Skip to Main Navigation

India - Uttar Pradesh Third District Primary Education Project (英语)

The Uttar Pradesh Third District Primary Education Project became effective on April 15, 2000. However, in August 2000, the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) was bifurcated into Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal (UA). A legal amendment was made to the Agreement to reflect this change, and to include 36 districts of new UP and 6 districts of UA under the project. The Amendment became effective in August 2003. The initial Project Development Objective (PDO) was to assist the Government of Uttar Pradesh (GOUP) in its efforts to build capacity to ensure that all 6-10-year-old children in 42 districts of the (undivided UP) state, particularly those from socially disadvantaged groups, complete a five-year primary education cycle of appropriate quality. Project ratings are as follows : project outcome was satisfactory; risk to development outcome was moderate; :Bank performance, satisfactory; borrower performance was satisfactory. Some of the lessons learned from the project are : continuity of project staff, especially at state and district levels, is important for the process of project implementation to proceed smoothly; ownership of and interest in the program at all levels of the government is clearly a contributing factor; effective and sustained communication strategies need to be in place to ensure internalization of the reforms planned; a strong M&E set-up is critical for continuous learning and for assessing outcomes; community engagement and support should go beyond mere involvement in developing of the school facility to wider issues related to school management and students' learning; finally, training in financial management functions is important at all levels.


  • 文件日期


  • 文件类型


  • 报告号


  • 卷号


  • Total Volume(s)


  • 国家


  • 地区


  • 发布日期


  • Disclosure Status


  • 文件名称

    India - Uttar Pradesh Third District Primary Education Project

  • 关键词

    barrier to participation in education;bank's country assistance;investment need;economic and financial analysis;access to primary education;separate state;extension of closing date;primary stage of education;gender gap in enrolment;primary dropout rate;primary completion rate;flow of fund;quality of classroom;primary school graduate;universal elementary education;literacy and numeracy;primary school child;primary education cycle;Improving Labor Markets;issue of access;increase in enrolment;Decentralization of Education;institutional capacity building;promoting gender equality;universal primary education;internal control weakness;child centered education;short term impact;quality of education;access to schooling;Early childhood education;Demand For Education;female literacy rate;integrated project management;exchange rate fluctuation;demand for girl;local government institution;early childhood centre;primary education sector;internal audit system;Access to Education;net present value;management of school;transfer of fund;project management structure;high dropout rate;release of fund;Exchange Rates;participation of child;pedagogical renewal process;infrastructure and facilities;public education system;lack of accountability;devolution of authority;outputs by components;ratings of bank;quality of supervision;enrolment of child;migration of children;enrolment for child;financial management aspects;achievement of outcome;achievement level;text book;grade system;political will;community mobilization;pedagogical reform;academic support;outcome indicator;civil works;field visits;Funding agencies;focus group;project intervention;social group;physical infrastructure;learning environment;primary grade;positive outcome;private cost;learning level;state share;primary schooling;regular school;decentralized level;book bank;alternative school;quality improvement;quality indicators;total enrolment;bank assistance;girls' education;geographical coverage;Project Monitoring;increased access;working child;support system;opportunity cost;upper primary;Teacher Attendance;private education;stakeholder workshop;gender equity;minority group;participatory approach;adolescent girl;effective supervision;political risk;constitutional amendment;bank finance;fundamental right;government ownership;social empowerment;limited capacity;gender aspect;affluent strata;communication strategy;social progress;preparatory missions;long-term sustainability;organizational reform;state resources;institutional risk;bank's performance;class repetition;social environment;effective monitoring;innovative aspect;baseline indicator;affluent groups;school function;enabling conditions;technical expert;classroom practice;marginalized communities;construction work;job opportunities;teacher absenteeism;unskilled worker;mitigation strategy;awareness creation;job opportunity;financial contribution;project yield;research effort;private rate;adequate coverage;textbook development;school level;financial investment;primary enrolment;marginalized group;cohort study;Private School;indigenous people;non-governmental organization;cohort method;child population;language use;cluster level;curriculum material;environmental concern;environmental issue;Environmental Assessment;free textbook;regular curriculum;data availability;state fund;addressing poverty;Safeguard Policies;school infrastructure;personnel planning;education indicator;clear definition;educational indicator;results framework;management tool;evaluation process;safeguard policy;environment assessment;Indigenous Peoples;mitigation measure;induction training;positive impact;school participation;women's empowerment;gender sensitization;beneficiary survey;construction activities;decentralized system;alternative schooling;large bank;baseline study;support structure;active participation;primary beneficiaries;academic institution;counterpart fund;quality initiatives;water facility;spatial inequality;teacher shortage;academic structure