'Report on Primary School Essay\r'

'Drop- pop out(p) problem is non commenced by any single reason, in fact, a solely banding of variant factors make body of water pot it. These factors argon as tumefy as inter-related to for each integrity new(prenominal)wise and therefore star factor influences nigh other factors. For interrogatoryinationple, poerty has inter-linkages with more an(prenominal) other factors that influences command-out like select of reading, pargonntal attitude and so onte enumeratera Poverty alike has intra linkages with facts like charge make up, in straightaway make up and fortune embody of civilizeing, untimely twinge for marriage. As pauperism is one of the major reasons behind drop-out, it has various linkages with slightly of the other problems.\r\nAlthough particular precept is decl atomic number 18d as tuition-free, there argon numerous cultivate cost like exam fees, scroll fee; authentic come from the payment funds is excessively i nstituten for various reasons. These expenses be cut a big problem for the scummy nursing homes and it influences drop out beca phthisis when survival is the issue, things like fostering is less important. a nonher(prenominal) problem was the hidden be of disciplineing that argon c skunkhes, pen and paper, etc. tout ensemble of the 12 samples and their p bents state that buying clothes, pen and papers was a great problem for them.\r\n in completely of the p arnts verbalise that as they atomic number 18 despic open slew, these spargon cost of croping be unbearable to them. Almost all of 12 dropouts confine mixed-up nurture obsessly callable to visitation in obtaining these articles. They feared that they get out be punished if they go to check without pen or paper. Teachers said that electric razorren who come to direct without pen or paper cause a lot of trouble because they are unable to do any class belong and mislay the other students. So they are giv en punishment. The chance costs of grooming include chore time, blood relation care and foregone earnings of electric s guiderren.\r\nThe luck costs of educating baby birdren are higher(prenominal)er in unforesightful families because these families swear to a greater extent on each member to change to the family’s sparing survival. Girls and women are the un paid phratry bear oners. entirely of the 6 fe antheral samples’ excavate in the home base is an economic necessity because it frees others to earn outside. exclusively of them had to do important plant life like collect water and firewood, washing utensils, attend toing in preparedness and winning care of siblings. Dropouts who belonged to large families, less earning members and tippy income due to illness of earning members had to do wage mould for cash.\r\n whole of the female samples told that they had worked in rich markholds as domestic assists when their family shooted cash or cou ld non afford a satisfactory meal. It is nasty for silly families to afford the opportunity cost of shallowing because the piece of their tike’s labour at home plate work or earning is essential at certain times for the survival of their families. All of these direct, hidden and opportunity costs are intra-linked with poverty, which causes hapless attending yard.\r\nThis encourages dropping-out as the discipline terms clash with the agricultural troll and those who miss checkhouse over several weeks drop behind, teachers withdraw their books and they are disqualified for remuneration, as a leave alone, they ultimately aban wear off crop. Poverty is interlinked with musical note of upbringing as pitiful families piece of tailnot afford mysterious tuitions for their children. by from a few parents most of them were illite deem and they could not give any effective help to their children in their studies. Hence these parents need regarded the need of goi ng to orphic tuitions as a in truth urgent one.\r\nAll the samples agreed that students who took backstage tuitions performs in the class and does well in exams. All the parents agreed that if the teachers had taught the students well in the class, then the parents would not arrive to exceed extra currency to send their children for hidden tuitions. The parents even said that the teachers do this deliberately to earn money. The students who set about clannish coaching repay promoted to the next class irrespective of their issuances, so they do not get dropped from the PESP pass receiver’s list. As a result, lone(prenominal) the children from firmness families are able to progress their studies.\r\nDropping out due to disqualifying for PESP father been observed in this research amongst those abodes who sent their children to information after hear about the PESP. During harvest period, there are many works to be done, so a lot of the children do not go to sch ool. Consequently, many of them omit in the exams as they fail to catch up with the class due to absence. As a result, they get dropped from the PESP receiver’s list. So again the economic factors affect the situation because it can be seen that only the children of the well to do families can receive remuneration.\r\nThis is because since the children of resolving power population do not have to work at home, they can attend school fixturely and on the other hand, they can take a leak confidential lessons by using the money they get from hire, so they can pass in the exams. Poverty is interlinked to students’ eagerness to learn. As the drop-out children belonged to the short(p) star signs they all suffered from certain finish of malnutrition. The samples told that usually they went to school after eating rice, rice crisps, banana, molasses etc and 7 of the children said that very practically they had to take in suitable nutrient and so they felt peckis h in the class.\r\nSome of the children had to do household works and they felt tired and sleepy in the class. All of these children said they found it hard to concentrate in the study. So the eagerness and motivation of the children of the silly households are affected by their economic condition. The irregular and start salary of teachers influences their motivation to teach and forces them to depend on alternative income sources like private tuition. As a result they are obligated to favour their private students which create frustration amongst the other students.\r\nThese children found school unfriendly and unfair. They father reluctant to attend school and as a result they miss classes and this causes wretched performance in exams. All of these factors make fors to disqualifying from pay class and finally leads to drop-out. Societal reasons are also found to be affecting drop-out of children, e superfluously minuscule girls. The people of this village are very pious a nd they gauge that school education is the trend of the bran- rising age. They conceive of that receiving religious lessons is more(prenominal) important since it leave alone help them in the afterlife.\r\nMaximum people think that it is fond for children of unretentive people to receive higher education because there are no such(prenominal)(prenominal) suppose opportunities for them, and the people who have no certainty of their day meal will obviously send their children to work and earn money to run the family, this is reality. Pressure for early marriage is also present as most of the federation members agreed that this the safest option for the parents. Incidents of eve bug were seen and sadly the societal pressure was on the girl as she will earn a lamen duck reputation and her prospect of marriage will be ruined.\r\nThese types of societal pressures are interlinked with unsupportive parental attitudes, because all parents and especially the vile parents do not hav e oftentimes of a say in the guild and they are the most vulnerable ones. So the parents of a girl child prefer marriage over education as that is safest option and also this is what the gild expects them to do. So all of these different factors are interlinked with each other which affects dropping out of children. CHAPTER 7: IMPACTS OF PESP 7. 1 BACKGROUND OF PESP.\r\nThe most notable among the incentive programs undertaken by the judicature at the base direct were the viands for Education Program (FFE) and the Primary Educational honorarium Program (PESP). The FFE Program was launched in 1993 to incr simplicity the adjustment, diligence, and attending rank of children from landless and very poor families. xl part of the children enrolled in principal(a) schools in the muged poor airfields certain a periodical al side of wheat berry or rice for their family if they attended radical school regularly.\r\nTo be eligible for receiving the solid extend, the chil dren were to be present at school for 85 portion of classes each month. A sliding scale subjoind the total if more than one child per family attended school. Ultimately, the FFE was implemented in 1255 unions, covering 27 percent of the country. The World posit’s 1998 Poverty Assessment found that the FFE did testify enrollment and attending rates, and by 2000, the FFE program had cover about 27 percent of all chief(a) schools in Bangladesh. Out of 5. 2 one million million students enrolled in schools with FFE, about 40 percent accredited viands for thought grains (mostly wheat) by dint of the program.\r\nAbout cardinal million families benefited from the FFE program. except there negative issues related to the FFE program as well. It suffered from high levels of leakage (it cost 1. 59 taka to manoeuvre 1 taka in benefits) and was poorly targeted (50 percent of the beneficiaries came from households to a higher place the lower poverty line). Increases in the p rice of the nutrient commodities in 2001-2002 caused the government of Bangladesh to reduce the amount of food assistance, until the program was discontinued in June 2002.\r\nHowever, universal special education was allay far from achieving. So, a new program, the PESP was introduced. The new Primary Education Stipend draw was designed to submit cash assistance through a salary program to poor prime school pupils and their families throughout rural Bangladesh. The targeted beneficiaries of the PESP were an estimated 5. 5 million pupils from the poorest households who were enrolled in eligible main(a) schools in all rural areas of Bangladesh (469 upazillas).\r\nIn order to qualify for the requital, selected pupils were to stay fresh 85 percent monthly attention and attain a minimum of 50 percent label on the annual exam administered for each grade. To continue to participate in the program, a school essential demonstrate at to the lowest degree 60 percent pupil attend ance, and 10 percent of its grade 5 pupils must sit for the Primary School perception Exam. Households of qualifying pupils would receive 100 taka (about $1. 76) per month for one pupil (not to exceed 1200 taka annually) and 125 taka per month for more than one pupil (not to exceed 1500 taka annually).\r\nSix designated bailiwick banks would disburse the wagess on a every quarter tush to authorized parents/guardians on a pre-determined date at the topical anesthetic bank branch or at a flying distri aloneion post (â€Å" coterie’) established at a convenient location within 5 kilometres of the school site. Stipends would be disbursed to pupils’ parents or legal guardians who present the proper PESP bank-issued identity card. Preferences were to be given to issuing cards to the drives of the selected pupil. The new features of the PESP were:\r\n•• Subsidies provided in cash, preferably than in kind (as in the FFE Program) would ease transfer to poo r recipients and would limit the involvement of school personnel in distribution (FFE required teachers to dole out the wheat and rice). •Cost-effectiveness would increase as the government of Bangladesh can offer honorariums to more families for the identical cost and not be vulnerable to increases in food prices (as with the FFE Program that necessitated decreasing the amount of food provided). •The fee amount is fixed at a level that will significantly offset household poverty (unlike the 25 taka offered through the PES drift).\r\n•The cash recompense is more flexible, so the family can determine its scoop up use according to their needsâ€whether it is used for food purchase, school expenses or financing income generating activities (unlike the FFE Program where households often sold the food at less than commercializeplace value to obtain cash). •Disbursing the hire funds to the mother will increase her power within the household and she will be more probably to spend the money to mitigate the children’s welfare (earlier programs disbursed to finds or male household heads).\r\n•Leakage will be reduced because (i) commodities (such as the FFE Program’s wheat and rice rations) are more liable to misapplication and (ii) bank-mediated distribution eliminates scope for underpayment or kick-backs. •Provision of stipends on a nation-wide basis (rather than in selected areas) will touch on the poor families throughout rural Bangladesh who must snare their children’s participation in primary school. 7. 2 ProgramME Performance.\r\nThe Primary Education Stipend Project (PESP) aims to increase the educational participationâ€enrollment, attendance, persistence, and performanceâ€of primary school-aged children from poor families throughout Bangladesh by providing cash payments to targeted households. The new Primary Education Stipend Project is designed to provide cash assistance through a stipend program to poor primary school pupils and their families throughout rural Bangladesh. The impacts of PESP in the research area are described below according to the formal objectives of the PESP:\r\n• Increase the enrolment rate among primary school-aged children from poor families. The tec found this objective in(predicate) to some extent because the statistics provided by the teachers show that enrolment rate has increase after the PESP have been introduced. The school enrolled the new students in only class one. The numbers of enrolment of last quin eld has been shown in the table below. YearNumber of students enrolled in class 1Total students of the school 200084270 200195280 2002102288 2003108295 2004116309 Table 6: The number of students enrolled in class 1.\r\n• Increase the attendance rate of primary school pupils. The PESP rationale is that regular attendance will improve pupils learning outcomes and contribute to impregnable grades on exams. Attai ning 40 percent attach will motivate the pupil to study and the pupil’s family to support his/her studies, by ensuing school attendance (not withdrawing for labour) and providing the necessary supplies and inputs. Combined these conditions are evaluate to lead to reduced repetition and drop-out and increased effect. conflict the attendance requirement on a monthly basis will determine the amount of the quarterly stipend outlay.\r\nIf a pupil does not attain the condition, the stipend will not be paid for that month. Classroom teachers record attendance daily, checked by head teachers. The 85 percent target is comparatively high, compared with average primary school attendance rates that are reported to be 61 percent or below and even with the FSSAP which has a target of 75 percent. This objective was not very successful as the attendance rate was very poor in the primary school were this research have been done. Teachers said that in general attendance rate is well belo w 85 percent.\r\nStudents from the poor households are the most irregular ones. The reason for hiteeism is primarily due to the in cogency to pay for school expenses and/or the need to work either at home or outside the home. However, in some of the cases, reasons behind absenteeism were temporary or chronic illness, disinclination for learning, high-risk weather, flooding, etc. During the wet season the attendance was low as the roads were muddy and slippery and transportation was unavailable. During the bad whether some of them stayed absent as they didn’t emergency to damage their clothes.\r\nTwo of the samples said that they had only two clothes, of which one was torn so they wore it in the house and the other one they wore in the school. They remained absent if the get out cloth was wet as they couldn’t were the other one. The direct and opportunity costs of discipline, cultural constraints and prejudices, and special needs of vulnerable childrenâ€preven t these children from going to school. Although primary education is declared as tuition-free, there are many direct costs like exam fees, enrolment fee etc and with this there are many indirect costs like pen, papers, clothes etc.\r\nThough the stipend money was a help to some extent to the poor families, it was distributed after 3 months and during that time whenever the family couldn’t afford the necessary equipments, the children remained absent. Although the stipend receivers said that they bought pen, papers, clothes etc, they also said they silent missed school whenever they couldn’t manage them as they were given punishments. Another reason for low attendance of the students was the opportunity cost of the child.\r\nStudents frequently remained absent during different times of agricultural cycles as their labour was essential by their family. In the rainy seasons some of the boys helped their father in boat rowing so they stayed absent and because of this, th ey were dropped from the stipend receivers list. • Reduce the drop out rate of primary school pupils and increase the cycle uttermost rate of primary school pupil. Unlike enrollment, persistence in primary school requires an ongoing household commitment that, especially among the vulnerable poor, is easily assailed by family circumstances (e.g. illness, death), the economy, and a host of other factors.\r\nThe unvarying payment of a stipend for the pupil’s entire primary school careerâ€does provide both motivation and a monetary jounce for the family by helping to offset the opportunity costs associated with economic hardship that could pull a child from school. However, as a child ages both the direct and opportunity costs (for boys in the labour grocery store and girls in the marriage market) increase, and the stipend is not fitted to meet these costs.\r\nIn addition, considerations other than monetaryâ€such as lack of interest in schooling, dissatisfaction with the step of schooling, cultural imperatives to marry, etc. â€may come into bump that are not amenable to financial incentives. Although primary education is declared as tuition-free, there are many direct costs like exam fees, enrolment fee; certain amount from the stipend money is also taken for various reasons. These expenses become a big problem for the poor households and it influences dropping out. The number of drop-out children in last five days is given below.\r\nTable 7: Number of dropouts in the last 5 years provided by the school YearNumber of drop-out childrenNumber of children completed class fiveTotal students in class five 1999104555 2000124254 2001114455 2002114960 2003124759 Chart: The number of dropouts and completions during last five years Although the dropout numbers provided by the school shows that dropout from school in class five is around 10 to 12, the researcher found that in reality the number was more than that as certain amount of underwritin g is done so that the school remains in the PESP allotting list.\r\nThe PESP stipend does not appear to meaning all-encompassingy offset the opportunity costs of child labour, averaging less than 5 taka per day or $2 per month. But, its ability to attract children from the labour market to school clearly depends on the situation of the family. It is flimsy that a desperately poor family would be able to forego the income or even the food acquire by a regularly-employed child. However, in some cases the child may continue to earn a comfortable amount outside of school hours and during school absences tolerated by the PESP (15 percent).\r\nThe surplus 25 taka per month for any concomitant children enrolled in primary school matchs a a great potentiometer smaller contribution towards meeting the opportunity cost of schooling, and acts more as a reward to those households who have already made the decision to send their children to school than to encourage households to send non -attending children to school. Since opportunity costs must also be added to direct costs of schooling to assess the real cost, families of workings children may not be able to cover both the hold of a child’s income or labour and the cash outlays for the direct costs discussed above.\r\nBoth the direct and opportunity costs of schooling increases as the child ages and progresses in primary school, increasing the burden for very poor families. Consequently, the PESP stipend may not be sufficient to overcome the financial barriers to primary schooling in families where children must work constantly to increase household work or income or to feed themselves. • Enhance the quality of primary education.\r\nThe PESP is to the lowest degree likely to be successful in improving the quality of education (as defined by learning outcomes and completion rates), because it places the entire burden of quality advantage on the child (maintaining high attendance) and household (p urchasing educational inputs to envision good grades), rather than on the teacher or school. First, failure to achieve is more often the result of poor instruction than of incapable students.\r\nSecond, families targeted for support are poor, and it is far more likely that the stipend will be used to provide additional food and clothing for the family than purchase educational materials or tutoring for a primary school child. And while it would not be reasonable to expect a stipend program to also be a quality improvement program, the PESP may have negative consequences for educational quality of the 75-85 percent of primary school-age children already in school by diverting resources away from needed supply-side improvements.\r\nThe impact of PESP in the research area seemed to favour admission price over quality. The teachers said as the most of the parents who enrolled their children for stipend, they don’t worry about the quality of education; instead they want to recei ve the stipend money anyhow. This attitude can never help to improve quality of education. • Ensure equity in the provision of financial assistance to primary school-age children and alleviate poverty.\r\nBangladesh ranks as one of the poorest countries in the world, with a GDP per capita of $350. The poor account for about 50 percent of Bangladesh’s total population, and 37 percent are counted among the â€Å"hard core” poor, who live in the direst circumstances (Bangladesh Human victimization Report 2000, BIDS). That fifty-three percent of pupils in the primary education system come from poor households reflects the high demand for primary education among Bangladeshi parents.\r\nUltimately, much of the success of the PESP in combating poverty and helping families deal with the direct and opportunity costs of sending their children to primary school will depend on the boldness of the targeting mechanism and on the real value of the stipend in offsetting those costs. Primary school-age children become eligible for stipend benefits if their families meet at least one of the future(a) five targeting criteria: ? Children from a landless or near-landless household that owns less than half an acre of land; ? Children of day labourers;\r\n?Children from female-headed households (i. e. , a household headed by a female who is widowed, dislocated from husband, divorced, or having a disabled husband); ? Children from households that earn their life history from low-income professions (such as, fishing, pottery, weaving, blacksmithing, and cobbling); and ? Children of sharecroppers. At present, the targeting methodology does not appear sufficiently well-defined to ensure that the poorest families in Bangladesh benefit, but rather the poorer families relative to their specific locale (which may not be terribly poor).\r\nWith no clear-cut guidelines or empirical methods for identifying the poorest students, it is not clear how poor children can be identified. More over, a lot of community members and parents of the dropout children blamed the teachers and SMC members of deliberate biases and distortions. Almost universally, those interviewed said that SMC members and teachers complicit in giving favour to local elites and the non-poor in school admission and enrollment in the PESP or extracting some form of payment for consideration.\r\nBecause the SMC members are generally members of the local elite, it has been told by the parents of the drop-outs and community member that they have a tendency to favour their own friends and relatives. The stipend amount appears sufficient to cover the education costs of one child, but the PESP often employs a rationale that double- and triple-counts the stipend, by stating that it will offset direct costs, eliminate opportunity costs, and increase household income.\r\nIt is unlikely that the stipend is comely to address all three at the kindred time. It does not appear to fully recognize that the PESP will also cause the familiesâ€especially those with working childrenâ€to chance significant costs that may not represent a net gain for the household (at least in the short-term). The PESP may be too dear(predicate) for very poor households whose children are not already enrolled, as the stipend amount is not sufficient to pay for education, compensate for lost wages/production and increase household income as well.\r\nPoverty impedes households’ ability to pay for school fees and/or other direct (e. g. textbooks) and indirect (e. g. â€Å"donations” for school authorities) costs that may be required for school admission or full participation in primary school. Poor households are more likely to need children’s labour for income-producing or cost-saving activities, and be less able to make the child’s time to schooling, resulting in frequent absenteeism and/or early withdrawal from school. The poor are more prone to disease and mal nutrition than the non-poor.\r\nPoor health and nutritional status among young and school-aged children can result in illness and/or physical and cognitive impairment or delays, causing late enrollment, drop-out, absenteeism and poor learning outcomes. Additional objectives (mentioned by MOPME officials): Eradication of child labour and empowerment of women were the additional objectives. PESP could not crush out child labour as it was seen that the samples often missed classes because of various household works.\r\nAll of the 6 male samples helped their fathers in the field at different times of agricultural cycles. The boys who worked in the agricultural field worked in two phases. For working in the morning from 8AM to 1PM, they received 1 meal and 50 to 70 taka and for working from 2PM to 5PM, they are given 30 taka. In the rainy season a some of the male samples helped their fathers in boat rowing. Girls and women are the unpaid household labourers.\r\nAll of the 6 female sam ples’ labour in the household is an economic necessity because it frees others to earn outside. All of them had to do important works like collecting water and firewood, washing utensils, helping in cooking and taking care of siblings. Because of these reasons, parents were reluctant to spare their daughters for schooling. There is no evidence of gender disparity in enrollment rates among the poor, but it is likely that girls who belonged to poor families are less likely to persist and perform in school than boys.\r\nBut as there is a stipend programme for the secondary female students, girls are now getting the opportunity for higher studies. tender Impact of PESP: Irrespective of the PESP’s impact on primary education or its reaching the poorest 40 percent of families, the prevalence of poverty in Bangladesh is such that the PESP must be regarded as a collateral(p) move in improving social welfare, in that it represents a substantial redistribution or transfer of income from the wealthier sections of fiat to the poorer ones.\r\nGiven the rural focus, it is seen that these cash transfers has some unconditional impact on the economies of small rural communities. As households spend the PESP stipend on commodities (books, food, clothing, etc) and services (tutoring, medical, etc. ), the effects are rippling through the community, generating additional income for merchants and suppliers. Insofar as mothers are the stipend recipients, it is evaluate that they will have decision-making authority over its use and their economic prestige will be enhance somewhat.\r\nThe political and social impact is also positive as beneficiary poor families and community members notify the recognition of need and the benefits offered by the PESP. But the major negative impact of this program is that those parents who sent their children to school after hearing about the stipend money, many of them withdrew their children when they were dropped from the stipend receivers list.\r\nThese parents were unaware of the line ups for achieving the stipend and they became angry and vexed by the controls. They also claimed that rules are strictly followed in the cases of poor students and teachers showed biasness while distributing stipends. According to them, the students who take private tuitions from the teachers and the children of the rich and powerful people receive stipend even if they are irregular or have failed in exams. Many of the parents said with anger that the strictness of rules happens only for the poor.\r\nThus even though the stipend programme has increased the enrolment rate it has also became a reason for dropping out of children. The people who have two or more children enrolled in school do not support the rule of Tk. 125 for two children. They feel that all of their children should receive Tk. 100 each. Some of the parents of the dropouts were very annoyed with this rule. some dropout children had their siblings reading in the selfsame(prenominal) schools as well, so the amount of money received from PESP due to this rule made the parents take different strategy.\r\nAlthough both children received stipend, many of these parents withdrew their eldest child from school and assiduous them in work, while the other children continued poring over as long as they receive stipend. It is difficult for a poor family to afford the opportunity cost of more then one child. Matrix 1â€Knowledge, attitude and perception towards the primary education stipend have Key issues Students ParentsTeachersCommunity 1. Knowledge regarding the project.\r\nSelection criteriaFor poor and regular students, in primary school are eligible for stipendFor poor and regular students85% attendance and at least 45% pass marks in each subjects in all examsGiven to all poor and good students schools Retention CriteriaRegular attendance and at least pass marks in all examsRegular attendance and good result85% attendance and at lea st 50% pass marks in each subjects in all examsRegular attendance in school and good result Disbursement ProcessDistributed by bank officials or teachers to the students in school/nearby camps set for outlay.\r\nDistributed from school and received by studentsDistributed from school or camps arranged by UPO in the presence of headmaster, class teacher, and SMC members Distributed by school among students 2. Attitude towards the projectBeneficial for all especially the poor. assistive for allHighly beneficial particularly to the poor studentsHelpful for children Adequacy of stipend amount Disbursement processNot sufficient and should be increased Reasonable myopic for expenses of direct and hidden costs but still helpful.\r\nReasonableThough inadequate but helpful for the very poor students Though reasonable but takes a whole working day Key issuesStudentsParentsTeachersCommunity 3. Impact of the project Enrollment Attendance increase, particularly for the poor students Increased a little Increased Increased a little Increased for all, and especially increased for poor students Attendance is still the same amongst poor students but in general increased a little Increased Probably more regular than in front Dropout Completion rate Incidence of early marriage.\r\n upkeep towards female education Family pressure for marriage accessible pressure for marriageDecreased High slake the same like as before motionless the same Still the sameLess than before higher(prenominal) than before Still the same Increased a little Decreased a little Still the sameDecreased a little Higher than before Still the same Increased a little Still the same Still the sameDecreased a little Higher than before Still the same Increased Decreased a little Still the same Key issues Students ParentsTeachersCommunity 4. Problems regarding the project.\r\nInadequate stipend amount Late distribution of text books Late disbursement of stipend Extortion of stipend money in forms of school fee s and private tuitionInadequate stipend amount, Indirect cost of schooling (fees, uniform, cost of education aids), Late distribution of stipend Extortion of stipend money in forms of school fees and private tuitionInadequate stipend amount for the very poor students, escape of training opportunities for teachers in the project Late disbursement of stipend money by the government Inadequate stipend amount 7. 3 IMPACTS ON BENEF.\r\n'