RESEARCH STUDY ON COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTRES IN MYANMAR · PDF fileRESEARCH STUDY ON COMMUNITY...
44
RESEARCH STUDY ON COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTRES IN MYANMAR December 2013 Triangle Social Studies Group
Transcript of RESEARCH STUDY ON COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTRES IN MYANMAR · PDF fileRESEARCH STUDY ON COMMUNITY...
RESEARCH STUDY
ON
COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTRES IN MYANMAR
December 2013
Triangle Social Studies Group
Contents:
I. Introduction
II. Profile of the research study
III. Findings of Phase I survey
IV. Phase II In-depth analysis – Analysis of CLC experiences
V. Management and operation of CLCs
VI. Linkages and networking of CLCs
VII. Policy and guidelines
VIII. Sustainability
IX. Outputs and outcomes
X. Community participation and ownership
XI. Major findings
XII. Recommendations
Annexes
Acronyms
APPEAL Asia and Pacific Program of Education for All
BCLC Burma Central Literacy Committee
CESR Comprehensive Education Sector Review
CLC Community Learning Centre
DBE Department of Basic Education
DMERB Department of Myanmar Education Research Bureau
EFA Education For All
FGD Focus Group Discussion
HDI–E Human Development Initiative–Extension-Education
KII Key Informant Interview
MEC Myanmar Education Consortium
MC Management committee
MLRC Myanmar Literacy Resource Centre
MMCWA Myanmar Maternal and Child Welfare Association
MOE Ministry of Education
MOIC Ministry of Information and Communication
NFE Non-Formal Education
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
TEO Township education officer
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational Social and Cultural Organization
I. Introduction
a. Background of the study
This research is conducted by Triangle Social Studies Group (TSSG), with support from Myanmar
Education Consortium, to study and analyze community learning centres (CLCs) in Myanmar. The
research mainly studies the CLCs supported by the Ministry of Education, with a certain level of analysis
on other types of CLCs.
Objectives of the Study
The research aims to study the process of CLC implementation in Myanmar, identify strengths and
weaknesses, and, thereby, to inform the future planning process. The report is also intended to provide
recommendations on a range of options for education reform for the Education Plans to be included in
CESR Phase Three.
Additionally, the study tries to address cross-cutting issues such as gender, ethnicity and other
vulnerabilities, disaggregating data as far as possible and analysing how policies, programmes, practices,
organisational processes and institutional structures impact different groups and individuals.
b. National Context
The Republic of the Union of Myanmar is situated in the South-East Asia and the largest country in
mainland South-east Asia. With the Bay of Bengal in the South, the country has common borders with
Bangladesh, India, China, Laos and Thailand. Myanmar is a member of ASEAN. Total land area is 677,000
sq km with the population of 60.38 million (2012 estimated). Per capita GDP estimated in 2009 is 1596
USD. The citizens have right to choose their religion whereas Buddhism is the majority of 89.4%
followed by Christianity 4.9%, Islam 3.9% and the rest. Main occupation of the country is agriculture
65.4%, service sector 20.6% and industrial 14%.
c. Background of Education System
The vision for education in Myanmar is to create an education system that can generate a learning
society. The Ministry of Education (MOE) holds primary responsibility for all forms of education in
Myanmar. The 2008 Constitution and 1973 Basic Education Law affirm rights to free access to basic
education.
Around these laws, a 30-year Long Term Education Development Plan was developed in 2001. A plan for
the implementation of Education for All (EFA) activities was developed in 1996 and the Education for All
National Action Plan was developed in 2003, of which Non-Formal Education was a crucial part.
Modes of education services delivered in Myanmar can be broadly categorized into two ways: formal
and non-formal.
Formal education
Department of Basic Education (DBE) and Department of Higher Education (DHE), under the MOE, are
mandated for the implementation of formal education in Myanmar. The basic education system is
composed of primary school (5 years), middle school (4 years) and high school (2 years) as follows
(Table. 1).
Table. 1
Basic Education Higher Education
Age 5+ to 9+ 10+ to 13+ 14+ to 15+ 1 to 4 years (Arts and Science Universities)
1 to 5 or 6 years (Vocational and Institutes) Grade 1 to 5 6 to 9 10 to 11
Primary Middle High
Though the formal education system covers the entire country, resource constraints as well as other
challenges such as a high level of poverty have put a strain on its effectiveness in Myanmar, particularly
in rural areas. As quoted in a report by UNESCO1, less than 30% of students completed the five year
cycle of primary education in Myanmar in 1991. Further investigation by the report indicates that,
though some improvements are found, “5% of the age group will not enrol in the first grade and
probably 25% of the pupils will drop out before they reach the fifth grade with, generally, an insufficient
level of education to stay fully literate”.
Official statistics in 2012 show significant improvements as almost 95 percent of the population is
literate. However, primary education remains challenging as about 20% continues to drop out before
completion in 2009-10 academic year2. According to UNESCO, universal access, equity, quality, internal
and external efficiency and physical conditions of education contributed to the challenges whereas
poverty is the underlying reason.
In part to alleviate the challenges, non-formal education was introduced as a way to promote literacy
rate and quality of life in Myanmar.
Non-Formal education
Traditionally, monasteries, given their large footprint throughout Myanmar, have been a major service
provider for non-formal and life-long education. However, it was almost impossible for women and girls
to access monastic education3. Weak infrastructure and quality of delivery system were additional
challenges posed on delivery of non-formal education.
1 Myanmar: the Community Learning Centre Experience, Jørn Middelborg (edited byBaudouin Duvieusart), Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and
Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, 2002. 2 Lifelong Learning For All Through CLCs, U Hla Win and U Lynn Myint, 2012
3Myanmar: the Community Learning Centre Experience, Jørn Middelborg (edited byBaudouin Duvieusart), Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and
Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, 2002.
Systematic approach to non-formal education was introduced in Myanmar since post-independence in
part to fill the formal education gap and to ensure continuous learning, with the Department of
Myanmar Education Research Bureau (DMERB) designated as a focal agency. In Myanmar’s context,
non-Formal Education (NFE) refers to any organized educational activity outside the structure and
routine of the formal school system to provide selected types of learning to sub-groups in the
population, especially out-of-school youths and adults.
The origin of the concept dates back to 1948 when literacy campaigns were launched to improve the
level of literacy in Myanmar. In 1968, the movement was expanded to cover functional and skills-based
literacy programmes. DMERB, in 1993, launched the Development of a Non-Formal Functional Literacy
System in 6 townships, which aims at bringing literacy, life and learning skills to the out-of-school
population.
With Education For All (EFA) programme introduced in 1990s at a nation-wide scale, DMERB adopted
community learning centre approach to ensure a mixture of literacy and community development
initiatives at the village/ward level.
Community Learning Centres (CLCs)
As mentioned above, Community Learning Centres (CLCs) were introduced in 1995 in order to ensure
continuous learning and community development, largely for out-of-school populations, with the
concept "By them, With them, For them."
The first project was piloted in 1995 in 11 townships, 5 in Shan, 3 in the Dry Zone and 3 in the Delta,
with support from UNDP and UNESCO. Under the project, 31 CLCs were set up to provide non-formal
education and community development services mostly in the rural areas where access to education is
low and poverty is prevalent.
The project was then replicated in other areas with similar profiles, ideally avoiding weaknesses and
utilizing strengths. According to the statistics in 2012, there are just over 3,000 CLCs across Myanmar. In
principle, DMERB and MLRC4 hold primary responsibility for overall implementation of CLC whereas
township education officer are designated to provide a practical oversight on CLCs within their
jurisdiction (as in fig. 1). TEOs then report to DMERB on the CLCs’ activities and impact.
4 Myanmar Literacy Resource Centre (MLRC) was set up in order to support DMERB in its implementation of non-
formal education programmes.
Fig. 1
As a proper review of these CLCs has been limited, their effectiveness and impact are yet to be
comprehensively understood. This study aims at filling this gap by reviewing CLCs’ implementation
model, focussing on its set-up process, management, operation, accessibility and sustainability.
For this research, an operational definition for CLC is adopted from APPEAL training materials,
developed by UNESCO as follows.
A CLC is a local educational institution outside the formal education system, for villages
or urban areas, usually set up and managed by local people to provide various learning
opportunities for community development and improvement of people’s quality of life.
(APPEAL, 1995)
II. Profile of the Research Study
The study draws on existing research and reports on CLCs in Myanmar, a quantitative survey as well as
in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders. Research questions are informed by the review of
secondary data and preliminary meetings with primary stakeholders including DMERB and MLRC.
Designing the questionnaires and determining the sampling, through a purposive method, also built
upon the quantitative data collected through a CLC fax/phone survey conducted by the Myanmar
Education Consortium (MEC) in September 2013. Qualitative data were collected through in-depth
interviews and focus group discussions with township education officers, CLC management committee,
CLC users, etc.
To ensure potential gaps coming out of in-depth interviews and small group discussion, an observation
check-list was developed for the enumerators to double-check and triangulate the interview findings.
Findings are then coded into different themes and analyzed through a descriptive method to inform the
recommendations.
Scope of study
The phase 1 survey was conducted in 11 states/regions by fax or phone through which township
education officers answered questions on the number of CLCs, existence or non-existence of
management committee, activity, volunteer, teacher etc. Responses were received from 63 townships
and it covered total of 544 CLCs. The sampling for the phase II in-depth analysis was conducted based on
the findings in phase 1. The survey was conducted from September to October 2013. The detail of study
areas is as the following (Table. 2):
Table. 2
State/Region No. of CLC
Ayeyarwady 222
Bago East 67
Bago West 68
Chin 49
Kachin 11
Kayah 8
Kayin 5
Magway 28
Mon 42
Rakhine 24
Yangon 6
Unknown 14
Total 544
The phase 2 research study covers 11 states and regions, 18 townships and 44 villages. Altogether 44
CLCs were visited (as in fig. 2). The research study was conducted from 25 October, 2013 to 20
December, 2013. Field data collection took 15 days, from 20, November, 2013 to 4 December, 2013.
The detail of study areas is as the following (Table. 3):
Table. 3
# State/Division Township Number of
CLC
1 Chin Tedim 1
2 Bago East Yay Dar Shay 3
3 Bago Bago 2
4 Bago West Pan Daung 4
5 Yangon Thanlyin 2
6 Kayah Loikaw 3
7 Mon ThanByuZayat 4
8 Mon MawLaMyaing 2
9 Kayin Pha-An 2
10 NayPyiTaw ZaBuThiri 2
11 NayPyiTaw PoteBaThiri 1
12 Mandalay Kyauk Pa Daung 3
13 Ayeyarwaddy Nyaung Don 3
14 Ayeyarwaddy KyaungKone 3
15 Yangon SeikkyiKhanaung To 2
16 Mandalay MaharAungMyay 2
17 Magway PaKhoteKu 4
18 Chin MinTap 1
Total 11 18 44
Fig. 2, Study area map
III. Phase I CLC survey
Findings of phase I
The survey indicates that a large number of CLCs (406 centres or 75%) have permanent buildings or
attached in other permanent structures such as community buildings, monasteries and church while the
remaining 25% are operated in temporary locations (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3
In terms of human resources, almost 70% of the CLCs have management committees and less than 50%
of the CLCs have volunteers and paid staff (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4
Library is identified as the main resources in most of the CLCs whereas some CLCs have other facilities
such as regular electricity or generator, play area, toys, etc. (as in Fig. 5).
Fig. 5
The study finds that majority of the CLCs studied are not open on a regular basis with a few percentage
(less than 15%) operate on a daily basis (as in Fig. 6).
Fig. 6
Both financial and technical support to CLCs is found to be minimal. Only 30% of CLCs reported to have
received support from government or UN/NGO/private donors while other 70% of the CLCs did not
receive any kind of support (as in Fig. 7).
Fig. 7
According to the survey, most of the CLC run basic literacy training while some CLCs implement, along
with the basic literacy training, vocational trainings such as sewing, agriculture, income generation
program trainings, ECCD, health discussion and social development (as in Fig. 8).
Fig. 8
IV. Phase II In-depth analysis - Analysis of CLC experiences
Overall account of CLCs
According to the findings, CLCs studied in this research can be broadly categorized into two forms by
their locations and/or mode of operation: library or other forms of CLC (located in schools,
administration offices, religious buildings, etc.). It should be noted that some of the former are
supported partly by Ministry of Information and Communication. In other words, the type of operation
varies from one to another as many CLCs operate as basic library while a few number of them run basic
literacy programs and other activities such as income generation programme, vocational trainings and
educational talks such as health promotion. Currently, less than 10% of the studied CLCs have the
operation of basic literacy program which normally takes place once a year and lasts approximately one
month.
Most of the CLCs visited are located in the rural areas. The findings also indicate that 20 out of 24 CLCs
once operational have already stopped operating. To date, only 4 CLCs have programmes on basic
literacy or post literacy which takes around one month on a yearly basis. The remaining CLCs no longer
have basic literacy or other programs and are at present operating as libraries. The process of CLC
establishment is not clear to more than 75% of the interview respondents and members of the
communities perceive CLC as a library where people can read. The following graph (Fig. 9) explains the
number of functioning CLC in each state/region out of total CLCs observed.
Fig. 9
Of all the CLCs where this research is conducted, most of them are located in village libraries while a few
are attached to village administration office and other community buildings. Some CLCs do not have any
building or structure designated for its activities. The types of CLC building could be observed in the
following graph (Fig. 10).
Fig. 10
Not many CLCs are observed to operate on a daily basis. Only 8 CLCs had operation on daily basis while
15 others had run a few days in a week. 16 CLCs are also observed to have never operated (Fig. 11)
Fig. 11
V. Management and operation of CLCs
Management committee
Only 50% of the CLCs are found to have management committees. Membership is voluntary but, in
some villages, as appointed by village administrator. In general, committee members include village
administration members, leaders of the community, school teachers and representatives of the local
NGOs such as Myanmar Maternal and Child Welfare Association, Women Affairs Association, Auxiliary
Fire Brigade etc. Committee members usually manage the day-to-day operation of library and those of
some CLCs make efforts to raise awareness on other CLC activities.
More than 80% of the interviewees responded that the approach of setting up the CLCs was highly top-
down with no or few financial and technical support at the time of establishment. In some cases, 65% of
the existing community-based libraries were transformed into CLC though the process was largely
believed to be superficial. Around 75% of the CLCs reported that monitoring visits by concerned officials
are rarely conducted. From one TEO’s side, management of CLC is not clear to him and he does not have
clear instruction on managing the CLCs. Therefore, he said that it is difficult for him to prioritize CLC
management against his other tasks.
In a few villages (less than 10% of the villages visited), township education officers take a lead to
conduct basic literacy programs in summer holidays, mostly mobilizing formal school teachers for the
trainings.
More than 90% of the CLCs visited are observed to be not capable of supporting themselves in running
their programs. Capacity of the management committee members to run the CLC activities or to sustain
the CLCs is found to be weak. 41% of the CLCs visited were identified to have received support from
UN/INGO/DMERB and other private donors while the other 59% had not received any support from any
source. The CLCs studied to have operated in the past or are now currently operating had received some
kind of support such as trainings for management committee, trainings and incentives for teachers,
teaching and reading facilities etc. from the mentioned sources g (as in Fig. 12).
It is found in the study that CLCs in urban area or rural CLCs with short distance to urban areas had
received better support in terms of technical or financial support from different sources such as
education department, local NGOs, INGOs etc. Rural CLCs with limited access to urban areas are
observed to have received almost no support from such sources. As in the case of Chin state and in Bago
division, the rural CLCs in Bago division are easily accessible and compared to the rural CLCs in Chin
state which are remote and not easily accessible, had received supports from different sources.
Fig. 12
In many visited sites, teachers are recruited on a voluntary basis whereas teachers in the villages
covered by UN/INGO/private donors are provided with a salary around 10 USD (10,000 kyat) per month.
Criteria for the recruitment include the interest of the candidates in teaching without strictly taking into
account the qualification background. In some villages, school teachers (4 teachers in the study) are
reported to volunteer at CLC for basic literacy program, where no volunteers can be mobilized.
Gender
Culturally, gender equality is always a question in Myanmar where men are customarily regarded higher
in terms of status. Several reports (Nwe, 2013, Tofani, 2014)on gender equality in Myanmar indicate
that, in most organizations as well as community-based groups, either higher participation of men in the
management committees are found or senior management (or the role of decision making) is held by
male members. This finding is also validated by this study as most of the management committee
members are usually male. In more than 90% of the cases, village administrators generally take the role
of chairperson of the committee. On the other hand, teachers, who are in many cases part of the
management committee and most CLC users, are found to be female.
Accessibility
CLCs in most of the villages are located in easily accessible sites, many of which are attached to, or are
village library and some are attached to village administration office. The overall findings indicate that
people are reluctant to some extent to access CLCs located at the village administration office given the
political background of Myanmar. Despite that, the location of the CLCs in most sites is accessible to all
types of people including disabled.
Members of the community are also aware of the presence of CLC and its activities in the village.
However, irregular operation and limited activities of CLCs had contributed to a low level of interest
among the members of the community where they exist. In other words, basic literacy programme had
been a major activity for drop-outs and illiterates and, thus, could no longer cater the interests of
potential users.
VI. Linkages and networking
The CLCs that have linkage and network with other organizations and associations had benefitted in
terms of technical or financial support from the network they have. For example, in Yay Dar Shay
Township of Bago region, a sewing machine was donated to the CLC through Myanmar Maternal and
Child Welfare Association. As in the CLCs supported by UN/INGOs, trainings, salary and basic facilities
were provided. Some villages that have a close linkage with officials from the government departments,
particularly MOE and MOIC, and/or other associations have received support such as books and learning
materials, sometimes through third-party donors. Since many of the CLC management committees,
studied in this research, comprised members of other associations and local NGOs, these members
could also mobilize resources, including knowledge and skills that they gained from their associated
organizations. However, this type of multiple memberships has also led to difficulty in allocating time for
CLC management committee as such.
The findings, but, suggest that the linkage and network of CLCs with government department or
governmental organizations is weak in many villages which are remote or not easily accessible.
VII. Policy and guidelines
The concept of CLC “For them, with them, by them” has been the overarching strategy for the CLC
implementation in Myanmar. Though successive policies cover NEF in a broad sense, no clear policy and
guidelines have been clearly developed for CLC implementation. Despite the operational guidelines
developed by DMERB and MLRC, the concept of CLC remains vague among the stakeholders including
the implementing agencies and supporting organizations. In addition, many of the township education
officers and CLC management committees interviewed reported that they are not informed that there
are guidelines available.
In practice, CLCs, though aimed at ensuring the nation-wide literacy and community development, are
yet to gain a momentum at the policy-making level.
VIII. Sustainability
Well-sustained CLCs with different activities are almost non-existent. Only a handful of CLCs are
currently operating basic literacy programme once a year as mentioned elsewhere in this report and
most of the other CLCs that are currently functioning continue as libraries with insufficient facilities.
There is very high dependency of CLCs on external support. The findings indicate that, once the supports
stopped, CLCs and their activities gradually ceased to exist.
As mentioned above, some CLCs are established through a top-down approach with a sense of
ownership hardly given to the community. In such a situation, without any technical or financial support
from external sources, communities are unable to sustain the operation. In most cases, management
committee members do not receive any training with regards to CLC operation. In addition, most CLC
management committees are not knowledgeable as to where they should seek support in case of
necessity.
IX. Community participation/ownership
Even though community members are involved in the process of CLC establishment from the beginning,
the concept was not clearly introduced to them. As mentioned above, the process was highly top-down
and, in most cases, not voluntary. It is, in fact, similar to the traditional practice in which village
administrators called upon the community members and asked them for their participation.
Nevertheless, most of the management committees, interviewed by the research team, expressed their
willingness to contribute to the development of their respective communities. However, this willingness
is not nurtured in an effective manner in terms of CLC programmes as many management committees
are found not to have a sense of ownership. The findings also indicate that a large majority of the
community members do not perceive that the CLCs belong to them. This can be partly because the
communities are not consulted when the CLCs were initiated and decision making is highly bureaucratic.
X. Major findings
Qualitative findings through interviews and observation indicate certain differences from the Phase I
survey that covered 544 CLCs across the country. The discrepancies are found mostly in types of
building, activities, CLC working time and so on. While the general analysis of the survey broadly
provides an impression that over 90% of the CLCs are functional, this is not in fact reflected in the
qualitative findings. Only 54% of the CLCs visited either run as a library or have already stopped
programmes (Fig. 13).
Fig. 13
In general, the CLCs studied in this research appear to be managed by a bureaucratic nature, in which
prominent personalities within the communities take decisions. In most cases, village administrators
take up the role of chairman or patron in the committees. Such practice is not favourable for the
concept that steer CLCs “By them, with them, for them”. Inclusiveness and gender equality were not
duly addressed in most cases.
At the absence of the capacity building programmes for management committees, no significant
initiatives, such as, in CLC operation, activities and establishing network have been taken. Even though
township education officers are ideally designated to support CLCs in their respective areas, lack of
proper guidelines and instructions make them difficult to accomplish this particular function. Even at the
national level, no specific policy is in place to properly institutionalize CLCs and provide support to them.
All in all, CLCs, if effectively functional, are perceived to be useful in the communities, benefitting not
only the school drop-out populations but also general community members though impact is hard to be
measured.
A brief account on major strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the CLCs studied is
mentioned below.
Strengths
Members of the community that were visited see the CLC model and its activities meet the needs of the
community to a large extent. CLCs had proven to have catered the needs of the school drop-outs and
illiterate people to continue their education. The CLCs are viewed as effective model to carry out non-
formal education to meet the needs of different audiences: children, youth and adults to gain learning
opportunity from basic literacy to vocational trainings, income generation programs and other better
life programs.
CLCs had served as a good learning centre where needy people could access the activities suited to their
needs. It also contributed towards positive changes in the community.
Weaknesses
Insufficient resources are found to be a major weakness. Only the CLCs that received supports from
UN/INGO/governmental organizations could operate to some extent. Without clear guidelines, facilities,
technical and financial supports since from the initial stage of the establishment of CLCs, they could not
implement any of the CLC activities without external support.
Management committees lack capacity to run the CLC activities successfully. Training on managing CLCs
is not available to the committees that, at the practical level, oversee the CLC operation. Coordination
among CLCs, government departments and other stakeholders is low. Most CLCs could only conduct
basic literacy classes which can no longer attract people. CLCs could not initiate other programs that
could satisfy the needs of the community members who are in need.
Opportunities
A need for improvement of CLCs remain in many visited areas since most visited CLCs are in need of
capacity building and technical support on managing and monitoring of CLC activities. Community
leaders and management committee members are motivated to revitalize the CLCs that were once
operational. Potential CLC users indicate that they are willing to receive vocational trainings such as
income generation programs and livelihood trainings. The perception of the community, government
officials at the township level and other stakeholders towards CLC is also positive. CLC model is
perceived to be a good means to satisfy the education needs of the community.
There is a political will on revitalization of CLCs to perform non-formal education activities according to
CESR phase I consolidated report. There also has high interest of international organizations to
collaborate with DMERB to establish CLCs countrywide.
Threats
Given the difficulty to run the CLCs by the communities alone without external support, it is necessary
for the government or UN/INGOs in revitalizing once-operational CLCs or establishing new ones. If it was
done so, there is a potential risk of high dependency of CLCs upon the supports unless proper
sustainable plan is extensively considered. It could also have negative effect on the original concept of
CLC, “for them, by them, with them”.
According to the experience of the once-operational CLCs that are stopped, staff turnover in the
township and village administration triggers the discontinuation of the CLC. For example, former village
administrator implemented CLC in the village but failed to handover to the later. Success or failure of
CLC in a village also depends on the interest of village administrator or influential community member
on the CLC implementation.
XI. Recommendations
It is necessary to develop a comprehensive national CLC policy to institutionalize the CLCs and support
their activities, also clarifying the role or position of CLCs under the non-formal education framework.
Such policy can also help focal government agency to have a clear concept of CLC. This policy should also
help clarify allocation of resources and manpower, supporting and monitoring the CLC implementation,
providing technical support to stakeholders.
Many of the findings highlight the need to strengthen the focal institution. DMERB is so far focal agency
for NFE, covering CLCs. However, limited resources have hampered DMERB in both planning and
implementing CLCs. This should be addressed by allocating more resources to DMERB or organising a
dedicated section under DMERB to take charge of NFE activities including CLC implementation.
Given the overall limited education budget, DMERB will still need resources from outside. To this end,
space should be given to United Nations agencies, non-governmental organizations and civil society
groups to get involved in NFE and CLC planning and implementation. A mechanism should be put in
place to ensure effective coordination among government departments, UN, NGOs and civil society
group. This set-up should also be clearly included in the proposed policy framework.
DMERB should take a lead to review and revise guidelines and frameworks in consultation with all
relevant stakeholders including community representatives.
The findings in this research indicate that CLCs could not sustain without intensive support, it is
necessary to provide technical and financial support for the CLCs until fully operational and sustainable.
At the same time, cautions should be taken to liberate the CLCs from too much dependency on the
supports.
Some CLCs have stopped their activities as basic literacy training is no longer a need and implementing
other activities is not possible due to lack of resources. Revitalizing these CLCs through introduction of
other CLC activities including functional trainings should be considered.
TEO role should also be promoted in monitoring and supporting the effective implementation of CLCs.
The involvement of TEO in CLC operation, from the experience of the research study, had contributed
the successful implementation of CLCs. TEO can help with the quality of teaching in township level CLC
implementation.
CLCs that have linkage or network with governmental organizations, local non-governmental
organizations or other agencies received to some extent of support and thus, such linkages and network
should be enhanced among the stakeholders. In addition to this kind of linkage and network, promoting
network among CLCs of different villages in the same township, should be nurtured. From such kind of
network, CLCs can benefit by learning from each other.
In many visited CLCs, needs of empowering and strengthening the capacity of committee members,
teachers have been identified. This process should be done through capacity building trainings and
recognizing the efforts of the members as well as to some extent of incentive.
As learned from the experience of the CLC operation, participation of community members is crucial for
regular or sustainable operation of CLCs, community participation should be encouraged through
community advocacy. Certification, accreditation and recognizing the trainings should be considered to
arouse the interests of the community in CLC activities.
The role or position of management committee members should be more decentralized. Ordinary
members of the community should also take suitable roles in the management committee so as to raise
the level of sense of belonging of the ordinary community members.
References:
1. APPEAL training materials for continuing education personnel (ATLP-CE), UNESCO, Bangkok, 1993.
2. Basic Education Law, 1973.
3. CESR phase1 (Rapid Assessment) final Consolidated Report, March/April 2013.
4. CLC Management Guidebook, UNESCO.
5. Community Learning Centres: Country Reports from Asia, UNESCO, 2008.
6. Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2008.
7. Lifelong learning for all through CLCs, U Hla Win and U Lynn Myint, Resource person's paper, Regional Conference on Community Learning Centres (CLCs), 26-28 September 2012, Bangkok, Thailand.
8. Myanmar Country Report, Regional Conference on Community Learning Centres, 31 August to 3 September 2011, Bangkok, Thailand.
9. Myanmar: the Community Learning Centre Experience, Jørn Middelborg (edited by Baudouin Duvieusart), UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, Bangkok, 2002.
10. Gendered Spaces: Women in Burmese Society, Than Than Nwe, 2013.
11. Provision of Continuing Education in Myanmar, U Myint Han, 1999.
12. Strengthening Community Learning Centres through Linkages and Networks: A Synthesis of Six Country Reports, UNESCO Bangkok, 2007.
13. The Myanmar Child Law
14. Women 'Invisible' in Myanmar, Tofani. R. Inter press service news agency, 2014.
Annexes:
1. Tables of phase I survey 2. Phase I Survey Questionnaire 3. Tables of phase II in-depth analysis 4. Phase II questionnaires and observation checklist 5. Phase II list of respondents
Annex 1. Tables of Phase I survey:
Table 1 - Type of CLC Building
State/Region No. of CLC Temporary Building Community
Building Monastery Church Others
Ayeyarwady 222 58 116 14 9 1 23
Bago East 67 13 38 0 4 0 12
Bago West 68 11 51 0 0 0 5
Chin 49 19 16 1 1 4 6
Kachin 11 0 11 0 0 0 0
Kayah 8 1 6 0 0 0 1
Kayin 5 0 5 0 0 0 0
Magway 28 0 15 0 0 0 0
Mon 42 4 38 0 0 0 0
Rakhine 24 3 9 0 1 0 1
Yangon 6 1 3 0 1 0 1
Unknown 14 2 11 1 0 0 1
Total 544 112 319 16 16 5 50
Table 2 -Management and staffing status of CLC
No. of CLC Management Committee Paid staff Volunteers
Ayeyarwady 222 167 5 122
Bago (East) 67 14 0 1
Bago West 68 68 1 20
Chin 49 35 0 2
Kachin 11 5 0 5
Kayah 8 8 0 3
Kayin 5 5 0 0
Magway 28 5 0 5
Mon 42 41 0 36
Rakhine 24 22 0 10
Yangon 6 3 0 2
Unknown 14 7 1 4
Total 544 380 7 210
Table 3 - Facilities presence in CLC
No. of CLC Library Toys Play Area Electricity Generator
Ayeyarwady 222 173 16 16 21 42
Bago (East) 67 53 4 6 25 10
Bago West 68 46 16 35 21 6
Chin 49 29 0 8 15 3
Kachin 11 11 5 5 4 5
Kayah 8 8 0 0 7 0
Kayin 5 5 5 5 4 1
Magway 28 15 0 0 2 0
Mon 42 36 0 0 26 0
Rakhine 24 24 0 1 5 4
Yangon 6 4 0 0 1 0
Unknown 14 7 0 0 4 1
Total 544 411 46 76 135 72
Table 4 - CLC working times
No. of CLC Everyday Once a week
Once a month
Sometimes Not Sure
Ayeyarwady 222 40 65 36 46 23
Bago (East) 67 6 24 16 14 6
Bago West 68 9 10 23 11 0
Chin 49 1 22 0 5 19
Kachin 11 11 0 0 0 0
Kayah 8 0 5 0 3 0
Kayin 5 0 0 0 0 0
Magway 28 0 13 0 0 2
Mon 42 5 25 5 6 0
Rakhine 24 0 10 12 2 0
Yangon 6 2 0 3 1 0
Unknown 14 3 2 2 0 7
Total 544 77 176 97 88 57
Table 5 - Support received by CLC
No. of CLC Government UN/NGO/Private donors
Ayeyarwady 222 5 61
Bago (East) 67 5 5
Bago West 68 0 5
Chin 49 20 13
Kachin 11 0 0
Kayah 8 0 2
Kayin 5 0 0
Magway 28 0 5
Mon 42 0 36
Rakhine 24 1 0
Yangon 6 0 2
Unknown 14 1 1
Total 544 32 130
Table 6 - Type of activities in CLC
No. of
CLC
Basic Litera
cy
Sewing
Mechanic
Agriculture
IGP traini
ng
Health discussi
on
Pre-school / ECC
D
Social developm
ent
Others
Ayeyarwady 222 110 1 0 13 3 41 17 40 16
Bago (East) 67 27 1 0 1 3 32 0 7 2
Bago West 68 23 0 0 6 4 27 17 4 3
Chin 49 19 0 0 8 1 2 7 2 7
Kachin 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0
Kayah 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
Kayin 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Magway 28 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mon 42 41 0 0 0 3 36 24 24 1
Rakhine 24 19 0 0 12 13 17 13 21 0
Yangon 6 3 1 0 0 2 3 1 1 0
Unknown 14 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 1 0
Total 544 252 3 0 41 29 168 91 100 29
Annex 2. Phase I Survey questionnaire
State / Division: Name of TEO:
District: Contact Number: Phone / Fax:
Township: Date completed:
Please answer the following for your CLC
CLC Name
Date Established
1 Where is the CLC Located (Tick the correct option)
Temporary / no separate building
CLC Building
Community Building
Monastry
Church
Others
2 Does your CLC have a Management Committee
Tick YES or NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO
3 Does your CLC have paid staff to manage CLC activities
Tick YES or NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO
4 Does your CLC have volunteers to manage CLC activities
Tick YES or NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO
5 Does your CLC have (Tick the correct option)
Library
Toys for children
Play area for children
Electricity
Generator
6 What type of activities does your CLC have for adult learning? (Tick the correct option)
Basic literacy
Sewing / Tailoring
Mechanic
Agriculture
Income generation training
Group Discussion about health
Pre-school / ECCD
Social development
Others (specify)
7 How many times your CLC work? (Tick the correct option)
Every day
Once a week
Once a month
Sometimes
Not sure
8 Do you receive funds from government to support CLC?
Tick YES or NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO
9 Do you receive funds from INGO / UN / Local NGO / Private donors etc to support CLC?
Tick YES or NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO YES |
NO
Annex 3. Tables of phase II in-depth analysis
Table 1 - Number of total and functioning CLC studies
Total CLC Studies Total functioning CLC
Ayeyarwaddy 6 1
Bago East 5 1
Bago West 4 4
Chin 2 2
Kayah 3 2
Kayin 2 0
Magway 4 4
Mandalay 5 0
Mon 6 4
Nay Pyi Taw 3 2
Yangon 4 4
44 24
Table 2 - Type of CLC Building
No. CLC Temporary Building Community
Building Monastery Church Others
Ayeyarwaddy 6 0 2 2 0 0 1
Bago East 5 0 4 0 0 0 0
Bago West 4 0 4 0 0 0 0
Chin 2 0 0 2 0 0 0
Kayah 3 0 3 0 0 0 0
Kayin 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
Magway 4 1 1 2 0 0 0
Mandalay 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mon 6 0 4 1 0 0 0
Nay Pyi Taw 3 0 2 0 0 0 0
Yangon 4 0 3 0 1 0 0
Total 44 2 24 7 1 0 1
Table 3 - CLC Working Time
No. CLC Daily Days per
week Days per month
Sometimes Never Not sure
Ayeyarwaddy 6 1 0 0 0 5 0
Bago East 5 0 1 0 0 4 0
Bago West 4 4 0 0 0 0 0
Chin 2 0 2 0 0 0 0
Kayah 3 0 2 0 0 1 0
Kayin 2 0 0 0 1 1 0
Magway 4 0 4 0 0 0 0
Mandalay 5 0 0 0 0 5 0
Mon 6 0 3 1 0 1 1
Nay Pyi Taw 3 2 0 0 0 1 0
Yangon 4 1 2 1 0 0 0
44 8 14 2 1 18 1
Table 4 - Support received by CLC
No. CLC Government
support UN/NGO/PD
support(Current) UN/NGO/PD support(Past)
Ayeyarwaddy 6 0 0 1
Bago East 5 0 0 1
Bago West 4 0 3 4
Chin 2 0 0 0
Kayah 3 0 0 1
Kayin 2 0 0 0
Magway 4 0 0 0
Mandalay 5 0 0 2
Mon 6 0 0 1
Nay Pyi Taw 3 0 0 1
Yangon 4 0 2 2
44 0 5 13
Table 5 - Management, staffing and user status
No. CLC Committee Paid staff Teachers Volunteer User
Ayeyarwaddy 6 2 1 0 0 1
Bago East 5 0 0 0 1 1
Bago West 4 4 2 0 3 4
Chin 2 1 0 0 0 1
Kayah 3 2 1 0 2 2
Kayin 2 0 0 0 0 0
Magway 4 4 0 0 1 4
Mandalay 5 0 0 0 0 0
Mon 6 3 1 0 2 4
Nay Pyi Taw 3 2 0 0 1 2
Yangon 4 4 1 0 0 4
44 22 6 0 10 23
Table 6 - Other additional information
No. CLC Stationery Village mapping Toilet Disable friendly
Ayeyarwaddy 6 0 0 3 6
Bago East 5 0 0 3 5
Bago West 4 0 0 1 4
Chin 2 0 0 1 2
Kayah 3 0 0 3 2
Kayin 2 0 0 2 2
Magway 4 0 0 1 4
Mandalay 5 0 0 2 2
Mon 6 0 0 3 4
Nay Pyi Taw 3 0 0 0 2
Yangon 4 0 0 2 3
44 0 0 21 36
Table 7 - Facilities presence in CLC
No. CLC
Libra
ry
Toys
Play Area
Electricity
Generator
Books
TV VCD/DV
D
Furniture
Teaching
board
Others
Ayeyarwaddy
6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
Bago East 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0
Bago West
4 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 1
Chin 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Kayah 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Kayin 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Magway 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 0
Mandalay 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mon 6 4 0 0 4 0 0 2 2 4 0 0
Nay Pyi Taw
3 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0
Yangon 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 3 4 0 0
44 24 0 2 19 1 0 11 6 27 0 1
Table 9 - Type of activities in CLC
No. CLC
Basic Litera
cy
Sewing
Mechanic
Agriculture
IGP traini
ng
Health
Talk
Pre-school / ECC
D
Social developm
ent
Others
Ayeyarwaddy
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bago East 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bago West 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Chin 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kayah 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kayin 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Magway 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mandalay 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mon 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nay Pyi Taw
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yangon 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0
44 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 1
Annex 4. Phase 2 questionnaires and observation Checklist Questionnaires:
Questionnaire for TEO KII
Overall picture of CLCs
1. How many CLCs are there in this township? How many are rural and how many are urban?
2. What is the purpose of CLCs?
3. How many are functioning and how many are non-functioning? Why do you think some are
functioning and some are not?
4. Are there CLC Management committees? In which village and which CLCs?
5. What activities have been running in the CLCs? In your opinion, what activities are best to be
delivered through CLCs?
6. What is the curricula being used in the CLCs?
Roles and responsibilities
Supporting the operation of the CLCs
7. How do you recruit the teachers? What are the selection criteria to recruit the teachers? Probe about
gender preference, education level, residency, distance etc.)
8. What are the incentives to teachers and MC members?
9. Are there any supports (facilities/materials/books) to CLCs? If yes, what are the materials that your
department supports?
10. Are there any financial supports that your department support to CLCs? How much and how often?
11. What type of support does the government provide to the CLCs in your township?
12. Do you do any monitoring visits to CLCs? If yes, how often? what do you monitor during your visit?
How it is recorded and what is your follow up action?
13. Are there any technical supports (trainings/workshops) to the management committee? If yes,
please describe.
Supporting the quality assurance of CLCs
14. Do you supervise the CLC MC? How?
15. Do you have any meeting with the CLC MC?
16. What are the functions of CLCs? Is the committee working well or not?
17. Is there any training for CLC MCs? How often? What type of training?
18. Is there any training for CLC teachers? How often?
19. How do you control the quality of the teachers?
20. How do you think about the quality of teaching in CLCs?
21. Is there any exam after CLC users completed the CLC cycle?
22. Do the CLCs in your township have enough resources and facilities to function well?
(books, toys, structure, building, furniture, electricity, WASH etc.)
Networking with Government, NGOs etc. 23. What is your working relationship with education departments (MOE, Department of Myanmar
Education Research Bureau, and Myanmar Literacy Resource Centre)? E.g. reporting to MOE, trainings
on CLCs, supports from these departments, meetings, collaboration etc.
24. To support CLCs, do you interact with other government departments? If yes, please list them?
25. What type of support do you get from these departments for CLCs? (e.g. finance, material, technical)
26. Do you get any support from NGOs, INGOs, UN for CLC activities? Probe about the type of support.
Policy and guidelines
27. What are the guidelines and procedures to manage or supervise the CLCs?
28. If there are any guidelines, do they support the CLCs to meet the objectives?
29. According to the guidelines, are you required to have regular meetings with the CLC MC?
30. Do you know any policy regarding CLCs?
31. Is there any linkage between CLCs and formal education?
Outputs and outcomes 32. How much do you think CLC contributed to basic literacy, post literacy, equivalency programs,
income generation, and better life programs? Can you give examples specifically for each programs? Any
success story?
33. In your opinion, do you think CLC model is a good model for basic literacy, post literacy, equivalency
programs, income generation, and better life programs?
34. Is the curriculum suitable to meet the needs of the community?
35. Are there any specific programs targeted to girls and women?
Challenges and recommendations
36. What are the positive things about CLCs in your township?
37. In your experience, can you give us some examples of the challenges that CLCs face?
38. Any lesson learned to improve the CLCs?
39. What is your recommendation for further development of CLCs?
40. As a TEO, what can you do to improve the effectiveness of CLCs in your township?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Questionnaire for CLC MC KII
Overall picture of CLC
1. When did the CLC start? (Stopped if non-functioning - When did it stop and why?
2. What is the purpose of CLCs?
3. What are the facilities (books, stationeries etc.) that you have in your CLC?
4. What are the current activities/programs of your CLC? Who is using which type of activities?
Breakdown by age group and gender.
5. Have the activities been running regularly? How often?
6. How many users have benefitted from your CLC activities so far? Please give estimation of age group
and different gender.
7. Is your CLC being used by disadvantaged population (physical disability, orphans, internally displaced
due to conflict or natural disasters?
Accessibility
8. Give details about each activity/program: basic literacy, post literacy, equivalency programs, income
generation, and better life programs?
9. What are the criteria for selection of CLC participants for specific activities/programs? (e.g. age,
working children, disability etc.)
10. Who can access the facilities/activities of CLC? Can any of the members of community access?
11. Do people need to pay to access the facilities/activities of CLC?
12. Any membership or registration required accessing the facilities/activities of CLC?
13. What time does the CLC open (morning, afternoon, evening)?
14. How much approximate percentage of users from your community is using CLC for various activities?
15. In addition to the government CLC, are there any other similar programs in your community? If yes,
give details (by whom, where etc.)
Roles and responsibilities
Operation of CLC
16. Please tell us how your management committee was formed? Any review of membership? How is
the election done?
17. What is the structure of your MC? Composition including gender.
18. What are the functions of your MC? (What do you do to support the operation of the CLC?)
19. Who takes the responsibility to open/close the CLC building?
20. Do you have regular meetings? Do you keep records (meeting minutes, financial record etc.)?
21. Are there any training for CLC MCs? How often? What type of training? From whom?
22. What do you do to make the community members aware of CLC activities? How do you encourage
members to participate in CLC activities?
23. Do you need to report to TEO about the progress of your CLC?
24. Do you have any meeting with TEO? How often?
25. Do you get any support from TEO (Education Department) or other government departments?
26. Do you get any support from NGOs, INGOs, UNs for CLC activities? Probe about the type of support.
27. How do you raise funds to support the operation of your CLC?
28. How much money is required to run your CLC and its activities? Where do you get this money from?
29. How does community support the CLC? (community contribution in terms of money, infrastructure,
land, materials, maintenance, payment to teachers etc.)
Quality assurance of CLC
30. How do you maintain the facilities of your CLC in proper working condition? What do you do to
improve the quality of the facilities?
31. What do you do to make sure the activities are running well?
32. How do you encourage the regular attendance of participants?
33. Have you involved in recruitment of teachers and participants? How?
34. What are the selection criteria of teachers?
35. Are there any trainings for CLC teachers? How often?
36. How do you control the quality of the teachers?
37. How do you think about the quality of teaching in CLCs?
38. What do you do to facilitate to upgrade the quality of overall services (teachers' quality, facilities,
materials etc.)?
39. Is there any exam after CLC participants completed the CLC cycle?
Policy and guidelines
40. Does your committee have any TOR by law? (any instruction or guideline from any government
department)
41. Is there any linkage between CLCs and formal education?
Functioning/operation
42. What makes your CLC functioning?
Or
What makes your CLC non-functioning? (if non-functioning)
Outputs and outcomes
43. How much do you think CLC contributed to basic literacy, post literacy, equivalency programs,
income generation, and better life programs? Can you give examples specifically for each program? Any
success story?
44. Have you noticed any changes in children and members of the community due to the CLC?
45. Is the curricula (Basic calculation, Myanmar, General education) suitable to meet the needs of the
members of the community?
46. How do you think about the perception of community members towards CLC? (acceptance,
resistance)
47. Are there any specific programs targeted to girls and women?
Challenges and recommendations
48. What are the strengths of the CLC in your village?
49. What are the challenges of the CLC in your village?
50. What is your recommendation for further development of CLC in your village?
51. What are the strengths of your committee?
52. What are the challenges of your committee?
53. How can you strengthen your committee? What can you do?
54. As a MC member, what will you do to encourage participation of the community in CLC activities?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Questionnaire for teacher - Individual interview
Basic information about CLC teacher
1. When did you start teaching in CLC?
2. What is your previous experience in teaching?
3. Are you resident of the community? If not, from where?
4. How did you become CLC teacher? What are the selection criteria to become CLC teacher? By whom?
5. Are you paid or voluntary? If paid, can you tell us your salary or any other incentives? Does
community support you in this regard?
Roles and responsibilities
6. What are your duties? Which particular subject/course/activity that you are responsible for?
7. How long do you need to work per day, per week? (Working hour)
8. Who is your supervisor?
Quality and relevance
9. Do you get any training for CLC? By whom? (Government department, UNs, NGOs, etc.)
10. Are there any materials (books, stationeries) available for you to perform your duties? Are those
sufficient?
11. Do you receive any support (finance, resources) form any government department/individuals?
Please describe the type of support.
12. Do you need to report (progress, situation, strengths, and challenges)? To whom? E.g. MOE, TEO,
CLC MC, etc.
13. What type of support do you get from CLC MC? Is that sufficient, effective?
Outputs and outcomes
14. Are the participants interested in CLC activities? If yes/no, why/why not?
15. Do participants attend regularly? If not, why not?
16. Are there any specific programs targeted to girls and women?
17. What are the changes that you can observe from the participants who attended/are attending CLC?
18. Are you satisfied with what you are supposed to do? Do you have difficulties in doing your job?
19. What is your overall opinion on your duty, workload, salary, incentive?
20. What is your opinion on the effectiveness of CLC?
21. Is your CLC being used by disadvantaged population (physical disability, orphans, internally displaced
due to conflict or natural disasters?)
Strengths, weakness and recommendations
22. What do you think are the strengths of CLC in this community?
23. What are the challenges of CLC?
24. What are your recommendations to improve the quality of CLC?
25. What kind of activities, curricula do you recommend to meets the needs of the community?
26. As a teacher, what will you do to encourage participation of the community in CLC activities?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Questionnaire for service users FGD
Overall picture of CLC
1. Do you know when the CLC started?
2. When did you start attending CLC?
3. What are the facilities (books, stationeries etc) that you can use in the CLC?
4. What activities/programs/courses are you attending in CLC?
5. Have the activities been running regularly? How often?
6. Do you know all the activities/programs of CLC?
7. How were you recruited to attend CLC? How did you become CLC student?
Accessibility
8. Is the CLC far/near to you? How long does it take for you to travel to reach CLC?
9. Is the opening hour compatible with your free time?
10. Is the CLC location safe, quiet, friendly?
11. Are you required to pay any fees to use the facilities in CLC?
12. Are you required to pay any fees to attend the activities/programs in CLC?
Roles and responsibilities
13. Do you attend the activities/programs regularly?
14. Are you able to manage to catch up the lessons at CLC?
Quality and relevance
15. What do you like about the CLC? (e.g. teacher, activities, programs, courses) how and why?
16. What do you dislike about the CLC? (e.g. teacher, activities, programs, courses) how and why?
17. Are you required to take any exam or test upon completion of CLC?
18. Does the committee help you with your learning process? How?
Outputs and outcomes
19. What would you do after completion of CLC?
20. Has anything changed for you after attending the CLC? Were you able to do something that you
could not do before? (e.g. reading skills, math, writing, communication skills, being able to get a job,
more interested in learning, gone back to formal school etc.)
21. What are the changes that you can observe from other students who attended/are attending CLC?
Strengths, weakness and recommendations
22. What activities, supports more do you want to get from CLC?
Annex 5. Phase II List of respondents
No. Location Name Position Gender Type
1 Township Education Office U NgintKhantKhwarl TEO Male KII
2 LoiTwee Village (Library) U PaungKhantHtan Libarian Male KII
3
Yay Dar Shay Township Education Office
U OhnMyint TEO Male
KII
4 U KhinMaungKyi ATEO Male
5 U Thet Tin ATEO Male
6 U KhinMaungShwe ATEO Male
7 U Tin Ohn ATEO Male
8 Naung Pin Thar Village (Yatha Pan Khin Library) Yay Dar Shay U Than Maung Village Administrator Male
KII
9 PadaukKhin Village(Library),
Yay Dar Shay
U HlaShwe Village Administrator Male
KII 10 U Soe Lay Committee member Male
11 U Tin Tun Committee member Male
12
War Taw Gyi (Library), Yay Dar Shay
U Ba Than Committee member Male
KII 13 U MaungOo Committee member Male
14 U Than Pe Lay Community member Male
15 U Shwe Toke Community member Male
16 Bago Township Education Office U Win Thein TEO Male KII
17 PhayarKalay Village, Pyinnyar Ah Lin Library, Bago
U MyintSein Village Administrator Male KII
18 DawKyi Aye Teacher Male
19
Kamar Nat Village, PyinnyarBeikman Library, Bago
U KoKoAung Village Administrator Male
KII
20 DawPhyuPhyuNaing Teacher Female
21 DawThidarSwe Committee member Female
22 Daw Yin YinHla Committee member Female
23 Daw Cho Mar Khin Committee member Female
24 Thanlyin Township Education
Office U KhinAungMyint TEO Male KII
25
KayinSeik Village (Library), Thanlyin
U Aung Win Village Administrator Male
Small Group
Discussion
26 DawThiThi Aye Teacher Female
27 DawKhin Than Oo Committee member Female
28 DawKyin May Committee member Female
29 Daw Kay Khine Win Committee member Female
30
Thu HtayKwin Village (Library), Thanlyin
U AungThein Village Administrator Male
Small Group
Discussion
31 Daw Tin TinHtwe Teacher Female
32 U San Oo Libarian Male
33 DawKhin Win Myint Committee member Female
34 Daw Ni NiKyaing Committee member Female
35 U MyintWai Committee member Male
36 Kyar Inn Village (BawaAlin
Library), Pan Daung
U Kyaw Win Village Administrator Male
Small Group
Discussion
37 U KyawLwin Libarian Male
38 Daw Aye Aye Mar Committee member Female
39 Daw Than ThanOo Committee Treasurer Female
40 Daw Mie Mie Committee member Female
41 Ma Thandar Win Committee member Female
42 Ma Yin New Oo Committee member Female
43
ThuYeTan Village (PanPyoKhin Library),
Pan Daung
U MyoSwe Village Administrator Male Small Group
Discussion
44 U Min Oo Teacher Male
45 KoAung Linn Htet Committee Secretary Male
46 Ko Nay AungKo Committee member Male
47
Htone Bo Town (ThakhinMya Library),
Pan Daung
U Soe Win Committee Chairman Male
KII
48 U SoeThein Committee Vice-Chairman Male
49 Ma The Ei Mon Libarian Female KII
50
Kyee Taw Village (CLC), Pan Daung
U SoeThein Committee Chairman Male
Small Group
Discussion
51 U ZawNaing Win Committee Secretary Male
52 DawMyintHtay Teacher/Committee Treasurer Female
53 Daw Aye Aye Mon Committee member Female
54 DawKhinHtay Committee member Female
55
Kyee Taw Village (CLC), Pan Daung
HtetHtetKhaing Grade 9(14 yrs),KyatPyo Village Female
Small Group
Discussion
56 Aye ThetKhaing Grade 9(15 yrs),KyatPyo Village Female
57 Win TheingiAung Grade 9(13 yrs),KyeeTaw Village Female
58 TayZa Linn Grade 8(12 yrs),KyatPyo Village Male
59 Kyaw Min Thu
Grade 8(12 yrs),YayTwinHla Village Male
60 Pan Daung Township Education
Office DawMyaMya Aye TEO Female KII
61 HtayTha Ma Village (Youth Club/Library), Loikaw
U SoeKyi Village Administrator Male KII
62 U RalMyintShwe Committee member Male
63 HtayNgarLwyar Village (Lin ArYone Library), Loikaw
U Win Maung Village Administrator Male KII
64 DawKhinMyoKyi Teacher Female
65 Htoo Du NganTha Village (Thu
Ta LwinPyin Library)
U Par Do Hmue Village Administrator Male
KII 66 Saw YarSharYar Libarian Male
67 Naw Do LarKaPhaw Committee member Female
68 Loikaw Township Education
Office U KhonHtet TEO Male KII
69
Mya Mar Lar Village, (Ah Lin Yaung library), Thanbyuzayat
U Aung Than Nyunt Committee member Male KII
70 MyoThandarTun Grade 5 (12 yrs) Female Small Group
Discussion 71 SandarHtwe Grade 4 (12 yrs) Female
72 MyoThandarTun Grade 5 (14 yrs) Female
73 Daw Maw Maw Yi CLC Teacher Female KII
74
Kwan That Village, (Yaung Chi
U Myint Than Committee Chairman Male KII
75 U TheinHla Committee member Male
76
Oo Library), Thanbyuzayat
U MyintThein Community member (50 yrs) Male
Small Group
Discussion 77 Ma Tin Moe Khaing Grade 10 (17 yrs) Female
78 Ma Ni NiMyint Grade 10 (17 yrs) Female
79 Daw Yin May Libarian (Teacher) Female KII
80
War Ga Yu Village, (PyinNyar Bank library), Thanbyuzayat
U Tin MyoNaing Committee member Male KII
81 Mg KhinAung Grade 7 (14 yrs) Male Small Group
Discussion 82 Mg Aye Chan Ko Grade 7 (14 yrs) Male
83 Mg MyoThiha Grade 6 (13 yrs) Male
84 DawHlaHla Win Libarian (Teacher) Female KII
85 KyoneKaDak Village, (Gayuna Free Education), Thanbyuzayat
U AungKoKo Committee Chairman Male KII
86 U MaungSoe CLC Teacher Male KII
87 Thanbyuzayat Township Education Office
DawShweMi TEO Female KII
88 U TheinHtun ATEO Male
89 Mawlamyine Township Education Office
DawThaungMyint TEO Female KII
90 Daw Moe Nyo Clerk Female
91
Than KaPaing Village, (Phyu Sin Myittar Library), Mawlamyine
DawSandar Moe Committee member Female
KII 92 U MyintAung Committee member Male
93 U OhnThwin Committee member Male
94 DawMyintMyintHtay Libarian Female KII
95 ThiriThandarTun Grade 10 (18 yrs) Female Small Group
Discussion 96 Thant Su Mon Grade 7 (18 yrs) Female
97 Kawt Nat Village, (Pan YaGon Library), Mawlamyine
U Than MaungLwin Patron Male KII
98 Mu MuMyint Libarian (Teacher) Female KII
99
Eain Du Village (CLC), Hpa-An
Min AungNaing Moe Village Administrator Male KII
100 Daw Tin 55 yrs Female Small Group
Discussion 101 DawNgweKyi 65 yrs Female
102 DawPuHtay 42 yrs Female
103 Ta Yoke Hla Village, (Ta Yoke Hla
library), Hpa-An
U AungSoe Committee member Male
KII 104 U Win Aung Committee member Male
105 U Than Naing Committee member Male
106 Hpa-An Township Education
Office U Kyaw Win TEO Male KII
107 ZabuThiri Township Education
Office U TunMyintAung TEO Male KII
108 A Lyin Lo Village, (Myat Won
Thit library), ZabuThiri
U Myint Than Village Administrator Male KII
109 Ma TheintTheintOo Grade 11 (18 yrs) Female KII
110 Mg ThetPaing Grade 10 (18 yrs) Female
111 PyanKaPyay Village, (Doe KyayYwar library), ZabuThiri
U TheinTun Libarian Male KII
112 Hein Htet San Grade 7 (12 yrs) Male KII
113 Seik Nan Tone(Library), Pote Ba
Thiri U Win Oo Village Administrator Male KII
114 Kyauk Pa Daung Township Education Office
DawKhinNyo TEO Female KII
115 U SoeMyintOo Teacher Male
116
Ywar Ma Village-CLC, Kyauk Pa Daung
U Aye Han Village Administrator Male KII
117 U NyoMaung Committee member Male
118 U Kaweinda Head-Monk/CLC Teacher Male KII
119 DawKhinKyi Dealer Female KII
120 KyantSoet Village -CLC, Kyauk
Pa Daung DawKyiHtay CLC Teacher Female KII
121
LaeYar(South) Village- CLC, Kyauk Pa Daung
U MaungMaungMyint Committee member Male KII
122 Nyaung Done Township Education Office
Daw Cho TEO Female KII
123 U SeinKyiOo ATEO Male
124 Nat Pay Village-CLC, Nyaung
Done U SoeThein Committee Chairman Male KII
125 U Saw KyawNgwe Committee Secretary Male
126 U MyintSwe CLC Teacher Male KII
127 10 ward - Pan Ayar, Nyaung
Done U Than Tun Committee Chairman Male KII
128 U Win Aung Committee member Male
129
Sar Ma Lauk Village -CLC, Nyaung Done U KanSoe Committee Chairman Male KII
130 KyaungKone Township
Education Office
Daw San San TEO Female
KII 131 U Win Shein DTEO Male
132 U Tin Win ATEO Male
133
Hlay Dar Chaung Village, (ArYoneOo Library),
KyaungKone
U HlaThein Patron Male
KII 134 DawKhin Mar Kway Headmistress Female
135 U Ye Win Committee member Male
136 U Tin San Committee member Male
137 U MaungMaung Aye CLC Teacher Male KII
138 U TunShein Villager Male KII
139 MeeThweTaik Village,
KyaungKone U San Kha Committee member Male KII
140
PyinNyarBeik Man Library, KyaungKone U Htein Linn Committee member Male
141
KaNyinThoneSint Village, KyaungKone U Win Myint
Committee Vice-chairman Male
KII
142 Myanma Ah Lin Library,
KyaungKone U AungKoKo Libarian Male
143 Township Education Office U ThetLwinOo TEO Male KII
144 Khanaung To (West)-Ward, AlinYaung Library,
SeikkyiKhanaung To
U UMaungMaung Committee Chairman Male
KII 145 U Tin Tun Committee Secretary Male
146 U NaingAung Committee Auditor Male
147
SeikKyi (East)-Ward, SeikkyiKhahaung To U ZawLwin Libarian Male
KII
148 MaharMyaing(West)-CLC, Daw Yin May Headmistress Female KII
149
MaharAungMyay
DawHlaHlaMyint Teacher (CLC Teacher) Female
150 Daw Than Thanun Teacher (CLC Teacher) Female
151
Than LywatHmaw(West)-CLC, MaharAungMyay U HtunAung Headmaster Male KII
152
NgaPhaungKan village, (MyatParami library), Pakhoku
U Win Soe Committee member Male
KII 153 KoSoe Win Committee member Male
154 U Bo Win Committee member Male
155 Sandar Mon Libarian Female KII
156 Thu ThuAung 23 yrs , Seller Female KII
157 Aye Thet Mon 30 yrs, Teacher Female
158
Kyat Toe village, (Yaung Chi Oo Library), Pakhoku
DawKhin Mar San Committee member Female
Small Group
Discussion
159 DawKhinHtar Committee member Female
160 Daw Tin TinOo Committee member Female
161 DawKhin Mar Swe Committee member Female
162 DawThandarSoe Committee member Female
163 DawLwinLwin CLC Teacher Female KII
164 Ma PhyuPhyu Moe Grade 10 (15 yrs) Female Small Group
Discussion 165 Ma May New Aung Grade 11 (17 yrs) Female
166 Ma Thin ThinEi Grade 9 (13 yrs) Female
167
Pakhokukyun Village, (San Pya library), Pakhoku
U Win HlaingOo Committee Chairman Male
Small Group
Discussion
168 U HtayAung Committee Treasurer Male
169 Mg MyintTun Libarian Male
170 Ma Ko Linn Committee member Male
171 U MaungMyint General Worker Male
172 U KyawMyint Community Elders Male
173
EaiShey Village, Ap Pa Mar Da library, Pakhoku
U Chan Aye Community Elders Male
Focus Group
Discussion
174 U TheinShwe Patron Male
175 U Toe Shwe Committee Secretary Male
176 U Maung Win Committee member Male
177 U ZawMyoHtet Committee Co-secretary Male
178 U KyawSoe Committee Co-secretary Male
179 U ZawNaing Committee Chairman Male
180 U KyiSoe Patron Male
181 KoAungKoHtet Committee member Male
182 Ko Ye Yint Hein Libarian Male KII
183 EI EiPhyo Grade 9 (13 yrs) Female
KII 184 NyiWaiTun Grade 6 (10 yrs) Male
185 Cho Zin Linn Grade 7 (11 yrs) Female
186 Pakhoku Township Education Office
U Aung Moe Teacher Male KII
187 U SoeHlaing Clerk (2) Male
188
Kyar Lay Hlaing (Library), Min Dat DawNai Li
Headmistress(CLC Teacher) Female KII
189 Min Dat Township Education Office
U Nain Hoan ATEO Male KII
190 U Kyee Law Clerk (1) Male
