Status of UEE in the Light of
NCERT Sixth All India Educational Survey Data
By
Arun C. Mehta
CONTENTS
·
Introduction
·
Scope
·
Schooling Facilities,
Pupil-Teacher Ratio and Transition Rates
·
Universal
Enrolment
·
Universal
Retention
·
Concluding
Remarks
1. Introduction
One of the important goals of universal elementary education is
universal access to schooling facilities to all children of the age group 6-14
years. At the time of adoption of the
constitution in 1950, the aim was to achieve the goal within the next ten years
i.e. year 1960. Keeping in view the
educational facilities available in the country at that time, the goal was far
too ambitious to achieve within a short span of ten years. Hence, the target date was shifted a number
of times. Till 1960, all efforts were
focused on to provision of schooling facilities. It was only after near
realisation of the goal of access that other components of Universalisation of
Elementary Education (UEE), such as, enrolment and retention started receiving
attention of planners and policy makers.
It is the quality of education, which is at present in focus in all the
programmes relating to elementary education in general and primary education in
particular.
Since 1950 impressive progress has been made in every sphere of
elementary education. In 1950-51, there
were about 210 thousand primary and 14 thousand upper primary schools which has
now been increased to 573 and 156 thousand respectively in the year 1993-94;
thus showing an average annual rate of growth of 2.36 and 5.77 per cent. Over a period of time, the percentage of
habitations having access to primary schools/sections within a distance of one
kilometer and upper primary schools/sections within a distance of three
kilometers has also improved significantly.
Similarly, the percentage of rural population having access to schooling
facilities has improved tremendously. At present about 83.36 and 76.15 per cent
of the total habitations in the country are served by the primary and upper
primary schooling facilities which cater the need of 93.76 and 85.01 per cent
population
The
improvement in schooling facilities is quite visible in enrolment at the
primary and upper primary levels of education which has increased from 19.15
and 3.12 million in 1950-51 to 97.4 and 34.0 million in 1990-91 and has further
increased to 110.4 and 41.0 million in the year 1996-97. The increase in enrolment is also reflected
in the corresponding enrolment ratio which is at present 90.6 and 62.4 per cent
respectively at the primary and upper primary levels of education (MHRD, 1997). The share of girls enrolment to total enrolment both at the
primary (43.44 per cent) and upper primary (39.80 per cent) levels of education
has also increased many fold and is higher than the corresponding increase in
boys enrolment.
The retention rate at the elementary level over a period of time
has improved significantly which is at present about 47.3 per cent. The number of teachers over time has
increased many fold but the percentage of female teachers to total teachers
both at the primary and upper primary levels of education is still low at 32.68
and 35.79 per cent. The pupil-teacher
ratio at primary and upper primary level is 45:1 and 38:1. Despite all these impressive achievements,
the goal of Universal Elementary Education remains elusive and the learners
achievement very poor.
2. The
Present Article
Though, the Department
of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development is the main agency
responsible for collection of information on education, the data coverage
relating to access is limited to the extant that only number of educational
institutions is collected and disseminated.
The other indicators of access, such as, number of habitations having
access to schools/sections and rural population accessed to educational
facilities is not available on regular basis but on quinquennial basis. The agency responsible for collection of
information on these variables is the National Council of Educational Research
and Training (NCERT) which collects information through its all-India
educational surveys, Sixth survey with September 30, 1993, as its date of
reference being the latest one. Apart
from variables relating to access, it also collects information on a number of
other variables, which are of the vital importance and presently not being collected
by the other agencies. However, the
full set of the NCERT data is still awaited but it has recently disseminated
some statistics on access, institutions and enrolment. The detailed data on educational facilities,
such as, availability of school buildings, blackboards, playgrounds, drinking
water and electricity facilities, attrition rate, medium of instructions and
age-grade matrix is yet to be published.
Needless to mention that since the NCERT data is latest available for
the year 1993-94, the analysis presented is generally confined to that year
only. However, invariably previous survey data conducted in 1986-87 is also
referred and used in the analysis. Some
data from the MHRD is also used and analysed. The analysis is presented both at
the all-India and State/Union Territory level.
The basic indicators of access have been extensively utilised in
the present article. Indicators
relating to both habitations and rural population are used. A composite indicator of schooling
facilities has also been developed and states are grouped under educationally
advanced and backward states. In
addition, availability of a non-formal education centre in an unserved
habitation has also been critically analysed. The enrolment in NFE centres is
compared with the enrolment at the primary and upper primary levels of
education, so as its contribution to the corresponding age-specific population.
In between, the ratio of primary to upper primary schools has also been
critically analysed. Availability of a
NFE centre in an unserved habitation is also looked into so as the instructors
and average enrolment. So far as the
indicators relating to coverage is concerned, Gross Enrolment Ratio at the
primary and upper primary levels of education is analysed. In addition, growth of enrolment between the
period 1986-87 to 1993-94 has also been measured.
The
out-of-school children have been computed for which enrolment at the flat rate
of 15 per cent grossness (over-age and under-age children) is refined. Since
the other available estimates of grossness are outdated, the one used recently
in the Eighth Plan (15 per cent) to estimate additional enrolment is also used
in the present article.
Additional enrolment that would be required
to achieve goal of universal enrolment by the year 2001 has been worked out.
One of the basic indicators of efficiency,
namely, retention rate has also been computed and analysed at the elementary
level of education. Similarly,
transition from primary to upper primary level is also analysed.
More
specifically, the main objectives of the present article are to analyse the
Sixth All India Educational Survey data of the NCERT with reference to the
following areas:
·
to analyse the growth of
educational facilities between the
years 1986-87 and 1993-94;
·
to analyse the status of non-formal
education and to take a view of its contribution to the relevant age-group
population; and
·
to analyse the growth of enrolment
during the period 1986-87 to 1993-94 and to take stock of the present position
in terms of out-of-school children and
retention rate.
Only
three components, namely, universal access, enrolment and retention have been
covered in the present article. Since the present article is primarily based
upon the NCERT data, it is not possible to cover the fourth component of UEE,
namely, quality of education because of non-availability of data on this aspect
from the survey sources.
The
component-wise analysis is presented below.
3. Universal Access
Considerable progress has been made so far as the goal of
universal access is concerned which is reflected in the number of habitations
having primary schooling facilities. But despite significant improvement in
transition rate the upper primary education facilities have not expanded at the
same pace as the primary education is expanded. It may be noted that, the ratio of primary to upper primary
schools over a period of time has improved considerably (Varghese and Mehta,
1998). There are a large number of
eligible habitations in the country, which still do not have primary schooling
facilities within a distance of one kilometer.
Alternatively, the unserved habitations should have facilities of
non-formal education but the number of centres and their enrolment do not
suggest that they have had a significant contribution to enrolment either at
the primary or upper primary level of education. Even, if a school is in
existence that need not guarantee that it has adequate teachers and teaching
learning material and facilities.
First,
a brief analysis of growth in number of habitations is presented.
3.1
Number
of Habitations
The
number of habitations and population during the period 1986-87 and 1993-94
presented in Table 1 reveals that the number of habitations increased to 1,061
thousand in 1993-94 from 982 thousand in the year 1986-87. This shows an increase of 79 thousand
habitations (8.00 per cent) in a short period of about eight years. During the
same period, the corresponding population (estimated) increased from 524
million to 875 million showing an increase of 7.60 per cent per annum.
The
state-wise analysis reveals that Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Uttar
Pradesh are among the few major states which has shown a decline in number of
habitations. However, despite a decline
in the number of habitations, the corresponding population in these states
increased significantly. The increase
in case of West Bengal is worth noticeable, which shows that the total number
of habitations in the state has increased from 60 thousand in 1986-87 to 97 thousand
in the year 1993-94.
The number of
habitations in rural areas having population of 300 and more (Table 1a) also
indicate that the same is increased by 9.56 per cent, which is 51 thousand in
the absolute terms. The corresponding increase in number of habitations having
population of 500 and more is 40 thousand (11.06 per cent). The states, which
have shown a decline in total number of habitations during 1986-87 to 1993-94,
indicate that barring Tamil Nadu (population 300 and more), the number of
habitations having population 300/500 and more during the same period has
increased. This means the need of
providing more educational facilities to these new habitations, as well. During 1986-87 to 1993-94, it has been
observed that the percentage of habitations served and population access to schooling
facilities remained almost stagnant but in real terms this indicate a
significant improvement in educational facilities, which is achieved despite
the increase in number of habitations and population.
3.2 Rural Habitations having Access to
Schooling Facilities
The
number of habitations in rural areas distributed according to population slabs
and served by primary schools/sections at the all-India level is presented in
Table 2.
Of
the total 1,061 thousand rural habitations in the country, 528 thousand had a
primary school/section within the habitation itself which otherwise means that
a little less than fifty per cent of the total habitations in 1993-94 had
schooling facilities within the habitation.
As per norms, a
habitation is entitled to have a primary school, if it has a total population
of 300 and more and has no school within a distance of one kilometer. However, the norm is often relaxed in case
of hilly areas, difficult terrain’s and border districts. A distance of one
kilometer is treated as the maximum walking distance to which a child is
expected to travel from his residence to school.
On the other hand, about 83.4 per cent habitations had a primary
school/section within a distance of one kilometer which otherwise indicates
that as against the norms, about 177 thousand habitations in 1993-94 did not
have schooling facilities. The
state-wise number of habitations do not having access to a school/section is
presented in the Table 3.
The
highest number of unserved habitations in 1993-94 was in Uttar Pradesh (43
thousand) followed by Madhya Pradesh (19 thousand), Rajasthan (16 thousand),
Himachal Pradesh (14 thousand), Bihar (14 thousand) etc. Among the major states, Tamil Nadu had only
623 (1.38 per cent) unserved habitations of the total 45 thousand habitations
in the state. It may also be noted that
most of the educationally backward states still have a large number of unserved
habitations.
The percentage of unserved habitations to the total number of
habitations in a state indicate that it is as high as 52.95 per cent in
Aurnachal Pradesh followed by Andaman and Nicobar Islands (44.93 per cent),
Himachal Pradesh (40.56 per cent) and Sikkim (25.52 per cent) which may be due
to difficult terrain and hilly areas in these states. Kerala has more than 1.55 thousand unserved habitations, which is
17.77 per cent of the total habitations in the state. Except Sikkim, Tripura and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, all other
States and UTs have more than 90 per cent habitations accessed to a primary
school/section within a distance of one kilometer. Kerala too has a lower percentage (83.54 per cent) than the
all-India average of 93.03 per cent. Daman and Diu and Lakshadweep were the
only two Union Territories in the country that has provided a primary
school/section to all habitations within a distance of one kilometer. Among the educationally backward states,
Andhra Pradesh provided access to 97.51 per cent habitations compared to 94.32
per cent in Bihar, 94.75 per cent in Madhya Pradesh, 96.13 per cent in Orissa,
93.05 per cent in Rajasthan, 85.64 per cent in Uttar Pradesh and 91.94 per cent
in West Bengal. All this shows that the
goal of universal access in these states is almost achieved which is also
reflected in the percentage of rural population served by the primary schooling
facilities.
Many
of the unserved habitations are not entitled to have a school/section because
of the population norms. There are about 581 thousand habitations having
population 300 and more that is 54.74 per cent of the total habitations in the
country. In a good number of these habitations schooling facilitates are not
available within a distance of one kilometer. In percentage terms, it is as low
as 7.0 per cent but in absolute terms more than 40 thousand habitations in
1993-94 did not have access to schooling facilities. The number of unserved habitations in 1986-87 (population 300 and
more) was 142 thousand (26.76 per cent).
Mere
coverage of habitation does not indicate exactly whether education facilities
are available to all population.
Therefore, a better and more reliable indicator of access is percentage
of rural population served by schooling facilities which is presented in Table
4.
3.3 Rural Population having Access to
Educational Facilities
In 1986-87, more than 95 per cent
population residing in rural areas had a primary school/section within a
distance of one kilometer compared to 94 per cent in 1993-94. Though the
percentage during 1986-87 to 1993-94 remained almost stagnant but termed
spectacular because of the massive increase in total number of habitations
during the same period (Table 1). However, about 41 million people in
1993-94 did not have access to schooling facilities. The facilities distributed according to different population
slabs (Table 2) reveal that both the percentages of habitations and rural
population accessed to schools/sections facilities decline with decline in the
population size. Of the total 7,119
habitations having population 5,000 and more in 1993-84, 7,062 had schooling
facilities within a distance of one kilometer. This shows that more than 99 per
cent habitations and rural population had access to schooling facilities. But, in the population slab 300-499, only 88
per cent habitations and population had access to schooling facilities.
On the other hand, it has been observed that a large
number of habitations that are otherwise not entitled to have a school/section
because of the population norms had the same even within the habitation. Thus, about 103 thousand habitations having
population below 300 representing 28 per cent population had access to
schooling facilities within the habitation itself.
The aggregate data at the all-India level is useful to a limited
extant. Unless the same is analysed at
the disaggregated levels, the states/districts/blocks that do not have access
to schooling facilities cannot be identified.
But, the same cannot be analysed below the State/UT level because data
at that level is simply not available. It may also possible that an unserved
habitation may have a non-formal education centre or even an unrecognised
private school detail of which is presented in Table 8.
3.4 Upper Primary Education Facilities
Similar
to primary schools, a detailed analysis is also carried out in relation to
availability of upper primary schools/sections in habitations distributed
according to population slabs (Table 5).
Of the total 1,061
thousand habitations in the country in 1993-94, about 147 thousand (13.87 per
cent) had upper primary schools/sections within the habitation itself. This
shows that compared to primary schools (49.80 per cent), the upper primary
schooling facilities were available to only 13.87 per cent of the total habitations
giving access to about 37.02 per cent population. A marked increase in number of habitations is noticed when upper
primary schools/sections within a distance of three kilometers is analysed. Thus, as many as 808 thousand habitations
(76.15 per cent) providing access to about 85 per cent population had schooling
facilities within a distance of three kilometers in 1993-94. However, when schooling facilities in terms
of number of habitations having population 500 and more is analysed one noticed
that only 474 thousand (71.60 per cent) habitations had facilities within a
distance of three kilometers. This
shows that about 65 thousand habitations did not have access to an upper
primary school/section but were otherwise entitled to have the same as per the
policy norms.
The aggregate data further indicates that the number of
habitations having access to upper primary schools/sections declines with
decline in population size of habitation, which is quite similar to situation
at the primary level. Of 7,119
habitations having population 5000 and above in 1993-94, about 98.10 per cent
(6,984 habitations) had schooling facilities within a distance of three
kilometers but declined to 79.43 per cent in the population slab 500-999 (Table
5). It may also be noted that more than
85 per cent of these habitations (5,000 and more) had schooling facilities
within the habitation compared to 96.3 per cent at the primary level. On the other hand, a good number of
habitations (474 thousand) who had population below 500 in 1993-94 had
schooling facilities within a distance of three kilometers of which about 26
thousand had the facilities even within the habitation but the percentage
population to which they serve is only 5.40 per cent of the total population in
that slab.
Recently,
NIEPA undertook a study on upper primary education, which covered a district
each in Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh (Varghese and
Mehta, 1998b). Irrespective of states,
it is found that a primary school is located within a distance of one kilometer
from the upper primary school. In
majority of cases, an upper primary school is also located within a distance of
three kilometers, all which retriate availability of both primary and upper
primary schools.
The state-wise number of rural habitations having population 500
and more and served by upper primary schools/sections is presented in Table
6. Across the states, in a large number of habitations, upper primary
schools/sections were available within the habitation but their percentage to
total habitations in a state vary from state to state. Among major states, Andhra Pradesh (29.09
per cent), Bihar (20.73 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (27.33 per cent), Tamil Nadu
(25.79 per cent) and Uttar Pradesh (17.01 per cent) had lower percentage of
habitations in 1993-94 than at the all-India level (30.33 per cent). But, the situation improved to a significant
effect when habitations’ having accessed to schooling facilities within a
distance of three kilometers is analysed. As mentioned, more than 87 per cent
of the total habitations having population 500 and more in 1993-94 had access
to upper primary schools/sections within a distance of three kilometers.
Like
primary education, Daman and Diu and Lakshadweep also had all the habitations
accessed to upper primary schools/sections within a distance of three
kilometers. Except Orissa,
educationally backward states had a lower percentage of habitations having
accessed to a upper primary school/section within a distance of three kilometers
among which Madhya Pradesh (72.04 per cent) had the lowest percentage. In general, it has been observed that the
states that had a lower percentage of habitations served by a primary
school/section; also had a lower percentage of upper primary schools/sections.
Further,
it is noticed that a little more than 37 per cent of the total rural population
had upper primary schools/sections within the habitation compared to 85 per
cent within a distance of three kilometers.
It is only in Daman and Diu that the entire rural population is accessed
to an upper primary school/section within a distance of three kilometers. Among major states, Andhra Pradesh (79.43
per cent), Madhya Pradesh (72.60 per cent), Rajasthan (79.00 per cent) and
Uttar Pradesh (82.09 per cent) all had a lower percentage of population served
by upper primary school than at the all-India level. Most of these states too had a lower percentage in terms of
number of habitations served by upper primary schools.
3.6 Villages having Access to Educational
Facilities
Apart
from the number of habitations and rural population served by the schooling
facilities, a third indicator which also gives information on access is the
number of villages having schooling facilities. This indicator may be treated
as an alternative to the first two indicators presented above. In view of the policy guidelines, indicators
relating to habitations are more appropriate to assess availability of educational
facilities.
Of
the total 586 thousand villages, about 417 thousand villages in 1993-94 had
primary schools which in percentage terms is 71.18 per cent (Table 7). This otherwise indicate that about 29 per
cent villages did not have a primary school/section compared to 77 per cent not
having an upper primary school/section in the village. In absolute terms, 169 and 450 thousand
villages in 1993-94 did not have a primary and upper primary school/section
respectively in the village.
The Table 7 further reveals that the majority
of villages did not have even a non-formal education centre. Compared to 169 thousand unserved villages
(13.02 per cent), only 22 thousand villages had a primary non-formal education
centre. Similarly, only 4 thousand (1.00 per cent) villages had an upper
primary centre compared to 450 thousand
unserved villages.
Further, it has been observed that many a states did not have
either a primary or upper primary NFE
centre even in unserved habitations which may have a large number of
out-of-school children. Such states are
Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Nagaland, Punjab, Sikkim, Tripura, West Bengal, Dadra
and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep and Pondicherry. In rest of the states, NFE centres were in
existence but their percentage to total unserved villages is to a meager to
have a significant impact on out-of-school children. For instance, Bihar had only 309 villages with a primary NFE
centre compared to 24 thousand unserved villages. However, there may be a school within a distance of one kilometer
but from the available data it is not possible to exactly know how many
villages according to population norm are eligible for a school. In addition, unserved villages may also have
unrecognized schools details of, which are presented in Table 8.
A little less than fifty per cent of the total villages in the
country had both the unrecognized primary and upper primary schools in village
itself. In absolute terms, as many as, 27 and 7 thousand villages had
unrecognized primary and upper primary schools respectively in the year
1993-94. Further, it has been noticed
that the number of unrecognized schools in a village increases with increase in
population size of the village. The
other significant point that has been noticed is that at the all-India level
more unrecognised upper primary schools are in existence than the primary
schools. This may be due to large
number of unserved habitations, which do not have access to a recognised upper
primary school. Even, in villages that
had population below 300, both unrecognised primary and upper primary schools
are noticed to be in existence.
3.7 Un-served Habitations and NFE Centres
In addition to number of unserved villages, state-wise
percentage of habitations having NFE centres to the total number of unserved
habitations has also been analysed and the same is presented above in the Table
3. The table reveals that at the
all-India level there were only 5.93 per cent unserved habitations (within one
kilometer) which had a non-formal education centre covering about 9.16 per cent
of the total population. The state-wise data, however, shows lower percentages
than at the all-India level. Barring a
few states, such as, Assam (14.51 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (19.24 per cent),
Manipur (18.71 per cent), Megahalaya (10.84 per cent), Orissa (20.41 per cent),
Uttar Pradesh (14.83 per cent) and Delhi (19.67 per cent), all other states had
the percentage lower than ten per cent.
This suggests that the basic objectives of non-formal system have not been
realised, as it is supposed to provide alternative facilities to areas where
out-of-school children concentrate and schooling facilities are not available.
Of
the total 121 thousand primary and upper primary centres in the country in
1993-94, rural areas constituted 94.52 per cent and the remaining 5.48 per cent
centres were in the urban areas. It has also been observed that irrespective of
rural and urban areas, a good number of NFE centres are being run by the
Voluntary Agencies details of which is presented in the Table 9.
Of the total 112 thousand primary centres, about 6,373 centres are
being run by the Voluntary Agencies and the remaining 106 thousand are the
Government run centres. Further, it has
been noticed that irrespective of the management, the majority of primary
centres were in the rural areas and its percentage to total number of centres
is as high as 94.77 and 97.61 per cent respectively for the Government and
Voluntary Agency run centres. While
anlaysing the number of primary centres distributed according to Government and
Voluntary Agencies, one finds that the contribution of the Voluntary Agencies
is limited to the extant of only 5.69 per cent (6,373 centres). Similar pattern
is also noticed in case of the upper primary centres (in percentage terms);
though its number compared to primary centres is very small. Thus, about 5,164
and 509 upper primary centres in 1993-94 are functioning respectively under the
Government and Voluntary Agencies (Table 9).
In addition, there were a few combined primary and upper primary centres
but their number compared to other types is small and majority of them are the
Government run centres.
Further,
it has been observed that barring fourteen states all other states had only a
few centres that are being run by the Voluntary Agencies but their number
irrespective of the state is very small (Table 10). Some of these states are Karnataka, Nagaland, Punjab, Tripura and
West Bengal. The highest number of centres run by the Voluntary Agencies are in
Orissa (2,200) followed by Uttar Pradesh (1,250) and Andhra Pradesh (1,030). On
the other hand, the state-wise number of upper primary centres presented in
Table 10 reveals that compared to the primary level, only a few upper primary
centres are in existence. About, 5,164
and 509 upper primary centres respectively run by the Government and Voluntary
Agencies were in the existence in 1993-94 which is only 4.89 and 7.99 per cent
of the total primary centres in the country.
Only Andhra Pradesh (3,025), Madhya Pradesh (1,262), Orissa (447) and
Uttar Pradesh (119) had a few upper primary Government centres where as the
percentage of centres run by the Voluntary Agencies to the total upper primary
centres was 8.97 per cent.
Research findings revealed that one of the reasons of low
enrolment in rural areas is due to non availability of schools for girls and
female teachers but the distribution of NFE centres indicate that only a few
centres are made available to girls in both
the rural and urban areas.
So far as upper primary education is concerned, a recent study conducted
in four major states reveals that separate school for girls is not a major
issue. It is the distance of school
from the house, which is a deciding, factor for parents whether to continue or
discontinue education of their girl wards (Varghese and Mehta, 1998b). If the school is integrated one (primary to
high/higher secondary), a chance of girl survival improves significantly than
in independent schools.
The state-wise number of primary and upper primary centres
distributed according to management and area is presented in the Tables 10 and
11. The table reveals that at the
all-India level, of the total 106 thousand primary centres there are only 5
thousand centres that are specifically meant for girls. In rural areas, the
percentage of girl centres to the total primary centres is only 4.73 per cent
most of which are the Government owned centres. On the other hand, only 380 of the total 6,373 primary centres
run by the Voluntary Agencies are specifically meant for the girls. The percentage
of girl centres to total primary centres reveals that barring a few states, all
other states have only a few girl centres that is also true in case of the
upper primary centres. Such states are Andhra Pradesh (11.9 per cent), Assam
(3.64 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (4.18 per cent), Orissa (5.63 per cent),
Rajasthan (11.18 per cent) and Uttar Pradesh (1.48 per cent).
Based on the above discussion one gets the impression that the
non-formal education has not expanded well and reached to all potential areas and beneficiaries.
3.8 Instructors: Non-formal Education
The
NFE centres distributed according to instructors and enrolment is presented in
Table 12 which reveals that the average size of a non-formal education
(primary) centre in 1993-94 was about 27 learners but the number of instructor
in a centre vary from no instructor to two and more instructors. It has been
observed that the maximum number of the centres - both primary and upper
primary had only one instructor which in percentage terms comes out to be 92.62
and 78.35 per cent. In 1993-94, there were about 4,553 primary and 128 upper
primary centres, which had an average enrolment of 26 and 36 learners but did
not have an instructor. On the other
hand, there were about 729 primary and 22 upper primary centres that had at
least one instructor but did not have learner.
In addition, there were a few upper primary centres (18) which had more
than two instructors but did not have learner, thus indicating a lot of wastage
and lack of seriousness of the programme.
Further, about 1,289 primary and 73 upper primary centres with average
enrolment of 58 and 78 had even more than two instructors.
The distribution of centres further reveals that the number of
instructor(s) in a centre has nothing to do with the average number of learners
it had. Even, 2,289 primary and 62
upper primary centres, which had an average enrolment of 50, had just one
instructor. Similarly, about 160 primary
and 128 upper primary centres that had more than 50 learners did not have even
a single instructor. Further, it has
been noticed that the average size of a centre was 21-30 learners, as the
majority of the centres fall within this category but as many as 2,306 primary
and 33 upper primary did not have an instructor. One gets the idea about the type of education that is being
imparted in the NFE centres, which had learners but did not have an
instructor. Even, if the centre has an
instructor that need not guarantee that it functions regularly and whether
equivalent education to the formal system is being imparted. It is also of the
interest to know how many of the NFE learners over time transited to the formal
system. With the limited set of data, it is not possible to gather any further
information on this aspect.
3.9 Enrolment: Non-formal Education
When
enrolment in formal system is compared with the corresponding enrolment in NFE
centres, it has been observed that it is too meager to have any significant
impact on enrolment both at the primary and upper primary levels of
education. In order to see the
contribution of NFE programmes to enrolment under the formal system, the
percentage of enrolment in NFE centres (primary and upper primary centres) to
total elementary enrolment (Grades I-VIII) has been worked out. While analysing
enrolment data, it may be noted that enrolment in the NFE centres included only
those children who were of the age-group 6-14 years. However, it is not known from the existing set of data whether
children below age `6’ and above `14’ are also included in the NFE enrolment
and if yes, what is its percentage to total enrolment. Since enrolment in the
formal schools is inclusive of both over-age and under-age children, the
percentage of enrolment in NFE centres
to the total enrolment may not present
the true picture of its contribution to
the formal system. Therefore, as an
alternative, percentage of enrolment in NFE centres to the corresponding
age-specific population (6-14 years) has also been worked out and the same is
presented in the Table 13.
The percentage of learners in the
Government run centres (primary and upper primary) to the total elementary
enrolment (Grades I-VIII) indicate that the percentage is as small as 2.54 and
2.33 per cent respectively in the case of girls and total enrolment. The enrolment in centres run by the
Voluntary Agencies, even if added to enrolment, will improve the percentage
only to a marginal effect. Even, the
corresponding percentage to age-specific population (6-14 years) do not show
any significant improvement, as it is only 3.05 and 3.22 per cent respectively
in the case of girls and total enrolment.
The state-wise results reveal that
barring a few states, like, Andhra Pradesh (7.90 per cent), Arunachal Pradesh (7.08
per cent), Madhya Pradesh (7.41 per cent), Manipur (10.51 per cent), Rajasthan
(3.87 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (6.36 per cent) and Chandigarh (4.22 per cent),
all other states have a lower percentage of NFE enrolment than the all-India
average of 3.22 per cent. The
percentage in case of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar
Pradesh is termed impressive and is attributed to large number of dropout and
out-of-school children in these states. The achievement is also significant in
view of only a few NFE centres and large number of unserved habitations and
villages in these states. In as many as nine states, since the NFE centres are
not in existence, the entire responsibility of imparting education rests with
the formal system. Such states are
Karnataka, Nagaland, Punjab, Sikkim, Tripura, West Bengal, Dadra and Nagara
Haveli, Daman and Diu and Pondicherry.
Kerala too had only a few NFE centres and its contribution to total
elementary enrolment is negligible (0.07 per cent); this may be due to the fact
that the state has almost achieved the goal of universal enrolment through the
formal system of education.
4.0
Ratio of Primary to Upper Primary Schools
The ratio of primary to upper
primary schools during the period 1950-51 to 1996-97 at the all-India level is
presented in Table 14. The table reveals that the ratio has considerably
improved from 15.4 in 1950-51 to 3.9 in 1985-86; thereafter it has established
at about 3.5 which is still above the policy a directive of 1:2. Keeping in view
the impressive growth in number of primary schools during the period 1950-51 to
1996-97, the ratio at 3.5 indicates that during the last few years both primary
and upper primary schools have increased almost at the same pace (Varghese and
Mehta, 1988). However, in a number of states, the ratio is higher than at the
all-India level. The state-wise ratio is presented in Table 15.
Across the states, it has been observed that
the ratio during the period 1986-87 to 1993-94 has declined but in most of the
states it is still above 1:2. Compared to primary schools, West Bengal has the
least number of upper primary schools and the ratio is as high as 16.4; this
indicates that on an average there is only one upper primary school for every
16 primary schools. Andhra Pradesh (7.7), Bihar (3.8), Himachal Pradesh (7.0),
Madhya Pradesh (4.5), Tamil Nadu (5.4) and Uttar Pradesh (4.5) are among the
other few states, which also has the ratio higher than the national
average. On the other hand, Gujarat,
Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Mizoram, Chandigarh and Pondicherry had a upper
primary school for every two primary schools it had in 1993-94.
The results indicate that despite
significant improvement in both the percentage habitations and rural population
served by the schooling facilities, the ratio of primary to upper primary
schools both at the all-India and state level is still quite high. This
indicates that more upper primary schools need to be provided, so that the
ratio is settled near to some what 1:2. The number of unserved habitations
presented above also supports this.
4.3
Female Teachers and
Pupil-Teacher Ratio
The Percentage of female teachers
and pupil-teacher ratio both at the primary and upper primary levels of
education is presented in the Table 16. Over a period of time, the number of
female teachers at the primary level has improved significantly but the same is
not true in case of teachers at the upper primary level. The percentage of
female teachers at the upper primary level has in fact declined to 32.8 per
cent in 1993-94 from 35.1 per cent in 1986-97. However in many states, the
percentage is improved significantly but still male teachers out numbered their
female counterparts; difference between the two is wide and significant.
The state-wise percentage of female
teachers at the primary level reveals that in a few states, such as, Goa (63.81
per cent), Kerala (67.27 per cent) and Chandigarh (93.35 per cent), more female
teachers are in existence than male teachers but the same (except Chandigarh)
in case of upper primary level is not true.
On the other hand in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh
(except primary level) and West Bengal, the percentage of female teachers both
at the primary and upper primary levels of education is lower than 25 per cent
which indicate need of providing more female teachers in these states.
The trend in pupil-teacher ratio
indicates that both at the primary and upper primary levels of education, the
ratio has increased significantly from 44 and 29 in 1986-87 to 50 and 38 in the
year 1993-94. It may however be noted that since the full set of the NCERT data
on teachers is not available, the corresponding ratio for the year 1993-94 has
been obtained from the publications of the MHRD.
The state-wise pupil-teacher ratio at the
primary level reveals that they have different patterns and the ratio vary
between 18 in Manipur to 53 in Bihar. A large number of states had a lower
ratio than at the all-India level; such states are, Assam, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya
Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu. On the other hand, Andhra
Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal
were among few states that had a higher pupil-teacher ratio at the upper
primary level than at the all-India level. It has also been noticed that in a
few states, such as, Assam, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab and
Rajasthan, the pupil-teacher ratio both at the primary and upper primary levels
of education is lower than at the all-India level. The increased ratio during
1986-87 to 1993-94 indicates that enrolment at the upper primary level has
started increasing but since the corresponding number of teachers has not
increased at the same pace, the ratio is also showing an increasing trend.
The average
number of teachers in 1993-94 reveals that on an average a primary school had
2.9 teachers compared to 6.9 teachers in a upper primary school (Table
15). The state-wise average number of
teachers shows that the majority of states have more than two teachers but
still there are states, like Jammu and Kashmir and Dadra and Nagara Haveli;
which has less than two teachers in a primary school. In fact, there may be a large number of single teacher primary
schools but is not reflected in the aggregated data presented above. The data
on single teacher schools is not yet available. The number of teachers in
primary schools suggest that teachers are involved in multi-grade teaching but
the same is not true in case of upper primary teachers. This is also supported
by the study conducted by Varghese and Mehta (1998a & b).
4.2
Transition Rate
The
transition rate at the all-India level during the period 1970-71 to 1990-91 and
state level for the year 1990-91 is presented in Tables 17 & 18. So far as the
computation of transition rate is concerned, the procedure followed is, first
the repeaters are taken out from enrolment in the first grade of upper primary
cycle which is then divided by the terminal grade of previous cycle; that is
primary level. However, from the existing set of data, it is not possible to
know exactly how many children successfully completed Grade V and then taken
admission in Grade VI next year. Thus, the existing sets of transition rates do
not present the true picture of transition from one stage to another. It may be
recalled that states have different patterns so far as the composition of
primary and upper primary cycles are concerned (Table 18). Except Assam, Goa,
Gujarat, Karanataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Dadra
and Nagara Haveli and Lakshadweep, all other states have grades I-V and VI-VII
respectively at the primary and upper primary level. These states have grades
I-IV and V-VII.
While
analysing transition rate from primary to upper primary level, it has been
observed that in a number of states, the transition rate is noticed to be
higher than hundred. This is by logic is not possible, as enrolment in Grade VI
cannot be more than the enrolment in Grade V the previous year. This could be
possible only if some new students from outside the state have joined upper
primary stream but keeping in view the size of deviation, the same may not be
the only reason of this discrepancy. In West Bengal, enrolment in Grade VI in
1991-92 was 274 thousand (73.60 per cent) more than the enrolment in Grade V
previous year. Further, it has been
observed that the states that have high transition rate (more than 100) for
boys too have a higher transition rate for girls. Such states are Goa, Himachal
Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, West Bengal,
Chandigarh, Delhi and Pondicherry. Except West Bengal most of these states are
smaller in size; hence a marginal over reporting of enrolment may resulted into
the transition rate higher than hundred.
The
transition rate at the all-India level reveals that over a period of it has
improved to a significant effect (Varghese & Mehta, 1998). The is also
reflected in boys/girls differential which has been considerably declined
during the same period. The transition
rate from primary to upper primary level which was 82.56 per cent 1970-71
improved to 84.58 per cent in 1975-76 and further improved to 94.42 per cent in
the year 1990-91 (Table 17). The results further reveal that a little less than
18 per cent children those who were in Grade V in 1970-71 dropped out from the
system in transition which in absolute terms comes out to be 1,126 thousand;
girls contribution was of the tune of 566 thousand (50 per cent). In the latest
year 1990-91, the corresponding figures are 787 thousand (total) and 381
thousand (girls).
A perusal of state-wise rates reveal
that transition from primary to upper primary level, irrespective of the
states, is noticed to be higher than 75 per cent (except Sikkim). Between upper
primary grades, the transition is also found to be very high in four districts
that were surveyed recently by Varghese and Mehta (1998b). The educationally
backward states had a mixed of high and very high transition rates in 1990-91.
Andhra Pradesh (87.54 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (81.80 per cent), Orissa (88.42
per cent), Rajasthan (99.16 per cent) and Uttar Pradesh (92.84 per cent) had
comparatively a high transition rate than in Bihar (78.98 per cent). In Bihar,
about 133 thousand boys and 89 thousand girls dropped-out from the system in
transition. Kerala that had shown
almost a consistent enrolment both in the ratio and absolute form for the last
more than twenty-five years also had a very high transition rate for both boys
and girls. The improving transition rates across states indicate more demand
for upper primary education in years that follow. The demand is likely to be
further increased with expansion of primary education. An inefficient primary
education system will transit fewer primary graduates to upper primary stream
as efficiency of primary system has a direct impact on upper primary system.
5.0 Universal Enrolment
Since,
universal enrolment is the most important component of UEE, a detailed analysis
of growth of enrolment is undertaken. Needless to mention that the analysis is
carried out separately at the primary and upper primary levels of education and
for girls and total enrolment. Since the previous NCERT survey was conducted in
1986-87 and the latest one in the year 1993-94, the growth of enrolment is
measured between the period 1986-87 and 1993-94. In addition, out-of-school
children and additional enrolment that would be required to achieve goal of
universal enrolment is also computed. For this purpose, first enrolment at
different levels of education in 1993-94 is refined at the flat rate of 15 per
cent (Mehta, 1995,1). The refined enrolment is then deducted from the
corresponding age-specific population to age-group is obtained simply by
subtracting refined enrolment from the age-specific population in 2001. The
additional enrolment out-side the prescribed age group is obtained by taking
out 15 per cent of the enrolment required within the age group. This is then
added to enrolment required within the age-group to achieve net additional enrolment
(including over-age and under-age children) that would be required in 2001 to
obtain the goal of universal enrolment (Mehta, 1997,1). The requisite percentages from the 1993-94
enrolment level have also been worked out.
5.1
Growth of Enrolment
The annual rate of growth calculated
between the period 1986-87 and 1993-94 (Table 19) shows that at the all-India
level; girls’ enrolment increased at much faster rate than boys’ enrolment.
This is true for both primary and upper primary levels of education. The boys’
enrolment at the elementary level increased at the rate of 1.51 per cent per
annum compared to 3.16 per cent girls’ enrolment. Similarly, percentage
increase in girls enrolment at the elementary level in 1993-94 increased by
more than 21 per cent compared to 11 per cent boys enrolment (Table 20). The
high percentage increase and annual rates is resulted due to low enrolment of
girls and comparatively high enrolment of boys in the base year 1986-87.
A
perusal of state-wise rates reveal that irrespective of educational level, most
of the states experienced a high rate of growth in enrolment. However, a growth
in primary enrolment is noticed in the case of Goa, Kerala and Daman and Diu,
which may be attributed to decline in the corresponding age-specific
population. In absolute terms, decline in enrolment is 11.82 and 3.40 per cent
respectively in Goa and Kerala.
At the elementary level, a number of states experienced a lower
percentage increase in enrolment than at the all-India level. However, the increase in enrolment in case
of Haryana (18.76 per cent), Karnataka (22.66 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (20.62
per cent), Manipur (51.17 per cent), Orissa (21.16 per cent), Rajasthan (19.55
per cent), Dadra and Nagara Haveli (33.89 per cent) and Delhi (40.90 per cent)
is significant and higher than the all-India average of 16.11 per cent. Like all-India level, these states also
experienced a higher increase in girls’ enrolment than the increase in boys’
enrolment and the difference between the two is significant. Further, it is
also noticed that the rate of growth and percentage increase in enrolment is
higher at upper primary level than the increase at the primary level that is in
the line of transition rates presented above.
The annual rate of
growth and percentage increase in enrolment analysed above is useful to know
whether enrolment over time has an increasing or declining trend and at what
rate or how many percentage points; it has increased or declined. It fails to
provide idea about coverage of child population and out-of-school
children. This can be obtained, if
enrolment is linked to the corresponding age-specific population and basic
indicators like, enrolment ratio is computed.
A
perusal of Table 21 reveals that gross enrolment ratio between the period
1986-87 and 1993-94 improved significantly but the same is still not adequate
to attain the status of universal enrolment, if over-age and under-age children
are taken out from enrolment. However,
it may be noted that as we approach UPE, the percentages of over-age and
under-age children, as well as, the enrolment ratio (gross) will decline. The
overall enrolment ratio increased from 91.69 per cent in 1986-87 to 95.90 per
cent in the year 1993-94 compared to which girls ratio during the same period
improved from 71.56 to 85.02 per cent.
However, despite significant improvement in transition rates, the
corresponding ratio at the upper primary level improved from 57.95 to only
59.07 per cent. It has also been
noticed that boys/girls differential in enrolment ratio remained almost static
(11.00 per cent. Unless all girls are brought under the umbrella of education,
the goal of universal enrolment us not likely to be realised in the near
future.
The analysis of enrolment ratio further reveals that across
states, a significant progress has been made. Barring a few states, such as,
Goa, Maharashtra, Mizoram, Delhi, Lakshadweep and Pondicherry, the enrolment
ratio in 1993-94 was very low. Tamil Nadu had a very high ratio both at the
primary (143.50 per cent) and upper primary (103.38 per cent) levels of
education; thus clearly indicating high incidence of over-age and under-age
children.
It has also been observed that a large number of states are in a
position to achieve the goal of UPE. However, figures at the all-India level
indicate that the goal may continue to remain elusive till all the remaining
children are brought under the education fold. In this regard, Andhra Pradesh,
Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal need
immediate attention. A variety of activities have already been initiated in
these states to promote primary education among which DPEP is the most
prominent one. The existing coverage of the DPEP, however, do not suggest that
it will improve the situation to a significant effect. The majority of
districts in a DPEP state are yet to be covered under the programme. Unless new
programmes are launched or remaining states are added to DPEP and programme is
expanded to upper primary level, the goal of UEE may not be realised in the
near future. It may be noted that enrolment at primary level is a function of
6-11 age group population but upper primary enrolment is not a function of
11-14 years population. Therefore, unless the goal of UPE is realised, UEE cannot
be achieved, as upper primary education may be imparted to only those children
who graduated primary cycle and continue to remain in the system. Till then,
universalisation of primary graduates will be treated as achieving universal
elementary enrolment (Varghese and Mehta, 1998).
5.2 Out-of-School Children
While adjusting enrolment, the percentage of over-age and
under-age children (@15 per cent), as mentioned above, is taken out from
enrolment and refined enrolment is obtained.
The balance of age-specific population and refined enrolment is termed
as out-of-school children. About 14.85 million boys and 21.87 million girls of
age-group 6-11 years were out-of-school compared 14.33 million boys and 17.02
million girls of the age-group 11-14 years (Table 22). Combined together, more
than 68 million children of age-group 6-14 years were out-of-school of which
girls constituted more than 57 per cent or 38.89 million in absolute terms. In
other words, out-of-school children indicate a net enrolment ratio of 69.35,
47.99 and 62.20 per cent respectively at the primary, middle and elementary
levels of education which otherwise brought to hundred, the dream of universal
enrolment would not be realised. The net enrolment ratio can be brought to
hundred, if all children of the age group 6-14 years are enrolled and retained
in the system. The actual number of out-of-school children may be little lower
than the one computed in the present article, if the same is based upon the
official MHRD data. The deviation between the MHRD and NCERT enrolment data at
the elementary level is found to be about 16.7 million (Mehta, 1996). Thus,
based on the MHRD data, about 27.83, 26.38 and 54.21 million children of age
group 6-11, 11-14 and 6-14 years were out-of-school in 1993-94, indicating a
lot more efforts that would be required to bring all unenrolled children under
the canopy of education system.
5.3
Additional Enrolment
The additional
enrolment required to enrol by the year 2001 is presented in Table 23. The
enrolment required is useful to know
how many school places that would be required in 2001 and planning of incentive
schemes, like, mid-day meal may also be
linked to future enrolment. The
results reveal that enrolment should be increased by at least 27.19 per cent in
case of boys and 60.12 per cent in case
of girls from the 1993-94 level,
if the goal of universal primary
education is to be achieved by 2001.
The corresponding estimate for
age-group 6-14 years is 51.47 per cent for boys and 96.43 per cent for girls. In other words, about 40.45 and 52.34 million additional children
respectively of the age-group 6-11 and 11-14 years will be required to enrol by
the year 2001 from the 1993-94 enrolment level. It may also be noted that the percentage additional children that
would be required at the upper primary level is more than 100 (boys) and
200 (girls) per cent from their 1993-94
which means need to further strengthening of the upper primary schooling
facilities as the system is expected to receive a large number of children of
the age-group 11-14 years which may be resulted due to increase in enrolment at
the primary level in the years which follow.
Both the estimates of out-of-school children and additional
enrolment required to achieve the goal of UPE are presented only at the
all-India level. However, the estimates
at the all-India level are useful to only a limited extant to know the quantum
of the unfinished task. But the same is
failed to identify the states and within the states, the districts and blocks
where out-of-school children concentrate mainly because of the non-availability
of the requisite data at these levels.
One of the crucial variables that is required for computing out-of-school
children is the age-grade matrix which is not readily available. However, a few estimates that are available
is confined mostly to the all-India level and hence cannot be applied to the
state level data to obtain out-of-school children. Thus, the 15 per cent flat rate, which has been applied to the
all-India data, if applied to the state data may result into the misleading
estimates of the out-of-school children.
This is also evident from the gross enrolment ratio, which in a number
of states has been noticed to be very high even higher than 115 per cent. Hence, due to above limitations, the 15 per
cent estimate of grossness is not applied to obtain refined enrolment at the
state level for that purpose the state-specific estimates are best to use. However,
if the full set of the NCERT data is available, the estimate of grossness can
be generated even at the district level.
6.0 Universal Retention
Using the survey data between the period 1986-87 and
1993-94, drop-out rate at the
elementary level has been computed and
the same is presented in the Table
24. At the all-India level, the
drop-out rate reveals that of the 100 children who had taken admission in Grade
I in the year 1986-87, only 40 managed to reach Grade VIII in the year 1993-94. Similarly, about 58 and 63 per cent boys and girls dropped-out
from the system. The drop-out rate otherwise indicates that the retention rate
at the elementary level was 42 per cent for boys and 37 per cent for
girls. In absolute terms, about 8.3
million boys and 6.6 million girls dropped-out from the system before the
completion of an education cycle.
However, the grade-to-grade drop-out rates, if computed, would indicate
that the majority of children dropped-out from the system before reaching Grade
III (Mehta, 1995,2) but the same cannot be computed as the NCERT survey data is
not available for the two consecutive years required for the computation of the
drop-out rate.
At
the state level, a mixed trend in
drop-out rate has been noticed (Table 24).
It has been observed that the drop-out rate is found to be the lowest in
Kerala followed by Delhi, Daman & Diu,
Chandigarh etc. Among the major
states, the highest drop-out rate is noticed in the case of Bihar (78 per cent)
followed by Rajasthan (76 per cent),
Andhra Pradesh (74 per cent), West Bengal (73 per cent) and Orissa (68 per cent). Comparatively the drop-out rate in Uttar
Pradesh is low where as many as fifty per cent of those who had taken admission
in Grade I in 1986-87 reached to Grade VIII in the year 1993-94. Further, the boys/girls differential in
drop-out rate at the elementary level has also been critically analysed. In Assam, Nagaland and Delhi, no difference
was noticed in the boys/girls drop-out rate where as in states, such as, Arunachal
Pradesh, Kerala, Meghalaya, Punjab, Sikkim and Tripura, it was negligible. In rest of the states, the differential was
significant and of the high order.
It has also been noticed that the states where the drop-out rate
is high, the corresponding boys/girls differential is also of the high order. Some of these states are, Madhya Pradesh (13
per cent), Gujarat (10 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (8 per cent), Rajasthan (7 per
cent) and Andhra Pradesh (6 per cent).
Keeping in view the high dropout rate in Bihar, comparatively the
boys/girls differential was low (6 per cent) as it was just one per cent above
the all-India average i.e. 5 per cent.
Thus, unless all the children who enter into the system are retained and
boys/girls differential is reduced to a significant effect, the goal of UEE, especially in the educationally
backward states, is unlikely to be achieved in the near future. A number of incentive schemes have been
initiated both by the state governments and as a part of the centrally
sponsored schemes among which the mid-day meal scheme is the recent one but is
still facing the teething problems. Even, many states are not keen to initiate
the scheme due to administrative and other problems. It is not only the incentives which help to retain the child in
the system but the research findings reveal that the infrastructural facilities
available in a school and leadership provided by the school head master/teacher
also plays an important role in retaining the children in the system. The Operation Blackboard scheme initiated in
1987 ensured at least two instructional rooms and teachers but a large number
of primary schools still have only one teacher and do not have adequate
infrastructural facilities. However,
the most important problem that remains is the proper utilisation of facilities
in whatever forms they available and its adequacy and timely supply.
Based on the analysis presented above on different components of
UEE one gets the impression that the country has progressed tremendously but
still it has certain areas of concern which are primarily responsible for
unfulfillment of the goal of UEE.
Across the states, educational facilities are now available to a large
segment of population and areas but compared to primary schooling facilities,
the upper primary facilities are not yet available to all the population. Despite the significant achievement, still a
large number of habitations do not have primary and upper primary education
facilities respectively within a distance of one and three kilometers. The country also failed to adequately
create, utilise and made available alternative education facilities in all the
unserved habitations and areas where out-of-school children concentrate. Over a period of time, the ratio of
primary to upper primary schools has declined but still the same is not as
envisaged in the policy directives.
This is more so important when transition from primary to upper primary
level over time has improved significantly which means more and more school
places that would be required in the years, which follow. In addition, a large
number of projects and programmes on primary education that are currently under
implementation in different parts of the country would also generate additional
demand for the upper primary education.
Keeping in view a large number of unserved habitations and
villages and availability of only a few non-formal education centres, it may
not be possible to bring all enrolled children either under the formal or
non-formal system of education. The
coverage of non-formal education both in terms of the habitations covered and
number of learners do not indicate that the programme will able to succeed in
the near future. Hence, not only more
formal and non-formal education facilities need to be created but the existing
institutions will also have to be strengthened both in terms of the teachers and facilities.
The
number of teachers and pupil-teacher ratio over time has improved significantly
but despite the Operation Blackboard scheme still there are schools which do
not have adequate number of teachers.
This is also true in case of the NFE centres. The percentage of female
teachers to total teachers has no doubt improved significantly but still their
number is far from satisfactory.
Teacher is the most important actor of the system and all interventions
are expected to reflect in the classroom transactions and hence training plays
an important role. Studies have shown
that internal management of school and the leadership provided by the head
teacher/master and his/her relationship with other teachers also plays a
significant role in efficient and effective functioning of the school.
The responsibility of training is entrusted to the District
Institutes of Educational Training (DIETs) but still a majority of the DIETs
are not fully equipped to handle this mammoth task mainly because of the
shortage of faculty and lack of expertise.
In most of the cases, the teachers training schools are promoted as to
DIETs but still their activities centred around only to teachers training and
the faculty is not actively involved in planning and implementation of
educational plans. With the creation of the proposed State Institute of
Educational Management and Training (SIEMT) under the DPEP, the training
activities are expected to get momentum but only a few states have yet established the SIEMT. The SIEMT in rest of the DPEP states is
still at the planning stage and hence would take more time to be fully
operationalised. In the non-DPEP
states, either the institutes similar to the SIEMT need to be created or the
existing SCERTs will have to be strengthened adequately. Below the district level, Block Resource Centre,
Cluster Resource Centre and Village Education Committees (VECs) are proposed to
be created under the DPEP but except VECs, such bodies are not yet envisaged to
create in the non-DPEP districts. In
most of the states, VECs are created through a government order but are not
fully entrusted the powers and responsibilities as envisaged in the 73rd
and 74th constitutional amendments on the Panchayati Raj
Institutions.
The
enrolment at the primary and upper primary levels of education has improved
significantly (in absolute and ratio forms) but still more girls are
out-of-school than their boys counterparts.
The GER at the primary level is quite high but the corresponding ratio
for girls is still low which is despite the fact that a large number of
over-age and under-age children are included in enrolment. The enrolment ratio
at the upper primary level is still lower than at the primary level, all which
do not indicate that the country is in a position to achieve the goal of UEE in
the near future. Unless the goal of UPE
is achieved, the dream of UEE is not likely to be realised. Till then imparting upper primary education
to all primary graduates will be treated as achieving UEE.
The analysis also indicate that a large number of children enter
into the system every year but majority of them dropped out from the system
before reaching Grade V and Grade VIII
which severely affects the efficiency of the education system. If a child
continued up to the Grade III, his/her chances of completing the primary cycle
is bright but the available data shows that one out of every three children
dropped out from the system before reaching Grade III. Thus, unless the drop-out rate is checked
and all unenrolled children of the age-group 6-14 years are brought under the
canopy of education, the dream of universal enrolment may not be realised which
is also supported by the recent findings of the projection exercises. The
unfinished task in terms of unenrolled and out-of-school children indicates
that the task is challenging. Hence, rigorous efforts are needed to bring them
under the umbrella of education and to retain them in the system. Disaggregated planning with block as its
unit may help to identify the focus group and areas where out-of-school
children concentrate. The community can play a vital role in bringing out the
unenrolled children to schools for which they need to conduct micro planning
related exercises and develop village education plans. This has already been initiated in the DPEP
districts and the response is encouraging.
Even, a large number of local people and functionaries are involved in
developing the district plans, which if experimented in other
non-DPEP districts and states may bring a sea change in the quality of
planning exercises and its implementation. But the funds, which are allocated
to DPEP irrespective of the districts, have not been utilised as planned and
most of the activities are concentrated on to the civil works. Despite the low utilisation of funds,
preliminary trends in enrolment and retention is encouraging and more than the
expectations even though a large chunk of the funds allocated on to retention
and quality of education related activities in most of the districts have not
been fully utilised. Hence, till the funds are utilsed as planned, the DPEP is
also not expected to improve the situation to a significant effect.
References
1.
Mehta, Arun C. (1995,1),
`EFA in India - Myth and Reality’,
Kanishka
Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.
2.
Mehta, Arun C. (1995,2), `Projections of Student Enrolment and Flows’,
A Project sponsored by the World Bank, National Institute of Educational
Planning and Administration (NIEPA), New Delhi, processed.
3.
Mehta, Arun C. (1996), `Reliability
of Educational Data in the Context of NCERT Survey’, Journal of Educational
Planning and Administration, NIEPA, July 1996, Volume X, No. 1, New Delhi.
4.
Mehta, Arun C. (1997,1),
`Indicators of Educational Development: Concept and Definitions’, NIEPA, New
Delhi, processed.
5.
Mehta, Arun C. (1997,2), `Educational
Development in India with Focus on Elementary Education’, Occasional Paper No. 24, September, NIEPA,
New Delhi.
6.
Mehta, Arun C. (1998), Educational
For All in India - Enrolment Projections, Vikas
Publishing House Private Limited, New Delhi.
7.
MHRD (1997), Selected Educational
Statistics: 1996-97, New Delhi: Government of India.
8.
NCERT (1992), Fifth All India
Educational Survey (Volume I and II), New Delhi.
9.
NCERT (1995), Sixth All India
Educational Survey (Provisional Statistics), November, New Delhi.
10.
NCERT (1998), Sixth All India Educational Survey Statistics on
Schooling Facilities, New Delhi.
11.
Varghese, N.V. and Arun C. Mehta (1998), `Universalisation of Elementary Education- A Study of Upper Primary Education in India’, A Project
sponsored by the World Bank, National Institute of Educational Planning and
Administration (NIEPA), New Delhi, processed.