Image source: https://www.usaid.gov/pakistan/education
PAKISTAN READING PROJECT (PRP) 
2020 EARLY GRADE READING ENDLINE 
ASSESSMENT – KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
April 2021
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was 
prepared independently by NORC at the University of Chicago through Erika Keaveney, Carlos Fierros, Alexander Rigaux, 
Paige Pepitone, Tara Mittelberg, and Dr. Alicia Menendez with support from Nadia Qasim and Varuni Dayaratna. This 
publication was made possible by the support of the American people through USAID.
Prepared under Contract No.: GS-10F-0033M/AID-OAA-M-13-00010, Tasking N 7617.025.01
Revised August 2, 2021
Submitted to:
USAID/Pakistan
Submitted by:
Erika Keaveney, Carlos Fierros, Alexander Rigaux, Paige Pepitone, Tara Mittelberg, and Dr. Alicia 
Menendez 
Contractor:
NORC at the University of Chicago
4350 East West Highway, 8th Floor
Bethesda, MD 20814
Attention: Varuni Dayaratna
Tel: 301-634-9414; E-mail: mailto:Dayaratna-Varuni@norc.orgai
DISCLAIMER
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
3 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of the Pakistan Reading Project (PRP) Evaluation was made possible with the generous 
funding and participation from USAID/Pakistan, without which this study would not have been possible. 
Specifically, the PRP Evaluation Team would like to sincerely thank USAID COR for PRP Daman Bozdar, 
former EGRA Endline activity manager Sumbal Naveed, USAID Education Specialist Hazeef Samo, and 
USAID Deputy Education Director Zaid Abuhouran for their invaluable participation throughout the life 
of the evaluation. 
The officials of the national and provincial Ministry of Education warrant our gratitude for their support 
and for allowing us to collect data during school hours. For the same reason, we thank all the school 
directors and CSO officials in all schools targeted for this study. We are grateful to all parents who 
allowed their children to participate in this important study, as well as the students, teachers, and head 
teachers who took the time to thoughtfully respond to our questions.
In addition, we would like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Endline data collection team 
VTT Global led by Team Leader Sohail Khan and Data Quality Expert Saqib Mehmood Khan. The 
hardworking data collection teams – supervisors, interviewers, and data enterers – also warrant our 
sincere appreciation for their flexibility, long hours, and patience. Finally, we acknowledge and thank our 
Lead Consultant Zulfiqar Ali Shah for his invaluable support in coordinating logistics for the 
dissemination workshops and facilitating communication with local officials. 
4 
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................................................................... 6
TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................. 8
ENDLINE ASSESSMENT PURPOSE AND LEARNING QUESTIONS ....................................................... 8
LEARNING QUESTIONS...................................................................................................................................... 8
RESEARCH METHODS.......................................................................................................................................... 9
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 9
KEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................10
LEARNING QUESTION 1.............................................................................................................................10
LEARNING QUESTION 2.............................................................................................................................11
LEARNING QUESTION 3.............................................................................................................................11
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................13
1. ENDLINE ASSESSMENT PURPOSE AND LEARNING QUESTIONS .....................................................14
ENDLINE ASSESSMENT PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................14
LEARNING QUESTIONS....................................................................................................................................14
LEARNING QUESTION 1.............................................................................................................................14
LEARNING QUESTION 2.............................................................................................................................14
LEARNING QUESTION 3.............................................................................................................................15
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................16
3. RESEARCH METHODS AND LIMITATIONS................................................................................................18
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................18
QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT....................................................................................18
PROCESS EVALUATION...............................................................................................................................19
INCLUSION AND STRATIFICATION ......................................................................................................20
RESEARCH TEAM.................................................................................................................................................20
DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ..........................................................................................................................20
EARLY GRADE READING ASSESSMENT (EGRA).................................................................................21
SCHOOL-LEVEL SURVEYS ...........................................................................................................................22
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS................................................................................................................22
SAMPLING...............................................................................................................................................................23
QUANTITATIVE SAMPLING .......................................................................................................................23
QUALITATIVE SAMPLING............................................................................................................................24
5 
DATA COLLECTION..........................................................................................................................................24
SUBCONTRACTOR SELECTION..............................................................................................................24
TRAINING OF TRAINERS, SUPERVISOR, AND ENUMERATORS...................................................26
DATA MANAGEMENT..................................................................................................................................26
DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE ...................................................................................................................27
RESEARCH ETHICS AND STUDY AUTHORIZATION.......................................................................27
DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................28
QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................28
QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................28
LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................................................29
PARALLEL TRENDS ASSUMPTION...........................................................................................................29
SAMPLE ATTRITION......................................................................................................................................29
CONTAMINATION AND COMPLIANCE ..............................................................................................29
SPILLOVERS.......................................................................................................................................................29
EXTERNAL VALIDITY....................................................................................................................................30
DISCONTINUITY BETWEEN SURVEY ROUNDS.................................................................................30
LIMITATIONS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................30
COVID-19 ..........................................................................................................................................................30
4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................31
FINDINGS................................................................................................................................................................31
LEARNING QUESTION 1.............................................................................................................................31
LEARNING QUESTION 2.............................................................................................................................36
LEARNING QUESTION 3.............................................................................................................................42
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................59
ANNEXES .........................................................................................................................................................................60
ANNEX I: RESEARCH DESIGN MATRIX.......................................................................................................60
ANNEX II: DISAGGREGATED EGRA RESULTS ..........................................................................................63
ANNEX III: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK................................................................................72
ANNEX IV: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS....................................................................................79
6 
ACRONYMS
ASER Annual Status of Education Report
CBSGS Community Based School Governance Structures
CDCS Country Development and Cooperation Strategy
CITI Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative
COVID Coronavirus disease
CPD Continuous professional development
CMR Community managed reading
CRP Complementary reading project
CSO Civil society organization
CWPM Correct words per minute
DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse
DiD Difference-in-differences
DRLP Daily reading lesson plans
E3/ED Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment, Office of Education
EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment
FATA Federally Administered Tribal Areas
FtF Face-to-face
IPTW Inverse probability of treatment weighting
IRB Institutional review board
IRR Inter-rater reliability
KII Key informant interview
MSI Management Systems International 
NEAS National Education Assessment Systems
NIH National Institutes of Health
NORC National Opinion Research Center
ODK Open Data Kit
OLS Ordinary least squares 
OMR Optimal mark recognition
ORF Oral reading fluency 
PCA Principal component analysis
PEAS Provincial Education Assessment System
PRP Pakistan Reading Project
PS Performance standard
PSC Policy and systems challenges
PTC Parent teacher councils
QCO Quality control officer 
R&A Reading and Access
RIS Reading improvement strategies
RLM Reading and learning materials
SOP Standard operating procedure
SoW Statement of work
TE Treatment effect 
TIG Teacher Inquiry Group
ToT Training of trainers
TTI Teacher Training Institute
USAID United States Agency for International Development
7 
TABLES
Table 1: Reading Skills Evaluated by the Pakistan Early Grade Reading Assessment.....................................................21
Table 2: Realized Sample for Endline Data Collection.............................................................................................................24
Table 3: Planned vs. Actual Sample for Qualitative Data Collection....................................................................................24
Table 4: Mean Subtask Scores, by Treatment Type.................................................................................................................32
Table 5: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, by Treatment Type...............................................................................................32
Table 6: Endline Subtask Scores by Gender and Treatment Type .......................................................................................34
Table 7: PRP DiD Impact Estimators, by EGRA Subtask and Round...................................................................................35
Table 8: PRP Difference-in-Differences (DiD) Impact Estimators, by EGRA Subtask and Gender..............................35
Table 9: Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Performance Standards for Grade 2 ......................................................................36
Table 10: Oral Reading Fluency Performance Standard Categories, by Treatment Type..............................................37
Table 11: Endline Reading Performance Categories by Gender and Treatment Type ...................................................40
Table 12: PRP DiD Impact Estimators for Proportion of Students Meeting Reading Fluency Performance 
Standards...............................................................................................................................................................................................41
Table 13: OLS Regression Results for ORF..................................................................................................................................43
Table 14: Time Series Estimators by Subtask, Light Intervention .........................................................................................49
FIGURES
Figure 1: Difference-in-Differences Estimator .............................................................................................................................19
Figure 2: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, Light Intervention ................................................................................................. 33
Figure 3: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, Cohort 3 .................................................................................................................33
Figure 4: Reading Performance Categories, By Treatment Type...........................................................................................37
Figure 5: ORF Distributions by Round, Light Intervention ........................................................................................................38
Figure 6: ORF Distributions by Round, Cohort 3 ........................................................................................................................39
Figure 7: Endline Oral Reading Fluency Performance Standard Categories, by Treatment Type and Gender........40
Figure 8: OLS Regression Results for Urdu ORF.........................................................................................................................43
Figure 9: Derivation of Time Series Estimator for Oral Reading Fluency, Light Intervention.........................................49
Figure 10: Student-Reported Interruptions in Ability for Wage-Earning Household Members to Work in the Last 
Year .........................................................................................................................................................................................................50
Figure 11: Student-Reported Home Learning Activities during COVID-19 School Closures..........................................51
Figure 12: Student-Reported Frequency of Home Learning Material Use During COVID-19 School Closure.........51
Figure 13: Student-Reported Frequency of Reading Activities during COVID-19 School Closures...............................52
Figure 14: Teacher-Reported Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Student Learning .......................................................52
Figure 15: Head Teacher-Reported School Policies to Address Lost Instructional Time Due to COVID-19 
Pandemic................................................................................................................................................................................................53
Figure 16: Head Teacher-Reported Usefulness of School Policies to Address Lost Instructional Time Due to 
COVID-19 Pandemic...........................................................................................................................................................................54
Figure 17: Teacher-Reported Activities to Make Up for Lost Instructional Time Due to COVID-19 Pandemic......55
Figure 18: Extent of PRP Implementation in Cohort 3 Schools and Reasons for Limited Implementation (Head 
Teacher-Reported)...............................................................................................................................................................................57
Figure 19: PRP Components Most Likely and Least Likely to Continue Over the Long-Term (Head Teacher￾Reported) ...............................................................................................................................................................................................58
8 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ENDLINE ASSESSMENT PURPOSE AND LEARNING QUESTIONS
The Pakistan Reading Project (PRP) is a $143,726,890, seven-year initiative launched in July 2013 that
aimed to improve the quality of early grade reading instruction for 1.3 million public and private primary 
school students across Pakistan. Through E3/ED’s Reading and Access (R&A) contracting mechanism,
USAID/Pakistan engaged NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct the PRP endline assessment in 
2020. The endline assessment involved conducting Early Grade Reading Assessments (EGRAs) of 
students who recently completed grade 2 in two PRP intervention provinces—Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 
Balochistan—with the goal of providing insights into the effectiveness of early grade reading 
interventions in provinces identified as key priority areas under USAID/Pakistan’s new Country 
Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). In addition, the endline aimed to assess the PRP
implementation approach as well as highlight areas for improvement and sustainability for future reading 
interventions in Pakistan and globally.
PRP was rolled out in three, two-year cohorts: April 2015 (cohort 1), September 2015 (cohort 2), and 
April 2018 (cohort 3). Each cohort represents a set of children entering grade 1 whose teachers were 
trained and provided supplementary learning materials through PRP to ensure students receive 
improved reading instruction throughout their first two years of school. The 2020 endline assessment
focused on a representative sample of schools in districts in KP that received the PRP intervention 
starting in 2018 (cohort 3), with data collection running from November 2 – 28, 2020. Schools in
districts that did not receive direct support for improved reading instruction, though may have benefited 
indirectly, are also included in the endline assessment (light intervention).1
LEARNING QUESTIONS
The learning questions for the PRP endline assessment—developed through a draft statement of work 
(SoW) and refined through consultations with USAID/Pakistan—are as follows:
1. After two years of implementation, to what extent has PRP led to measurable improvements in 
grade 2 reading performance, as measured by the Early Grade Reading Assessment?
2. After two years of implementation, to what extent has PRP led to measurable improvements in 
the proportion of grade 2 students meeting provincial performance standards in reading fluency 
and comprehension?
3. How effective was PRP design and implementation, as assessed by the following subquestions:
• Subquestion 3.a: Which program components were the most effective in improving reading 
performance for grade 2 students, and why? Which program components were the least 
effective in improving reading performance for grade 2 students, and why?
• Subquestion 3.b: Which components of PRP could be improved, and in what specific ways, 
to inform future reading programs?
1 These light intervention districts and schools did not receive the PRP interventions directly, but may benefit from provincial￾level policy changes as a result of PRP or may indirectly receive elements of PRP interventions.
9 
• Subquestion 3.c: In what ways has the COVID-19 pandemic influenced primary classroom 
time/exposure, reading instruction, and reading performance?
• Subquestion 3.d: To what extent will the PRP project components be sustained after the 
USAID-supported activity ends? What, if any, additional support is needed to enhance long￾term sustainability of PRP?
RESEARCH METHODS
The PRP endline assessment uses a mixed-methods approach to address descriptive and normative 
questions2 about PRP, as well as to measure improvements in early grade reading performance among 
cohort 3 students. Given the diverse goals of the endline assessment, the research team employed 
multiple methods, including a quasi-experimental research design to establish the causal impact of PRP 
on learning outcomes at the student level and a process evaluation to examine the extent to which PRP 
achieved its intended inputs, activities, and outputs and to identify areas of improvement for future 
reading programs.
Impact-related questions were addressed through a school-level reading assessment and surveys with 
head teachers, teachers, and students. The EGRA tool was developed during the PRP baseline and 
includes seven subtasks in Urdu designed to assess student abilities along a reading continuum, from 
prereading skills—such as listening comprehension and orientation to print—to reading fluency and 
comprehension. Survey instruments were modeled on those used at midline, although several new 
questions were added in order to address endline-specific learning questions. In addition, new tools, 
including key informant interview (KII) protocols, were developed for the endline. Primary respondents 
sampled for this evaluation included the aforementioned school-level respondents, provincial 
government stakeholders, former PRP personnel, and USAID staff members. 
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
The endline assessment methodology and implementation resulted in valid, reliable data. The data 
collection tools and analyses contributed to answering the endline learning questions. The tools covered 
a variety of aspects of the PRP reading intervention by collecting data from students, teachers, head 
teachers, education officials, and implementing-partner staff. There are, however, several important 
limitations to consider when interpreting the assessment findings, a few of which are highlighted here. 
First, the endline assessment uses difference-in-differences (DiD)3 analysis to estimate the program 
impact. This approach assumes that, in the absence of the program, the intervention and 
nonintervention groups would display the same trends over time—in other words, would move in 
parallel. However, this is an assumption that we cannot verify directly. 
Second, 24 of the 70 schools that form the cohort 3 panel in KP were inaccessible due to security 
threats in Haripur at the time of data collection. While the evaluation team was able to replace these 24 
2 Descriptive questions focus on describing the status quo, whereas normative questions focus on value judgments and future 
recommendations.
3 DiD attempts to estimate impact in nonexperimental evaluations by comparing the average change over time in outcomes for 
an intervention group to the average change over time for a comparison group, thereby mitigating the effects of extraneous 
factors and selection bias. The DiD method is designed to correct for situations in which there is nonequivalence between 
treatment and comparison units at baseline, as well as to correct for environmentally or economically disruptive shocks, such as 
that posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
10
schools with 24 randomly selected schools from another PRP district (Karak), schools from both 
Haripur and Karak are excluded from the impact analysis to avoid systematic bias since the districts are 
characteristically different from one another. Reduced sample size as well as other issues related 
measurement accuracy/precision and omitted variable bias may lead to Type II errors, or failure to 
detect a statistically meaningful relationship, even if one exists.
Finally, the unprecedented disruption caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic presents several risks to 
the research. School closures in Pakistan due to COVID-19 were expected to lead to significantly 
reduced exposure to reading instruction, and the research team anticipated declines relative to baseline 
since even the best-designed programs cannot offset several months of learning loss. The use of a 
comparison group ensures that learning loss due to school closures can be at least partially accounted 
for in the impact estimates.
KEY FINDINGS
LEARNING QUESTION 1 
After two years of implementation, to what extent has PRP led to measureable improvements in grade 2 reading 
performance, as measured by the Early Grade Reading Assessment?
PRP led to large and statistically significant improvements in reading performance in KP. As shown in the 
table below, the program increased reading fluency by 12.6 correct words per minute (CWPM), familiar 
word reading by 11.1 CWPM, and nonword reading by 6.4 CWPM. Girls saw the most notable gains, 
with PRP increasing familiar word reading by 18 CWPM and passage reading by 16.3 CWPM. Statistically
significant standardized effect sizes4 range from 0.33 for nonword reading to 0.65 for orientation to 
print, which are considered “substantive” according to educational research conventions.
PRP DiD Impact Estimators, by EGRA Subtask and Round
Light Intervention Cohort 3 DiD5 Adjusted DiD6
EGRA Subtask 2017 2020 2017 2020 Change Change Effect 
size
Orientation to print 2.0 2.3 1.9 3.1 0.9*** 0.9*** 0.65
Letter name recognition 41.1 32.6 36.9 30.7 2.3 3.3 0.17
Familiar word reading 28.1 24.0 22.2 27.2 9.1 11.1** 0.42
Nonword reading 19.1 18.1 15.5 19.6 5.1 6.4* 0.33
Passage reading 37.2 33.5 28.8 35.3 10.2 12.6* 0.37
4 Converting raw score changes to standardized mean differences or standardized effect sizes allows for making comparisons 
across different contexts and measurement approaches. According to statistician Jacob Cohen, an effect size is to be considered 
small when it ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 standard deviations, medium at 0.5 to 0.8, and large at 0.8 and above. Per the U.S. 
Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, an effect size of 0.25 and above is typically regarded as substantive. 
See e.g., Graham J, Kelly S. (2018). How effective are early grade reading interventions? A review of the evidence. The World 
Bank. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29127. 5 The DiD estimator is calculated as the difference between time 1 and time 2 for the treatment group (Cohort 3) minus the 
difference between time 1 and time 2 in the comparison group (Light Intervention). Using orientation to print as an example, 
the DiD estimator is calculated as 3.1-1.9-(2.3-2.0) = 1.2-0.3 = 0.9. 6 To increase model precision, adjusted DiD includes time invariant controls at the student- and school-level.
11
Light Intervention Cohort 3 DiD5 Adjusted DiD6
EGRA Subtask 2017 2020 2017 2020 Change Change Effect 
size
Passage comprehension 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.08
Listening comprehension 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.2* 0.3** 0.35
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
LEARNING QUESTION 2
After two years of implementation, to what extent has PRP led to measurable improvements in the proportion of 
grade 2 students meeting provincial performance standards in reading fluency and comprehension?
Overall, PRP increased the number of students meeting KP’s reading fluency performance standard of 60 
or more correct words per minute by a remarkable 18 percentage points. The proportion of girls and 
boys meeting the performance standard increased by 19 and 16 percentage points, respectively, 
however, these gender-disaggregated estimates are not statistically significant. In other words, we 
cannot rule out the possibility that the observed differences are due to sampling variation. 
PRP Impact Estimators for Proportion of Students Meeting Reading Fluency Performance Standards
Light Intervention Cohort 3 DiD Estimator Adjusted DiD
Meets Performance Standard 2017 2020 2017 2020 Change Change
Overall: 26% 20% 16% 24% 14%* 18%**
Girls: 47% 26% 27% 24% 18%* 19%
Boys: 18% 16% 14% 25% 13% 16%
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
LEARNING QUESTION 3
3.a Which program components were the most effective in improving reading performance for grade 2 students, 
and why? Which program components were the least effective in improving reading performance for grade 2 
students, and why?
According to stakeholders, in-service teacher training, daily reading lesson plans, and large format “big 
books” are considered to be the most effective PRP components. Conversely, tablets and leveled 
readers were considered to be the least effective in improving reading performance due to technological 
challenges and difficulties classifying the reading levels of individual students. Qualitative respondents also 
reported a perceived lack of buy-in from important government officials into the PRP intervention in 
general. They also felt PRP was never able to incorporate the District Education Office or the education 
managers, which hampered monitoring activities.
3.b Which components of PRP could be improved, and in what specific ways, to inform future reading programs?
Qualitative data show government stakeholders feel future trainings could be longer to cover the 
material more thoroughly. Participation in Teacher Inquiry Groups (TIGs) also remains a challenge due 
12
to accessibility. As such, future interventions should consider holding TIG meetings closer to schools, 
providing transportation to teachers from remote areas, and/or engaging teachers through remote 
platforms. 
3.c In what ways has the recent COVID-19 pandemic influenced primary classroom time/exposure, reading 
instruction, and reading performance?
Quantitative and qualitative findings provide strong evidence that COVID-19 has negatively impacted 
student reading performance as a result of extended school closures. Time series analysis of light 
intervention EGRA scores from 2013, 2017, and 2020 shows that letter name recognition had the 
greatest absolute decrease (-18.8) followed by passage reading (-15.1), familiar word reading (-11.4), and 
nonword decoding (-8.9). Provincial authorities, schools, and families have implemented a range of 
interventions to engage students during school closures as well as provide remediation following school 
re-openings, however, these have met with limited success.
3.d To what extent will the PRP project components be sustained after the USAID-supported activity ends? What, 
if any, additional support is needed to enhance long-term sustainability of PRP?
The program components most likely to continue beyond the USAID activity are the PRP curriculum, 
instructional methods, and reading and learning materials (RLMs), however these are likely fallout of use 
over the longer term due to teacher turnover and deterioration of RLMs. The program components 
least likely to continue are TIGs and in-service teacher trainings due to the discontinuation of outside 
support for PRP mentors, training facilitators, and teacher transportation. While stakeholders at all 
levels are supportive of the program, they note a lack of government ownership and dearth of financial 
resources, and called for continued support from USAID and other donors to ensure the long-term 
continuation of PRP.
PRP Components Most Likely and Least Likely to Continue Over the Long Term (Head Teacher-Reported)
3%
11%
17%
22%
23%
35%
40%
48%
49%
26%
3%
12%
6%
46%
9%
9%
2%
14%
Engagement of governance structures
Continuous assessment
In-service trainings
Classroom libraries
Teacher inquiry groups
Classroom-based coaching
Use of teacher guides / lesson plans
Emphasis on phonics
Use of student work books Most likely to continue
Least likely to continue
13
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Support a follow-on activity to ensure the core components of PRP are scaled up and successfully transitioned to 
government ownership. Although PRP was effective in improving learning outcomes in KP, evidence 
suggests that the program is unlikely to continue without external support. In particular, core elements 
of the program including teacher training appear to have been discontinued entirely, thus PRP methods 
and approaches are likely to fall out of use as stakeholders across the education system turn over. 
Findings from this evaluation can be used to garner buy-in from the KP government, and a follow-on 
activity can help ensure an effective transition over the long term including scaling up to districts in KP 
that were not originally targeted by PRP. 
Help teachers more effectively provide individually-targeted support to struggling students, including through the 
use of leveled readers. Although other research on early grade reading in low- and middle-income 
countries points to the effectiveness of “teaching at the right level,” stakeholders note that teachers face 
considerable challenges in classifying the reading levels of individual students and grouping them 
accordingly, particularly in schools facing teacher shortages and overburdened classrooms.
Implement remedial literacy programming for students who fall substantially below the performance standards. 
Although there has been marked progress since baseline, the great majority of students in KP are still 
unable to read with comprehension at a grade-appropriate level. Remedial programming for struggling 
readers could involve supplementing core reading lessons with additional instruction and guided practice 
time tailored to the learning levels and needs of students or extracurricular reading support by tutors, 
volunteers, teachers, and/or through education technology. 
14
1. ENDLINE ASSESSMENT PURPOSE AND LEARNING 
QUESTIONS
ENDLINE ASSESSMENT PURPOSE
The Pakistan Reading Project (PRP) is a $143,726,890, seven-year initiative launched in July 2013 that
aimed to improve the quality of early grade reading instruction for 1.3 million public and private primary 
school students across Pakistan. Through E3/ED’s Reading and Access (R&A) contracting mechanism,
USAID/Pakistan engaged NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct the PRP endline assessment in 
2020. The endline assessment involved conducting Early Grade Reading Assessments (EGRAs) of 
students who recently completed grade 2 in two PRP intervention provinces—Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 
Balochistan, with the goal of providing insights into the effectiveness of early grade reading interventions 
in provinces identified as key priority areas under USAID/Pakistan’s new Country Development and 
Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). In addition, the endline aims to assess the PRP implementation approach
and to highlight areas for improvement and sustainability for future reading interventions in Pakistan and 
globally.
PRP was rolled out in three two-year cohorts: April 2015 (cohort 1), September 2015 (cohort 2), and 
April 2018 (cohort 3). Each cohort represents a set of children entering grade 1 whose teachers were 
trained and provided supplementary learning materials through PRP to ensure that students receive 
improved reading instruction throughout their first two years of school. The 2020 endline assessment
focused on a representative sample of schools in districts in KP that received the PRP intervention 
starting in 2018 (cohort 3). Schools in districts that did not receive direct support for improved reading 
instruction but that might have benefited indirectly are also included in the endline assessment (light 
intervention).7
LEARNING QUESTIONS
The learning questions for the PRP endline assessment—developed through a draft statement of work 
(SoW) and refined through consultations with USAID/Pakistan—are: 
LEARNING QUESTION 1 
After two years of implementation, to what extent has PRP led to measureable improvements in grade 2 
reading performance, as measured by the Early Grade Reading Assessment?
LEARNING QUESTION 2 
After two years of implementation, to what extent has PRP led to measurable improvements in the 
proportion of grade 2 students meeting provincial performance standards in reading fluency and 
comprehension? 
7 These light intervention districts and schools did not receive the PRP interventions directly, but, by the conclusion of the 
project, may benefit from provincial-level policy changes as a result of PRP or may indirectly receive elements of PRP 
interventions, such as literacy resources.
15
LEARNING QUESTION 3 
How effective was PRP design and implementation, as assessed by the following subquestions:
• Subquestion 3.a: Which program components were the most effective in improving reading 
performance for grade 2 students, and why? Which program components were the least 
effective in improving reading performance for grade 2 students, and why?
• Subquestion 3.b: Which components of PRP could be improved, and in what specific ways, to 
inform future reading programs?
• Subquestion 3.c: In what ways has the recent COVID-19 pandemic influenced primary 
classroom time/exposure, reading instruction, and reading performance?
• Subquestion 3.d: To what extent will the PRP project components be sustained after the 
USAID-supported activity ends? What, if any, additional support is needed to enhance long￾term sustainability of PRP?
16
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND 
PRP is a $143,726,890, seven-year initiative launched in July 2013 that aims to improve the quality of 
early grade reading instruction for 1.3 million public and private primary school students across Pakistan. 
The project is a response to multiple national-level reading assessments, including the EGRA and the 
Annual Status of Education Report (ASER), which showed poor results for students’ ability to read in 
primary school. Among these PRP student beneficiaries, it is anticipated that 700,000 will show 
improved reading skills and 50,000 will be reading at a level commensurate with standards at their grade. 
These goals are intended to be achieved through the following project components: 1) improved 
classroom learning environment for reading; 2) improved policies and systems for reading; and 3) 
community-based support for reading.
Under the first component, PRP has been working with the government of Pakistan and teachers to 
strengthen opportunities for children to better navigate the complex process of learning to read. PRP 
focused on implementing a robust in-service continuous professional development (CPD) approach; 
developed rich, appropriate children’s literature and supplemental reading learning materials to engage 
children in the learning process; and strengthened the preservice work in select Teacher Training 
Institutes (TTIs) to prepare the teaching workforce. The project’s CPD model consists of three 
interrelated elements that are at the core of improving teachers’ instructional practices, including face￾to-face (FtF) training, teacher inquiry group (TIG) meetings, and teacher supervisions and classroom￾based coaching. 
The FtF training focuses on discrete skills, like how to teach the daily reading lessons using the RLM 
provided and focusing on the five component skills of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, 
fluency, and comprehension, with writing and print concepts integrated), with the goal of empowering 
teachers to assess their students’ basic reading skills and carry out their daily reading lessons. The TIG 
meetings form a collaborative professional development space wherein a small group of teachers from 
neighboring schools meets monthly to discuss their teaching experiences and share their success stories 
and challenges with peers. The teachers also learn the component skills of reading and assessment 
techniques in more detail during these meetings, thereby allowing teachers to understand how the daily 
lessons were developed and why they are important for student learning. Finally, the supervision and 
classroom-based coaching underpin and reinforce lessons shared through FtF and TIGs through coaching 
from mentors, project staff, head teachers, and government academic supervisors. 
PRP’s work under this component also led to the development and distribution of a comprehensive 
package of RLMs in Urdu, Sindhi, and Pashto for interventions in grades 1 and 2. The core set of RLMs 
includes daily reading lesson plans (DRLPs), workbooks, decodable text and leveled readers, and 
classroom-based corner libraries. The core RLMs were designed to be used in conjunction with one 
another. The DRLPs allow teachers to deliver a high-quality reading lesson every day and pair it with the 
PRP workbooks, which give teachers and students a visual and tactile way to practice the day’s learning 
objective. The workbooks include activities for identifying and writing the lesson’s target letters/syllables, 
matching rhyming words, letter-sound correspondence, writing words, studying the lesson’s short text, 
and reviewing new vocabulary as well decodable texts and stories to allow students to practice phonics 
and decoding skills that they learn in the daily lesson. Teachers also received a variety of supplemental 
RLMs, including syllable charts, letter and sight word flash cards, and big books for whole-class reading 
aloud to complement the core RLMs. 
17
PRP’s work under the second component, i.e., improved policies and systems for reading, focused on 
the implementation of a reading improvement strategy that encompassed standards and benchmarks, 
assessment protocols and systems, and reading curriculum reform. The base of this work came from 
overarching policy and systems challenges (PSCs) that were identified during the first year of PRP 
implementation. These PSCs served as the primary channel to engage government officials and other 
stakeholders in dialogue and decision-making concerning key reading policy challenges and reforms. 
PRP’s work under this component also worked in two broad policy areas: what to teach and how it is 
taught. Through these two policy areas, PRP guided provinces through the planning of reading policy 
reform in a manner that addressed both the content and the delivery mechanism. PRP advocated 
alongside other partners for the establishment of a coherent CPD policy to support the motivation and 
professional growth of the teacher workforce. PRP also supported the implementation of individual 
provincial-level reading improvement strategies (RIS) that served as an overall framework for each 
province to achieve its self-identified goals for reading improvement. Another critical aspect of this 
component was building the capacity of the Pakistani government to administer EGRAs. PRP worked 
with the National Education Assessment Systems (NEAS) and the Provincial Education Assessment 
System (PEAS) to carry out situational analyses and needs assessments to identify human and financial 
resources, as well as competencies needed for these bodies to carry out EGRAs. 
The final PRP component focused on the importance of community-based support to reinforce 
children’s learning and reading skill acquisition. This component included two primary strategies: reading 
grants and community engagement. PRP’s grant program included two types of grants: 1) the 
Complementary Reading Project (CRP) grants for civil society organization (CSO) and 2) the small 
Community Managed Reading (CMR) grants for the community-based school governance structures 
(CBSGS), such as school management committees and parent-teacher councils (PTCs). The community 
and family engagement strategy focused on the promotion of early grade reading and other key themes, 
such as critical thinking, tolerance, inclusion, coexistence, and empathy. Individual activities under this 
strategy differed from region to region but included such activities as reading fairs, reading competitions, 
quiz programs, literature festivals, and more. CBSGS engagement activities had a more structured 
process, first identifying CBSGS structures in intervention schools, then orienting head teachers and 
teachers on how to involve CBSGSs in reading interventions. PRP also supported head teachers and 
teachers in leading meetings with CBSGSs in which they explained the reading interventions being 
implemented and the RLMs provided by the project. They worked together to identify potential areas 
where CBSGSs may support the school and parents in improving children’s reading skills and arranged 
an event to inform parents about the reading performance of the school’s children and the role parents 
play in their children’s reading performance.
18
3. RESEARCH METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The PRP endline assessment uses a mixed-methods approach to address descriptive and normative 
questions about PRP, as well as to measure improvements in early grade reading performance among 
cohort 3 students. Given the diverse goals of the endline assessment, the research team employed a 
quasi-experimental approach to establish the causal impact of PRP on learning outcomes at the student 
level and a process evaluation to examine the extent to which PRP achieved its intended inputs, 
activities, and outputs at the school level.
QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Impact evaluations seek to measure changes that can be attributed to a defined intervention by 
establishing a credible counterfactual to estimate what would have happened to beneficiaries in the 
absence of the program. By comparing participants with a counterfactual or comparison group, we can 
subtract away the contextual changes that affect both program participants and the comparison group. If 
program participation is the only substantive difference between participants and the comparison group, 
then the difference in outcomes can be attributed to the program. Without a rigorous estimate of a 
counterfactual, there is a risk of over- or underestimating the program impact. This risk is particularly 
salient in the context of environmentally or economically disruptive shocks—such as that presented by 
COVID-19—that can undermine pre-post evaluation methods.
The preferred approach for impact evaluation involves random assignment to treatment or control 
conditions so that each group, on average, is statistically similar at baseline, so that any observed 
differences between the two groups at endline can be attributed to the intervention. Because random 
assignment was not possible in the case of PRP, we employed a quasi-experimental method called 
difference-in-differences (DiD).8 DiD attempts to calculate the treatment effect in nonexperimental 
evaluations by comparing the average change over time in the outcome variable for the treatment group 
to the average change over time for the comparison group, thus attempting to mitigate the effects of 
extraneous factors and selection bias. The DiD method is designed to correct for situations in which 
there is nonequivalence between treatment and comparison units at baseline. 
Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of the DiD methodology.
8 To help correct for nonequivalence at baseline between treatment and comparison schools, we also tested the use of inverse 
probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), which involves developing a model to predict treatment selection using school-level 
baseline variables. The propensity scores generated by this model are then used to weight observations during analysis to 
create a pseudo-population of comparable treatment and comparison units. Because diagnostic testing of the adjusted DiD 
models revealed that balance between treatment and comparison units was maximized without application of IPTW weights,
they were not used in the final analysis.
19
Figure 1: Difference-in-Differences Estimator
Where: 
• AT0 is the average test score for a given grade at baseline in the treatment group
• AC0 is the average test score for a given grade at baseline in the comparison group
• AT1 is the average test score for a given grade at endline in the treatment group
• AC1 is the average test score for a given grade at endline in the comparison group
• TE is the treatment effect for the corresponding grade
Baseline or time-invariant control variables can be included in the DiD model to improve the statistical 
precision of the impact estimates, thereby increasing the likelihood of observing statistically meaningful 
differences between treatment and comparison schools at endline, should they exist. Taken together, 
these methodological approaches help to ensure that PRP impact estimates correct for the fact that 
comparison districts and schools systematically differ from those targeted by the PRP intervention.
The impact evaluation methods described above are used to answer learning questions 1 and 2.
PROCESS EVALUATION
Although the primary objective of this endline assessment is to measure the impact of PRP on reading 
performance, the endline included an embedded process evaluation in order to shed light on both the 
barriers and the catalysts to effective program implementation and long-term sustainability. This involved 
collecting a cross-section of quantitative and qualitative data to retrospectively assess the extent to 
which the program achieved its intended inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes as well as to test 
some of the critical assumptions underlying the PRP theory of change. The purpose of this process 
evaluation is to share—with both USAID and implementers of similar programs—the lessons learned
regarding effective implementation of reading programs in complex environments. 
The process evaluation component aims to answer learning questions 3a through 3d. 
TE
AT0
AT1
AC1
AC0
Time
Achievement
20
INCLUSION AND STRATIFICATION
The researchers integrated a gender-sensitive approach, drawing on resources such as USAID’s How-To 
Notes on Engendering Evaluation and Gender Integration in Education Programming and USAID’s Gender￾sensitive Evaluation: Best and Promising Practices for Engendering Evaluation. This approach includes ensuring 
that all data are disaggregated and reported by sex where appropriate, engaging female and male 
researchers, and striving for gender balance among respondents. Gender frameworks were considered 
in analysis as well, such as examining how the intervention might have affected boys and girls differently. 
The research team also incorporated social inclusion in their approach, including consideration of 
geographical or regional variations, language, and socio-economic status in the analysis.
Annex 1 outlines the overarching analytical strategy in the research design matrix.
RESEARCH TEAM
The PRP endline assessment was conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago under USAID’s R&A
contracting mechanism. The NORC team consisted of national and international experts in education 
and social sciences research, and was supported by local data collection subcontractor VTT Global. 
Evaluation team members included:
• Evaluation team lead – Erika Keaveney
• Local technical expert (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) – Nadia Qasim
• Qualitative lead and trainer – Carlos Fierros
• Quantitative research analyst – Alexander Rigaux
• Qualitative research analyst – Paige Pepitone
• R&A principal investigator – Dr. Alicia Menendez
• R&A project director – Varuni Dayaratna
• Master trainers, quality control officers, field supervisors, and enumerators
The endline assessment was also supported by Management Systems International (MSI), which managed 
both baseline and midline data collection for PRP and provided transitional support to the NORC team. 
DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
We selected primary data collection instruments based on their ability to triangulate the learning 
questions and subquestions. Outcomes-related questions were primarily addressed through school-level 
EGRA assessments and teacher and head teacher survey tools. These tools were modeled after those 
used by MSI in 2017, but with several new questions to address endline-specific learning questions. In 
addition, new tools, including key informant interview (KII) protocols, were developed. These new tools 
drew upon: the research team’s expertise; PRP staff and project documentation; existing tools used to 
evaluate early grade reading programs under NORC’s R&A contract; and USAID tools made publicly 
available via the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) and Global Reading Network.
21
EARLY GRADE READING ASSESSMENT (EGRA)
The EGRA was developed by USAID in response to a growing demand for an open-source and easy-to￾use tool that assesses student abilities along a reading continuum, from prereading skills—such as 
listening comprehension and orientation to print—to reading fluency and comprehension.9 EGRA has 
been adapted and used in more than 70 countries, including Pakistan, which conducted several national 
EGRA assessments starting in 2013. The Pakistan EGRA tool was adapted, piloted, and validated by MSI 
in 2013, with a statistically equated version used in 2017 and 2020. Table 1 describes the specific
subtasks included in the Pakistan EGRA assessment, along with their associated reading stages.
Table 1: Reading Skills Evaluated by the Pakistan Early Grade Reading Assessment
Reading Stage Subtask Description
Prereading Orientation to 
print
Students are asked five emergent-literacy print concept questions (e.g., 
directional arrangement of text). Subtask is scored as both number of 
items correct (raw score) and percent correct.
Phonics
Letter name 
recognition
Students are given a stimulus sheet containing 100 letters and are asked 
to name as many letters as they can in 60 seconds. Subtask is scored as 
correct letters named per minute and percent correct. 
Familiar word 
reading
Students are given a stimulus sheet containing 50 familiar written words 
and are asked to read as many words as they can in 60 seconds. Subtask 
is scored as correct words produced per minute and percent correct.
Nonword 
reading
Students are given a stimulus sheet containing 50 written nonwords and 
are asked to read as many of them as they can in 60 seconds. Subtask is 
scored as correct nonwords produced per minute and percent correct.
Fluency Passage reading
Students are given a short passage (60 words) to read within 60 
seconds. Subtask is scored as correct words produced per minute and 
percent correct.
Comprehension
Passage
comprehension
Students are orally asked up to five comprehension questions about the 
passage they read in the previous subtask. Subtask is scored as both 
number of items correct (raw score) and percent correct.
Listening 
comprehension
An enumerator reads a simple story out loud. Students are then asked 
three comprehension questions based on the story. Subtask is scored as 
both number of items correct (raw score) and percent correct.
Consistent with the 2017 assessment, paper versions of the EGRA were prepared in an optimal mark 
recognition (OMR)-compatible format. Paper assessment forms were completed in the field in real time, 
then collected and uploaded to an OMR software platform so that marks/scores could be read into a 
central database.
9 RTI International; USAID. (2016). Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) Toolkit: Second Edition. Available at:
https://shared.rti.org/content/early-grade-reading-assessment-egra-toolkit-second-edition. 
22
SCHOOL-LEVEL SURVEYS
All school-level interviews, with the exception of the student survey, were conducted using electronic 
tablets. Surveys were programmed using SurveyCTO, a secure, web-based survey management platform 
designed for collecting and managing data in resource-constrained environments. NORC conducted all 
survey programming in-house, with the data server centrally managed by the research team. We 
performed data uploads every day (connectivity permitting) to allow for real-time data quality reviews, 
as described in the Data Collection section of this report.
Head Teacher Survey
The head teacher survey captured school-level information related to early grade reading including: in￾service training access and participation; teacher instructional practice observation, coaching, and 
instructional support; availability and quality of teaching and learning materials; and school 
characteristics, such as availability and quality of school facilities and management structures. At endline, 
the head teacher survey was expanded to include questions related to COVID-19, including 
interruptions to schooling, school and community coping mechanisms, and strategies for addressing lost 
instructional time (e.g., distance learning, accelerated learning, remedial education, and so forth). In 
addition, survey instruments for treatment schools included extended modules on head teacher beliefs 
regarding the efficacy and areas for improvement of PRP.
Teacher Survey
The teacher survey captured information on: in-service training access and participation; head teacher 
observation of teachers’ instruction practices, coaching, and instructional support; availability and quality 
of teaching and learning materials; student reading habits inside and outside the classroom; and self￾reported teaching practices related to the PRP model of instruction. At endline, the teacher survey was 
expanded to include questions related to COVID-19, including interruptions to schooling, classroom 
and school coping mechanisms, and strategies for addressing lost instructional time.
Student Survey
The student survey is a brief survey completed immediately after administration of the EGRA. The 
student interview asked questions about the language spoken in the home environment, availability of 
reading materials at home, reading practices both inside and outside the classroom, and household 
assets. At endline, the student survey was expanded to include very basic/simple questions related to 
COVID-19, including interruptions to schooling due to student or parent illness and the effects of 
lockdown on household working patterns. In addition, the survey explored the extent of formal home￾schooling and informal enrichment activities during lockdown. 
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
The research team developed new KII tools to be used during endline, including instruments for four 
separate stakeholder groups: bureaucrats, policy decision-makers, technocrats, and USAID staff. During 
the instrument design phase, we clearly mapped in Excel each item in each tool to relevant learning
questions and subquestions to ensure that sufficient information was elicited from all appropriate 
respondents to answer the learning questions. We then used these tool maps to produce versions of 
each tool in Word that were structured for appropriate interview and discussion flow with respondents. 
23
KIIs were conducted in person where possible, taking advantage of the local technical experts’ presence 
in the target districts for the duration of field work. When KIIs were not able to be conducted in 
person, they were arranged by telephone, Skype, or WhatsApp at a time convenient for the respondent.
Annex VII includes copies of all data collection tools used at the endline. 
SAMPLING
QUANTITATIVE SAMPLING
As prescribed by USAID/Pakistan, NORC planned to visit the same 70 cohort 3 and 70 light 
intervention schools visited by MSI in 2017. According to MSI’s 2017 Methodology Report,10 these 140 
schools were selected using a stratified cluster random sampling method. In consultation with USAID, 
MSI reviewed the selected cohort 3 and light intervention districts and eliminated those districts that
were inaccessible due to security reasons. One-third of the sampled population districts (up to a 
maximum of three and a minimum of two districts per study arm) were chosen using a simple random 
sample, which resulted in clustered samples. The samples were divided between the selected districts 
according to the proportions of schools within those districts through stratified random sampling. A 
second stratification was done at the location level, where sampled schools were allocated between 
rural and urban locations within each sampled district according to the rural/urban proportion of 
schools within the sampled district. Only schools with at least 15 male or 15 female students were 
targeted, which required random replacement in some instances. Twenty-eight schools in DI Khan, 24 
schools in Haripur, and 18 schools in Upper Dir were selected to represent cohort 3. The sample 
selected to represent the light intervention group in KP includes 30 schools in Lakki Marwat and 40 
schools in Bannu.
Due to security issues at endline, VTT was unable to obtain government permission to access the 24 
cohort 3 schools in Haripur. Two other districts in KP—Kohat and Karak—were also part of cohort 3, 
however Kohat was experiencing similar security issues due to its proximity to the Federally 
Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). As such, 24 schools from Karak were randomly selected to replace 
the schools from Haripur.11
Table 2 provides details on sample achievement at endline including total number of schools visited 
during data collection as well information on the total number of student, teacher, and head teacher
interviews conducted. School-level and student-level results are also broken out by gender. School-level 
targets were achieved, with 140 out of 140 schools visited successfully, or 100 percent of the target. 
Corresponding teacher and head teachers interviews were collected from all sampled schools except 
for one, resulting in 139 total teacher and head teacher interviews, or 99 percent of the target.
Similar to prior rounds of data collection, the student-level sample achievement was somewhat lower 
than the target, with a total of 1,981 completed interviews, or 94 percent of the targeted number of 
completes. This was largely driven by lower-than-expected enrollment and/or attendance in some 
schools. Consistent with prior rounds, female schools were more likely than male schools to be short of 
10 Available at https://earlygradereadingbarometer.org/files/Pakistan%20EGRA%202017%20Methodology%20Report.pdf. 11 To ensure comparability between the 2017 and 2020 samples, both Karak and Haripur are omitted from the DiD analysis. 
24
the target sample of students, with 957 completed interviews at female schools (91 percent of the 
target) compared to 1,024 interviews at male schools (98 percent of the target).
Table 2: Realized Sample for Endline Data Collection
Sampling Unit Realized Sample Target Sample % of Target
School-level 140 140 100%
Male Schools 70 70 100%
Female Schools 70 70 100%
Student-level 1,981 2,100 94%
Male Schools 1,024 1,050 98%
Female Schools 957 1,050 91%
Teachers 139 140 99%
Head Teachers 139 140 99%
QUALITATIVE SAMPLING
Initial sampling for the KIIs was done in consultation with USAID/Pakistan and our Local Technical 
Expert. As part of the purposive selection process, the team first identified key stakeholder groups, 
including bureaucrats, policy decision makers, and technocrats within KP. The Local Technical Expert
then recommended specific respondents that fell into each stakeholder group. The final list of 
respondents was shared with and approved by USAID/Pakistan. 
In total, NORC identified 16 KII respondents for inclusion in the endline assessment. Table 3 details 
each key stakeholder group, the target number of interviews for each group, and the number of 
successful interviews completed in KP. 
Table 3: Planned vs. Actual Sample for Qualitative Data Collection
Sampling Unit (Personnel) Realized Sample Target Sample % of Target
USAID Staff 1 1 100%
Bureaucrats (District Education Officers) 3 3 100% 
Technocrats (teachers, mentors, Technical 
Coordinators, Deputy Directors) 11 12 92% 
Policy decision-makers (focal people for policy and 
governance, CEOs) 1 1 100% 
DATA COLLECTION
SUBCONTRACTOR SELECTION
For school-based data collection, NORC subcontracted with VTT Global, an established Pakistan-based 
data collection firm that conducted previous rounds of data collection for the PRP evaluation led by MSI. 
To identify firms with the necessary experience to conduct the data collection for the assessment, 
25
NORC consulted its database of pre-vetted data collection firms in Pakistan and identified the 
incumbent data collection firms through MSI. In May 2020, NORC reached out to three qualified survey 
research firms in Pakistan to request technical and cost proposals. Of the three firms contacted, two 
submitted technical and cost proposals by the prescribed deadline. NORC evaluated technical proposals 
against the criteria required for the data collection and determined that VTT Global would be able to 
complete the assignment to the required standard of quality and offered the greatest value for money. 
For school-based data collection, NORC subcontracted with VTT Global, an established Pakistan-based 
data collection firm that conducted previous rounds of data collection for the PRP evaluation led by MSI. 
To identify firms with the necessary experience to conduct the data collection for the assessment, 
NORC consulted its database of pre-vetted data collection firms in Pakistan and identified the 
incumbent data collection firms through MSI. In May 2020, NORC reached out to three qualified survey 
research firms in Pakistan to request technical and cost proposals. Of the three firms contacted, two 
submitted technical and cost proposals by the prescribed deadline. NORC evaluated technical proposals 
against the criteria required for data collection and determined that VTT Global would be able to 
complete the assignment to the required standard of quality and offered the greatest value for money. 
VTT was responsible for hiring master trainers, quality control officers (QCOs), field supervisors, and 
field enumerators to carry out the PRP endline data collection. VTT ensured that the field teams 
possessed adequate knowledge of various cultures, languages, and ethnicities of the target areas and had 
sufficient relevant experience with school-based data collection and EGRA administration. The VTT 
team shortlisted experienced master trainers, QCOs, field supervisors, and field enumerators who met 
the selection criteria, while ensuring that a 50-50 gender ratio for field enumerators was maintained 
during the hiring process. A brief description of each of these positions is outlined below: 
Master Trainers
Master trainers were responsible for participating in the training of trainers (ToT) and leading the 
subsequent QCO and enumerator trainings.
Quality Control Officers
QCOs play an independent oversight role to ensure that data are of the highest possible quality. As 
such, they bring prior experience with PRP assessment field work and receive extensive supplementary 
training on endline data collection tools and protocols. During fieldwork, QCOs were responsible for 
communicating the field team’s presence to provincial and local leadership, implementing the student 
sampling procedures, leading inter-rater reliability (IRR),12 interviewing grade 2 teachers and head 
teachers, transmitting daily field reports to the VTT home office, and backstopping other data collection 
activities as needed.
12 Inter-rater reliability (IRR) refers to the consistency with which different assessors or enumerators score an assessment. 
During this exercise, an enumerator assesses the student as normal while a quality control team member observes the 
assessment from a position from which they cannot see what the enumerator writes. The quality control team member begins 
scoring a separate assessment for the same student; hence, two assessments are recorded for the same student. The evaluation 
team then compares the responses from the two assessments to determine the IRR rate of agreement between the two team 
members.
26
Field Supervisors
Field supervisors manage data collection teams at each school and are responsible for ensuring the 
overall coordination and flow of daily activities. The supervisors are the link between enumerators and 
the project management team. Enumerators must inform the supervisor of any difficulties or problems 
encountered during field work and seek advice when procedure(s) are not fully understood. 
Field Enumerators
The most important role of the enumerator is to collect high-quality data so the researchers can analyze 
them and produce the statistics used by policy-makers, government officials, and others. Enumerators 
must precisely follow the data collection guidelines so that data can be collected consistently and with a 
high level of accuracy. 
TRAINING OF TRAINERS, SUPERVISOR, AND ENUMERATORS 
Due to travel restrictions implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the enumerator 
training for the PRP endline assessment occurred in three phases. First, NORC worked with VTT 
Global and MSI to train a core group of master trainers. Six master trainers – 5 males and 1 female – 
participated in the five-day in-person training in Islamabad, Pakistan from October 12-16, 2020. NORC 
and MSI led the training remotely, with in-person support from VTT Global and our Local Technical 
Experts. The training was focused on re-orienting the trainers to the study, data collection procedures, 
sampling, logistics, and administration of the tools as well as preparing them to lead the subsequent 
QCO and enumerator trainings in their respective provinces. 
Immediately following the Training of Trainers (ToT), a six-day QCO training was held from October 
19-24. Eight QCOs were selected to participate in the QCO training. The QCO training was again 
focused on re-orienting the QCOs to the study, data collection procedures, sampling, logistics, and 
administration of the tools as well as preparing them to support the subsequent enumerator trainings in 
their respective provinces. 
The main training took place the following week, from October 26-31. Nine supervisors and 18 
enumerators were invited to participate in the main enumerator training. The trainings included a 
combination of plenary sessions and review and practice sessions to orient enumerators on field 
procedures and instruments. The final days of the training consisted of a pilot exercise and debrief at 
nearby schools to ensure enumerators had adequate practice prior to launch. Following the main 
training, eight supervisors and 16 enumerators were selected to participate in field work. Selection was 
made based on training attendance and participation, pilot performance, IRR testing, and written exams. 
In addition, the 50-50 gender ratio was maintained when selecting teams for fieldwork. On the final day 
of training, EGRA IRR—measured as the raw rate of agreement with a “gold standard”—was 95 
percent.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Quantitative data collection was multimodal, with the EGRA assessment and student survey conducted 
via paper and pencil optical mark recognition (OMR) instruments, while the teacher and head teacher 
surveys were tablet-based, utilizing the SurveyCTO/Open Data Kit (ODK) platform. The EGRA and 
27
student survey were formatted for OMR and tested by VTT Global, which was responsible for collecting 
the completed EGRA forms and student surveys and processing them using the OMR software. They 
then transferred the digitized data to NORC using a secured, password-protected server. 
NORC conducted the electronic survey programming in-house, with data collection platforms/servers 
centrally managed by the assessment team. All tablets and servers were encrypted to ensure maximum 
data security. We completed daily data uploads of digitally captured data (connectivity permitting) to 
allow for real-time data quality reviews.
Qualitative interviews were audio recorded where possible, with respondents’ consent. The local data 
collection partner then produced verbatim Urdu transcripts using the audio files and translated them 
into English transcripts that were used for the data analysis. Where interviews were not able to be 
audio recorded, data were captured via detailed field notes recorded during the KIIs. Field notes were 
typed up as soon as possible to capture details from the interview while still fresh. Qualitative data were
transferred and stored on a secured, password-protected server.
DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE
To ensure high-quality data throughout the field period, NORC employed a number of quality assurance 
protocols and strategies, including supervisor accompaniments (“sit-ins”), co-enumeration for real-time 
IRR monitoring, school revisits (“back checks”), weekly field reporting and data reconciliation, and real￾time data quality reviews. Over the course of data collection, NORC flagged 38 data quality review 
issues to VTT through a cloud-based log, all of which were quickly and satisfactorily addressed. In 
addition, all electronic data were fully reconciled with weekly field reports and accompaniment data 
show strong adherence to survey administration protocols. With respect to inter-rater reliability, the 
overall EGRA IRR for the field work period was 94 percent. 
RESEARCH ETHICS AND STUDY AUTHORIZATION
The endline assessment was conducted in line with human subjects research guidelines both in the 
United States and Pakistan. NORC follows established protocols for gathering informed consent, 
protecting anonymity and identifying information, and ensuring ethical data collection—including from 
children and other vulnerable populations. To ensure compliance with our high ethical standards, all 
evaluations and studies involving vulnerable populations must pass through our independent institutional 
review board (IRB), and all research staff must complete a certified course in protecting human research 
participants through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or Collaborative Institutional Training 
Initiative (CITI). 
Field teams were extensively trained regarding research ethics, including confidentiality and informed￾consent procedures. Consent/assent was orally attained from students, teachers, and head teachers. All 
respondents received a printed consent/study information sheet signed/certified by the enumerator for 
record-keeping purposes. Written consent was obtained from all KII respondents. Head teachers signed 
a written consent form to authorize the school’s participation in the study as well as to provide in loco 
parentis consent13 to administer the interviews and assessments to children under their care during the 
13 In loco parentis—a Latin term meaning “instead of a parent” or “in place of a parent”—refers to consent obtained from the 
head teacher in place of the parent/guardian since children are in their custody during school hours.
28
school day. For the head teacher interview, a separate consent form was provided but did not require a 
name or signature so as not to link the respondent to his/her answers.
In addition to obtaining oral assent and written in loco parentis consent, children received a parent 
information sheet in Urdu to take home. This sheet provided information on the study, key contacts, 
and instructions on how to remove the child from the study if the parent wished to do so. The parent 
information sheet contained an anonymous student identifier to allow the research team to identify the 
child’s data and drop them from the study if requested; however, no such requests were made during 
the study period.
DATA ANALYSIS
QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
We conducted primary quantitative analysis using the Stata SE/15.1 statistical software package. Analysis 
of quantitative assessment and survey data features summary statistics of performance indicators and 
other key outcomes of interest. To assess the extent to which PRP improved EGRA subtask scores, we 
used difference-in-differences statistical analysis.14 To identify student, teacher, classroom, and school 
characteristics related to PRP that are associated with student oral reading fluency scores at endline, we 
used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression.15
QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
NORC implemented a multistep approach for thematic qualitative analysis using Dedoose, a qualitative 
data analysis program. The qualitative team applied a two-step approach to designing the code frame. 
We began by developing theory-driven codes using a matrix that mapped the learning questions onto 
the interview questions. The goal of this exercise was to identify how the themes expected to emerge 
from each protocol question could help address the learning questions. We used this matrix to generate 
a skeleton code frame of themes related to the protocol questions. 
Next, we polished the code frame by conducting data-driven coding. This involved reading four raw 
transcripts in detail and applying a descriptive coding method to analyze their contents. We then refined 
the code frame to capture any novel themes that emerged across transcripts and were relevant to 
answering the learning questions. Finally, we fleshed out the finalized code frame to create a code book, 
14 To assess the extent to which PRP improved student reading performance, we employed a difference-in-differences OLS
regression model in which program impact is given by the coefficient 𝛽𝛽1 in the following equation: 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1(𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ∗ 𝑃𝑃) +
𝛽𝛽2𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽3𝑃𝑃 + 𝛽𝛽4𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽5𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖+ ∋h, where Yis is the EGRA score for student i in school s, Ts is a dummy equal to one if school s is 
a PRP school, P is a dummy equal to one if the observation is an endline observation, Xs is a vector of baseline covariates for 
school s, Xis is a vector of time-invariant controls for student i in school s, and ∋ is the error term. The model was also adapted 
to include examination of PRP impact on grade-level performance standards, which employed the logistic regression model 
where Zis is a dummy equal to one if student i in school s has achieved the 
minimum performance standard for oral reading fluency, with other parameters being the same as the model described above. 
For ease of interpretation, odds ratios for β are reported as marginal effects.
15 The model assessing student, teacher, classroom, and school characteristics related to PRP that are associated with student 
oral reading fluency scores at endline is given by: 𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1𝛾𝛾𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽2𝛿𝛿𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽3𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖+ ∋, where Eis is the oral reading fluency 
score for student i in treatment school s; γis is a vector of student characteristics for student i in school s; δcs is a vector of 
teacher and classroom characteristics for classroom c in school s; θs is a vector of school characteristics for school s; ∋ is the 
error term; and β1, β2, and β3 are the parameters to be estimated. The coefficients of interest are β1, β2, and β3, which measure 
the magnitude and statistical significance of oral reading fluency scores associated with predictor variables.
29
or a list of codes accompanied by definitions and examples. The code book served as the guide for the 
qualitative team and enabled the coders to consistently analyze the KII transcripts. 
After coding the data, we used a grounded theory approach to triangulate data across sources, identify 
explanations for the phenomena observed, and explore the relationships between these phenomena. 
Our analysis involved assessing subthemes observed within codes and analyzing them within strata and 
types. This content analysis method allowed us to develop a thorough understanding of responses, 
address contradictory findings, and highlight common themes and narratives.
LIMITATIONS
PARALLEL TRENDS ASSUMPTION
The DiD methodology assumes that the treatment and comparison groups, in the absence of the 
program, would display the same trends over time—i.e., would move in parallel. This is an assumption 
that we cannot verify directly, and unobserved differential trend lines may lead to over- or 
underestimation of PRP impacts.
SAMPLE ATTRITION
As described under the sampling section, 24 of the 70 schools that form the cohort 3 panel in KP were 
inaccessible due to security threats in Haripur at the time of data collection. While the evaluation team 
was able to replace these 24 schools with 24 randomly selected schools from another PRP district 
(Karak), schools from both Haripur and Karak are excluded from the DiD analysis to avoid systematic 
bias since the districts are characteristically different from one another. Consequently, the reduced 
treatment sample limits the utility of statistical hypothesis testing which readers should take into 
account when interpreting the impact estimates.
CONTAMINATION AND COMPLIANCE
Contamination occurs when there is crossover between treatment and comparison groups. For 
example, if teachers were to move between cohort 3 and light intervention schools, the internal validity 
of the research design would be threatened as children in treatment schools would no longer be 
receiving the intervention. The evaluation team believes the risk of contamination is minimal, as sampled 
children were required to have completed grade 2 at the school where data collection took place. 
Furthermore, we assessed the duration that sampled teachers have been at their respective schools and 
found that 96 percent of cohort 3 and 93 percent of light intervention teachers were working at the 
same school in the previous academic year. Most importantly, no teachers in light intervention schools
reported having participated in trainings organized by PRP.
SPILLOVERS
Spillovers occur when members of the comparison group receive indirect or secondary benefits from 
the treatment. For example, if provincial policy directives lead to the scale-up of certain PRP 
components to all districts, then comparison districts and schools would receive some elements of the 
intervention, which may in turn lead to underestimation of program impact.
30
EXTERNAL VALIDITY
Outcomes-level assessment results reflect the period of implementation under USAID support, which 
involved considerable financial and human resource investments. As such, results may have limited 
temporal external validity, as changes observed between 2017 and 2020 reflect outcomes with sizable 
donor investments. Similarly, results observed for KP may not be externally valid for nonsampled 
districts and provinces.
DISCONTINUITY BETWEEN SURVEY ROUNDS
A separate team of MSI researchers conducted prior rounds of data collection, which could potentially 
undermine comparability between assessment rounds if procedures and protocols were to change with 
the research team. To minimize this risk, NORC subcontracted with MSI to directly support training, 
field work, and analysis, as well as to ensure comprehensive handover of project documents and transfer 
of all relevant background information/knowledge. 
LIMITATIONS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS
The use of regression analysis to help address learning question 3.a is designed to overcome some of the 
inferential challenges associated with simple cross-tabulations or correlations. Despite this, the risk of 
omitted variable bias—i.e., omission of a variable from the regression that is correlated with both the 
outcome (EGRA score) and other predictors in the model—remains. As such, readers of this report 
should be cautious in assuming causal relationships between independent variables and reading scores. 
Furthermore, lack of a statistical relationship between the tested variables and reading performance 
does not mean that such a relationship does not exist. Factors such as sample size, measurement 
accuracy/precision, and omitted variable bias (among others) may lead to a Type II error—i.e., failure to 
detect a statistically meaningful relationship even if one exists.
COVID-19
The unprecedented disruption caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic presents several risks to the 
research: 1) The use of DiD represents an addition to the pre-post—i.e., before and after—analysis 
conducted at midline. School closures in Pakistan due to COVID-19 were expected to lead to 
significantly reduced exposure to reading instruction, and the research team anticipated declines relative 
to baseline, since even the best designed programs cannot offset several months of learning loss. The 
use of a comparison group ensures that learning loss due to school closures can be at least partially 
accounted for in the impact estimates. 2) COVID-19 has imposed a partial noncompliance of sorts 
among treatment schools, which were forced to close out the school year several months early. 
Therefore, even an unbiased estimate of program impact would not reflect the true effectiveness of the 
PRP model, which was predicated on the assumption that students would receive two full years of 
program exposure.
31
4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDINGS
LEARNING QUESTION 1 
After two years of implementation, to what extent has PRP led to measureable improvements in grade 2 reading 
performance, as measured by the Early Grade Reading Assessment?
KEY FINDINGS
• PRP increased reading fluency by 12.6 correct words per minute (CWPM), familiar word reading 
by 11.1 CWPM, and nonword reading by 6.4 CWPM. 
• Girls saw the most notable gains, with PRP increasing familiar word reading by 18 CWPM and 
passage reading by 16.3 CWPM. 
• PRP impacts for all other EGRA subtasks were positive, albeit not statistically significant in the 
case of letter name recognition and reading comprehension.
• Statistically significant standardized effect sizes range from 0.33 for nonword reading to 0.65 for 
orientation to print, which are considered “substantive” according to educational research 
conventions.
16
Raw EGRA Score Changes
To ensure consistency with prior reports and at the request of USAID/Pakistan, NORC begins by 
analyzing raw changes in EGRA scores, then presents the same results expressed as the percent correct 
(of total items) for each subtask, by treatment type.17 In addition, we visualize scores expressed as the 
percent correct to allow for comparison of relative performance across subtasks and over time. These 
summary statistics should not be interpreted as program impacts; impact estimates are presented at the 
end of this section.
First, as shown in Table 4, changes in raw subtask scores varied across treatment groups, and very few 
were statistically significant. For students in light intervention schools, differences between baseline and 
endline were generally negative or weakly positive and not significant. The only mean subtask score with 
a statistically significant change in the light intervention group was letter name recognition, which 
decreased 8.5 points from baseline to endline. Conversely, students in cohort 3 schools displayed 
positive increases on all EGRA subtasks except for letter name recognition, though few of these changes 
are statistically significant. 
16 According to statistician Jacob Cohen, an effect size is to be considered “small” when it ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 standard 
deviations, medium at 0.5 to 0.8, and large at 0.8 and above. Per the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education 
Sciences, an effect size of 0.25 and above is typically regarded as “substantive.” See e.g., Graham, J., & Kelly, S. (2018). How 
effective are early grade reading interventions? A review of the evidence. The World Bank. Retrieved from 
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29127.
17 See Table 1 for a complete description of EGRA subtasks and scoring methods.
32
Table 4: Mean Subtask Scores, by Treatment Type
Light Intervention Cohort 3
EGRA Subtask 2017 2020 Change 2017 2020 Change
Orientation to print 2.0 2.3 0.3 1.9 3.1 1.2***
Letter name recognition 41.1 32.6 -8.5*** 37.0 30.8 -6.1
Familiar word reading 28.1 23.9 -4.1 22.1 27.1 4.9
Nonword reading 19.1 18.2 -1.0 15.5 19.7 4.2
Passage reading 37.2 33.5 -3.7 28.8 35.2 6.4
Passage comprehension 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.1
Listening comprehension 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.3***
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Next, in order to assess progress on a common scale across subtasks, we also analyze average percent 
correct (i.e., number of correct items over the number of total items) below for each subtask by 
treatment type as shown in Table 7, as well as graphically in Figure 2 and Figure 3. For the charts, 
subtasks are ordered by endline performance, such that the subtasks with the highest percent correct 
scores appear first. 
Results for students in light intervention in terms of percent correct scores are very similar compared 
to mean score results, with the only statistically significant change displayed in the letter name 
recognition subtask. Similarly, the only two statistically significant changes for cohort 3 students were 
positive increases in orientation to print and listening comprehension, which increased 23 and 9 
percentage points respectively. Other subtasks increased or decreased slightly from baseline, but the 
difference was not significant for any of them. However, it is important to note that the both Haripur 
and its replacement district (Karak) are excluded from the endline analyses to ensure comparability over 
time. Readers should thus keep in mind that that the reduced sample size may result in the failure to 
detect statistically meaningful impacts even if such impacts were present.
Table 5: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, by Treatment Type
Light Intervention Cohort 3
EGRA Subtask 2017 2020 Change 2017 2020 Change
Orientation to print 41% 46% 6% 39% 62% 23%***
Letter name recognition 41% 33% -8%*** 37% 31% -6%
Familiar word reading 56% 48% -8% 44% 54% 10% 
Nonword reading 38% 36% -2% 31% 39% 8% 
Passage reading 62% 56% -6% 48% 59% 11% 
Passage comprehension 4% 6% 2% 9% 11% 2%
Listening comprehension 8% 10% 2% 14% 24% 9%***
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
33
Figure 2: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, Light Intervention
Figure 3: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, Cohort 3
48% 56%
41% 46%
56% 62%
38% 36%
33% 41%
8% 10%
4% 6%
Endline Baseline
Familiar 
Word Reading
Passage Reading
Orientation to 
Print
Familiar Word
Reading
Nonword 
Reading
Letter Name 
Recognition
Listening 
Comprehension
48% 59%
44% 54%
39% 62%
31% 39%
31% 37%
14% 24%
9% 11%
Baseline Endline
Passage 
Comprehension
Orientation to 
Print
Passage Reading
Familiar Word
Reading
Nonword 
Reading
Letter Name 
Recognition
Listening
Comprehension
34
In addition to performing analysis of differences across treatment rounds, we also analyze differences in 
average scores across genders within each treatment group. In general, girls tended to outperform boys 
in both treatment groups and rounds with respect to passage reading, with the lowest average passage 
reading score from girls higher than the highest average score from boys. In light intervention schools, 
girls outperformed boys in passage reading by a larger margin at baseline when compared to endline, 
though still outperformed boys in both rounds. 
When looking at mean subtask scores at endline, average scores for girls were higher than boys in every 
subtask, with differences between genders statistically significant for all subtasks except for letter name 
recognition. Results were more mixed in cohort 3 schools. While passage reading scores for girls were 
still higher than for boys in both rounds, the difference between boys and girls was very small in 
magnitude and not statistically significant at endline.
As noted above, gender analyses in the body of this report are for endline only and compare the scores 
of boys to the scores of girls within each intervention category. Full EGRA subtask results disaggregated 
by gender and round can be found in Annex II.
Table 6: Endline Subtask Scores by Gender and Treatment Type
Light Intervention Cohort 3
EGRA Subtask Boys Girls Difference Boys Girls Difference
Orientation to print 2.1 2.6 0.5** 3.2 3.0 -0.2
Letter name recognition 32.2 33.3 1.1 32.2 28.3 -3.9
Familiar word reading 20.1 29.7 9.6** 25.8 29.6 3.8
Nonword reading 15.4 22.3 6.9** 19.2 20.6 1.4
Passage reading 28.7 40.8 12.1* 33.9 37.8 3.9
Passage comprehension 0.2 0.5 0.3* 0.5 0.7 0.2
Listening comprehension 0.2 0.4 0.2** 0.7 0.7 -0.1
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
PRP Impact Estimates
To answer learning question 1, we conducted difference-in-differences (DiD) Ordinary Lead Squares 
(OLS) regression analysis and produced an adjusted estimate using student- and school-level time 
invariant controls.18 The primary outcomes of interest for learning question 1 are raw EGRA subtask
scores, which are designed to assess students’ Urdu reading skills along a continuum, from pre-reading 
skills to reading fluency and comprehension. 
Results from the DiD analysis are presented in Table 4 below. The estimated PRP treatment effect is 
positive for all subtasks, and quite large in several instances. On average, PRP increased passage reading 
by 12.6 CWPM, familiar word reading by 11.1 CWPM, and nonword reading by 6.4 CWPM. PRP also 
increased orientation to print by 0.9 correct items (out of five) and listening comprehension by 0.3 
18 Time invariant controls at the student-level include household assets (television, radio, computer, bicycle, motorcycle, and 
car). At the school-level, control variables include urbanicity and the availability of drinking water, electricity, and toilets.
35
correct items (out of three). While letter name recognition and reading comprehension also improved, 
the results are not statistically significant at p<0.10.
Table 7: PRP DiD Impact Estimators, by EGRA Subtask and Round
Light Intervention Cohort 3 DiD Adjusted DiD
EGRA Subtask 2017 2020 2017 2020 Change Change Effect size
Orientation to print 2.0 2.3 1.9 3.1 0.9*** 0.9*** 0.65
Letter name recognition 41.1 32.6 36.9 30.7 2.3 3.3 0.17
Familiar word reading 28.1 24.0 22.2 27.2 9.1 11.1** 0.42
Nonword reading 19.1 18.1 15.5 19.6 5.1 6.4* 0.33
Passage reading 37.2 33.5 28.8 35.3 10.2 12.6* 0.37
Passage comprehension 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.08
Listening comprehension 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.2* 0.3** 0.35
Note: Adjusted DiD includes time invariant controls at the student- and school-level. Effect size refers to the difference between treatment and comparison 
groups divided by the pooled standard deviation. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. 
Table 8 presents the adjusted DiD results by disaggregated by gender. Girls’ schools saw large and 
statistically significant impacts for several subtasks, including orientation to print (+1.2 correct items), 
familiar word reading (+18 CWPM), and oral passage reading (+16.3 CWPM). Boys’ schools similarly 
saw increases across the board, however, only orientation to print (+0.9 correct items) and listening 
comprehension (+0.3 correct items) were statistically significant. It is important to note that these 
disaggregations reduce the sample size by half, which reduces the likelihood of detecting statistically 
significant impacts if they exist. This is further compounded by the fact that 24 of the 70 cohort 3 
schools—i.e., 34 percent of the treatment sample—are excluded from the impact analyses due to the 
replacement of Haripur with Karak at endline, as including either district would systematically bias the 
estimates. As such, readers should note that this analysis is underpowered to detect statistical changes 
according by research conventions. 
Table 8: PRP Difference-in-Differences (DiD) Impact Estimators, by EGRA Subtask and Gender
Girls Boys
EGRA Subtask Adjusted DiD Effect Size Adjusted DiD Effect Size
Orientation to print 1.2*** 0.90 0.9** 0.62
Letter name recognition -4.9 -0.25 6.6 0.36
Familiar word reading 18.0*** 0.65 8.0 0.33
Nonword reading 6.1 0.31 6.8 0.38
Passage reading 16.3* 0.47 10.4 0.33
Passage comprehension 0.1 0.07 0.1 0.09
Listening comprehension 0.2 0.22 0.3* 0.39
Note: Adjusted DiD includes time invariant controls at the student- and school-level. Effect size refers to the difference between treatment and comparison 
groups divided by the pooled standard deviation. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. 
36
LEARNING QUESTION 2
After two years of implementation, to what extent has PRP led to measurable improvements in the proportion of 
grade 2 students meeting provincial performance standards in reading fluency and comprehension?
KEY FINDINGS
• Overall, PRP increased the number of students meeting KP’s reading fluency performance 
standard by 18 percentage points. 
• The number of girls and boys meeting the performance standard increased by a 19 and 16 
percentage points, respectively, however these gender disaggregated estimates are not 
statistically significant.
The metric used to address learning question 2 is the oral reading fluency (ORF) performance standard, 
which is assessed using the passage reading subtask of the EGRA. These performance standard 
benchmarks categorize students into groups based on their ORF score to determine the extent to 
which they are reading at grade-level, in line with Pakistan’s curricular goals. In June 2015, delegates 
from all eight regions convened in Islamabad to set performance standards for ORF for grades 2 and 5. 
These draft standards were subsequently approved by provincial authorities in KP.
Table 9 shows the current Urdu ORF benchmarks for grade 2 students in KP, which are used for the 
purposes of this assessment to analyze the performance of students entering grade 3. The benchmarks 
assign students to one of three basic reading categories—does not meet performance standard, meets 
performance standard, or exceeds performance standards—based on the number of CWPM scored on 
the passage reading subtask. In addition to the official performance standard categories established by 
provincial authorities and in line with prior rounds of analysis, this report also includes the category of 
nonreader for those students who could not read a single word correctly.
Table 9: Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Performance Standards for Grade 2
Category Correct Words Per Minute
Exceeds performance standard > 90 CWPM
Meets performance standard 60 to 90 CWPM
Does not meet performance standard < 60 CWPM
Nonreader 0 CWPM
Raw Changes in the Proportion of Students Meeting Performance Standards
As with learning question 1, we present raw changes in the performance categories over time and by 
treatment arm to ensure consistency with previous reports. Table 10 shows the weighted distribution of 
ORF performance categories by treatment type for each wave of data collection, as well as the 
percentage point change between rounds and the statistical significance of the change. 
37
Performance standard distributions were relatively static for students in light intervention and cohort 3 
schools, with averages at endline looking very similar to baseline levels, underscoring the importance of 
using the adjusted DiD estimates to assess program impact. Difference in other performance categories 
were statistically indistinguishable across rounds for both treatment groups according to a design-based 
F-statistic, meaning distributions were very similar at baseline and endline.
Table 10: Oral Reading Fluency Performance Standard Categories, by Treatment Type 
Light Intervention Cohort 3
Benchmark category 2017 2020 Change 2017 2020 Change
Exceeds performance standard 6% 4% -2% 5% 9% 5%
Meets performance standard 20% 16% -4% 12% 15% 3%
Does not meet performance standard 51% 58% 6% 48% 44% -4%
Nonreader 23% 22% -1% 35% 31% -4%
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 for design-based F-statistic
Figure 4 shows the same ORF performance category breakdowns in the form of a bar chart. This chart 
helps to visualize the rather static nature of the changes in the proportion of nonreaders across 
treatment groups from baseline to endline. Differences from baseline to endline are generally small in 
magnitude and not statistically significant for either treatment group. 
Figure 4: Reading Performance Categories, By Treatment Type 
23% 22%
51% 58%
20%
16%
6% 4%
2017 2020
Light Intervention
35% 31%
48%
44%
12%
15%
5% 9%
2017 2020
Cohort 3
Exceeds PS
 Meets PS
 Does not meet PS
 Non-reader
38
Figures 5 and 6 below show the distribution of ORF scores for light intervention and cohort 3 students, 
respectively, at baseline and endline. These charts can be used as a visual aid to show how students are 
clustered within each CWPM category. Distributions were similar across treatment groups, with some 
notable variation. Nonreaders comprised the largest cluster across both treatment categories at endline, 
with 22 percent of light intervention students categorized as nonreaders compared to 31 percent of 
cohort 3 students. On the other hand, within the “does not meet performance standards” category, 
students in light intervention schools tended to have more diverse scores with more representation 
within each bracket as well as a peak in the 40-49 bracket, compared to students in cohort 3 schools 
that have a peak in the 20-29 bracket but then are more clustered towards the higher end of the 
category from there. Gender disaggregated ORF distributions are included in Annex II.
Figure 5: ORF Distributions by Round, Light Intervention 
0
1-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90-99
100-109
110-119
120-129
130-139
140+ BASELINE ENDLINE
7% exceed
standard
20% meet
standard
51% do not 
meet standard
22% 
nonreaders
5% exceed
standard
16% meet
standard
58% do not 
meet standard
22% 
nonreaders
39
Figure 6: ORF Distributions by Round, Cohort 3
Table 11 and Figure 7 display endline ORF categories disaggregated by gender and treatment category, 
as well as the result of statistical tests to determine the significance levels of differences in scores across 
genders within each treatment group. Full results disaggregated by gender and round are included in 
Annex II. 
For students in light intervention schools, performance standard distributions at endline were rather 
similar for boys and girls, though girls were slightly more likely to meet the performance standard and 
less likely to fall into the nonreader category. While the vast majority of light intervention boys and girls 
fell within the nonreader or “does not meet performance standard” category at endline, just 13 percent 
of girls were categorized as nonreaders compared to 28 percent of boys. In addition, 21 percent of girls 
achieved the performance standard, compared to just 12 percent of boys. Differences between boys and 
girls in light intervention schools were significant at the p<0.10 level. For students in cohort 3 schools, 
performance standard distributions at endline were essentially the same for male and female students, 
and differences by gender were not statistically significant.
0
1-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90-99
100-109
110-119
120-129
130-139
140+ BASELINE
5% exceed 
standard
12% meet
standard
48% do not 
meet standard
35% 
nonreaders
ENDLINE
9% exceed
standard
15% meet
standard
44% do not 
meet standard
31% 
nonreaders
40
As with subtask analyses, benchmark analyses were performed for endline only and compared male and 
female students within each intervention category. Full benchmark results disaggregated by gender and 
round can be found in Annex II.
Table 11: Endline Reading Performance Categories by Gender and Treatment Type
Light Intervention Cohort 3
Benchmark category Boys Girls Difference* Boys Girls Difference
Exceeds performance standard 4% 6% +2% 8% 11% +3%
Meets performance standard 12% 21% +9% 16% 14% -2%
Does not meet performance 
standard 56% 60% +4% 44% 45% +1%
Nonreader 28% 13% -15% 32% 30% -2%
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 for design-based F-statistic
Figure 7: Endline Oral Reading Fluency Performance Standard Categories, by Treatment Type and Gender
PRP Impact Estimates
To answer learning question 2, we conducted DiD regression analysis using the same procedure 
described under learning question 1. Results were calculated using both OLS and logistic regression 
28%
13%
56%
60%
12%
21%
4% 6%
Boys Girls
Light Intervention
32% 30%
44% 45%
16% 14%
8% 11%
Boys Girls
Cohort 3
Exceeds PS
 Meets PS
 Does not meet PS
 Non-reader
41
analysis, which are presented below in Table 12.19 Overall, PRP increased the number of students 
meeting the performance standard by 18 percentage points. The number of girls and boys meeting the 
performance standard increased by 19 and 16 percentage points, respectively, however, these gender￾disaggregated estimates are not statistically significant. 
Table 12: PRP DiD Impact Estimators for Proportion of Students Meeting Reading Fluency Performance Standards
Light Intervention Cohort 3 DiD Estimator 
(OLS)
Adjusted DiD 
(Logit)
Meets Performance Standard 2017 2020 2017 2020 Change Change
Overall: 26% 20% 16% 24% 14%* 18%**
Girls: 47% 26% 27% 24% 18%* 19%
Boys: 18% 16% 14% 25% 13% 16%
Note: Adjusted DiD includes time invariant controls at the student- and school-level. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
19 While logistic regression is the preferred analytical approach for binary outcome variables, we also present OLS estimates 
since they allow for disaggregating the percentage of students meeting the performance standard by treatment arm and 
phase/year.
42
LEARNING QUESTION 3
3.a Which program components were the most effective in improving reading performance for grade 2 students, 
and why? Which program components were the least effective in improving reading performance for grade 2 
students, and why?
 
KEY FINDINGS
 
• According to KII informants, in-service teacher training, daily reading lesson plans, and big books 
are considered to be the most effective PRP components.
• Conversely, tablets and leveled readers were considered to be the least effective in improving 
reading performance due to technological challenges and difficulties classifying the reading levels
of individual students.
• Qualitative respondents reported a perceived lack of buy-in from important government officials, 
evidenced by the fact that key government stakeholders invited to observe PRP would often send
lower-level officials in their place. They also felt PRP was never able to incorporate the District 
Education Office or the education managers, which hampered monitoring activities.
• The availability of reading materials at home has a strong, positive association with ORF 
performance: holding all else constant, students who report having magazines at home scored 43
CWPM higher than pupils who do not. 
To address learning question 3, we conducted multiple regression analysis to assess factors that are 
associated with ORF at endline among cohort 3 students. A wide range of student-, classroom-, and 
school-level independent variables that were theorized by the research team to be potential predictors 
of reading performance were included in the initial models. Each model was then built up iteratively 
through a series of individual, step-wise regressions in order to identify variables that significantly predict 
reading performance. Variables that were not predictive of reading performance at any stage of the 
process (i.e., not statistically significant at the five percent level) were excluded from subsequent 
analyses. 
Regression results are presented in Table 13 and Figure 8 below. Coefficient magnitudes and p-values 
are presented for each of the three significant predictor variables and for principle component indices.20
It should be noted that interpretation of coefficients varies depending on the type of variable: for 
dichotomous variables, the coefficient represents the change in ORF associated with that characteristic, 
holding all else constant. For continuous variables such as household size, the coefficient represents the 
change in ORF associated with a one-unit increase in that variable, holding all else constant. 
The predictor with the greatest impact on ORF by magnitude was related to student-reported home 
reading materials, namely whether the student reported having access to magazines in Urdu in the 
home. Holding all else equal, access to magazines was associated with a 43.4 point increase in CWPM. 
20 Index variables for pupil household assets and school infrastructure/facilities were created through separate principal 
component analyses (PCA). PCA is a variable reduction technique that decomposes a set of correlated variables into another 
set of linearly unrelated components that are expected to represent an underlying or latent concept that the variables have in 
common. Despite the inclusion of these indices as control variables in the final models, it is important to acknowledge that 
other confounders may remain, so causal relationships between predictors and ORF should not be assumed.
43
Two of the student-level demographic indicators included in the model display statistically significant 
coefficients on ORF performance, student age, and household size. Holding all else constant, pupil age
was positively associated with ORF performance, where each additional year of age is associated with a 
4.0 CWPM increase in ORF on average. In addition, each additional household member was associated 
with a 1.2-point increase in CWPM. Finally, while pupil household assets index was statistically 
correlated with reading performance, the school resources index was not.
Table 13: OLS Regression Results for ORF
Predictor Coefficient (CWPM) P-Value
Student age 4.03 0.02
Household size 1.20 0.00
Student reports having magazines at home 43.37 0.00
Index for pupil household assets (component 1) -0.48 0.79 
Index for pupil household assets (component 2) 4.70 0.02
Index for pupil household assets (component 3) 0.67 0.74 
Index for pupil household assets (component 4) 1.25 0.47 
Index for school resources (component 1) -4.82 0.29 
Index for school resources (component 2) -3.13 0.34 
Index for school resources (component 3) -4.79 0.16
Constant -10.88 0.60
Observations 613
R-Squared 0.19
Figure 8: OLS Regression Results for Urdu ORF
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Also revealing are the variables that were not found to have a statistically significant impact on Urdu 
reading performance. Many demographic variables that are typically found to have a positive correlation 
with reading performance were not found to be statistically significant, nor were any of the PRP 
implementation variables. However, this is likely owing to limitations to the fitted model in KP. First, due 
to sample attrition only 45 schools and 613 students are included in the model. Second, typical 
1.2
4.03
43.37
Household size***
Student age**
Student reports having magazines at home***
Impact of Predictor on ORF Score (CWPM)
44
relationships between reading performance and predictors may have been upended due to the 
unprecedented events of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, household size—which is often
negatively associated with reading performance—now displays a positive association, possibly reflecting
better home-learning support for students who were not able to come to school due to pandemic￾related closures. 
Focusing on qualitative data, respondents believe teacher training and professional development are 
considered key to improving reading performance for grade 2 students. Key stakeholders across the 
stakeholder groups agreed that teacher training improved teacher instruction, which translated to 
increased learning in the classroom. Overall, the stakeholders believe teacher training was one of the 
most successful components of PRP because it built skills that will stay with teachers for the rest of their 
careers, and builds up human capital in KP. One respondent familiar with PRP programming reported 
the creation of a formal professional teaching degree, which includes curricula focused specifically on 
reading skills (foundations of reading, reading difficulty, reading assessment, teaching reading and reading 
practicums) was one of PRP’s most significant accomplishments.
In addition to teacher training and professional development, technocrats in KP noted that Reading and 
Learning Materials (RLMs) were important for improving reading performance for grade 2 students and 
are likely to continue being used after PRP ends. When asked which RLM components were most 
important, stakeholders emphasized that the whole RLM package added value in the classroom, and 
therefore, the most important component of RLM was the daily reading lesson plans (DRLPs) because if 
the teachers were using those appropriately they would be using the full RLM package throughout the 
class. Respondents also highlighted the importance of big books, which they felt were beneficial for 
students who learned better through visual aids rather than just being read to aloud. The respondents 
also explained that big books did a better job keeping all students focused during class, thanks to the 
enlarged pictures, in comparison to traditional library books or flashcards, and were useful for teachers 
to be able to focus on certain segments of the classroom as they were often teaching in multi-grade 
environments. 
Conversely, respondents largely reported the leveled reader was one of the least useful components of 
the RLM package. One respondent noted that level readers had never been used in Pakistani classrooms 
before, and therefore was a great accomplishment for PRP, while other respondents reported that in 
theory, the reader would be very useful, however, it was difficult for teachers to classify accurately 
students’ reading levels and get them started reading at the correct level. Part of the difficulty was the 
large class size, which made it too time-consuming to assess each student’s reading level individually. 
Respondents also noted that tablets were another of the least useful components of the RLM package 
because of their low quality. They noted frequent technical issues with the tablets, including audio 
malfunctions, which made the listening activities unusable. They also reported that some teachers did 
not possess the technical literacy necessary to use the tablets effectively. 
When asked what the least effective component of the overall PRP program was for improving reading 
performance for grade 2 students, the qualitative respondents focused on two main themes: gaps in 
implementation and community mobilization. Focusing first on gaps in implementation, respondents 
from several stakeholder groups believe PRP should have reached out to more schools in the provinces 
and included more grades in each school. The respondents also reported a perceived lack of buy-in from 
key government officials. Some respondents noted that when key government stakeholders were 
45
invited to observe PRP activities, lower-level government officials tended to come instead. They noted 
that the program was never able to incorporate the District Education Office or the education 
managers, which hampered monitoring activities. 
Similarly, respondents from all stakeholder groups noted that the community support for reading 
activities was not very useful for improving reading performance for grade 2 students because there 
were very few community support activities implemented and they lacked focus. Stakeholders noted 
that Parent-Teacher Councils (PTCs) did exist, however, the meeting schedule differed, with some 
respondents indicating the groups met once a month and others indicating they met three times a year. 
Several respondents noted that books were provided to children, either directly or through community￾based libraries, but it is unclear if these books were funded by PTCs or other sources. 
46
3.b Which components of PRP could be improved, and in what specific ways, to inform future reading programs?
 
KEY FINDINGS
 
• Stakeholders at all levels want to see PRP expanded to other districts, grade levels, and subjects.
• Trainings were well received by teachers and head teachers, however government stakeholders 
feel future trainings could be longer to more thoroughly cover the material.
• Participation in TIGs remains a challenge due to accessibility. As such, future interventions should 
consider holding TIG meetings closer to schools, providing transportation to teachers from 
remote areas, and/or engaging teachers through remote platforms like WhatsApp.
When asked by qualitative interviewers how the PRP components could be improved to inform future 
reading programs, qualitative respondents from each stakeholder group focused on questions of 
implementation above other aspects of the intervention. As mentioned under learning question 3.a, 
respondents recommend that PRP, or future reading interventions, be expanded to include more 
schools in each province, more grades in each school, and more subjects. Consistent with impact 
estimates in this report, KII respondents believe students in cohort 3 schools made larger gains in their 
reading ability compared to students in non-treatment schools, and advocated for the PRP program to 
be expanded into non-intervention schools in order to give those students access to the same 
resources, and hopefully the same gains in their reading ability. Respondents also recommended 
continuing PRP implementation into higher grades in order to build on the foundation laid during grades 
1 and 2. Stakeholders also suggested using the PRP model to improve instruction and learning in 
additional subjects, including English, math, and science, and implementing monitoring activities, noting 
that KP is a border region with Afghanistan and presents unique challenges found in conflict-affected 
areas.
Focusing on improving existing PRP components, respondents highlighted three main areas for 
improvement. First, they recommend expanding the teacher training and professional development to 
include more teachers and more training time. The PRP model provided a five-day face-to-face training 
for teachers in the first year of implementation followed by three-day refresher trainings at the start of 
the second year.21 These trainings are considered too short to cover the necessary material, and if 
expanded, could provide in-depth training on how to use the RLM package in the classroom and how to 
incorporate PRP components in their specific setting. Respondents also suggest reviewing the RLM 
package and assessing the utility of each component. Based on this assessment, the RLM package should 
be condensed to reduce the number of discrete materials and eliminate those resources that appear 
ineffective, such as leveled readers and tablets. 
Finally, KII respondents recommend developing support structures to enhance community support for 
reading and expand community-based activities. These structures can include better management and 
planning for community-based activities to make sure PTCs are implementing the planned activities, as 
well as awareness campaigns to help increase the visibility of these activities and foster broader 
community support. Respondents recommended expanding community-based activities to include 
21 PRP Annual Report 2019
47
parental education programs to help parents better support their children’s emotional and intellectual 
development. 
Feedback from teachers and head teachers on areas for improvement was more limited, as they gave 
universally high ratings to PRP trainings and classroom-based coaching provided by mentors and PRP 
project staff. Three head teachers made suggestions for improving future trainings, including using 
multimedia and expanding trainings to teachers of other subjects and grade levels. Several head teachers 
also mentioned that they do not have a designated Urdu teacher per class which makes PRP challenging 
to implement. Several teachers had suggestions for improving TIGs, mostly related to navigating the 
difficulties in bringing teachers from remote areas together. One respondent suggested using WhatsApp 
for more regular, remote engagement while others suggested holding meetings closer to schools in 
order to shorten the distance needed to travel. Finally, 10 percent of cohort 3 teachers reported 
challenges using the DRLP and/or TIG manuals, mostly due to fast lesson pacing or inadequate time to 
cover all the content. In addition, two teachers reported misalignment between the guides and the 
timetable or curriculum, however this may be due to revisions to the curriculum following pandemic￾related school closures. 
48
3.c In what ways has the recent COVID-19 pandemic influenced primary classroom time/exposure, reading 
instruction, and reading performance?
 
KEY FINDINGS
 
• Quantitative and qualitative findings provide strong evidence that COVID-19 has negatively 
impacted student reading performance as a result of extended school closures. Time series 
analysis shows that letter name recognition had the greatest absolute decrease (-18.8) followed 
by passage reading (-15.1), familiar word reading (-11.4), and nonword decoding (-8.9).
• Provincial authorities, schools, and families have implemented a range of interventions to engage 
students during school closures as well as provide remediation following school re-openings, 
however, these have met with limited success.
In March 2020, the Government of Pakistan closed all schools as part of a nationwide lockdown in 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In KP, stakeholders reported that schools closed in mid-March 
and remained closed for six to eight months depending on the stakeholder’s district, with schools re￾opening in mid-September 2020. Qualitative data indicate the government-mandated school closures 
due to COVID-19 reduced classroom exposure and altered the method of reading instruction for KP 
students. Overall, stakeholders believe these changes in the educational system negatively impacted
student learning and reading performance. Stakeholders largely believe that time away from the 
classroom would delay, if not partially undo, the development of student reading skills as primary 
students are less capable of self-teaching. KII respondents pointed out that students who attend 
government schools often come from households that do not read or write Urdu. Therefore, they 
expected that if students are not practicing Urdu at home with their families during the lockdown, their 
reading skills would not improve and perhaps even deteriorate. 
To approximate the impact of COVID-19 on reading outcomes using quantitative data, we conducted 
time series analysis using light intervention group EGRA scores from 2013, 2017, and 2020. It was 
necessary to perform this analysis among the light intervention group rather than cohort 3 for two 
reasons: (1) because the analysis requires three time points and only light intervention schools were 
visited three times, and (2) because the intervention itself is a confounding factor influencing reading 
scores in cohort 3 so it makes it difficult to draw any conclusions about impact from COVID-19. 
Figure 9 illustrates how these estimators were calculated using ORF as an example. The time series 
estimator adjusts for the existing trend line between 2013 and 2017 by taking the endline score, 
subtracting the midline score, then further subtracting the difference between the midline and the 
baseline averages (endline - midline - (midline - baseline)). In the example below, the time series 
estimator is calculated as 37.4 - 42.8 - (42.8 - 33.1) = -15.1, meaning the estimated impact of COVID-19 
on reading fluency is -15.1 points.22
22 One important caveat about the time series model is that it assumes the trend shown between baseline and midline would 
have continued in the absence of COVID-19, however this cannot be verified. For this reason, the true COVID-19 impact is 
likely bounded by the time series estimator and the unadjusted difference in scores between midline (pre-COVID) and endline 
(post-COVID).
49
Figure 9: Derivation of Time Series Estimator for Oral Reading Fluency, Light Intervention
Table 14 below shows time series COVID-19 estimators for all EGRA subtasks. These were generated 
using the same procedure described for ORF and can be interpreted as an approximation of the impact 
of COVID-19 on reading outcomes. The second column shows p-values indicating the statistical 
significance of the estimator. 
As expected, most subtasks show a drop in reading performance following COVID-19. The only subtask 
to show a positive and statically significant improvement is orientation to print. Passage reading also has 
a weakly positive estimator, but the result is not statistically significant; nor is the weakly negative result
for listening comprehension. All other subtasks have negative and statistically significant estimators. 
Letter name recognition shows the greatest absolute decrease in raw scores (-18.8) followed by passage 
reading (-15.1), familiar word reading (-11.4), and nonword decoding (-8.9).
Table 14: Time Series Estimators by Subtask, Light Intervention
Subtask Time Series Estimator P-Value
Orientation to print +0.9 0.00
Letter name recognition -18.8 0.00
Familiar word reading -11.4 0.01
Nonword reading -8.9 0.00
Passage reading -15.1 0.00
Passage comprehension +0.3 0.13
Listening comprehension +0.01 0.48
In order to assess interruptions to schooling due to the pandemic, the student survey asked questions 
50
about whether the student had to miss a week or more of school due to their own illness or to take 
care of someone who was ill. Note summary statistics related to Research Question 3 are combined for 
light intervention and cohort 3 students together here and for the remainder of the section unless 
otherwise noted.
We find that interruptions to schooling due to illness were not particularly common in KP, where just 
one in ten students reported missing at least one week of school due to their own illness and around 
one in 50 reported missing at least one week to take care of someone who was ill.
In order to assess effects of the lockdown on household working patterns, the student survey also asked 
questions about which household members earn money for the household members and whether any of 
these members had to stop working for any reason in the last year. As shown in Figure 10, interruptions 
in the ability for wage-earners to work for were relatively common, with just over a third of students in 
KP reporting that at least one wage-earning household member had to stop working at some point in 
the last year. Results by working household members were similar for father and brother, the two most 
common working members, with very little variation in the proportion of members who had to stop 
working. It should be noted that while only a very small number of children in in KP mentioned 
themselves when listing wage-earning members, they were all males and four out of these six had to 
stop working within the last year.
Figure 10: Student-Reported Interruptions in Ability for Wage-Earning Household Members to Work in the Last Year
Figure 11 shows prevalence and types of student-reported home learning activities during the COVID￾19 related school closures. Home learning activities were widespread during the closures, with most 
students in KP doing at least some home learning while the school was closed (87 percent). The 
students who did engage in some home learning overwhelmingly mentioned the use of educational 
books / story books (74 percent) but also mentioned the use of workbooks or practical books (24 
percent). Other responses were mentioned much less frequently including “other” (10 percent), 
verbal/oral teaching (2 percent), educational TV programming (2 percent), and games (1 percent). 
67%
43%
23%
35%
35%
36%
33%
57%
77%
65%
65%
64%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Self [n=6]
Mother [n=35]
Aunt or uncle [n=293]
Brother [n=383]
Father [n=1,688]
Any working member
Yes No
51
Figure 11: Student-Reported Home Learning Activities during COVID-19 School Closures
 
As shown in Figure 12, students who performed the two most commonly reported home learning 
activities reported doing so quite often: nearly all students who reported using these materials did so at 
least weekly, with 84 to 86 percent of these students using each daily or almost daily. 
Figure 12: Student-Reported Frequency of Home Learning Material Use During COVID-19 School Closure
In addition to asking students about specific learning activities outside the classroom, students were also 
asked more generally how often they engaged in any reading activities during the school closures. Figure 
13 shows that more than eight in ten students in KP reported reading daily while nearly all students 
reported reading at least weekly. Results were balanced by gender.
Yes, 
87% No, 
13%
Student did any
home learning
while school
was closed
84%
14%
2%
0%
Textbooks
or storybooks
[n=1,248]
Daily or almost daily Weekly
Once or twice every month Less than once every month
74%
24%
10% 2% 2% 1%
Educational bo
oks /
Storybo
oks
W
ork b
o
oks /
Practical books
Other
Verbal
Educational TV
programming
Games
86%
12%
1%
0%
Workbooks or 
practical books
[n=407]
52
44%
33%
14% 13% 11% 11%
Other
Poor concentration
or disability due to stress or
trauma
Poor concentration or
disability due to illness
Missing school to do work
Poor concentration due to
nutritional deficiency
Interruptions to training or
delivery of materials
Figure 13: Student-Reported Frequency of Reading Activities during COVID-19 School Closures
Unsurprisingly, all 140 schools in the KP sample closed due to COVID-19. School closure times were 
uniform across male and female schools, with the average school closed for approximately 3 to 4 
months. In addition, Figure 14 shows teacher-reported impacts of the pandemic on student learning. Just 
under half of teachers say COVID-19 has disrupted student learning in ways beyond the school closures, 
with significant variation in impacts cited by these teachers. The most commonly cited impacts including
poor “other” impacts beyond those included in the list of response options (44 percent) and poor 
concentration or disability due to trauma or stress (33 percent). Teachers also mentioned poor 
concentration or disability due to illness (14 percent), missing school to do work (13 percent), and poor 
concentration due to nutritional deficiency or interruptions to trainings or delivery of materials (11 
percent each). 
The teachers who mentioned “other” impacts commonly cited issues related to learning loss, 
mentioning that school closures “disturb[ed] study routine[s]” and student’s learning environments, 
which has led to “lazy” students and students “distracted” by technology. Some of these teachers also 
mentioned increased dropout and absentee rates due to COVID-19, as well as issues related to fear of 
COVID-19. Technocrats in KP noted that even when the schools opened, attendance was not 100 
percent, as parents were afraid of their children contracting COVID-19. 
Figure 14: Teacher-Reported Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Student Learning
 
Male school 87% 11%
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Rarely or Never
Female school 85% 12%
Yes, 
46% No, 
54%
Teacher 
believes COVID 
disrupted learning 
in ways other 
than just school 
closures
53
In response to the school closures necessitated by the pandemic, many schools and teachers 
implemented formal and informal policies for addressing the lost instructional time. Head teacher￾reported prevalence and types of such policies are displayed in Figure 15 while perceived usefulness of 
these policies is displayed in Figure 16.
According to head teachers, most schools implemented formal policies for making up time lost due to 
the pandemic (86 percent of schools). The two most commonly cited policies include modified 
curriculum (74 percent of schools) and extra home-based activities (40 percent), though teachers also 
mentioned accelerated learning in school (27 percent), “other” policies (20 percent), and remedial 
classes outside of school or remedial tutoring outside of school (just 2 percent each). Head teachers 
who mentioned “other” policies beyond those included in the list of response options cited revision of 
academic calendar or use of a “smart calendar” as well as the creation of a streamlined list of learning 
topics or other worksheet revisions for the academic year. A few head teachers mentioned increasing 
class duration and/or removing breaks to give students more time for learning as well as breaking 
students into smaller groups for learning.
The two most commonly reported policies were generally helpful, with the majority of head teachers 
rating the policies as at least somewhat helpful. Feedback on implementation of modified curriculum was 
more positive, with around half of those head teachers rating it as “very helpful” compared to just 16 
percent of head teachers who implemented extra home-based learning activities. At the same time, a 
few of the head teachers who carried out the modified curriculum rated this policy as “not very helpful” 
while none of the teachers who implemented extra home-based learning activities said the same.
Figure 15: Head Teacher-Reported School Policies to Address Lost Instructional Time Due to COVID-19 Pandemic
 
Yes, 
86%
No, 
14%
School has formal 
policies for making 
up time lost due 
to the pandemic
74%
40%
27%
20%
2% 2%
Modified
curriculum
Extra home￾based activities
Accelerated
learning in school
Other
Remedial classes
outside of school
Remedial tutoring
outside of school
54
Figure 16: Head Teacher-Reported Usefulness of School Policies to Address Lost Instructional Time Due to COVID-19 Pandemic 
Qualitative respondents emphasized that the initiatives launched to make up for school closures could 
not replace the value of regular in-person learning or the gap created while schools were closed. On the 
national level, stakeholders explained that the government of Pakistan launched the TeleSchool initiative 
to broadcast free learning content to students in grades 1-12, however one respondent noted that 
resources for primary schools learners were delayed because they were not ready when the TeleSchool 
roll out commenced. Additionally, the program contracted the Pakistan broadcast company, which 
reached about 8M people in Pakistan, and started broadcasting stories over the airwaves. However, 
qualitative respondents enforced the idea that, since many students who attended government schools 
live in low-income, rural communities, many households lacked access to a TV or radio at home and 
could not benefit from these programs. 
At the provincial level, several technocrats noted that schools designed reading practice worksheets that 
were distributed to families by the PTCs. Respondents described how schools implemented initiatives to 
disseminate learning material via social media, such as the messaging app WhatsApp, YouTube, or other 
custom-developed, school-specific apps. Additionally, several respondents reported that teachers would 
record their lectures to send to students in a WhatsApp group. However, respondents suggested that 
lack of access to technology, including internet connection and mobile phones, continued to impede 
families’ ability to capitalize on distance learning opportunities. 
As shown in Figure 17, around a third of teachers in KP indicated they implemented their own policies 
to help students make up for lost time on a more informal basis. Accelerated learning and assigning 
extra homework were by far the most commonly cited answers, cited by 59 to 60 percent of these 
teachers. “Other” activities were mentioned by a third of teachers, including changes to the academic 
calendar, curriculum changes or “smart syllabus” changes, extra time, or the introduction of a zero 
period. Only a small number of teachers mentioned remedial 1:1 tutoring outside of school of remedial 
classes outside of school (3 to 4 percent).
52%
33%
11%
2%
2%
Modified 
curriculum
[n=89]
Very helpful Helpful
Somewhat helpful Not very helpful
Too soon to tell
16%
51%
27%
6%
Extra home￾based 
activities
[n=49]
55
Figure 17: Teacher-Reported Activities to Make Up for Lost Instructional Time Due to COVID-19 Pandemic
 
In addition to being asked about formal policies to address lost time due to COVID-19, head teachers 
were asked about whether their schools have done anything else to help students cope with COVID-19, 
with specific coping activities recorded as verbatim responses. Nearly all teachers in KP mentioned 
specific things the school was doing to help students cope, with the vast majority of responses related to 
following the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for triage of suspected COVID-19 patients. 
Teachers also more specifically mentioned common COVID-19 sanitation policies such as social 
distancing, hand washing, use of hand sanitizer, temperature checks, and wearing masks. 
Despite the reported negative impact of COVID-19 on student learning and reading performance, some 
stakeholders expressed gratitude for PRP and claimed the RLM helped students practice their reading 
and fill the gap of in-person instruction during the lockdown. 
Yes, 
61%
No, 
39%
Teacher 
helped students 
make up lost time 
(beyond formal 
school policies)
60% 59%
34%
4% 3%
Accelerated learning
in school
Assign extra
homework
Other
Remedial 1:1
tutoring outside of
school
Remedial classes
outside of school
56
3.d To what extent will the PRP project components be sustained after the USAID-supported activity ends? What, 
if any, additional support is needed to enhance long-term sustainability of PRP?
 
KEY FINDINGS
 
• The program components most likely to continue beyond the USAID activity are the PRP 
curriculum, instructional methods, and RLMs, however these are likely fall out of use over the
longer term due to teacher turnover and deterioration of RLMs. 
• The program components least likely to continue are TIGs and in-service teacher trainings due 
to the discontinuation of outside support for PRP mentors, training facilitators, and teacher 
transportation.
• While stakeholders at all levels are supportive of the program, they note a lack of government 
ownership and dearth of financial resources, and called for continued support from USAID and 
other donors to ensure the long-term continuation of PRP.
Qualitative data show there is strong support for the continued use of PRP project components across 
all stakeholder groups, with several respondents saying they were proud to be part of PRP in some 
capacity. KII respondents noted they were personally supportive of the program because it was 
grounded in research on early childhood literacy, and was implemented in a systematic manner to help 
children in KP become better readers. 
KII respondents believe some PRP components are sustainable over the short term after USAID￾supported activities end. Specifically, they believe the PRP curriculum, instructional methods, and RLMs 
will continue for several years into the future. Respondents reported that the PRP curriculum is 
incorporated into current textbooks and will therefore continue to be taught until those books are 
replaced. They also indicated that the instructional methods are engrained in the teachers through the 
trainings they received as part of the intervention. This finding is echoed by head teachers, who believe 
PRP’s emphasis on phonics is the program component most likely to continue over the long term.
According to KII respondents, teachers are expected to continue using these methods even if they do 
not receive additional training. However, new teachers who were not exposed to the USAID-funded 
trainings are less likely to employ PRP instructional methods in the classroom, which may lead to uneven 
implementation. Indeed, 23 percent of head teachers said PRP in-service trainings are among the 
components least likely to continue over the long term, suggesting that the instructional methods will 
fade over time with teacher turnover. 
Respondents reported that parts of the RLM package produced under PRP were printed on high-quality 
paper that will last several years without needing to be reprinted. These resources include DRLPs, big 
books, and flashcards, among other printed resources. The resources can be used with students year 
after year as long as the teachers are committed to protecting the RLM from damage or loss. However, 
57
several head teachers said the student practical books would not 
continue to be used because the students’ families cannot afford 
them and/or they are unavailable for purchase in local markets.
While there are some PRP components that are sustainable over 
the short- to medium-term, action is needed to ensure PRP 
components are sustained over the long term. The most immediate 
change needed is institutional ownership of key PRP components. At 
the time of data collection, the perception among qualitative 
respondents was that the provincial and national governments did 
not have ownership of PRP. These respondents expressed concern 
that the government would not be able to take ownership of the 
PRP components given competing priorities, including responding to 
the COVID-19 pandemic and related school closures. These 
qualitative findings are supported by school survey data, in which 
“lack of oversight or external support” and “curriculum change due 
to COVID-19” were the top reasons head teachers gave for their 
school’s limited implementation of PRP following the activity’s closeout in 2020 (see Figure 18).
Figure 18: Extent of PRP Implementation in Cohort 3 Schools and Reasons for Limited Implementation (Head Teacher-Reported)
In light of this, KII respondents recommend that an outside institution, whether a donor or 
implementing partner, take ownership to ensure key PRP components are sustained over time. 
Respondents also noted that the government was unlikely to have the capacity to fund the continuation 
of PRP components, including teacher trainings, TIGs, and the production of RLMs, and strongly 
56%
34%
10%
To what extent 
is the PRP model 
being implemented 
in your school 
today?
To the fullest extent
To some extent
Very little or not at all
45%
29%
13%
10%
6%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Lack of oversight or external
support
Curriculum change due to
COVID-19
Teacher turnover
Teacher shortage
Not enough RLMs
Not enough training
The government has 
financial constraints and do 
not take seriously teacher 
competency issues. I feel 
that these trainings will not 
sustain because of ownership 
issues from the government 
side. In education 
department, no one is 
serious to organize training
programs on a sustainable 
basis to prepare them for 
modern day challenges.
- Head teacher in Karak
58
suggested a USAID follow-on intervention or securing outside funding to ensure these components 
continue in the future. 
Figure 19 shows the PRP program components most and least likely to continue, as reported by head 
teachers in cohort 3 schools. Similar to qualitative informants, over half of head teachers reported TIGs 
as the component least likely to continue long-term. Indeed, when asked how they update their 
knowledge of teaching, only 14 percent of cohort 3 teachers mentioned TIGs, suggesting a low level of 
participation at the time of data collection. According to head teachers, the lack of PRP mentors to 
facilitate and monitor the TIGs as well as the lack of transportation to host schools for teachers from 
remote areas are the main reasons TIGs are unlikely to continue. In-service trainings were the second 
most frequently cited component, with head teachers echoing the sentiments of KII respondents on the 
lack of government ownership, commitment, and resources needed to continue in-service trainings on 
PRP instructional methods.
Figure 19: PRP Components Most Likely and Least Likely to Continue Over the Long-Term (Head Teacher-Reported)
3%
11%
17%
22%
23%
35%
40%
48%
49%
26%
3%
12%
6%
46%
9%
9%
2%
14%
Engagement of governance structures
Continuous assessment
In-service trainings
Classroom libraries
Teacher inquiry groups
Classroom-based coaching
Use of teacher guides / lesson plans
Emphasis on phonics
Use of student work books Most likely to continue
Least likely to continue
59
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Support a follow-on activity to ensure the core components of PRP are scaled up and successfully transitioned to 
government ownership. Although PRP was effective in improving learning outcomes in KP, evidence 
suggests that the program is unlikely to continue without external support. In particular, core elements 
of the program including teacher training appear to have been discontinued entirely, thus PRP methods 
and approaches are likely to fall out of use as stakeholders across the education system turn over. 
Findings from this evaluation can be used to garner buy-in from the KP government, and a follow-on 
activity can help ensure an effective transition over the long term including scaling up to districts in KP 
that were not originally targeted by PRP.
Help teachers more effectively provide individually-targeted support to struggling students, including through the 
use of leveled readers. Although other research on early grade reading in low- and middle-income 
countries points to the effectiveness of “teaching at the right level,” stakeholders note that teachers face 
considerable challenges in classifying the reading levels of individual students and grouping them 
accordingly, particularly in schools facing teacher shortages and overburdened classrooms.
Implement remedial literacy programming for students who fall substantially below the performance standards. 
Although there has been marked progress since baseline, the great majority of students in KP are still 
unable to read with comprehension at a grade-appropriate level. Remedial programming for struggling 
readers could involve supplementing core reading lessons with additional instruction and guided practice 
time tailored to the learning levels and needs of students or extracurricular reading support by tutors, 
volunteers, teachers, and/or through education technology.
60
ANNEXES
ANNEX I: RESEARCH DESIGN MATRIX
# Learning Question Data Source Sampling and Selection Criteria Data Collection 
Methods Data Analysis Methods
1 
After two years of 
implementation, to what extent 
has PRP led to measurable 
improvements in grade 2 
reading performance, as 
measured by the Early Grade 
Reading Assessment?
Students
Random sample of grade 3 
students (who recently 
completed grade 2) from panel 
of 280 treatment and 
comparison schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
Early Grade Reading 
Assessment (EGRA) 
– all subtasks
Difference-in-differences ordinary least squares (OLS) 
regression analysis using inverse probability of treatment 
weighting and time-invariant/baseline control variables; 
results will be disaggregated by province and sex; 
findings will be reported through tables and data 
visualizations. 
Summary statistics on mean scores and percent correct 
scores for all subtasks at baseline and endline will also 
be presented; summary results will be disaggregated by 
gender, province, and treatment status.
2 
After two years of 
implementation, to what extent 
has PRP led to measurable 
improvements in the 
proportion of grade 2 students 
meeting provincial performance 
standards in reading fluency and 
comprehension?
Students
Random sample of grade 3 
students (who recently 
completed grade 2) from panel 
of 280 treatment and 
comparison schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
EGRA – oral reading 
fluency subtask
Difference-in-differences logistic regression analysis 
using inverse probability of treatment weighting and 
time-invariant/baseline control variables; results will be 
disaggregated by province and sex; findings will be 
reported through tables and data visualizations.
Summary statistics on the proportion of children falling 
into each of the reading performance categories at 
baseline and endline will also be presented; summary 
results will be disaggregated by gender, province, and 
treatment status.
3a
Which program components 
were the most effective in 
improving reading performance 
for grade 2 students, and why?
Which program components 
were the least effective in 
improving reading performance 
for grade 2 students, and why?
Students
Random sample of grade 3 
students (who recently 
completed grade 2) from panel 
of 140 treatment schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
Student survey
Multiple OLS regression analyses to identify student, 
teacher, classroom, and school characteristics related to 
PRP that are associated with student oral reading 
fluency at endline; findings will be reported through 
tables and data visualizations.
EGRA – oral reading 
fluency subtask
Teachers
Grade 2 teachers in panel of 
140 treatment schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
Teacher survey
Head teachers
Head teachers in panel of 140 
treatment schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
Head teacher survey
61
# Learning Question Data Source Sampling and Selection Criteria Data Collection 
Methods Data Analysis Methods
Head teachers
Head teachers in panel of 140 
treatment schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
Head teacher survey Summary statistics on interview responses related to 
implementation effectiveness, challenges, areas for 
improvement, and long-term sustainability of core PRP 
Teachers activities/components Grade 2 teachers in panel of 
140 treatment schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
Teacher survey
Provincial 
education 
officials
TBD Key informant 
interview (KII)
Qualitative data will be captured through KII transcripts 
and typed field notes. Electronic transcripts and field 
notes will be imported into Dedoose for first-order and 
second-order qualitative data analysis. This analysis will 
then be examined in relation to the research questions 
and related quantitative data to develop key findings.
USAID 
implementing 
partner staff
Outgoing COP/DCOP; PRP 
technical staff and/or primary 
liaison(s) with provincial 
education authorities
KII
USAID/Pakistan
PRP activity 
manager/COR/AOR; education 
office director
KII
3b
Which components of PRP 
could be improved, and in what 
specific ways, to inform future 
reading programs?
Head teachers
Head teachers in panel of 140 
treatment schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
Head teacher survey Summary statistics on interview responses related to 
implementation effectiveness, challenges, areas for 
improvement, and long-term sustainability of core PRP 
Teachers activities/components Grade 2 teachers in panel of 
140 treatment schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
Teacher survey
Provincial 
education 
officials
TBD KII
See qualitative data analysis methods for question 3a.
USAID 
implementing 
partner staff
Outgoing COP/DCOP; PRP 
technical staff and/or primary 
liaison(s) with provincial 
education authorities
KII
USAID/Pakistan
PRP activity 
manager/COR/AOR; education 
office director
KII
62
# Learning Question Data Source Sampling and Selection Criteria Data Collection 
Methods Data Analysis Methods
3c
In what ways has the recent 
COVID-19 pandemic influenced 
primary classroom 
time/exposure, reading 
instruction, and reading 
performance?
Students
Random sample of grade 3 
students (who recently 
completed grade 2) from panel 
of 280 comparison schools 
sampled/visited in 2013 and 
2017
EGRA – oral reading 
fluency subtask
Time series analysis of oral reading fluency performance 
among non-PRP students in 2013, 2017 (pre-COVID), 
and 2020 (post-COVID)
Students
Random sample of grade 3 
students (who recently 
completed grade 2) from panel 
of 280 treatment and 
comparison schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
Student survey
Summary statistics on interview responses related to
interruptions to schooling due to student or parent 
illness; the effects of lockdown on household working 
patterns; and formal home schooling and informal 
enrichment activities during lockdown
Head teachers
Head teachers in panel of 280 
treatment and comparison 
schools sampled/visited in 
2017
Head teacher survey Summary statistics and illustrative open-ended 
responses/quotes related to interruptions to schooling, 
school and community coping mechanisms, and 
strategies for addressing lost instructional time (e.g., 
distance learning, accelerated learning, remedial 
Teachers education, etc.)
Grade 2 teachers in panel of 
280 treatment and comparison 
schools sampled/visited in 
2017
Teacher survey
Provincial 
education 
officials
TBD KII See qualitative data analysis methods for question 3a.
3d
To what extent will the PRP 
project components be 
sustained after the USAID￾supported activity ends? What, 
if any, additional support is 
needed to enhance long-term 
sustainability of PRP?
Head teachers
Head teachers in panel of 140 
treatment schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
Head teacher survey
Summary statistics and illustrative open-ended 
responses/quotes related to PRP sustainability
Teachers
Grade 2 teachers in panel of 
140 treatment schools 
sampled/visited in 2017
Teacher survey
Provincial 
education 
officials
TBD KII See qualitative data analysis methods for question 3a.
63
ANNEX II: DISAGGREGATED EGRA RESULTS
For consistency with prior rounds, differences in EGRA performance across student genders are 
discussed in the body of the report for endline only. This section presents additional summary statistical 
outputs for differences in male and female students over time.
Research Question 1: Panel Results by Gender and Round
Table A1: Mean Subtask Scores, Girls
Light Intervention Cohort 3
EGRA Subtask 2017 2020 Change 2017 2020 Change
Orientation to print 2.5 2.6 0.1 1.8 3.0 1.2***
Letter name recognition 41.7 33.3 -8.4** 42.3 28.3 -14.1***
Familiar word reading 42.9 29.7 -13.2*** 25.6 29.6 4.0
Nonword reading 25.7 22.3 -3.4 18.6 20.6 2.1
Passage reading 55.2 40.8 -14.4** 36.7 37.8 1.1
Passage comprehension 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.1
Listening comprehension 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.7 0.1
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table A2: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, Girls
Light Intervention Cohort 3
EGRA Subtask 2017 2020 Change 2017 2020 Change
Orientation to print 49% 52% 2% 36% 59% 23%***
Letter name recognition 42% 33% -8%** 42% 28% -14%***
Familiar word reading 86% 59% -26%*** 51% 59% 8%
Nonword reading 51% 45% -7% 37% 41% 4%
Passage reading 92% 68% -24%** 61% 63% 2%
Passage comprehension 8% 9% 1% 12% 14% 2%
Listening comprehension 15% 14% -1% 19% 22% 3%
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
64
Figure A1: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, Light Intervention – Girls
Figure A2: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, Cohort 3 – Girls
59% 86%
49% 52%
68% 92%
45% 51%
33% 42%
15%
14%
8%
9%
Endline Baseline
Passage
Compr.
Passage Reading
Orientation to 
Print
Familiar Word 
Reading
Nonword 
Reading
Letter Name 
Recognition
Listening 
Comprehension
36% 59%
51% 59%
61%
63%
37% 41%
28% 42%
19% 22%
12%
14%
Baseline
Endline
Passage
Comprehension
Passage Reading
Familiar Word 
Reading
Orientation to 
Print
Nonword 
Reading
Letter Name 
Recognition
Listening 
Comprehension
65
Table A3: Mean Subtask Scores, Boys
Light Intervention Cohort 3
EGRA Subtask 2017 2020 Change 2017 2020 Change
Orientation to print 1.8 2.1 0.3 2.0 3.2 1.2***
Letter name recognition 40.9 32.2 -8.7** 35.3 32.2 -3.1
Familiar word reading 21.9 20.1 -1.8 21.0 25.8 4.7
Nonword reading 16.4 15.4 -1.0 14.6 19.2 4.6
Passage reading 29.6 28.7 -1.0 26.3 33.9 7.6
Passage comprehension 0.1 0.2 - 0.4 0.5 0.1
Listening comprehension 0.2 0.2 - 0.4 0.7 0.4**
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table A4: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, Boys
Light Intervention Cohort 3
EGRA Subtask 2017 2020 Change 2017 2020 Change
Orientation to print 37% 42% 5% 40% 64% 24%***
Letter name recognition 41% 32% -9%** 35% 32% -3%
Familiar word reading 44% 40% -4% 42% 52% 9% 
Nonword reading 33% 31% -2% 29% 38% 9% 
Passage reading 49% 48% -2% 44% 56% 13% 
Passage comprehension 3% 4% 1% 8% 10% 2%
Listening comprehension 6% 7% 1% 13% 25% 12%**
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
66
Figure A3: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, Light Intervention – Boys
Figure A4: Percent Correct Subtask Scores, Cohort 3 – Boys
37% 42%
40% 44%
49%
48%
32% 41%
31%33%
6%
7%
3% 4%
Baseline
Endline
Passage 
Comprehension
Orientation to 
Print
Familiar Word 
Reading
Passage 
Reading
Nonword 
Reading
Letter Name 
Recognition
Listening 
Comprehension
44% 56%
42% 52%
40% 64%
29% 38%
32% 35%
13% 25%
8%
10%
Baseline Endline
Passage 
Comprehension
Passage Reading
Orientation to 
Print
Familiar Word 
Reading
Nonword 
Reading
Letter Name 
Recognition
Listening 
Comprehension
67
Table A5: Girls PRP DiD Impact Estimators, by EGRA Subtask and Round
Light Intervention Cohort 3 DiD Adjusted DiD
EGRA Subtask 2017 2020 2017 2020 Change Change Effect size
Orientation to print 2.5 2.6 1.8 3.0 1.0*** 1.2*** 0.90
Letter name recognition 41.7 33.3 42.3 28.3 -5.7 -4.9 -0.25
Familiar word reading 42.9 29.7 25.6 29.6 17.2** 18.0*** 0.65
Nonword reading 25.7 22.3 18.6 20.6 5.5 6.1 0.31
Passage reading 55.2 40.8 36.7 37.8 15.5 16.3* 0.47
Passage comprehension 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.07
Listening comprehension 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.22
Note: Adjusted DiD includes time invariant controls at the student- and school-level. Effect size refers to the difference between treatment and comparison 
groups divided by the pooled standard deviation. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. 
Table A6: Boys PRP DiD Impact Estimators, by EGRA Subtask and Round
Light Intervention Cohort 3 DiD Adjusted DiD
EGRA Subtask 2017 2020 2017 2020 Change Change Effect size
Orientation to print 1.8 2.1 2.0 3.2 0.9** 0.9** 0.62
Letter name recognition 40.9 32.2 35.3 32.2 5.6 6.6 0.36
Familiar word reading 21.9 20.1 21.0 25.8 6.6 8.0 0.33
Nonword reading 16.4 15.4 14.6 19.2 5.6 6.8 0.38
Passage reading 29.6 28.7 26.3 33.9 8.5 10.4 0.33
Passage comprehension 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.09
Listening comprehension 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.3* 0.3* 0.39
Note: Adjusted DiD includes time invariant controls at the student- and school-level. Effect size refers to the difference between treatment and comparison 
groups divided by the pooled standard deviation. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. 
Research Question 2: Panel Results by Gender and Round
Table A7: Oral Reading Fluency Performance Standard Categories, Boys
Light Intervention Cohort 3
Benchmark category 2017 2020 Change 2017 2020 Change
Exceeds performance standard 3% 4% 1% 3% 8% 5%
Meets performance standard 15% 12% -3% 10% 16% 6%
Does not meet performance standard 55% 56% - 50% 44% -6%
Nonreader 27% 28% 1% 36% 32% -5%
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 for design-based F-statistic
68
Figure A5: Reading Performance Categories by Treatment Type, Boys
27% 28%
55% 56%
15% 12%
3% 4%
2017 2020
Light Intervention
36% 32%
50%
44%
10%
16%
3% 8%
2017 2020
Cohort 3
Exceeds PS
 Meets PS
 Does not meet PS
 Non-reader
69
Table A8: Oral Reading Fluency Performance Standard Categories, Girls 
Light Intervention** Cohort 3
Benchmark category 2017 2020 Change 2017 2020 Change
Exceeds performance standard 15% 6% -9% 9% 11% 2%
Meets performance standard 32% 21% -11% 18% 14% -5%
Does not meet performance standard 41% 60% 19% 40% 45% 5%
Nonreader 12% 13% 1% 32% 30% -2%
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 for design-based F-statistic
Figure A6: Reading Performance Categories by Treatment Type, Girls
12% 13%
41%
60%
32%
21%
15%
6%
2017 2020
Light Intervention
32% 30%
40% 45%
18% 14%
9% 11%
2017 2020
Cohort 3
Exceeds PS
 Meets PS
 Does not meet PS
 Non-reader
70
Figure A7: Endline ORF Distributions by Gender, Light Intervention 
0
1-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90-99
100-109
110-119
120-129
130-139
140+ BOYS GIRLS
4% exceed
standard
12% meet 
standard
56% do not 
meet standard
28% 
nonreaders
6% exceed
standard
21% meet
standard
60% do not 
meet standard
13% 
nonreaders
71
Figure A7: Endline ORF Distributions by Gender, Cohort 3 
0
1-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90-99
100-109
110-119
120-129
130-139
BOYS 140+
11% exceed
standard
14% meet
standard
45% do not 
meet standard
30% 
nonreaders
GIRLS
8% exceed
standard
16% meet
standard
44% do not 
meet standard
32% 
nonreaders
72
ANNEX III: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
Endline Early Grade Reading Assessment 
Project Name: Pakistan Reading Project 
RFP/CA Number: AID-391-A-13-00005 
Project COR/AOR: Daman Ali Bozdar
Life of Project: June 28, 2013 through June 27, 2020
Estimated Total Project Funding: $143,726,890
A.1. BACKGROUND 
The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) was initiated as a result of the 2011-2017 Global Agency 
Education Strategy’s commitment to improve reading as one of its three goals for USAID education 
programming worldwide. In line with Goal One, which aims to support 100 million children to develop 
improved reading skills, USAID/Pakistan had implemented two complementary activities aimed at 
strengthening how reading is taught in grades 1 and 2 in Urdu and Sindhi. The new Education Policy 
2018 has also prioritized literacy as a fundamental skill to future learning and success. 
The Pakistan Reading Project (PRP) is a $143,726,890, five-year initiative, which was extended for 
another two years, launched in July 2013, and aims to improve the quality of early grade reading 
instruction for 1.3 million public and private primary school students across Pakistan. Among these 
student beneficiaries, an anticipated 700,000 will show improved reading skills and 50,000 will be 
reading at a level commensurate with standards at their grade. This goal will be achieved through three 
components: 1) improved classroom learning environment for reading; 2) improved policies and systems 
for reading; and 3) community-based support for reading. 
The government of Pakistan does not currently implement a national school-based reading assessment. 
Data on children’s reading skills is derived from the civil society-led Annual Status of Education Report 
(ASER), of which only a small portion focuses on literacy. To help fill the knowledge gap around 
students’ reading skills in early grades and to set a baseline for USAID activities in 2013 intended to 
support improved early grade reading outcomes, the evidence-based EGRA was trans-adapted to the 
Pakistan context and administered at schools nationwide in 2013. PRP relied on MSI support to collect 
midline data in 2017 to assess the impact of its reading interventions. Even for the endline, engaging MSI 
has great advantage given their relationships with the local governments, understanding local context and 
the local partners, which is critical for a country like Pakistan with security sensitivities. However, the 
MSI contract at the mission is ending in April 2020 therefore the mission will not be able to complete the 
endline directly through MSI’s mission level contract. Contracting MSI or any new organization 
separately for this last round of EGRA is an expensive option that mission cannot opt in this reduced 
funding environment. As an alternate, the Office of Education, USAID/Pakistan will buy into the 
Reading and Access Evaluation (R&A) contract to the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), to 
conduct the EGRA endline in two PRP intervention provinces (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or KP, and 
Balochistan) with a smaller sample size (only cohort 3 in both intervention and non-invention districts). 
Opting for the R&A contract option is advantageous because, given the time constraints to conduct the 
assessment on schedule, it can be initiated faster and is less resource intensive as compared to procuring a 
new mechanism. 
This Statement of Work (SOW) describes the process for the 2020 EGRA endline data collection and 
analysis. The endline EGRA data will provide insight into the effectiveness of USAID/Pakistan’s early 
grade reading interventions in two provinces that are identified as key priority areas under 
73
USAID/Pakistan’s new Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). The endline will 
include some additional research questions and analyses, to be refined in an evaluation concept note, that
were not included in the midline in order to assess the effectiveness of the PRP intervention model and 
highlight areas for improvement and sustainability for future reading interventions in Pakistan and 
globally. 
PRP was rolled out in three two-year cohorts: April 2015 (cohort 1), September 2015 (cohort 2), and 
April 2018 (cohort 3). Each cohort represents a set of children entering grade one whose teachers were
trained and provided supplementary learning materials through PRP to ensure students receive improved 
reading instruction throughout their first two years of school (i.e. until completion of grade two). The 
scores of cohort 1 and 2 were counted toward the three Goal One indicators at the midline, as the 
indicator requires reporting after two years of schooling; data collected from cohort 3 in 2017 was saved 
as a baseline to compare it with the endline data and report on Goal One indicators. 
The endline reading assessment will focus on a representative sample of schools in the districts that 
received PRP interventions under cohorts 3 in two provinces (KP and Balochistan). The “light 
intervention” or non-intervention schools in those districts, which did not receive direct support for 
improved reading instruction, will also be included in the endline to compare the results with the 
intervention districts. The EGRA endline will test Urdu reading in both KP and Balochistan province for 
cohort 3. The endline EGRA tools, along with the survey questionnaires, were trans-adapted at the 
beginning with the baseline and midline tools. However, the endline questionnaires will require updates to 
include certain learning questions, as was done for the midline to collect PRP-specific data. 
A.2. STATEMENT OF WORK 
A.2.1. Purpose of the Evaluation 
The USAID Evaluation Policy places an increased emphasis upon evidence based decision-making and 
rigorous evaluation to better identify and document the impact of USAID-funded initiatives. The purpose 
of this endline EGRA is to report on the percentage of children in PRP cohort 3, in select provinces, 
demonstrating reading fluency and comprehension of grade level text at the end of grade 2 after two years 
of improved reading instruction; provide insight into the degree of improvement in children’s reading 
skills after two year of improved reading instruction; identify trends in strong or weak improvement per 
sub-skill; note patterns of variance by region, gender, language or other factors; and observe other trends 
and changes over time to inform the reading programs’ scale-up and sustainability in Pakistan.
As the midline showed reading gains for cohort 1 and 2 students in PRP intervention districts, the endline 
will provide data on reading gains for cohort 3 in the PRP intervention districts but only for KP and 
Balochistan provinces. EGRA data collected for cohort 3 in 2017 will be used as its baseline to compare 
with the endline data. The findings of this endline assessment and the further research it informs can be 
used to enrich the body of literature around improved early grade reading instruction efforts, guide 
provincial policies on reading standards and reading instruction, and inform future reading interventions 
by the government and the development partners.
Assessment Tools
The purpose of this activity is to assess a range of early grade reading sub-skills and support measurement 
of the number of children whose reading ability has improved, including to grade level, relative to the 
midline EGRA numbers collected in 2017 for Cohort 3. The endline will assess the following elements 
of student literacy, for which the testing tool has already been developed (Please see Attachment-A):
● Phonemic awareness: identification of onset sounds 
74
● Listening comprehension 
● Letter identification: sounds
● Non-word reading 
● Familiar word reading 
● Oral reading fluency 
● Reading comprehension
The contractor will also administer teacher/student/principal questionnaires on the below topic areas that 
were developed during the baseline EGRA task (Please see Attachment-A). However, the contractor will 
need to update these questionnaires with some additional data needs in order to learn from the PRP 
interventions and identify areas to improve in future interventions. 
● Use of instructional materials (core and supplemental) by teachers 
● Use of reading/learning materials by students 
● Time dedicated to reading instruction per day/week 
● School/district assessment of student performance
● Languages spoken at home/mother tongue
● Materials read at home: newspapers, books, etc.
● School/classroom library available – how often used by class/students?
● Teacher observations – by whom? How often? 
● Training offered on reading instruction.
A.2.2. Dissemination and Utilization Plan
The results of the EGRA endline will be shared with USAID, provincial Pakistani education authorities, 
donors, and other education stakeholders through a national level dissemination event to be held in 
Islamabad. In addition, the contractor will engage provincial governments and development partners 
through a series of policy dialogues (format for these provincial policy dialogs can be agreed together 
with USAID). The assessment report will inform policy priorities for the scale-up and sustainability of 
improved reading instruction, as well as further strengthening of the approaches used for teaching reading 
and training teachers in reading instruction, in both pre-service and in-service training of the provinces. 
The results may also provide useful insight to the provincial government education authorities to reflect 
on the reading targets set in 2015. 
A.2.3. Identification of Intervention(s) to Be Examined 
Early Grade Reading Assessments (EGRAs)
The EGRA endline in KP and Balochistan must primarily focus on utilizing the EGRA tool in Urdu 
language to measure students’ reading fluency and comprehension. EGRA midline reports should be used 
to identify the data analyses required for the endline. Some additional analyses may be added, if needed. 
75
External evaluations have provided data to support the global measurement of “improved reading skills” 
as per the guidance from USAID’s 2011 Education Strategy Technical Notes, revised April 201223, which 
defines them as increases in fluency and comprehension in reading grade level text (at grade 2). Fluency 
is the ability to read text accurately, quickly, and with good expression and is calculated based on words 
correct per minute read; while comprehension is understanding the meaning of what has been read. 
USAID directly seeks data related to the standard indicator, "Percent of learners targeted for USG 
assistance who attain a minimum grade-level proficiency in reading at the end of grade 2" as measured by 
benchmarks established by provincial governments in collaboration with USAID and PRP. 
A.2.4. Evaluation Design 
 
Methodology 
Grade 3 students will be randomly selected from the same schools and in the same manner and numbers 
as the midline in 2017, which for cohort 3 will serve as the baseline as 2017 data collection was done just 
before starting the cohort 3 intervention. Reading fluencies and comprehension levels of this group will 
be compared to the 2017 data to determine if any significant change has occurred in cohort 3 students. 
Students, teachers and head-teacher interviews at the endline will be compared to those at the midline to 
document project implementation and account for any changes classroom practices and students reading 
habits on their reading gains. 
In addition to measuring change between baseline and endline scores for cohort 3, the assessment will 
employ quasi-experimental methodologies to assess the impact of the project on children’s reading skills 
as measured by EGRA. Specifically, schools visited in 2017 in non-intervention districts will serve as a 
comparison group for cohort 3 intervention schools, and methods such as difference-in-differences (DiD) 
and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) will be used to account for baseline differences 
between these two groups.24
Note on data collection time periods: Data collection should be completed by mid October, 2020. For 
the midline assessment in 2017, data collection in KP was conducted from September 10 to October 18, 
and in Balochistan from September 19 to October 18. 
Data Collection Methods 
During the baseline in 2013, statistically equated EGRA midline and endline instruments were developed 
in three languages: Urdu, English and Sindhi. However, for the midline assessment only the Urdu 
language instruments were used. For endline too, only Urdu tools will be used for both KP and 
Balochistan. The intervention in cohort 3 began in 2018 for grade 1 and 2 to complete in March 2020. 
Just like the baseline and midline children who have graduated from this intervention grade 2 will be 
sampled in the beginning of their grade 3. Cohort 1 and 2 will no longer be tested in this endline because 
PRP has completed its two-year intervention with these cohorts. The non-intervention (mentioned as light 
intervention in the EGRA midline reports) schools do have data from the baseline to compare with the 
endline as it was done for the midline (except for Sindh). However, for the cohort 3 intervention schools 
there is only 2017 data available to compare with the endline, as it is the baseline for cohort 3. 
It is expected that the EGRA endline sample will mirror that used for the baseline/midline and include 70 
23 Education Strategy Technical Notes: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACT681.pdf; offerors may also want to review the 
Education Strategy Implementation Guidance: 
http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/education_and_universities/pdfs/2012/ED_implementation_guidance_2011.pdf 24 Specific methods to be refined through development of an evaluation concept note.
76
schools (35 boys’ schools and 35 girls’ schools) each for intervention and non-intervention groups, and 
per province (280 schools in total). The student-level sample will include a cross-section of 15 students 
from grade-3 at each sampled school (unlike midline where the same number of grade-5 students were 
also tested) for a total sample of 4,200 students. The school sample to be re-visited for endline data 
collection is highlighted in the following tables:
Table I: 2017 Sampled Schools in KP by Gender and Location
Cohort Boys Girls Urban Rural Total Schools
PRP
Cohorts I and 2 (midline) 35 35 10 60 70
Cohort 3 (baseline) 35 35 2 68 70
PRP Total 70 70 12 128 140
Light Treatment
Light Treatment total 35 35 29 41 70
Total 105 105 41 169 210
Table 2: Sampled 2017 Schools in Balochistan by Gender and Location
Cohort Boys Girls Urban Rural Total Schools
PRP
Cohorts I and 2 (midline) 35 35 8 62 70
Cohort 3 (baseline) 35 35 23 47 70
PRP Total 70 70 31 109 140
Light treatment
Light treatment (midline) 35 35 29 41 70
Total 105 105 60 150 210
Data Analysis Methods 
A number of analysis methods will be employed to check the validity and consistency of the data 
collected, describe the population from whom data was collected, examine the influence of certain 
variables on others, and track changes in variables over time. All methods will include at a minimum 
disaggregation by gender and PRP intervention and non-intervention schools. 
It is recommended that all the data analysis methods that were followed in the midline 2017 (please see 
the attached midline reports for KP and Balochistan as Attachment-B) are followed for the endline as 
well. However, a few additional trend analyses can also be included to support the government of 
Pakistan in future planning, e.g. the number of years required to meet the target if the speed of 
improvement remains the same. USAID will work with NORC to develop and refine these new and 
important multivariate and trend analyses through development of an evaluation concept note. 
A.2.3. Operating Considerations
It is expected that NORC will select a sub-contractor that is familiar with the Pakistan country and 
education context, and that local Pakistani organizations or sub-contractors hired also have experience 
with EGRA administration. Due to cultural dynamics (specifically related to gender) and the security 
77
situation in-country, Pakistan’s context is unique and such entities that already have a history of working 
with local governments and within Pakistan’s cultural and security constraints will most effectively 
conduct EGRA in Pakistan. Advanced planning will also be required to manage such constraints and to 
obtain required approval to begin data collection by September. 
A.2.4 Participation
Consistent with the baseline and midline assessments, the relevant government officials should be 
engaged and consulted as needed during the endline data collection. When obtaining written permission 
from the provincial governments (known as a No Objection Certificate, or NOC), the contractor should 
identify local education authorities and officials who may accompany the data collection teams in 
schools, wherever possible. This will minimize any issues or objections to carrying out the assessments 
by local education authorities or otherwise. The contractor must propose any level-of-effort and cost 
implications of involving the government staff. USAID will participate in this evaluation as observers. 
B.1. PERIOD AND PLACE OF PERFORMANCE 
This evaluation will take place in various primary schools across KP and Balochistan province in 
Pakistan. The period of performance is February 2020 to June 2021. However, the field work must be 
completed by mid October 2020 to remain consistent with the data collection timeframe during the 
midline and minimize any sources of error. The contractor must obtain the research permit and other 
required documentation prior to the start of the actual study. 
C.1 DELIVERABLES
In addition to the assessment report, requirements for which are outlined in USAID’s ADS 201, all raw 
data collected by the evaluation must be provided to USAID, including the analytic code. This data shall 
be in an electronic file in an easily readable format; organized and fully documented for use by those not 
fully familiar with the project or the evaluation.
Learning assessment datasets must be submitted to the Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and 
Environment/ Education with complete documentation and reporting within 90 days of the completion of 
data collection. Current guidance is available at: https://data.usaid.gov/.
Deliverable Date
1. Kick off meeting between USAID, and contractor’s evaluation 
team key personnel to clarify roles and responsibilities, logistical 
issues, and timelines.
February 25, 2020 
2. Detailed methodology and work plan submitted to USAID April 24, 2020 
3. Revised measurement tool submitted to stakeholders for comment May 15, 2020 
4. Revision and finalization of tools May 29, 2020 
5. Weekly reports during data collection period Weekly, submitted on Fridays, 
after data collection begins. 
7. Presentation of preliminary findings to USAID and partners January 8, 2021 
8. Submission of draft assessment report to USAID February 19, 2021 
9. Revised draft report: 1-2 weeks after receiving USAID’s 
comments until final report is approved by USAID. 2/4 page 
summary of findings as well as draft policy briefs (to be mutually 
agreed by USAID). 
1-2 weeks after receiving 
USAID’s and stakeholders’ 
comments 
78
Deliverable Date
10. Submission of Final Report 1-2 weeks after receiving final 
round of comments 
11. Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) submission May 31, 2021 
12. Submission of all raw data and electronic copies of all 
background documents 
13. Dissemination of evaluation findings and policy briefs to the May 31, 2021 
provincial governments, private sector, and other development 
partners 
Key Personnel
The offeror shall propose the most effective team composition based on the proposed methodology. All 
team members must have relevant prior experience in Pakistan (or similar contexts), familiarity with 
USAID’s objectives, approaches, and operations and prior evaluation/assessment experience. In addition, 
individual team members should have the technical qualifications identified for their respective positions 
to effectively conduct an assessment of early grade reading. 
The following are the required key personnel: 
Evaluation Team Lead (TL): The TL is ultimately responsible for the overall management of the 
evaluation team and the final products. In addition, the TL is responsible for coordinating EGRA 
activities and ensuring the production and completion of all deliverables in conformance with this scope 
of work and timelines. The TL will ensure data integrity, high quality analysis, written reports and report 
integration. S/he is also responsible for quality assurance and timeliness of all contract deliverables. S/he 
is responsible for the writing and finalizing of the final assessment report. All team members report to the 
Team Leader.
 Required Qualifications: 
● A minimum of a Master’s degree in evaluation, assessment, international development or a 
related technical field; preferably that includes coursework in qualitative and quantitative 
monitoring and evaluation approaches and methods or other technical training in M&E methods. 
The team leader should be a reading specialist and have experience in conducting EGRAs.
● At least five years of experience with leading the design and management of evaluations.
● Experience in leading evaluations in Pakistan or similar contexts. 
● Labor Category: Monitoring and Evaluation or Research Specialist (Senior Expat) 
Local Consultant or Technical Expert: Together with the Team Leader, will finalize the evaluation 
methodology; develop the data collection strategy, instruments, and protocols; direct data collection and 
compilation; and conduct data analysis. 
Required Qualifications: 
● A minimum of a Master’s degree in Education, Curricular Development, Policy Development or 
a related field.
● Should be a reading specialist and have experience in conducting EGRAs. 
● Over five years of working experience in Education with specialist knowledge on assessing 
reading skills.
● Good understanding of working in the Pakistani Education System, with knowledge of working 
in the primary education sector in Pakistan; 
● Experience working in an evaluation team. 
● Labor Category: Education Specialist (Senior Local)
79
ANNEX IV: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 1 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
 
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾
ُ ￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ 
IRR?/؟￾ٓ￾￾ٓ￾￾ٓ￾ 
￾￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾
۔￾ (Enumerator(
￾
۔ ￾￾￾ I ￾￾￾
￾
۔￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ G ￾ :
￾
￾￾ E
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
￾
￾￾
 
 
 
 






㩕ہ
⌸ د 
㩟䔘 
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
۔
￾￾￾
۔ ￾￾￾￾￾ H ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
۔ ￾￾￾￾￾ A ￾￾
￾
۔ B ￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ C
۔ ￾￾￾￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ D
￾
￾￾
￾
 
 








￾
 
 
 
 
 
 




 
 








￾￾ 
￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ 
 
 








۔ ￾￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ُ۔￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ F
￾￾￾￾￾/￾￾￾￾۔
￾￾ 
￾ 
￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾￾￾ 
ɟⶆا nj 
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 2 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
￾￾￾
￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾
1￾￾￾
1￾￾￾۔￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾،￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾(￾￾)￾￾￾
ٔ￾￾￾
ٔ￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾
￾
￾￾￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾
۔10￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾
￾￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾
￾
￾￾ ۔
￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
1۔ٓ￾￾￾￾￾￾/￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾۔ٓ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾؟
  
￾ ￾)
￾￾￾￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾ٔ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾(￾￾)￾
￾
￾￾
￾
￾
(‘‘￾ٰ ’’￾
2۔￾ ٓ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾؟
   (￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾)
￾￾ 3
۔￾￾ (￾￾)ٓ￾￾￾ٓ￾￾ ٓ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾؟ ٓ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
  
￾￾ )
￾
￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾(￾￾)￾￾￾￾￾￾
(‘‘￾’’
4۔ ￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
ٓ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ؟
   ( ￾￾
￾
￾￾
￾
‘‘￾’’ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾)
5۔￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾؟
￾
￾￾￾
   ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾)
￾
￾￾
￾
( ‘‘￾’’￾
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 3 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
￾60 2￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ 2￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾
۔￾￾￾
￾
￾
￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾
‘‘ ￾￾￾ ￾￾’’۔
3￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾
￾￾￾۔
￾
￾￾
￾￾ٓ￾
￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ٓ￾￾0 ￾￾
‘￾￾￾￾’￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾۔￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾۔￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾۔￾￾￾ٓ￾
￾￾￾
￾
￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ً
￾
￾￾
’’) ￾
(￾￾￾￾￾ ‘‘￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ‘￾ ’’￾ ۔
(1)￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ۔ ￾ ￾￾￾
￾
￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾
(￾ ￾￾￾)￾￾۔
 ￾￾￾  ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
 ￾￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾ ￾￾ ‘‘￾ ’’￾ ۔
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ (￾)￾ ۔
￾
￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾ (2)
￾
￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ۔￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ (‘‘ ￾￾’’ ￾￾￾￾￾)۔
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾
 ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ‘‘￾ ’’ ￾۔
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾  ￾￾￾( ￾) ￾ ۔
￾
￾￾
￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾  ￾  ￾￾ ￾ ؟
￾
￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾ ۔￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾￾￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾
￾
 ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ۔
￾
￾￾ ￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾)
￾
￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾۔)
 ￾۔ ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾￾
 ￾￾￾￾ ￾ / ￾ ￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾/￾۔ ￾￾
￾
‘‘￾ ￾￾￾￾’’ ￾￾￾ ￾
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 4 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
10 ￾￾
￾￾ ￾
￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾
                   
20 ￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾
￾￾ ￾
                   
30 ￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾
￾￾ ￾ ￾￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾
                   
40 ￾
￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾
                   
50 ￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾
ـ￾ ـ￾
                   
60 ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
                   
￾ ￾ ـ￾ 70
                   
80 ￾ ￾
                   
90 ￾ ￾
                   
100 ￾ ￾ ￾
                   
       ￾￾￾
￾
         
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 5 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
￾￾￾
￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ٔ
￾￾
￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾
￾
3￾￾￾۔￾ٓ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾
5￾￾￾￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾۔
￾ ￾3￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾
￾￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾
￾￾۔
￾
￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾
￾￾۔ ￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ٓ￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ۔ ￾ 
￾
￾
￾
￾￾
 ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾  3  ￾
￾
 ￾￾ ￾ ￾/۔￾￾￾
￾
 ￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾ ￾ ￾ 
￾
￾￾ ￾ ۔￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾
￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾ ￾￾ ￾۔
 ￾ً (1) 
￾
￾ ‘‘￾ ’’،‘‘￾￾’’ ،‘‘￾’’ ￾￾ ￾۔ ￾￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾ ￾ ￾ 
￾
￾￾￾ ،
،￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾
 ￾￾￾  ‘‘￾￾’’ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾ ۔
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾‘‘￾￾’’،‘‘￾ ’’￾￾￾￾￾ ￾‘‘￾’’  ￾￾￾ ۔
￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾
 ’’، ‘‘￾￾￾￾’’ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾(2)
￾
 ￾￾￾￾ ’’، ‘‘￾￾￾￾
￾
￾ ’’ ￾￾ ￾۔
￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
۔￾￾
،￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾ ￾￾￾ ’’ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
 ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ‘‘ ￾
￾
￾￾￾ ۔
￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ٓ ￾
￾ ￾￾￾ ’’￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾ ’’  ￾￾￾ ۔
￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾ ￾
￾￾ ￾ ؟
￾
￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾؟
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾
￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾
   [￾￾] ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ 1 
   [￾￾
￾
￾] ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾￾￾ 2 
   [￾￾] ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ 3 
   [￾￾] ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ 4 
   [
￾￾￾]
￾￾￾
￾￾￾
￾
￾￾ 5 
   [
￾
￾￾￾￾]
￾
￾￾￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾ ￾￾
￾
￾ 6 
   [
￾
￾￾￾￾] ￾￾
￾
￾
￾￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾￾￾￾ 7 
   [￾￾￾] ￾￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾￾ 8 
   [￾￾
￾
￾]
￾
￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾ 9 
   [￾￾] ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ 10 
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 6 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
4￾￾￾۔ 4￾￾￾ ￾60
￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾
￾￾￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾
￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾
‘‘ ￾￾￾ ￾￾’’۔
￾￾3￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾ ￾￾￾۔
￾
￾￾
￾￾ٓ￾￾
￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ٓ￾￾0 ￾￾
‘￾￾￾￾’￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾
: ￾￾￾￾￾
￾ ￾￾￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾۔￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾￾￾
 ￾ ￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ 
￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾  ￾￾  ￾￾ ۔
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾
 ￾ً
￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ‘‘￾’’￾￾￾￾) 
￾
 ￾ ( ￾￾￾￾￾
￾
’’ ￾ ￾ ￾ ‘‘￾￾￾￾￾￾’’ ￾۔ ￾َ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾￾￾￾￾￾‘‘ 
(1)￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ۔￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾(‘‘
￾
(￾￾￾￾￾ ‘‘￾
￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾ ￾ٓ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ۔
 ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
  َ ’’ ￾
￾
￾’’￾۔
 ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
 َ’’￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾
￾
￾’’￾۔
￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾ (2)
￾
￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾ ۔(￾￾‘‘ ’’ ￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ )۔
 ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
 ’’ ￾
َ
￾
￾’’￾۔
 ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
  ’’￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾
َ
￾
￾’’ ￾۔
￾￾￾ ؟
￾
￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ￾
￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾￾
￾
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾۔￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾ 
￾
￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
۔(￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾￾)۔
 ￾ ۔ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ۔ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾￾
 ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾۔ ￾￾
￾
‘‘￾￾ ￾￾￾￾’’ ￾￾￾ ￾
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 7 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
10 ￾￾
￾￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾￾ ￾
￾
￾
￾
￾
                    
20 ￾
￾
￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾
                    
30 ￾
￾￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾
￾￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾
                    
40
￾
￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
￾￾ ￾ ￾
                   
50 ￾
￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾￾
                   
60 ￾￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾ ـ￾ ￾
                   
70 ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
                   
80 ￾ ￾ ￾
￾￾
                   
90 ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
                   
100 ￾ ￾ ￾
￾￾
                   
       ￾￾￾
￾
         
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 8 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
5￾￾￾۔ 5￾￾￾ ￾60
￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾
‘‘ ￾￾￾ ￾￾’’۔
￾￾3￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾ ￾￾￾۔
￾
￾￾
￾￾ٓ￾￾
￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ٓ￾￾0 ￾￾
‘￾￾￾￾’￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾’’￾￾
￾
￾￾￾)￾￾ ‘‘ ￾ٓ￾
￾
￾￾￾ 5)￾￾￾￾￾￾￾۔
 ￾۔ ￾ /￾￾ ￾￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾   ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾    ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾
￾
 ￾￾ ۔￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾  ￾ ￾ ۔￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾ ۔
￾ ￾ ￾ً
￾
‘‘ ￾￾ ’’￾۔ ￾￾
￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾   ￾￾ ￾￾  (1) ￾
￾
￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ۔  ￾￾￾
￾
‘‘ ￾￾
￾￾’’(￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾)
￾￾￾￾ )
￾ ￾￾ ’’ ￾￾￾￾  ￾ ￾  (:￾￾‘‘ ￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
.￾‘‘ ￾￾
￾￾’’ ￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾ ’’￾۔ ￾￾￾￾ ‘‘ ￾￾ ￾
￾￾’’ ￾ ￾:(￾￾￾￾‘‘ ￾￾
 ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ (2) ￾
￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ۔ ￾ ￾￾۔(‘‘￾￾￾’’ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾
￾
 ( ￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾ )
￾￾￾￾ ‘‘￾￾’’￾)￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ‘‘￾￾￾ ’’￾۔ ￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ )
￾￾￾￾ ‘‘￾￾’’￾￾￾￾)￾: ￾ ‘‘￾￾￾’’ ￾۔ ￾
￾￾ ￾ ؟
￾
￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾
 ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ 
￾
￾￾ ￾ ۔￾ ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ٓ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾￾￾
 ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ 
￾
￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾  ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾۔
￾۔
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ٓ￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾
￾￾￾/￾￾￾￾￾￾ ٓ￾￾￾￾￾/￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 9 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
5 4 3 2 1
5 ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾
￾
￾
￾ ￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾
         
10 ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾
         
15 ￾￾
￾
￾￾
￾
￾￾￾
￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾
         
20 ￾
￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾
         
25 ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾
         
30 ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
         
35 ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾
         
40 ￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾
￾ ￾ ￾
         
45 ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾
         
50 ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾
         
      
￾￾￾
￾
         
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 10 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
6￾￾￾۔ 6￾￾￾ ￾60
￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾‘‘ ￾￾￾ ￾￾’’۔
￾￾3￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ٓ￾￾
￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ٓ￾￾0 ￾￾
‘￾￾￾￾’￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾’’￾￾
￾
￾￾￾)￾￾ ‘‘ ￾ٓ￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ 6)￾￾￾￾￾￾￾۔
 ￾۔ ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ / ￾
￾
   ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
￾
 ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾  ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾    ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ۔￾￾ ￾￾۔ 
￾
￾￾۔ ￾￾￾￾
 ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ً
￾
￾￾
 ُ ￾ ￾’’ ￾
￾’’ ￾۔
 ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ۔   ￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ۔(￾￾￾‘‘ ￾￾
￾
￾ ’’ ￾￾￾￾￾)۔
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾(￾
￾
￾)￾￾￾
￾ ￾￾ ’’ ￾￾￾ ￾: ￾￾￾￾
￾
‘‘ ￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾(￾
￾
￾￾ ’’ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾  ￾)￾￾￾
￾
￾ ’’￾۔
￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾۔ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾(￾￾￾‘‘￾￾￾ ￾￾’’￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾)
￾￾ ۔ ￾￾￾￾ ￾
￾
(￾￾￾￾ ‘‘￾￾￾ ￾￾’’)۔￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ‘‘￾￾￾ ￾￾ ’’
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ )
￾￾￾￾ ‘‘￾￾￾ ￾￾’’￾￾￾￾￾￾)￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ‘‘￾￾￾ ￾￾ ’’ ￾ ￾۔ ￾
￾ ￾￾
￾
￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ؟
 ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾  ‘‘ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾’’ ￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾ 
￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾￾
￾￾ ￾ /￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ /￾ ￾￾￾￾ 
￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾۔ ￾ ￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾
 ￾ ￾￾   ￾ ۔ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾
￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾۔‘‘￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾’’
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 11 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
5 4 3 2 1
5 ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾
ِ
￾￾
￾ِ
￾
￾ ￾
         
10 ￾￾￾ ￾ِ
￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾َ
￾
￾ ￾
َ
￾
￾
         
15 ￾￾ ￾َ
￾
￾￾￾ ￾
َ￾ ￾َ
￾￾
         
20 ￾
￾
￾
￾￾ ￾￾َ ￾
￾
￾
￾
￾￾￾￾
         
25 ￾ ￾￾￾￾
￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾
￾￾ ￾￾ُ
￾￾
         
30 ￾￾َ￾￾ ￾￾
￾َ
￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾
َ￾
         
35 ￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾ ￾￾￾َ ￾￾
￾￾
￾ ￾
￾
￾￾ ￾￾َ
￾￾
         
40 ￾￾￾َ ￾￾
￾￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾
         
45 ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ِ
￾
￾ ￾َ
￾
￾
         
50 ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾
ِ
￾￾ ￾￾￾َ
￾￾
￾￾￾َ￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾
         
       ￾￾￾
￾
         
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 12 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
7￾￾￾۔ 7￾￾￾ ￾60
  ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ (9)￾ ￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
”￾￾￾ ￾￾’’۔
￾￾3 ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ٓ￾￾
￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ٓ￾￾0 ￾￾
￾ٔ ’
￾￾
‘ ￾￾￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾۔ ￾ ￾￾/￾￾ ￾￾   ￾￾￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾۔ ￾￾
￾
￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾/۔ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ٔ￾ ￾ ￾ 
￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾/￾ ￾￾￾￾ 
￾
￾ٔ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾۔ ￾ ￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾
 ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾
￾￾ ￾؟ ￾￾
￾
 ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾/ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ
￾
￾ ￾￾
 ￾۔ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾
￾￾۔ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾
￾
ٔ
￾￾
  ￾￾ ￾￾￾
￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾۔￾￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾۔ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾ ٓ￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾۔￾￾
￾￾۔ٔ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ 10 ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ٔ
￾￾￾
￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾۔
￾
￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
 ￾￾  ￾ ￾، ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ
￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾￾/￾￾ ￾￾۔ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾۔
 ￾￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾؟ ￾￾￾￾/￾￾
 1۔￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ 
￾ 
￾ 
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ 
6 5 4 3 2 1
￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾
           
9 8 7
￾￾
￾￾ ￾￾
     
15 14 13 12 11 10 
￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾
           
21 20 19 18 17 16 
￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾
           
27 26 25 24 23 22
￾￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
           
30 29 28
￾ ￾￾ ￾
     
 ￾￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
 2۔ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾؟ ￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾ 
￾ 
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ 
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 13 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
 ￾￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾
 3 ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ٔ￾ ۔ ￾ ￾￾   ￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾؟
￾ 
￾ 
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ 
36 35 34 33 32 31 
￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾
           
41 40 39 38 37
￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾
￾
￾
         
47 46 45 44 43 42 
￾
￾￾
￾
￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾
￾
￾￾
￾ ￾￾ ￾￾
           
50 49 48
￾ ￾￾ ￾
     
56 55 54 53 52 51 
￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
           
60 59 58 57
￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾
       
 ￾￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
 ￾￾￾￾ ￾؟ ￾￾
￾
￾￾
￾
 4۔ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾ 
￾ 
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ 
 ￾￾ ￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾/￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
/￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
5۔ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ 
￾￾ ￾ ￾؟
￾ 
￾ 
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ 
       ￾￾￾
￾
         
EGRA - URDU - Form Number - 1 
Page 14 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________ 
￾￾￾ ￾
￾￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾ٔ۔ ￾￾￾￾
￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
8￾￾￾۔ ￾￾￾ ￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾ ￾￾
/
￾ 
￾
￾/￾ ￾￾￾  ￾ ￾￾ ￾  ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾/￾ ￾ٔ
￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾
￾
￾￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾￾
 ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾
۔ ￾￾￾￾￾￾   ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾۔ ￾
￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ٔ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾  ￾￾ ￾؟
￾
￾￾  
￾￾
￾￾
￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾
￾
￾￾￾￾ ۔10￾￾￾ ￾￾￾۔
￾
￾￾
￾￾ٓ￾￾￾￾￾
￾
￾￾￾ ￾￾￾
￾
￾￾
￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾۔ ￾ ￾ُ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ ￾￾  ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾۔ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾۔￾ُ￾￾
￾
۔ ￾￾￾￾￾￾ٓ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾ ￾
￾
￾￾
￾
￾
￾
 ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ٓ 
￾
￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾ ￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾  ￾۔
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾  
￾ ￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾￾ 
￾
￾￾￾￾￾
   (￾
￾
￾￾
￾
1۔￾￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾￾ ￾؟ (￾￾￾￾￾￾/￾￾￾￾￾￾
   (￾￾￾￾￾/￾￾￾/￾￾￾￾) ؟￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾۔2
  
￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾/￾￾￾￾￾)
(￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾/￾
3۔￾￾￾￾￾￾￾￾ ￾ ￾￾￾￾ ￾   ￾ ￾ ￾؟
￾
  ￾￾￾￾￾ ￾
 اط بل ملع اک ارٹنو وی
ےچب ےسببترکںی:آپاکتہب رکشہی، اب ںیمآپ ےس آپ ےک رھگ اےن ےس قلعتم اور وآیکپ ڑپاھیئ ےکببرےںیمھچک وس االت وپوھچں اگ۔و
 یا رٹنوییکرطحزببینوط ر رپ وپںیھچ۔ودےیےئگہنکمموجاببتوکاویچن وآو از ںیم ڑپںیھ ہوسالےچبےسا
ت
م ہکواحضوطررپا
بجب ی ت
سیورکےن یکدہا
ہن یکواجےئ۔ےچبےک و یت
ک وج اب دےنیاک ا اظتنر رکںیرھپ ہیوج اب د ی یئگ وہگج رپ ںیھکل، ب آ نشپ ےک وببسک
رپیرکںیوج ےچب ےک وج اب ےک اسھت وہ
ت
اطمتقبرھک ۔ارگاسےک ببالخفوکیئاخص دہ ا
 و یت
ںیہنےہ وت ، رص ف ا ییہوج اب یکااجزت ےہ۔
 ارگن
 بیو
اردو
دنس ھو
وتشپ 
اجنپ بو
ولبیچ
بب یو اوہ 
درگی___________________
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن
 اسی و1 آپےکرھگواےلارثکرھگںیموکنیسزببنوبےتلںیہ؟
 و ھچک ںیہن 
 و اابخر 
راسےل
وچبں وےک ےیل اہکاینں
وچبں وےک ےیل صتو ب وی اتکںیب
دورسیاتکںیب
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن و
آپ ےک رھگ ںیم ڑپےنھ ےک ےیل ایک وموجد ےہ ؟
ےہ(
ت
ناگلںیئنجاکاالطقوہب
ش
 
)ان بسرپن
 اسی و2
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن و
ت ایک رھگ ںیم ےہ؟
 اسی و3 وکیئآوکپاہکاینںدنلبآوازںیمڑپھرکانسب
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن و
ایکآپ رھگ ںیمیسکےک اسھت دنلب آ و از ےس اہک اینںڑپےنھ یکقشم رکیت و
/رکےت ںیہ؟
 اسیو4
Page 15 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن و
 اسیو5 ایک آپ رھگ رپ اخ ومش اطمہعل یک وقشم رکےت / رکیت ںیہ؟
روزاہنب رقتابیًروزاہن 
ہتفہ و ار
اماہہن و
درب یھبکںیہن
 
ذوب
ش
ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن 
اب آپ ےس اوکسل ںیمڑپ انھ ےنھکیسیکوقشمں وےکببرےںیمھچک وس االت و
دوم وںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔ بجب آپامجعت وپوھچں اگ /وپ وھچں یگ
ےکااتسد/ااتسینآپوکرحوفیکآوازوںیکقشمینتکرمہبت
دورسیامجعت
رکو اےت ےھت؟
وچبں وک " ک " اور " م "یک اثمل دےیجی۔و
 اسیو6
روزاہنب رقتابیًروزاہن 
ہتفہ و ار 
 اماہہن 
درب یھبکںیہن
 
ذوب
ش
ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔وتآپینتکرمہبتاےنپااتسد/ااتسینب بجب آپامجعت
اسیھت ابلطء ےک اسھت دنلب آ واز ںیم ڑپےنھ یک قشم رکےت / رکیت ںیھت ؟و
 اسیو7
 روزاہنب رقتابیً ر وز اہن 
 ہتفہ و ار 
 اماہہن 
درب یھبکںیہن
 
ذوب
ش
 ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔وت آ پ ینتک رمہبت اخومیش ےس ڑپےنھ و بجب آپامجعت
یک قشم رکےت / رکیت ںیھت ؟و
 اسیو8
 روزاہنب رقتابیًر وز اہن 
 ہتفہ و ار 
 اماہہن 
درب یھبکںیہن
 
ذوب
ش
 ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔وت آ پ ےک ااتسد / ااتسین ینتک رمہبت ریغ و بجب آپامجعت
ام ونس اافلظ ےک ظفلت یک ادایگیئ رکےن یک قشم رکو اےت /رکو ایت ںیھت ؟
 اسیو9
 روزاہنب رقتابیًروزاہن 
 ہتفہ و ار 
 اماہہن 
درب یھبکںیہن
 
ذوب
ش
 ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔آپ ےک ااتسد/ ااتسین ینتک رمہبت آپ و بجب آپامجعت
وک رھگ رپ اطمہعل رکےن ےک ےیل وکیئ اکم دےتی /دیتی ںیھت ؟و
 اسیو10
Page 16 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number _____________________
 روزاہنب رقتابیًروزاہن 
 ہتفہ و ار 
 اماہہن 
درب یھبکںیہن ) وسال ربمن 13رپ اجںیئ(
 
ذوب
ش
 ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔آپ ےک ااتسد/ ااتسین ےن آپ ےک و بجب آپامجعت
ڑپےنھ یکاہمرتاک ااحتمن ینتک رمہبت ایل اھت ؟و
 اسیو11
اوہنں ےن اےس ریم ی یلمع اتکب ںیم د رج ایک اھت
اوہنں ےن اےس یسک دورس ی اتکب ںیم درج ایک اھت
اوہنںےناےسا یٹلبیٹ)ڈیاسئ(ںیمدرجایکاھت
رزلک اوہنں ےن وکیئ درجںیہنایکاھت
د رگی:ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔آپ ےک ااتسد/ ااتسین آپ ےک وڑپےنھ و بجب آپامجعت
یک
 
 
اہمرتےکاجبۃوےک اتنجئ ےسیک ب /ر
ت
رمی اکیرڈرکےت ےھت/ رکیتںیھت؟
 اسیو12
 روزاہنب رقتابیً ر وز اہن 
 ہتفہ و ار 
 اماہہن 
درب یھبکںیہن ) وسال ربمن 17رپ اجںیئ(
 
ذوب
ش
 ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔آپ ےک ااتسد/ ااتسین ینتک رمہبت آوکپ و بجب آپامجعت
اہکاینں انسےت /انس یت ںیھت ؟
 اسیو13
 روزاہنب رقتابیًروزاہن 
 ہتفہ و ار 
 اماہہن 
درب یھبکںیہن
 
ذوب
ش
 ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔آپ ےک ااتسد/ ااتسین ینتک رمہبت و بجب آپامجعت
اہکاینںانسےنےکدعبآپےساسےکببرےںیموس االت رکےت /رکیت 
ںیھت ؟
 اسیو14
 روزاہنب رقتابیًروزاہن 
 ہتفہ و ار 
 اماہہن 
درب یھبکںیہن
 
ذوب
ش
 ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وج اب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔آپ ےک ااتسد/ ااتسین ینتک رمہبت و بجب آپامجعت
اہکوینں ںیم وموجدلکشماافلظےکینعمےکببرےوساالترکےت/رکیت
ںیھت ؟
 اسیو15
Page 17 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number ____________________
 روزاہنپ رقتابیًروزاہن 
 ہتفہ وار 
 اماہہن 
درپ یھبکںیہن
 
ذوپ
ش
 ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔آپ ےک ااتسد/ ااتسین ینتک رمہبت آوکپ بجب آپامجعت
الکسںیماہکیندوپبرہانسےناکےتہک/یتہکںیھت؟
 اسی 16
 روزاہنپ رقتابیًروزاہن 
 ہتفہ وار 
 اماہہن 
درپ یھبکںیہن
 
ذوپ
ش
 ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔آپ ےک ااتسد/ ااتسین ےن ینتک رمہبت بجب آپامجعت
آوکپ ےئن اافلظ ےک ینعماتبےئ ےھت؟ 
 اسی 17
 روزاہنپ رقتابیًروزاہن 
 ہتفہ وار 
 اماہہن 
درپ یھبکںیہن
 
ذوپ
ش
 ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
بجب آپامجعت
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔وت آپ ےن وکیئیلمعاتکب اوکسل 
ںیمینتکپبراامعتسلیک یھت؟ 
 اسی 18
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
دوم ںیمڑپےتھ ےھت۔وتایکآپےکپ ساینپیلمعاتکب بجب آپامجعت
؟
یھت،سجںیمآپھچکھکلتکست
 اسی 19
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
اب ںیمآپ ےس آپ ےک احہیلرجتپبتےکپبرےںیماجانن اچاتہ وہں ۔ 
ایک آین
ت
آپرھگرپ"ق اقدئہ" ڑپھےکچںیہپ ڑپھرےہںیہ؟ 
 اسی 20
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن ) وسال ربمن اسی 23رپ اجںیئ ( 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن) وسال :اسی 23رپ اجںیئ ( 
 اسی 21 ایک آپ زگہتش ےتفہ ںیم یسک یھب دن اوکسل ےس ریغ احرض رےہ / ریہ ںیہ ؟ 
Page 18 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number ____________________
دن






 اسی 22 ارگ اسی 21اک وجاب اہں ےہ، وت اتبےیئ ےنتک دن ریغ احرض رےہ/ رںیہ ؟ 
 درگتس ےک ےئیلریمیوحہلص ازفایئرکےت
ھچکںیہن
ریمی درگتسرکےت 
ریماذماق اڑاےت 
راض
پ وہاجےت 
ےھجمزسا دےتی 
درگی : ____________________
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن۔
اق بباالطق ںیہن
وکیئ یھب یطلغ رکےت ںیہ وت آپ ےک ااتسد/ ااتسین ایک رکےت ںیہ ؟ بجب آپ
ناگلںیئ
ش
 
امتمہنکمموجاپبترپن
 اسی 23
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
 اسی 24 ایکآپ اوکسل ےس ےلہپ پ اس ےک دعب اکم رکےت ںیہ؟ 
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
 اسی 25 ایکآپ ےک اوکسل ںیمالربئ ئی ےہ؟ 
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
ایکآپ ےک 
ت
 اسی 26 رمکہامجعںیمالربئ ئی ےہ؟ 
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
اق بباالطق ںیہن 
ایکآپ الربئ ئییکاتکںیب ڑپےنھ ےک ےئل رھگ ےل اجےت ںیہ؟ 
ت رصف اس وصرت ںیم وپںیھچہک ارگ اوکسل ںیماور / پ 
رمکہامجعںیم 
الربئ ئی وموجد ےہ۔ 
 اسی 27
Page 19 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number ____________________
 ارگن
 ئی 
اردو
دنسھ 
وتشپ 
اجنپب 
ولبیچ
بئ ی اوہ
درگی ___________________
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن
ت آپ ےک اوکسل پ 
رمکہامجعںیمالربئ ئی یکاتکںیب نک زپبونں ںیم ںیہ؟ 
ت رصف اس وصرت ںیم وپںیھچہک ارگ اوکسل ںیماور / پ 
رمکہامجعںیم 
ش الربئ ئی وموجد ےہ ناگلںیئ۔
 
،امتمہنکمموجاپبترپن
 اسی 28
لیٹ و
ش
 ئن
ر
ک
 یی
ویپمکرٹپ پیل پ
ک
پ
ومپبلئوفن
پبلکسیئ
ومرٹاسلکیئپ اوکسرٹ
اکرپ رٹک
افرم ےک اجونر پ ومیشی
لجب 
رھگںیمپ یناک لن 
رھگںیمشلف وٹاٹلئ
ہتخپ ش)نمیس
 
ق ،امربب،اقنیل(
ہتخپ تھچ )داھت ، کل ی ، ریساکم(
آپ ےک رھگ ںیمان ںیمےس وکن یساایشءوموجد ںیہ۔
م ہ )
 
زیچاکپ ڑپںیھ ، اورامتمہنکمموجاپبترپ ناگلںیئ
ش
 
( ن
 اسی 29
Page 20 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number ____________________












 اسی 30 ًًپ ےک رھگ ںیماور ےنتک ولگ رےتھ ںیہ؟ 
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
 اسی 31 ایکآپ اعم وطر رپ اوکسل ےک ےئیلوجےت ےتنہپ ںیہ؟
یج اہں 
 یج ںیہن 
ت اونیریمرٹی اشمدہہ رکںیہک 
ت
 اسی 32 اسوقےچبےن وجےت ےنہپ وہےئ ںیہ ؟ 
ہتشاور
 
اہںپ
 
دورہپاکاھکپ
ہتش)
 
رصفپ
 
دورہپاکاھکپںیہن(
دورہپاکاھکپ ہتشںیہن رصف 
 
)پ (
ںیہن، ھچک ںیہن اتلم
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن
 اعم وطر رپ ایک آپ اوکسل ںیم ہتش
پ پ دورہپ
 
 اسی 33 اکاھکپاھکےت ںیہ ؟ 












 اسی 34 اًپیکرمع ینتکےہ؟ 
Page 21 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number ____________________
 الکس دومئ 
 الکس وسمئ 
 ںیمےلھچپ اسل اوکسل ںیمںیہناھت
درگی ___________________
 ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن
 اسی 35 زگہتش بئسآپسکالکسںیمےھت؟
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
ایکآپ رپیاوکسل پ یچک
ت
 اسی 36 امجعںیمڑپےتھ ےھت ؟
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن ) ارگ ںیہن ، وت اسی 39 رپ اجںیئ ( 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن) اسی 39رپ اجںیئ (
زگہتش بئسےک دوران، ایک آپ ےن امیبر وہےن یکوہج ےس ا یہتفہ ےس 
زپ دہاوکسل ےس یٹھچ یک یھت ؟ 
 اسی 37
 اسی 38 آپ یکامیب ری سک رطح یک یھت ؟امیب ری یک ایک العامت ںیھت؟ ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ 
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن ) ارگ ںیہن ، وت اسی 41رپ اجںیئ ( 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن) اسی 41رپ اجںیئ (
زگہتش بئسےک دوران، ایک آپ ےن یسک اور ، وج امیبر وہا ، یک دھکی اھبل ےک ےیل 
ا یہتفہ ےس زپ دہاوکسل ےس یٹھچ یک یھت؟ 
 اسی 39
 اسی 40 ان یکامیبریسک رطح یک یھت؟ امیبرییکایک العامت ںیھت ؟ ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ 
پبپ
امں
اھبیئ
نہب
اخہلپ الکن
ںیم) وخد(
وکیئںیہن) اسی43رپ اجںیئ(
درگی : ___________________
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن) اسی 43رپ اجںیئ (
ت آپ ےک رھگ واولں ںیم ےہ؟
ےسوکنرھگےکےئلرمقامکپ
ناگلںیئ)
ش
 
(امتمہنکمموجاپبترپن
 اسی 41
Page 22 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number ____________________
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب 
ںیہن)3( 
یج ںیہن 
 )2(
یج اہں 
 )1(
اسی 41-ںیم دےکےئل،
 
دنیہ
ش
بختنم ہق بئاہرکماسپبتیک
 
ن رکںیہک 
 ارگ اںیہنےلھچپ اسل ںیمیسک ڑپا
وھچڑپ
 
وہجےساکمرکپ ۔
ز:
ک
اونی م د
 
 یوہےئ صخش ےک ےئل رصف ا ی ناگلںیئ
ش
 
اخہنرپن ۔
 اسی 42
اسی 42اے پبپ
 اسی 42ب امں
 اسی 42یس اھبیئ
 اسی 42ڈی نہب
 اسی 42ای اخہلپ الکن
 اسی 42ای ںیم) وخد(
 اسی 42یج درگی : ___________________
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن ) ارگ ںیہن ، وت رسوے متخ رکدںی ( 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن)وت رسوے متخ رکدںی(
ایک سیک
 
وائ
 
 اسی 43 آپاکاوکسلاساسلوکروپ وہج ےس دنب وہا اھت؟ 
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن ) ارگ ںیہن ، وت اسی 50رپ اجںیئ ( 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن)وت وت اسی 50رپ اجںیئ(
 آ پاس دوران رھگ ںیمھچک ےتھکیسرےہ/یتھکیس بج ایک ب آپاکاوکسلدنباھت،
رںیہ؟؟ 
 اسی 44
 یمیلعتیٹوی رپورگاگنم
ییرپورگاگنم
ک
 یمیلعتر 
 ویپمکرٹ-پ ٹلبیٹ )ڈیاسئ(رپ ینبممیلعت
 وفن-پ اسیامیاسیرپ ینبم رلگنن / دہاپ ت
 دریساتکںیبپ اوٹسری کب 
 یلمع اتکںیب
 زمیگ پ لیھک
 یسکےنےھجمزپبیندہاپ تدںی
درگی: ___________________
 ولعمم ںیہن/ وکیئ وجاب ںیہن
اًپےنرھگںیمسک رطح اھکیس؟ 
امتمہنکمموجاپبت ناگلںیئ)
ش
 
( رپن
 اسی 45
Page 23 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number ____________________
ںیہنولعمم / 
وکیئ وجاب 
ںیہن
 )5(
ا یامہںیم
ا یدہعف
ےس یھب ک 
 )4(
اماہہن،ا یدو
رمہبت 
 )3(
ہتفہوارپ 
رقت ابیً)2( 
روزاہنپ 
رقتابیً روزاہن 
 )1(
دنیہ ہ اسی 45ںیم رسرگیم
ش
بختنمرکدہ ےک ےیل ، بئاہرکماسپبتیک
 
ن 
رکںیہک آپ ےن ہیایبنرکدہاکمینتکپبرےیک؟
اونیریمرٹی : د )
 
 یےئگ آنشپ ےک ےئل رصف ا ی ناگلںیئ
ش
 
 اسی 46 ( اخہنرپن
اسی 46اے یمیلعتیٹوی رپورگاگنم
ییرپورگاگنم
ک
 اسی 46ب یمیلعتر 
 اسی 46یس ویپمکرٹ-پ ٹلبیٹ )ڈیاسئ(رپ ینبممیلعت
 اسی 46ڈی وفن-پ اسیامیاسیرپ ینبم رلگنن / دہاپ ت
 اسی 46ای دریساتکںیبپ اوٹسری کب 
 اسی 46ای یلمع اتکںیب
 اسی 46یج زمیگپ لیھک
 اسی 46اچی یسکےنےھجمزپبیندہاپ تدںی
 اسی 46آیئ درگی: ___________________
یج اہں 
یج ںیہن ) ارگ ںیہن ، وت اسی 49رپ اجںیئ ( 
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن)وت اسی 49رپ اجںیئ(
 اسی 47 ایکیسکےن آپ وک رھگ رپ ےنھکیسےک ان اکومں ںیموکیئ دمد یک؟ 
 وادلنی
 نہباھبیئ
رھگاک دورسا د
 
 ق
 اتسد / ااتسین
ت
 دوسپ اسمہہی
 درگی : ___________________
 ولعمم ںیہن/ وکیئ وجاب ںیہن
 اسی 48 رھگ رپ ےنھکیسےک ان اک ومں ںیمسک ےن آپ یک دمد یک؟
 روزاہنپ رقتابیًروزاہن 
 ہتفہ وار 
 اماہہن 
درپ یھبکںیہن
 
ذوپ
ش
 ش
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن 
 اسی 49 اس دوران آپ ینتک پبرڑپےنھیک قشم رکےت ےھت؟ بجب آپاکاوکسلدنباھت،
Page 24 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number ____________________
ہتشاور
 
اہںپ
 
دورہپاکاھکپ
ہتش)
 
رصفپ
 
دورہپاکاھکپںیہن(
دورہپاکاھکپ ہتشںیہن رصف 
 
)پ (
ںیہن، ھچک ںیہن اتلم
ںیہنولعمم /وکیئ وجاب ںیہن
اس دوران ایک آپ اعم وطر رپ رھگ ںیم ہتشاور بجب آپاکاوکسلدنباھت،
 
پ
اھکےت
 
دورہپاکاھکپ ےھت؟ 
 اسی 50
 
ااتتخم
ت 
ت
وق
 
آپ یک ومشتیل اک تہب رکشہی! 
￾
 
 








￾
 
 
 
 
 
 




Page 25 / School Code _____________________________ Student Number ____________________
Pakistan Early Grade Reading Assessment
Endline Study
Student Questionnaire
ENGLISH
2020
Student Interview
Say to the child: Thank you very much. Now, I am going to ask you some questions about your family and about 
reading. 
Ask each question verbally to the child, as in an interview. Do not read the response options aloud unless explicitly 
instructed to do so. Wait for the child to respond then write this response in the space provided, or check the box of 
the option that best corresponds to the child’s response. If there is no special instruction to the contrary, only one 
response is permitted.
S1 What language does your family speak most often at 
home?
☐ (1) English
☐ (2) Urdu 
☐ (3) Sindhi
☐ (4) Pashto
☐ (5) Punjabi
☐ (6) Balochi
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S2 Which type of reading materials do you have at home?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Nothing
☐ (2) Newspaper
☐ (3) Magazines
☐ (4) Children’s storybooks
☐ (5) Children’s picture books
☐ (6) Other books
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S3 Does anyone read stories aloud to you at home? ☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S4 Do you practice reading stories aloud to someone at 
home? 
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S5 Do you ever practice silent reading at home? ☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S6 I will now ask some questions about your reading 
practices at school when you were in grade 2.
How often did your grade 2 teacher practice letter 
sounds with you during your reading lessons?
(Give student example of /k/ and /m/)
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S7 When you were in grade 2, how often did you practice 
reading aloud to your teacher or the other students?
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S8 When you were in grade 2, how often did you practice 
silent reading in school?
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S9 When you were in grade 2, how often did your teacher 
practice sounding out unfamiliar words with you? 
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S10 When you were in grade 2, how often did your teacher 
assign reading for you to do at home?
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S11 When you were in grade 2, how often did your teacher 
test you on your reading skills?
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never → Skip to S13
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S12 When you were in grade 2, how did your teacher keep 
track of your reading test results?
☐ (1) S/he recorded it in my work book
☐ (2) S/he recorded it in another book
☐ (3) S/he recorded it in a tablet
☐ (4) S/he did not record the results
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S13 When you were in grade 2, how often did your teacher 
read you stories?
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never → Skip to S17
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S14 When you were in grade 2, how often did your teacher 
ask you questions at the end of the stories s/he read?
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S15 When you were in grade 2, how often did your teacher 
ask you to guess meanings of difficult words in the 
story?
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S16 When you were in grade 2, how often did your teacher 
ask you to re-tell a story during class?
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S17 When you were in grade 2, how often did your teacher 
tell you the meaning of new words?
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S18 When you were in grade 2, how often did you use a 
work book at school?
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S19 In grade 2, did you have your own work book that you 
could write in?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S20 Now I am going to ask you about your current 
experiences. 
Have you read / Are you reading “Qurani Qaida” at 
home?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S21 Did you miss any school days last week? ☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If No, skip to S23
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to 
S23
S22 (If answer to S21 is Yes), How many days did you miss 
last week?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
_____
S23 What does your teacher do when you make a mistake?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Encourages me to correct myself
☐ (2) Nothing
☐ (3) Corrects me 
☐ (4) Makes fun of me
☐ (5) Becomes angry
☐ (6) Punishes me
☐ (-7) Other ____________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
☐ (-9) Not applicable
S24 Do you work before or after school?
This includes work as an employee, work in self￾employment (including street hawking), agricultural 
work, and work for a family business even if unpaid. It 
does not include household chores.
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S25 Do you have a library at your school? ☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S26 Does your classroom have a library? ☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S27 [If S25=1 and/or S26=1] Do you take library books to 
read at home?
(Ask only if there is a library in school and/or in 
classroom)
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
☐ (-9) Not applicable
S28 What are the languages of the library books in your 
school or classroom?
(Ask only if there is a library in school and/or in classroom; 
mark all that apply)
☐ (1) English
☐ (2) Urdu 
☐ (3) Sindhi
☐ (4) Pashto
☐ (5) Punjabi
☐ (6) Balochi
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S29 Which of the following items does your family have at 
home:
(Read each item; mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Television
☐ (2) Radio
☐ (3) Computer or laptop
☐ (4) Mobile phone
☐ (5) Bicycle
☐ (6) Motorcycle or scooter
☐ (7) Car or truck
☐ (8) Farm animals or livestock 
☐ (9) Electricity
☐ (10) Water tap in the house
☐ (11) A flush toilet in the house
☐ (12) Finished flooring (cement, marble, 
carpet)
☐ (13) Finished roofing (metal, wood, 
ceramic)
S30 How many other people do you live with?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
_________
S31 Do you usually wear shoes to school? ☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S32 [Enumerator: observe if the child is currently wearing 
shoes]
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
S33 Do you usually eat breakfast or lunch at school? ☐ (1) Yes, breakfast and lunch
☐ (2) Breakfast only (no lunch)
☐ (3) Lunch only (no breakfast)
☐ (4) No, don’t get either 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S34 How old are you?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
_________
S35 What grade were you in last year? ☐ (1) Grade 2
☐ (2) Grade 3
☐ (3) I was not in school last year
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S36 Did you attend preschool or Kachi classes? ☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S37 In the past year, did you miss more than 1 week of 
school because you were ill? 
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If No, skip to S39
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to 
S39
S38 What was your illness like? What symptoms did you 
have?
_________
S39 In the past year, did you miss more than 1 week of 
school to care for someone that was ill?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If No, skip to S41
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to 
S41 
S40 What was their illness like? What symptoms did they 
have?
_________
S41 Who in your family earns money for the household?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Father
☐ (2) Mother
☐ (3) Brother
☐ (4) Sister
☐ (5) Aunt or Uncle
☐ (6) Me
☐ (7) Nobody → Skip to S43
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to 
S43
S42
Did [S41] have to stop working for any reason in the 
past year? [Enumerator: tick only one box for a given 
person].
Yes
(1)
No
(2)
Don’t know / 
no answer
(-8)
S42a (1) Father ☐ ☐ ☐
S42b (2) Mother ☐ ☐ ☐
S42c (3) Brother ☐ ☐ ☐
S42d (4) Sister ☐ ☐ ☐
S42e (5) Aunt or Uncle ☐ ☐ ☐
S42f (6) Me ☐ ☐ ☐
S42g (-7) Other ☐ ☐ ☐
S43 Did your school close down this year because of 
Coronavirus?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If No, end survey
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → End 
survey
S44 When your school was closed, did you do learning at 
home?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If No, Skip to S50
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to 
S50
S45 What types of learning activities did you do at home?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Educational TV programming
☐ (2) Educational Radio programming
☐ (3) Computer- or tablet-based learning 
☐ (4) Phone- or SMS-based learning / 
instruction
☐ (5) Textbooks or storybooks
☐ (6) Work books
☐ (7) Manipulatives or games
☐ (8) Someone gave me verbal instruction
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S46
How often did you do [S45]? [Enumerator: 
tick only one box for a given person].
Daily 
(or almost 
daily)
(1)
Weekly 
(or almost 
weekly)
(2)
1-2 times 
per month
(3)
Less than 1 
time per 
month
(4)
DK / 
no answer
(-8)
S46a (1) Educational TV programming ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
S46b (2) Educational Radio programming ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
S46c (3) Computer- or tablet-based learning ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
S46d (4) Phone- or SMS-based learning / instruction ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
S46e (5) Textbooks or storybooks ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
S46f (6) Work books ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
S46g (7) Manipulatives or games ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
S46h (8) Someone gave me verbal instruction ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
S46i (-7) Other ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
S47 Did anyone help you with these home-based learning 
activities?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If No, Skip to S49
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to 
S49
S48 Who helped you with these home-based learning 
activities?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Parent
☐ (2) Sibling
☐ (3) Other household member
☐ (4) My teacher
☐ (5) Friend or neighbor
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S49 When your school was closed, how often did you do 
reading activities?
☐ (1) Daily or almost daily
☐ (2) Weekly
☐ (3) Monthly
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
S50 When your school was closed, did you usually get 
breakfast and lunch at home?
☐ (1) Yes, breakfast and lunch
☐ (2) Breakfast only (no lunch)
☐ (3) Lunch only (no breakfast)
☐ (4) No, didn’t get either 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
Thank you very much for your participation!
Time Ended: |__|__| : |__|__|
Pakistan Early Grade Reading 
Assessment Endline Study
Teacher Questionnaire
ENGLISH 
2020
Pakistan EGRA Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 1
Check box if verbal consent is obtained: YES
(If verbal consent is not obtained, thank the teacher and find another teacher from the same grade, using this same form.)
T1
What class level(s) are you teaching this year?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Grade 1
☐ (2) Grade 2
☐ (3) Grade 3
☐ (4) Grade 4
☐ (5) Grade 5
☐ (-7) Others
T2 Did you teach Grade 2 in this school last year?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T3
What is your year of birth?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response) I___I___I___I___I
T4 What is your highest academic qualification?
☐ (1) Ph.D
☐ (2) M.Phil
☐ (3) M.A/M.Sc
☐ (4) B.A / B.Sc
☐ (5) F.A/F.Sc
☐ (6) Matric
☐ (-7) Other ____________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
A. Date of Assessment: Day : |__|__| Month: |__|__|
G. Teacher’s Gender (1)Female
(2)Male
B. School Unique ID:
I___I___I___I
C. Province:
D. District:
H. School shift 
taught by teacher
(1) Morning
(2) Afternoon
(3) Both shifts
E. Tehsil/Taulka:
F. QCO ID:
I___I___I___I
G. Is this the grade 2 
teacher of the sampled 
students?
(1) Yes
(2) No I. Time Started: |__|__|:|__|__|
Pakistan EGRA Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 2
T5 What is your highest professional qualification?
☐ (1) M.Ed / M.A Education
☐ (2) B.Ed
☐ (3) ADE
☐ (4) C.T
☐ (5) P.T.C
 ☐ (-7) Other ____________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T6
How many years have you been teaching?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response) I___I___I years
T7
About how many girls and boys were in your Grade 2 
classroom last year?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
Grade 2:
I___I___I___I Number of girls
I___I___I___I Number of boys
T8 How many grades were taught in this class?
 ☐ (1) One
 ☐ (2) Two
 ☐ (3) Three
 ☐ (-7) Other____________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T9 Does your school / classroom have a functioning library?
☐ (1) Only in school
☐ (2) Only in classroom
☐ (3) Both
☐ (4) No → If no, skip to T13
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
→ Skip to T13
T10
About how many book titles are there in the school /
classroom library?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
☐ (1) School Library _________
☐ (2) Classroom Library ________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T11 Did your Grade 2 students visit the library last year?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T12
Did you supervise your students as they used the library last 
year?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
Pakistan EGRA Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 3
T13 Did your classroom have textbooks last year?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T14
How many Grade 2 children in your classroom had student 
work books last year?
☐ (1) Almost all or all
☐ (2) More than half
☐ (3) Less than half
☐ (4) Almost none or none
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T15 Did your classroom have any other types of books?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T16
Which instructional materials did you have in your class last 
year?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Blackboard
☐ (2) Chalk
☐ (3) Whiteboard
☐ (4) Marker
☐ (5) Writing paper
☐ (6) Textbooks 
☐ (7) Teaching kits 
☐ (8) Posters
☐ (9) Flashcards
☐ (10) Syllable charts
☐ (11) Reading kit
☐ (12) Big books
☐ (13) Leveled readers
☐ (14) Reading lesson plans
☐ (-7) Other ______________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T17
Does your head teacher encourage you to use a variety of 
activities in the class?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T18 Do you give extra time to slow learners after class?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
Pakistan EGRA Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 4
T19 Do you have parent meetings?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If no, skip to T21
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
→ Skip to T21
T20 How often do you have parent meetings?
☐ (1) Monthly
☐ (2) Bi-monthly
☐ (3) Quarterly
☐ (4) Bi-annually
☐ (5) Yearly
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T21
What type of material do you read?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Textbooks
☐ (2) Teacher guides
☐ (3) Novels / Fiction / Stories
☐ (4) Newspapers
☐ (5) Magazines
☐ (-7) Other_________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
o □ (0) Don’t know/no 
response(1) Yes
□ (1) Yes
□ (2) No
o □ (0) Don’t know/no 
response(2) No
T22
How do you update your knowledge of teaching?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Reading books
☐ (2) Going on the internet
☐ (3) Teacher inquiry groups 
(TIG)
☐ (3) Through other peer￾support
☐ (4) Attending seminars or 
educational conferences
☐ (5) In-service training/Face to 
face training
☐ (6) Do Nothing
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T23
[If T22 = (3) Teacher inquiry groups] In the past year, while 
school was in session, how often did your TIG meet? 
☐ (1) Monthly
☐ (2) 1-2 times per month
☐ (3) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
T24
[If T22 = (3) Teacher inquiry groups] In the past year, about 
how many times (total) did your TIG meet?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
I___I___I___I
Pakistan EGRA Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 5
T25
[If T22 = (3) Teacher inquiry groups] How helpful did you find 
these TIG meetings in improving your reading instruction: very 
helpful, helpful, somewhat helpful, or not very helpful?
☐ (1) Very helpful
☐ (2) Helpful
☐ (3) Somewhat helpful
☐ (4) Not very helpful
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
T26
[If T22 = (3) Teacher inquiry groups] Do you have any 
suggestions for improving these TIGs in the future?
_______________
T27
[If T22 = (3) Teacher inquiry groups] Do you think your TIG will 
continue to meet in the foreseeable future?
☐ (1) Yes → If no, skip to T29
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response →
Skip to T29
T28
[If T27= (2) No] Why don’t you think your TIG will continue to 
meet? _______________
T29
Did you have daily reading lesson plan for Grade 2 last year?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If no, skip to T33
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response →
Skip to T33
T30
What is the name of the teacher guide you used most often 
for teaching reading to Grade 2 last year?
☐ (1) Teachers Inquiry Group (TIG) 
Manual
☐ (2) Daily Reading Lesson Plan 
(DRLP)
☐ (3) Both TIG and DRLP
☐ (-7) Other_________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
T31 Have you faced any challenges using this teacher guide?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If no, skip to T33
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response →
Skip to T33
Pakistan EGRA Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 6
T32
What challenges have you faced using this teacher guide?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Lesson pacing is too slow for 
some of my pupils
☐ (2) Lesson pacing is too fast for 
some of my pupils
☐ (3) There is not enough time to 
cover all the material
☐ (4) Problems understanding the 
language of the guide
☐ (5) I don’t have enough training
on using the guide
☐ (6) The guide is confusing or 
difficult to use
☐ (7) The guide has errors
☐ (8) The guide is misaligned with 
the timetable or curriculum
☐ (9) The guide is misaligned with 
pupil resources
☐ (10) The guide is old or damaged
☐ (-7) Other: _______________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T33 Are you in this job by choice?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T34
In a typical week, on how many days do you hold a reading 
period?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
I___I Days
T35
[If T29 = (1) Yes] In a typical week, on how many days do you 
use [T30a] in your reading lesson?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
I___I Days
T36
How long is your typical reading period (in minutes)?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response) I___I___I___I Minutes
Think about the last 5 days of school and indicate how often each of the following activities took place. 
[Enumerator: tick only one box for a question].
Activity / Action Never (0) 1 day a 
week (1)
2 days a 
week (2)
3 days a 
week (3)
4 days a 
week (4)
5 days a 
week (5)
6 days a 
week (6)
T37 The whole class repeated sentences 
that you said first (choral repetition) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T38 Students copied down text from the 
blackboard ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Pakistan EGRA Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 7
Think about the last 5 days of school and indicate how often each of the following activities took place. 
[Enumerator: tick only one box for a question].
Activity / Action Never (0) 1 day a 
week (1)
2 days a 
week (2)
3 days a 
week (3)
4 days a 
week (4)
5 days a 
week (5)
6 days a 
week (6)
T39 Students retold a story that they read ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T40 Students sounded out unfamiliar 
words ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T41 Students learned meanings of new 
words ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T42 Students read aloud to teacher or to 
other students ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T43 Students answered comprehension 
questions based on the text they read ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T44 Students were assigned reading to do 
on their own during school time ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Which of the following methods do you use to measure your students’ reading progress? Indicate how often you 
use each method. [Enumerator: tick only one box for a question].
Activity / Action Never (0) 1 day a 
week (1)
2 days a 
week (2)
3 days a 
week (3)
4 days a 
week (4)
5 days a 
week (5)
6 days a 
week (6)
T45 Written evaluations / assessments ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T46 Oral evaluations / assessments ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T47 Checking of work books ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T48 Checking of homework ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
In what class should students FIRST be able to demonstrate each of the following reading skills? Note that here we 
are asking about your personal beliefs, even if they differ from formal standards or curricular requirements. Tick 
only one box for a question.
Activity / Action
Before 
Grade 
1 (0)
Grade 1 
(1)
Grade 
2 (2)
Grade 
3 (3)
Grade 
4 (4)
Grade 
5 (5)
Other 
(6)
T49 Write their name ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T50 Recognize letters and say letter 
names
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T51 Read aloud a short passage with 
few mistakes ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T52 Understand stories they read ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T53 Sound out unfamiliar words ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T54 Understand stories they hear ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Pakistan EGRA Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 8
T55 Recite the alphabet ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T56 How many times did you receive in-service/
face to face training in the past year?
☐ (1) None → If none, skip to T63
☐ (2) One time
☐ (3) Two times
☐ (4) Three times
☐ (-7) Other: ____________ 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to T63
T57
If so, who initiated this/these in-service 
training(s)?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Education department
☐ (2) Teacher initiated it
☐ (3) PRP
☐ (4) Other project / donor / NGO
☐ (-7) Other: _______________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T58
[If T57 = (3) PRP] How helpful did you find the 
PRP training in improving your reading 
instruction: very helpful, helpful, somewhat 
helpful, or not very helpful?
☐ (1) Very helpful
☐ (2) Helpful
☐ (3) Somewhat helpful
☐ (4) Not very helpful
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
T59 [If T58 = (4) Not very helpful] In what ways could 
the PRP training have been improved? _______________
T60
What was the duration of your most recent
training? 
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
I___I___I days
T61 Did you learn how to teach reading during 
this most recent training?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If no, Skip to T63
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to T63
T62 Did the training include phonics?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T63 Do you use phonics in your teaching?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If no, skip to T66
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to T66
Pakistan EGRA Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 9
T64 Do you think phonics helps your students 
learn better?
☐ (1) Yes → Skip to T66
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to T66
T65 Why don’t you think phonics helps your 
students learn better? _______________
T66 Which method do you prefer to teach 
language?
☐ (1) Translation method
☐ (2) Direct method
☐ (3) Both
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
T67
In the past year, has anyone observed your 
reading class and coached you on your 
teaching practices? If so, who provided this 
classroom-based coaching?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Head teacher / school leader
☐ (2) Government Academic Supervisor 
☐ (3) Other government official
☐ (4) Mentor
☐ (5) PRP project staff
☐ (6) No one → Skip to T76
☐ (-7) Other: ____________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
For each person below [selected in T67], please indicate how helpful you found their classroom-based coaching in 
improving your reading instruction: very helpful, helpful, somewhat helpful, or not very helpful. [Enumerator: tick 
only one box for a given person].
Observer / coach Very 
helpful (1) Helpful (2) Somewhat 
helpful (3)
Not very 
helpful (4)
No 
response 
(-8)
T68 Head teacher / school leader ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T69 Government Academic Supervisor ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T70 Mentor ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
T71 PRP project staff ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
For each person indicated as “not very helpful” in T68-T71, in what ways could their classroom-based coaching 
have been improved?
Observer / coach Ways to improve coaching:
T72 [If T68 = (4) Not very helpful] Head teacher / school leader _______________
Pakistan EGRA Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 10
For each person indicated as “not very helpful” in T68-T71, in what ways could their classroom-based coaching 
have been improved?
Observer / coach Ways to improve coaching:
T73 [If T69 = (4) Not very helpful] Government Academic Supervisor _______________
T74 [If T70 = (4) Not very helpful] Mentor _______________
T75 [If T71 = (4) Not very helpful] PRP project staff _______________
T76 Did your school close down this year (2020) because of 
COVID-19?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If no, skip to T84
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to 
T84
T77 For how many months did your school close due to 
COVID-19 (do not count normal scheduled closures)?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
I___I___I months
T78 While your school was closed due to COVID-19, did you 
continue to support your students in any manner?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If no, skip to T82
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to 
T82
T79 In what specific ways did you continue to support your 
students? With what frequency? _______________
T80 Has your school had any formal policies for making up 
for lost instructional time due to COVID-19?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
T81 Besides any formal policies implemented at the school 
level, have you done anything with your students to help 
make up for lost instructional time due to COVID-19?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If no, skip to T84
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to 
T84
T82 What types of things have you done with your students 
to help make up for lost instructional time?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Remedial classes outside of school
☐ (2) Remedial 1:1 tutoring outside of 
school
☐ (3) Accelerated learning in school
☐ (4) Assign extra homework
☐ (-7) Other: ____________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
Pakistan EGRA Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 11
T83 How helpful do you think [T82] has been in making up 
for lost instructional time: very helpful, helpful, 
somewhat helpful, or not very helpful?
☐ (1) Very helpful
☐ (2) Helpful
☐ (3) Somewhat helpful
☐ (4) Not very helpful
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
T84 Beyond the school closures, has COVID-19 disrupted 
your students’ learning in other ways?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If no, skip to T86
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → If no, skip 
to T86
T85 In what other ways has COVID-19 disrupted your 
students’ learning?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Poor concentration or disability due 
to illness
☐ (2) Poor concentration or disability due 
to nutritional deficiency
☐ (3) Poor concentration or disability due 
to stress or trauma
☐ (4) Missing school to do work
☐ (5) Missing school to care for family 
members
☐ (6) Missing school due to inability to pay 
for school-related expenses
☐ (7) Dropping out of school to work
☐ (8) Dropping out of school to care for 
family members
☐ (9) Dropping out of school due to 
inability to pay for school-related expenses
☐ (10) Teacher or school staff absenteeism
☐ (11) Teacher or school staff shortage
☐ (12) Interruptions to training or delivery 
of materials
☐ (-7) Other: ____________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
T86 In your view, what is the most important thing that the 
government and donors can do to help improve pupil 
reading performance at this school?
Thank you for your participation! You have been very helpful.
Time ended: I___I___I : I___I___I
Pakistan Early Grade Reading 
Assessment Endline Study
Head Teacher Questionnaire
ENGLISH 
2020
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 1
Check box if verbal consent is obtained:  YES
(If verbal consent is not obtained, thank the Head Teacher and then go to Deputy Head Teacher, using this same 
form)
A. Date of 
Assessment:
Day: |__|__| Month: |__|__|
I. Head Teacher’s 
Gender
(1)Female
(2)Male
B. School Unique ID: I___I___I___I J. QCO’s ID: I___I___I___I
C. Province:
K. Shifts in your 
school
(1) Morning
(2) Afternoon
(3) Both Shifts
D. District: L. Time started: |__|__| : |__|__|
E. Tehsil/Taulka:
M. Total enrolment
in grade 3
I___I___I___I No. of girls
I___I___I___I No. of boys
F. School type:
(1) Girls school
(2) Boys school
(3) Mixed school
N. Total repeaters in 
grade 2
I___I___I___I No. of girls
I___I___I___I No. of boys
G. Enrolment of 
your school in 
primary section
I___I___I___I No. of girls
I___I___I___I No. of boys
N. Time started: |__|__| : |__|__|
H. No of grade 3
sections |__|__|
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 2
 H1 What is your position at this school?
☐ (1) Head Teacher
☐ (2) Deputy Head Teacher
☐ (-7) Other ____________
 H2 How many years have you been in this position?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
I___I___I Years
 H3 What is your highest academic qualification?
☐ (1) Ph.D
☐ (2) M.Phil
☐ (3) M.A / M.Sc
☐ (4) B.A / B.Sc
☐ (5) F.A/F.Sc
☐ (6) Matric
☐ (-7) Other ____________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
 H4 What is your highest professional qualification?
☐ (1) M.Ed / M.A Education
☐ (2) B.Ed
☐ (3) ADE
☐ (4) C.T
☐ (5) P.T.C
 ☐ (-7) Other ____________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
 H5 How many periods per week do you teach?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
I___I___I periods a week → If none, skip to H7
 H6
What class(es) do you teach?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Grade 1
☐ (2) Grade 2
☐ (3) Grade 3
☐ (4) Grade 4
☐ (5) Grade 5
☐ (-7) Other ____________
 H7
How many times you have received training in 
school management during the last year?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
I___I___I 
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 3
 H8
Have you received special training or taken courses 
that prepared you to implement a program in 
reading in the last two years?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If no, Skip to H10
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to H10
 H9
Who initiated this training?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Education Department
☐ (2) I initiated it
☐ (3) PRP
☐ (4) Other Project / donor / NGO
☐ (-7) Other _______________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
 H10
In the last 2 years, have you supported teachers in 
teaching reading in Urdu?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H11
In what ways did you support teachers in teaching 
reading in Urdu?
 H12
Are you satisfied with the reading performance of 
the students who just started Grades 3 AND 5 in 
your school?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H13
How satisfied are you with the reading 
performance of students who just started Grade 3 
in your school?
☐ (1) Very satisfied → Skip to H15
☐ (2) Somewhat satisfied → Skip to H15
☐ (3) Somewhat dissatisfied
☐ (4) Not at all satisfied 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to H15
H14
What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with 
the reading performance of Grade 3 students in 
this school?
_______________
Information about the school
H15 What is the exit level of the school? 
☐ (1) Primary
☐ (2) Middle/elementry
☐ (3) High
☐ (4) Higher Secondary
H16 How many teachers teach primary classes? I___I___I teachers
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 4
H17
Of those, how many teach Urdu in the primary 
grades?
I___I___I teachers
H18
How many of these Urdu teachers have received 
specific in-service training on teaching reading?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
I___I___I teachers
H19
Do your teachers have scripted lesson plans
available for teaching reading?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → Skip to H21
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to H21
H20 How often are these lesson plans used?
☐ (1) Never
☐ (2) Every two weeks or less
☐ (3) 1-2 times per week
☐ (4) 3-4 times per week
☐ (5) Daily
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H21
In your school, who is responsible for observing 
teachers in their classroom?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) No one → Skip to H23
☐ (2) Head teacher / school leader
☐ (3) Deputy head teacher
☐ (4) Government Academic Supervisor
☐ (5) Other government official
☐ (6) Mentor
☐ (7) PRP project staff
☐ (-7) Other ________________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to H23
H22
In the previous academic year, about how often
were Grade 1 and 2 teachers observed in their 
classrooms?
☐ (1) Never
☐ (2) One time
☐ (3) Two times
☐ (4) Three times
☐ (5) Four or more times
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 5
H23
About how often did you provide classroom￾based coaching to Grade 2 teachers in your 
school in last year?
☐ (1) Weekly (or almost weekly) → Skip to H25
☐ (2) 1-2 times per month → Skip to H25
☐ (3) Less than once per month → Skip to H25
☐ (4) Rarely or never
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to H25
H24
Why didn’t you provide classroom-based 
coaching to Grade 2 teachers in your school last 
year?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) I don’t have time
☐ (2) It is not part of my job requirements
☐ (3) I don’t know how to
☐ (4) The teachers don’t listen to me
☐ (-7) Other ________________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H25
How do you know whether grade 2 students are 
progressing in reading?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Classroom observation
☐ (2) Monitor learners’ results on tests or 
assessments given by teachers
☐ (3) Evaluate learners orally myself
☐ (4) Review learners’ assignments or homework
☐ (5) Teachers provide me with progress reports
☐ (-7) Other _______________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H26
Who provides textbooks to the students?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Ministry of Education
☐ (2) School (via independent funds)
☐ (3) Parents (individually)
☐ (4) School committee or board
☐ (5) PRP / IRC / USAID 
☐ (6) Other NGO 
☐ (-7) Other _____________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H27
In the 2018-19 academic year, did you have 
reading work books for all students in Grade 1?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H28
In the 2019-20 academic year, did you have
reading work books for all students in Grade 2?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 6
H29
Do teachers at your school use any language 
other than the medium of instruction for reading 
lessons?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → Skip to H31
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to H31
H30
What other language(s) do teachers at your 
school use during reading lessons?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) English
☐ (2) Urdu 
☐ (3) Sindhi
☐ (4) Pashto
☐ (5) Punjabi
☐ (6) Balochi
☐ (7) Seraiki
☐ (8) Hindko
☐ (9) Brahui
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
H31 Does your school have an active PTA / SMC / 
PTSMC / PTC?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → Skip to H33
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to H33
H32 Are the PTA / SMC / PTSMC / PTC involved in any 
reading-related activities?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H33 Is there clean drinking water available in the 
school?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H34 Does the school have functioning electricity?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H35
Does your school have functioning student toilet
facilities?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → Skip to H37
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to H37
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 7
H36
(If boys and girls are in the school) Does the 
school have separate toilet facilities for girls?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H37 Does the school have a playground?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H38
Is there a sealed/paved road leading up to the 
school?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H39 Is the school infrastructure generally safe?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No 
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H40 Does the school have a library or classroom 
libraries?
☐ (1) Yes 
☐ (2) No → Skip to H44
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to H44
H41 If yes, for students, teachers, or both?
☐ (1) For students 
☐ (2) For the teachers
☐ (3) For students and teachers
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H42 Do teachers have a scheduled library time for their 
classes?
☐ (1) Yes 
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
H43 Are students allowed to take library books home?
☐ (1) Yes 
☐ (2) No
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
Pakistan Reading Project (for PRP Cohort 3 schools only)
 H44 Has your school been supported by the Pakistan 
Reading Project (PRP)?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → Skip to H53
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to H53
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 8
 H45 Have you received training(s) related to the 
Pakistan Reading Project (PRP)?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → Skip to H48
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to H48
H46
How helpful did you find the PRP training in 
improving your ability to support reading instruction 
at this school?
☐ (1) Very helpful → Skip to H48
☐ (2) Helpful → Skip to H48
☐ (3) Somewhat helpful
☐ (4) Not very helpful
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to H48
H47 In what ways could the PRP training have been 
improved?
_______________
 H48
To what extent is the PRP model being 
implemented in your school today: to the fullest 
extent, to some extent, or to very little extent?
☐ (1) To the fullest extent / completely → Skip to
H50
☐ (2) To some extent / partially
☐ (3) To very little extent / not at all
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to H50
H49
Why isn’t the PRP model being fully implemented in 
your school today?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Not enough reading and learning materials
(RLM)
☐ (2) Not enough training
☐ (3) Lack of oversight or external support
☐ (4) Model is not very effective
☐ (5) Curriculum changed due to COVID closures
☐ (6) Different project is being implemented now
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 9
 H50
Which components of PRP are the most likely to 
continue at this school over the next few years?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Use of teacher guides / lesson plans
☐ (2) Use of student work books
☐ (3) Classroom-based coaching
☐ (4) Teacher Inquiry Groups
☐ (5) In-service teacher trainings
☐ (6) Classroom libraries
☐ (7) Emphasis on phonics
☐ (8) Continuous learner reading assessment
☐ (9) Engagement of school governance 
structures (PTA, PTC, SMC, PTSMC) in 
reading
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
 H51
Which components of PRP are the least likely to 
continue at this school over the next few years?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Use of teacher guides / lesson plans
☐ (2) Use of student work books
☐ (3) Classroom-based coaching
☐ (4) Teacher Inquiry Groups
☐ (5) In-service teacher trainings
☐ (6) Classroom libraries
☐ (7) Emphasis on phonics
☐ (8) Continuous learner assessment
☐ (9) Engagement of school governance 
structures in reading (PTA, PTC, SMC, 
PTSMC) in reading 
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
 H52
Why do you think [H51] is unlikely to continue at 
this school over the next few years?
_______________
H52a
Has PRP conducted any activities in this school or 
community aimed at improving community-based 
support for reading?
☐ (1) Yes 
☐ (2) No → Skip to H53
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response → Skip to H53
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 10
H52b
What types of activities has PRP undertaken to 
improve community-based support for reading?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Training/capacity building of school 
 governance structures (PTA, PTC, SMC, 
 PTSMC)
☐ (2) Community-Managed Reading Grants
☐ (3) Reading fairs/festivals/melas
☐ (4) Reading competitions
☐ (5) Parental engagement/training on the 
 importance of reading
☐ (6) SMS-based engagement of parents
☐ (-7) Other ___________________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no response
For each activity below [selected in H52b], please indicate how effective you found the activity to be in tangibly 
improving community-based support for reading: very effective, effective, somewhat effective, or not very effective
[Enumerator: tick only one box for a given activity].
Activity
Very 
effective 
(1)
Effective (2) Somewhat 
effective (3)
Not very 
effective (4)
No 
response 
(-8)
H52c Training/capacity building of school 
governance structures ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
H52d Community-Managed Reading Grants ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
H52e Reading fairs/festivals/melas ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
H52f Reading competitions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
H52g Parental engagement/training on the 
importance of reading ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
H52h SMS-based engagement of parents ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
H52i Other ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
For each activity marked as “not very effective” in H52c- H52i, in what ways could the activity have been 
improved?
Observer / coach Ways to improve activity:
H52j [If H52c = (4) Not very effective] Training/capacity building of school 
governance structures
_______________
H52k [If H52d = (4) Not very effective] Community-Managed Reading 
Grants _______________
H52l [If H52e = (4) Not very effective] Reading fairs/festivals/melas _______________
H52m [If H52f = (4) Not very effective] Reading competitions _______________
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 11
For each activity below [selected in H52b], please indicate how effective you found the activity to be in tangibly 
improving community-based support for reading: very effective, effective, somewhat effective, or not very effective
[Enumerator: tick only one box for a given activity].
Activity
Very 
effective 
(1)
Effective (2) Somewhat 
effective (3)
Not very 
effective (4)
No 
response 
(-8)
H52n [If H52g = (4) Not very effective] Parental engagement/training on 
the importance of reading _______________
H52o [If H52h = (4) Not very effective] SMS-based engagement of parents _______________
H52p [If H52i = (4) Not very effective] Other _______________
COVID-19 / closing
H53 Did your school close down this year (2020) 
because of COVID-19?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → Skip to H61
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to H61
H54 For how many months did your school close due to 
COVID-19 (do not count normal scheduled 
closures)?
(Enter -8 for don’t know / no response)
I___I___I months
H55 While your school was closed due to COVID-19, did 
the school continue to support students in any 
manner?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → If no, skip to H57
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to H57
H56 In what specific ways did the school continue to
support students in reading?
_______________
H57 Has your school had any formal policies for making 
up for lost instructional time due to COVID-19?
☐ (1) Yes
☐ (2) No → Skip to H60
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer → Skip to H60
H58 Since the re-opening, what formal policies has your 
school adopted to make up for lost instructional 
time due to COVID-19?
(Mark all that apply)
☐ (1) Remedial classes outside of school
☐ (2) Remedial tutoring outside of school
☐ (3) Accelerated learning in school
☐ (3) Modified curriculum
☐ (4) Extra home-based activities
☐ (-7) Other: ____________
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
Pakistan EGRA –Head Teacher Questionnaire: English | Page 12
For each activity below [selected in H52b], please indicate how effective you found the activity to be in tangibly 
improving community-based support for reading: very effective, effective, somewhat effective, or not very effective
[Enumerator: tick only one box for a given activity].
Activity
Very 
effective 
(1)
Effective (2) Somewhat 
effective (3)
Not very 
effective (4)
No 
response 
(-8)
H59 How helpful do you think [H58] has been in helping 
to make up for lost instructional time: very helpful, 
helpful, somewhat helpful, or not very helpful?
☐ (1) Very helpful
☐ (2) Helpful
☐ (3) Somewhat helpful
☐ (4) Not very helpful
☐ (5) Too soon to tell
☐ (-8) Don’t know / no answer
H60 Are there any other things your school has done to 
help students cope with COVID-19? _______________
H61 In your view, what is the most important thing that 
the government and donors can do to help
improve pupil reading performance at this school?
_______________
Thank you for your participation! You have been very helpful.
Time ended: I___I___I : I___I___I