Baseline Report
USDA McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education 
and Child Nutrition Program’s 
Support (2014-2016) to WFP 
Bangladesh Country Program:
Baseline Survey Report
Nairobi
December 14, 2015
Agreement Number: FFE-388-2014/048-00
Submitted by:
Kimetrica LLC
80 Garden Center, Suite A-368
Broomfield, CO 80020, USA
Submitted to:
World Food Programme Bangladesh
IDB Bhaban, E/8-A, Begum Rokeya 
Sarani, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh
http://www.kimetrica.com
ii
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the World Food Programme (WFP), the Ministry of Education, 
Upazila (District) Education Office staff, and WFP’s implementing partners in Bangladesh for 
their time, thoughtful inputs, and guidance in relation to this process. Without their help in 
sharing documents, providing insight into the history and evolution of the School Feeding 
Programme (SFP) in Bangladesh, and support during the field data collection, it would not 
have been possible to conduct the survey. We would also like to thank all of the in-country 
stakeholders who took the time to meet with the Kimetrica team, sharing their candid 
thoughts and reflections about the SFP. 
We would also like to thank Data Management Aid, Kimetrica’s local partner, and its 
management, staff, and enumerators who travelled to the remote chars (river islands) to 
access respondents and who worked tirelessly to ensure high data quality and the timely 
completion of the work. 
We would especially like to thank WFP Washington and the Regional Bureau in Bangkok for 
introducing Kimetrica to the country focal points who facilitated coordination and interaction 
with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 
Finally, thanks to USDA for their inputs in finalizing the survey instruments and indicators 
covered by this baseline and subsequent surveys. 
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department 
of Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s 
views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Department of Agriculture or the United States Government.
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov
iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CLPM Correct Letters Per Minute
CWPM Correct Words Per Minute
DDS Dietary Diversity Score
DMA Data Management Aid
EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment
FFE Food For Education
FTF Feed the Future
FY Financial Year
GoB Government of Bangladesh
HEB High Energy Biscuits (fortified with multiple micronutrients)
ICDDRB International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh
IWPM Invented Words Per Minute
MGD McGovern Dole
NGOs Non-Governmental Organization
ODK Open Data Kit
ORF Oral Reading Fluency
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PPS Probability Proportional to Size
SE Standard Error
SFA School Feeding Attainment
SFP School Feeding Programme
SMC School Management Committee
SO Strategic Objective
SRS Simple Random Sampling
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WFP World Food Programme
iv
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 1
1. Background ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. School Feeding Program in Bangladesh.................................................................... 5
1.2. Scope of the Consultancy ......................................................................................... 7
2. Methodology.................................................................................................................... 8
2.1. Sampling Approach and Data Collection .................................................................. 8
2.2. Data Collection......................................................................................................... 9
2.3. Data Cleaning and Analysis....................................................................................... 9
3. Key Findings ................................................................................................................... 10
3.1. School Performance Indicators............................................................................... 10
3.2. School Variables..................................................................................................... 15
3.3. Non-formal Primary Schools................................................................................... 17
3.4. School Feeding Attainment .................................................................................... 17
3.5. Findings from Qualitative Interviews...................................................................... 18
4. Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................... 21
5. References ..................................................................................................................... 25
Annex 1: Survey Approach and Methodology ........................................................................ 27
A1.1. Qualitative Data ........................................................................................................ 27
A1.2. Sampling Strategy ..................................................................................................... 27
A1.3. Training and Quality Assurance................................................................................. 29
Annex 3: Baseline Values of Key Indicators............................................................................ 66
Annex 4: EGRA Literacy Level Assessment ............................................................................. 73
A4.1. EGRA Sub-tests and Measurement Approach........................................................... 73
A4.2. Reliability and Validity of Test Instruments............................................................... 75
v
A4.3. EGRA Administration................................................................................................. 75
A4.4. Background Characteristics of the Sample................................................................ 75
A4.6. Findings from EGRA Sub-tests................................................................................... 76
Annex 5: Skills and Knowledge of Teachers and School Administrators................................. 83
A5.1. Use of Teaching and Learning Techniques................................................................ 83
A5.2. Skills and Techniques of School Administrators........................................................ 85
Annex 6: Dietary Diversity Data and Analysis......................................................................... 86
Annex 7: Teacher Training History and Background............................................................... 90
Annex 8: Baseline Data from Non-formal Primary Schools .................................................... 91
vi
Tables
Table 1: Number of sampled schools and households........................................................... 28
Table 2: Tools used in baseline survey ................................................................................... 31
Table 3: WFP Bangladesh SFP performance indicators (from PMP)....................................... 66
Table 4: Key school variables and non-WFP indicators in formal schools............................... 69
Table 5: EGRA sub-tests and their measurement approaches ............................................... 74
Table 6: Demographic characteristics of EGRA pupils............................................................ 76
Table 7: CLPM scores ............................................................................................................. 77
Table 8: Mean FWPM Score................................................................................................... 77
Table 9: Mean IWPM Scores.................................................................................................. 78
Table 10: Mean ORF............................................................................................................... 80
Table 11: Mean reading comprehension scores..................................................................... 80
Table 12: Background factors affecting Grade 3 students’ ORF scores .................................. 82
Table 13: Teaching and learning techniques used by teachers .............................................. 83
Table 14: Detailed findings from classroom observations...................................................... 84
Table 15: Tools and techniques used by the school authority and administrators ................ 85
Table 16: Frequency of consumption of different food items................................................ 87
Table 17: Frequency of consumption of the ten FTF food groups.......................................... 88
Table 18: Mean DDS............................................................................................................... 88
Table 19: Dietary diversity status of pupils ............................................................................ 89
Table 20: Teachers’ background characteristics and training histories.................................. 90
Table 21: Baseline indicator values for non-formal primary schools...................................... 91
vii
Figures
Figure 1: Percentage of pupils within each ORF class (CWPM) .............................................. 11
Figure 2: Percent of students consuming biscuits at school in last six days ........................... 13
Figure 3: Overall dietary diversity status of pupils ................................................................. 14
Figure 4: Letter identification of skills of students in Fulchori................................................ 77
Figure 5: Letter identification of students in Sundorganj ....................................................... 77
Figure 6: Familiar word reading skills of students in Fulchori................................................. 78
Figure 7: Familiar word reading skills of students in Sundorganj ........................................... 78
Figure 8: Invented word decoding skills of students in Fulchori............................................. 79
Figure 9: Invented word decoding skills of students in Sundorganj ....................................... 79
Figure 10: Oral reading fluency skills of students in Fulchori ................................................. 79
Figure 11: Oral reading fluency skills of students in Sundorganj ............................................ 79
Figure 12: Reading comprehension skills of students in Fulchori........................................... 80
Figure 13: Reading comprehension skills of students in Sundorganj...................................... 80
Figure 14: Mean Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) against mean reading comprehension score... 81
1
Executive Summary
Background
The World Food Programme (WFP) started the Bangladesh School Feeding Programme (SFP) in 
2001. The Bangladesh SFP recently received a US$26 million donation from USDA to support 
137,000 children per year over the course of the three-year assistance period (financial year 2015-
2017). The program covers students enrolled in 286 non-formal primary schools (supporting 9,143 
students) in the two upazilas (sub-districts) of Gobindaganj and Saghata and in 269 non-formal 
primary schools (supporting 9,611 students) and 375 formal schools (101,748 students) in 
Sundorganj and Fulchori upazilas. The SFP recently started in Fulchari in January 2015 but has been 
ongoing in Sundorganj since 2007. Under the program, each student receives a 75 gram packet of 
micronutrient-fortified high energy biscuits (HEB) each day he/she attends school (approximately 
240 days per year). 
Objective and Scope of the Consultancy
The objective of the consultancy was to undertake a baseline assessment of the McGovern Dole 
(MGD)-funded WFP SFP in Bangladesh. The survey aimed to collect baseline data on all of the 
approved key indicators from the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) and Evaluation Plan. It
collected data to measure education, food security, nutrition, and other indicators at individual, 
household, and school levels. In addition, it collected data on a range of other variables (i.e. school 
infrastructure, school location, teacher attendance, etc.) that could potentially affect or explain 
program outcomes.
Methodology
The methodology used for this baseline survey focused primarily on a quantitative data collected 
via a cross-sectional survey of a sub-sample of SFP schools and beneficiaries. Data was collected 
from 95 formal schools across two sub-districts (Sunderganj and Fulchari) in June 2015. The 
reference period for the school survey was the academic year 2014, starting in January 2014 and 
ending in December 2014. From each school, ten students, ten parents, one storekeeper (usually 
the head teacher or another teacher from the school), and one teacher were interviewed using 
separate questionnaires. Data on students’ dietary diversity was collected from parents using a 24-
hour recall period. In addition, the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) test was administered 
to ten students from the third grade in each school. School-level information was collected through 
interviews with school principals and a review of school records. Focus group discussions (FGDs) 
with key stakeholders (parents, teachers, and SMC members) were also conducted to supplement 
the quantitative findings. 
2
For each formal school, a school feeding attainment (SFA) score, which reflects students’ relative 
access to the SFP, was estimated using monthly school records of the number of biscuits received as 
well as monthly attendance records over a 17 month period.
A sample of 40 non-formal primary schools in Fulchori and Sundorganj were assessed using the 
School Questionnaire, which collected data on attendance rates and school facilities. 
Key Findings
The major findings of the baseline study are as follows.
● Students’ literacy skills are low, with only a quarter of students (26 percent) classified as 
fluent readers according to the oral reading fluency (ORF) benchmark of 45 words per 
minute. There is no significant difference between male and female students. Students in 
Sundorganj (28 percent) have better literacy than those in Fulchori (19 percent). 
● Regular student attendance (i.e. students who attended ≥80 percent of school days) is 79 
percent and does not vary significantly by gender. However, significantly more students in
Sundorganj (80 percent) attend school regularly than those in Fulchori (73 percent).
● Student inattentiveness is 29 percent, much higher than the 2017 target of 10 percent. 
There is no significant difference between boys and girls. Students in Sundorganj (27 
percent) are slightly more attentive than those in Fulchori (34 percent); however the 
difference was not statistically significant. 
● Average teacher attendance is high at 92 percent. However, only 77 percent of teachers 
attend school regularly (≥90 percent school days).
● Three types of teaching techniques1 were assessed through classroom observation using a 
pre-defined checklist developed during the baseline survey. On average, 20 percent of
teachers use participatory teaching techniques, 31 percent use audio-visual aids and 70 
percent actively make an effort to engage students in the class. Only 39 percent of teachers 
use at least two of these three techniques. There is no significant difference between the 
two sub-districts. 
1 A checklist was prepared with WFP’s support in order to assess three areas of teaching:
1. applying participatory teaching techniques during class
2. using audio-visual aids
3. engaging actively with students.
The enumerator recorded the use of these techniques as a result of directly observing one teacher per school (112 teachers total) in
a class setting.
3
● A school feeding attainment (SFA) score was estimated from monthly school records on 
biscuits delivered and student attendance over a 17 month period in order to calculate the 
efficiency of the distribution. The overall SFA score is 0.89, indicating that around 89 
percent of children attending school are given biscuits. This is in line with WFP monitoring 
reports that suggest that at least 90 percent of students consume biscuits at school. 
However, student interviews based on a recall period of the previous six school days reveal
that only 59 percent of students reported having consumed biscuits regularly, on all six 
days. About 18 percent of the students reported having consumed biscuits most days (4-5 
days), and 9 percent reported not having consumed any biscuits over the last six school 
days.
● The average Dietary Diversity Score (DDS) of the children is 5.1 out of a maximum score of 
10. One in every five (18 percent) students has a high DDS (DDS ≥ 7). Dietary diversity does
not vary significantly by gender nor by sub-district.
● School facilities are generally poor in the sampled schools: the average classroom size is 74 
students, there is only one latrine for every 179 students, only 28 percent of schools have 
separate latrines for girls, and only 28 percent of schools have a dedicated room for storing 
biscuits. 
● Almost all of the schools (96 percent) have a school management committee (SMC).
However, only 23 percent of the SMCs are highly engaged in the SFP, though 40 percent are
highly engaged in other aspects of school management. 
Recommendations
1. Revise final target for Strategic Objective 1: Improved literacy of school-aged children. 
Literacy is low in the sampled schools, with only a quarter reaching the benchmark of 45 
words per minute. This compares poorly with the WFP/USDA target of 80 percent of 
students with fluency and comprehension by 2017. Even though WFP has a plan to train 
around 210 teachers per year on teaching and learning techniques, the final target is highly 
ambitious and is unlikely to be achievable with the existing project activities and resources. 
We recommend that WFP to approach USDA to revise the final target downward. We also 
recommend that WFP share these findings with the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education 
(MoPME) in Bangladesh and look for strategic partnerships with other organizations aiming 
at improving literacy status of early grade students. 
2. Agree on a final target for Strategic Objective 2: Increased use of health and dietary 
practices, measured as Average Dietary Diversity Score of school aged children. This 
4
indicator was updated during the design stage and, as such, does not have a target defined. 
We recommend that WFP Bangladesh, with support from the Regional Bureau and WFP 
Washington, approach USDA to agree on a reasonable final target, keeping in mind that the 
baseline average DDS is very low, perhaps as a result of WFP’s intentional targeting of poor 
and food insecure communities.
3. Invest in school infrastructure: Both toilets and classrooms in the sampled schools are not 
sufficient when compared to the national guidelines. Furthermore, very few schools have
separate toilet for boys and girls. This clearly indicates the need for increased investment in 
building/rehabilitating school infrastructure, especially classrooms and toilet facilities. We 
recommend that WFP share these findings with the relevant ministries in the Bangladeshi 
government and establish strategic partnerships with organizations working in the WASH 
sector.
4. Verify/triangulate consumption data: Although schools reported regularly delivering 
sufficient quantities of biscuits to around 89 percent of students, only 59 percent of 
students reported regularly consuming biscuits. Many students reported that they do not
regularly consume the biscuits because they are not hungry or they give them to someone 
else. This suggests that consuming the biscuits is not a priority for the students. We 
recommend further verification and triangulation of consumption data in order to better 
understand the discrepancies between data sources and in order to identify ways to 
maximize consumption.
5. Ensure proper record keeping at the school level: There is insufficient variation in the SFA 
scores to allow for meaningful impact attribution at this point. Furthermore, the fact that
many schools (42 percent) do not have complete records over the 17 months means that 
some of the SFAs were calculated with sub-optimal data. We recommend that WFP work 
with the MoPME and other necessary stakeholders to ensure that school records for food 
delivery and attendance are complete and properly maintained.
5
1. Background
More than 20 million children around the world receive school meals from the World Food 
Programme (WFP) every year (WFP, 2015). Through its School Feeding Programme (SFP), WFP 
works with governments and development partners to support education, reduce malnutrition, and 
promote overall development. Provision of regular mid-day meals at schools is the main component 
of the SFP, although in some cases it also provides high-energy biscuit snacks prepared offsite. In 
some contexts, WFP also provides take-home rations to the families of students who attend school 
regularly. 
Although the provision of a mid-day meal, biscuits, or take-home rations at the school level is 
designed to attract and keep students in school, thus improving their literacy levels, the benefits of 
the SFP can reach far beyond school boundaries (WFP, 2013). For example, by emphasizing girls’ 
education, the SFP can help address the gender gap. Through the provision of regular, nutritious 
meals, often combined with deworming and micronutrient fortification, the SFP also aims to 
improve children’s nutritional intakes. Furthermore, the SFP can have a safety net effect, directly by 
protecting food security during times of crisis and indirectly by offsetting household education and 
food costs (WFP, 2013). These benefits are generally the effects of systematic incorporation of 
additional strategic programmatic interventions that reduce economic, social, and cultural 
constraints to health and learning (Finan, 2010). 
1.1. School Feeding Program in Bangladesh
WFP has been providing food assistance to Bangladesh since 1974. It started the SFP in 2001 to 
improve educational and nutritional outcomes in Bangladesh (WFP, 2011). The Bangladesh SFP aims 
to reach the goal of universal primary education by improving school enrollment and attendance, 
reducing dropouts, and alleviating micronutrient deficiencies and short term hunger among pre￾primary and primary school children in particularly disadvantaged areas. Thanks to WFP’s support, 
the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) launched its national school feeding program based on the 
WFP model in 2011, initially supporting 55,000 students, scaling up to 1.2 million primary school 
children by 2012, and with a goal of covering 3 million children through 2015. WFP aims to 
concurrently support 500,000 school children in the areas not covered by the national school meal 
program (WFP, 2015). 
In 2014, the WFP Bangladesh country program received a US$26 million donation from USDA to 
continue and expand its SFP. WFP plans to use the USDA grant to target 137,000 children per year 
over the Financial Year 2015-2017 period. Under the USDA-funded WFP SFP, each student receives
a 75 gram packet of micronutrient fortified high energy biscuits (HEB) each day he/she attends 
school (approximately 240 days/year). In addition, the USDA funds are used by selected partners to
6
implement a series of complementary activities over the three year program period. Key activities 
include: 
1. raising awareness on the importance of education through community mobilization 
workshops at a local level
2. supporting the development of national school feeding policy by organizing a national 
school feeding and stakeholder engagement conference
3. training biscuit manufacturers, Ministry of Primary and Mass Education (MoPME) staff, 
school administrators, and teachers on food preparation and storage practices
4. building capacity of GoB institution and staff for proper implementation of the national 
school feeding program, improving the policy and regulatory framework, and ensuring the 
sustainability of the national school feeding program in poverty-prone areas
5. training teachers in order to improve classroom teaching methods and training school 
administrators to ensure better school management.
WFP supports two broad types of primary schools in Bangladesh: (i) formal schools and (ii) non￾formal schools. Formal schools are primarily run by the government but can include registered non￾government schools, Ebtedayee madrasas (religious schools, recognized by the GoB). Non-formal 
primary schools are mainly run by local and national level non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 
They provide an alternative form of education to students who do not have access to or have 
dropped out of formal schools. Non-formal schools differ from formal schools in that they are 
usually run by just one teacher operating out of one classroom and typically serve around 25-30 
students. Students from all grades can be present; the teacher will spend some time with students 
from each grade during class. Generally, after three years, children graduate from non-formal 
schools into grade-VI in the formal schools. In 2015, WFP supported 286 non-formal primary 
schools (9,143 students) in the two upazilas (sub-districts) of Gobindaganj and Saghata and 269 
non-formal (9,611 students) and 375 formal primary schools (101,748 students) in two other 
upazilas (Sunderganj and Fulchari).
The WFP SFP is implemented in close collaboration with the MoPME. At the end of fiscal year 2017, 
WFP plans to hand over SFPs in all formal schools to the Government. There are no plans to hand 
over SFPs in non-formal schools, as they are seen as a temporary stop-gap measure. The current 
national school feeding program strategy does not have any provision to take them over. 
7
1.2. Scope of the Consultancy
The objective of the consultancy was to undertake a baseline assessment of the MGD-funded SFP in 
Bangladesh. This report presents the main findings. Specifically, the aims of this baseline survey 
were to:
1. Present baseline values for key WFP SFP performance indicators 
2. Determine whether these indicators vary across schools
3. Determine a measure of School Feeding Attainment (SFA) which reflects the effective SFP 
coverage in each school.
8
2. Methodology
2.1. Sampling Approach and Data Collection
The methodology focused on quantitative data collection using a cross-sectional survey of program 
schools and beneficiaries. This was complemented by extensive desk research, including a review of 
program documents, conducted during the design phase. In addition, qualitative Focus Group 
Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted with three formal primary 
school stakeholder groups: (i) teachers (including head teacher), (ii) parents of the primary school 
students, and (iii) school management committee (SMC) members.
There are 101,748 students (50,383 boys and 51,365 girls; female to male student ratio is 1) in all of 
the 375 WFP-supported formal schools in the two upazila (Sundorganj and Fulchori). A total of 95 
formal primary schools from two upazila (sub-districts) of Fulchori and Sundorganj in Gaibandha 
district were sampled. In the sample, the female to male enrollment ratio is also 1. It was primarily 
agreed with WFP that the baseline survey would focus only on formal primary schools. However, in 
order to obtain some baseline data on non-formal schools, 40 were also sampled, to honor the 
request of WFP country team. For information on the sampling strategy, please refer to Annex 1. 
The reference period for the school survey was the academic year 2014, starting in January 2014 
and ending in December 2014. Data collection was undertaken in June 2015. Quantitative data was 
collected in each sampled formal school using the following six questionnaires developed by 
Kimetrica and translated into Bengali (please refer to Annex 2 for questionnaires):
● The School Questionnaire was used to collect school-level information through interviews 
with the head teacher, direct observation of the school facilities, and school records data. 
● The Student Questionnaire was administered to a sample of ten randomly selected pupils in 
each sampled school.
● The Household Questionnaire was administered to parents of the ten randomly selected 
pupils (one parent per pupil).
● The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) was administered to ten randomly selected 
students from the third grade from each school (see Annex 4 for more details on EGRA).
● The Teacher Questionnaire was administered to one teacher from each school, and data 
was collected through observation of teaching techniques. 
● The Storekeeper Questionnaire was administered to the person responsible for the storage 
of SFP food in each school (usually the head teacher or another teacher), and data was 
collected through direct observation of the storeroom. 
Only the School Questionnaire was administered in the non-formal schools.
9
2.2. Data Collection
Data Management Aid (DMA), a Bangladeshi consulting firm, pre-tested the questionnaire in 
targeted upazilas and implemented the survey under Kimetrica’s supervision. The training and 
quality assurance methods employed are summarized in Annex 1.
The surveys were administered using Android powered mobile phones and the Open Data Kit (ODK)
ecosystem. A combination of Kobo and Enketo Smart Paper was used to collect data using a Chrome 
browser, which allowed both online and offline data collection. Data collected through mobile 
phones was directly uploaded to the server when a 3G or Wi-Fi network was available. This 
permitted the data to be monitored on a near real-time basis by both Kimetrica and DVN, enabling 
the option for immediate feedback to the data collection team. When no internet connection was 
available, data was collected offline and uploaded when the team returned to the district 
headquarters or other locations with an internet connection. On a few occasions, due to data 
overload on the mobile phones, the enumerators collected data using paper questionnaires, then 
entered the data when they had internet access.
2.3. Data Cleaning and Analysis
During data cleaning, range and consistency checks were performed to identify outliers and to 
check whether responses were consistent with previous information. When outliers were 
identified, they were verified with the field team.
The data collected was used to inform the USDA MGD school performance indicators (see Annex 6) 
as well as other indicators related to school feeding performance and outcomes. Data on key 
student and school variables that might influence performance indicators (such as school facilities) 
were also collected to help understand the key determinants of performance and outcomes. 
Indicators were calculated for all schools and disaggregated by district and gender. Associations 
between indicators and school variables were investigated. Statistical analysis was performed using 
IBM SPSS version 21 and Stata 13. Findings are reported statistically significant if the p-value is less 
than 0.05.
By comparing the number of biscuits distributed to students with monthly attendance over a 17 
month window (January 2014 to May 2015), an SFA score was calculated for each school. The aim 
was to incorporate the SFA score as an explanatory variable into a regression model to assess the 
impact of the SFP on the school performance indicators.
10
3. Key Findings 
3.1. School Performance Indicators
This section covers the main findings related to the SFP performance indicators that were identified 
by WFP and USDA (please refer to Annex 3 for detailed results presented in tabular format).
3.1.1. MGD SO1: Improved literacy of school-age children 
Indicator 1: Percentage of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, 
demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade-level text 
To measure the reading and comprehension levels of primary school students, a sample of 10 
students from grade three was selected from each school. However, since not all schools had 
sufficient students in grade 3, only 936 (instead of the target 950) pupils were examined. Students’
literacy levels were measured using the EGRA test. A total of five sub-tests were undertaken (see 
Annex 4 for detailed results and description of each test). Only Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) is 
reported here, as it can be used as a direct indicator of a child’s reading and understanding ability 
(Fuchs et al., 2001). However, all five tests were administered in order to determine possible 
explanations for ORF performance. These tests will allow program implementers to measure any 
changes in literacy levels over the duration of implementation as well as investigate the underlying 
reasons for these changes.
As WFP and the GoB do not have reading ability benchmarks, we suggest 45 words per minute for 
the ORF, as this is a widely used EGRA threshold in other developing countries2
. Only a quarter (26
percent) of the 936 pupils have reached this benchmark and are therefore considered to be fluent 
readers. There is no difference by sex, but the proportion of children who read fluently is
significantly higher in Sundorganj (28 percent) than in Fulchori (19 percent). 
The average ORF score is 26 Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM) and is similar for boys and girls but 
varies by sub-districts, with the average in Fulchori (21) being less than that in Sundorganj (27). 
Approximately one in six pupils cannot read a single word of connected text after two years of 
schooling, and about half can read between one and 35 words CWPM (Figure 1). 
2 Research in UNESCO’s Fast Track Initiative countries and other research from developing countries in Africa, Latin 
America and Asia have found that around 45-60 words per minute corresponds to 80 percent comprehension.
11
Figure 1: Percentage of pupils within each ORF class (CWPM)
3.1.2. MGD 1.1.1: Teacher attendance
Indicator 2: Average teacher attendance rates
Average teacher attendance for the period January to December 2014 is high, at 92 percent, and is
similar for both sub-districts. The percentage of teachers attending “regularly” (more than 90 
percent of the school days during the last academic year) is 77 percent. This is higher in Sundorganj 
(79 percent) than in Fulchori (70 percent).
3.1.3. MGD 1.1.4: Increased skills and knowledge of teachers
Indicator 3: Percentage of teachers/educators/teaching assistants who demonstrate the 
use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance
WFP training on new and quality teaching techniques and tools had not started by the time the 
baseline survey was conducted. With WFP’s support, a checklist was prepared in order to assess 
three areas of teaching techniques through observation: 
1. applying participatory teaching techniques during class
2. using audio-visual aids 
3. engaging actively with students (see Annex 5 for more details).
Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of teachers use at least one of these techniques, and 39 
percent use two or more. Twenty percent of teachers use participatory teaching techniques, 31 
percent use audio-visual aids, and 70 percent make an active effort to engage students in
classroom discussions. There is no significant difference between sub-districts.
12
3.1.4. MGD 1.1.5: Increased skills and knowledge of school administrators
Indicator 4: Percentage of school administrators and officials in target schools who 
demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance 
At the time of the baseline, WFP had not started training of school administrators on new 
techniques under the current SFP. With WFP’s support, a checklist was prepared in order to assess 
five areas of school management through interviews with head teachers, reviews of school 
documents, and observation: 
1. measures to improve teaching/classroom environment
2. measures to improve literacy skills at school level
3. school discipline
4. improvement and maintenance of school environment and infrastructure
5. school governance. 
The purpose of this exercise was mainly to explore the current practices employed by the school 
management and head teachers (administrators) as well as to give a snapshot of the baseline 
situation. The findings were therefore not used to classify administrators based on their use of 
these techniques. Findings are presented in Table 15 in Annex 5.
3.1.5. MGD 1.2: Improved attentiveness 
Indicator 5: Percentage of students in classrooms identified as inattentive by their 
teachers
Using the Teachers’ Questionnaire, three teachers from each school were asked about a sample of 
ten students’ attentiveness (for a total of 950 students). A pupil was classified as inattentive if two 
out of the three teachers responded positively. Twenty-nine percent of students were identified as 
being inattentive. The results are similar for both genders and both sub-districts.
3.1.6. MGD 1.2.1: Reduced short-term hunger 
Indicator 6: Percentage of students in target schools who regularly consume a meal 
before the school day
Ninety-four percent of students regularly consume breakfast. There is no difference between male 
and female students or between sub-districts.
13
Indicator 7: Percentage of students in target schools who regularly consume a meal 
during the school day
Interviews with 950 students reveal that 99 percent regularly receive HEB at school. However, 
only 59 percent regularly receive and consume HEB at school (Figure 2). Again, “regular” 
consumption was defined as consuming HEB at school on all six of the previous school days.
Approximately one in every five students (18 percent) consume biscuits for four to five out of six 
days. Nine percent did not consume any biscuits over the 6 day period. There are no significant 
differences between male and female students or between sub-districts. The main reasons for not 
consuming biscuits are: give the biscuits to someone else (42 percent) and not hungry (35 percent). 
Figure 2: Percent of students consuming biscuits at school in last six days
3.1.7. MGD 1.3: Improved student attendance 
Indicator 8: Percentage of students regularly attending school
Over the last academic year (January to December 2014), 79 percent of students regularly 
attended school (more than or equal to 80 percent of school days). This is similar for boys and girls 
but is significantly higher in Sundorganj (80 percent) than in Fulchori (73 percent). Student 
attendance on the day of the survey matches closely with the school record data at 76 percent, 
though it was higher in Fulchori (82 percent) than in Sundorganj (74 percent). 
3.1.8. MGD 1.3.2: Reduced health related absences 
Indicator 9: The average number of school days missed due to illness
Students reported having missed an average of 1.3 school days due to illness over the last month. 
Parents’ reports were slightly lower, at an average of 0.82 school days. The parents’ responses
14
were the same for both boys and girls, but female students reported missing marginally more 
(statistically significant) school days (1.4) than male students (1.2). This indicator is slightly higher in 
Sundorganj than in Fulchori for both parent and student responses.
3.1.9. MGD SO2: Increased use of health and dietary practices
Indicator 10: Average dietary diversity score (DDS) of school-aged children
Dietary quality was assessed using the dietary diversity score (Feed the Future, 2014). Complete 
information on all the food and drink consumed by the child during the previous 24 hours was 
collected for 948 school children through interviews with parents. As agreed with WFP and USDA, 
this analysis does not propose any cut-off values for a minimum DDS. Details on the process of 
estimating dietary diversity scores are included in Annex 6.
The mean DDS is 5.1 out of a maximum score of 10. It does not vary by gender or sub-district.
Students’ DDSs were classified in two ways. The first involved three groups: high (DDS≥7, medium 
(4≤DDS≤6), and low (DDS≤3), and the second involved two groups: (DDS<5 and DDS≥5). As 
presented in Figure 3, only 18 percent of children have a high DDS, while 15 percent have a low 
DDS. Most children consume a moderately diverse diet. Results did not vary significantly between 
male and female students, and there is also no significant difference between sub-districts. Six out 
of every ten students had consumed 5 or more food groups in the last 24 hours preceding the 
survey. No significant difference was observed between sexes or sub-districts.
Figure 3: Overall dietary diversity status of pupils
Indicator 11: Percent of target schools that use a pest management plan for their food 
storage facilities
Nearly half (48 percent) of the sample schools have a pest management plan. This is more 
common in Sundorganj (52 percent) than in Fulchori (39 percent). 
15
3.1.10. MGD 2.3: Increased knowledge of nutrition
Indicator 12: Percent of students in target schools who can name at least three good 
nutrition and dietary practices
Approximately 81 percent of students can identify at least one single nutrition and dietary 
practice. Only 42 percent can name at least three good nutrition and dietary practices. These 
results are similar for boys and girls and for both sub-districts.
The main practices identified by the 950 students interviewed are: eating meat, fish, eggs, and milk 
for physical growth (45 percent); hand washing with soap (43 percent); eating rice, bread, and 
potato for energy (34.5 percent); eating high energy biscuits provided at school (28 percent); eating 
vegetables and fruits for vitamins and minerals (23 percent); drinking water from a safe source (14
percent); and regular use of sanitary latrines (13 percent). 
3.2. School Variables 
The questionnaires also recorded information on key characteristics related to the schools and 
students that may vary across schools.
3.2.1. School facilities
● Sixty-eight percent of schools have library facilities and 32 percent have gardens.
● Distance from schools to the nearest education office is 15 km. This is significantly greater in 
Fulchori (22 km) than in Sundorganj (12 km). 
● Nearly all schools (99 percent) have a safe source of drinking water near school compared 
to the national average of 74 percent in government schools (DEP, GoB, 2014). The main 
source of drinking water is a tube well (95 percent of schools); only 3 percent of schools 
have a piped water supply. 
● The majority of schools (85 percent) have toilet facilities for students, though this is lower in 
Fulchori (77 percent) than in Sundorganj (88 percent).
● On average there is only one toilet for every 179 pupils enrolled. This is far from the 
national standard of one toilet per 60 pupils, set by the GoB (Wash in Schools, 2015). The 
toilet to student ratio matches fairly closely with UNICEF’s statistics (one toilet for every 150 
students, UNICEF, 2009; Islam, Rahman and Sarkar, 2013) and data from a recent national 
level survey conducted by ICDDRB and Water Aid in collaboration with the GoB, (one toilet 
for every 182 primary school students, ICDDRB, 2014).
● Only 28 percent of schools have separate toilets for girls. This lags far behind the statistics 
reported by UNICEF (64 percent, DEP, GoB, 2014). 
16
● Most schools (96 percent) have a school management committee (SMC), but only 23
percent of these are highly engaged in the SFP. Forty percent are highly engaged in other 
aspects of school management. 
3.2.2. Food preparation and storage facilities
● Only 28 percent of schools have a dedicated storeroom. Of those that do not have a 
storeroom, 73 percent store the food in the teachers’ room, 16 percent store it at the head 
teacher or another teacher’s home, and 6.8 percent store it in a classroom.
● The majority of the schools (94 percent) store food off of the ground. 
● Only 15 percent of storekeepers (usually the head teacher or another teacher from the 
school) have been trained on safe food preparation and storage practices.
3.2.3. Teacher training history and background
• Of the 476 teachers interviewed in the 95 sampled schools, 56 percent are female (see 
Annex 7 for details). 
● Head teachers have 20 years of teaching experience on average. This is similar both for male 
(21 years) and female (19 years) teachers and for teachers in both Fulchori (21 years) and 
Sundorganj (20 years). 
● Teachers have an average of 12 years of teaching experience. Male teachers have, on 
average, 5 years more experience than their female colleagues; however, teacher 
experience does not vary significantly between sub-districts. Almost half of the teachers (60 
percent male and 40 percent female) have more than 10 years of teaching experience. 
● Forty-one percent of teachers have diplomas or bachelor’s degrees, and 20 percent have a 
master’s degree or higher educational qualification. These results vary significantly 
between genders and sub-districts. Only 10 percent of female teachers have an MSc or 
higher qualification; most (55 percent) have only a secondary or lower level of education 
qualifications. Conversely, a third (33 percent) of male teachers have an MSc or higher, and 
only 19 percent have only a secondary or lower educational qualification. 
● Analysis of data related to the teachers’ previous training histories shows that:
● only 8 percent of teachers (12 percent male and 4.5 percent female) have received 
training on safe food preparation and storage practices
● twelve percent (15 percent male and 9.7 percent female) have received training on 
commodity management
● about a third (32 percent male and 36 percent female) have received training on 
teaching and learning techniques
● approximately one in every ten (9.6 percent male and 8.6 percent female) have 
received training on health, hygiene, and nutrition.
17
3.3. Non-formal Primary Schools
Given that the baseline survey was focused on the formal primary schools which cover 91 percent 
of the students, very limited information was collected on the non-formal primary schools which 
cover the remaining 9 percent of the students in the sample sub-districts. However, it was agreed 
that some school level information should be collected from the non-formal schools in order to give 
a baseline snapshot. 
The School Questionnaire was administered to 40 non-formal schools run by NGOs. As previously
mentioned, the structure of these schools differs markedly from the formal sector.
● On average, there are 33 students per classroom (with a ranged from 22 to 62 across the 40 
sampled schools). 
● Almost 80 percent (77 percent) of non-formal schools have one classroom and one teacher. 
In comparison, formal schools have four classrooms per school and 74 students per 
classroom, on average. 
● Almost all of the teachers in non-formal schools are female (88 percent). 
● On average, the teachers in non-formal schools have 4.6 years of experience (no difference 
between male and female teachers) compared to the 20 years of experience for teachers in
formal schools. 
● Teacher attendance is high, at 95 percent. This is not surprising given that in most schools 
there is only one teacher. However, only 83 percent of teachers attend school regularly (90
percent or more of the school days).
● Student attendance on the day of the survey was 85 percent. 
● Most school facilities, such as the presence of a library, a garden, and the availability of safe 
drinking water, are similar in both formal and non-formal schools. However, there is a stark 
difference in terms of the provision of toilets, as non-formal schools have one toilet for 
every 18 students, on average. Unlike the formal schools, most non-formal schools do not
own the facilities. Rather, they are owned by the community. 
● Only 15 percent of the non-formal schools have a storeroom compared to 28 percent of
formal schools. Importantly, none of the food is stored off the ground in the non-formal 
schools (compared to 98 percent in the formal schools). However, this is unlikely to
represent a major problem because if the biscuits are properly packaged, they can be stored 
on the ground as long as there are no rodents and no moisture damaging the boxes.
3.4. School Feeding Attainment
The performance of the SFP in providing food at baseline was measured as a School Feeding 
Attainment (SFA) score based on school records. The SFA was measured as the proportion of 
children attending school who received a high energy bar (biscuit) provided by WFP. To estimate 
this proportion, information on the monthly food utilization history at the school level (Section 8 of 
18
the survey) was compared to number of pupils attending school each month over a 17 month 
period. 
● Four schools have an SFA value greater than one (i.e. they deliver more biscuits than 
required based on the number of children attending). Two of these are excessively high (7 
and 5), suggesting either data errors or extensive wastage of biscuits.
● For the purpose of the following analysis, the maximum SFA is capped at 1 (i.e. the SFAs for 
the four schools that are >1, are assumed to be 1).
● A quarter of the schools (24 percent) have exactly the correct amount of biscuits for those 
attending (SFA = 1). 
● Most of the remaining 75 percent of schools have an SFA at least 0.70.
● Only five of the 95 schools have SFAs lower than 0.70 (with one school providing only 
enough biscuits for 6 percent of the enrolled children (SFA=0.06).
● The average SFA is 0.89, which suggests that an average of 89 percent of children attending 
school receive biscuits.
● Only 58 percent of schools have complete data for the 17 months on both biscuit delivery
and school attendance.
● The quality of this school data is markedly poorer in Fulchori where only 7.7 percent of 
schools have 17 months of complete data compared to 77 percent in Sunderganj.
● The mean number of months for which data is complete is only 5.9 in Fulchori (minimum of 
4 months) and 15 in Sunderganj (with one school only having complete data for only 
month).
3.5. Findings from Qualitative Interviews
This section provides the key findings from qualitative interviews conducted parallel to the 
quantitative data collection. The interviews were undertaken in order to provide the operational 
team with contextual information about the program areas at the time of baseline survey and can 
be used to triangulate the key quantitative findings. Qualitative data was collected through Focus 
Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with three stakeholder groups from 
formal primary schools: (i) teachers (including head teacher), (ii) parents of primary school students 
at program schools, and (iii) School Management Committee (SMC) members.
1. Poor infrastructure and lack of classroom furniture. One of the main qualitative observations
which supports the quantitative findings is that schools suffer from poor infrastructure. School 
infrastructure is worse in char3
-land schools than in mainland schools. In general, there are not 
enough classrooms for students, and students do not have sufficient sitting arrangements (i.e. 
benches and tables) in the classrooms. Existing facilities are not regularly maintained in the 
3 Chars are low-lying riverine islands.
19
char-land schools and, as a result, schools are left with infrastructure that cannot support the 
number of students in the catchment areas. 
2. Insufficient access to sanitation facilities. All three stakeholder groups are concerned about the 
insufficient number of toilets, which, in most cases, leads to all teachers and students in a 
school using the same facility. Schools in the mainland urban areas are slightly better off; 
conditions in the rural and char-land schools require immediate attention. Teachers, parents,
and SMC members mentioned that they need support to build a sufficient number of toilets in 
each school, including separate toilets for teachers and male and female students. 
3. Irregular teacher attendance. According to the quantitative survey, only 77 percent of teachers 
attend school regularly (>90 percent of school days). However, the qualitative investigation 
suggests that the situation might be worse than the school records suggest. Teacher
absenteeism is apparently a common phenomenon, especially in the char-land schools. The 
teachers and SMC members highlighted that severe transportation problems, teachers living far 
from the schools, heavy workloads, and low pay serve as demotivating factors. Furthermore, 
female teachers sometimes struggle to manage time for school after completing their 
household activities. 
4. Student absenteeism and discontinuation of studies. Student absenteeism might also be more 
severe than what is reflected in the quantitative findings. Key reasons for student absenteeism 
include remoteness/difficulty of reaching the school, insufficient classroom facilities, poverty 
(which leads to a lack of educational materials including school dress, textbooks, pens, papers, 
etc.), and sickness. For female students, early marriage is still a problem in char areas, and it can 
lead students to attend irregularly and even to drop out. Importantly, qualitative investigation 
shows that, even when the students miss school days, teachers can fabricate the attendance 
records to keep average attendance at around 85 percent. This seems to take place mostly in 
poor char areas and is less of a problem in mainland areas. Due either to sympathy or pressure 
from parents, teachers are afraid that without fabricating records, poor students may lose their
government allowance, which requires at least 85 percent attendance.
5. Teacher skills and qualifications. In-depth interviews and FGDs with teachers and SMC 
members revealed that inadequate teaching skills are one of the main barriers to quality 
education. The problem is more severe in remote areas although it cuts across almost all of the 
schools. Very few teachers use participatory techniques or audio-visual materials in their 
classrooms.
6. Biscuit distribution at school level. Biscuit provision is widely accepted by students and parents 
and generally recognized as a motivating factor that attracts students to schools. Parents 
acknowledge that the program indirectly saves the family money by decreasing their 
20
expenditures. Although parents did not explicitly state that a discontinuation of biscuit 
distribution may negatively affect school attendance, both teachers and SCM members 
mentioned that it could severely affect student attendance. 
7. Record keeping of food utilization at the school level. Teacher absenteeism is one of the main 
reasons that the administrative workload, which includes management of student attendance 
records, teacher attendance records, and stock management for SFP and food utilization history
becomes backlogged. In addition, teachers perceive file management and record keeping as an 
additional burden, and they lack motivation to undertake these activities. Even if teachers 
attended more regularly and were more motivated, schools near the river delta (in chars) are 
poorly equipped to keep documents safe. In many cases, they lose documents during natural 
disasters (floods, river erosion, cyclones, etc.). 
21
4. Conclusions
Pupil literacy is low in the sampled schools with only a quarter reaching the benchmark of 45 words 
per minute. This compares poorly with the WFP/USDA target of of 80 percent of students with 
fluency and comprehension by 2017. Even though WFP has a plan to train around 210 teachers per 
year on teaching and learning techniques, with an assumption of 80 percent of the newly trained 
teachers will demonstrate the use of improved teaching techniques at classrooms; this investment 
is insufficient compared to the need. With current level of investment and planned activities, it 
would be very challenging to bring a sharp change in student literacy in three-year period.
Average baseline dietary diversity score was very low; which might be due to WFP’s intentional 
targeting of poor and food insecure communities. Most children consume a moderately diverse 
diet. Results did not vary significantly between male and female students, and there is also no 
significant difference between sub-districts.
Irregular Teacher attendance (percent of teachers attending ≥90% of the school days) have the 
potential to become major concern , with only 77 percent of teachers regularly attending. This is 
found to be more of a serious problem for formal primary schools in remote areas (e.g. river 
islands). This may undermine the ability of the SFP to increase student attendance and achieve an 
impact on literacy rates.
Regular student attendance is high, at 79 percent, and the final target of 90 percent seems feasible.
Student inattentiveness was high compared to the target of 10 percent set for 2017. 
Although toilets were present in most schools (85 percent), they are not sufficient for the number 
of students. In the sampled schools, 179 pupils were sharing a single toilet whereas the national 
guidelines recommend one toilet every 60 students. Very few (28 percent) schools had separate 
toilet for boys and girls. 
The number of classrooms was also insufficient with an average 74 students per classroom. This 
compares poorly to the national target of 40 students per classroom. 
Gender disparities were not significant for any of the WFP school performance indicators measured 
at baseline.
Some school facilities are better in Sunderganj than Fulchari, with a higher percentage of toilets, 
few students per classroom and schools closer to the education office in Sunderganj. In addition, 
some key SFP indicators (for example, literacy, regular student attendance and regular teacher 
attendance) were also better in Sunderganj sub-district. This might be partially attributed to the 
fact that schools in Sundorganj receiving SFP assistance since 2007, whereas SFP started only in 
January 2015 in Fulchori. This needs to be further confirmed with an impact analysis using a 
complete dataset on food utilisation and distribution at school level.
22
Many students (41 percent) reporting that they did not regularly consume the biscuits at school 
during class-hours. Three quarters of the students who did not consume biscuits at school reported 
either giving the biscuits to someone else or not being hungry. This suggests that the biscuits are 
not being valued by many students and requires further investigation of this matter.
From the school records it seems that most schools were providing biscuits for the children 
attending school. Since the schools were performing well, there is insufficient variation in the SFA to 
allow for a meaningful analysis to assess attribution of the programme. 
Incomplete school records, particularly around attendance and food distribution were found to be a 
common problem during baseline. The fact that many schools (42 percent) did not have complete 
records over the 17 months meant that some of the SFAs were calculated with less than optimal 
data. It is crucial both for evaluations and regular programme monitoring that school records for 
food delivery and school attendance are complete.
23
5. Recommendations
1. Revise final target for Strategic Objective 1: Improved literacy of school-aged children,
measured as Percentage of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, 
demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade-level text. The final target
of 80 percent of students with fluency and comprehension by 2017, is highly ambitious and is 
unlikely to be achievable with the existing project activities and resources. We recommend that 
WFP to approach USDA to revise the final target downward. We also recommend that WFP 
share these findings with the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education (MoPME) in Bangladesh 
and look for strategic partnerships with other organizations aiming at improving literacy status 
of early grade students. 
2. Agree on a final target for Strategic Objective 2: Increased use of health and dietary practices, 
measured as Average Dietary Diversity Score of school aged children. This indicator was updated
during the design stage and, as such, does not have a target defined. We recommend that WFP 
Bangladesh, with support from the Regional Bureau and WFP Washington, approach USDA to 
agree on a reasonable final target, keeping in mind that the baseline average DDS is very low,
perhaps as a result of WFP’s intentional targeting of poor and food insecure communities.
3. Invest in school infrastructure: Both toilets and classrooms in the sampled schools are not 
sufficient when compared to the national guidelines. Furthermore, very few schools have
separate toilet for boys and girls. This clearly indicates the need for increased investment in 
building/rehabilitating school infrastructure, especially classrooms and toilet facilities. We 
recommend that WFP share these findings with the relevant ministries in the Bangladeshi 
government and establish strategic partnerships with organizations working in the WASH 
sector.
4. Verify/triangulate consumption data: Although schools reported regularly delivering sufficient 
quantities of biscuits to around 89 percent of students, only 59 percent of students reported 
regularly consuming biscuits. Many students reported that they do not regularly consume the 
biscuits because they are not hungry or they give them to someone else. This suggests that 
consuming the biscuits is not a priority for many students. We recommend further verification 
and triangulation of consumption data in order to better understand the discrepancies between 
data sources and in order to identify ways to maximize consumption.
5. Ensure proper record keeping at the school level: There is insufficient variation in the SFA 
scores to allow for meaningful impact attribution at this point. Furthermore, the fact that many 
schools (42 percent) do not have complete records over the 17 months means that some of the 
SFAs were calculated with sub-optimal data. We recommend that WFP work with the MoPME 
24
and other necessary stakeholders to ensure that school records for food delivery and 
attendance are complete and properly maintained. 
25
6. References
Abadzi, H. (2011). Reading fluency measurements in EFA FTI partner countries: Outcomes and 
improvement prospects. EFA FTI, (1). Retrieved 14 September 2015 from http://www￾wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/07/26/000356161_201
30726161417/Rendered/PDF/797780WP0readi0Box0379789B00PUBLIC0.pdf
DPE, GoB. (2014). Bangladesh Primary Education Annual Sector Performance Report – 2014. 
Monitoring and Evaluation Division, Directorate of Primary Education, Government of the 
People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Retrieved 22 October 2015 from 
http://dpe.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/dpe.portal.gov.bd/publications/e59c1e65_d871
_446e_a5f5_3ab69fee590b/Final%20ASPR%202014.pdf
Feed the Future. (2014). Volume 11: Feed the Future M&E Guidance Series: Guidance on the first 
interim assessment of the feed the future zone of influence population-level indicators (Vol. 11). 
Retrieved 29 October 2015 from 
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/ftf_guidanceseries_vol11_interi
massessment_oct2014.pdf
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of 
reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of 
Reading, 5(3), 239–256.
ICDDR’B, Water Aid, PSU LGRD GoB. (2014). Bangladesh National Hygiene Baseline Survey: 
Preliminary Report, June 2014. International Centre for Diarrheal Diseases Research, Bangladesh 
(icddr,b); WaterAid Bangladesh; Policy Support Unit (PSU), Local Government Division, Ministry 
of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Retrieved 26 
October 2015 from http://www.psu-wss.org/assets/book/bnhbs.pdf
Islam M. S., Rahaman M. H. and Sarker M. H. (2013). Water Supply and Sanitation Facilities in 
Primary School’s of Gaibandha District in Bangladesh. J. Environ. Sci. & Natural Resources, 6(1): 
113 – 116.
Mattos L.M. (2013). Oral Reading Fluency Benchmark Procedures and Considerations: Final Report 
for Save the Children. Retrieved 22 October 2015 from 
readbangladesh.org/content/upload/benchmark.doc
UNICEF. (2009). Quality Primary Education in Bangladesh. Retrieved 22 October 2015, from 
http://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/Quality_Primary_Education(1).pdf
WASH in Schools. (2015). Country Profile: Bangladesh 2015. Retrieved from 
http://washinschoolsmapping.com/projects/Bangladesh.html (accessed 26 October 2015).
26
WFP. (2011). Evaluation Brief: Bangladesh School Feeding Impact Evaluation 2011. Retrieved from 
https://www.wfp.org/content/bangladesh-school-feeding-impact-evaluation (Accessed 30 
March 2015). 
WFP. (2015). Bangladesh: Current issues and what the World Food Programme is doing. Retrieved 
from: https://www.wfp.org/countries/bangladesh (accessed 03 December 2015)
27
Annex 1: Survey Approach and Methodology
The baseline survey methodology was developed in accordance with the requirements of the 
USDA’s Monitoring and Evaluation Policy and WFP’s Guidelines for Operation Evaluations. The 
survey was based on a standard approach, with most of the required data coming from the school 
interviews and desk research.
A mixed methods approach, involving quantitative and qualitative methods conducted in parallel, 
was used to collect data. The combination allows for quantifiable impact evaluation supported by a 
deeper and broader understanding of the underlying causes, effects, and processes. 
A1.1. Qualitative Data
The qualitative methods were not used to inform the design of the survey but rather to provide an 
independent source of information which was used to triangulate and support the quantitative 
findings. The qualitative data provides insight into the perceptions of school administrators, 
teachers, and village community members on SFP components. 
Qualitative data collection mainly consisted of focus group discussions. A total of six FGDs with
three participant groups, (i) parents of primary school children, (ii) school teachers including the 
head teacher, and (iii) school management committee (SMC) members, were planned. However, 
during qualitative data collection in remote Chars4
, there were not enough teachers or SMC 
members to conduct a successful FGD. In these cases, FGDs were replaced with individual 
interviews. Therefore, in total, four FGDs and four in-depth interviews were conducted during 
baseline survey. 
A1.2. Sampling Strategy
A1.2.1. Sample size determination
The sample size was calculated considering effect size and predictors, along with the more widely 
used power and significance/probability level. Holding the power to 0.8 and probability to 0.5 and 
assuming that the program has an effect size of at least 0.155
, incorporating five predictors in each 
4 Chars are low-lying river islands
5 Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size-or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 
4(3), 279–282.
28
model would require data from 91 schools6
. However, as the distribution of performance or impact 
indicator values between the program schools was unknown, we decided to maximize the sample 
size within the available budget. Feasibility and logistical factors were also considered. A sample 
size of 95 formal primary schools was found to be reasonable from both a technical and financial 
point of view. The sample size of 40 non-formal schools was determined based on budget. 
A1.2.2. Sampling of schools
The 95 formal primary schools were randomly selected from two Upazilas of Gaibandha district 
using a stratified multi-stage sampling technique (Table 1). WFP provided information on the 
number of schools supported by WFP in each Upazila, along with enrollment data. The schools 
within these Upazilas were then selected using probability proportionate to size (PPS). The 40 non￾formal schools were also selected using PPS. In non-formal schools, the school questionnaire was 
administered, but no household interviews were conducted.
Table 1: Number of sampled schools and households 
SL
Upazila No. of schools No. of sampled 
schools No. of 
sampled 
Formal households Non￾formal Formal Non￾formal
1 Fulchori 114 125 26 21 260
2 Sundorganj 261 144 69 19 690
Total 375 269 95 40 950
A1.2.3. Sampling of students and their families
In each formal school, a total of ten pupils were selected from grades one to five for interviews 
using the simple random sampling (SRS) procedure. The selected students’ parents (or close 
relatives of the parents) were included for the household interview. Another ten students were 
selected from grade three for EGRA using the same SRS process. The procedure is detailed below, 
with the sampling unit being the whole school for the sample of ten students and only grade 3 for 
the EGRA:
● If available, the student register was obtained from each classroom or from the school 
principal; otherwise the total number of students in the class was counted.
● Sampling difference was defined as the number of students to be interviewed (in our case, 
ten were to be selected from third grade for the EGRA). 
6 Soper, D. S. (2013). A-priori sample size calculator for multiple regression [software]. Retrieved from 
http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
29
● A random number was selected between one and the sample difference using a random 
number table. 
● This figure was then used to count from the class lists and select each “X”th student to be 
part of the sample. 
● If a student was absent or refused to participate, the next number on the class list was 
selected. If that student was absent or refused, the following number was selected. This 
provides the sample of ten students distributed across the school/grade three classes. The 
number of both refusals and absences in the school report were recorded. 
● Students were pulled out from their classes in small groups, one student per enumerator, in 
order to minimize the disruption to classes. 
A1.3. Training and Quality Assurance
A1.3.1. Training
A week-long training on the paper and digital versions of the questionnaire was conducted in the 
last week of May 2015 with 25 enumerators and five supervisors. Efforts were made to ensure that 
all enumerators were competent in interviewing and observation.
A1.3.2. Quality control mechanisms
Data quality was assured through intensive enumerator training and maintenance of a strict data 
collection protocol. The baseline survey team ensured the accuracy, validity, and reliability of the 
survey data by employing various quality assurance mechanisms at every stage of the survey, as 
outlined below.
● Direct monitoring by Kimetrica: The whole data collection process was directly monitored 
by the Survey Manager to ensure that the local survey firm was following agreed quality 
control steps. The Survey Manager maintained a presence in the field throughout the data 
collection period, actively taking part in training enumerators and pre-testing the 
questionnaire. 
● Recruitment of qualified enumerators and supervisors: DMA recruited experienced and 
trusted enumerators from their pool. During the enumerator selection, enumerators with 
previous experience in collecting data using mobile phones/tablets and working in the SFP
evaluation were given preference. 
● Proper training of enumerators and supervisors: A seven-day training was conducted prior 
to survey to give the enumerators proper orientation. The training included instruction on 
using the paper-based and digital versions of the questionnaires (translated into the local 
30
language) as well as field practice. The training was conducted by DMA in collaboration with 
Kimetrica. A WFP representative also contributed to the training by providing a detailed 
explanation of school feeding operations in Bangladesh.
● Direct observation: A team of supervisors was delegated to observe interviews and provide 
feedback on training techniques. Kimetrica’s Survey Manager provided guidance on how to 
observe interviews and report on interview observation. The Survey Manager also 
participated in direct observation and provided feedback. 
● Re-interviewing: The Survey Manager re-interviewed a sample of the questionnaires to 
validate the accuracy of the data collected. 
● Non-response: Every effort was made to avoid non-response. For example, schools were 
informed of the survey effort in advance. With the support of the Upazila Education Offices, 
areas most affected by monsoons were surveyed first in order to ensure that they could be 
reached before schools closed due to the rains. At the household level, efforts were made 
to ensure that the data collection team revisited households in which parents could not be 
reached on the first day. Supervisors kept track of all pending interviews using survey 
control sheets and sent enumerators back later to complete data collection.
● Cross-checking: Every questionnaire was cross-checked by other team members and/or 
supervisors prior to being uploaded. 
● Logical and consistency checking: As data was collected using android tablets, logical and 
consistency checks were put into place to minimize human error. Uploaded data was 
regularly reviewed by the Survey Manager to check its consistency.
31
Annex 2: Sample Questionnaires
The summary of the six data collection tools is given in Table 2.
Table 2: Tools used in baseline survey
Tools used Types of information collected
School Questionnaire School enrollment, attendance, and dropout rates; teachers’ academic 
qualifications, training, and attendance; school building and facilities; and 
school-level food delivery, utilization, and stock management.
Student Questionnaire Pupil participation in the SFP, eating practices, and factors affecting school 
attendance and performance.
Household Questionnaire Household-level information on demographic composition, level of 
education, school participation, occupation, employment and income; 
individual-level dietary intake data from 24-hour recall; and participation in 
the SFP.
Early Grade Reading 
Assessment (EGRA)
Letter recognition, familiar word reading, invented word decoding, oral 
reading fluency and comprehension, and major factors affecting reading 
and understanding skills of early grade students.
Teacher Questionnaire Teachers’ socio-economic status, training history, teaching techniques,
and participation in SFP.
Storekeeper Questionnaire Commodity stock management and availability, quality, and maintenance 
of storage facility.
The complete questionnaires are included on the following pages.
32
School Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme 
in Bangladesh: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this survey? 1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Section 1: Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
SCQ 101 District
SCQ 102 Upazila
SCQ 103 Union
SCQ 105 School Name
SCQ 106 Village 
SCQ 107 Latitude
SCQ 108 Longitude
SCQ 109 Respondent name
SCQ 110 Can we please have your contact 
number? (if available mobile 
number is preferred)
SCQ 111 What is your role in this school? 
___
1. Head Teacher/Principal (skip to SCQ 113)
2. Assistant/Deputy Head Teacher 
3. Teacher 
4. Administrative officer
5. Other (specify)
SCQ 112 Director/Head Master’s name 
(only if Respondent is not the Head 
Teacher)
SCQ 113 What is the school ownership 
type?
___
1. Government Primary School
2. Registered Non-Government Primary School
3. Madrasa / religious school (primary/pre￾primary)
4. Community/ NGO Primary School
5. Community/ NGO pre-primary School
6. Others (specify)
SCQ 114 What is the school category 
(gender)? ___
1. Boys School
2. Girls School
3. Mixed gender School
33
SCQ 115 Date of the Interview ____/____/____ Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2015)
SCQ 116 Supervisor Code
SCQ 117 Supervisor Name
SCQ 118 Enumerator Code
SCQ 119 Enumerator Name
Section 2: School Feeding Program
Question Response Code
SCQ 201 For how many years this school is 
receiving support from the School 
Feeding Programme 
(WFP/Government)? _______
 Years 
Put “99” for years and Months, if the 
school have not received any support 
yet, but will receive (skip to SCQ203)
SCQ 201A Since when you are receiving the 
support from School Feeding 
Programme? 
_______ _______
 Years Months
SCQ 202 What type of support did your 
school receive (or currently 
receiving) from the School Feeding 
Programme?
(Circle all that apply)
1. Snacks (biscuits / meals) for the 
students
2. Cooked meal for students
3. Meals for teachers / support staff
4. Take Home Ration for students
5. Rations for teachers
6. Rations for support staff
7. Digital learning materials
8. Textbook and other print materials
9. school gardens
10. Infrastructure support 
(kitchen/toilet/store room etc.)
11. Training for teachers / 
administrators / support staff
12. Training for students / parents / 
others
13. other (specify)
SCQ 203 What are the avenues or 
communication channels through 
which parents and pupils get 
information about SMP or make 
complaints about the programme ?
(Circle all that apply)
1. None
2. Regular meetings with SMC
3. Regular meetings with School Administrators
4. Suggestion Box
5. Helpline
6. Informal communication (verbal) with teachers / SMC members
7. Information through school going children
8. Other (specify)________
34
SCQ 204 How many people are involved at 
the school level in the distribution 
of biscuits (high energy 
micronutrient fortified) to the 
students? 
SCQ 205 Does the school have a Parent 
Teacher Association (PTA), or 
similar governance structure?
____
1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 206 Does the school have a School 
Management Committee (SMC)? ____ 1. Yes
2. No 
SCQ 207 How many members does the 
School Management committee 
(SMC) have? 
Total number of SMC members
SCQ 208 How many female members does 
the School Management 
Committee have? 
Number of Female SMC members
SCQ 209 Does the SMC have plans for 
regular meetings?
1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 210 What is frequency of planned 
meeting per academic year?
Number of planned meeting per year
SCQ 211 How many times the committee 
has actually met in last year? (For 
Academic Year 2014)
Number of meeting took place in last 
one year
SCQ 212 In the last SMC meeting how many 
members have attended?
number
SCQ 213 In the last SMC meeting how many 
FEMALE members have attended?
number
SCQ 214 What is the level of participation 
and engagement of the SMC in the 
SFP?
____
1. High
2. Medium
3. Low
SCQ 215 What is the level of participation 
and engagement of the SMC in 
other aspects of school 
management?
____
1. High
2. Medium
3. Low
SCQ 216 Did the SMC members have 
received any training intervention 
from WFP ?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
SCQ 217 What is the distance by road (km) 
to the nearest food market from 
the school?
(put 0 if distance is less than 1 km)
____
SCQ 218 What is the distance by road (Km) 
from school to the nearest 
educational office?
(put 0 if distance is less than 1 km)
____
35
Section 3: School Facilities
Question Response Code
SCQ 301 Number of classrooms ________
SCQ 302 Does the school have a Library or a place where 
books are stored? ________
1. Yes
2. No (go to SCQ 304)
SCQ 303 If yes, how many supplementary books does the 
school have? ________ Number of supplementary book
SCQ 304 Does your school have a dedicated storage 
room/facility to store biscuits?
1. Yes within the school 
campus(Skip to 306)
2. Yes outside the school campus
(Skip to 306)
3. No 
SCQ 305 If not, where is the food stored?
(Multiple Response)
1. In a class room
2. In teacher’s room
3. In the kitchen
4. Open space
5. Neighbor’s home
6. teacher’s home
7. Other (specify)
SCQ 306 Is the food stored on the ground? 1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 307 Does your school use raised wooden pallets for 
commodities' storage (i.e. store food items off 
the ground)?
1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 308 Does this school use a pest management plan 
for their food storage facilities?
1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 309 What is the main source of DRINKING water?
________
1. Piped water into dwelling, plot, or 
yard
2. Public tap/standpipe
3. Tube well/borehole
4. Protected dug well
5. Protected spring
6. Rainwater collection
7. Unprotected spring
8. Cart with small tank/drum
9. Tanker truck
10 Surface water (river, dam, lake, 
pond, stream, canal, or irrigation 
channel)
11 Bottled water
12. Children carry water from home
13. Other
SCQ 310 Does your school have any school garden? 1. Yes
2. No (Skip to SCQ 312)
SCQ 311 Is this school garden established with WFP/ 
USDA support?
1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 312 Does the school have toilets for the students?
ONLY FOR OBSERVATION
________
1. Yes
2. No (Skip to section 4)
36
SCQ 313 How many toilets have hand washing facilities 
within or nearby?
ONLY FOR OBSERVATION
________
Put number of toilets with hand 
washing facilities. Put “0” if none of 
the toilets have hand washing 
facilities. 
SCQ 314 Do girls students have separate toilets from boy 
students?
ONLY FOR OBSERVATION
________
1. Yes
2. No
What type of toilet does the school have Does your school 
have this type of 
toilet?
1. Yes
2. No (go to next 
type)
Number of 
boys’ toilets 
Number of 
girls’ toilets 
Number 
of mixed 
toilets 
SCQ 316 SCQ 317 SCQ 318 SCQ 319 SCQ 320
1 Flush or pour/flush facilities connected to a: (Piped 
sewer, septic, pit latrine)
2 Flush or pour/flush toilets without a sewer 
connection
3 Pit latrines with a slab
4 Pit latrines without slab/open pit
5 Ventilated improved pit latrines
6 Composting toilets
7 Bucket latrines
8 Hanging toilets/latrines
9 Latrine out of order
37
Section 4: Teacher-Head Teacher
Teacher 
ID
Teacher’s Name Sex
1. Male
2. Female
Age
(yr)
Educational 
Qualification
1. MSc or 
higher
2. Bachelor
3. Diploma
4. Higher 
Secondary
5. Secondary
6. Primary
7. Other
Position in the school
1. Head teacher/ principal 
2. Deputy head teacher 
3. Senior teacher 
4. Teacher (permanent/ 
regular) 
5. Teacher (paid contract) 
6. Teacher (volunteer) 
7. Other (specify)
Years of 
teaching 
experience
Years of 
experience in 
their current 
role
Full 
time/ 
Part 
time
1. 
Full￾time 
2. 
Part￾time
Teachers training history
1. Yes; 2. No
safe food preparation and 
storage practices
Commodity Management
Teaching / Learning techniques
Health hygiene and nutrition
Years
Months
Years
Months
SCQ 401 SCQ 402 SCQ 403 SCQ 
404 SCQ 405 SCQ 406 SCQ
407A
SCQ 
407
B
SCQ 
408A
SCQ4
08B
SCQ4
09
SCQ4
12
SCQ4
13
SCQ4
14
SCQ4
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
38
Section 5: Teacher Attendance
#
Name 
(optional)
Teacher Attendance History
(Put the number of days he/she attended school. Put 99 if not applicable, i.e. if he / she was not working in that certain month, if the teacher is 
absent for a month long training or long term pregnancy leavel put 88)
May
2015
Apr
2015
Mar
2015
Feb
2015
Jan
2015
Dec
2014
Nov
2014
Oct
2014
Sept
2014
Aug
2014
Jul
2014
Jun
2014
May
2014
Apr
2014
Mar
2014
Feb
2014
Jan
2014
SCQ 50 SCQ 
501
SCQ 
502
SCQ 
503
SCQ 
504
SCQ 
505
SCQ 
506
SCQ 
507
SCQ 
508
SCQ 
509
SCQ 
510
SCQ 
511
SCQ 
512
SCQ 
513
SCQ 
514
SCQ 
515
SCQ 
516
SCQ 
517
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
39
Section 6: School record (teachers & students)
# Academi
c year
Total number of 
students enrolled: 
(Male)
Total number of 
students enrolled: 
(Female)
Total number of 
students: Transferred 
OUT (Male)
Total number of 
students: Transferred 
OUT (Female)
Total number of 
students: Dropout
(Male)
Total number of 
students: Dropout
(Female)
SCQ 601
Pre-Primary Primary Pre-Primary Primary Pre￾Primary
Primary Pre-Primary Primary Pre￾Primary
Primary Pre-Primary Primary
SCQ 602 SCQ 603 SCQ 604 SCQ 605 SCQ 606 SCQ 
607
SCQ 608 SCQ 609 SCQ 610 SCQ 
611
SCQ 612 SCQ 613
1 2015
2 2014
3 2013
4 2012
Record of school days (working days and holidays)
Months Total number of working days
(Teachers)
Off days (Holidays / 
Weekends)
Total number of class days
(students)
SCQ 614 SCQ 615 SCQ 616 SCQ 617
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
40
Section 7: Student Attendance Record 
# Student 
Name
(optional)
(Maintain the 
sequence of 
the sampling)
Student 
Grade
(0= Pre￾primary; 1 = 
Grade 1; 2 = 
Grade 2; 3 = 
Grade 3; 4 = 
Grade 4; 5 = 
Grade 5)
Sex (1. Male; 2. Female)
Student attendance
(collected from school record)
(Put the number of days he/she attended school. Put 99 if not applicable, i.e. if he / she was not enrolled in this school)
May
2015
Apr
2015
Mar
2015
Feb
2015
Jan
2015
Dec
2014
Nov
2014
Oct
2014
Sept
2014
Aug
2014
Jul
2014
Jun
2014
May
2014
Apr
2014
Mar
2014
Feb
2014
Jan
2014
SCQ 
701 SCQ 702 SCQ 703 SCQ 
704
SCQ 
705
SCQ 
706
SCQ 
707
SCQ 
708
SCQ 
709
SCQ 
710
SCQ 
711
SCQ 
712
SCQ 
713
SCQ 
714
SCQ 
715
SCQ 
716
SCQ 
717
SCQ 
718
SCQ 
719
SCQ 
720
SCQ 
721
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
41
Section 8: Food utilization history 
SL Months Total number of students 
enrolled Number of students receiving daily school 
meals/snacks (biscuits)
Student attendance
(cumulative attendance 
number)
Total number of school 
meals/snacks (biscuits) 
provided to Students
Male Female
Male Female New1 Continuing2 New1 Continuing2 Male Female
SCQ 
801 SCQ 802 SCQ 803 SCQ 804 SCQ 805 SCQ 806 SCQ 807 SCQ 808 SCQ 809 SCQ 810 SCQ 811
1 May 2015
2 April 2015
3 March 2015
4 February 2015
5 January 2015
6 December 2014
7 November 2014
8 October 2014
9 September 2014
10 August 2014
11 July 2014
12 June 2014
13 May 2014
14 April 2014
15 March 2014
16 February 2014
17 January 2014
1 New students are those who have started receiving school meals/snacks from this month
2 Continuing students are those who have received food last month as well as continuing to receive in the current month
42
Section 9. Delivery Record
(Quantity of food received in the last 12 months) 
SL Food delivery record (School level information)
(Put the number of packets of biscuits where amount is requested. Put zero “0” if no amount is received/lost/carryover from last month)
May
2015
Apr
2015
Mar
2015
Feb
2015
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Amount of Food received this month
(skip to 907 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 912 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 917 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 922 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
# SCQ 901
SCQ 902
SCQ 903
SCQ 904
SCQ 905
SCQ 906
SCQ 907
SCQ 908
SCQ 909
SCQ 910
SCQ 911
SCQ 912
SCQ 913
SCQ 914
SCQ 915
SCQ 916
SCQ 917
SCQ 918
SCQ 919
SCQ 920
SCQ 921
1 Biscuits (High energy 
micronutrient 
Fortified)
2 Others (Specify)
43
SL Food delivery record (School level information)
(Put the number of packets of biscuits where amount is requested. Put zero “0” if no amount is received/lost/carryover from last month)
Jan
2015
Dec
2014
Nov
2014
Oct
2014
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Amount of Food received this month
(skip to 927 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 932 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 937 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 942 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
# SCQ 901
SCQ 922
SCQ 923
SCQ 924
SCQ 925
SCQ 926
SCQ 927
SCQ 928
SCQ 929
SCQ 930
SCQ 931
SCQ 932
SCQ 933
SCQ 934
SCQ 935
SCQ 936
SCQ 937
SCQ 937
SCQ 939
SCQ 940
SCQ 941
1 Biscuits (High energy 
micronutrient 
Fortified)
2 Others (Specify)
44
SL Food delivery record (School level information)
(Put the number of packets of biscuits where amount is requested. Put zero “0” if no amount is received/lost/carryover from last month)
Sept
2015
Aug
2014
July
2014
June
2014
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Amount of Food received this month
(skip to 947 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 952 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 957 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip 962 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
# SCQ 901
SCQ 942
SCQ 943
SCQ 944
SCQ 945
SCQ 946
SCQ 947
SCQ 948
SCQ 949
SCQ 950
SCQ 951
SCQ 952
SCQ 953
SCQ 954
SCQ 955
SCQ 956
SCQ 957
SCQ 958
SCQ 959
SCQ 960
SCQ 961
1 Biscuits (High energy 
micronutrient 
Fortified)
2 Others (Specify)
45
S
L
Food delivery record (School level information)
(Put the number of packets of biscuits where amount is requested. Put zero “0” if no amount is received/lost/carryover from last month)
May
2014
Apr
2014
Mar
2014
Feb
2014
Jan
2014
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Amount of Food received this month
(skip to 967 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 972 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 977 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 982 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip 985 & 986 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
# SCQ 901
SCQ 962
SCQ 963
SCQ 964
SCQ 965
SCQ 966
SCQ 967
SCQ 968
SCQ 969
SCQ 970
SCQ 971
SCQ 972
SCQ 973
SCQ 974
SCQ 975
SCQ 976
SCQ 977
SCQ 978
SCQ 979
SCQ 980
SCQ 981
SCQ 982
SCQ 983
SCQ 984
SCQ 985
SCQ 986
1 Biscuits (High 
energy 
micronutrien
t Fortified)
2 Others 
(Specify)
46
Section 10: Observation School Survey
# Grade of students
Enrollment (Total 
number of Students) Total number of 
students present on the 
survey day (head count)
Number of FEMALE students 
present on the survey day 
Male Female (head count)
SCQ 
1001
SCQ 1002 SCQ 1003 SCQ 1004 SCQ 1005 SCQ 1006
1 Pre-primary
2 Primary Grade - 1
3 Primary Grade -2
4 Primary Grade -3
5 Primary Grade -4
6 Primary Grade -5
Teachers present in school during survey
On the day of the survey
SCQ 1007
# Student name
(optional)
According to the teachers, is 
he/she generally attentive in 
the class?
(1. Yes, 2. No)
Did this child 
receive biscuits on 
the survey day?
Did this child eat
biscuit at school 
during school 
hours?
Opinion 
of 
Teacher 
1
Opinion 
of 
Teacher 
2
Opinion 
of 
Teacher 
3
(Observation)
1. Yes, 2. No, 9. Not 
applicable
(Observation)
1. Yes, 2. No, 9. 
Not applicable
SCQ 
1008
SCQ 1009 SCQ 
1010
SCQ 
1011
SCQ 
1012 SCQ 1013 SCQ 1014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
47
Household / Parent Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme 
in Bangladesh: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this survey? 1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Section 1: Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
HHQ 101 District
HHQ 102 Upazila
HHQ 103 Union
HHQ 104 School Name
HHQ 105 Village 
HHQ 106 Student Code
HHQ 107 Student name
HHQ 108 Respondent Name
HHQ 109 Relationship of the respondent with the student 1 = Father
2 = Mother
3 = Both
4 = other Family member / Legal guardian
HHQ 110 Household address
HHQ 111 Household size
HHQ 112 Number of pupils in pre-primary and primary 
school within the HH
HHQ 113 Date of Interview
HHQ 114 Supervisor Code
HHQ 115 Supervisor Name
HHQ 116 Enumerator Code
HHQ 117 Enumerator Name
48
Section 2: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of All Household Members
I would like to ask you some questions about you and your household members. [Ask the name and then ask other questions about the head of household and repeat for all other members]
QUESTIONS CODES
HHQ 203: Relationship- What is your / their relationship to the 
household head?
1= head, 2 = spouse, 3 = child, 4 = grandchild, 5 = sibling, 6 = parent, 7 = parent-in-law, 8 = son/daughter-in-law, 9 = other 
(specify)
HHQ 204: Sex - Are they male or female? 1= male, 2 = female
HHQ 205: Marital Status - What is your / their marital status? 1=unmarried, 2=married, 3=widow/er, 4=divorced/abandoned
HHQ 206: Education - What is the last school class the household 
head / they passed? 
0= no schooling, 1-9=last class passed, 10= SSC, O Level or equivalent ,11= HSC, A Level or equivalent; 12= Degree or 
equivalent 13= Master or equivalent, 14=Just enrolled, 15=Only signature, 16=Other (and specify)
HHQ 207: Main Occupation - What is your / their main occupation?
0=Unemployed, 1=Agriculture day labour, 2=Other day labour, 3=Domestic maid, 4=Rickshaw/van/boat/push cart , 
5=Skilled labour (and specify), 6=Own agriculture, 7=Fishing/aquaculture, 8=Livestock/poultry, 9=Industrial/garment 
labour, 10=Petty trade/business, 11=Other business, 12=Cottage industry/handicraft, 13=Service, 14=Transport worker 
(bus/truck), 15=Begging, 16=Rag picker/scavenging, 17=Housewife, 18=Student, 19 = Too old to work, 20 = Too young 
to work, 21=Other (and specify)
HHQ 207: Average Monthly Income – What is his/her average monthly income either in cash or kind or both? (mention the amount in Taka)
SL Name Relationship Sex Marital Status Education Occupation Monthly Income
HHQ 201 HHQ 202 HHQ 203 HHQ 204 HHQ 205 HHQ 206 HHQ 207 HHQ 208
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
49
Section 3: Questions are related exclusively to the pupil through whom this HH member was selected
# Questions Response Code
HHQ 
301 Which class/grade does (NAME of the CHILD) attend? Mention grade level / number
HHQ 
302
Which part of the day does (NAME of the CHILD) 
spend in the school?
1 = Morning 
2 = Afternoon
HHQ 
303
In the past 6 school days, how many days did (NAME 
of the CHILD) eat breakfast? Maximum 6 days, minimum 0 days
HHQ 
304
In the past 6 school days, how many days did (NAME 
of the CHILD) eat lunch?
Maximum 6 days, minimum 0 days
HHQ 
305
In the past 6 school days, how many days did (NAME 
of the CHILD) eat dinner?
Maximum 6 days, minimum 0 days
HHQ 
306
In the past 6 school days, how many days did you give 
(NAME of the CHILD) a school tiffin/lunch/snacks?
Maximum 6 days, minimum 0 days
HHQ 
307
In the past 6 school days, how many days did (NAME 
of the CHILD) brought the biscuits back to home (i.e 
did not eat the biscuits at school during school 
hours)?
Maximum 6 days, minimum 0 days
HHQ 
308
On school days, when biscuits (school snacks) are 
provided, do you reduce the portion of food provided 
to the pupil compared to the week end?
1. Yes
2. No (skip to 310)
HHQ 
309
If yes, on average how much do you reduce the 
portion compared to the week end?
1. 1% - 25%
2. 26% -50%
3. 51% -75%
HHQ 
310
During the past 30 days except the school holidays, 
did (NAME of the CHILD) miss any school days?
1. Yes
2. No (skip to 316)
HHQ 
311
What are the reasons for missing the school days?
(Multiple Response)
1 = Transportation issue
2 = child work on farm or livestock 
tending
3 = child looking after siblings or 
domestic work
4 = lack of food at home
5 = lack of food at school
6 = because of insecurity, fear of going 
to school
7 = sickness / illness
8 = ceremonies and family events
9= due to skipping school
10 = Other (specify)
HHQ 
312
How many days did he/she miss due to lack of food / 
hunger?
Number of days. 
Put “00” if no days were missed due to 
this reason
HHQ 
313 How many days did he/she miss due to illness?
Number of days. 
Put “00” if no days were missed due to 
this reason
HHQ 
314
How many days did he/she miss for income generating 
activities?
Number of days. 
Put “00” if no days were missed due to 
this reason
HHQ 
315 How many days did he/she miss for domestic work?
Number of days. 
Put “00” if no days were missed due to 
this reason
HHQ 
316 Is there any benefit of primary education?
1. Yes
2. No (Skip to HHQ318)
3. Don’t know (Skip to HHQ318)
HHQ 
317
If Yes, what are the benefits of primary education?
(Please list at least 3 benefits of Primary education -
Multiple Response)
1. Improves literacy rate
2. Social Skill Development
3. Increases ability to learn new skills 
(adoption of technology)
4. Girls remain more in school and early 
marriages are delayed
5. Improves cohesion in the community
50
6. Helps break the cycle of poverty
7. Increases the chances of the pupils' 
future economic self-reliance
8. Through girls' education, improves 
the general wellbeing of households 
(nutrition, health etc)
HHQ 
318 Do you know about school feeding programme? 1. Yes
2. No (Skip to HHQ320)
HHQ 
319
If Yes, what are the benefits of school feeding 
program to you and to the community/society
(Multiple response)
1. Improves school attendance
2. Promotes performance
3. Improves child nutrition levels
4. Improve attentiveness
5. child more eager to go to school
6. save family expenditure
7. Child less/not hungry at school
8. my children get free biscuits
Others (Specify)
HHQ 
320
What are the existing avenues through which you can 
get information of make complaints on the school 
feeding programme?
1. None
2. Regular meetings with SMC
3. Regular meetings with School 
Administrators
4. Suggestion Box
5. Helpline
6. Informal communication (verbal) 
with teachers / SMC members
7. Through school going child
8. Other (specify)________
HHQ 
321
Does the school have Parent Teacher Association or 
similar governance structure?
1. Yes
2. No (Skip to HHQ 323)
3. Don’t Know (Skip to HHQ 323)
HHQ 
322 If Yes, are you part of any Parent Teacher Association? 1. Yes
2. No
HHQ 
323
Are you aware of the existence of the School 
Management Committee (SMC)?
1. Yes
2. No (Skip to HHQ 324)
HHQ 
324
If Yes, what is your perception of the SMCs 
involvement in the School Feeding Programme?
1=High
2=Medium
3=Low
HHQ 
325
In the past 30 days, were there any cases of physical 
and/or emotional threats to the safety of your child 
that he/she was exposed to when going to and coming 
back from school or at school?
1. Yes
2. No (Skip to Section 4)
3. Don’t Know (Skip to Section 4)
HHQ 
326
If Yes, please indicate the type of threats:
(Multiple Response)
1. Rape
2. Sexual Harassment
3. Robbed
4. Animal Attacks
5. Bullying / Teasing
6. Abuse of drugs
7. Punishment at school
8. Others (specify)
51
Section 4: Dietary Diversity 
Ask this section to parents specifically about the consumption of different food items by the selected student)
SL Food Items
In the last 24 hours (during the day and 
night), did (CHILD NAME) eat any of 
these food items?
1=Yes
2=No
9 = Don’t know
STQ 
401 STQ 402 STQ 403
1 Food made from grains, such as bread, rice, noodles, porridge, or 
[other local grain food]
2 White potatoes, white yams, manioc, cassava, [other local root crops] 
or any other foods made from roots
3 Any foods made from beans, peas, or lentils, such as [add any local 
legume names]
4 Any foods made from nuts or seeds such as [add any local nut/seed 
names]
5 Milk
6 Cheese, yogurt, or other milk products
7 Eggs
8 Any liver, kidney, heart, or other organ meats from domesticated 
animals, such as cattle, swine, goat, chicken, or duck
9 Any liver, kidney, heart, or other organ meats from wild animals, such 
as [names of local commonly-consumed wildlife]
10 Any meat, such as beef, pork, lamb, goat, chicken, or duck
11 Any flesh from wild animals, such as [names of local commonly￾consumed wildlife]
12 Fresh or dried fish, shellfish, or seafood
13 Grubs, snails or insects such as [add any local insect names]
14 Any dark green leafy vegetables such as [local dark green leafy 
vegetables]
15 Pumpkin, carrots, squash, or sweet potatoes that are yellow or orange 
inside or [other local yellow/orange foods]
16 Ripe mangoes, ripe papayas or [other local vitamin A-rich fruits]
17 Foods made with red palm oil, red palm nut, or red palm nut pulp 
sauce (Vitamin A rich)
18 Any other vegetables
19 Any other fruits
Additional food items
20 Any oil, fats, or butter, or foods made with any of these
21 Sweets: sugar, honey, sweetened soda or sweetened juice drinks, 
sugary foods such as chocolates, candies, cookies and cakes
22 Condiments for flavor, such as chilies, spices, herbs, fish powder or 
[add any local condiment names]
52
Student Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme 
in Bangladesh: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this 
survey?
1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
STQ 101 District
STQ 102 Upazila
STQ 103 Union
STQ 104 School Name
STQ 105 Village 
STQ 106 Student Code
STQ 107 Student name
STQ 108 Sex 1=Male
2=Female
STQ 109 Age (months)
STQ 110 Current Grade/Class
STQ 111 Father' name
STQ 112 Mother's name
STQ 113 Date of Interview _____/_____/_____ Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2012)
STQ 114 Supervisor Code
STQ 115 Supervisor Name
STQ 116 Enumerator Code
STQ 117 Enumerator Name
53
Section 2
Question Response Code
STQ 
201
In the last 24 hours did you have breakfast?
(This question is applicable for school days. If the 
child didn’t go to school before the interview date, 
ask about last school day)
1=Yes (skip to STQ 203)
2=No 
STQ 
202
If didn’t have a breakfast, what was the main 
reason?
1 = not hungry
2 = didn’t have food
3 = illness 
4= not enough time
5 = Other (specify)
STQ 
203
Was this meal enough for you?
(ask the student if s/he was still hungry after the 
meal)
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 
204
In the last 24 hours did you have lunch?
(This question is applicable for school days. If the 
child didn’t go to school before the interview date, 
ask about last school day)
1=Yes (skip to STQ 206)
2=No 
STQ 
205
If didn’t have a lunch, what was the main reason? 1 = not hungry
2 = didn’t have food
3 = illness 
4= not enough time
5 = Other (specify)
STQ 
206
Was this meal enough for you?
(ask the student if s/he was still hungry after the 
meal)
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 
207
In the last 24 hours did you have dinner? 
(This question is applicable for school days. If the 
child didn’t go to school before the interview date, 
ask about last school day)
1=Yes (skip to STQ 209)
2=No 
STQ 
208
If didn’t have a lunch, what was the main reason? 1 = not hungry
2 = didn’t have food
3 = illness 
4= not enough time
5 = Other (specify)
STQ 
209
Was this meal enough for you?
(ask the student if s/he was still hungry after the 
meal)
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 
210
In the last 24 hours did you have any snacks (mid￾morning / late-afternoon)? 
(This question is applicable for school days. If the 
child didn’t go to school before the interview date, 
ask about last school day)
1=Yes
2=No (skip to STQ 212)
54
STQ 
211
If yes, how many snacks did you have?
(this includes the biscuits provided by WFP)
Number of snacks in last 24 hours
STQ 
212
During the last school day did you receive any 
biscuits from the school to eat during the school 
hours?
1=Yes
2=No (skip to STQ 214)
STQ 
213 
If yes, did you eat the biscuits during the school 
hours at the schools?
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 
214
In the past 6 school days, day did you receive any 
biscuits from the school to eat during the school 
hours?
1=Yes
2=No (skip to STQ 216)
STQ 
215
If yes, how many days did you eat the biscuits 
during the school hours at the schools?
Number of days
Put “00” if never ate the biscuits at schools
STQ 
216
If never eaten the biscuits at school during the 
school hours, what were the reasons? 
(Multiple Response)
1= was not hungry
2 = Didn’t have the time / environment
3 = don’t like the taste of the biscuits
4 = gave the biscuits to someone else
5 = ate snacks brought from home
6 = other (specify)
STQ 
217
How long does it take to
get to school?
Number of minutes
STQ 
218
How do you usually (most commonly) travel to 
school?
1= walking
2=by bicycle,
3=by car,
4=by bus,
5=by motorbike,
6 = Rickshaw / Van / other local transport
7=other
STQ 
219
How many days per week do you take extra lessons 
after school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t take extra lessons
STQ 
220
How many days per week do you work at home 
before going to school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t work
STQ 
221
How many days per week do you work at home 
after coming home from school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t work
STQ 
222
Can you mention a few about good nutrition and 
dietary practices?
(Multiple response)
1. Hand washing with soap: before meal, 
after defecation, before preparing food 
etc. 
2. Using sanitary latrine
3. Keeping the food away from insects / 
flies
4. Drinking water from a safe source (e.g. 
tube well, purified safe water from other 
source) 
5. Should give enough food to both boys 
and girls 
6. Eat vegetables and fruits every day to 
protect our body from diseases
7. Eat fish, meat, egg and drink milk every 
day for our physical growth
8. Eat rice, bread, potato etc. to get energy 
for our daily work
9. Eat dark color (green, yellow and red) 
vegetable, small fish for vitamin to protect 
night blindness
10. Eat fortified biscuits in school to get 
vitamin, energy and minerals
11. Wash vegetable before cutting
12. Should not cook vegetables for longer 
duration or with excessive heat to preserve 
vitamin
13. Should not spill water (Mar) during 
cooking rice
55
14. Others (specify)
00. Don’t know about any good 
nutrition/dietary behavior
STQ 
223
Does the meal provided act as an incentive for 
going to school every day?
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 
224
If no meal is provided do you return home before 
the end of the school day?
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 
225
Normally, if you become aware that the school 
food is finished, do you go to school the next day?
1=Yes
2=No
3 = Not sure / Don’t know
STQ 
226
In the last 30 days how many school days have you 
missed due to illness?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if didn’t miss a day
56
EGRA Answer sheet
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme 
in Bangladesh: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this survey? 1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
STQ 101 District
STQ 102 Upazila
STQ 103 Union
STQ 104 School Name
STQ 105 Village 
STQ 106 Student Code
STQ 107 Student name
STQ 108 Sex 1=Male
2=Female
STQ 109 Age (months)
STQ 110 Current Grade/Class
STQ 111 Father' name
STQ 112 Mother's name
STQ 113 Date of Interview _____/_____/_____ Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2012)
STQ 114 Supervisor Code
STQ 115 Supervisor Name
STQ 116 Enumerator Code
STQ 117 Enumerator Name
57
Section 2
Question Response Code
STQ 
201
How long does it take for you to get to school? Number of minutes
STQ 
202
Do you have anyone at home to help you with 
reading?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
STQ 
203
What is the level of your father’s education ? 0= no schooling, 1-9=last class passed, 
10= SSC, O Level or equivalent ,11= HSC, 
A Level or equivalent; 12= Degree or 
equivalent 13= Master or equivalent, 
14=Only signature, 15 = Don’t know
STQ 
204
What is the level of you Mother’s education?
STQ 
205
Do you read any extracurricular book? 1. Yes
2. No
STQ 
206
If yes, did you read any story within last 7 days? Number 
STQ 
207
How many days per week do you take extra lessons 
after school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t take extra lessons
STQ 
208
How many days per week do you work at home 
before going to school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t work
STQ 
209
How many days per week do you work at home after 
coming home from school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t work
Section 3: Student Reading & Understanding skills
(Applicable only for students at the end of grade 2 / beginning of grade 3)
# Questions Response Code / Instructions
Letter Recognition (CLPM)
(The full set of letters of the alphabet is listed in random order, 10 letters to a row, using a clear, large, and familiar font. 
Stop this section of the test if the child can’t answer anything in the first 60 seconds, and move on to the next section)
STQ 301 Total letters read in 60 Second Number
(skip to STQ 305 if response is 
“00”)
STQ 302 Total incorrect letters Number
STQ 303
Time remaining on stopwatch
(this will apply if the student finishes all the letters in 
less than 60 seconds)
Seconds
Put “00” if no time is remaining
STQ 304 Let the student to finish the whole list and then 
count how many correctly answered
Number of letters correctly 
identified
Familiar Word Recognition (FWPM)
(25 simple words selected from Grade-2 textbook, 5 words to a row, using a clear, large, and familiar font. Stop this section 
of the test if the child can’t answer anything in the first 60 seconds, and move on to the next section)
STQ 305
Total Words read in 60 Second Number of words
(skip to STQ 309if response is 
“00”)
STQ 306
Total incorrect words 
(if the words are skipped then they will also be 
counted as incorrect words)
Number of incorrect words
STQ 307 Time remaining on stopwatch
(this will apply if the student finishes all the words in 
less than 60 seconds)
Seconds (time remaining)
Put “00” if no time is remaining
STQ 308 Let the student to finish the whole list and then 
count how many correctly answered
Number of words correctly read
Invented Word Recognition (FWPM)
58
(25 invented words, 5 words to a row, using a clear, large, and familiar font. Stop this section of the test if the child can’t 
answer anything in the first 60 seconds, and move on to the next section)
STQ 309 Total Words read in 60 Second Number of words
(skip to STQ 313 if response is 
“00”)
STQ 310 Total incorrect words 
(if the words are skipped then they will also be 
counted as incorrect words)
Number of incorrect words
STQ 311 Time remaining on stopwatch
(this will apply if the student finishes all the words in 
less than 60 seconds)
Seconds (time remaining)
Put “00” if no time is remaining
STQ 312 Let the student to finish the whole list and then 
count how many correctly answered
Number of words correctly read
Paragraph Reading and Comprehension 
Paragraph – 1 (Grade 2 Textbook)
STQ 313 Total Words read in 60 Second Number of words
(skip to STQ 321 if response is 
“00”)
STQ 314 Total incorrect words 
(if the words are skipped then they will also be 
counted as incorrect words)
Number of incorrect words
STQ 315 Time remaining on stopwatch
(this will apply if the student finishes all the words in 
less than 60 seconds)
Seconds (time remaining)
Put “00” if no time is remaining
Comprehension of Paragraph 1 
STQ 316 Question 1 1 = Correct answer given
2 = Wrong answer given
3 = No answer given by the 
student / refused to answer
4 = Question not asked
STQ 317 Question 2
STQ 318 Question 3
STQ 319 Question 4
STQ 320 Question 5
Paragraph – 2 (Grade 2 equivalent outside materials) 
STQ 321 Total Words read in 60 Second Number of words
(if response is “00”, finish the 
test and thank the student)
STQ 322 Total incorrect words 
(if the words are skipped then they will also be 
counted as incorrect words)
Number of incorrect words
STQ 323 Time remaining on stopwatch
(this will apply if the student finishes all the words in 
less than 60 seconds)
Seconds (time remaining)
Put “00” if no time is remaining
Comprehension of Paragraph 2
STQ 324 Question 1 1 = Correct answer given
2 = Wrong answer given
3 = No answer given by the 
student / refused to answer
4 = Question not asked
STQ 325 Question 2
STQ 326 Question 3
STQ 327 Question 4
STQ 328 Question 5
59
Teacher Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme 
in Bangladesh: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this survey? 1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
SKQ 101 District
SKQ 102 Upazila
SKQ 103 Union
SKQ 104 School Name
SKQ 105 Village 
SKQ 106 Respondent name (Teacher)
SKQ 107 Date of Interview
____/____/____ Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 
2015)
SKQ 108 Supervisor Code
SKQ 109 Supervisor Name
SKQ 110 Enumerator Code
SKQ 111 Enumerator Name
Section 2: Teacher Activities and Classroom Environment
# Question Response Code
STQ 201 What is your name ?
STQ 202 Sex of the teacher 1. Male
2. Female
STQ 203 For how many years you are teaching? Number of years
STQ 204 How many years you are teaching at this 
school?
Number of years
STQ 205 What position do you hold at this school? 1. Head teacher/ principal 
2. Assistant/Deputy head teacher 
3. Senior teacher 
4. Teacher (permanent/ regular) 
5. Teacher (paid contract) 
6. Teacher (volunteer) 
7. Other (specify)
STQ 206 What is your highest education qualification? 1. MSc or higher
2. Bachelor
3. Diploma
4. Higher Secondary
5. Secondary
6. Primary
7. Other (Specify)
STQ 207 Which grade do you teach?
(Multiple Response)
1. Grade 1
2. Grade 2
3. Grade 3
4. Grade 4
5. Grade 5
60
6. Pre-primary
STQ 208 What subject do you teach at school?
(Multiple Response)
1. Literature / Language (Bengali)
2. Literature / Language (English / 
other foreign language)
3. Science 
4. Mathematics
5. Social science
6. Religion
7. History
8. Arts / Painting
9. Others
STQ 209 Do you have any formal training on teaching 
from government / non-government institutes? 
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 210 In the last 30 days, how many days per week do 
you usually spend for teaching at school?
days per week
Put “00” if none
STQ 211 Do you tutor students outside school hours? 1=yes, with pay
2=yes, without pay
3 = Both
3= Don’t tutor 
STQ 212 In the last 30 days, how many days per week do 
you usually spend for private tutoring outside 
school?
days per week
Put “00” if none
STQ 213 Do you have another job outside the school 
other than tutoring?
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 214 What proportion of students in your classroom 
has the required textbook/s for the class?
1=None,
2=1-25%
3=25-50 %
4=50-75 %
5=75-99%
6 = 100 %
7 = Don’t know
STQ 215 What proportion of students in your classroom 
has a desk and chair?
1=None,
2=1-25%
3=25-50 %
4=50-75 %
5=75-99%
6 = 100 %
7 = Don’t know
STQ 216 Do you think the provision of school meals 
significantly impacts the decision of children to 
come to school?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t Know
STQ 217 According to you, if WFP SFP would stop today, 
what would be the consequence on pupil 
attendance?
1. No consequence, attendance will 
remain the same
2. Attendance will drop slightly (10%) 
3. Attendance will drop significantly 
(10%-30%)
4. Attendance will drop drastically 
(over 30%)
STQ 218 According to you, if WFP SFP would stop today, 
what would be the consequence on pupil 
Enrollment?
1. No consequence, Enrollment will 
remain the same
2. Enrollment will drop slightly (10%) 
3. Enrollment will drop significantly 
(10%-30%)
4. Enrollment will drop drastically 
(over 30%)
STQ 219 In your observation, how many percent of 
students in classrooms identified as inattentive?
(if the teacher mention about number of 
inattentive students in a class, then calculate % 
using the total number of students)
%
61
Section 3: Teacher Compensation & Income
# Question Response Code
STQ 301 What is your average monthly income from 
school?
Income in taka (salary + benefits)
(if the teacher has not been paid 
within last 12 months put 00)
STQ 302 How much do you earn from tutoring outside 
school hours?
Income in taka
Put “00” if no income from this 
source
STQ 303 How much do you earn monthly from other 
sources?
Income in taka
Put “00” if no income from other 
source
STQ 304 Do you think your salary is sufficiently high to 
cover your living expenses?
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 305 Do you get your salary on time per month? 1=Yes
2=No
STQ 306 If there is a delay in getting monthly salary, how 
long does it usually take?
Number of days
Put “00” if there is no delay
(Put 999 if the teacher has not 
received any salary from school 
within last 12 months)
62
Section 4: Classroom OBSERVATION 
# Question Response Code
STQ 401 Did the teacher apply any 
participatory technique 
during the class?
(Multiple Response)
0. No 
1. Role play & asking question instead of giving the message 
straightway
2. Story telling (to make student understand instead of 
giving the message straightway)
3. Group Discussion
4. Problem solving: by discussion / as a group
5. Other (Specify)
STQ 402 Did the teacher use any 
audio-visual material?
(Multiple Response)
0. No 
1. Pictures from text Book
2. Handmade posters 
3. Printed visual aids
4. Drawing and writing at the board
5. Playing video / audio (for teaching/learning purpose) 
6. Other (Specify)
STQ 403 Did the teacher make 
effort to engage 
students?
(Multiple Response)
0. No 
1. Gave classroom exercise 
2. Asking students to write at the blackboard (not as a 
punishment)
3. Identify inattentive students and give special care
4. Ask the students if they have understood the word or 
topics being discussed
4. Discuss new word or concept with meaning and examples
5. Allowing students to reading loudly / silently at the class
6. Encourage students to ask questions 
7. Gave answer nicely if there is a question from students
6. Other (specify)
STQ 404 Other classroom 
observations:
(Multiple Response)
1. Teachers made effort to make the class interesting
2. Teacher initiates topics related discussion from the 
common experiences before start discussing on the main 
topics 
3. Teacher repeatedly and properly discussed difficult topics 
and words 
4. Teacher reviews the content and evaluates the learning of 
the students at the end of class
5. Other (Specify)
SPECIAL questions for Head TEACHER / OBSERVATION of DOCUMENTS
STQ 405 What does the school 
authority or administrator 
to improve 
teaching/classroom 
environment?
(Multiple Response)
0. Nothing
1. Regularly evaluates the classroom instructions and 
2. Regular monitoring of teaching techniques of teachers 
3. Provides feedback to teachers for improvement of the 
quality and techniques
4. Other (Specify)
STQ 406 What does the school 
authority and head 
teacher do quality 
assurance for improving 
literacy skills?
(Multiple Response)
0. Nothing
1. Teaching instruction manual are available for all the 
teachers
2. Supplementary reading materials are made available for 
students
3. Encourage teachers to use audio-visual aid during class
4. Encourage teachers to prepare handmade posters / locally 
made visual aids
5. Encourage teachers to adopt participatory teaching 
techniques (e.g. Role play / Story telling /Group Discussion / 
Problem solving)
6. Other (Specify)
What measures are in 0. None
63
place/functional for 
management and 
discipline of the school ?
(Multiple Response)
1. Regular attendance for Teachers 
2. Timely attendance for Teachers
3. Regular attendance for Students 
4. Timely attendance for Students
5. School uniform are worn by students
6. Other (specify)
Are there measures in 
place/functional for 
improvement and 
maintenance of school 
infrastructure?
(Multiple Response)
0. No
1. Cleanliness of the school surrounding 
2. Regular cleaning of classrooms 
3. Regular cleaning of teacher’s rooms
4. Proper maintenance of school latrines
5. Proper maintenance of classroom and furnitures
6. Source of clean water for teachers and students
7. Other (specify)
What does the head 
teacher do for proper 
school governance (e.g., 
legislation, 
communication, 
enforcement)? 
(Multiple Response)
0. None
1. Ensures minimum contact/teaching hours particularly for 
the main subjects
2. Conducting meetings with parents to discuss progress
3. Other (Specify)
64
Store-Keeper Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme 
in Bangladesh: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this survey? 1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
SKQ 101 District
SKQ 102 Upazila
SKQ 103 Union
SKQ 104 School Name
SKQ 105 Village 
SKQ 106 Respondent name
SKQ 107 Sex of the Respondent: ___ 1. Male
2. Female
SKQ 108 Date of Interview ____/____/____ Day/Month/Year 
(e.g. 15 / 04 / 2015)
SKQ 109 Supervisor Code
SKQ 110 Supervisor Name
SKQ 111 Enumerator Code
SKQ 112 Enumerator Name
Section 2: School feeding program information 
# Question Response Code
STQ 201 Does the school have a pest/insects management plan? 1. Yes
2. No
STQ 202 Does the school carry out pest/insects control measures? 1. Yes
2. No
STQ 203 Are you trained in safe food preparation and storage 
practices? 
1. Yes
2. No (skip to STQ205)
STQ 204 If Yes, how many times have you received training in last one 
year?
STQ 205 Does your school have a dedicated food store room?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes within the school 
campus (skip to STQ207)
2. Yes outside the school 
campus (skip to STQ207)
3. No
STQ 206 If not, where is the food stored?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. In a class room
2. In teacher’s room
3. In the kitchen
4. Open space
5. Neighbor’s home
6. teacher’s home
7. Other (specify)
STQ 207 Is the food store room lockable?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
65
STQ 208 Is the store room properly ventilated?
DIRECT OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 209 Is there any evidence of presence of rodents in the store?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 210 Is there any evidence of presence of insects (weevil and 
others)?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 211 Is there any evidence of mould and excess of humidity?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 212 Is there any evidence of spillage or leakage?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 213 Is the food stored off the ground?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No (End of Interview)
STQ 214 If yes, does the school use improvised raised pallets for 
commodities' storage?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
66
Annex 3: Baseline Values of Key Indicators
Table 3: WFP Bangladesh SFP performance indicators (from PMP)
Result 
level Indicator Source and measurement Average 
value (%)
Value by sex (%) Value by Upazila/ sub￾district (%)
Male Female Fulchori Sundorganj
MGD 
SO1
Percent of students who, by the end 
of two grades of primary schooling, 
demonstrate that they can read and 
understand the meaning of grade 
level text. 
Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) was 
conducted among 936 students from Grade 3 in 
sampled schools during the baseline survey. EGRA 
had five sub-tests; one sub-test (Oral Reading 
Fluency) was taken as indicator of reading and 
comprehension ability of students. Students showing 
an ORF of ≥45 CWPM are shown here.
26 2 25 26 19 28.2
MGD 
1.1.1
Average teacher attendance. Teacher attendance was assessed using monthly 
school records and comparing this data agianst the 
number of working days per month in the academic 
year January-December 2014. 
92 (± 
0.42)ns 92 (±0.61) 92 (±0.58) 91 (± 
0.92) 93 (±0.47)
MGD 
1.1.4
Percent of teachers/educators/ 
teaching assistants who demonstrate 
the use of new and quality teaching 
techniques or tools as a result of 
USDA assistance. 
This indicator assesses the training provided on 
literacy techniques using USDA assistance that had 
not yet commenced. 
At the request of WFP the survey team developed an 
observation checklist to assess the teaching 
techniques used by teachers at the time of baseline 
(see Table 13 & 14 in Annex 5).
MGD 
1.1.5
Percent of school administrators and 
officials who demonstrate the use of 
This indicator assesses the training provided to 
school administrators using USDA assistance that 
67
Result 
level Indicator Source and measurement Average 
value (%)
Value by sex (%) Value by Upazila/ sub￾district (%)
Male Female Fulchori Sundorganj
new tools and technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance
had not yet commenced. 
At the request of WFP the survey team developed an 
checklist to assess the techniques used by school 
administrators and officials at the time of baseline 
(see Table 15 in Annex 5).
MGD 
1.2
Percent of students in classrooms 
identified as inattentive by their 
teachers (data collected during a 
single day)
Inattentiveness of students was collected based on 
the majority view of three teachers on the 
attentiveness of ten sampled students from each 
school
29 ns 30 28 34 27
MGD 
1.2.1
Percent of students in target schools 
who regularly consume a meal 
before the school day
Students’ consumption of meals before the school 
day was assessed by asking parents whether the 
child had a breakfast before school in the past six 
school days; regular consumption was defined as a 
positive response on all six days.
94 ns 93 95 94 95
Percent of students in target schools 
who regularly consume a meal during 
the school day
This indicator was calculated as the percent of 
students who received WFP provided biscuits and 
consumed these during school hours. Consumption 
history over the last seven days (six school days) 
was taken from students; regular consumption was 
defined as a positive response on all six days.
59 ns 60 58 55 60
MGD 
1.3
Percent of students (girls/boys) 
regularly (80%) attending 
schools/classrooms
Student attendance was measured using the 
attendance record of ten randomly selected students 
from every sample school for the last academic year 
79 2 77 80 73 80
68
Result 
level Indicator Source and measurement Average 
value (%)
Value by sex (%) Value by Upazila/ sub￾district (%)
Male Female Fulchori Sundorganj
(January-December 2014).
MGD 
1.3.2
Average number of school days 
missed by students due to illness (for 
each school and in aggregate)
During the baseline survey pre-testing, there were no 
school records on days missed due to illness. Data 
was collected on average number of school days 
missed per student due to illness in last 30 days 
preceding the survey during the interview of ten 
randomly selected students and their parents from 
each sample school.
Student 
response: 
1.3 
(±0.08)ns
Parent 
response:
0.82 
(±0.06)ns
1.2 
(±0.11)
0.82 
(±0.09)
1.4 
(±0.12)
0.82 
(±0.09)
1.2 
(±0.13)
0.76 
(±0.11)
1.4 (±0.10)
0.85 (±0.07)
MGD 
SO2
Dietary diversity of school-age 
children
Dietary history of pupils was measured by 
interviewing parents using a 24 hours recall. Data 
was collected on the ten food groups recommended 
by USDA, as suggested in Volume 11 of the Feed the 
Future guidance series. Mean dietary diversity score 
is presented here.
5.1 (± 
0.05)ns
5.1 
(±0.07)
5.04 
(±0.07)
5.1 
(±0.13) 5.03 (±0.09)
Percent of target schools that use a 
pest management plan for their food 
storage facilities
Data was collected by interviews with storekeepers 
(usually the head teacher or another teacher from the 
school) from the sample school to ascertain whether 
the school had a pest management plan.
48 ns - - 39 52
MGD 
2.3
Percent of students in target schools 
who can name at least three good 
nutrition and dietary practices
Data was collected through interviews with students.
42 ns 39 44 40 42
ns Not significant either by sex or by Upazila 1 Significant difference between male and female
2 Significant difference between survey Upazilas (Fulchori and Sundorganj)
69
Table 4: Key school variables and non-WFP indicators in formal schools 
Indicator Source and measurement
Baseline 
Question￾naire name
Question￾naire ID
Average 
value 
(%)
Values by sex (%) Values by Upazila/ 
sub-district (%)
Male Female Fulchori Sundor￾ganj
Average years of experience of 
the teachers
Interview with the head teacher and 
other teachers School SCQ 407 12 
(±0.4)1 14 (±0.7) 9.8 (±0.5) 13 (±0.5) 12 (±0.8)
Average years of experience of 
the head teacher
Interview with the head teacher School SCQ 406-
407
20 
(±0.8)ns 21 (±0.9) 18 (±1.7) 21 (±1.4) 19 (±1.0)
Percent of teachers attending 
≥90% of the school days during 
last academic year (January￾December 2014)
Regular teacher attendance was 
defined as attending more than or 
equal to 90 percent of school days; 
teacher attendance was assessed 
using monthly school records and the 
number of working days per month 
for the academic year January￾December 2014.
School
SCQ 501-
517; 
615
77 ns 78 76 70 79
Student attendance on the day 
of the survey
The proportion of enrolled students 
present at school during the survey 
day was calculated using direct 
observation to count the number of 
students present and comparing it 
against the number of enrolled 
students. The mean proportion of 
students in attendance is presented 
here.
School SCQ 1003 
- 1006
76 
(±1.5)2 75 (±1.6) 76 (±1.9) 82 (±2.5) 74 (±1.7)
Percent of storekeepers trained 
on safe food preparation and 
Storekeepers (usually the head 
teacher or another teacher from the Storekeeper STQ 203 15 - - 15 15
70
Indicator Source and measurement
Baseline 
Question￾naire name
Question￾naire ID
Average 
value 
(%)
Values by sex (%) Values by Upazila/ 
sub-district (%)
Male Female Fulchori Sundor￾ganj
storage practices. school) were interviewed to ascertain 
their training history.
Percent of schools with 
dedicated storeroom for storage 
of biscuits
Data was collected through 
interviews with storekeepers and 
direct observation.
Storekeeper STQ 205 28ns - - 27 29
Percent of school where food is 
stored off the ground
Data was collected through 
interviews with storekeepers and 
direct observation.
Storekeeper STQ 213 94ns - - 96 93
Percent of school with gardens Data was collected through 
interviews with the head teacher and 
direct observation.
School SCQ 310 322 - - 15 38
Percent of schools with a library 
or library corner for students
Data was collected through 
interviews with the head teacher. School SCQ 302 68ns - - 69 68
Average number of classrooms 
in target schools
Number of classrooms available in 
the school were counted using direct 
observation.
School SCQ 301 3.9 
(±0.2)ns - - 4.0 (±0.4) 3.9 
(±0.2)
Student to classroom ratio Number of students currently enrolled 
and number of classrooms available 
in the school were counted using 
school records and direct 
observation. Student:classroom ratio 
is presented here.
School SCQ 301; 
1003-1004
74 (±3.6) ns - - 63 (±4.1) 78 (±4.6)
Percent of schools with a 
source of safe drinking water at 
or near school
The presence of a source of drinking 
water near or at school was identified 
through direct observation.
School SCQ 309 99 ns - - 100 99
71
Indicator Source and measurement
Baseline 
Question￾naire name
Question￾naire ID
Average 
value 
(%)
Values by sex (%) Values by Upazila/ 
sub-district (%)
Male Female Fulchori Sundor￾ganj
Percent of schools with toilet 
facilities for students
The availability of toilets at school for 
students was identified through direct 
observation.
School SCQ 312 85ns 77 88
Average number of toilets The number of toilets available in the 
school was counted using direct 
observation.
School SCQ 318-
320
1.6 
(±1.4)ns - - 1.4 (±1.0) 1.7 
(±1.4)
Toilets to student ratio The availability of toilets at school for 
students was identified through direct 
observation and compared with the 
number of students currently enrolled 
from. Student:toilet ratio is presented 
here.
School
SCQ 318-
320; 1003-
1004
179 
(±11)ns - - 161 (±22) 185 
(±12)
Percent of schools with 
separate toilets for girls School SCQ 314 28 - -
Percent of schools with a 
School Management Committee 
(SMC)
Data was collected through 
interviews with the head teacher, and 
his/her response on SMC availability 
was recorded
School SCQ 206 96 ns - - 100 94
Percent of schools where 
school management committee 
(SMC) is highly engaged in 
school feeding program
Data was collected through 
interviews with the head teacher, and 
his/her response to SMC.participation 
and engagement was recorded.
School SCQ 214 23ns - - 31 20
Percent of schools where 
school management committee 
(SMC) is highly engaged in 
Data was collected through 
interviews with the head teacher, and 
his/her opinion on SMC participation 
School SCQ 215 402 - - 62 32
72
Indicator Source and measurement
Baseline 
Question￾naire name
Question￾naire ID
Average 
value 
(%)
Values by sex (%) Values by Upazila/ 
sub-district (%)
Male Female Fulchori Sundor￾ganj
other aspects of management at 
school level
and engagement was recorded.
Average distance by road 
between the school and nearest 
education office
Data was collected through 
interviews with the head teacher, and 
an estimate of the distance 
calculated based on his/her 
response.
School SCQ 218 15 
(±1.2)2 - - 22 (±3.7) 12 (±0.7)
ns Not Significant either by sex or by Upazila 1 Significant difference between Male and Female
2 Significant difference between survey Upazilas (Fulchori and Sundorganj)
73
Annex 4: Assessment of literacy using Early Grade Reading 
Assessment (EGRA) tools
The ability to read simple text fluently and understand its meaning is fundamental to learning; 
without this skill, a child has little chance to succeed in school and beyond. Evidence indicates 
that learning to read both early and at a sufficient rate, with comprehension, is essential for 
learning to read well. A substantial body of research documents the fact that children need to 
be able to read by the end of grade two in order to be successful in school7
. Importantly, 
children who do not learn to read in grades one to three are likely to fall further and further 
behind as they grow older. Not only does learning to read become more difficult with age, but 
after grade three, the school system no longer teaches reading explicitly. Students who do not 
learn to read in the first few grades are more likely to fall behind in other subjects, to repeat 
grades, and eventually to drop out of school8
.
One of the two strategic objectives (SOs) of the MGD supported FFE program in Bangladesh is to 
improve literacy of school-aged children. WFP and USDA have identified the indicator “Percent 
of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read 
and understand the meaning of grade level text” to measure children’s reading abilities. This 
indicator can be measured using any assessment system with adequate psychometric validity 
and reliability. Based on discussions with WFP and implementing partners, the assessment team 
chose to use the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) to measure literacy in the baseline 
survey9
.
A4.1. EGRA Sub-tests and Measurement Approach
EGRA is a method-independent approach that aims to measure a child’s reading ability in the 
initial stages of his/her learning process. Through a series of tests, EGRA measures various skills 
that are necessary building blocks for children to read fluently and comprehend text. A summary 
of the EGRA sub-tests administered during the baseline survey and their associated 
measurement approaches is given in Table 5.
7 Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: McGraw-Hill. (2) Roskos, K., D. Strickland, J. Haase, and S. 
Malik. 2009. First Principles for Early Grades Reading Programs in Developing Countries. Prepared for USAID/EQUIP1 Project. 
Available at, http://www.equip123.net/docs/e1-EarlyGradesToolkit.pdf. 4 Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of 
Literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1. 9 During the preparation of the EGRA instrument and report production, the assessment team drew ideas and principles 
extensively from the Early Grade Reading Assessment Toolkit prepared by RTI for the World Bank with funding from USAID. 
The EGRA toolkit and relevant reports can be downloaded from www.eddataglobal.org.
74
Table 5: EGRA sub-tests and their measurement approaches
EGRA sub-test Measurement approach
Letter knowledge 
(CLPM)
Number of Bengali letters correctly identified per minute
(The full set of letters of the alphabet is listed in random order with ten 
letters in a row using a clear, large, and familiar font.)
Vocabulary (CWPM) Number of Bengali words (from the grade 2 language textbook) correctly 
read per minute
(25 simple words selected from grade 2 textbook with five words in a row 
using a clear, large, and familiar font.)
Invented-word 
decoding (IWPM)
Number of invented words (nonsense words) correctly read per minute
(25 invented words with five words in a row using a clear, large, and 
familiar font.)
Oral reading fluency 
(ORF)
Number of words read correctly per minute on a grade-level passage
(Two passages were given to each student, the first from a grade 2 
textbook and the second from outside the textbook. Each passage 
contained 60 words.)
Reading 
comprehension
Number of comprehension questions answered correctly based on a 
grade-level passage.
The letter knowledge sub-test used a page showing all 50 letters of the Bengali alphabet listed in 
random order and distributed in five rows of ten letters. Pupils were asked to say the sounds of 
as many letters as they could in one minute. The test was discontinued if a pupil was unable to 
correctly name any of the first ten letters. The score for this sub-test is the number of letters a 
pupil correctly named in one minute, a measure known as correct letters per minute (CLPM).
In the vocabulary sub-test, pupils were presented with a list of the 25 most frequently occurring 
words in the Grade 2 Bengali language book. The children were asked to read as many words as 
they could in one minute. Pupils who could not read any of the first five words correctly were 
stopped and the sub-test was discontinued. The score for this sub-test was the number of words 
read correctly in one minute (CWPM).
In the Invented-word decoding subtest, students were presented with a list of 25 invented 
words and asked to read as many as possible in one minute. This sub-test was administered to 
assess sight-recognition skills and decoding, i.e. the child’s ability to decode and read words they 
have never seen before. The score of this sub-test was the number of invented words read 
correctly per minute (IWPM). 
Oral reading fluency (ORF) is a measure of both reading accuracy and speed. Children’s ORF 
scores are correlated with the previously skills measured by the other tests, as children need to 
have mastered letter sounds, phonemic awareness, and word reading in order to read fluently, 
accurately, and quickly. In turn, children’s ORFs affect how well they are able to understand 
75
what they are reading. In this EGRA sub-test, pupils were presented with and asked to read two 
60-word passages aloud. The first passage was taken from a Grade 2 textbook and the second 
passage was taken from an outside textbook, equivalent to the Grade 2 reading level. The final 
score was calculated as the average of number of words correctly read aloud in one minute.
The reading comprehension sub-test identified how well pupils understood the oral reading 
fluency passages. After the pupil had read for 1 minute, the test administrator asked the child 
questions pertaining to the portion of the story read. The administrator did not ask any 
questions of pupils who did not read any words correctly, which automatically resulted in a 
reading comprehension score of zero for these pupils.
A4.2. Reliability and Validity of Test Instruments
Internal consistency and reliability of the test instrument was measured by calculating 
Cronbach’s alpha10 for five of the sub-tests. The results indicate a strong overall reliability. In our 
analysis α = 0.85, which is considered very good given the widely accepted threshold of α > 0.8. 
We also calculated the contribution of each sub-test to the overall consistency by removing one 
of the sub-tests from the model and estimating the value of α.
A4.3. EGRA Administration
The objective of the EGRA test was to assess students’ reading skills after two grades of primary 
schooling. Therefore, as per the USDA guidelines, only students from grade three were sampled 
for the test. Before administering the EGRA test, administrators were asked to read the students 
explicit information about the test and how it would be used. Pupils were asked to provide their 
consent to participate in the assessment. Consent was also taken from parents and teachers 
before conducting the tests. The administration of the EGRA test also included a “stop” rule, 
which required assessors to discontinue the administration of a sub-test if a pupil was unable to 
respond correctly to any of the items at certain points (e.g. the first ten letters or the first line of 
the oral reading fluency stories). This rule was applied in all EGRA tests and was established to 
avoid frustrating pupils who did not understand the task or lacked the skills to respond.
A4.4. Background Characteristics of the Sample
The background characteristics of the children who participated in the EGRA sub-tests are 
summarized in Table 6.
10 Cronbach's alpha is a measure of the internal consistency of a test or scale. It is expressed as a number between 0 and 1 
and describes the extent to which all of the items in a test (in this case, the EGRA sub-tests) measure the same concept or 
construct and is connected to inter-relatedness of the items within the test. RTI considers a value of α > 0.8 to be very good for 
EGRA instruments (RTI International. Nigeria Northern Education Initiative: Results of the Early Grade Reading Assessment in 
Hausa. September 2011).
76
Table 6: Demographic characteristics of EGRA pupils
Background characteristics of pupils Boys 
(N=441)
Girls 
(N=495)
Sex 47 53
Average age in months 115 114
Reads extra-curricular books 42 58
Takes extra lesson at home 47 53
Average number of days per week students take an extra lesson 5.9 5.9
Works at home outside school hours 45 55
Average number of days per week students work at home
Before going to school
After returning from school 
5.1
5.2
5.4
5.4
Average time to get to school (minutes) 11 13
Parents’ literacy levels
Father 
(N=936)
Mother 
(N=936)
No schooling or not known 56 47
Non-formal education 17 19
≤5 years of schooling 12 17
6-10 years of schooling 12 15
>10 years of schooling 3 2
A4.6. Findings from EGRA Sub-tests 
A4.6.1. Letter knowledge
The average scores for the letter knowledge sub-test are presented in Table 7. The minimum 
score on the test was 0 in both Upazilas, while the maximum CLPM was 53. In Fulchori, children 
could correctly identify, on average, the sound of 30 letters, while in Sundorganj the average 
score was 34. This difference between the two Upazilas is statistically significant, however there 
are no significant differences by sex.
77
Table 7: CLPM scores
Upazila
Mean (SE) Correct Letters Per Minute (CLPM)
p-value Male (N=441) Female (N=495) Total (N=936)
Fulchori (N=258) 30 (±1.5) 30 (±1.5) 30 (±1.0) 0.94
Sundorganj (N=678) 34 (±0.89) 34 (0.75) 34 (±0.58) 0.49
Total (N=936) 33 (±0.77) 33 (±0.69) 33 (±0.51) 0.48
p-value 0.029 0.008 0.001 -
Figure 4and Figure 5 show the distribution of children who could correctly identify a certain 
number of letters correctly in one minute. Only one third of pupils (29 percent in Fulchori and 
36 percent in Sundorganj) were able to correctly identify more than 45 letters per minute.
Figure 4: Letter identification of skills of students in
Fulchori
Figure 5: Letter identification of students in
Sundorganj
A4.6.2. Familiar word reading
The minimum score on the familiar word reading test was 0, and the maximum was 28. Table 8
presents the mean scores by Upazila and gender. Pupils in Fulchori read, on average, 9.8 words 
per minute, while their peers in Sundorganj read 12 words per minute. Differences in mean 
scores between boys and girls were not statistically significant.
Table 8: Mean FWPM Score
Upazila
Mean (SE) Familiar Words Per Minute (FWPM)
Male (N=441) Female (N=495) Total (N=936) p-value
Fulchori (N=258) 10 (±0.80) 9.7 (±0.76) 9.8 (±0.55) 0.85
Sundorganj (N=678) 12 (±0.51) 12 (±0.45) 12 (±0.34) 0.94
Total (N=936) 12 (±0.43) 12 (±0.39) 12 (±0.29) 0.93
p-value 0.009 0.002 <0.001 -
78
Figure 6and Figure 7 show that almost a quarter of the pupils in Fulchori and 14 percent from 
Sundorganj could not read one familiar word correctly.
Figure 6: Familiar word reading skills of students in
Fulchori
Figure 7: Familiar word reading skills of students in
Sundorganj
A4.6.3. Invented word decoding
The results of the invented word decoding sub-test reveal that a significant portion (27 percent
in Fulchori and 15percent in Sundorganj) of grade three pupils cannot decode any words. In 
Fulchori, children could correctly decode 7.8 words on average, while in Sundorganj, the 
average score was 9.4. Table 9, Figure 8, and Figure 9 summarize the IWPM scores by Upazilas 
and gender.
Table 9: Mean IWPM Scores
Upazila
Mean (SE) Invented Words Per Minute (IWPM)
Male (N=441) Female (N=495) Total (N=936) p-value
Fulchori (N=258) 8.0 (±0.64) 7.5 (±0.62) 7.8 (±0.44) 0.61
Sundorganj (N=678) 9.7 (±0.42) 9.1 (±0.36) 9.4 (±0.27) 0.35
Total (N=936) 9.2 (±0.35) 8.7 (±0.31) 8.9 (±0.23) 0.33
p-value 0.032 0.022 0.002 -
79
Figure 8: Invented word decoding skills of students 
in Fulchori
Figure 9: Invented word decoding skills of students 
in Sundorganj
A4.6.4. Oral reading fluency (ORF)
As illustrated in Figure 10 and Figure 11, approximately one out of every four pupils in Fulchori 
and one out of six pupils in Sundorganj cannot read a single word from connected text after two 
years of schooling. However, a quarter of the students (19 percent in Fulchori and 28 percent in 
Sundorganj) can read ≥45 words correctly per minute and can thus be considered to be fluent 
readers. The mean ORF scores presented in Table 10 are low, with 21 correct words per minute 
in Fulchori, and 27 correct words per minute in Sundorganj (P<0.001). There is no significant 
difference between male and female students.
Figure 10: Oral reading fluency skills of students in
Fulchori
Figure 11: Oral reading fluency skills of students in
Sundorganj
80
Table 10: Mean ORF
Upazila
Oral reading fluency (ORF)
Mean (SE) Words Per Minute p-value
Male (N=441) Female (N=495) Total (N=936)
Fulchori (N=258) 22 (±1.82) 20 (±1.8) 21 (±1.3) 0.49
Sundorganj (N=678) 27 (±1.21) 28 (±1.1) 27 (±0.8) 0.54
Total (N=936) 26 (±1.00) 26 (±0.92) 26 (±0.68) 0.78
p-value 0.032 <0.001 <0.001 -
A4.6.5. Reading comprehension
Given the high percentage of pupils that are not fluent and accurate readers, comprehension 
scores are also low. On average, pupils could answer only 1.6 questions correctly. There is no 
statistically significant difference between genders or Upazilas (Table 11).
Table 11: Mean reading comprehension scores
Upazila
Reading Comprehension
Mean (SE) Correct Answer Given p-value
Male (N=441) Female (N=495) Total (N=936)
Fulchori (N=258) 1.6 (±0.13) 1.5 (±0.12) 1.5 (±0.09) 0.44
Sundorganj (N=678) 1.6 (±0.09) 1.6 (±0.07) 1.6 (±0.06) 0.61
Total (N=936) 1.6 (±0.07) 1.6 (±0.06) 1.6 (±0.05) 0.96
p-value 0.93 0.2 0.41 -
Almost a third of the pupils (27 percent) could not answer a single question from the passage
correctly. Only 10 percent of pupils in Fulchori and 9 percent of pupils in Sundorganj could read 
with at least 80 percent comprehension (Figure 12and Figure 13).
Figure 12: Reading comprehension skills of students 
in Fulchori
Figure 13: Reading comprehension skills of students 
in Sundorganj
81
The relationship between ORF and comprehension offers further insight as to how children 
learn. Figure 14 shows the correlation between ORF and reading comprehension. It is clear that 
reading comprehension is highly dependent on reading fluency. These results are in line with 
the underlying assumption that students who can read with accuracy and speed can also better 
understand the meaning of the text.
Figure 14: Mean Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) against mean reading comprehension score
A4.6.5. Factors that facilitate pupils’ reading abilities
Many factors affect reading outcomes, including pupil demographics, school characteristics, and 
home factors. Analyzing oral reading fluency scores by pupil and school characteristics provides 
insight into what environmental factors and inputs facilitate improved reading outcomes. 
Table 12 presents the relationship between key socio-economic and demographic 
characteristics of pupils and ORF scores. Based on the analysis of background factors, there are 
four key factors that affect children’s reading skills at baseline: (i) parents’ education levels, (ii) 
availability of person at home who can help with reading, (iii) child’s reading habits (i.e. reading 
extracurricular books), and (iv) extra lessons after school hours. In general, children’s ORF scores 
are positively associated with their parents’ levels of education. Children with a mother with 10 
years of schooling could read more than twice as many words as those with an illiterate mother. 
A similar trend was observed for father’s education. Similarly, children who have a person at 
home to help them out with reading, children who read extracurricular books, and children who 
have a regular lesson after school hours could correctly read significantly more words per 
minute than other students.
82
Table 12: Background factors affecting Grade 3 students’ ORF scores
Background Factors N
Mean (SE) Oral 
Reading Fluency p-Value
Father’s Education Level
No schooling or not known 530 24.4 (0.89) <0.001
Non-formal education 157 25.6 (1.73)
≤5 years of schooling 109 24.4 (1.99)
6-10 years of schooling 113 29.3 (1.83)
>10 years of schooling 27 42.3 (4.07)
Mother’s Education Level
No schooling or not known 442 23.3 (0.96) <0.001
Non-formal education 174 25.0 (1.55)
≤5 years of schooling 158 27.4 (1.68)
6-10 years of schooling 143 29.2 (1.77)
>10 years of schooling 19 48.6 (3.91)
Have someone at home to help you with 
reading
Yes 762 27.1 (0.75) <0.001
No 174 19.8 (1.54)
Read extracurricular book
Yes 127 40.9 (1.68) <0.001
No 809 23.3 (0.71)
Take extra lesson outside school hours
Every day (6 days/week) 867 26.3 (0.71) 0.001
Not every day (<6 days/week) 69 17.8 (2.31)
83
Annex 5: Skills and Knowledge of Teachers and School 
Administrators
A5.1. Use of Teaching and Learning Techniques
With WFP’s support, a checklist was prepared to assess the teaching and learning techniques 
that teachers use in the classroom via direct observation. These included:
• applying participatory teaching techniques during class
• using audio-visual aids
• engaging actively with students.
The enumerator recorded the use of these techniques in a class situation for one teacher per 
school (95 teachers total). A teacher was identified as “using” a technique if he or she used it 
twice during the observational period.
Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of teachers use at least one of these techniques, and 39 
percent use two or three (Table 13). Twenty percent of teachers use participatory teaching 
techniques, 31 percent were use audio-visual aids, and 70 percent actively make an effort to 
engage students in classroom discussions. A detailed description of the classroom observation is 
shown in Table 14.
Table 13: Teaching and learning techniques used by teachers
Techniques used by teachers during class Frequency ( percent)
Total Fulchori Sundorganj
Participatory teaching techniques ns 20 19 20
Using audio-visual aids ns 31 27 32
Engaging actively with students ns 70 81 65
Teachers using at least of these two 
techniques ns
39 39 39
ns No statistically significant difference between Fulchori and Sundorganj
84
Table 14: Detailed findings from classroom observations
Techniques used by teacher during class Frequency (%)
Total Fulchori Sundorganj
Did the teacher apply any participatory technique during the class?
Role play & asking questions 9.5 7.7 10.1
Story telling 43 54 39
Group discussion 0.0 0.0 0.0
Problem solving 42 35 45
Did the teacher use any audio-visual material?
Pictures from textbook 34 35 33
Handmade posters 4.2 0.0 5.8
Printed visual aids 9.5 0.0 13
Drawing and writing at the board 49 50 48
Playing video/audio 6.3 7.7 5.8
Student engagement and other classroom observations
Teacher makes an effort to make the class interesting 50 58 46
Teacher prepares and follows lesson plans 22 27 20
Teacher initiates topics related discussion from the 
common experiences before start discussing on the 
main topics
27 39 23
Teacher repeatedly and properly discusses difficult 
topics and words 52 50 52
Teacher reviews the content and evaluates the 
learning of the students at the end of class 62 73 58
Teacher helps slow learners to ensure their learning 24 23 25
No statistically significant difference between Fulchori and Sundorganj
85
A5.2. Skills and Techniques of School Administrators
Table 15: Tools and techniques used by the school authority and administrators 
Techniques used by school administrators Frequency (%)
Total Fulchori Sundorganj
What does the school administrator do to improve teaching / classroom environment?
Regularly evaluates classroom instructions 61 65 59
Regular monitoring of teaching techniques of teachers 34 46 29
Provide feedback to teaches on teaching technique 28 31 27
What does the administrator do for quality assurance for improving literacy skills?
Ensure teaching instruction materials are available for all 
the teachers 63 65 62
Ensure supplementary reading materials are available for 
students 27 39 23
Encourage teachers to use audio-visual aid during class 3.2 0.0 4.3
Encourage teachers to prepare handmade posters or 
locally made visual aids 13 15 12
Encourage teachers to use participatory teaching 
techniques 48 42 51
What measures are in place for management and discipline of the school?
Regular attendance for teachers 75 77 74
Timely attendance for teachers 72 77 70
Regular attendance for students 68 * 85 62
Timely attendance for students 52 62 48
School uniform worn by students 28 35 26
What measures are in place for improvement and maintenance of infrastructure and physical 
environment of the school?
Cleanliness of the school surrounding 52 42 55
Regular cleaning of classrooms 56 58 55
Regular cleaning of teacher’s room 44 50 42
Proper maintenance of school latrines 36 35 36
Proper maintenance of classroom and furniture 39 50 34
Maintenance of the source of clean drinking water 36 50 30
What does the head teacher do for proper school governance?
Ensures minimum contact/teaching hours at school 
(particularly for the main subjects) 45 42 46
Conducting meetings with parents to discuss progress of 
their children 48 65 42
Regulatory visit to school to observe activities 46 42 48
Regular SMC meeting 56 58 55
* Statistically significant difference between Sundorganj and Fulchori sub-districts
86
Annex 6: Dietary Diversity Data and Analysis
Dietary diversity was used to measure of dietary quality of school-age children in WFP￾supported schools. The FFE program aims to improve dietary diversity providing school meals 
and educating children and their families about health and nutrition.
Volume 11 of the Feed the Future (FTF) Guidance Series (Feed the Future, 2014) was used to 
inform and guide the process of measuring of dietary diversity during the baseline survey. 
Following standard practice, dietary diversity data was collected through parent interviews,
using the 24-hour recall method. Parents were asked if the child had consumed any of the 19 
listed food items during the previous 24 hours. These responses were later converted into ten 
food groups identified by the FTF guidance document: 
1. Grains, roots and tubers 
2. Legumes and beans
3. Nuts and seeds
4. Dairy products
5. Eggs
6. Flesh foods including organ meat and miscellaneous small animal protein
7. Vitamin A-rich dark green leafy vegetables
8. Other vitamin A-rich vegetables and fruits
9. Other vegetables
10. Other fruits
Table 16 shows a summary of the frequency of consumption of all 19 different food groups and 
Table 17 shows the consumption of FTF ten food groups. All of the 948 students consumed 
grains, roots, and tubers as staple foods, while one third (36 percent) of them had consumed 
legumes and beans. Around two thirds of the students had consumed flesh foods (63 percent). 
Around 40 percent consumed milk or dairy products and almost half had consumed eggs (45
percent). Two thirds of students had consumed vitamin A rich dark green vegetables (65
percent), and three quarters had consumed other vitamin A rich vegetables and fruits (75
percent). There was no significant difference between boys and girls in terms of reported food 
consumption, except in the consumption of other vitamin A rich vegetables and fruits.
87
Table 16: Frequency of consumption of different food items
Food items (19 food groups)
Frequency (%)
Total
(N=948)
Boys
(N=482)
Girls
(N=466)
1 Food made from grains, such as bread, rice, noodles, 
porridge 100 100 100
2 White potatoes, white yams, manioc, cassava, other local 
root crops or any other foods made from roots 75 76 74
3 Any foods made from beans, peas, or lentils 36 38 34
4 Any foods made from nuts or seeds 8.1 7.3 9.0
5 Milk 39 39 38
6 Cheese, yogurt, or other milk products 4.0 3.9 4.1
7 Eggs 45 45 45
8
Any liver, kidney, heart, or other organ meats from 
domesticated animals, such as cattle, swine, goat, 
chicken, or duck
2.8 3.3 2.4
9 Any liver, kidney, heart, or other organ meats from wild 
animals 0.3 0.4 0.2
10 Any meat, such as beef, pork, lamb, goat, chicken, or duck 18 20 16
11 Any flesh from wild animals 0.6 0.6 0.6
12 Fresh or dried fish, shellfish, or seafood 51 50 51
13 Grubs, snails or insects 0.9 1.0 0.9
14 Any dark green leafy vegetables 65 64 67
15 Pumpkin, carrots, squash, or sweet potatoes that are 
yellow or orange inside 17 17 17
16 Ripe mangoes, ripe papayas or other local vitamin A-rich 
fruits 69a 72 65
17 Foods made with red palm oil, red palm nut, or red palm 
nut pulp sauce - Vitamin A rich 3.5 4.1 2.8
18 Any other vegetables 52 53 52
19 Any other fruits 23 23 23
a Statistically significant difference between male and female
88
Table 17: Frequency of consumption of the ten FTF food groups
Food items (10 FTF food groups) Frequency (%)
Total Boys Girls
1 Grains, roots and tubers 100 100 100
2 Legumes and beans 36 38 34
3 Nuts and seeds 8.1 7.3 9.0
4 Dairy products 40 41 40
5 Eggs 45 45 45
6 Flesh foods including organ meat and misc. small animal 
protein 63 64 62
7 Vitamin A-rich dark green leafy vegetables 65 64 67
8 Other vitamin A-rich vegetables and fruits 75a 78 72
9 Other vegetables 52 53 52
10 Other fruits 23 23 23
a Statistically significant difference between male and female
Individual dietary diversity scores (DDS) were calculated by combining the number of food items 
consumed by children from across these ten food groups. The average student’s dietary 
diversity score is 5 out of 10. There is no statistically significant difference between boys and 
girls or between Upazilas (Table 18).
Table 18: Mean DDS
District Mean Dietary Diversity Score (SE)
Total Boys Girls
Fulchori 5.10 (±0.09) 5.10 (±0.13) 5.05 (±0.13)
Sundorganj 5.07 (±0.06) 5.10 (±0.08) 5.03 (±0.09)
Total 5.08 (±0.05) 5.10 (±0.07) 5.04 (±0.07)
No significant difference between sex or Upazila
The level of dietary diversity was assessed by categorizing each child’s score. Two approaches 
were used. In the first, the DDSs were divided into three groups: low (DDS≤3), medium (DDS 
between 4-6), and high (DDS≥7). Based on this method, 15 percent of children have low DDS, 67 
percent have medium DDS, and only 18 percent have high DDS. In the second method, only two 
classifications were used: DDS<5 and DDS≥5. Just over one third (37 percent) of students had 
consumed at least five different food items during the previous 24 hours. There is no significant 
difference between the results for boys and girls or between Upazilas. The results of this 
analysis are given Table 19.
89
Table 19: Dietary diversity status of pupils
Dietary diversity category
Total (%) Sex (%) Upazila (%)
Boys Girls Fulchori Sundorganj
Three groups
Low Dietary Diversity (1-3) 15 13 18 12 16
Medium Dietary Diversity (4-6) 67 71 63 73 65
High Dietary Diversity (7-10) 18 16 20 16 19
Two groups
DDS < 5 37 36 39 33 39
DDS ≥ 5 63 64 61 67 61
No significant difference between sex or Upazila
90
Annex 7: Teacher Training History and Background
Teacher training on new and quality teaching techniques and tools had not started at the time 
of the baseline survey. As such, the baseline assessed the levels of in-service or on the job 
training that teachers had previously received outside of the SFP. Data on teachers’ training was 
collected for all of the teachers from sample schools (476 teachers) using the School 
Questionnaire and interviews with the head teacher. This data was verified through teacher 
interviews. Detailed findings are presented in Table 20. 
Table 20: Teachers’ background characteristics and training histories
Background characteristics
Mean (SE) or Percent
Total
(N=476)
Male
(N=209)
Female
(N=267)
Fulchori
(N=128)
Sundorganj
(N=348)
Sex (female)ns 56 - - 49 59
Age (years)
Mean (SE) age1
Age groups1
<30 years
30-45 years
>45 years
37 
(±0.4)
22
60
19
40 
(±0.6)
10
59
31
34 
(±0.5)
31
60
9.0
38 
(±0.8)
27
52
20
37
(±0.5)
20
63
18
Educational qualification 1,2
MSc or higher
Bachelor / diploma
Higher secondary or lower
20
41
39
33
48
19
10
35
55
18
33
49
21
43
35
Teaching experience (years)
Mean (SE) year of experience 1
Experience categories 1
<5 years
5-10 years
>10 years
12 
(±0.4)
31
21
49
15 
(±0.7)
21
19
60
10 
(±0.5)
38
22
40
13
(±0.8)
27
22
51
12 
(±0.5)
32
20
48
Mean (SE) years of experience of the 
head teacher ns
20 
(±0.8)
21 
(±0.9)
19 
(±1.7)
21 
(±1.4)
20 
(±1.0)
Training history
Safe food preparation and storage 
practices 1
Commodity management ns
Teaching/learning techniques ns
Health hygiene and nutrition ns
8.0
12
34
9.0
12
15
32
9.6
4.5
9.7
36
8.6
7.8
14
37
7.8
8.0
11
33
9.5
ns Not Significant either by sex or by Upazila
1 Significant difference between Male and Female
2 Significant difference between survey Upazilas (Fulchori and Sundorganj)
91
Annex 8: Baseline Data from Non-formal Primary Schools
A total of 40 non-formal primary schools were examined using the School Questionnaire. 
Twenty-nine of the non-formal schools had only one teacher and one classroom, two schools 
had two teachers and one classroom, one school had two teachers and three classrooms, seven
schools had three teachers and three classrooms, and one school had five teachers and three
classrooms. For most of the schools, quantitative data as collected through interviews with the 
single teacher. For schools with more than one teacher, the most senior teacher or head teacher 
was interviewed. The main results are summarized in Table 21. 
Table 21: Baseline indicator values for non-formal primary schools
Indicator Source and measurement
QueSC
Qstio 
ID
Average 
value 
(Mean or 
Percent)
Student-classroom 
ratio
Number of students currently enrolled and number 
of classroom available in the school is counted 
using direct observation and school records. 
Student : classroom ratio is presented here.
SCQ 301; 
602-605
33 (±1.3)
Average years of 
teacher experience 
Interview with the head teacher and other 
teachers
SCQ 407 4.6 (±0.5)
Average teacher 
attendance rate
Teacher attendance was assessed using monthly 
school records and the number of working days; 
mean teacher attendance was expressed for the 
academic year January-December 2014.
SCQ 501-
517; 
615
95 (±1.7)
Percent of teachers 
regularly attending 
Regular teacher attendance was defined as 
attending more than or equal to 90 percent of 
school days; teacher attendance was assessed 
using monthly school records and the number of 
working days per month for the academic year 
January-December 2014. 
SCQ 501-
517; 
615
83
Student attendance on 
the survey day 
Proportion of the enrolled students present at 
school during the survey day was calculated from 
direct observation and comparison with the 
number of students enrolled.
SCQ 
1003 -
1006
89 (±2.9)
Percent of schools with 
dedicated storeroom 
for storage of biscuits
Data regarding how many schools had a 
dedicated storeroom either within or outside the 
school campus was collected through observation 
by data collectors and interviews with teachers.
SCQ 304 15
Percent of schools 
where food is stored off 
the ground
Data collected through interviews with available 
teachers and direct observation by data collectors.
SCQ 306 0
Percent of schools that 
use a pest 
management plan
Data collected through interviews with head 
teacher/available teacher. 
SCQ 308 85
92
Indicator Source and measurement
QueSC
Qstio 
ID
Average 
value 
(Mean or 
Percent)
Percent of schools with 
gardens
Data collected through direct observation and 
interviews with head teacher/teacher. 
SCQ 310 20
Percent of schools with 
a library or library 
corner for students
Data collected through interview with head 
teacher/teacher.
SCQ 302 75
Percent of schools with 
a source of safe 
drinking water at or 
near school
Source of drinking water near or at school was 
identified through direct observation.
SCQ 309 95
Percent of schools with 
toilet facilities for 
students
Availability of toilets identified through direct 
observation.
SCQ 312 78
Percent of schools with 
separate toilets for girls
Availability of separate toilets for girls identified 
through direct observation.
SCQ 314 18
Student:toilet ratio The availability of toilets at school for students 
was identified through direct observation and 
compared with the number of students currently 
enrolled from. Student:toilet ratio is presented 
here.
SCQ 318-
320; 
1003-
1004
18 (±2.1)
Percent of schools with 
a school management 
committee (SMC)
Data collected through interviews with head 
teacher/teacher and recording his/her response 
on SMC availability.
SCQ 206 88
Percent of schools 
where SMC is highly 
engaged in school 
feeding program
Data collected through interview with head 
teacher and recording his/her opinion on SMC 
participation and engagement.
SCQ 214 20
Percent of schools 
where SMC is highly 
engaged in other 
aspects of 
management at school 
level
Data collected through interview with head 
teacher and recording his/her opinion on SMC 
participation and engagement.
SCQ 215 30
Average distance by 
road between the 
school and nearest 
education office
Data collected through interview with head 
teacher and estimating the distance based on 
his/her response
SCQ 218 11 (±1.2)