansion of national, state and district components and the release of funding  - 38 - reflecting performance and the rate of utilization of previously released funds. The first year of DPEP II implementation would be primarily focused on developmental activities, including: (a) capacity building in the new states and districts; (b) preparation and planning for new districts in existing DPEP I states and Uttar Pradesh; and (c) establishment of the basic professional and physical infrastructure for improved learning in participating districts (Annex 4). 3.21 In addition to the 15 districts (maximum), an additional 50 to 60 districts in the seven DPEP I states and Uttar Pradesh will be appraised by the DPEP Bureau during the first 18 months of project implementation. In accordance with the DPEP Guidelines, states seeking funding for the expansion of DPEP II into districts from the eligible pool described in Annex 9 must satisfy the following requirements: (i) good project implementation; (ii) compliance of the new district plans with the DPEP guidelines (Annex 8); (iii) implementation of the baseline survey of student achievement, social assessment study and participation report; (iv) evidence of payment of the 15 percent state contribution to the ongoing DPEP program; (v) completion of an education finance study with standard terms of reference acceptable to IDA; and (vi) demonstrated additionality of DPEP investments compared to 1995/96 elementary education expenditure levels. During negotiations, Project states agreed that each Project state shall: (i) carry out, and cause its SIS to carry out, the Project, as applicable to such state, in accordance with the DPEP Guidelines; and (ii) carry out the Project in accordance with an implementation plan satisfactory to IDA (para 5.2(j) and Annex 4). 3.22 At negotiations, GOI agreed that: (i) all investment proposals and work plans for Project districts will be approved by the Project state and the DPEP Bureau in accordance with criteria satisfactory to IDA (para. 5.1(1)), (ii) the first two appraisals of Project district investment proposals will be submitted to IDA for review prior to the financing and investment proposals in a Project state under the credit; and (iii) the Borrower shall provide IDA a sample of 20 percent of appraisals approved by the Borrower and the Project states for Project districts, for review by IDA on an ex-post basis (para. 5. 1 (e)). 3.23 The initial year of project implementation would be based on work plans and budgets approved by the DPEP Bureau on the basis of state appraisal reports prepared by the TSG. These reports have been reviewed by IDA for 12 of the 15 districts (maximum) in the three new DPEP states and will be revised taking into account comments of the IDA appraisal mission. A revised version of the national appraisal reports and preliminary first year (FY96/97) state and district AWPBs for the 12 appraised Project districts in the three new states have been prepared and reviewed. The first year AWPBs would emphasize project launch and start-up activities. Project launch workshops would be carried out in each state and district. Program management training would be provided for national, state and district management teams (Annex 6). Other elements included in most first year AWPBs would be the provision of technical assistance programs to state and district institutions participating in DPEP, school statistics EMIS, strengthening instructional materials agencies, the design and development of first phase in-service training systems, and limited civil works.  - 39 - E. Project Monitoring and Evaluation 3.24 The central program management monitoring tool would be the annual review by the DPEP Bureau of AWPBs prepared by each participating state including: (i) the action plans, investment proposals and financing requirements for the next fiscal year; and (ii) reports on the progress of implementation covering physical targets for civil works, procurement, training; software and system development, and expenditures. The review would be conducted by the DPEP Bureau and Project Board in January of each year. Progress reports and work plans would follow a common framework. 3.25 Progress towards the achievement of development objectives would be measured in four ways. First, baseline surveys and follow-up assessments conducted in the third and sixth year of the project would monitor progress on key education indicators, most importantly, student learning achievement. The results of these studies would be discussed at one of the annual implementation review workshops (most probably in June 1999) and at project completion (by December 2002). GOI provided preliminary reports on baseline achievement studies to IDA prior to negotiations. At negotiations, GOI and the Project states agreed that assessments studies would be carried out in all Project districts, with scope and content acceptable to IDA, in the third and sixth calendar years following the calendar year in which the credit becomes effective (para 5.3 (a)). Project performance indicators developed by DOE/GOI have also been agreed with IDA (Annex 5). 3.26 Program evaluation and research studies would provide a second source of monitoring information. They would monitor the establishment of more effective teaching and learning processes at the school level. A third source would be a computerized project management information system (PMIS), currently being developed under DPEP I, augmented by the annual review exercise. The first module of the PMIS, which tracks state and district activity plans and budgets, was developed during project preparation of DPEP I and has been used since its inception. Progress reporting formats are included in the program implementation manual and refer to project components, budgets, physical progress monitoring, technical assistance and training, procurement monitoring, expenditure and disbursement, claim progress monitoring, and financial management. 3.27 A fourth source of information would be the supervision reports of the DPEP Bureau and the joint supervision missions. The current supervision strategy of the DPEP Bureau needs to be adjusted to take into account the increased scope and complexity of the program as it expands to increase the coverage to about 125 to 135 districts and 13 states including Uttar Pradesh"3. To ensure effective supervision in a program of this magnitude the 13Forty two districts under DPEP I financing (23 districts covered by the IDA credit in Assam, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala. Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu; 19 districts under the ODA grant in Madhya Pradesh); 50 to 60 new districts in the above-mentioned DPEP I states and Uttar Pradesh, plus up to 15 in the three new states (Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa) to be financed by a proposed new IDA credit and a grant from the GON; ten more districts to be financed by a new ODA grant (5 in Andhra Pradesh and 5 in West Bengal); and ten districts in Uttar Pradesh under the UPBEP IDA credit.  - 40 - following steps will be implemented: (a) explicit delegation of supervision responsibility to the state offices in all DPEP I states and UP starting with the FY1997/98; (b) a gradual decentralization of supervision responsibility in the second generation DPEP states to the SPOs; (c) fiill operationalization of the PMIS in the first generation states by July 1996 and in the second generation states by January 1997; (d) implementation of the school statistics EMIS in all states starting September 1996; and (e) full operationalization of the research, monitoring and evaluation program, including the monitoring in sample districts, focusing especially on qualitative and process indicators by September 1996 in already participating states and gradual expansion into the second generation states. 3.28 IDA supervision of DPEP II will be integrated into the supervision of DPEP I and UPBEP during the lives of these two projects, which currently are being fully managed from an expanded staff in the New Delhi resident mission. The new supervision scheme, explained in Annex 16, will focus on developing the supervision capacity of national and state staff in addition to closely monitoring implementation and disbursements. The main characteristics of the proposed integrated supervision scheme are: (a) joint supervision missions would be carried out twice a year by specialist staff appointed by GOI and program donors; (b) the DPEP Bureau would carry out its own supervision missions to participating states and districts once a year; (c) states would carry out supervision of districts twice a year; (d) standardized summary supervision reports of the states and the DPEP Bureau would be made available to program donors twice a year as part of the progress reporting system; and (d) an annual implementation review workshop would be held where states would report on their project implementation progress and share experiences in the implementation of one program element selected in consultation with the program donors. 3.29 Essential to the success of the supervision work will be: (i) the quality of the national and state supervision; and (ii) the effectiveness of the PMIS, EMIS and the National Research Monitoring and Evaluation reporting systems (Annex 5), as well as other reports covering physical targets for civil works, procurement, and training, software and system development, and expenditures extracted from the PMIS prepared for the joint supervision missions. The joint DPEP I supervision mission of DPEP I scheduled for June 1996 will pay special attention to the progress in establishing these different reporting systems. 3.30 In the first two years a special supervision effort would be required to: (i) monitor the start-up of the DPEP program in the new states (Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa); and (ii) review the effectiveness of the national appraisal process for the expansion districts in already participating states where IDA will review a sample of expansion districts. These appraisal review missions would include a review of implementation progress in each of the participating states. Starting the third year, two joint supervision missions would be organized, each covering six DPEP states. 3.31 In addition, IDA will provide continuous implementation support, especially through participation of resident education staff in the many thematic workshops organized by the DPEP Bureau and designed to exchange implementation experience.  - 41 - 3.32 DPEP Guidelines and procedures would be reviewed periodically. Changes in guidelines would require concurrence of the DPEP Project Board and would be reviewed by IDA (para. 2.1). 3.33 During negotiations, GOI and Project states agreed that each Project state shall: (i) review annually with IDA, progress in project implementation and credit disbursements over the preceding 12 months; (ii) discuss with IDA by March 31 of each year, annual work plans and budgets for the next 12 months; (iii) carry out along with IDA and other external financiers of the DPEP, a joint review of the project on three occasions: first, by December 31, 1997, second, by December 31, 1999, and third, by December 31, 2001; and (iv) duly take into account comments offered by IDA during such joint review in the course of further implementation of the project (para. 5.3(b) and Annex 16). F. Status of Preparation 3.34 In preparing the project, the GOI has sought to develop a strong sense of ownership by fully involving national technical experts and by initiating preparation with 12 district proposals in the three new states, developed by district officials, with support from state and national planning teams. State proposals in these three states were prepared concurrently. The preparation of the Distance Education Component of the proposed project was completed by appraisal. A parallel program of project preparation studies have been implemented under DPEP I financing by scholars at NCERT and NIEPA in cooperation with state agencies, with technical and financial support from UNICEF and IDA. The process has been marked by extensive interaction between the GOI and states and districts, including training in educational planning for district and state teams at NIEPA. 3.35 DPEP II has been designed to provide program support to DPEP with the DPEP Bureau acting as the national management authority which appraises state and district investment plans and reviews and approves annual work programs and budgets (AWPBs). IDA has reviewed the appraisal of 12 district and 3 state investment proposals in the three new states by the DPEP Bureau and will continue to monitor the national capacity in this regard (para 3.22). Plans for expansion districts are expected to be appraised within the next 18 months by the DPEP Bureau. 3.36 The capacity of the DPEP Bureau through its TSG to manage the preparation, appraisal and implementation of state and district programs is central to the effective implementation of DPEP II. The program will expand within two years to cover between 125 to 135 districts in 13 states14 (of which 12 are major states) from the current 42 districts in 7 states under DPEP I and 10 districts in UPBEP (para. 3.27). This makes it imperative to strengthen the appraisal capacity of the national structure (DPEP Bureau and its TSG) and to implement a decentralization strategy to ensure that the participating states take an increased 14 In addition to the 11 states comprised in DPEP II financed by IDA with co-financing of the GON, DPEP will further expand into 5 districts of Andhra Pradesh and 5 in West Bengal under a grant from the ODA.  - 42 - responsibility in the provision of technical support to the districts, review district AWPBs, and supervise implementation at the district level (paras 2.48 to 2.50). 3.37 The TSG has made valuable contributions to the implementation of DPEP I and in the appraisal process of the 12 DPEP II districts in the three new states. The corresponding appraisal reports were reviewed by IDA following discussion with the state and district planning teams. The reports showed continued progress in the quality of the district and state plans and in the effectiveness of the appraisal work done by the DPEP Bureau/TSG. This justifies the basic project strategy of delegation of the responsibility for the appraisal of district plans for expansion districts to the DPEP Bureau and a gradual shift from ex-ante to ex-post IDA review. 3.38 A strategy with the following key elements would be implemented to further develop the national appraisal capacity: (a) preparation of revised appraisal reports in a standard format for each of the three new DPEP states incorporating the observations of the IDA appraisal mission and the agreements reached between the appraisal mission and DOE, and discussion of the revisions with the states, (b) strengthening the staffing of the national appraisal missions to include at least one: (i) education specialist; (ii) civil works specialist; and (iii) education planner/economist; (c) extending the duration of the appraisal mission to at least one full week (probably two weeks in states with more than three districts) to allow time for a visit to one or more sample district(s) and detailed review discussions with the state and district planning teams; (d) preparation of a plan for the appraisal of the first batch of expansion districts for discussion with IDA at least two weeks before the first national appraisal mission; and (e) IDA discussions with the DPEP Bureau and the national appraisal teams of the effectiveness of the national state appraisa!1 process following IDA review of the NSARs and related field visits. 3.39 DPEP II is benefiting from the: (i) baseline and social assessment studies (Annex 15) carried out in the 12 participating districts of the three new states using terms of reference and methodologies established and discussed with IDA under DPEP I; and (ii) management structures (program structures and procedures and management capacity) and methodology to develop detailed AWPBs for the first year of activities at the national, state and district sub-project to be appraised by the DPEP Bureau through its TSG, also developed under DPEP I financing. 3.40 The preliminary results of the baseline assessment studies fully confirm the DPEP focus on improving learning achievement through increasirf. non-salary inputs. They also demonstrate the central importance of improving instruction in language and mathematics in the early primary grades. Preliminary results of the teacher study also reinforce the importance of a substantial effort for in-service training. These results provide the justification for national and state technical assistance programs and for clear focus on key activities in district programs. The textbook study underlies the state-specific quality and efficiency programs that would be supported by DPEP. AWPBs for technical assistance programs for school statistics EMIS system development, primary teacher in-service training and program evaluation research and studies have been prepared and appraised.  - 43 - 3.41 Popular participation is a cornerstone of DPEP. During project preparation in the three new states, documented participatory meetings involving women, SC and ST parents, teachers, NGOs and local officials were held at district, block and community levels for consultations on problems facing primary education and on likely solutions (Annex 15). The reports of these meetings are available in project files. Focus group discussions have been completed as part of the gender and tribal studies. At negotiations, Project states agreed that each Project state shall: (i) implement the project in accordance with strategies acceptable to IDA for improving primary education of female students; (ii) implement the project in any tribal area (as designated by such state in accordance with applicable laws), in accordance with procedures and delivery strategies satisfactory to IDA; and (iii) ensure that all investments in Project districts which are classified by the Borrower as tribal districts, or which include blocks classified by the Borrower as tribal blocks, are appraised and implemented in accordance with a plan, satisfactory to IDA, for the delivery of project benefits to tribal people (paras. 2.27 and 5.2(e)). Approved action plans will be tested through state pilot projects, which would be subjected to continued refinement of intervention strategies. Strengthened community/school organizations in all states and districts would provide a mechanism for continuing beneficiary participation in program implementation. 3.42 Civil work plans for first year activities have been laid out by the three new states and are largely confined to the repair of existing schools, expansion of existing schools and construction of classrooms at new school sites where site acquisition is not an issue (Annex 13). GOI will: (i) develop school construction designs that reflect education environments consistent with the DPEP pedagogical vision developed at each participating state; (ii) ensure that all states experiment with new cost-effective designs and quality construction processes through adequate supervision and with the support of the School Construction Innovation Fund (para. 2.39); and (iii) develop the capacity of the SPOs and the TSG to review designs and manage construction supervision. At negotiations, Project states agreed that Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa shall submit standard designs for classrooms and BRCs for review and approval by IDA prior to the start of any construction of classrooms and BRCs under the project, and in any event no later than June 30, 1997 (para. 5.2(h)). 3.43 Design work for common construction elements, such as classroom buildings and block resource centers, has been compiled into Project Construction Manuals, which incorporate related technical specifications, structural detailing, survey requirements and similar material. These manuals (which have already been completed for each DPEP I state and Uttar Pradesh, and are being developed for each of the three new DPEP II states) provide guidance for the selection and use of construction materials and for the methods of construction for the majority of the facilities being built under DPEP I. G. Procurement 3.44 The procurement plan reflects the widespread and decentralized nature of the activities that will be conducted by the eleven project states in some 50 to 60 districts  - 44 - throughout the six year life of the project. Many of the procurement actions in support of project work do not lend themselves well to aggregation for bidding as large single contracts. Civil works, for example, is dominated by the small-scale construction of single and double classrooms totaling over 40,000 classrooms in all at nearly 20,000 separate sites over the first five years of the project. Likewise, the purchases of consumables and teaching materials amount to over US$57.5 million in aggregate, but over 80 percent of it is comprised of small scale purchases of easily acquired local materials for both new and existing schools in the Project districts, estimated to cost less than US$40 per classroom each year. 3.45 Tables 3.3 and 3.4 summarize the project items, their related cost estimates and proposed methods of procurement. Project-related procure ,t ent of goods and works would follow procedures acceptable to IDA using National Competitive Bidding (NCB) documents and National Shopping Procedures acceptable to the Association. Project-financed consultants would be recruited according to Guidelines on the Use of Consuiltants by World Bank Borrowers. Procurement of equipment, vehicles, furniture, books and educational materials would be bulked to the extent possible and would generally be procured as follows: (a) individual contracts estimated to exceed US$300,000 would be procured using ICB (although there are no plans at present for individual purchases greater than US$300,000); (b) individual contracts with an estimated value between US$50,000 and US$300,000 would be procured using NCB; and (c) individual purchases of off-the-shelf items through rate contracts or prudent shopping procedures would be acceptable in packages of lss than US$50,000 up to the aggregate limits as outlined in Table 3.3 and 3.4. Table 3.3 - Procurement Summary % OF ALL BUILDING TYPE VALUE CIVIL PROCUREMENT METHOD WORKS Communitv construction - approx 44% Classroom construction US$85.3 Million 65% Prudent shopping - approx 44% Force Account - approx 12% Comnmunity construction - approx 45% Classroom repair and US$19.7 Million 15% Prudent shopping - approx 45% renovation Force Account - approx 10% Hostels, BRCs and other larger works over US$26.2 Million 20% NCB - 100% $20,000 per site I I  - 45 - Table 3.4 - Procurement Arrangements (Total Costs in US$ Millions) PrnelfrPmpnt ArrnngFPmPntk National Competitive Local Consulting Riddino Shnpping u prvirpc tOther Tatal CIVL WORKS Civil Works 26.2 45.9 - 59.0 131.1 (22.4) (39.1) (50.3) (111.8) GOODS Furniture 4.8 11.2 - - 16.0 (4.2) (9.8) (14.0) Equipment 4.9 11.4 - - 16.2 (4.3) (10.1) (14.4) Vehicles - 2.7 - - 2.7 (2.3) (2.3) Books 7.3 15.5 - 3.0 25.9 (6.2) (13.1) (2.5) (21.8) Educational & Teaching Materials 19.2 68.9 - - 88.1 (14.8) (53.1) (67.9) TRAINING AND Project Preparation & Implementation (Inci Training, Workshops & Fellowships) 57.8 57.8 (53.8) (53.8) Insitutional Development (includes Local and Foreign Consultants, Studies) - - 17.7 - 17.7 (16.0) (16.0) MISCELLANEOU Salaries of Additional Staff - - - 162.6 162.6 (111.8) (111.8) Honorarium - - - 15.3 15.3 (10.7) (10.7) Vehicle Operation & Maint - - - 0.6 0.6 (0.3) (0.3) Equipment Operation & Maint - 0.2 - 0.2 0.5 (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) TOTAL 62.4 155.8 17.7 298.5 534.4 (51.8) (127.7) (16.0) (229.7) (425.2) Note: Figures in parentheses are the respective amounts financed byIDA  - 46 - 3.46 Civil Works (US$127.9 million) and Civil Works Maintenance (US$3.2 million). Over eighty-five percent of civil works would be for small, scattered construction of school classrooms, and for school rehabilitation and repair, with an average estimated base cost per primary school site of US$8,000. All such school construction and rehabilitation/repair estimated to cost less than US$20,000 would be carried out using one of following four methods: (1) NCB procedures acceptable to IDA; (2) community school construction programs, (3) prudent shopping with solicitation of price quotations from at least three bidders; or (4) Force Account (Force Account method will be limited to an aggregate ceiling of not more than US$13.1 million which is roughly 10 percent of all civil works costs). Generally, the day-to-day management and supervision of the construction would be done by the State Public Works Departments or similar organizations. Civil works at DIETs, SIEMTs and Block Resource Center buildings or other facilities estimated at more than US$20,000 per site would be carried out through NCB procedures acceptable to IDA under the management of the State PWD or equivalent. Generally, the day-to-day management and supervision of the construction would be done by the State Public Works Departments or similar organizations. Civil works at DIETs, SIEMTs and Block Resource Center buildings or other facilities estimated at more than US$20,000 per site would be carried out through NCB procedures acceptable to IDA under the management of the State PWD or equivalent organization. A summary of the categories of civil works to be constructed under the project is shown in the table above. 3.47 Furniture (US$16.0 million) and Equipment (US$16.2 million). Furniture and equipment would be purchased on an annual basis in accordance with the phasing of project activities. Equipment consists of office and audio visual equipment (computers, TVs, VCRs, typewriters) with unit costs less than US$10,000, and small items (science laboratory equipment, science kits) with unit costs of less than US$500. Because of the phasing of the project and the diversity of items to be procured, ICB procedures would generally not be practicable. Contracts for equipment valued at US$300,000 or less would be made through NCB procedures acceptable to IDA. Purchases of furniture and equipment totaling US$50,000 or less, and not exceeding in aggregate US$11.2 million for furniture and US$11.4 for equipment or equivalent or about 70 percent of total furniture and equipment costs, may be awarded on the basis of rate contract or prudent shopping with solicitation of price quotations from at least three vendors. 3.48 Vehicles (US$2.7 million). Pi rcurement of vehici..s would be phased on an annual basis over the first four years of the project in accordance with the requirements of the project activities as additional districts are brought into the DPEP Program. The majority of costs are for jeeps to be used at the state and district headquarters. Because the project involves 11 states and 55 or more districts, no contract is expected to contain more than 10 vehicles, and the program does not lend itself to ICB. (Experience in DPEP I has shown that competitive bidding of small lots as either ICB or NCB has not yielded adequate vendor interest). However, purchases of vehicles would be bulked whenever possible and procured at the state level in contracts valued at more than US$100,000 through NCB procedures acceptable to IDA. For purchases not exceeding US$100,000, procurement will be through national rate contracts entered into by the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals  - 47 - (DGS&D) or local shopping procedures, comparing price quotations from at least three suppliers to ensure competitive prices up to an aggregate amount not exceeding US$2.7 million. 3.49 Books (US$25.9 million) and Teaching Materials (US$88.1 million). Educational materials and books would be purchased throughout the life of the project in accordance with the phasing and entry of new districts into the DPEP Program. Books and educational materials would be in the local language, and are available from local manufacturers. Efficient purchasing, storage and distribution of this type of material to over 40,000 school sites in the 11 Project states does not lend itself to b_lking of requirements for ICB. With some exception for common reference books or teaching materials, bulking requirements for purchase through NCB is also not a practical solution. Nevertheless, purchases would be bulked whenever possible and procured at the state level in contracts valued at US$50,000 or more through NCB procedures acceptable to IDA for an aggregate amount not exceeding US$7.3 million for books and US$19.2 for teaching materials. For small purchases not exceeding US$50,000, procurement will be through national rate contracts entered into by the DGS&D or local shopping procedures, comparing price quotations from at least three suppliers to ensure competitive prices up to an aggregate amount not exceeding US$15.5 million for books and US$68.9 for teaching materials. (This amounts to local shopping procedures totaling approximately $250,000 per district per year ). For purchases of book materials that are only available from a single source of supply, provision is made for direct purchasing without competition in accordance with IDA provisions for an aggregate amount not exceedLng US$3.0 million 3.50 Training and Workshops (US$57.8 million). This category includes expenses related to training of teachers and other project staff over the life of the project in respect of seminars, workshops, fellowships, travel and subsistence allowances. 3.51 Consultants and Studies (US$17.7 million). Consultants required under the project will be hired following procedures prescribed in the Guidelines on the Use of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers. Documents used for inviting proposals, terms of reference for all consultancies and single source contracts will be subject to prior review for all contracts valued at US$100,000 or more awarded to firms and US$50,000 or more to be awarded to individuals. 3.52 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance (US$1.1 mi!'ion). Maintenance costs for vehicles and equipment items estimated to cost less than US$50,000 per contract up to an aggregate amount of US$1.1 million would be procured from local commercial suppliers of such services in accordance with procedures acceptable to IDA. 3.53 IDA Review. All procurement for goods and works under contracts valued at US$300,000 or more would be subject to IDA's prior review; in addition, the first five NCB contracts for goods in each new DPEP state, regardless of size, will be subject to prior review. All other contracts for civil works or goods would be subject to random post  - 48 - review in the field by IDA visiting missions. Contracts for the hiring of consulting firms costing US$100,000 equivalent or more and contracts for hiring individual consultants costing US$50,000 equivalent or more would be subject to prior review and approval by IDA. Approximately 35 percent of the value of contracts covered by the IDA credit would require prior review. This relatively low percentage is considered satisfactory since the state governments have gained experience in procurement in DPEP I and other previous Bank projects. H. Disbursements 3.54 Disbursement Profile. The proposed IDA credit would be disbursed over six and one half years, generally consistent with the standard profile for PHR projects in India. The project is expected to be completed on December 31, 2002, and closed on June 30, 2003. Annex 3 shows the forecast of expenditures and disbursements. 3.55 Disbursement Percentages. The IDA credit would be disbursed in accordance with Table 3.5 below. 3.56 Required Documentation. Disbursements for all civil works and goods over US$300,000 equivalent per contract, consulting firm contracts over US$100,000 equivalent and individual consultants over US$50,000 would be fully documented and all other expenditures would be disbursed on the basis of statement of expenditure, with supporting documentation retained by each state government for review by IDA during supervision mission. No withdrawals of the proceeds of the credit shall be made for payments related to any Project state until the State Implementation Society of that state has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with GOI (para 5.5). 3.57 Special Account. In order to accelerate disbursement in respect of IDA's share of expenditures pre-financed by GOI and the state governments, and to allow for direct payment of other local and foreign expenditures, GOI agreed during negotiations to maintain a Special Account in the Reserve Bank of India in the amount of US$17.0 million, equivalent to cover four months of estimated disbursements through the Special Account (para 5.1 (k)). The GOI would release an advance of an estimated six months of expected project requirements for IDA financed items as grants to the SISs in each of the Project states (para 2.51 and 5.1 (f)). The state Governments would also place their own contribution in the accounts of the SISs. These provisions are identical to those employed in the DPEP I project. 3.58 Retroactive Financing. Retroactive financing in the amount of SDR 2.8 million is recommended to cover eligible expenditures incurred in implementing appraised project activities after March 1, 1996. Retroactive financing would support such items as initial staff appointments, conducting of pedagogical visioning workshops in participating states, developing a project monitoring system, and piloting construction of community schools to test designs and cost parameters. All procurement would be made against eligible categories of expenditures in the project and would follow IDA procurement guidelines.  - 49 - 3.59 DPEP I1 implementation is conditioned on the capacity of the DPEP Bureau and participating state governments to sustain the implementation and disbursement processes of DPEP I. DPEP has seen a rapid increase in implementation and disbursement in the last six months. Table 3.5 - Credit Disbursement Allocations by Category of Expenditure Category Amount of IDA Amount of GON Percentage of Credit Allocated Grant Allocated Expenditures ___ _ to be Financed Civil works US$100.2 million US$4.7 million 90% Equipment, US$89.4 million US$5.2 million 100% of foreign vehicles, books, expenditures, 100% of teaching materials local expenditures (ex- and furniture factory cost) and 80% of local expenditures for other items procured locally Consultant services US$15.2 million US$1.6 million 100% Training, US$48.9 million US$3.6 million 100% workshops and fellowships Incremental US$138.9 million US$8.7 million 5'0% of local salaries, honoraria L-,penditures for the first for volunteers, and second years, 85% consumables, of expenditures for the operation and third year, 80% of maintenance cost expenditures for the fourth year, 65% of expenditures for the fifth year, and 40% of expenditures thereafter. Unallocated US$32.6 million US$2.0 million TOTAL US$425.2 million US$25.8 million I. Environmental Aspects 3.60 The proposed Project would not raise any environmental concerns. J. Land Acquisition 3.61 IDA has been assured that none of the project development sites would entail involuntary resettlement of any persons.  - 50 - K Audits And Accounting 3.62 The project expenditures incurred by Project states and SISs would be subject to the normal GOI and state accounting and auditing procedures, with the added requirement that the SISs would establish and maintain separate accounts and an accounting system to record all project transactions and appropriate support documentation for the transactions. At negotiations, GOI agreed that Project accounts shall be audited annually, in accordance with appropriate auditing principles consistently applied by independent auditors acceptable to IDA (para 5.1 (j). The Project states agreed at negotiations that each SIS shall be audited annually, in accordance with appropriate auditing principles consistently applied by independent auditors acceptable to IDA (para 5.2 (k)). The SISs would make appropriate arrangements satisfactory to IDA for auditing the utilization of funds provided by the Societies to other institutions, including the SOEs of those other institutions. Documentation supporting SOEs would be maintained at least one year after the completion of the audit for the fiscal year in which the last withdrawal was made. 3.63 Central accounts and the Special Account would be subject to normal GOI accounting and auditing procedures through the Comptroller and Auditor General of India which is considered satisfactory to IDA. The Special Account would show all withdrawal requests disbursed, amounts advanced and reimbursed by IDA, and balanced at the end of each accounting period. The consolidated audit reports would be submitted to the Association not later than nine months after the end of each financial year. Audits will cover all project expenditures until such time as the credit has been closed.  - 51 - IV. BENEFITS AND RISKS A. Benefits 4.1 The proposed credit would be the second investment in a longer-term program to improve literacy and numeracy skills in India, particularly of the rural poor, and hence increase productivity and welfare. The total number of beneficiaries would be more than double the number to be reached by DPEP I. The proposed project aims to improve the quality of instruction and learning achievement for approximately 10 million children per year. It is expected that more than 50 percent of the children benefiting from the project would be girls. Another objective of the proposed credit is to raise the proportion of primary school completers by improving access to, and reducing dropout from, primary schools. The project would provide access to primary education for an estimated one million additional children per year and would enable more than 4 million more children per year to complete primary education. 4.2 The economic and social benefits from raising the proportion of primary school completers are large. In addition, many of the economic and social benefits have spillover effects beyond the child and his/her parents. The economic impact of primary schooling in India has been demonstrated in several ways. The most recent rate of return study of primary schooling has indicated a return of 13 percent. More recent studies have demonstrated the impact of schooling on the utilization of new technology, and its ou.comes, in agriculture. For every one rupee increase in profit due to exogenous technical change, those households having a member with primary schooling gained an additional 1.38 rupees. In addition, farmers with little or no schooling benefited from their more schooled neighbors who were the first to adopt the new practices. Bank studies on poverty in Indian states conclude that levels of literacy have had long term effects on both consumption levels and poverty reduction. A recent study to disaggregate the sources of growth in the Indian economy during the 1970s indicated that education in general, and primary education in particular, had a major impact. Evidence of the social impact of primary schooling is very strong and has been augmented by the recent National Family Health Surveys for each state. The impact of mothers' schooling on the total fertility rate, the ideal number of children, infant and child mortality, child immunization rates and nutritional status is very strong within each state. Further, comparisons across states strongly suggest that the impact has increasing returns once some threshold coverage of primary schooling has been attained. Since the districts funded under DPEP are by definition poorly developed in terms of educational coverage, the social benefits are likely to be high. 4.3 An additional benefit of the project will be an increase in the internal efficiency of the school system. On average, a provision of 8.5 years of schooling is required to produce one completer of the five year primary school cycle. DPEP places a major emphasis on increasing the quality of education and reducing the drop out rate in primary schools. On the  - 52 - assumption that increases in the quality of inputs will reduce repetition and dropout levels by half, a total of 6.3 years would be required. This would reduce the costs per graduate by 25 percent or around Rs. 2,200. Across the 70 Project districts, a total of about 11.8 million children are enrolled. These figures imply a 'saving' in the schooling of these children equal to US$790 million over approximately six years, which can be utilized both to enroll additional children and to increase the inputs per child. B. Program Objective Categories 4.4 Poverty Aspects. The proposed project would contribute to the alleviation of poverty by: (a) continuing the process of strengthening the c-p acity of key institutions involved in the management and implementation of DPEP started under DPEP I; and (b) improving primary education outcomes in about 70 districts in Project states. Beneficiaries of the project would overwhelmingly be poor children, especially children with mild to moderate disabilities, girls, and SC/ST students for whom specific strategies to reduce dropout, increase access and enhance learning achievement are included in the project. Indigenous peoples. Several project districts in the new DPEP states have very high concentrations of tribal population, with one district in Gujarat being nearly 100 percent tribal. STs would benefit at least in proportion to their representation in each project district. The districts would carry out their projects in accordance with tribal strategies meeting criteria agreed with IDA, and based on social assessment studies. Gender Issues. Female literacy rates in almost all project districts (except three in Kerala and three in Tamil Nadu) are below national averages, and all district plans would include strategies to imprcve girls' enrollme;it, retention and learning achievement. C. Risks 4.5 The ability of states to sustain the incremental recurrent costs at the end of the project on non-plan budgets will essentially depend on the future strength of the economy and the methods used to adjust to underlying unsustainable trends in revenue growth and expenditures evident in several Project states. Assuming a continuation of past real rates of growth in non-plan expenditures to the end of the project for the new states, the annual recurring costs in the year following the end of the project are estimated to be equal to less than 12 percent of the normal increase in expenditures for that year in Gujarat and Orissa, and just over 40 percent in Himachal Pradesh. On this assumption, the additional costs would be comfortably covered in each state. Previous analysis suggests that ii; each DPEP I state, apart from Haryana and Assam, the incremental costs might just be covered by the normal departmental increment. The most serious problems are likely to arise for Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Both are among the group of poorest states. The need to improve the public finances of these states will be intensified by this project. Currently, there is clear evidence of an increased commitment to provide the resources for universal primary schooling by both central and state governments. Furthermore, the experience of UPBEP and the DPEP I are very encouraging in this regard. The National Development Council has made a commitment to increase resources for education from the current level of under four percent of GDP to six percent by the end of the Ninth Plan.  - 53 - 4.6 In addition to the project's financial sustainability risk, there are a number of project managerial and implementation risks, among which the most important are to ensure that: (a) state and district management capacity are in place at the start-up phase of project implementation; (b) the DPEP experience gained by the DPEP Bureau and the TSG during DPEP I implementation is channeled to the participating DPEP H states; and (c) accountability in participating states and districts is based on project monitoring and is performance based. These risks are being addressed in the project by: (a) establishing and staffing SISs, SPOs and DPOs with key qualified personnel before the appraisal consideration of any district investment proposals; (b) ensuring that there will be a transfer of responsibility from the DPEP Bureau to the SPOs for project supervision; and (c) making eligibility requirements for all DPEP II expansion districts contingent upon good prior project implementation performance under DPEP I, or, in the case of Uttar Pradesh, under UPBEP. The project monitoring and information system (PMIS) designed and implemented under DPEP I financing, will be used to monitor and evaluate this requirement.  - 54 - V. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1 At negotiations, the GOI agreed that: (a) It will maintain the DPEP Bureau and the TSG in its DOE, with responsibility to coordinate project implementation, with adequate staff, resources and facilities (paras. 2.48 and 2.49); (b) It will progressively transfer responsibility for supervision of the project from the DPEP Bureau to the SPOs in accordance with a plan satisfactory to IDA (para. 2.50); (c) It will not make changes to the DPEP or the DPEP Guidelines, which in the reasonable opinion of IDA would adversely affect the project (paras. 2.1); (d) No more than 15 percent of the expansion districts would be in districts that have successfully implemented the Total Literacy Campaign and female literacy rates above the national average, but below the state average (para. 2.2); (e) The first two appraisals of Project district investment proposals will be submitted to IDA for review prior to the financing and investment proposals in a Project state under the credit, and that the Borrower will provide IDA a sample of 20 percent of appraisals approved by the Borrower and the Project states for Project districts, for review by IDA on an ex-post basis (para. 3.22 (ii)); (f) It will ensure that SISs receive project funds out of the Borrower's resources on a six monthly basis, in a timely manner, for anticipated expenditures under their approved annual work plans (paras. 2.51 and 3.57), (g) It will establish and maintain a Distance Education Unit with adequate staff and resources to be responsible for implementing the Distance Education Program under the project (para. 2.43); (h) The DPEP Bureau shall approve innovative activities under the program evaluation and research financed by the project as part of the DPEP Bureau's review of the annual work programs of states (para. 2.59); (i) It will carry out a study, with terms of reference satisfactory to the Association, containing a description and assessment of the trends of expenditures incurred by Project states on elementary and other levels of education. This study shall be: (i) carried out twice, once before the first in-depth review (by December 31, 1997), and once before the third in-depth review (by December 31, 2001); and (ii) submitted to IDA at least 30 days prior to the date of each such review (para. 3.18); () The Project accounts would be audited annually, in accordance with appropriate auditing principles consistently applied by independent auditors acceptable to the Association (para. 3.62); (k) It shall maintain a Special Account in the Reserve Bank of India in the amount of US$17.0 million, equivalent to cover four months of estimated disbursements through the Special Account (para. 3.57); (I) All investment proposals and work plans for Project districts will be approved by the Project state and the DPEP Bureau in accordance with criteria satisfactory to IDA (para. 3.22 (i)); and  - 55 - (m) It shall carry out, and shall cause the Project states and State Implementation Societies to carry out, the DPEP in accordance with DPEP Guidelines (para. 2.1 and Annex 8). 5.2 At negotiations, the Project states agreed that: (a) Each Project state shall maintain SPOs and DPOs with responsibility to coordinate project implementation, with adequate staff, resources and facilities, and shall establish a program of staff training satisfactory to IDA (paras. 2.7 and 2.16); (b) Each Project state shall establish and maintain DIETs or equivalent institutions in Project districts and appoint key staff at such DIETs or equivalent institutions in accordance with a schedule satisfactory to IDA, in any event not later than six months after the approval by the DPEP Bureau of any investment proposal for financing project activities in a Project district (para. 2.20 and Annex 10); (c) Each Project state shall establish and maintain a state level technical resource group to assist in the development and implementation of programs to improve primary education teaching processes (para. 2. 10 and Annex 10); (d) Each Project state shall allocate project resources for the education of tribal students at least in proportion to the share of the tribal population in the relevant Project district (para. 2.30); (e) Each Project state shall: (i) implement the project in . accordance with strategies acceptable to IDA for improving primary education of female students; (ii) implement the project in any tribal area (as designated by such state in accordance with applicable laws), in accordance with procedures and delivery strategies satisfactory to IDA; and (iii) ensure that all investments in Project districts which are classified by the Borrower as tribal districts, or which include blocks classified by the Borrower as tribal blocks, are appraised and implemented in accordance with a plan, satisfactory to IDA, for the delivery of project benefits to tribal people (paras. 2.27 and 3.41); (f) Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa shall establish VECs in the 12 appraised Project districts no later than June 30, 1997, and in the case of Project districts for which investment proposals for financing project activities have not yet been approved, VECs shall be established in such Project districts within one year after the Borrower has granted such approval. In addition, all Project states shall maintain VECs with responsibility for assisting with project implementation at the village level (paras. 2.18 and 2.35); (g) Each Project state shall ensure that the number of classrooms to be constructed and the number of teachers to be appointed under the project shall be determined based on the projected number of students expected to be served in accordance with state-specific criteria, including for sparsely populated areas (para. 2.37); (h) Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa shall submit standard designs for classrooms and BRCs for review and approval by IDA prior to the start of any construction of classrooms and BRCs under the project, and in any event no later than June 30, 1997 (para. 3.42);  - 56 - (h) Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa shall submit standard designs for classrooms and BRCs for review and approval by IDA prior to the start of any construction of classrooms and BRCs under the project, and in any event no later than June 30, 1997 (para. 3.42); (i) Each Project state shall select non-governmental and community organizations participating in the project in accordance with criteria and procedures satisfactory to IDA (para. 2.12); and (j) Each Project state shall: (i) carry out, and cause its State Implementation Society to carry out, the DPEP, as applicable to such state in accordance with the DPEP Guidelines; and (ii) carry out the Project in accordance with an implementation plan satisfactory to IDA (para. 3.21 and Annex 4). (k) Each SIS shall be audited annually, in accordance with appropriate auditing principles consistently applied by independent auditors acceptable to IDA (para. 3.62). 5.3 At negotiations, GOI and Project states agreed that: (a) Assessments studies would be carried out in all project districts, with scope and content acceptable to IDA, in the third and sixth calendar years following the calendar year in which the credit becomes effective (para. 3.25); and (b) Each Project state shall: (i) review annually with IDA, progress in project implementation and Credit disbursements over the preceding 12 months; (ii) discuss with IDA by March 31 of each year, annual work plans and budgets for the next 12 months; (iii) carry out along with IDA and other external financiers of the DPEP, a joint review of the project on three occasions: first, by December 31, 1997, second, by December 31, 1999, and third, by December 31, 2001; and (iv) duly take into account comments offered by IDA during such joint review in the course of further implementation of the project (para. 3.33 and Annex 16). 5.4 Conditions of Effectiveness. The project does not contain any conditions of effectiveness. 5.5 Condition of Disbursement. No withdrawals of the proceeds of the credit shall be made for payments related to any Project State until the State Implementation Society of that State has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with GOI (para. 3.56). 5.6 Subject to the above agreements, the proposed project constitutes a suitable basis for an IDA credit of SDR 291.7 million (US$425.2 million equivalent) to India on standard IDA terms with 35 years maturity.  -57- Annex I INDIA: District Primary Education Project II Education Statistics The following nine tables have been taken from India: Primary Education Achievements and Challenges (The World Bank, 1996), a sector report based on a collaborative program of research and studies conceptualized and carried out in India by the Department of Education of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and major Indian research institutions and scholars, in particular the National Council for Education Research and Training (NCERT) and the National Institute for Education Planning and Administration (NIEPA). Table 1.1 Primary Dropout Rates and Adult Litcracy Rates for Major Indian States, By Gender Mlale Female Dronzout Lileracy Dr opout Literaciy Andhra Pradesh 42 55 42 33 Bihar 62 52 66 23 Gujarat 42 73 51 49 Haryana 02 69 07 40 Karnataka 37 67 44 44 Kerala 0 94 0 86 Madhya Pradesh 23 58 35 29 Maharashtra 24 77 32 52 Orissa 53 63 52 35 Punjab 21 66 23 50 Rajasthan 35 55 56 20 Tamil Nadu 16 74 18 51 Uttar Pradesh 20 56 20 25 West Bengal 36 68 46 47 All-India Average 35 64 39 39 .Source: GOI Department of Education. Dropout for 1993; literacy rates from the 1991 Ccnsus  - 58 - Annex 1 Table 1.2 Literacy, Enrollment and Attendance in Major States, 1992-93 Primary Enrollment Number 6- as Percent 10 Age of 6-1 0 Percent 6- Cohort Percent Percent Population Age Number 10 Age "not in Females Males 6-10 Cohort Enrolled Cohort School" State Literate Literate ('OOOs) (GER) ('OOOs) "in School" ('OOOs) Uttar Pradesh 31.5 63.6 18939 68.7 13010 61.3 7329 Bihar 28.6 60.5 12024 71.1 8550 51.3 5856 Maharashtra 55.9 79.5 9551 110.8 10580 81.5 1767 West Bengal 55.2 75.4 8214 97.8 8030 67.7 2653 Andhra Pradesh 38.5 60.3 7958 88.5 7040 63.3 2921 Madhya Pradesh 34.3 63.8 8565 95.9 8210 62.3 3229 TamrilNadu 56.1 77.0 5856 137.0 8020 82.4 1031 Karnataka 46.5 68.1 5445 110.9 6040 70.5 106 Rajasthan 25.4 60.3 5923 83.4 4940 58.8 2440 Gujarat 51.3 65.4 4852 110.3 5350 75.5 1189 Orissa 41.4 68.8 3678 108.5 3990 69.6 1118 Kerala 82.4 90.0 2838 103.2 2930 94.8 148 Assam 50.7 69.9 3052 96.0 2930 70.1 913 Punjab 52.0 65.9 2394 80.6 1930 80.8 460 Haryana 45.9 72.3 2185 82.8 1810 81.3 409 All India 43.3 68.8 105751 92.4 97740 68.4 33417 Source: NFHIS, 1992-1993; World Bank staff population estimates; SAIES provisional statistics Table 1.3 Classroom Requirements for Enrolling All Children 6-10, India 1986 and 1993 ('000 classrooms) 1986 1993 Enrollment 85,913 97,741 Classrooms needed (40:1) 2,148 2,444 Available in primary schools 1,137 Available in primary sections 323 Total 1,460 Shortfall 688 6-10 population 93,698 105,751 Classrooms needed (40: 1) 984 Source: Calculated from Fifth All-India Education Survey and Sixth All-India Education Survey provisional statistics; For primary sections, a one-teacher/one-classroom ratio has been assumed.  - 59- Annex 1 Table 1.4 Gender Gap in Literacy Rates in Fifteen Major Indian States, For Persons 7+ Years of Age, 1991, and Persons 10-14, 1987-88 (female literacy rate minus male literacy rate) Persons 7 Years ofAge and Older Persons 10-14 State 1991 1987-88 Andhra Pradesh -22 -24 Assam -18 -5 Bihar -30 -25 Gujarat -24 -17 Haryana -27 -24 Karnataka -23 -18 Kerala -7 0 Madhya Pradesh -29 -28 Maharashtra -24 -18 Orissa -28 -19 Punjab -14 -7 Rajasthan -34 -50 Tamil Nadu -23 -14 Uttar Pradesh -29 -29 West Bengal -20 -8 All India -24 -21 Source: GOI Department of Education. 1993 or ? Statement 16 and Sengupta (1991) as cited in Dreze and Saran 1993.  - 60 - Annex 1 Table 1.5 Gender Gap in Enrollment and Dropout for All Students, SC, ST, Rural and Urban (female rates minus male rates) Enrollment Cap 1993-4 Attendance Gao 1992-3a Scheduled Scheduled State All Caste Tribe Rural All Rural Urban Andhra Pradesh -16 -22 -44 -23 -17 -20 -9 Assarn -9 -18 -25 -19 -6 -8 -7 Bihar -42 -52 -32 -30 -35 -26 -17 Gujarat -25 -11 -36 -32 -14 -17 -7 Haryana -15 -29 ---- -28 -13 -16 -2 Karnataka -9 -20 -26 -26 -12 -16 -5 Kerala -3 -2 0 -8 0 0 1 Madhya Pradesh -26 -29 -30 -31 -18 -18 -3 Maharashtra -9 -22 -22 -29 -10 -14 -3 Orissa -39 -61 -67 -29 -15 -16 -10 Punjab -5 -14 ---- -17 -6 -8 0 Rajasthan -59 -73 -73 -36 -34 -39 -12 Tamil Nadu -8 -15 -23 -25 -7 -11 -1 Uttar Pradesh -31 -48 -34 -33 -25 -29 -7 West Bengal -I -8 -4 -24 -10 -9 -11 All India -22 -32 -35 -26 -17 -20 -6 Note: a Percent of household population 6-14 years "not in school", 1992-93. Source: Enrollment: Selected Educational Statistics (1994) Tables VI, IX (I and ii); Attendance: National Farnily Health Survey, 1992 (International Institute for Population Sciences, 1995). Table 1.6 Household Members Literate, for Highest and Lowest Income Quintile (percent) Literacy Mean Years of Schooling Lowest Quintile Highest Quintile Lowest Quintile Highest Quintile Rural Male 47.4 61.1 . 1.7 3.7 Rural Female 23.7 47.4 0.5 2.3 Urban Male 59.4 90.4 2.6 8.8 Urban Female 41.3 86.1 1.5 7.5 Source: C. Upendranadh, 1993.  - 61 - Annex 1 Table 1.7 Income Gap in Enrollment and Dropout Rates Among Children Aged 6-14 Years, 1992-93 (rate for children from households with less than 3000 Rupees per capita minus rate for children from households with more than 10,000 Rupees per capita) Enrollment Gap Dropout Gap State All Areas Rural Areas Urban Areas All Areas Rural Areas Urban Areas Andhra Pradesh -27 -32 -17 14 15 13 Assam -15 -15 0 16 16 12 Bihar -27 -25 -17 11 11 10 Gujarat -5 -5 -5 7 8 5 Haryana - I 0 -7 3 3 3 Karnataka -22 -25 -14 11 9 7 Kerala 0 0 0 0 0 0 Madhya Pradesh -27 -24 -13 6 5 4 Maharashtra -9 -12 0 10 12 3 Orissa -18 -18 -9 8 9 --- Punjab -55 -5 -8 12 0 -14 Rajasthan -32 -33 -10 3 2 --- Tarnil Nadu -5 -6 0 8 9 7 Uttar Pradesh --- --- --- --- --- --- West Bengal -28 -23 -7 15 17 0 All India -25 -17 -8 7 8 -4 Source: NCAER September 1994, Tables 3.1-3.3 and 4.1-4.3. Table 1.8 Achievement Gaps Among Students Belonging to Four SES Quartiles in Low-Literacy Districts in Eight States, India 1993 (effect size: percent of standard deviation difference between SES quartile groups) Arithmetic Gap Language Gap State SESI-SES4 SES2-SES4 SES3-SES4 SESI-SES4 SES2-SES4 SES3-SES4 Assam -28 -46 -28 -23 -41 -12 Haryana -24 -13 -12 -13 -16 -14 Karnataka -49 -30 -26 -53 -34 -30 Kerala -43 -38 -18 -59 -40 -15 Madhya Pradesh -22 -21 -15 -17 -20 -14 Maharashtra -32 -19 -13 -49 -31 -30 Orissa -48 -43 -36 -54 -39 -40 Tamil Nadu -22 -13 -08 -24 -22 -13 Average Effect Size -34 -28 -20 -37 -30 -21 Note: SESI = SES quartile 1 (0-25 percent or the lowest SES group), SES2 SES quartile 2 (26-50 percent), SES3 = SES quartile 3 (51-75 percent), and SES4 = SES quartile 4 (76- 100 percent of the highest SES group). Source: DPEP Data base (NCERT, NIEPA and New Concept 1994).  - 62 - Annex 1 Table 1.9 Caste and Tribal Gaps in 1993-94 Enrollment and 1986-87 Dropout" (difference in rates between SC or ST students and all students) Enrollment Dropout Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe State Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 5 Grade 8 Urban Rural Urban Rural Andhra Pradesh 17 -13 5 -33 10 -7 7 13 Assam 121 95 56 25 18 14 16 -13 Bihar -4 -11 4 -8 9 2 0 -23 GuJarat 50 25 12 -16 8 -4 21 36 Haryana 8 -18 ---- ---- 18 23 0 0 Karnataka 32 0 18 -14 17 -7 20 14 Kerala II 12 21 -10 6 16 34 -27 Madhya Pradesh 9 -10 -23 -39 11 8 8 5 Maharashtra 132 74 --- -26 15 12 18 20 Orissa 127 9 -27 -20 -4 10 6 -7 Punjab 132 -3 ---- ---- 5 29 ---- 0 Rajasthan -14 -10 -13 -11 9 33 -6 39 Tamil Nadu 12 -I -22 -36 7 8 8 -10 Uttar Pradesh -23 -20 -7 -15 2 6 27 0 West Bengal -2 -26 -2 -20 17 10 0 2 All India 41 7 2 17 10b I b 12b 2b Note: a Drop-out is the proportion of primary level in percentage distribution of ever enrolled persons over levels at which education was discontinued. b Average of selected states. Source: Enrollment: Selected Educational Statistics (1994) Tables VI, IX (I and ii); Dropput: Savekshana NSS 42nd Round 55th and 56th Issues (Vol. XIV, No. 4 and Vol. XVII, No. 1, Table 15.1).  - 63 - Annex 2 INDIA: Second District Primary Education Project Expenditure Accounts by Years (Costs in Rs. Millions) Foreign Base Cost in Calendar Year Exchange 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total % Amount Investment Costs Civil Works 201.4 402.8 805.6 1,409.8 1,007.0 201.4 4,027.9 9% 362.5 Furniture 25.4 50.8 101.6 177.8 127.0 25.4 508.1 - - Equipment 25.1 50.3 100.5 175.9 125.6 25.1 502.6 25% 125.6 Vehicles 63.8 13.1 10.5 - - - 87.4 25% 21.9 Books & Libraries 40.8 81.7 163.4 285.9 204.2 40.8 816.8 5% 40.8 Teaching Materials 174.7 246.5 298.0 332.3 347.9 347.9 1,747.2 - - Consultants 10.8 21.5 40.7 69.4 49.6 61.4 253.3 - - Sports Equipment & Amenities 4.1 8.2 16.4 28.7 20.5 4.1 81.9 - - Staff Training (Inc] TA/DA) 183.5 260.1 313.5 349.1 382.0 346.4 1,834.6 - - Awareness Campaign Expenses 33.4 46.7 56.7 63.4 70.1 63.4 333.6 - - Total Investment Costs 763.0 1,181.7 1,906.8 2,892.2 2,333.9 1,115.9 10,193.4 5% 550.9 Recurrent Costs Salaries of Additional Staff 664.8 823.3 895.4 991.2 1,020.6 1,017.8 5,413.0 - - Consumables (otfice expenses, etc) 12.3 34.2 41.4 48.6 57.3 57.3 251.1 5% 12.6 Contingency at District/BRC/Schools 70.9 101.1 121.4 135.0 140.2 140.2 708.8 5% 35.4 Vehicle Operation and Maint 1.9 2.6 3.2 3.6 3.8 3.8 18.9 - - Equipment Operation and Mait 1.5 2.1 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.0 15.1 5% 0.8 Civil Works Maint - 5.0 10.0 25.1 30.6 30.6 101.3 - - Honorarium 5 1.0 71.4 86.7 96.9 102.0 102.0 509.9 - - Total Recurrent Costs 802.3 1,039.8 1,160.7 1,303.2 1,357.5 1,354.6 7,018.1 1 % 48.7 Total BASELINE COSTS 1,565.3 2,221.4 3,067.5 4,195.4 3,691.4 2,470.5 17,211.5 4% 599.6 Physical Contingencies 118.4 173.5 252.0 356.9 305.2 183.0 1,388.9 4% 59.9 Price Coltingencies 70.1 294.1 682.5 1,299.2 1,448.3 1,169.1 4,963.3 5% 244.0 Total PROJECT COSTS 1,753.8 2,689.0 4,002.0 5,851.5 5,444.9 3,822.6 23,563.7 4% 903.6 Taxes 49.0 84.2 151.1 251.5 210.2 95.3 841.2 - - Foreign Exchianige 55.9 82.8 166.5 298.5 234.9 64.9 903.6 - -  - 64 - Annex 2 INDIA: Second District Primary Education Project Expenditure Accounts by Years (Costs in US$ Millions) Foreign Base Cost in Calendar Year Exchange 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total % Amount Investment Costs Civil Works 5.8 11.6 23.2 40.6 29.0 5.8 116.1 9% 10.4 Furniture 0.7 1.5 2.9 5.1 3.7 0.7 14.6 - - Equipment 0.7 1.4 2.9 5.1 3.6 0.7 14.5 25% 3.6 Vehicles 1.8 0.4 0.3 - - - 2.5 25% 0.6 Books & Libraries 1.2 2.4 4.7 8.2 5.9 1.2 23.5 5 % 1.2 Teaching Materials 5.0 7.1 8.6 9.6 10.0 10.0 50.4 - - Consultants 0.3 0.6 1.2 2.0 1.4 1.8 7.3 - - Sports Equipment & Amenities 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.1 2.4 - - Staff Training (Incl TA/DA) 5.3 7.5 9.0 10.1 11.0 10.0 52.9 - - Awareness Campaign Expenses 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.8 9.6 - - Total Investment Costs 22.0 34.1 55.0 83.3 67.3 32.2 293.8 5% 15.9 Recurrent Costs Salaries of Additional Staff 19.2 23.7 25.8 28.6 29.4 29.3 156.0 - - Consumables (office expenses, etc) 0.4 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.7 7.2 5% 0.4 Contingency at District/BRC/School 2.0 2.9 3.5 3.9 4.0 4.0 20.4 5% 1.0 Vehicle Operation and Maint 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 - Equipment Operation and Maint 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 5 % 0.0 Civil Works Maint - 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.9 2.9 - Honorarium 1.5 2.1 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.9 14.7 - Total Recurrent Costs 23.1 30.0 33.4 37.6 39.1 39.0 202.3 1 % 1.4 Total BASELINE COSTS 45.1 64.0 88.4 120.9 106.4 71.2 496.0 4% 17.3 Physical Contingencies 3.4 5.0 7.3 10.3 8.8 5.3 40.0 1.7 Price Contingencies -1.6 -1.8 -1.3 0.3 1.4 1.4 -1.6 1.5 Total PROJECT COSTS 46.9 67.2 94.4 131.5 116.6 77.9 534.4 4% 20.6 Taxes 1.3 2.1 3.6 5.7 4.5 1.9 19.1 - - Foreign Exchange 1.5 2.1 3.9 6.7 5.0 1.3 20.6  - 65 - Annex 2 INDIA: Second District Primary Education Project Disbursement Categories by Financiers (Total Costs in US$ Million) Dutch Local Duties Disbursement Categories GOI IBRD Govenument TOTAL For. (Eaxcl. & Amount , Amount b Amunt V. Amount b. Exch. Taxes) Taxes Civil Works 12.8 10% 110.1 86% 5.1 4% 128.0 24% 12.4 106.6 12.4 Furniture 1.6 10% 14.0 87% 0.4 3% 16.0 3% - 14.9 - Equipment 1.6 10% 14.4 89% 0.2 1% 16.2 3% 4.3 10.8 4.3 Vehicles 0.3 10% 2.3 85% 0.1 5% 2.7 1% 0.7 1.8 0.7 Books, Libraries & Teaching Materials 8.1 10% 67.8 84% 5.0 6% 80.9 15% 1.4 74.4 1.4 Consultants (Local and Foreign) - - 16.0 90% 1.7 10% 17.7 3% - 17.7 - Training, Workshops & Fellowships (incl TA/DA) - - 53.8 93% 4.0 7% 57.8 11% 57.8 Salaries of Additional Staff 44.0 27% 111.8 69% 6.8 4% 162.6 30% - 162.6 Honorarium 4.3 28% 10.7 70% 0.3 2% 15.3 3% - 15.3 Maintenance 1.4 34% 2.3 57% 0.4 9% 4.1 1% 0.0 3.9 0.0 Consumables (incl School/BRC Contingency Funds) 9.3 28% 21.9 66% 1.8 6% 33.0 6% 1.7 29.0 1.7 Total 83.4 16% (425.2 80% 25.8 5% 534.4 100% 20.6 494.8 20.6 Calculation of IDA+ Dutch Share = 425.2 + 25.8 = 87.8% (Net of Tax and Duties) 534.4 - 20.6  - 66 - Annex 2 INDIA: Second District Primary Education Project Expenditure Accounts by Project Components (Costs in US$ Million) Improving Quality, Reducing Dropout & Expanding Access Building Improving Reducing Distance National State Quality of Dropout & Education Management Insitutional Primary Expanding Program Sturcture Capacity Education Access Support for Phvsical Contineenemes DPPP Total % Amount Investment Costs Civil Works 1.2 14.9 100.0 - 116.1 10% 11.6 Fumiture 0.1 3.5 11.0 - - 14.6 10% 1.5 Equipment 0.3 9.1 5.1 0.0 - 14.5 10% 1.4 Vehicles 0.1 2.4 - - - 2.5 10% 0.3 Books & Libraries 0.3 13.6 9.6 - - 23.5 10% 2.4 Teaching Materials 0.3 39.5 9.6 0.9 - 50.4 10% 5.0 Consultants 0.5 4.9 0.2 0.3 1.4 7.3 5% 0.4 Sports Equipment & Amenities - - 2.4 - - 2.4 10% 0.2 Staff Training (Inci TA/DA) 0.4 29.0 21.9 1.6 - 52.9 10% 5.3 Awareness Campaign Expenses 0.7 0.2 8.7 - - 9.6 5% 0.5 Total Investment Costs 3.9 117.1 168.5 2.8 1.4 293.8 10% 28.5 Recurrent Costs SalariesofAdditionalStaff 2.1 55.9 97.4 0.5 - 156.0 5% 7.8 Consumables (office expenses, etc) 0.7 3.4 3.1 0.1 - 7.2 10% 0.7 Contingency at District/BRC/Schools 0.5 11.4 7.6 0.9 - 20.4 10% 2.0 VehicleOperationandMaint 0.1 0.5 0.0 - - 0.5 5% 0.0 Equipment Operation and Maint 0.0 0.2 0.2 - - 0.4 5% 0.0 Civil Works Maint 0.0 0.7 2.2 - - 2.9 5% 0.1 Honorarium 0.0 0.8 13.9 - - 14.7 5% 0.7 Total Recurrent Costs 3.4 73.0 124.3 1.5 - 202.3 6% 11.5 Total BASELINE COSTS 7.3 190.1 292.9 4.3 1.4 496.0 8% 40.0 Physical Contingencies 0.6 15.8 23.2 0.4 0.1 40.0 0% - Price Contingencies -0.0 -0.8 -0.8 -0.0 0.0 -1.6 5 % -0.1 Total PROJECT COSTS 7.9 205.2 315.2 4.6 1.5 534.4 8% 39.9 Taxes 0.3 7.3 11.4 0.1 - 19.1 9% 1.7 Foreign Exchange 0.3 6.7 13.5 0.1 - 20.6 9% 1.9 NOTES: /a Table is "expanded version" of Table 3.4, page 47, showing all categories of procurement methods /b Figures in parenthesis are the respective amounts financed by IDA  - 67 - Annex 2 INDIA: Second District Primary Education Project Project Components by Year (Base Costs in Rs. Miflion) Bane Cost in Calendar Year Components 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20 Total Building State Institutional Capacity 21.4 28.7 40.1 54.8 63.0 45.7 253.7 Improving the Quality, Reducing Dropout & Expanding Access Improving Quality of Primary Education 668.9 882.4 1,155.4 1,483.3 1,373.3 1,033.2 6,596.5 Reducing Dropout & Expanding Access 860.2 1,280.6 1,842.2 2,627.6 2,232.7 1,319.3 10,162.7 Distance Education Program 14.9 29.7 29.7 29.7 22.3 22.3 148.7 National Management Structure Support for DPEP - - - - - 50.0 50.0 Total BASELINE COSTS 1,565.3 2,221.4 3,067.5 4,195.4 3,691.4 2,470.5 17,211.5 Physical Contingencies 118.4 173.5 252.0 356.9 305.2 183.0 1,388.9 Price Contingencies 70.1 294.1 682.5 1,299.2 1,448.3 1,169.1 4,963.3 Total PROJECT COSTS 1,753.8 2,689.0 4,002.0 5,851.5 5,444.9 3,822.6 23,563.7 Taxes 49.0 84.2 151.1 251.5 210.2 95.3 841.2 Foreign Exchange 55.9 82.8 166.5 298.5 234.9 64.9 903.6  - 68 - Annex 2 INDIA: Second District Primary Education Project Project Components by Financiers (Total Costs in US$ Million) Dutch GOI IDA Government TOTAL Amount * Amount % Amount b Amount Sb Building State Institutional Capacity 1.5 19% 4.7 60% 1.7 21% 7.9 2% Improving the Quality, Reducing Dropout & Expanding Access Improving Quality of Primary Education 30.2 15% 162.4 79% 12.5 6% 205.2 38% Reducing Dropout & Expanding Access 51.2 16% 252.4 80% 11.6 4% 315.2 59% Distance Education Program 0.5 11% 4.1 90% - 0% 4.6 1 % National Management Structure Support for DPEP - 0% 1.5 100% - 0% 1.5 0% Total Disbursement 83.4 16% 425.2 80% 25.8 5% 534.4 100%  - 69 - Annex 2 INDIA: Second District Primary Education Project Cost by Component (Rupee Million) (USS Million) % % Total Component Foreiga Dae Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange Cat Building State Institutional Capaeity 243.8 9.9 253.7 7.0 0.3 7.3 4% 1 % Improving the Quality, Reducing Dropout & Expanding Access Improving Quality of Primary Education 6,400.5 196.0 6,596.5 184.5 5.6 190.1 3% 38% Reducing Dropout & Expanding Access 9,770.6 392.0 10,162.7 281.6 11.3 292.9 4% 59% Distance Education Program 147.0 1.7 148.7 4.2 0.0 4.3 1 % I % National Management Structure Support ror DPEP 50.0 - 50.0 1.4 - 1.4 - - TotalBASELINECOSTS 16,611.9 599.6 17,211.5 478.7 17.3 496.0 3% 100% Physical Contingencies 1,329.0 59.9 1,388.9 38.3 1.7 40.0 8% Price Contingencies 4,719.3 244.0 4,963.3 -3.1 1.5 -1.6 - Total PROJECT COSTS 22,660.2 903.6 23,563.7 513.9 20.6 534.4 4% 108%  - 70 - Annex 2 INDIA: Second District Primary Education Project Procurement Arrangements /a (Total Costs in US$ Millions) Procurement Method National Competitive Local Direct Force Community Consulting Bidding Shopping Contracting Account Construction Services Other Total CIVIL WORKS /b Civil Works 26.2 45.9 - 13.1 45.9 - - 131.1 (22.4) (39.1) (11.2) (39.1) (111.8) GOODS Furniture 4.8 11.2 - - - - - 16.0 (4.2) (9.8) (14.0) Equipment 4.9 11.4 - - - - - 16.2 (4.3) (10.1) (14.4) Vehicles - 2.7 - - - - - 2.7 (2.3) (2.3) Books 7.3 15.5 3.0 - - - - 25.9 (6.2) (13.1) (2.5) (21.8) Educational & Teaching Materials 19.2 68.9 - - - - - 88.1 (14.8) (53.1) (67.9) TRAINING AND CONSULTANTS Project Preparation & Implementation (Iicl Training, Workshops & Fellowships) - - - - - - 57.8 57.8 (53.8) (53.8) Insitutional Development (includes Local and Foreign Consultants, Studies) - - - - - 17.7 - 17.7 (16.0) (16.0) MISCELLANEOUS Salaries of Additional Staff - - - - - - 162.6 162.6 (111.8) (111.8) Honorarium - - - - - - 15.3 15.3 (10.7) (10.7) Vehicle Operation & Maint - - 0.3 - - - 0.3 0.6 (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) Equipment Operation & Maint - 0.2 0.2 - - - - 0.5 (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) TOTAL 62.4 155.8 3.5 13.1 45.9 17.7 236.0 534.4 (51.8) (127.7) (2.9) (11.2) (39.1) (16.0) (176.6) (425.2) NOTES: /a Table is "expanded version' of Table 3.4, page 45, showing all categories of procurement methods /b Figures in parenthesis are the respective amounts financed by IDA  - 71 - Annex 3 INDIA: Second District Primary Education Project Forecast of Expenditures and Disbursements Expenditures Disbursements /a Cumulative as% Smse IDA Fiscal Year Semester Cumulative Semester Cumulative /b of Total Semester --------------------------------- $US Million -------------------------------- FY97 2nd (Jan 97 - Jun 97) 23.4 23.4 15.0 15.0 4% 1 FY98 1st (Jul 97 - Dec 97) 23.4 46.9 20.2 35.2 8% 2 2nd (Jan 98- Jun 98) 33.6 80.5 18.3 53.5 13% 3 FY99 1st (Jul 98 - Dec 98) 33.6 114.1 27.1 80.6 19% 4 2nd (Jan 99 - Jun 99) 47.2 161.3 27.1 107.7 25% 5 FY2000 Ist (Jul 99 - Dec 99) 47.2 208.5 38.0 145.6 34% 6 2nd (Jan 2000 - Jun 2000) 65.7 274.3 38.0 183.6 43% 7 FY2001 1st (Jul 2000 - Dec 2000) 65.7 340.0 52.9 236.5 56% 8 2nd (Jan 2001 - Jun 2001) 58.3 398.3 52.9 289.4 68% 9 FY2002 1st (Jul 2001 - Dec 2001) 58.3 456.6 43.4 332.7 78% 10 2nd (Jan 2002 - Jun 2002) 38.9 495.5 45.2 378.0 89% 11 FY2003 1st (Jul 2002 - Dec 2002) 38.9 534.4 23.6 401.6 94% 12 2nd (Jan 2003 - Jun 2003) - 534.4 23.6 425.2 100% 13 Closing Date: June 30, 2003 a/: Figures may not appear to add due to rounding b/: Disbursement projections take into account the Regional Profiles for similar type projects  - 72 - Annex 3 INDIA: Second District Primary Education Project Disbursement Profiles $440.0 - . _ __ __ - __ __ _- $420.0 -t _X. S300.0 _ i - __ St X . - _ j __ -~" --1 / _ _ _ I 1 $340.0 ~- ~ _ _ _ $320.0 _ ~ ]~t _ $300.0 ~I/ _ _- _ __ $280.0 __ ____- T-- $260.0 _-I_I_ _ _ _ / _ _ K_-_ $220.0 -- _ .T~ ~$200. 0 _-I _ $180.0 --- _-_ _ - i t -I- $160.0 __-_ __ _-p----__ - _ __ _ $140.0__ { $120.0__ __ $100.0 En Date $80.0 Ai Ed u P Bk i Ec i Po i Ex e ce Poe Poi $80.0 ... _-_ _1_ __ $40.0 .. __ J..__ __ __ __ $20.0 'S C 75 C '5 C '5 C C 5 --a- Sut Asia Educ Profile -a.- Bank-wide Education Profile --Expected Project Profile  - 73 - Annex 4 STATE: GUJARAT | Data shown on pages 73-91 reflect initial DISTRICT: BANASKANTHA plans for the project distficts at the time of T appraisal, and is subject to the review of annual work plans and budgets DPEP II - Initial District Implementation Plan Source: DPEP II - MONITORING MODULE #1 Showing District Activities Commencing in the 1st Year Only Total Project Cost COMPONENT / ACTIVITY PHYSICAL TARGET Ist Year Cost (for these Ist Year Items) I FISCAL YR. PROJECT In RS. LAKH In USD5 In. RS. LAKH In USDS BUILD INSTITUTONAL CAPACITY A.C. Machine and set-up I | 0.4 S1,153 0.40 Sl,153 District computer, printer, modem, UPS and software I j 1 7.0 S20.173 7.20 S20,749 District fax 0.3 $865 0.30 $865 District office equipment (Typewriter (2), telephone. etc.) 1 2 0.4 S1.153 0.40 S1,153 Photocopier for district office I 1.0 S2.882 1.00 S2,882 District vehicles for Management I 4 3.0 S8,646 12.00 S34,52 Evaluation studies I 5 0.3 $865 1.50 S4.323 Annual district level meetings and workshops I 5 0.2 S692 1.20 S3,458 Salary for academic supervisor at District office 2 4 1.2 S 3.458 14.69 $42,329 Salary for Accounts Officer I I 0.6 S1.764 3.67 $10,582 Salary for Assi. Project. Coordiator I I 0.9 S2.663 4.32 $12,450 Salary for Data Entry Operator 2 0.5 $1,527 5.04 S14.524 Salary for Drivers 1 4 0.3 1963 8.06 $23,239 Salary for Deputy. Accountant for Management 0.6 1,651 3.24 $9,337 Salary for Junior Engineer 1 2 0.6 S1.764 7.34 $21,164 Salary for Research Assistant 2 2 1.2 $3,527 5.04 $14,524 Salary for Senior Clerks 2 4 0.8 S2.248 9.36 S26.974 Salary for Steno Grade-Ill 2 2 0.7 $1,928 2.54 S7,326 Salary for Support Staff 4 4 0.9 S2.470 5.18 $14,939 MIS Consumahles S - 0.6 S1,729 1.20 $3,458 Fuel Charges & Maintenance for district office vehicles - 4 0.1 1288 9.60 127,666 Totai Capacity BuUlding | 21.7 $ S62,409 103.29 | $297,677 IMPROVING RETENTION Traiing of VEC member s 5.0C 22,000 12.5 S36,023 55.00 $158,501 Meeting of women working group 2 46 0.6 S1.585 2.75 $7,925 VEC meetings 1,000 5,000 1.0 S2,82 5.00 514,409 Material women working group] I 5 | 0.6 S,729 3.60 S]10,375 Total Improving Retention [ 14.7 | 42.19| 66.35 | S191,210 IMPROVING ACCESS | Non-ttendance study I2 0.4 $1,153 0.90 | 2,594 Repetition study | 0,3 | _SS6 0.0 so S2,305j Study (Alternative Schools) 2 i 4 $1l153 0.80 S2,305 |CulRural activities fund 77 385 3.9 S11.095 19.25 S55,476 Cultural programs and other campaigns to make demand 7 2,000 42.0 $121,037 120.00 | 345.821 | School village fund 1,862 9,660 37.2 S107,320 231.84 $668,127 Honomraa for wo_men working group I 5 i 0_b_2 _ _ $576 1.80 _ 5,187 | Horloraria to working groups for awareness 5 __25 j 0.3 | $ SS65 3.24 $9,337 Total Improving Access 8 84.7 1 $244,064 378.63 Sl,(091,152| IMPROVING LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT Construction of TRC buildings I I 11 93.5 $269,452 93.50 S269,452 CRC Furniture 77 77 3.9 $11,095 3.85 S11,095 Planning & Management training for teachers 205 410 2.1 $5,908 4.10 $ 11.816 Training of CRC coordinators 72 385 . 13,107 3.83 11,07 Training of various functionaries (officials. NGOs. etc.) at DIET 200 400 2.0 $5,764 4.00 $11,527 Fellowships to outstanding teachers to work as motivators for enrollment and retention 55 275 2.8 18,069 13.80 S39,769 Salarte for TRC clerks I_I I I 3.7 $10,663 22.08 $63,631 Saliaries of CRC coordinators 77 77 37.0 $106,513 221.76 j 639,078 Salary for TRC Peons I t Ii 2.4 16,916 14.16 $40.807 Salry of TRC Coordin;tn arI I i 6.3 $18,156 40.39 $116,403 Teaching materls as incemives to girls for enrollment 40,0W 400000 60.0 S172,911 | | 360.00 11,037.464 Communication & News letter 1,900 10,000 2.9 $8,213 1 8.00 $51,S73 Teachinglearmnngmateral (Rs.500/teacher) 8,000 40,000) 40.0 $115,274 240.00 $691,643 CRC contingency 77 77 1.8 15,326 11.09 S31,954 Office contingency I 5 0.5 11,383 2.88 $S8,300 Total Improving Larning Achievement | 259.8 1 S748.750 | | 1,053.44 S3,035,89 Total Cost | 380.8 11 .,097,442 1,601.71 S4,615,8881 ANNEX4.XLS  - 74 - STATE: GUJARAT Annex 4 DISTRICT: DANG DPEP II - Initial District Implementation Plan Source: DPEP II - MONITORING MODULE #1 Showing District Activities Commencing in the 1st Year Only Total Project Cost COMPONENT / ACTIVITY PHYSICAL TARGET lst Year Cost (for thesc Ist Year Items) itt FISCAL YR. PROJECr In RS. LAKH In USDs In RS. LAKH In USD BUILD INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY District office furniture 2 1.0 12.882 2.00 $5.764 MIS hardware (including printer, modem, software, UPS and training) I I 7.2 120.749 7.20 S20.749 District office establishment (FAX phone A/C. etc.) I I 1.0 $2,882 1.00 S2.882 DisuTict office photocopier 1 I 1.0 S2.882 1.00 $2,882 Salaries for 2 academic coordinators at district office (Rs.5 100/month average) 1 2 1.2 13,458 7.34 121,164 Salary of assistant dItrict project director (Avg Rs.6000/mondh) I I 15.0 143,228 4.32 S12,450 MIS Consumable 1 5 _ 1.0 S2,882 1.20 $3,458 DPEP office consumables I 5 1.0 S2.882 | 6.00 S17.291 Total Capacity Building [ 28.4 181.845 [ 30.06 [ S86,640 IMPROVING RETENTION Drinking water facilities in existing schools 10 9.0 S $25.937 4.00 $11,527 Monthly meeting of VEC (Rs. 100 per meeting) 305 1,525 3.7 $10,548 18.30 152,738 Meeting of MTA and PTA monthly for each school (Rs.25 per meeting) jJ 400 2.0D0 1.2 $3,458 J 6.00 $17,291 Sin days tour for Bright students Retention 400 2.000 4.0 111.527 20.00 $57.637 Total Improving Retention 17.9 L $51,470] [ 48.30 |- 1 139,193 IMPROVING ACCESS Construction of New pry schools building with 2 rooms and 4 verandah I I 0.5 $1.354 1.20 S3,458 Opening f 10 new schools - 2 classroom w/ toilet & drinking water facility 0 t 1.1 $3,285 23.00 $66,282 Residential quarters for 5 lady teacher on experimental basis 5 5 6.0 S17,291 6.00 $17,291 Village Mapping survey and focused group discussion 305 610 12.2 S35,159 24.40 S70,317 Awareness campaign through various means ICultural programs. banners, posters) 400 400 4.0 $ 11,527 20.00 S57,637 Cultural activities fund 32 160 1.6 $4,611 8.00 S23,055 New tachers (Rs.3700/mnonmh avg for 3.5 yrs) 3 20 1.1 $3,285 37.20 S107,205 Lodging charges for Ashram of 100 children 1.0 $2,882 6.00 S17,291 School contingency of Rs.2000/yr ao each school 386 400 7.7 $22,190 48.00 $138,329 Total Improving Access | 35.3 S $101,584 J [ 173.80 | S50,865 IMPROVING LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT Construction of BRC Building I I 8.5 S24.496 8.50 $24,496 BRC equipment (OHP, typewriter, duplicating machine) I I 1.0 $F2,882 1.00 $2,882 Printing of tribal (Dangi) dialect book for teachers 1.000 1,0D0 - 0.6 $1,729 10.00 $28,818 research studies 2 10 2.0 S5,764 5.00 114,409 Workshop for preparation of Dangi dialect readers 1 3 | 0.3 s720 1.50 $4,323 CRC Coordinator (Avg Salary Rs.4000/month) 32 32 - 15.4 S44,265 92.16 S265,591 Learning material for existing ECCE Centres (Rs.200 per Centre per year) 200 200 - 0.4 $1,153 2.40 $6,916 Provisionoffreenote-books, pencil,compasstoSC/STandgirls (Rs.50perchildperyear) | 33.00 | 173,000 | 16.5 | 47.550 103.80 $299,135 Annual grant of Rs. per teacher for teaching materials 90 3,700 64.5 $12,968 27.60 $79,539 Total Improving Learning Achievement 49.1 $ 141,527 251.96 72 6,109 Total Cost 130.6 $376,426 504.12 | 1,452,807 ANNEB4.XLS  - 75 - STATE: GUJARAT Annex 4 DISTRICT: PANCHMAHAL DPEP II - Initial District Implementation Plan Source: DPEP 11- MONITORING MODULE #1 Showing District Activities Commencing in the Ist Year Only Total Project Cost COMPONENT / ACTIVITY PHYSICAL TARGET Ist Year Cost (for these Ist Year Items) I.t FISCAL YR. PROJECT In RS. LAKIH In USDS In. RS. LAKH In USOS BUILD INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY Furniture for district office F I 2.0 | $5764 2.00 15.764 Of fice Equipment (2 typewriters, FAX. phone at DistricI 3 1.2 $3,458 1.20 S3458 Districa Vehicles 1 4 3.0 S8.646 12.00 S34.5S2 Salary for 2 junior accountants 2S3 2 $3,112 6.48 SI1,674 Salary for 4 senior clerks 4 4 1.6 S4.61 I 9.36 $26,974 Of fice consumables i 5 1.0 $2,882 6.00 $17.291 MIS Consumables I 40.0 $115,274 2.40 S6,916 Total Capacity Building | 49.9 | $143.747 39.4 $113.659 IMPROVING RETENTION Residenital quarters for teachers on an experimental basis in tribal areas | 2 IO100D_ L 25.0 $72,046 125.00 $360,231 1 Alternative schooling - research study & survey | 2 , 1.0 $2.S82 2.00 $5.764 Research studies 2 10 .0 $5,764 10.00 S28.818 Environment building and awareness 2.000 2.000 40.0 $115.274 120.00 $345,82 1 Conducting survey to open alternative school 500 500 5.0 $14.409 6.00 $17,291 School development fund (Rs. 2000 per month) 386 | 3,100 7.7 $22,190 306.00 $881,S44 1 School mapping and focus gToup discussion 2,0S0 4.000 30.0 SS6.455 72.00 1 S207.493 Special scheme for underprivileged villages 2 26 1.3 $3,862 8.04 $23.170 Remedial teaching for SC/ST/OBC children (teacher honorarium) 400 20.000 9.6 $27,666 57.60 $165.994 Total Improving Retention 121.6 S350.548 | | 706.6 $2.036,426 IMPROVING LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT CorLstretion of BRC Buildings 5 jj 42.5 $122.478 93.50 $269,452 Furniture for BRCs __5 __ _ S I 2.5 $7,205 5.50 $15,850 Books for school libraries 3.071 3.071 47.5 $ 136,888 186.00 $536,023 Training of CRC coordinators as raners L 220 1,100 2.2 S6.340 11.00 $31,700 Training of supervisors a_ Dlf'T _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | 8 | 240 2.4 $6,916 7.20 $20,749 Cultural activities at CRC level 220 1.100 1.1 S3,170 5.50 $15.850 Stalatrteof BRC coordiar_ors 11 11 6.3 $S1,156 40.39 $116,403 Salary for ItI BRC clerks l II I j 3.7 $10,663 22.18 S63,908 Salary forB_RC peonIsI II 2.4 $6,916 14.16 S40,807 Salary for eademic supevsors | 4 4 3.1 $8,818 14.69 $42,329 Salary of 4 research assistants 4 4 1.6 $4,726 10.08 $29,049 Teaching learning materalz pet teacher (Rs. 5001yr) 9,5C0 100.000 S475 S136.SSS 297.00 $S55,906 Scheme for free texnsbooks to girls __|_35,190 | _261_ 866_ 12.3 | $35,476 109.94 S316,S41 BRC contingency funds r 1 1_ 1.3 $3.804 7.92 S22,824 Total Improving Learning Achievement 176.4 S508.444 825-1 $2,377,693 Total Cost 348.0 | SN002.739 1.571.1 S4.27.7787 ANNEX4 XLS  - 76 - STATE: GUJARAT Annex 4 DISTRICT: STATE LEVEL DPEP II - Initial District Implementation Plan Source: DPEP 11 - MONITORING MODULE #1 Showing District Activities Commencing in the Ist Year Only Total Project Cost COMPONENT / ACTIVITY PHYSICAL TARGET Ist Year Cost (for these lst Year Items) hSt FISCAL YR. PROJECT In RS. LAKH In USDS In RS. LAKH In USDS BUILD INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY Construction of hostel at SCERT I I 40.0 S115,274 40.00 S1 15.274 Renovation ot GCERT buiding I I 30.0 S86.455 50.00 S144,092 Furnishing of renovation portio,r or SCERT Building I I l 5.0 S14.409 10.00 $28818 Furnishing of SCERT Hostel (furniture. fans. water cooler. utensils) 3.0 $8.646 3.00 S8.646 Furnishing the state project office I I 100$28,818 10 00 $28,818 Equipment at state project office (photocopier, tax, phone. typewriters. AC) I I 10 4.0 S11,527 5.00 $14,409 Equipment for SCERT office (Photocopier, FAX, typewriter. erc.i I I .0 2882 2.00 .764 MIS hardware (including printer, modem. software, LIPS. etc.) I _I 7.2 S20.749 7.20 $20,749 State office photocopier I I 1.0 $ S2,882 (.00 $2,8821 State project office equipment (FAX, Typewriter, phones. AC) I 2.0 1 S5,764 2.00 S5,764 Vehicles for sEate office 3 3.0 S8,646 9.00 S25.937 | Development of tentbooks for alternative schooling I 4 5 0 14,409 20.00 $57,637 | Review of text books (workshops seminars, rewriting, review & finalizauton up to camera t I 5 0 $14,409 40 00 $115,274 Translation and publication of books (educational planning and management, gender. tribal. 2 5 53,170 | 25.00 $72,046 alternative schooling) _ I I Research studies 2 10 | 2.0 $5,764 10.00 $28.818 Meetings of core education groups (consisting of members from tarious agencies) i (0 50 2.5 $7,205 12.50 $ S36,023 Module development workshops J 5 1 13 50 $14,409 12.00 S34,582 National workshop on planning and management I 2 1 0 7 $2.104 3.00 S8,646 TA/DA for state level functionaries (attending regional workshops, district migs. and I 5 I 0 S2882 5.00 o14,409 Workshop for development of materials for environment building 1 2 1.0 S2.882 2.00 $5,764 Workshop for gender issues ' 3 0.6 Sl,700 |j 1.50 S_4.323 Workshop-mediaimaterial for Environment Building 2 4 1.2 $3,401 2.36 S6,801 Workshops for sharing of research and innovation projects I | 5 0.3 S836 5.00 $14.409 1 Competition for developing teaching aids 6 | . $2.882 2.50 S7,205 Cut out for Woman Development 300 - 300 60 $17,291 6.00 $ 17,291 iFoider for Wornan Development 30.000 30,000 ii 15.0 S328|1 15.00 $ 43,2281 Short film development for Environment Building _ 2 o0 8.0 23,055 40.00 $115,274 Salary xpenses for MangDemen cost 1 3,04 30 i39.4 $272089 1 56.40 41622536 Staff Salary for Planning & Management Cell 5 | 5 18 $ S5,043 18.95 $54,605 Staff Salary for Tribal Cell 02 i 2 09 S2,594 9.72 $28,012 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ . i -, ____ . ___ _______ Staff Salary for Woman Deelopnsent 0.9 $2,594 r972 S28.012 Consumables for MIS j 1 6 $2.882 _7.20 $20,749 Recurring expenses for STATE PROJECT OFFICE 2 5 | S720 150 S43,228 Stationary for (RESEARCH STUDY) I 1 12 0.0 $58 0.29 $830 Contingency for sLate office j 1.0 $2.882 6.00 $17,291 Honorarium to members of core groups 100 | 600 j. 10 j S2 882 7.20 S20,749 Total Capacity Building | 180.1 518.908 471.5 1 S358.895 IMPROVING ACCESS | Awarenesscampaign for environment building 20 40 28818 |Staff Salay for NFE 2 | 2 | 09 212 Total Improving Access 10.9 $31,412 29.7 $85649 IMPROVING LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT MIS hardware (Printer, modem, software. UPS, training) j I I 7.2 $20,749 7.20 S20,749 Books for SIEMT libhary (areas of planning and management. gender and tribal issues, 1 5 1.0 $2,882 5.00 $14.409 alternative schooling) Orientation and training of dept. functionaries. SCERT faculties and NGO | 100 200 1.5 $4,323 j 300 S8,646 Training of master trainers for planning management training 1 2 25 1.3 $2,689 1.75 S5,043 Training of planning and management cell functionaries of SCERT 4 4 | 10 $2,882 2.00 j 5,764 Total Inproving Learming Achievement | ;2.0 | S34,525 19.0 $54,611 Total Cost | 202I 9 |I S584,845 520.2 S1,499,155 ANNEX4.XLS  - 77 - STATE: HIMACHAL Annex 4 DISTRiCT: CHAMVBA DPEP II - Initial District Implementation Plan Source: DPEP II- MONITORING MODULE #1 Showing District Activities Commencing in the 1st Year Only Total Project Cost COMPONENT / ACTIVITY PHYSICAL TARGET Ist Year Cost (for these I st Year Iterms) It FISCAL YR. PROJECT T. RPS. LAKH In USD1 In RS. LAKH In USDS BUILD INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY MIS room at head quater I . I I 0 S2,882 I 00 I S2,882 Fumiture fixture furnishing of room floor 1 4 $4.035_ 1 40 4.03 Furniture in DPO 3 4 $9741 3.38 S9,741 Fumiturc otoffices 13131.3 S3.746 1 30 | S3.746 Equipment at DP of ficc i 2 9 SB.213 2 85 S8.213 MIS Hardvareset 105 S30.115 1045 S30,115 One AC for MIS 0 5 S1,441 0 50 SI.441 Softare 2 S3429 1.19 53,429 Five Vehicles_ _ __ 33 5 S10086 17.50 S50.432 Vehicle I ___ 3.5 S1006 3 50 S10.086 Local consultancy 02.882 1000 S28.818 Salary District Project Office 25 I25 _6 S33.372 7188 $207,147 Salary for 4 lecturers expert in educauon 2 7 57,752 24 04 S69.268 Clerk cum rypist 13 13 4 7 S13545 1668 48.069 Consumables 0 9 S2.478 5.16 S14.870 Expenses on monthly meetings 155 155 2 6 S7579 1 23 74 S68.403 Installaton of phone I I 00 S86 0 04 5104 Insutallason of phone in MIS I I 0.0 S86 004 $104 Office expenditure 3.0 S8,646 4272 $123,112 Office expenses 13 ! 13 0 3 5720 | 1140 $32,853 Operaoitnal cost 05 SI,441 3.90 S11,239 Operanonal cost 1 I I 01 _S2881 0.60 S1,729 Rem of DPO of-ice 1 I T I t 03 5778 1 2'22 S 6,398 Running cost (POL & maintenance) I 5 5 1.0 $2,B82 4020 S1i15,850 TA I __. __ 2.5 S7.205 | 34 80 | 100,288 ICst of carriage of hooks | 0.4 S,153 420 | S12,104 Total Capacity Butildlig 60 6 | S174.667 1 [ -3347 | 964,476 IMPROVING RETENTION Equipsentiteaching aids 13 13 1 3 S3.746 1 30 $3,746 Training workshop for the preparaion of guide hook for VEC 35 35 0 6 $1,614 0 56 $1,614 Gran of Rs.2000 to VEC 0.2 S576 1994 $57,476 Gramu of Rs.20M to VECs to each existing school r 15.7 $45,303 94 32 $271,816 |Granm of R.500 per teachers PA in existing PS 13 0 S37.522 i 78. 12 -$225,130 VEC miembes (NGOs-BRCI 39 | 39 1 8 S5072 2.11 | 6,086 Mjor Tepairsto40exising schools 20 1 40 100 S28,81 8 24 00 69164 Minor repairs to 200 existing schools 6 1 1 200 6.1 f S17,579 2400 L $69,164 Tol Improving Retentln 48.7 S140,230_I 246.4 5704,196 IMPROVING ACCESS 2-classooms (438) plus all connections and toileLs 50 438 6 9 | 19,8851 1 525 60 $1,514,697 Furmiture for 235 schools | 0 235 2 4 | 6.9161 56.40 | 162,536 ! Bal melas teachers pupil melas and vigyan 3 0 S,64 50.00 S144,092 Fxpenu es on campaigns 1 2 0 5764 38 00 $109,510 1 Posiers/pasnphleu/folders banners etc. 1 2 0 $S5764 31 00 $89,337 Salary for teachers and part time in nevly opened schools 30 626 j 9 | 5.591 | 944 02 S2,720,507 News paper periodicals 13 13 0.3 749 56 4496 |Grani of Rs.500 to the teachers PA j I _ 0.1 $28 11 86 | 34,167 Total Improving Aceess [ 18.6 [ $53,603 [ 1,6584 5 S4,779,342 IMPROVING LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT MIS staff nraing for 54 participants 8 days (done twice) 54 54 j 7 S4,986 1 73 S4,986 Training of 40 RPs at DIET during first year ((40 RPs x 5 days & no. course 26 40 40 7 B S22.478 i 7 80 S22.478 30,000 expenses per course?) I Salary for 2 lecaurers expert in education 1.4 53,890| 12.01 $34,617 Salary for CRC coordinator 155 155 20.9 S60.317 1 577 19 S1,663,366 Salry for Peon 13 13 3.6 510,490 28 57 582,340 Salary of 13 coordinator 8.8 25.303 63.83 S183,942 Expeson nonthly meetings 13 13 04 $1,124 3.23 S9,303 Telephone installaioon mad charges 13 13 82 8 8069 10.56 530,432 Free textbooks of non SC/ST Tribal girls under DPEP programme 12,650 78,650 63 S18,242 472 136,046 Condngency at 15 CRCs 155 2.0 55,764 33.48 $96,484 Cendngency at BRC 7 6.0 S17,406 3.36 $9,683 Corntingency in BRC -r 13 03 $749 1 1789 S51,562 Training courses - training at CRCs 5 courses at each CRC (755 = 155 x 5) 155 755 11.6 $ S33,516 13 96 $40,219 Total Improving Learing Acievemneat | 73.7 | 5212.334 820.8 $2,365,438 Total Cost j 201.6 $ S580,8364 j 3,0583 $ S8,813,672j ANNEX4.XLS  - 78 - STATE: HIMACHAL Annex 4 DISTRICT: KULLU DPEP II - Initial District Implementation Plan Source: DPEP 11- MONITORING MODULE #1 Showing District Activities Commencing in the 1st Year Only Total Project Cost COMPONENT / ACTIVITY PHfYSICAL TARGET Ist Year Cost (for these Ist Year Items) 1st FISCAL Y'R. PROJECT In RS. LAEH In USDS hI RS. LAKH In US1S BUILD INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY Construction of MIS Room I [ 1.2 $3.4581 1.2 S3.4581 Purchase of furniture for MIS 0.2 $548 0.19 S548 Furniture for DPO 1.3 S3.660 .127 S3.660 Equipment to MIS 2.4 S6 9161 7.20 S20749 Equipment Common pool 6 3.5 S10.086 10.50 S30.259 Equipment to DPO i 2.4 $6.859 2.38 S6.859 Salary for programmer for MIS with allowance I I 0.5 $1441 4.64 $13,383 Salary of coordinator child care at DIET I I 0.6 $1816 5.96 S17,187 Salarv of Coordinator Evaluation at DIET I j 0.5 $1.297 4.25 $12,242 Salary or Coordinator Planning at DIET 1 0.6 Sl.816 5.96 j S17,187 Salarv of Data entrv Operator tor MIS I IS 03 F 922 2.98 S8.576 Salary of Driver at DIET I | 0.3 S836 2.72 S7,850 Salary of Gender coordinator ar DIET I I 0.6 $1,816 5.90 $17,014 Appointment ot helpers 250 1.4 S3,890 88.02 $253,660 Salary of Draftsman at District Project Office I 0.5 S1.297 4 25 $12,242 Salary of Sieno-Typist at District Project Office I 0.3 $922 2.98 58.576 Salary of Accountant at District Project Office III 0.5 S1l297 4 2512242 Salary of assistant, engineer at DisLtict Project Office I 1 0.6 S1 700 5.53 115,942 Salary of Chokidar at District Project Office I I 0.2 $663 2.10 $6,052 Salary of Clerk at District Project Offrice I 0.3 $836 2.72 S7.850 Salary of Drirers at District Project Office 3 3 0.3 5836 7.48 S21.545 Salary of Deputy District Project Coordinator at District Project Office I I I 1.0 12.939 7.54 $21.718 Salary of Jr. Engineer at District Project Office 6 6 1 2.7 S7,781 25.49 S73.452 Salary of Peons at District Project Office 2 2 0.5 $1,326 4.20 $12,104 Salary of Planning assistant at District Project Office I I 05 $1,297 4.25 S12,242 Salary of teacher training incharge at District Project Office II 0.5 S1.556 4.68 S13.487 1 Salary of Woman Development Incharge at District Project Office t I j [ 0.4 F $1,268 4.08 SI 11758 1 Consumable Office for MIS 0.2 1576 1.20 S3.458 Consumable Office for TA/DA DIET I I 0 12.882 7.80 | 22.478 Consumable Office for DPO 0.2 $432 | 0.90 S2,594 Consumable Office for Hospitality charges DPO 0 1 $288 | 0.60 S1.729 Consumable Office for TA/DA for DPO I 1.0 12,882 i 7.80 S22.478 Rent for DPO Office Expenses _ _______ 1_ 2 __S3_458 i 7 20 _ _S20,749_| Consumable Office for telephone charges _ _____ 0 2 S432 0.83 S2,386 Short Trips 50 0 5 $1,441 0.60 S1,729 Payment for Contingency MIS I 1.0 S2,882 6.00 S17.291 POL for DIET Office Expenses I 0.5 1S,441 4.80 $13,833 Maintenance repair of Vehicle 4 0.5 S1.441 5.40 | 15.562 POL for vehicle Office Expenses j_I |_08_ S2r 1611 4 690 | S198856 Total Capacity Building 31.0 L S89,395| 2727 2 S786.014 IMPROVING RETENTION Orientation training to VEC members i 6,000 24.6 170.893 24.60 170,893 Quarterly meeting of VEC member at CRC | | 83000D j 6.6 $19, 135 33.20 | 95.677 Teaching for joyful learning through VEC 50 1 5.0 | 14,409 6 00 $17,291 Payment grant to each schooM through VEC 3,075 | 9.1 126,225 73.80 $212,680 Recreational material through VEC 50 25.0 1S72.0461 30.00 | 86,455 Total Improving Retention 1 703 ! 202,708 [ 167.6 | S482,9966] hlPROVING ACCESS_ 220 schoos ITYPE A) 2-classroom (440) plus all connection and toilets 440 6.0 117.291 ] 440.00 1 $1,268,012 Furniture to new schools 250 0.9 12.594 1 7.50 $21,614 Training to ECCE BRPs at Diet (including TA/DA) 0.3 $749| 0.26 S749 Training to ECCE instructors at BRC (TA/DA) 1.3 S3.689 | 1.28 S3,689 Orientation workshop to pradhan GPs member SC/ST 1,575_ 7.1 $20,432 35.45 $102,161 Meeting/processiom at Panchayat leveJ 180 3.6 110,375 18.00 $51,873 Award to outstanding school I 0.1 | 144 0.05 S144 Cultural activities 50 0.5 | 11441 0.50 Sl,441 Organization of Bal mela Ma-Beti Mela & Cultural programmes at Panchyat level 180 9.0 S25,937 45.00 $129,683 Wall writing printing of poster 180 6.3 S18,156 18.90 154,467 Salary to ECCE imstructor 250 20 75.850 2.44 $7,020 Salary of mother teacher 50 0.9 S2,594 1.08 $3,112 ANNEX4.XLS  - 79 - STATE: HIMACHAL Annex 4 DISTRICT: KULLU DPEP II - Initial District Implementation Plan Source: DPEP II- MONITORING MODULE #1 Sbowing District Activities Commencing in the 1st Year Only Total Project Cost COMPONENT / ACTIVITY PHYSICAL TARGET Ist Year Cost (for these 1st Year Items) lst FISCAL YR. PROJECT In RS. LAKH In USDS In RS. LAKH In USDS Salary of Part time helper 6 i6 0 4 S53 $7297 |Salary_to_Addiional_teachers 500 22.8 S60 5369332 Purchase of material to ECCE Centre 50 (1.5 60 $1,729 Total Improving Access m 61.6 m 177,436| 1.855.2 $5.346.363 IMPROVING LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT 6 BRC building s based on norm of 85 lakh each $6 170 S48.991 51.00 $146,974 Furniture to BRC 330 3.7 $10.720 3 72 S10.720 Equipment to BRC _36 1 4.1 11758 4 08 Training for DRPs at SCERT F10 1 [ 02 $4901 017 S490 Training for untrained vol teachers 539 1 | 8 1 | 523458 8.14 $23,458 Truining for VTs Illrd btach . 10 0 2 $319 0.18 $519 Training for VTs llnd batch _ 50 0 9 S2,594 0 90 $2.594 Training of BRPs at DIET 50 0 9 52.651 0.92 52.651 Training of DRPs at SCERT 10 0.2 $663 0 23 5663 Training of Ref. BRPs at DIET 50 0 7 P $1,873 0.65 $1.87i Training to DRPs at SCERTISIEMT(TA/DA) 5 0 1 . $259 0.09 _ 5259 Meeting of BRC coordinators at DPO 310 0 1 144 0 25 $720 Orientation course for BRC coordinator & BPEOs at DiET(including TA/DA) I 0 $2,939 5 10 $14.697 Orientation training to DRPs at SCERT/SIEMT 5 0.1 $173 0 33 $951 Salary of BRC Coordinators 6 2.9 S8.415 27.83 $80,196 Salary of Typist for BRC 6 1 7 ! S5.014 16 34 $47,101 Consumable Office for BRC 6 0.3 $865 1.86 S5 .357 Consumable Office for CRC 83 0 8 $2392 4.98 $14,352 Ref Course to ncs teachers 340 1 3 5 $10.202 4 25 | 12.242 Ref. Course for inservice teachers at BRC 978 102 $29,308 12.20 $35,170 j Teaching learning material for student 43,950 0.3 $807 034 $968 Teaching aid to Teachers 9.485 7.9 $22,738 r 56.89 I 163,9541 Payment for Contingency for BRC 6 0 2 $ $692 144 T S4.150 TA/DA/Hon. to BRPS for training | 50 0 6 $1.729 0.72 $2,075 TAIDAIHon. to BRPS for training 2nd batch 10 01 $346 0.14 $415 TA/DA/Ffonorartum to BRPs for training 2nd batch 50 0.6 $1.729 0 72 S2.075 TA/DA/Honorarium to BRPs for training 3rd batch | 50 0.6 $1,729 0 72 | 12.075| TA/DA/Honorarium to BRPs for training 4th batch 50 0.6 $1,729 0 72 S2.075 I Payment for Contingency for CRC i 83 3.3 S9.568 1 19.92 | 57,406 1 TA/DA to BRPs j 50 0.9 $ S2.594 1 08 13.112 TA/DA to BRPs for orientation workshop | 50 0 2 S548 1.14 $3,285 TA/DA so DRPs 02 $05 0.25 $726 TA/DA to DRPs for workshop _ 10 0 $144 030 $865 Honorarium to BRPs fro training 50 06 $1,729 0 72 12,075 I Honorarium to DRPs during training of BRPs at DIET | | 10 02 $432 i 0 18 S519 Total Improving Learning Achievement 73.1 5210,547 [ | 28.5 S658,520 Total Cost 2360 5680.086 2,524.0 $-7.273,893 ANNEX4 XLS  - 80 - STATE: HIMCACHAL Annex 4 DISTRICT: LAHAUL & SPITI DPEP II - Initial District Implementation Plan Source: DPEP 11- MONITORING MODULE #1 Showing District Activities Commencing in the lst Year Only Total Project Cost COMPONENT / ACTIVITY PHYSICAL TARGET Ist Year Cost (for these Ist Year Items) 1st FISCAL YR. PROJECT In RS. LAKH In USDr In RS. LAKH Ia USrn BUILD INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY Installation of Telephone & Fax at Block level -.0 52.882 2.00 S5.764 Purchase of Vehicle for DIET I 3.0 S8.646 3.00 S8.646 Purchase of Vehicle Furniture installation of telephone fax etc. at Management _ 25.0 S72.046 40.00 S115.274 Salary for Accountant at Management (Lahaul) 0.5 S1,441 3.60 S10.375 Salary for Assistant Project Coordinator at Management (SPITI) 0.5 1,556 5.21 S15.009 Salary for Clerk cum Typist at Management ILahaull - 0.3 5980 3.17 S9.130 Salary for Clerk-cum-Typist (SPITI) I 0.3 $980 3.17 S9.130 Salary for Computer Operator at Management (Lahaul) 1 0.4 S1.153 3.50 $10,098 Salary for Data Entry Operator (SPITI) 0.4 51S153 4.56 $13,141 Salary for Deputy Project Officer at Management ILahaul) I 0.8 5 2334 6.40 S18,432 Salary for Driver at Management (Lahaul) 0.3 5980 3.17 S9,130 Salary for Evaluation Expert at Management (Lahaul) _ 0.5 S1,441 3.60 S10,375 Salary for Jr. Engineer at Management (Lahaul) 2 1.0 52.882 7.20 S20.749 Salary for Junior Engineer as Management (SPITI) 1 0.5 S1.441 3.60 S10,375 Salary for Peon at Management (Lahaul) I _ 0.3 5720 2.58 57,435 Salary for Peon at Management SPITI) 0.3 S749 2.59 57,470 Salary for Programme Monitoring IC at Management (Lahaul) ____12 I 0.5 | s.556 321 S15,009 Salary for Women Development IC at Management Lahal_ 0.4 S 1.153 4.56 $13,141 Total Capacity Building | I361 | i l04,093 | 107.1 | S308.683 IMPROVING RETENTION 120 existing classrooms to receive wooden floors (exLreme cold) j6 I 346 18.00 $ 51,873 Contingency funds for existing schools fRs200 per school) 518$063 $60,51 9 t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 18 13 . 3t0 $10,663 ') 2100 S6,1 Minor Repair of existing pry schools j2.0 5,764 | | 1 50 | 30,259| Total Improving Retention I 8i7 |111S25,073 49,5 | S42,651 IMPROVING ACCESS Opening of Ashram school 1.0 S2,882 3.00 I S8,646 Furniture for new schools 2.0 | 55764 9.20 | S26,513 Furniture for upgrading upper pry schools ____ |_ | 0.5 | 1,441 1.00 52,882 Expenditure on Mobilisation 5.0 | 514,409 12.00 534,582 Salaries for Teachers & Lecturers 60.5 S174.352 365.40 T 51,053,026 Hot & Cold charges stationary TA rent & other office expenses at Management ! I_ |_ | 3.9 S 11,239 23.40 $67,435 Rs.500 contingency for each teacher 375 375 1.8 55.187 10.80 $31,124 Total Improving Access [ 74.7 S215,274 424.8 | Sl224.208 IMPROVING LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT Vehicle for BRC 3.0 S8.646 3.00 S8,646 Books for BRC 0 S2,882 L 2.00 | 55,764 Books for CRC 1.0 $2,882 [ 3.50 1 $10.086 Various Training programs/workshops etc. __ |_| 11.7 33,602 63.84 | 183,977 Salary for Teacher Training IC at Management (Lahaul) 0 S,153 4.56 13,141 IExpenditure on BRC $ . 8.646 7 | 720 S20,749| Expenditure on 35 CRC _ |_ | 1.0 | 2.882 [ 10,50 S30,259 Total Improving Learning Achievement 21.1 | 60,693 | 1 94.6 | 272.622 Total Cost 140.6 S405,133 | 676.0 F51,948.164 ANNEX4.XLS  - 81 - STATE: HIMACHAL Annex 4 DISTRICT: SIRMOUR DPEP II - Initial District Implementation Plan Source: DPEP II - MONITORING MODULE #1 Showing District Activities Commencing in the 1st Year Only Total Project Cost COMPONENT I ACTIVITY PHYSICAL TARGET 1st Year Cost tfor these 1st Year lterns) Ist FISCAL YR. PROJECT Ia RS. LAKH In USDS In RS. LAKH In USDS BUILD INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY 300 mm slide projector 0 2 S576 0 20 S576 Duplicating machine I t 0 2 $432 0 15 $432 _qu:2Iemen, ,fc cq ipment andothers 126 ; 0 968 | 11163 S321,700 Equtymentsoltice expe.seslprmting and Slhors 10 5.7 S16,311 76 67 $220,951 Photo, l 2.0 S51764 i 2 00 m5.764 Cus oflhree reptzien blocks to 105 S30259j 1050 $30.259 Jeep 35 $10,086 350 S10.086 DPO ,in deputation aI 1 $144 049 Sl1.418 Accountant - 05 $1,354 440 $12,692 AssistantEnginr _ 0 6 $1S758 568 $16 357 Cho.kidarlpeon ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~27 $7,781 21 00 $60,5191 Clerk _ 03 $807 264 $7.608 Clerk cum _p_s __ 3 6 $10,375 27 36 $78.847 Computer Operatnr 06 $1S816 5 94 $17,118 Draftsman 0S5 $1,297 432 $12,450 Dr,cer I 0 3 $807 2 64 $7,608 Dro,er I 04 $1,037 2 74 $7,885 Drwver I $3.112 8 21 $23,654 Junior Enginer 6 25 $7.118 26 I5 S75,354 Peon 1 0 2 S634 2.05 S5,914 Salarv fio JBT (600 4630/mno 12x 4 vsir I 613 130