Education For All in India

Educational Insurance Policies and Benefits in India

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Fri, 03 Mar 2023 06:23:00 +0000

There are various types of insurance policies available in India, some of which are mandatory while others are optional. Here are some of the types of insurance in India:

Life insurance: Life insurance policies provide financial protection to the policyholder's family in case of their unfortunate demise. Life insurance, term insurance, and endowment policies are different types of life insurance policies currently being offered in India.
Health insurance: Health insurance policies provide coverage for medical expenses incurred either due to illnesses or accidents. They can be individual policies, family floater policies, or group policies.
Motor insurance: Motor insurance is mandatory in India as per the Motor Vehicles Act. It provides coverage against damages or losses caused to a vehicle due to accidents, theft, fire, or natural calamities. Third-party liability insurance and comprehensive insurance are two types on insurance policies currently being endorsed in India.
Personal accident insurance: Personal accident insurance provides coverage for accidental death, permanent disability, or temporary disability due to an accident.
Travel insurance: Travel insurance policies provide coverage against unforeseen events such as medical emergencies, trip cancellation, loss of baggage, etc. They can be individual policies or group policies.
Crop insurance: Crop insurance policies provide coverage for losses incurred by farmers due to natural calamities, pests, diseases, or other factors affecting crop yields.
Home insurance: Home insurance policies provide coverage for damages or losses to a house and its contents due to fire, natural calamities, theft, or other risks.
Business insurance: Business insurance policies provide coverage for various risks faced by businesses, such as property damage, liability, business interruption, etc.

Types of Education Insurances Policies India

In India, several types of education-based insurance policies are available to help parents financially plan for their children's future education. Here are some of the popular education insurance policies in India:

Unit-linked insurance plan (ULIP): A ULIP is a market-linked insurance policy that offers the potential for high returns on investment. It allows policyholders to invest in equity or debt funds, and the policy returns are based on the performance of these funds.
Child Education Plan: This is a type of life insurance policy that helps parents save for their child's education. The policy provides a lump sum amount at the end of the policy term, which can be used for the child's education expenses.
Scholarship plans: Some insurance companies offer scholarship plans that provide financial support to children for their education. These plans offer regular payouts at specific intervals during the policy term.
Savings plan: A savings plan is a traditional insurance policy that provides a guaranteed return on investment. It helps parents save for their child's education expenses over a period of time.
An Endowment Plan is a type of life insurance policy that provides both life insurance coverage and savings. The policyholder receives a lump sum amount at the end of the policy term, which can be used for the child's education expenses.

It is important to compare different education insurance policies and understand their features, benefits, and costs before choosing one that best suits your financial goals and needs.

Benefits of Buying an Education Insurance Policy in India

Education insurance policies provide several benefits, including:

Financial security: Education insurance policies provide financial security to parents by helping them save for their children's future education expenses. In case of an unfortunate event, such as the policyholder's demise, the policy benefits can be used to fund the child's education.
Guaranteed returns: Some education insurance policies offer guaranteed returns on investment. This provides a risk-free investment option to save for their children's education.
Flexibility: Education insurance policies offer flexibility in terms of premium payment and policy term. Policyholders can choose the premium payment frequency and policy term as per their convenience.
Tax benefits: Education insurance policies are covered under Section 80C of the Indian Income Tax Act currently being used in India. The premium paid towards the policy is eligible for tax deduction up to a certain limit.
Scholarship opportunities: Some education insurance policies offer scholarship opportunities to policyholders' children. These scholarships can help cover a portion of the child's education expenses.
Encourages long-term savings: Education insurance policies encourage long-term savings for the child's education. This helps parents plan for their child's education well in advance and ensures that they have sufficient funds when the time comes.
Inflation protection: Education insurance policies offer inflation protection by providing benefits that are adjusted for inflation. This ensures that the policy benefits are sufficient to cover the child's education expenses, even if there is a rise in the cost of education over time.

Overall, education insurance policies provide a reliable and convenient way for parents to save for their children's education and secure their future.

Cost of Education Insurance Policy in India

The cost of education insurance policy depends on several factors such as the type of policy, sum assured, policy term, age of the policyholder, and the child's age. Here are some estimated costs of different education insurance policies in India based on the information available in the public domain:

Child Education Plan: The premium for a child education plan can range from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 50,000 per year, depending on the sum assured, policy term, and the child's age.
Unit-linked insurance plan (ULIP): The premium for a ULIP policy can range from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 1 lakh per year, depending on the sum assured, policy term, and the investment fund chosen.
Endowment plan: The premium for an endowment plan can range from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 50,000 per year, depending on the sum assured, policy term, and the child's age.
Savings plan: The premium for a savings plan can range from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 50,000 per year, depending on the sum assured, policy term, and the child's age.

Caution When buying Education Policy

It is important to compare different education insurance policies and their costs before choosing one that suits your financial goals and needs. It is also advisable to consider the policy features, benefits, and the insurer's reputation while making a decision.

There is no specific data available on the number of people who have benefited from education student policies in India. However, education insurance policies have become increasingly popular in recent years, as more and more parents realize the importance of financial planning for their children's education.

Furthermore, education insurance policies have encouraged long-term savings and have helped reduce the financial burden of education expenses on families. While the exact number of beneficiaries may not be available, education insurance policies have undoubtedly played a crucial role in helping many families plan for their children's education and achieve their financial goals.

Choosing one for your Child: The Education Insurance Policy

Choosing the best education insurance policy in India depends on individual financial goals, budget, and other requirements. Here are some of the popular education insurance policies in India that you can consider:

LIC New Children's Money Back Plan: This policy offers guaranteed returns and regular payouts to parents, helping them save for their child's education.
HDFC Life Young Star Udaan: This policy provides a lump sum payout on the child's 18th, 19th, and 20th birthday to help fund their education.
SBI Life Smart Champ Insurance Plan: This policy offers regular payouts and a lump sum payment at maturity to fund the child's education.
ICICI-Pru SmartKid Solution: This policy provides guaranteed returns and payouts to fund the child's education at different stages of life.
Max Life Shiksha Plus Super: This policy provides comprehensive coverage, tax benefits, and flexible premium payment options to parents for their child's education.

It is recommended to compare the features, benefits, and premium rates of different education insurance policies before selecting the one that suits your financial goals and needs. Additionally, it is advisable to check the insurer's reputation, claim settlement ratio, and customer reviews before making a decision.

Educational Insurance Policies and Benefits in India

Education in Economic Survey 2022-23

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Wed, 01 Feb 2023 01:40:00 +0000

Education in Economic Survey 2022-23
(ES 2022-23)

Following the practice of presenting the economic status of the Country, the Finance Minister, Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, tabled the Economic Survey 2022-23 in the Parliament of India on 31^st January 2023, following which she will present the Union Budget 2023-24 on 1st February 2023.

Like the previous Economic Surveys, emphasis has been laid down on Social Sector, including the Education Sector, which is in the limelight because of the recommendations of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020; many recommendations of NEP 2020 are in the process of the implementation though the ongoing programs of the Government of India, such as Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme/Abhiyan which the Department of School Education and Literacy of the Ministry of Education is implementing.

One of the significant recommendations of NEP 2020 is to explore the possibility of having expenditure on education 6 percent of the GDP, which has been recommended by many Committees and Commissions in the past but still to see around 6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. The Economic Survey presented details of expenditure on Social Services expenditure during the period 2015-16 to 2020-21 on an Actual Basis and also for the period 2021-22 (Revised Estimates) and 2022-23(Budgeted Estimates). Education and Health Sectors are important Social Sector Services, details of which are presented in the ES 2022-23.

Expenditure on Social Services is also presented as a percentage of GDP which reveals that India is still far away from an expenditure of 6 percent of GDP on the Education Sector. In fact, the entire social sector has 8.3 percent expenditure of GDP in 2022-23 (Budgeted), to which the share of education is 2,9 percent, and that of the Health Sector, 2.1 percent.

Can we expect a boost to the education sector in the Annual Budget of 2023-24, which will be presented on 1^st February 2023 in Parliament? With General Election approaching fast in 2024, chances of a significant increase in the education sector as it seems is bleak.

If we see the percentage of the Social Services Sector to GDP, the same has increased from 6.6 percent in 2015-16 to 7.5 percent in 2020-21 and to 8.2 percent in 2021-22 (Revised Estimates) and further to 8.2 percent in 2022-23 (Budgeted Estimates). But no change is observed in the expenditure on education to GDP, which remained stagnant during the period 2015-16 to 2022-23 and hovering around 2.8 percent, far below the envisaged 6 percent. In 2022-23, on budgeted estimates, education was only 2.9 percent of the GDP.

The only satisfactory point is that within the Social Services Sector, education used to get the lion’s shares; its contribution was 9.5 percent of the total expenditure, 26.6 percent of expenditure on the social services sector in 2022-23.

It may, however, be recalled that the share of expenditure on education has declined from a high of 10.4 percent in 2015-16 to the present 9.5 percent. But in absolute terms, expenditure on education increased from 3,91,881 crores in 2015-16 to 7,57,138 Crores (Budgeted), thus showing an increase of 3,65,257 crores in absolute terms and 93.21 in percentage terms. However, it would be of interest to see actual expenditure on education in 2022-23 (not budgeted) when the same will be placed on the table of the Parliament as part of the Union Budget 2023-24; there used be a gap between the two in the past.

The Economic Survey (ES 2022-23) presented detailed in terms of the number of Educational Institutions: Both Schools and Higher Education Institutions which is based on UDISEPlus (2021-22) and AISHE (2020-21), both of which are the latest but outdated. Even information on school and higher education are not of the same years. In addition, ES 2022-23 also presented Literacy Rates during the period 1951 to 2011.

Economic Survey 2022-23

Decoding UDISE+ 2021-22 Enrolment Ratios

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Fri, 25 Nov 2022 04:19:00 +0000

Arun C Mehta
Former Professor & Head of EMIS Department
NIEPA, New Delhi

Brief Introduction

In this brief note, we decode the implications of various enrolment ratios at different levels of school education released on November 3^rd, 2022, by the Ministry of Education through the UDISE+ 2021-22. The same shall be compared with the 2020-21 ratios wherever required. Table 1 below presents a variety of enrolment ratios at the all-India level, such as Gross & Net, Adjusted-Net, and age-specific enrolment ratios at primary, upper primary, elementary, secondary, and higher secondary levels of education.

Gross Enrolment Ratio

The Gross Enrolment Ratio at the primary level remained stagnant during 2020-21 and 2021-22 and is reported at 103.4 percent in 2021-22; what does it mean? Does it mean that all children aged 6 to 10+ years are enrolled? Or does it mean that the goal of universal primary enrolment is achieved? The answer to none of these questions is YES. Then how to interpret it is the moot question, which must also be correctly understood by the officers engaged in annual plan formulation exercises as it has widespread implications for universal school enrolment.

Download PDF

Dose UDISE+ Underestimates School Dropout Rates?

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Mon, 31 Oct 2022 06:24:00 +0000

Arun C Mehta
Formerly Professor & Head of the EMIS Department
NIEPA, New Delhi

Introduction

Perhaps one of the most critical indicators through which the retaining capacity of the system is judged is the grade-to-grade dropout and average annual dropout rate. With the high dropout rates, a state or India as a whole cannot move towards universal school education which has a 100 percent GER by 2030 as has been envisaged in the National Education Policy 2020. The fate of planning exercises and their outcome can easily be understood if the official dropout rates disseminated through the UDISE+ do not accurately represent the system's ability to retain children, which is also valid for transition and retention rates.

It may be recalled that UDISE was maintained by NIEPA from its inception in 1994-95 to 2017-18; thereafter, the same has been managed by the Department of School Education and Literacy of the Ministry of Education. It may be recalled that the entire Country got covered under the DISE in 2005-06 for the first time, and the same was extended to the entire school education sector in 2012-13; DISE since then is known as U-DISE or Unified DISE. All through the years 2005-06 to 2017-16, the flow rates, including average annual dropout rates, were continuously computed based on the common schools, and not all schools (including schools that were not covered in the previous year) were considered after that. If considered, all schools would underestimate the actual dropout rates or even present misleading and absurd rates, which has been demonstrated in the present note by taking accurate UDISE+ data of a state. The flow rates have been downloaded from the official portal of UDISE+; it is not mentioned whether the rates computed are based on all schools or common schools.

To know the retaining capacity of the system below, we analyse grade-to-grade dropout, transition, and completion rates in one of the states of India for the recent year, and the same is presented in Table 1. The table reveals that the state reported a ZERO dropout rate for the Cohort 2019-20 at the primary level, which is separately true for boys and girls. In 2017-18, the dropout rate at the primary level was 4.45 percent, which declined to 2.8 percent the following year.

It may be recalled that grade-specific enrolment for two consecutive years and grade-specific number of repeaters are required for the latest year to compute grade-to-grade dropout and average annual dropout rate. It is essential to consider common schools in both years; the newest year enrolment data might be based on more schools, as the schools not covered during the previous year are also covered in the current year. The UDISE+ data of the state demonstrated in this note shows that as many as 84,459 schools were covered in 2020-21, more than 3,184 new schools (3.53 percent) than covered during the previous year, which should not be considered in the dropout computation. As has already been explained above, if considered all schools are in computation, the dropout rate received is likely to underestimate the actual dropout rate.

Table 1: Dropout Rate
Cohort	Primary Level			Upper Primary Level			Secondary Level
Cohort	Girls	Boys	Overall	Girls	Boys	Overall	Girls	Boys	Overall
2019-20	0.00	0.00	0.00	3.39	2.13	2.78	18.96	16.30	17.64
2018-19	1.52	3.01	2.28	9.24	8.61	8.93	22.66	20.01	21.36
2017-18	4.30	4.59	4.45	5.14	4.26	4.68	17.05	18.68	17.90

Source: UDISE, different years.

Dropout Rate based on all or Common Schools

The calculation of grade-specific flow rates based on 2019-20 and 2020-21 enrolment and 2020-21 repeaters are demonstrated in Table 2, which shows that the same is computed based on highly inconsistent data, which is primarily because of consideration of all schools instead of common schools. For example, the promotion rate in Grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10 is more than 100, which means that more students in these grades than in the previous Grade in the previous year because of this grade-to-grade dropout rate obtained in these grades is negative which is theoretical, not possible. Out of eight grades of elementary level, in six grades, the number of dropouts obtained is negative.

Table 2 Grade-specific Enrolment & Repeaters: 2019-20 & 2020-21
Classes	Enrolment		Number of			Flow Rates
Classes	2019-20	2020-21	Repeaters	Promotes	Dropouts	Repetition	Promotion	Dropout	Total
I	2551956	2708517	3212	2705305	-338255	0.13	113.13	-13.25	100
II	2564873	2890154	3155	2886999	-249196	0.12	109.59	-9.72	100
III	2461379	2814004	3090	2810914	-155289	0.13	106.18	-6.31	100
IV	2601198	2616369	2791	2613578	-98046	0.11	103.66	-3.77	100
V	2895787	2699239	2786	2696453	579201	0.10	79.90	20.00	100
VI	2271982	2316239	2439	2313800	-82001	0.11	103.50	-3.61	100
VII	2280794	2353924	2380	2351544	-77293	0.10	103.28	-3.39	100
VIII	2145742	2357853	2146	2355707	345088	0.10	83.82	16.08	100
IX	1618243	1800928	2420	1798508	-99885	0.15	106.02	-6.17	100
X	1606093	1719043	3335	1715708	668615	0.21	58.16	41.63	100
XI	880399	937311	3168	934143	-52747	0.36	105.63	-5.99	100
XII	797044	934363	4385	929978	792659	0.55	-	-	-
*Average Annual Dropout Rate*			Primary Level	-2.00	Upper Primary		2.77	Secondary	17.64

Source: Calculated based on UDISE 2019-20 & 2020-21data.

Based on the above data, an attempt is made to compute the Average Annual Dropout Rate at primary, upper primary, and secondary levels of education (like UDISE+); in the case of the primary level of education, it comes out to be -2.00 which is reported ZERO by UDISE+ 2020-21. On the other hand, the dropout rate at upper primary and secondary levels comes out to be 2.77 and 17.64 percent, which is precisely reported in UDISE+ 2020-21.

Table 3: Dropout Rate by Level of Education & Gender, Cohort 2019-20
State /UT	Dropout Rate
	Primary Level: Grades 1 to 5			Upper Primary Level: Grades 6-8
	Boys	Girls	Total	Boys	Girls	Total
Andaman and Nicobar Islands	2.1	2.5	2.3	0.0	0.5	0.2
Andhra Pradesh	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.5	0.5
Arunachal Pradesh	9.8	6.8	8.3	8.3	7.0	7.7
Assam	4.2	2.3	3.3	6.0	3.2	4.6
Bihar	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.1	3.4	2.8
Chandigarh	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Chhattisgarh	0.9	0.6	0.8	4.8	3.3	4.0
Dadra & Nagar Haveli & Daman and Diu	4.1	3.1	3.6	0.0	0.0	0.0
Delhi	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Goa	1.6	1.5	1.5	0.4	0.7	0.6
Gujarat	0.9	1.1	1.0	3.7	5.5	4.5
Haryana	2.2	2.1	2.1	0.0	0.0	0.0
Himachal Pradesh	1.9	1.9	1.9	1.4	1.3	1.3
Jammu and Kashmir	4.5	4.2	4.4	2.6	4.1	3.4
Jharkhand	4.1	2.9	3.5	5.1	5.4	5.2
Karnataka	1.3	0.9	1.1	2.0	1.9	2.0
Kerala	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Ladakh	3.8	4.3	4.1	3.1	1.2	2.1
Lakshadweep	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Madhya Pradesh	1.4	1.3	1.3	4.7	5.4	5.0
Maharashtra	1.1	0.9	1.0	1.2	1.6	1.4
Manipur	9.0	8.2	8.6	4.3	3.6	4.0
Meghalaya	8.7	6.1	7.4	10.2	7.7	8.9
Mizoram	8.5	7.6	8.1	7.0	3.4	5.2
Nagaland	6.6	5.2	5.9	4.8	2.8	3.8
Odisha	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Puducherry	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Punjab	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Rajasthan	0.9	1.2	1.0	2.5	2.8	2.6
Sikkim	2.1	0.2	1.2	0.0	0.0	0.0
Tamil Nadu	0.7	0.5	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6
Telangana	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Tripura	4.5	3.8	4.2	3.8	2.8	3.3
Uttar Pradesh	2.3	2.1	2.2	2.6	6.5	4.5
Uttarakhand	1.8	1.7	1.7	1.3	1.6	1.4
West Bengal	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
India	0.8	0.7	0.8	1.6	2.3	1.9
Source: UDISE+ 2020-21

As it seems, wherever the dropout rate is negative, the same in UIDSE+ is reported to be zero, which confines across all States & UTs of the Country; thus, not only the dropout but also the transition and retention rates across states do not present the accurate picture. In the case of 11 states at the primary and 12 states out of 37 States & UTs at the upper primary level, the UDISE+ 2020-21 reported an average annual dropout rate of ZERO, all of which is negative (see Table 3). For the states of Chandigarh, Delhi, Lakshadweep, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, and West Bengal, the UDISE+2020-21 reported a ZERO dropout rate both in the case of Boys and Girls, which is valid for primary as well as upper primary levels of education. With a high enrolment ratio and zero dropout rates, whether these states have achieved the goal of universal elementary enrolment is a moot question that the states and UDISE+ authorities must answer.

Since the dropout rates computed are based on all schools and not the common ones, the states underestimate the actual average annual dropout rates. Similarly, eight states have reported a 100 percent transition rate from primary to upper primary and 12 states from upper primary to secondary level, all of which are above 100, which is also theoretically impossible.

Concluding Observations

From the UDISE+ Portal, it is impossible to download data based on common schools. The UIDSE+ authorities may like to switch over to the previous methodology adopted during 2005-06 to 2017-18 and, in the future, must compute and present flow rates based on common schools. In addition, they must re-compute the same during the years 2018-19 to 2020-21 and replace the same with the current rates so that the same can be used in the Annual Work Plan & Budget formulation under ongoing Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan as the current rates present the misleading picture. It is strange how targets on dropout, transition, and retention rates are currently being set out and how the implementing authorities of monitor the progress of the same and take corrective measures. Or the UDISE+ authorities highlight the benefit of using all schools, if any, instead of common schools and must also explain how the current flow rates are comparable with the same before 2018-19.

Continue reading.......Education for All in India

Status of School Education in Bihar: An Analysis of UDISE+ 2020-21 Data Collected under Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:07:00 +0000

Arun C Mehta, Formerly Professor & Head of the EMIS Department, NIEPA, New Delhi

Introduction

Since its independence, India has made spectacular progress concerning all aspects of school education, including universal access, participation, and retention. Still, the goal of universal school education is far out of reach. Quality of education is one of the significant areas of concern because many activities are now focused on improving learners' ability to read and write with understanding. Despite impressive progress, there are states far behind the others; without bringing all such states at par with the others, the dream of universal school education is not likely to be cherished shortly.

Bihar is one of the major states of India, with a 22,359 thousand child population which is 11.79 percent of the total population of India (1,89,593 thousand) of age 6 to 14 years. Almost every 12^th child of 6 to 14 years of India is located in Bihar. In addition, 93,459 (6.19 percent) of the total 15,09,136 schools covered under UDISE+ 2020-21 are located in Bihar. Without Bihar attaining the status of universal school education, India cannot achieve the goal for which concerted efforts are required to finish the unfinished task. Over time, Bihar, like other states of India, has made progress toward universalization. With a little push, it can move fast towards attaining the goal of universalizing elementary education, which would eventually help India achieve the goal of universal school education.

Another primary reason for picking up Bihar for detailed analysis is because the author of this article (Prof. Arun C Mehta) was closely associated with the state from the time of the Bihar Education Project, which later necessitated launching similar programs, such as DPEP and later SSA, on a pan-India basis. As a member of the UNICEF Mission to review the Bihar Education Project, popularly known as BEP, in 1994, the author got an opportunity to visit seven BEP districts of the undivided Bihar, which helped him to understand the ground reality to a great extent.

Full length PDF Article

Revamping Student Database Management Information System In-sync with UDISE+ 2022-23

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 15:35:00 +0000

Arun C Mehta
Former Professor & Head of the EMIS Department, NIEPA, New Delhi

The Background

DISE (District Information System for Education) which later become the UDISE and is now popularly known as Unified-DISE or UDISE-plus was initiated in 1994-95 at the time of launching one of the mega programs of the Government of India toward universal primary education i.e. District Primary Education Programme (DPEP), over a period of time in a phased manner the same was extended first to the entire elementary level of education (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) and later to the secondary and higher secondary level of education (RMSA). The entire collection of school education data is being managed through the UDISE which has become the only source of statistics on school education in India with effect from the year 2012-13, the year in which the UDISE got the status of official statistics and all parallel collection of the information system was abandoned and UDISE remain the only source of information on school education statistics in India.

Even though widespread improvements were achieved in data collected through UDISE, but fingers have been raised on enrolment data collected through it which do not consider to be consistent which is reflected in the Table presented below:

Enrolment in Grades I to XII, 2012-13 to 2019-20
All India

Year	Enrolment
Year	Total, Grades I to XII	Change over Previous Year	%age Change
2012-13	25,42,75,128	-
2013-14	25,85,10,656	42,35,528	1.67
2014-15	25,94,70,306	9,59,650	0.37
2015-16	26,05,96,960	11,26,654	0.43
2016-17	25,13,36,317	-92,60,643	- 3.55
2017-18	25,09,89,193	-3,47,124	- 0.14
2018-19	24,83,38,584	-26,50,609	-1.06
2019-20	25,09,71,683	26,33,099	1.06
2020-21	25,38,04,461	28,32,778	1.13
Change over 2012-13	-	-33,03,445	- 0.19

Source: UDISE, different years.

SDMIS: 2016-17

Over a period of time, efforts were made to further improve the reliability and consistency of enrolment data among which the introduction of SDMIS in sync with UDISE in 2016-17 was the most prominent one which was initiated by NIEPA in consultation with the Department of School Education of the Ministry of HRD/Education. A specially designed SDMIS Data Capture Format was launched which initially had a total of 41 parameters and the idea was to generate UDISE enrolment based on the details of individual student information. Apart from the inconsistency of data, mismatching of enrolment by category, the medium of instructions, and age was another major issue because of which UDISE enrolment data was not considered reliable even though time lag in educational statistics was brought down from earlier 7 years to less than a year at the national level and only a few months at the state and district levels apart that all data gaps were bridged and the same was made available to users at all the levels, such as cluster, block, district, states and also at the national level.

Projection & Trends of School Enrolment by 2025 (NCERT, New Delhi, August 2022)

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Thu, 08 Sep 2022 12:57:00 +0000

It is heartening to observe that Vishal Dayaghan Pajankar & Sridhar Srivastava of the Education Survey Division of the NCERT, New Delhi has undertaken a Study on the Projection and Trends of School Enrolment by 2025 digital report of which was released on August 2022 by Director, NCERT, New Delhi. The study was approved by the Programme Advisory Committee of NCERT and had the following objectives: (i) To estimate & project school enrolment of children up to 2025; (ii) To find the trends of enrolment for the next nine years; and (iii) To provide the information about enrolment and future trends of enrolment for planning and policymaking. Based on the Advisory Committee recommendations, the study has rightly used Reconstructive Cohort Method to project the enrolment for Classes I to X at the state level, gender as well as disadvantage group-wise. This study is considered important and timely undertaken for which the authors need to be congratulated. Read my observations.... Continue reading...

Downloading of UDISE Data from NIEPA & Ministry of Education Portals

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 12:01:00 +0000

Arun C Mehta
Formerly Professor & Head of EMIS Department
NIEPA, New Delhi

An attempt has been made in the present article to make data users aware downloading of UDISE+ data from the NIEPA & UDISE+ data portals concerning School Education Samagra Shiksha in India.

As we know that Unified District Information System for Education or Unified-DISE/U-DISE is the main source of information on educational statistics and is currently being managed by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Education, Government of India with effect from the year 2018-19 onwards before which it was initiated and managed by one of the apex educational planning institutions and technical arm of the Ministry of Education, namely the National Institute (University) of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA/NUEPA), New Delhi for the period from 1994-95 to 2017-18.

In this note, details of data available, how to download a publication or a set of data, and the level at which the same is available are explained which the young researchers/scholars would find useful. Apart from the UDISE+, there is no other source of information on school education on regular basis. However, the Census of India, NSSO, NFHS, and All India School Education Survey (AISES) are also used to disseminate information on educational variables occasionally. The latest AISES as a part of its Eight Survey was conducted in the year 2008-09. NCERT is also used to conduct the National Achievement Survey (NAS), the first of which was conducted in 2017, and the latest, second NAS was conducted recently in November 2021 details of which are now disseminated on its official website.

DISE at NIEPA was initiated by Late Prof. Yashpal Aggarwal which later took it to new heights and nurtured by Prof. Arun C Mehta from 2002 to 2017 (January) and the same was located in the Department of Educational Management Information System (EMIS) of NIEPA, New Delhi. Professor Mehta was the founder Head of the Department (HoD) and incidentally, the last HoD of the EMIS Department. During his tenure, DISE scaled new heights and got recognized as the Official Statistics by the Government of India, and received several prestigious awards.

However, the real hero of the whole exercise towards strengthening educational statistics was the district, block, and state MIS Coordinators from across the Country as well as the Cluster and Block Resource Coordinators and the respondents, the School Head Masters, teachers, and principals all who contributed significantly towards strengthening educational statistics in the Country; their contribution is immense and must be recognized and rewarded. Many of the programmers, data entry operators, and state and district In-charge of EMIS/DISE/UDISE+ have got vast experience managing EMIS at their level are contractual and low salaried, and must be acquired in the state services as and when such opportunities are there; they are the state assets and their services must be adequately used at all levels. While strengthening UDISE, many of them have now become age-bar and has no opportunity elsewhere. Needless to say that the school education plans across the Country under the umbrella of SSA, RMSA, and now under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan are formulated based on the UDISE data to which our friends had immensely contributed.

Do we have or not have Child Labour ?

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Tue, 02 Aug 2022 03:26:00 +0000

Arun C Mehta
Formerly Professor & Head of the EMIS Department
NIEPA, New Delhi

Background

It is come known that the Government has recently informed the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PAC) that it has no data on Child Labour in the Country. We may or may not have data on child labour but definitely, we do have child labour across the Country which can be seen in most of the metros and large cities selling Chinese products in the busy crossing throughout the day irrespective of weather whether it is cold, summer or rainy season.

But it is a different matter that with the changing weather and festivals and from Republic to Independence Day, the items these children selling used to change and after a gap of few days, usually they come out with new products. So it does not matter whether we have data on child labour or not but yes we do have child labour workers across the country which was well reflected in the 2011 Census. Take your vehicle and move on to any highway along with the roadside Dhaba you would observe that helper Chhotu (child helper) serves in each of the eating jaunts, mopping tables, serving food and cleaning the used utensils.

Hope you too have observed this not far from your residence in your neighbourhood that the child is working in most of the auto repairing shops which are routine and has become part of our day-to-day life. Even in sabzi-mandis, Chhotus can be seen carrying a vegetable basket on their head full of goods weight of which is often more than he could manage. Even, school-age children can be seen performing their art to earn money on most of the road crossings which is more true for metros. Dishearten to know that many of the street children do live under the flyovers and near underpasses a few of whom are told to have been born there only.

With all these activities one gets the impression that yes, we do not have formal data on child workers but it has been observed that we do have child workers around us. These children are termed as having never been to school or dropped out or out-of-school children. But such children whether or not considered child workers/labours? For this purpose let us have a glance at the accepted definition of a child worker/labour/working children.

As per the International Labour organisation, “The term “child labour” is often defined as work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development”. Further, it refers to work that: – “is mentally, physically, socially or morally dangerous and harmful to children; and/or – interferes with a child’s ability to attend and participate in school fully by obliging them to leave school prematurely, or requiring them to attempt to combine school attendance with excessively long and heavy work.” Are the children selling or begging on roads and other locations terms as child workers? As per ILO definition, the answer is certainly yes.

Apart from the Census of India managed by the Office of the Registrar General of India which collects and disseminates extensive data both all-India and state-specific on child workers once a decade, the Child Labour Project which was being managed by the V. V. Giri National Labour Institute under the Ministry of Labour used to collect extensive data on child labour once in a year but the same was discontinued at the time of launching one of the mega centrally sponsored programmes of the Department of School Education and Literacy of the Ministry of Education, namely the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan in 2018 but hardly any attempt is visible to made on data collection on child worker.

As a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, the NCLP was initiated in 1988 initially in 12 districts of the Country having a large number of working children to rehabilitate them and the project could reach as high as 271 such projects by the 11th Five Year Plan. During the 10th FYP, as many as 150 NCLPs were sanctioned which is incidentally the highest number since its inception in the year 1988. The NCLPs was entirely funded by the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour & Employment and like other Centrally Sponsored Schemes, such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan were released to the State Implementation Society.

The aim was to identify children in the age group of 5-8 years working in hazardous occupations and to mainstream them to the formal educational system through SSA and of 9 to 14 years age group to be rehabilitated through the NCLP schools established under the project by the State Project Society. It is said that as many as six thousand special schools were opened under the NCLP through which around one million children were mainstreamed which is not a mean achievement by any standard. The Media reports (See Delhi Edition of The Hindu of 12th July 2022) suggests that because of a lack of budgetary provisions, the NLCP was abandoned abruptly and supposed to have been merged with the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan and as such the Government has informed the PAC that it does not have records on the child labour in the Country.

It is unfortunate that when the Country strives to attain a 100 per cent GER at school education by the year 2030 which is reemphasised in both the NEP 2020 and SDG 4.0 Education in the absence of data on working children it is not known the basis on which the planners while planning for universal enrolment use which set of data. It is generally believed that those who are out of the education system are out-of-school children many of whom may be working children.

No effort has been made in the recent past to know the quantum of working children in the Country. What is their percentage of the total out-of-school children? Why do children work at the cost of education? Is it because of poverty or because children are not interested in education or simply it is because children drop out of the system because of repetitive failures and also because they need to take care of their siblings all of which are reflected in the NSSO 75th Round?

One of the other reasons for children not attending schools found in the NSSO 75th Round is because children are engaged in economic activities. Despite reasons for non-enrolment known (such as poverty, engagement in economic activities, not being interested in education etc.) no special efforts have been initiated to check, despite a good number of research studies being conducted on dropouts and still being conducted. The point is not to know the quantum of the dropout but to initiate activities to check the dropout. It is heartening to know that the dropout rate in the recent past has declined significantly from a high of 5.62 per cent in 2012-13 at the primary level to 0.08 per cent in 2020-21; the year for which the latest UDISE+ data is available. Many states have reported zero or almost negligible dropout rates at this level of education which needs further scrutiny.

Media reports suggest that NCLP was discontinued at the time of launching Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan and it was envisaged that the same would henceforth be tackled through the SSA but the Data Capture Format of UDISE+ based on which district annual plan and budget is supposed to be based upon do not have any provision to collect information on working children rather it is not possible to collect the same from the administrative surveys for which information need to be collected from the households. In the absence of information even from the Ministry of Child and Women Development, the Census of India is the only source which provides information about working children which would next be available when the data of the 2021 Census is available.

It is also a matter of concern that the total population and its sex composition are generally available at the lightning speed but other details required for the education sector are released after a gap of 4 to 5 years and the intermediary years’ indicators are computed based on the projected population which in the past found to be quite off the track. In recent years, not only has the child population been projected but the time lag in enrolment data is slowly but surely been on the increase; at one point of the time school education plans were been formulated based on the same year data but now there is at least a lag of at least two years.

For example, the latest 2022-23 school education plans under the aegis of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan were formulated based on the 2020-21 year data and in a few states were even based on 2019-20 UDISE+ data. Why has suddenly the time lag in educational statistics started to increase and why no one is bothered about the same in the absence of which even indices computed by the NITI Aayog such as SEQI, PGI, SDG etc. all are based on outdated data and the outcome of such exercises are of little use while formulating the plan for the current year?

A glance at the percentage of child workers in the total 6 to 13 years population reveals that as many as 3.48 per cent of the total population in this age group was classed as child workers which includes both the main and the marginal workers. Though the percentage looks low in absolute terms the number of child workers in 2011 was as high as 208.32 million of which the male constitute 52.24 per cent and the girls, 47.76 per cent. Even if the percentage of the child population in 2021 remains at the 2011 level i.e. 3.48 per cent, in absolute terms the country may see a decline in the number of child workers because of the decline in the child population which is based on the Report of the Expert Committee on population projections. Continue ......

National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) & World University Ranking (WUR) 2022

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Tue, 19 Jul 2022 04:58:00 +0000

Arun C Mehta

Formerly Professor & Head of EMIS Department, NIEPA, New Delhi

In this note, we briefly discuss and take a view of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) & World University Ranking (WUR) 2022 with regard to higher education institutions in India which is respectively initiated by the Ministry of Education, Government of India and Times Higher Education Magazine.

National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF)

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) was initiated by the Department of Higher Education of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (now Ministry of Education) in 2016 which categorized institutions under universities, institutions, engineering, and pharmacy. Initially, because of the poor quality of the data, no ranking was announced in the case of the B category institutions. However, later the quality of data improved and new categories of institutions were added.

In this brief note ranking of the first ten universities and institutions right from 2016 to the latest 2022 is glanced at. In the latest 2022 ranking, Teaching Learning and Resources (weight-age 0.30), Research and Professional Practices (weight-age 0.30), Graduation Outcomes (weight-age 0.20), Outreach and Inclusivity (weight-age 0.10), and Perception (weight-age 0.10), are the parameters which have been used broadly in ranking institutions. Each of these parameters is further sub-categorized through which the institutions are ranked. National Board of Accreditation (NBA) is continued to be the Ranking Agency on behalf of NIRF for 2022.

The latest NIFR released on 15^th July by the Minister of Education has categorized different institutions falling under Overall, Universities, Colleges, Research Institutes, Engineering, Medical, Management, Pharmacy, Dental, Law, and Architecture institutions.

The NIFR Dataset

In the 2022 ranking, all candidate institutions, independent of their discipline or nature have been included in the given overall ranking provided that they have a total strength of 1,000 students in undergraduate and/or postgraduate programs. As many as 18,875 universities, colleges, institutions, etc. have participated in NIFR 2022 Rankings. It may be recalled that as per the AISHE, there were about 1,043 universities, 42,342 colleges, and 11,779 stand-alone institutions in the Country data from which were collected during the year 2019-20; thus indicating that a good number of such institutions are still out of the reach of NIFR in 2022.

The NIFR 2022 has specified the process through which the institutions had to provide the data. Institutions that were desirous of participating in the ranking process were required to submit the data in the format which is specifically designed by the NIRF. The NIRF 2022 made it mandatory for participating institutions to upload their data on their website so that it is publically visible to anyone.

The finalized data submitted after the comments and observations received from the NIRF must be made available on its website and must be remained there for at least three years all of which would help in improving the transparency and overall quality of data. Had there been a need, the accreditation team had to physically visit the institution concerned and scrutinize the records. The interested institutions needed to register themselves on the NIFR portal.

NIRF: 2017 to 2022, OVERALL Rankings

Name	Score	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
Name	Score	Rank
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, (Tamil Nadu)	87.59	1	1 (86.76)	1 (85.31)	1 (83.88)	2 (81.39)	2 (73.97)
Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru, (Karnataka)	83.57	2	2 (82.67)	2 (84.18)	2 (82.28)	1 (82.16)	1 (82.28)
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai (Maharashtra)	82.35	3	3 (82.52)	4 (80.75)	4 (78.62)	3 (79.20)	3 (71.78)


Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi(Delhi)	82.22	4	4 (81.75)	3 (81.33)	3 (78.69)	4 (73.97)	5 (64.18)
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh)	77.83	5	5 (76.50)	6 (74.99)	6 (79.07)	7 (65.39)	7 (60.69)
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur (West Bengal)	75.94	6	6 (75.62)	5 (75.85)	5 (74.31)	5 (71.39)	4 (68.43)
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee (Uttarakhand)	71.48	7
	71.48	7	7 (71.40)	8 (68.48)	8 (67.68)	8 (64.93)	9 (59.84)
IIT Guwahati, Guwahati (Assam)	69.75	8	8 (69.26)	9 (68.81)	9 (65.47)	12 (60.16)
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi (Delhi)	69.57	9	Maybe AIIMS is included for the first time in NIRF 2022
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi (Delhi)	67.25	10	9 (66.61)	8 (68.76)	7 (68.68)	6 (67.57)	6 (61.53)
BHU Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)	64.81	11	10 (63.10)	10 (62.03)	10 (64.55)	9 (63.52)	10 (58.92)
Anna University Chennai (Tamil Nadu)						10 (62.82)

Note: Overall ranks were not awarded in 2016, Source: NIRF, different years. Readers are requested to refer source of information and provide a full reference to the contents used.

NIRF Overall Ranking: 2017 to 2022, First 10 Institutions

In this brief note, we take a review of the first ten ranked institutions that found a place in NIRF 2022 which includes all types of institutions including universities, colleges, institutions, and other types of institutions mentioned above. The objective is to see how these first 10 ranked institutions performed in the past years starting the first year of NIRF i.e. 2016; unfortunately, NIFR 2016 does not present an overall rank but has ranked for each of the four categories considered in ranking in that year. Because of this, the past performance of the first 10 institutions is viewed between the years 2022 to 2017.

The analysis is summarised in the form of a Table which indicates that by and large, the first 10 ranked institutions that found a place in the overall ranking in 2022 have also had high ranks since the beginning of NIRF 2017. However, there are a few exceptions that indicate improvement in the case of a few institutions and a slight decline in the case of a few others.

Further, it has been observed that the highest first ranked institution though it is on the top of the list but still not perfect as their overall scores are far below 100, an institution can attain as per the NIFR framework but not a single institution is near in achieving the same. Further, it has also been observed a wide gap in scores of the first and the tenth institutions in 2022 in the overall rank. Further, it has been observed that the gap in scores of the first ranked and the second rank institutions in 2022 is wide and significant and it would be rather difficult to bridge the gap in the coming years.

It is also important to discuss whether NIFR ranking is required to be computed every year or once in five years? How much change/improvement does occur in an institution in a year? Do they change swiftly between the two years? The gap between the top and the bottom and middle-ranked institutions is so wide and significant that the bottom-ranked institutions will take longer or may not even be able to bridge the gap. On the other hand, it is rather difficult also for the top-ranked institutions to further improve their overall scores which are visible in their 2022 scores. It has also been observed that compared to the initial scores in 2017, scores look very impressive in 2022 but the last three years' scores of these institutions suggest that even the top-ranked institutions reached a saturation point and it would be difficult for them to further improve.

The initial wide gap in scores may also be attributed to the fact that institutions were not equipped to have all the requisite information to submit to the NIFR portal. But with each passing year and also because of the gradual improvement in the higher education database through the AISHE, the same has improved significantly and institutions now are better equipped to submit the information required for NIRF ranking.

NIRF in India was initiated 3 years after such an exercise was undertaken globally to rank the global World in universities in the year 2013. Like the NIRF ranking, the World University Ranking is also available for the year. As many as 13 performance indicators spread over areas of the international outlook, research, knowledge transfer and teaching have been used in the global international ranking in 2022. As many as 2,100 institutions (mostly universities, around 1,600) from all over the World from about 99 countries participated in the World University Ranking in 2022 all of which have not been assigned ranks because of the deficiencies in the database which they submitted. Both the University of Oxford in the area of teaching and Harvard University in the area of research continued to be the best universities in the World.

So far as the participation of India in the World ranking is concerned as many as 89 institutions participated in 2022 but all of them have not been assigned the ranking and they are termed as Reporters; the number of such institutions is around 18 which includes Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Management Development Institute, Mizoram University, University of Kerala, etc.

The outcome of the NIFR ranking is also reflected in the World ranking; the Indian Institute of Science located in Banglore is the highest ranked institution from India and is placed in the rank bracket of 301 to 350; this means that IIS is amongst the top best 350 institutions of the World.

Next to IIS, there are a few institutions that are otherwise not ranked in the first 10 ranked institutions in NIFR 2022 but has found a place in the rank bracket of 351 to 400 which includes the newly established IIT Ropar and IIT Indore which are followed by institutions like Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology and Alagappa University, the only two institutions from India to find a place in the rank bracket of 501 to 600.

Two of the top-ranked universities in the NIFR 2022, namely the Jamia Milia Islamia, Delhi University, and Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi could find a place only in the rank bracket of 601 to 800. On the other hand, the Aligarh Muslim University is ranked between 801 to 1000 bracket so the newly entered KIIT is in this bracket. Surprisingly none of the top-ranked IITs such as IIT Madras, IIT Mumbai, and IIT Delhi as per NIRE 2022 could find a place in the World ranking. Overall only 35 Indian universities could find a place in the top 1,000 universities of the Wolrd.

Many of the USA Universities like the previous years ranked at the top as it seems that the barring one, the World's top universities are all located in the USA; that is the reason why a large number of students not only from India but also from across the World used to prefer universities located in the USA; top 10 universities of the World are the University of Oxford, California Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, University of California, Berkeley, Yale University, and The University of Chicago. India still needs continued effort not only to further strengthen its higher education sector but a lot more also is required to improve the efficiency of its school education sector without which the higher education sector cannot grow on its own which has become necessary because of its resolution to attain a high GER of 50 percent in the year 2035.

The World ranking is also available region wise and the same for the Asia Region reveals that India is far behind and needs concerted efforts to improve its higher education & keep pace with the other countries of the world, such as China for which it needs to allocate at least 6 percent of its GDP as has been reassured in the recently adopted NEP 2020. As many as 829 institutions reported data from the Asia Region of which 89 institutions were from India out of which 18 could not be assigned ranks and are termed only as the Reporter.

With a cursory look at the ranks of the Indian institutions, one gets the impression that a few not much known have found a place in the ranking in the Asian Region on the other hand institutions, such as JNU, JMI, AMU and many of the top-ranked IITs ranked in the 1^st to 10^th in NIFR 2022 couldn’t find a place in top 150 institutions located in the Asia region. Tsinghua University and Peking University both from the Peoples' Republic of China are the best in Asia with their ranks standing at 1^st and 2^nd in 2022. On the other hand, the National University of Singapore is the third best institution located in the Asian Region.

The top-ranked NIRF 2022, the Indian Institute of Science Banglore is the 42^nd best institution in Asia which is followed by the JSS Academy of Higher Education & Research which is ranked 65^th.Maybe the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Jamia Milia Islamia University, Delhi University, etc are the best-known universities in India but all of these institutions are ranked much lower respectively at 167^th, 160^th, in the 201 to 250^th bracket all of which indicate that Indian higher education still needs to improve a lot to keep a pace with the best such institutions in Asia. Similarly, the top-ranked IITs could not find a place compared to IIT Ropar (68^th Rank), IIT Indore (87^th Rank), IIT Gandhinagar (120^th Rank), Aligarh Muslim University (122^th Rank) etc.

Fifty-Percent-Increase-in-Higher-Education-Enrolment-by-2035-Possible-converted1.pdf (educationforallinindia.com)

Insurance Education for All: Caution before buying, Points to Consider

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Thu, 14 Jul 2022 07:27:00 +0000

By Arun C Mehta

Various options are available to one get herself or himself insured which can be opted as per the need and requirements; it may be personal, accidental, motor car, home theft, travel, crop security, health, children insurance, and others. Generally, it has been observed that the insured person got a shock when at the time of claim the insured is informed by the insurance company that the claims made are not covered in the insurance policy which he or she has bought which is mainly because at the time of buying the insurance many of the hidden clauses are not explained by the insurance agent nor the person going to buy the insurance has time to go through the lengthy documents most of the times a hard copy of which is not provided and only terms and conditions in the digital form that too on the mobile phone and verbal details are provided which is not an easy task to go through because of which the buyer generally signed the insurance document on the dotted lines without actually going through it.

In such cases, even the regulatory bodies, such as the IRDA is not in a position to give relief to the claimant just because of the fact that the same is not covered in the insurance bought by the claimant. Because of this, just to avoid such a situation, it is always advisable to go through every point of terms and conditions of the insurance document to avoid hardship later.

The insurance buyer should note down all the points of his/her concern well in advance and seek clarification from the insurance agent. If the insurance agency doesn’t satisfy the requirement of the buyer, the buyer can get included in the insurance cover for which some additional amount, if required to be paid is worth paying to ensure that all points of concern are included in the final print document.

It is so more important, especially when buying travel insurance to countries such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and European countries where medical expenses are beyond the reach of the common person, especially for the travellers which have also pertinent because of the COVID and the buyers while buying travel insurance must ensure that expanses for COVID are covered in the term plan.

Do not believe the Insurance Officer, rather read the print document and ensure without failure that expanses for COVID and other details as per the buyer requirement have found their place in the document. This is more so important while buying online which is true for all types of insurance instruments. There may be many hidden conditions that the insurance officer may not disclose and discuss with the buyer because of which getting the hard printed copy mentioning all the conditions of coverage and also what is not covered is the best option to obtain.

The insurance agent or the company is bound to provide the hard copy and is not an obligation on the part of the buyer. Such documents must be obtained from more than one agency and the best suitable one must be kept and modifications, if any must be got done.

In the next post, we shall discuss the types of insurance currently available which is true for most countries of the World. Further, after estimating the requirements, the buyer can get quotes from different insurance companies and choose the one which covers the most his/her points of concern and the same time the insurance company that offers the lowest cost/rate can be selected but at the same, the time track record of the prosperous company must also be looked into, especially what is the ratio of approved claims to the number of claims submitted.

While one may also go through the period which is taken by the insurance company to approve, sanction, and transfer money to the claimant's bank account. One must go for paperless insurance (plastic card) to avoid the hardships that are nowadays provided by most insurance companies. Users may also like to consider online reviews and information available in the media to take the final decision.

Education For All in India

India to cross China Population in 2023: UNDESA

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Tue, 12 Jul 2022 10:32:00 +0000

Prof. Arun C Mehta

On the occasion of International Population day, the United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs (UNDESA) released the World Population Prospects 2022 (WPP) which reveals that India will over cross the population of China in 2023. As per the WPP, India total population of India will touch 1,428 million in 2023 as against the population of China which is expected to be 1,426 million in 2023.

Even though the margin of the population between the two countries will be only 2 million but India will continue to be the most populous country in the World and its population in 2064 is expected to touch 1,697 million people. The entire world’s global population is expected to touch around 8,000 million in 2023; which gives India’s share of the total population of 17.85 percent. However, it is predicted that India's population will gradually come down to 1530 million in the year 2100. Even then, India will have more people than China which is predicted to have 1425 million people in the year 2100.

The Worlds population is predicted to be 9000 million in 2038 and India’s share of 17.85 percent of the world's population, continues then India would have an approximate 1607 million people which would be 179 million more people than in the year 2023. It may be recalled that India’s population in the latest 2011 Census was 12,10,855 thousand in view of which India is expected to have 217 million more people in 2023 than in 2011 which comes to an increase of around 17.93 percent.

It may be recalled that the Report of the Expert Group on Population Projections set up by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare released in June 2020, projected India's population to be 13,83,163 thousand people in 2023 which is much below the latest projection of India’s population released by the UNDESA through WPP which has large implications for India to move towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in general and Goal 4 on Education in particular. The difference between the two estimates is huge and to the tune of 45 million (4.5 Crores). The difference in the total population is also likely to be reflected in the school-going age population which if happens many of the present indicators, mostly enrolment-based indicators would be required to be relocked into. However, when the 2021 Census figures are available would throw more light on the status of school education in terms of universal enrolment.

The Population predictions by the UNDESA and their implications can be understood more through the following graphs published in the Hindustan Times on 12th July 2022 (Delhi NCER Edition). Readers are advised to give full reference of the material used in any form of use.

1. India will overtake China as the most populous country in 2023
2. The World population is growing but at a slow pace
3. Which countries will drive the rise?
4. Are the drivers of growth similar?
5. How did the pandemic affect the population?

The UNDESA predictions further suggest that the COVID19 pandemic might have affected the global population in three ways but have conclusive evidence only in the case of only one way i.e. fall in global life expectancy at birth to 71 years in 2022 from a high 72.8 in 2019 which is found to be true for across the regions of the World except for the West & Central Africa. East and Southern Asia also experienced the highest decrease which is to the tune of 1.8 percent from 63.1 years in 2019 to 62.5 years in 2022.

Read more....

The NATIONAL FAMILY HEALTH SURVEY (NFHS-5): 2019-21

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Mon, 13 Jun 2022 03:18:00 +0000

Brief Analysis by Prof. Arun C Mehta

NATIONAL FAMILY HEALTH SURVEY (NFHS-5) 2019-21 INDIA MARCH 2022: International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and ICF, 2021. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), 2019-21: India. Mumbai: IIPS.

Different educational variables have found a place in NFHS in its different rounds. The educational level of the household population, school attendance, literacy status of the population, years of schooling, etc. are a few such variables. The following variables have got relevance to the education has however found placed in the latest NFHS-5: 2019-21 which was conducted in two phases reports of which are now available. The information is available both at the state and all-India levels and also separately in the rural and urban areas.

Percentage of Female population aged-6 years & above who ever attended school
Percentage of Children aged-5 years who attended pre-primary school (during the school year 2019-20)
Percentage of women who are literate
Percentage of Men who are literate
Percentage of Women with 10 or more years of schooling
Percentage of Men with 10 or more years of schooling

Of the above variables, the percentage of children aged-5 years who attended pre-primary school (during the school year 2019-20) is significant given NEP 2020 which recommended extension of school education to the pre-primary age group i.e. 3 to 5 years.

First NFHS: 1992-93
Second NFHS: 1998-99
Third NFHS: 2005-06
Fourth NFHS: 2015-16 &
Fifth NFHS: 2019-21

The recent all-India Report of NFHS-5: 2019-21 was released in March 2022, and the following variables having got relevance to education has found a place in the report which is presented both at the all-India and State levels. All the States and UTs of India have been divided into North, Central, East, Northeast, West, and Southern regions and analysis is presented both at the All India and Region-specific. The same has also been presented separately for the rural as well as for the urban areas. Fact Sheets of India and States & UTs as well as District Fact Sheets and State Reports can be downloaded from the official website of NFHS which is being managed by the IIPS, Mumbai.

Educational Attainment
Pre-school Attendance
School Attendance
- Gross Attendance Ratio
- Net Attendance Ratio
Gender parity Index

In particular, the following tables present information on educational variables:

Table 2.22 Preschool attendance: Age 2 to 4years
Table 2.23 Preschool attendance by state/union territory
Table 2.24 Educational attainment of household population
Table 2.25 Educational attainment of household population by state/union territory
Table 2.26 School attendance by state/union territory
Table 2.27 School attendance ratios
Table 2.28 Reasons for children currently not attending school

Brief Analysis

The educational data covered in the NFHS-5 indicate that only 39.9 percent of males and 40.3 percent females of aged 2 to 4 years were attending pre-schools of which only 69 percent were found to have attended during the period 2019-21. Not much variation is observed between the rural (38.3 percent) and Urban (43.9 percent) areas as almost the same percentage were found to be attending pre-schooling during the same period. However, more girls of this age (71.3 percent) were found attending than their counterparts boys (66.6 percent). Further, it has been observed that the percentage of children 2 to 4 years was a bit higher in the rural areas (71.3 percent) compared to 65.6 percent in the urban areas. The same information for the children aged-5 years attending pre-schools was earlier separately released by the NFHS-5.

The NFHS-5 also disseminated 6-17 years population attending schools which reveals that 87.4 percent of the population of this age group were attending schools during 2019-20; however, the percentage was observed to be higher in the urban areas (90.4 percent) than the same in the rural areas (86.1 percent). Not much difference is observed between males (88.2 percent) and females (86.5 percent) attending school.

he Net Attendance Ratio in primary schools was reported to be 83 percent in the rural areas as compared to 83.87 percent in the urban areas and GPI is reported to be as high as 0.99; thus meaning that both boys and girls were found almost equally attending primary schools which is quite similar to NER reported from the administrative surveys. The Net Attendance Ratio in primary schools is reported to be 83.87 percent in the urban and 83 percent in the rural areas with a GPI of 0.99; thus indicating that both boys and girls were equally attending primary schools. Compared to primary schools, only 76 and 79.6 percent population of 6-17 years were found to be attending (NAR) middle/secondary and higher secondary schools respectively in the urban and rural areas thus indicating that a good percentage is still far out of this level of education.

Like the previous NFHS, NFHS-5: 2019-21 also collected information on the 6-17 years population not attending schools and reasons for not attending. Despite many flagships programs launched by the Government of India, still about 21.4 percent of 6-17 years not attending school because they are reported not interested in studies as compared to 3.9 percent because of the repetitive failures, 6.8 percent got married (males, 0.3 percent & females, 6.8 percent), 20.6 percent required to work outside for cash earning, 13.3 because of household work, 6.2 percent because of the school located far away, etc. all which indicate that school education in the Country despite mega programs is still facing challenges which are similar to the same in the 1990s when the country launched one of the mega programs of primary education, namely DPEP and subsequently Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and RMSA and now Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan program. We might have opened a good number of schools under different programs but 6.2 percent of 6-17 years just not attending because schools are located far from their household is a great cause of concern. Is it because of the merging and closing of schools initiated recently in the Country? What about RTE norms to ensure that schools are made available in the neighbourhood? Disheartening to observe that 6.2 percent of the total 6-17 years population do not attend schools as they feel that schools are located far away from their household which is also a question mark about the implementation of the Right to Education Act enacted long back in 2009 specifying that no students are detained in elementary classes and all relevant age group children are provided a school within the neighbourhood.

Download Full PDF, Analysis of NFHS-5 by Arun C Mehta

National Achievement Survey (NAS 21): Results Released (25th May 2022)

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:11:00 +0000

In response to demand of researchers, Ministry of Education recently announced that it will soon conduct second National Achievement Survey (NAS) which shall cover both the Private as well as Government schools which is a step in the right direction. Education For All in India wholeheartedly welcomed the statement which would be conducted by the National Council of Educational Research and Training. The last such survey was conducted on 13th November 2017 for classes III, V and VIII and for Class X in 2018.

The Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education has released the report on National Achievement Survey (NAS) 2021, held on 12.11.2021. Approx. 34 lakh students from government, government-aided and private schools participated in this survey. The report is available on: http://nas.gov.in

National Achievement Survey 2021, National Report, Grades 3, 5, 8, and 10
National Achievement Survey 2021, State Report, Grades 3, 5, 8, and 10
National Achievement Survey 2021, District Report, Grades 3, 5, 8, and 10

National, state and district report cards are made available for Class 3, 5, 8 and 10 in language, Social Science, science and mathematics which is not an easy task to analyse.

Report cards reveals that many states has lower average marks in 2021 than in 2017, true for all the subjects.
1,18,274 schools, 5,26,824 teachers and 34,01,158 students participated in NAS 21 across grades 3, 5,8 and 10.
NAS was conducted on 12 November 2021 across the Country.
Out of scaled scores of 500, class 3 has an average score of 323 in language, 306 in mathematics and 307 in EVS
Out of scaled scores of 500, class 3 has an average score of 323 in language, 306 in mathematics and 307 in EVS
Out of scaled scores of 500, class 8 has an average score of 302 in language, 255 in mathematics, 250 in science and 255 in social science.
Out of scaled scores of 500, class 10 has an average score of 260 in MIL, 220 in mathematics, 206 in science, 231 in social science and 277 in English.
Many states have lower average scores than the overall average scores
38 percent students faced difficulty in learning at home during COVID, 78 percent it was burdensome, lot of assignments.
24 percent sample students didn’t have digital device at home, 80 percent found learning better in school with peers help.
Average achievement score in Class 3 in mathematics is 306. In Bihar, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, UP, UKD, the same is significantly below that of the overall achievement score.
Average achievement score in Class 5 in mathematics is 284. In Bihar, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, UP, UKD etc, the same is significantly below that of the overall achievement score. Against which, Assam, Gujarat, Haryana, MP, Punjab, Rajasthan, WB etc have significantly above the overall achievement score.
Average achievement score in Class 8 in mathematics is 255. In Andhra, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, UP, UKD, the same is significantly below than the overall achievement score. Against which, Bihar, Chandigarh, Haryana, MP, Punjab, Rajasthan etc have significantly above the overall achievement score.
Average achievement score in Class 8 in mathematics is 255. In Andhra, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, UP, UKD, the same is significantly below than the overall achievement score. Against which, Bihar, Chandigarh, Haryana, MP, Punjab, Rajasthan etc have scores significantly above the overall achievement score.

More about NAS...

National Achievement Survey

Education Sector in the Union Budget 2022-23, Analysis by Arun C Mehta

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Fri, 04 Feb 2022 07:48:00 +0000

Based on the information made available in the Union Budget 2022, an effort has been made to have a look at the budget, actual and revised estimates in case of the allocation made to the Ministry of Education. Needless to mention that the ministry has two departments namely the Department of School Education & Literacy and the Department of Higher Education all the activities of the ministry fall under these two departments.

However, the focus of the present note is more on the School Education Department which plays a pivotal role in ensuring that it sends an adequate number of secondary graduates to the higher education without which the goal of 50 per cent GER as envisaged in NEP 2020 is not likely to be realized by 2030.

Without improving the efficiency of the school education, the higher education sector is not expected to receive an adequate number of secondary graduates because of which the school education department must receive adequate funds to initiate activities as adopted in the NEP 2020.

Click below to read full length article.

Education in the Union Budget 2022-23: A Note by Arun C Mehta

My Views of NITI Aayog: Health Index 2019-20

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:59:00 +0000

Prof. Arun C Mehta
Formerly Professor & Head
Department of EMIS
NIEPA, New Delhi

Background

Ever since the Planning Commission is renamed as The National Institutions for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog it used to compute and disseminate a variety of state-specific indices which includes one each for Education, Health, Water, and Sustainable Development (SDG) Goals. On the one hand, the education index, namely School Education Quality Index (SEQI) is the latest available for the year 2016-17; on the other hand, the SDG index is available for 2020-21. The recently launched (December 2021), Healthy States, Progressive India: Health Round IV is the latest available for 2019-20.

The available indices help know the status of a state-viz-a-viz other states concerning SDG, health, and education but the indices are of little use to use as an input to ongoing annual plan formulation exercises. For example, the SEQI (also performance Grading Index for 2019-20) is the latest available for the year 2016-17, the same is not possible to use while formulating annual plans the process of 2022-23 under Samagra Shiksha is being initiated soon.

Most of the indicators used in Health Index: 2019-20 are of the year 2018-19 or even 2015-16 in case of few indicators. NITI Aayog must also intervene to ensure that the data required in computing an index in a year must be available for the same year for which an index is being computed. The time lag in school education data has recently been widened as the same is latest available for the year 2019-20 (as of January 2021).

While observations on School Education Quality Index (SEQI), Performance Grading Index (PGI), and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are separately been documented, in this note we focus more on the Health Round IV Index: 2019-20. The Health Index of the first three rounds is available for years, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 respectively. In addition, SDG3: Health Index has also been looked into.

Continue Reading ....
Full Article
Tables

Is decline in enrolment in school education in india a cause for concern?

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Thu, 27 Jan 2022 03:58:00 +0000

Is Decline in School Enrolment in India a Cause of Concern?

……Yes, it is

By
Arun C Mehta
Formerly Professor & Head of EMIS Department
NIEPA, New Delhi
Email: acmehta100@gmail.com

Introduction

Because of the limitations in the educational statistics, at the time of initiating the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) in 1994-95, the Ministry of Education/HRD, Government of India decided to develop a computerized educational management information system with the school as the unit of data collection and district as the unit of data dissemination and the task to develop such as system was assigned to NIEPA, New Delhi which joined hands with the UNICEF and contributed all through the period 1994-95 to 2017-18. It was only the year 2018-19 onwards that the renamed UDISE+ is being managed by the NIC and located in the Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education but the first of its publication was released on 1^st July 2021 by the then Minister of Education under the title, UDISE+ 2019-20 Report even failed to mention the national institutions which brought the earlier defunct school education statistics managed by the none other than the Ministry of Education to this level which practically has overcome most of the limitations in Educational Statistics in India.

At the time, when UDISE was managed by the NIEPA, New Delhi the time-lag in the educational statistics was brought to less than a year at the national level and the Annual Work Plan & Budget under the age-sis of Sarva/Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan was being formulated on currents years data both of which have now been forfeited. Other achievements of NIEPA towards strengthening EMIS are also fading and fast becoming history.

The year 2021-22 annual plans have recently been formulated based on the outdated 2019-20 data unfortunately which is also the latest data. At the time of writing this note, the process of data collection for 2020-21 is in progress and the moot question is in which year’s annual plan, data of 2020-21 will be used. Annual plan exercises are now based on stale data, the allegation which was made on UDISE to gain its control from the national institutions which were also alleged not having expertise. UDISE at NIEPA used to bring out a set of 15 publications in a year all of which has now been discontinued along with the updating of the numerous award-winning internationally acclaimed websites including the schoolreportcards.in.

The Present Article

While how much we gain: A Case of UDISE+ and Is India moving towards privatization of school education: analysis of coverage under UDISE+ 2019-20 has separately been documented, in this note, we confine to analyse the progress of school enrolment in Grades I to XII over time in general and primary enrolment in Grades I to V and other levels of school education in particular and analyse whether the decline in school enrolment in India is a cause of concern especially when all government-sponsored programmes and RTE 2009 are working towards universal school enrolment? Wherever essential, the same is separately been analysed under the government as well as private management.

Needless to mention that the main source of educational statistics in India, namely UDISE, for different years has been extensively used in analysing the growth which has taken place in school education in India. Data has been obtained from the official websites and is available in the public domain.

Download Full Article

Analysis of decline in number of schools: UDISE+ 2019-20, Observations

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Wed, 10 Nov 2021 14:49:00 +0000

A Detailed Analysis of Decline in Number of Schools Covered under
UDISE+ 2019-20
Are we moving towards privatisation of School Education?

By
Arun C Mehta
Formerly Professor & Head of EMIS Department
NIEPA, New Delhi
Email Id: acmehta100@gmail.com

Background

Because of the limitations in the educational statistics, at the time of initiating the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) in 1994-95, the Ministry of Education, Government of India decided to develop a computerized educational management information system with the school as the unit of data collection and district as the unit of data dissemination and the task to develop such as system was assigned to NIEPA, New Delhi which joined hands with the UNICEF and contributed all through the period 1994-95 to 2017-18.

It was only the year 2018-19 onwards that the renamed UDISE+ is being managed by the NIC and located in the Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education but the first of its publication was released on 1^st July 2021 by the then Minister of Education under the title, UDISE+ 2019-20 Report even failed to mention the national institutions which brought the earlier defunct school education statistics managed by the none other than the Ministry of Education to this level which practically has overcome most of the limitations in Educational Statistics in India.

At the time, when UDISE was managed by the NIEPA, New Delhi the time-lag in the educational statistics was brought to less than a year at the national level and the Annual Work Plan & Budget under the age-sis of Sarva/Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan was being formulated on currents years data both of which have now been forfeited badly. Other achievements of NIEPA towards strengthening EMIS are also fading and fast becoming history.

The Present Article

While How much we gain: A Case of UDISE+ is separately been documented, in this note, we confine to coverage of UDISE+ in terms of the number of schools covered during the period 2017-18 to 2019-20. The analysis is presented both at the all-India and wherever required, state level and also in the rural and urban areas. Data has been obtained from the official websites and is available in the public domain.

Coverage: Total Number of Schools

The total number of schools covered under UDISE during the period 2017-18 to 2019-20 presented in Table 1 reveals that the same has significantly and consistently declined from an all-time high of 15,58,903 schools in 2017-18 to a low 15,07,708 schools covered during 2019-20 data collection which shows that the latest data is based on a more than 51 thousand less number of schools than in the year 2017-18. In the percentage terms, the number of schools covered in 2019-20 was fewer by more than 3 per cent of schools covered in 2017-18.

It may be recalled that 2018-19 was the first year from which UDISE is being managed by the NIC & Department of School Education & Literacy during which about 8 thousand fewer schools were covered than in the previous year i.e 2017-18. The latest 2019-20 UDISE data could cover only 15,07,708 schools which is fewer than 43,292 schools than the same covered in 2018-19; in percentage terms 2019-20 it was 2.8 per cent of the schools covered during the previous year. Under coverage of schools in recent years may be due to different reasons. Further, we also undertake analysis of schools by school category, management, and its rural and urban distribution all of which reveal interesting information about coverage. Before that, we undertake an analysis of the state-wise number of schools covered under UDISE during the same period: 2017-18 to 2019-20 which is presented in Table 2.

Is it because of the decline in the number of schools by 43,292 in 2019-20, the Report of the UDISE+ 2019-20 published recently (July 2021) even didn’t mention it and nowhere in the document, like enrolment & teachers present the comparison of the same with the previous year’s figures i.e. 2018-19? It is expected that the managers of UDISE+ i.e. the Department of School Education & Literacy will furnish the explanation of the significant decline in the number of schools covered under UDISE+ ever since it has assumed the responsibility of the same. Rather, it has shed its responsibility by mentioning “The Ministry of Education, therefore, assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the data and indicators reported in the document” under the disclaimer.

Table 1: Number of Schools (All Schools)

Year	Total Number of Schools	Increase/Decrease	%age Change
2017-18	15,58,903	-	-
2018-19	15,51,000	- 7,903	- 0.5
2019-20	15,07,708	- 43,292	- 2.8
2017-18 to 2019-20		- 51,195	- 3.3

Source: UDISE & UDISE+, different years. From 1994-95 to 2017-18, DISE/UDISE was maintained by NIEPA, New Delhi, and thereafter by the Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education, Government of India.

Table 2: State-wise Number of Schools: 2017-18 to 2019-20

State/UT	2017-18	2018-19	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change	2019-20	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change	Change Over 2017-18 to 2019-20	%age Change
A & N Islands	417	414	-3	-0.7	418	4	1.0	1	0.2
Andhra Pradesh	63633	63621	-12	0.0	63824	203	0.3	191	0.3
Arunachal Pradesh	4061	3793	-268	-6.6	3666	-127	-3.3	-395	-9.7
Assam	70078	66324	-3754	-5.4	65907	-417	-0.6	-4171	-6.0
Bihar	88233	89224	991	1.1	90275	1051	1.2	2042	2.3
Chandigarh	225	229	4	1.8	229	0	0.0	4	1.8
Chhattisgarh	56184	56274	90	0.2	56303	29	0.1	119	0.2
D & N Haveli	346	346	0	0.0	346	0	0.0	0	0.0
Daman & Diu	143	140	-3	-2.1	137	-3	-2.1	-6	-4.2
Delhi	5723	5703	-20	-0.3	5669	-34	-0.6	-54	-0.9
Goa	1525	1486	-39	-2.6	1482	-4	-0.3	-43	-2.8
Gujarat	54141	54581	440	0.8	54629	48	0.1	488	0.9
Haryana	23235	23534	299	1.3	23699	165	0.7	464	2.0
Himachal Pradesh	18295	18212	-83	-0.5	18185	-27	-0.1	-110	-0.6
Jammu & Kashmir*	29335	29708	373	1.3	29917	209	0.7	582	2.0
Jharkhand	49530	45908	-3622	-7.3	45596	-312	-0.7	-3934	-7.9
Karnataka	77076	78233	1157	1.5	77166	-1067	-1.4	90	0.1
Kerala	17013	16701	-312	-1.8	16665	-36	-0.2	-348	-2.0
Lakshadweep	45	45	0	0.0	45	0	0.0	0	0.0
Madhya Pradesh	153593	154064	471	0.3	133379	-20685	-13.4	-20214	-13.2
Maharashtra	110315	109942	-373	-0.3	110229	287	0.3	-86	-0.1
Manipur	4812	4844	32	0.7	4663	-181	-3.7	-149	-3.1
Meghalaya	14736	14669	-67	-0.5	14730	61	0.4	-6	0.0
Mizoram	3919	3913	-6	-0.2	3924	11	0.3	5	0.1
Nagaland	2839	2752	-87	-3.1	2758	6	0.2	-81	-2.9
Orissa	69209	68717	-492	-0.7	67020	-1697	-2.5	-2189	-3.2
Puducherry	733	739	6	0.8	741	2	0.3	8	1.1
Punjab	28926	28637	-289	-1.0	28775	138	0.5	-151	-0.5
Rajasthan	105514	105883	369	0.3	106240	357	0.3	726	0.7
Sikkim	1300	1290	-10	-0.8	1277	-13	-1.0	-23	-1.8
Tamil Nadu	58474	59152	678	1.2	58897	-255	-0.4	423	0.7
Telangana	42834	42355	-479	-1.1	42575	220	0.5	-259	-0.6
Tripura	4928	4945	17	0.3	4940	-5	-0.1	12	0.2
Uttar Pradesh	275286	273235	-2051	-0.7	254352	-18883	-6.9	-20934	-7.6
Uttarakhand	24273	23559	-714	-2.9	23295	-264	-1.1	-978	-4.0
West Bengal	97974	97828	-146	-0.1	95755	-2073	-2.1	-2219	-2.3
Total	1558903	1551000	-7903	-0.5	1507708	-43292	-2.8	-51195	-3.3

*Including Ladakh

Source: UDISE, different years.

State-wise Number of Schools

A glance at the state-wise number of schools covered UDISE + 2019-20 reveals that as many as 18 states reported a decline in the total number of schools over the previous year as against 21 states which have shown a decline during the period 2017-18 & 2018-19. In about 12 states, the per cent decline was more than a percentage point during the same period. The highest 13.4 per cent decline is observed in Madhya Pradesh which in the absolute number is as high as 20,685 schools which is considered huge.

Madhya Pradesh is followed by Uttar Pradesh in terms of percentage (6.9 per cent) but in the absolute number, the decline in the number of schools covered in 2019-20 was as high as 18,883 schools. Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, and Lakshadweep are the only three states which have shown no decline in the number of schools covered in 2019-20 all of which are in small size and has only a few schools compared to other states. In another three states, namely Karnataka (1,067 schools, -1.4 per cent), Odisha (1,697 schools, -2.5 per cent), and West Bengal (2,073 schools, -2.1 per cent) the decline in the number of schools was in the tune of four digits.

The number of schools during the period from 2017-18 to 2019-20 further reveals that in as many as 22 states, the number of schools in 2019-20 is observed to be declined from its 2017-18 level and the number of such schools at the all-India level, as reported above is in the tune of 51,195 schools which is 3.3 per cent of total schools covered in 2017-18. In the case of five states, namely Assam (4,171 schools, - 6.0 per cent), Jharkhand (3,834 schools, -7.9 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (20,214 schools, -13.2 per cent), Odisha (2,189 schools, -3.2 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (20,934 schools, -7.6 per cent) and West Bengal (2,219 schools, -2.3 per cent), the number of schools in 2019-20 is fewer by more than two thousand schools which range between 2,189 schools in Odisha to 20,934 schools to Uttar Pradesh. Why has the number of schools covered under UDISE+ declined ever since the same was taken over by the Department of School & Literacy or is it because of the merger of schools to make the school composite one? Is the decline limited to private unaided schools or whether the government and aided schools have also been declined answers of all of which are explored in the following paragraphs?

On the one hand, the number of schools is declined in the majority of states which is confined to both small as well as major states, on the other hand, a few states, such as D & N Haveli and Lakshadweep didn't see any decline all through the period 2017-18 to 2019-20. Bihar (2,042 schools, 2.3 per cent), Gujarat (488 schools, 0.9 per cent), Haryana (464 schools, 0.2 schools), Jammu & Kashmir (582 schools, 0.2 per cent), Rajasthan (726 schools, 0.7 per cent), and Tamil Nadu (423 schools, 0.7 per cent) all see a slight increase in coverage of school during the same period. The moot question is whether the merger of schools didn’t take place in these states. Within these states, barring Tamil Nadu all remaining five states, including Bihar have shown a consistent increase in the number of schools covered during the same period.

Rural & Urban Distribution of Schools

The rural and urban distribution of schools covered under UDISE during the period 2017-18 to 2019-20 presented in Table 3 reveals that more than 84 out of 100 schools are located in the rural areas (83.5 per cent), urban areas (16.5 per cent) have only 16 out of 100 such schools. Further, it has been observed that the coverage in terms of schools in the rural areas has consistently declined from a high of 13,11,976 schools in 2017-18 to 13,04,715 schools in 2018-19 and further to 12,58,347 schools in the latest year i.e. 2019-20; thus showing a decline to the tune of 7,261 (-0.6 per cent), 46,368 (-3.6 per cent) and 53,629 schools (-4.1 per cent) respectively during the period 2017-18 to 2018-19, 2018-19 to 2019-20 and 2017-18 to 2019-20. During the same period, the number of schools covered in the urban areas has increased from 2,46,927 schools in 2017-18 to 2,49,361 schools in 2019-20.

Further, it is observed that of the total decline of 43,292 schools in 2019-20, practically every school declined is located in the rural areas (46,368 schools, - 4.1 per cent) as against an increase of 3,076 schools +1.2 per cent) in the urban areas. Both the rural and urban areas together show a decline of 51,195 schools in 2019-20 which is -3.3 per cent of total schools covered in 2017-18. Huge coverage of fewer schools than in the past year must have some valid reason but the UDISE+ 2019-20 Report failed to present details of the same less even mentioning the significant decline in the number of schools covered.

Table 3: Rural & Urban Distribution of Schools, 2017-18 to 2019-20

Year	Rural	%age	Urban	%age	All Areas
2017-18	1311976	84.2	246927	15.8	1558903
2018-19	1304715	84.1	246285	15.9	1551000
2019-20	1258347	83.5	249361	16.5	1507708
Increase/Decrease 2018-19	-7261		-642		-7903
%age Increase	-0.6		-0.3		-0.5
Increase/Decrease 2019-20	-46368		3076		-43292
%age Increase	-3.6		1.2		-2.8
Increase/Decrease 2017-18 to 2019-20	-53629		2434		-51195
%age Increase	-4.1		1.0		-3.3

Source: UDISE, different years.

Rural & Urban Distribution of Schools by School Category

The rural & urban distribution of schools by type of school category reveals that the number of schools covered in 2019-20 is observed to be fewer in the case of five categories in the rural areas compared to the same in four categories in the urban areas. It may be recalled that there are ten types of school categories which are been maintained ever since the year 2012-13 during which the entire country got covered under the DISE for the first time and data was collected by using one Data Capture Format. DISE since then is known as Unified-DISE or popularly as UDISE.

The ten school categories consisting of corresponding grades are Grades I to V, I to VIII, I to XII, VI to VIII, VI to XII, I to X, VI to X, IX to X, IX to XII, and XI to XII. Both in the rural and the urban areas, the decline in the number of schools is observed in I to V, VI to VIII, IX to X, and IX to XII in addition to which the number of high schools consisting of Grades VI to X has also declined in the rural areas. In addition, the number of schools with Grades VI to X has also shown a decline in the rural areas against which the urban areas have shown a slight increase of 242 schools during the same period. Further, it may be recalled that the rural areas have shown a huge decline in the number of schools (46,368 schools, -3.6 per cent) but in the reality, the actual number of schools declined is much higher than it as there was an increase in a few school categories which is in the tune of 41,481 schools. In reality, the actual number of decline in schools in the rural areas is in the tune of 88,191 schools majority of which is confined to primary (Grades I to V) only schools (45,804 schools, -6.1 per cent) followed by upper primary (38, 751 schools, -29.3 per cent), secondary (2,117 schools, -7.7 per cent) and higher secondary (1,276 schools, -7.2 per cent) schools. During the same period, overall the coverage of schools in the urban areas has increased by 3,076 schools which is 1.2 per cent of the total schools in the previous year. However, in the urban areas, the total decline is to the tune of 5,886 schools in 2019-20 0ver the previous year. The brief analysis reveals that the decline in both the rural and urban areas is confined only to a few school categories amongst which primary and upper primary schools are the most prominent ones. On the other hand, elementary (Grades I to VIII) and higher secondary (I to XII) schools are the main categories both in the rural as well as urban areas which have shown an increase in the number of the schools in 2019-20. Is it because of the merger of the primary and upper primary schools into the elementary schools but the number doesn’t exactly match which indicates that a few schools might have closed down?

		Table 4: Percentage Change in Number of Schools between 2018-19 & 2019-20 & its Rural & Urban Distribution
School Category	Rural			Urban		All Areas
	Increase/ Decrease		%age Change	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change
PS (I-V)	-45804		-6.1	-2336	-2.9	-48140	-5.8
UPS (I-VIII)	36709		15.8	4716	6.9	41425	13.8
HSS (I-XII)	1904		5.5	1533	7.2	3437	6.1
UPS (VI-VIII)	-38751		-29.3	-2423	-23.0	-41174	-28.8
HSS (VI-XII)	1058		4.0	497	6.1	1555	4.5
SS (I-X)	1810		4.2	1852	7.3	3662	5.4
SS (VI-X)	-243		-0.6	242	2.4	-1	0.0
SS (IX-X)	-2117		-7.7	-659	-9.4	-2776	-8.1
HSS (IX-XII)	-1276		-7.2	-438	-7.3	-1714	-7.2
HSS (XI-XII)	342		4.5	92	1.2	434	2.8
Total	-46368		-3.6	3076	1.2	-43292	-2.8

Source: UDISE+, different years.

Further, the state-wise change in the number of schools in the case of the selected categories presented in the Table 5 reveals that the coverage of the primary schools (I to V) declined by a huge 61,858 schools which is 7.4 per cent of the same in the previous year i.e. 2018-19. Except, in the case of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh and Lakshadweep, all the remaining States & UTs, the UDISE+ 2019-20 data is based on fewer primary schools than in 2018-19 and

Table 5: Percentage Change in Number of Schools between 2018-19 & 2019-20

All States, Selected Categories

States/UTs	Primary Schools (I to V)		Elementary Schools (I to VIII)		Upper Primary Schools (VI to VIII)		All Schools
States/UTs	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change
A & N Islands	4	1.8	-4	-5.1	0	0.0	4	1.0
Andhra Pradesh	-1742	-4.2	1254	15.6	-148	-96.7	203	0.3
Arunachal Pradesh	-349	-15.4	208	20.5	-12	-18.2	-127	-3.3
Assam	-559	-1.2	109	2.7	-162	-2.1	-417	-0.6
Bihar	-1152	-2.6	1022	2.8	-23	-8.1	1051	1.2
Chandigarh	0	0.0	0	0.0	0		0	0.0
Chhattisgarh	-307	-0.9	196	6.8	-62	-0.5	29	0.1
D & N Haveli	-2	-1.2	2	1.5	0	0.0	0	0.0
Daman & Diu	-1	-2.0	0	0.0	-2	-5.3	-3	-2.1
Delhi	-44	-1.6	-5	-0.6	0	0.0	-34	-0.6
Goa	-9	-1.0	4	8.2	-7	-50.0	-4	-0.3
Gujarat	-133	-1.1	-76	-0.3	-34	-4.0	48	0.1
Haryana	-189	-1.9	62	2.0	-53	-2.2	165	0.7
Himachal Pradesh	-121	-1.1	34	4.4	-38	-1.9	-27	-0.1
Jammu & Kashmir	-102	-0.7	98	1.0	-36	-21.3	209	0.7
Jharkhand	-652	-2.6	87	0.5	-54	-46.2	-312	-0.7
Karnataka	-1423	-5.4	11	0.0	-496	-50.5	-1067	-1.4
Kerla	-1021	-12.6	794	24.4	-1467	-69.3	-36	-0.2
Lakshadweep	0	0.0	-1	-6.7	1		0	0.0
Madhya Pradesh	-20284	-22.9	16556	91.0	-17170	-57.2	-20685	-13.4
Maharashtra	-1243	-2.3	308	1.0	-56	-30.6	287	0.3
Manipur	-390	-13.8	102	11.3	-20	-32.3	-181	-3.7
Meghalaya	-10	-0.1	38	19.5	-18	-0.5	61	0.4
Mizoram	-54	-3.5	50	12.6	-14	-1.3	11	0.3
Nagaland	-92	-7.2	77	11.0	-10	-28.6	6	0.2
Orissa	-1981	-5.6	357	1.9	-378	-12.6	-1697	-2.5
Puducherry	-9	-3.1	1	1.3	0	0.0	2	0.3
Punjab	-166	-1.2	91	3.7	-25	-0.9	138	0.5
Rajasthan	-1511	-3.7	986	2.8	-33	-13.3	357	0.3
Sikkim	-37	-5.0	9	3.0	-1	-100.0	-13	-1.0
Tamilnadu	-465	-1.3	-70	-0.7	-22	-18.5	-255	-0.4
Telangana	-1194	-5.4	678	10.0	-131	-100.0	220	0.5
Tripura	-29	-1.1	1	0.1	0	0.0	-5	-0.1
Uttar Pradesh	-24394	-15.0	27389	168.1	-23767	-37.2	-18883	-6.9
Uttarakhand	-431	-3.0	203	9.7	-111	-3.4	-264	-1.1
West Bengal	-1766	-2.3	-151	-9.2	-213	-2.8	-2073	-2.1
Total	-61858	-7.4	50420	17.3	-44562	-30.5	-43292	-2.8

Source: UDISE+, different years. Note: Apart from these three categories, there are seven more school categories. For reasons not known the total number of schools presented above in case of a few categories don't match well with the same at the all-India level presented above.

the size of the decline in coverage is in the tune of 61,858 schools (-7.4 per cent). It may be recalled that both Madhya Pradesh (20,685 schools, -13.4 per cent) and Uttar Pradesh (18,863 schools, -6.9 per cent) experienced a huge decline in the total number of schools (all categories) in 2019-20 which is more than 91 per cent of the total decline in the number of schools which otherwise means that 9 out of every 10 schools declined is in these two states.

Further, it has been observed that like primary schools, upper primary schools consisting of Grades VI to VIII have also shown a steep decline in the number of schools covered in 2019-20 UDISE+ data collection which is fewer by 44,562 schools or 30.5 per cent of such schools in 2018-19. It is generally believed that a decline in the coverage of schools in 2019-20 is because of the merger of schools to make them composite schools but the same is not reflected in the corresponding elementary schools consisting of Grades I to VIII in which primary and upper primary schools are supposed to have been merged. Except in a few states, the decline in the number of schools does not suggest that it is only because of the merger of the schools as the increase in the number of elementary schools doesn’t match well with the corresponding decline in primary and upper primary schools. As against a total decline of 61,858 primary schools (-7.4 per cent) and 44,562 upper primary schools (-30.5 per cent) schools, coverage of elementary schools increased only by 50,420 schools (17.3 per cent). It may also be possible that schools having VI to VIII grades don't necessarily be merged into the elementary schools; a few of them might have merged into the high school located on the same campus or located in the nearby areas. Madhya Pradesh which has experienced the highest decline in the number of schools has merged schools that are located on the same campus and has also converted a few schools into composite schools. At least the UDISE+ 2019-20 report should have discussed the actual reasons behind the decline in schools along with the state-specific reasons in the absence of which the decline may be simply be treated as UDISE+2019-20 is based on fewer schools than in the previous year.

Schools by Management

Table 6 presents the number of schools covered under UDISE 2017-18 to 2019-20 by management along with the increase/decrease in a year and percentage change over the previous year. Both the schools managed by the government as well as private management including unaided and unrecognized schools have been presented. The decline in the number of schools further shows that the decline is mostly confined to schools being managed by the government managements amongst which schools managed by the Department of Education is the most prominent one. It may be observed that the number of schools managed by the Department of Education increased by 18,450 (2.3 per cent) in 2018-19 over the previous year i.e. 2017-18 against which the same has shown a steep decline during the next year i.e. 2019-20 and the decline is in the tune of 50,382 schools (6.0 per cent) which is 6 per cent less than the number of schools covered in UDISE+ 2018-19. The steep decline in the number of schools managed by the Department of education is a serious cause of concern and needs explanation about the actual reason behind the decline.

Scrutiny of number of schools by management further reveals that the number of schools under the Local Body management in 2018-19 was declined by 29,250 schools which is 13 per cent of the total such school in the previous year i.e. 2017-18. The same has further declined by 490 schools in 2019-20. On the one hand, schools managed by the Department of Education has shown a steep decline in 2019-20 on the other hand decline in school under the Local Body management is a serious cause of concern. On the other hand, it has been observed a significant increase in the number of private unaided schools and the increase is to the tune of 11,271 schools (3.5 per cent) alone in 2019-20 in addition to which the same was increased by 4,027 schools (1.2 per cent) in 2018-19.

Table 6: Change in Number of Schools in 2019-20 over 2018-19, All India

School Management	2017-18	2018-19	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change	2019-20	Increase/ Decrease	%age Decline
Department of Education	817038	835488	18450	2.3	785106	-50382	-6.0
Tribal Welfare Department	45077	45409	332	0.7	46279	870	1.9
Local Body	225780	196530	-29250	-13.0	196040	-490	-0.2
Government Aided	84420	84623	203	0.2	84362	-261	-0.3
Private Unaided (Recognized)	322201	326228	4027	1.2	337499	11271	3.5
Other Govt. managed Schools	2750	1322	-1428	-51.9	939	-383	-29.0
Unrecognized	32916	32366	-550	-1.7	29600	-2766	-8.5
Social Welfare Department	1626	2413	787	48.4	1717	-696	-28.8
Ministry of Labor	195	356	161	82.6	353	-3	-0.8
Kendriya Vidyalaya / Central School	1435	1566	131	9.1	1259	-307	-19.6
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya	486	505	19	3.9	626	121	24.0
Sainik School	71	64	-7	-9.9	67	3	4.7
Railway School	74	80	6	8.1	85	5	6.3
Central Tibetan School	11	14	3	27.3	16	2	14.3
Madarsa Recognized (By Wakf Board/Madarsa Board)	19354	19150	-204	-1.1	19538	388	2.0
Madarsa Unrecognized	5469	4886	-583	-10.7	4139	-747	-15.3
Other Central Government Schools			0		83	83	-
Total	1558903	1551000	-7903	-0.5	1507708	-43292	2.8

Source: UDISE, different years.

In addition to schools managed by the government and private managements, UIDSE also covers unrecognized schools and madarsa both of which have also declined recently. Overall, as reported above UDISE+ 2019-20 is based on 43,292 schools fewer than the same in 2018-19 which is 2.8 per cent of the total schools covered in the previous year. Is the decline in schools under the Department of Education is across the board to examine the same we have also analyzed the number of schools under this management by school category? Before that number of schools by type of schools is presented in Table 7.

Number of Schools by Type

The number of schools by type presented in Table 7 reveals that the decline is confined to only five out of the ten categories. Boys, co-educational, and girls are the three types of schools for which distribution of schools is available under UDISE. Further, it has been observed that most of the decline is confined to either primary or upper primary or higher secondary schools but affected the co-educational institutions the most. Table 7 further reveals that of the total number of schools declined during 2019-20 (43,292 schools), 89.70 per cent (38,832 schools) alone are co-educational schools and the remaining 4.54 per cent (1,966 schools) are boys and 5.76 per cent (2,494 schools) girls schools. The number of schools declined to any school category may not add up to the total number of schools declined (42,292 schools) because a few of the remaining school categories; like elementary schools have shown an increase in the number of schools covered during the same period. Users may get confused the way UDISE-plus has given names of the school categories, for example, schools having Grades I to VIII and VI to VIII both are termed as upper primary schools. Needless to mention that schools having Grades I to VIII are traditionally termed elementary schools in India.

Table 7: Percentage Change in Number of Schools between 2018-19 & 2019-20 by Type of Schools

Type of School	Boys		Co-Educational		Girls		Total Schools
Type of School	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change	Increase/ Decrease	%age Change
PS (I-V)	-1383	-23.8	-45050	-5.5	-1707	-24.2	-48140	-5.8
UPS (I-VIII)	58	2.5	41138	13.9	229	7.1	41425	13.8
HSS (I-XII)	75	14.2	3197	5.9	165	10.8	3437	6.1
UPS (VI-VIII)	-722	-38.4	-39305	-29.1	-1147	-19.4	-41174	-28.8
HSS (VI-XII)	58	3.0	1198	4.1	299	7.7	1555	4.5
SS (I-X)	72	8.2	3567	5.4	23	1.4	3662	5.4
SS (VI-X)	-18	-2.2	193	0.4	-176	-4.5	-1	0.0
SS (IX-X)	-8	-3.3	-2732	-8.3	-36	-2.9	-2776	-8.1
HSS (IX-XII)	-121	-17.5	-1387	-6.6	-206	-9.9	-1714	-7.2
HSS (XI-XII)	23	17.6	349	2.4	62	6.4	434	2.8
Total	-1966	-12.9	-38832	-2.6	-2494	-7.9	-43292	-2.8
Source: UDISE, different years.

Of the total decline of 48,140 primary schools, 45,050 schools (93.58 per cent) alone are co-educational as against 1,383 (2.87 per cent) boys schools and the remaining 1,707 (3.55 per cent), girls schools. Quite a similar pattern is also observed in the case of upper primary schools which is declined by 41,174 schools of which 95.46 per cent (39,305 schools) alone are co-educational schools. Further, it has been observed that both in terms of absolute and percentage terms, the number of girls schools declined is a bit lower than boys schools. As many as 3,272 fewer girls' schools were covered under UDISE 2019-20 compared to 778 more girls schools were added but confined to only four categories. In addition to primary and upper primary schools, a good number of secondary schools consisting of Grades IX & X (2732 schools) and higher secondary schools (Grades IX to XII, 1387 schools) have also declined all of which are co-educational; these schools are 8.3 and 6.6 per cent of the total decline in co-educational schools.

As mentioned above, we now analyze the decline in the number of schools in the case of primary, upper primary, etc schools under the Department of Education and Private managements.

Table 8: Number of Schools declined by Category under DoE & Private Unaided Management, 2018-19 & 2019-20

School Category	Department of Education				Private Unaided
School Category	2019	2018	Change over 2018	%age Change	2019	2018	Change over 2018	%age Change
PS (I-V)	474781	523383	-48602	-9.29	89517	98023	-8506	-8.68
UPS (I-VIII)	151482	114112	37370	32.75	107315	95263	12052	12.65
HSS (I-XII)	15713	12674	3039	23.98	35174	29501	5673	19.23
UPS (VI-VIII)	66024	108196	-42172	-38.98	16673	17257	-584	-3.38
HSS (VI-XII)	21281	19463	1818	9.34	6879	6212	667	10.74
SS (I-X)	16244	17128	-884	-5.16	43495	40600	2895	7.13
SS (VI-X)	16335	17089	-754	-4.41	11295	13404	-2109	-15.73
SS (IX-X)	11986	11580	406	3.51	9083	8568	515	6.01
HSS (IX-XII)	8942	9448	-506	-5.36	7624	7724	-100	-1.29
HSS (XI-XII)	2318	2415	-97	-4.02	10444	9676	768	7.94
Total	785106	835488	-50382	-6.03	337499	326228	11271	3.45

DoE: Department of Education

Source: UDISE+ different years.

The Number of Schools by Category: DoE & Private Unaided Managements

As has already been presented above the decline in the number of schools covered in UDISE-plus 2019-20 over the previous year is mainly confined to the Department of Education. Contrary to which, on the other hand, schools managed by the private unaided managements during the same period has shown significant increase because of which it has become essential to know more about school categories those who have decreased or increased. As has already been reported that the total number of schools covered under the Department of Education was declined by 50,382 schools as compared to an increase of 11,271 schools under the private unaided managements. The number of schools declined under the Department of Education is confined to six out of ten school categories and in the rest, two out of four categories, the decline in the number of schools is steep which is to the tune of 48,602 schools in case of primary and 42,172 schools in the case of upper primary-only schools. But for the increase in the number of schools in a few school categories, the actual number of the total number of schools declined under the Department of Education is about 93,015 schools. Similarly, the actual number of schools increased under the private unaided management is many more than 11,271 schools; which is 22,570 schools. Scrutiny of the number of schools under private unaided management further reveals that the number of primary schools is declined by 8,506 (8.68 per cent) and on the other hand, elementary education has seen a steep increase which is to the tune of 12,052 schools (12.65 per cent). It may be recalled that the coverage of the number of private unaided schools under UDISE has increased significantly over a period which in the latest 2019-20 data is 337.5 thousand schools which otherwise means that for every 2.33 schools managed by the Department of Education, there is at least one private unaided school in India, the ratio in the previous year was 2.56. During the first year of the unification of SEMIS and DISE, a mere 256.3 thousand private unaided schools were covered in 2012-13. Is India moving towards the privatization of school education? the available data suggest that slowly but surely we are moving in that direction which is also reflected in the per cent share of enrolment in privately managed schools to total enrolment at school education in India.

Further, it has been observed that not only the primary and upper primary schools are declined but UDISE 2019-20 data also suggest that the same in case of schools having secondary and higher secondary grades have also shown a decline; however, the percentage of such schools in case of schools run by the Department of Education is a bit lower than the decline in case of other types of schools mentioned above. On the other hand, the coverage of private unaided schools during the same period has shown a mixed picture. On the one hand, primary (8.68 per cent), upper primary (3.38 per cent), secondary (15,73 per cent) and higher secondary (1.29 per cent) schools have shown a decline, on the other hand, the schools in the remaining categories, such as higher secondary (19.23 per cent), secondary (6.01 per cent) and senior secondary (7.94 per cent) have shown an impressive increase over the previous year.

The above analysis of the number of schools covered in UDISE 2019-20 indicates that of the total 42,292 schools declined the most of the schools have declined alone in the states of Madhya Pradesh (20,685 schools) and Uttar Pradesh (18,883 schools) which amount to 93.56 per cent of the total schools declined. Further, the analysis also indicates that the majority of schools that declined were confined to the Department of Education. On the other hand, schools managed by the private unaided managements have increased by more than 11 thousand during the same period. Given this, we have separately analyzed the decline/change in the number of schools in these two states under the Department of Education and Private Unaided managements details of which are presented in Tables 9 &10.

Uttar Pradesh

Table 9 indicates that a total of 18,883 schools (15.65 per cent) in 2019-20 were fewer than in 2018-19 in Uttar Pradesh, the actual number of such schools is much higher than this as the number of schools under a few categories has increased which is to the tune of more than 30 thousand schools which otherwise reflect that the actual number of schools declined by 49,130 alone in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The distribution of schools in Uttar Pradesh under the Department of Education in 2019-20 reveals that barring schools having Grades I to VIII and VI to XII, all other categories have fewer schools than in the previous year i.e. 2018-19. On the other hand, barring schools having Grades IX to X, IX to XII, and XI to XII, all other categories have shown an increase over the previous year in case of private unaided management and the number of increase in case of a few school categories is quite impressive. Of the total 6,317 private unaided schools added in 2019-20, 3,635 (28.43 per cent) alone were the elementary schools compared to which 1,058 primary schools (2.72 per cent) were added during the same period.

Table 9: Schools by Department of Education & Private Unaided Management: Uttar Pradesh

School Management	Number of Schools Covered
	Change over 2018-19			%age Change
	Department of Education	Private Unaided	All Schools	Department of Education	Private Unaided	All Schools
PS (I-V)	-25297	1058	-24394	-22.34	2.72	-15.01
UPS (I-VIII)	23634	3635	27389	23872.73	28.43	168.07
HSS (I-XII)	0	948	1074	0.00	41.34	30.26
UPS (VI-VIII)	-23707	44	-23767	-51.15	0.30	-37.17
HSS (VI-XII)	89	811	1064	18.20	17.77	12.37
SS (I-X)	-3	280	443	-33.33	20.97	15.92
SS (VI-X)	-25	336	277	-51.02	9.59	6.83
SS (IX-X)	-16	-536	-599	-1.11	-13.48	-10.81
HSS (IX-XII)	-13	-251	-358	-8.55	-4.64	-6.01
HSS (XI-XII)	-1	-8	-12	-50.00	-26.67	-32.43
Total	-25339	6317	-18883	-15.65	7.22	-6.91

Source: UDISE+ different years.

Uttar Pradesh data further reveals a decline of 25,297 primary schools and 23,707 middle/upper primary schools in 2019-20 compared to which an increase to the tune of 23,634 elementary schools has been observed which maybe because of the merging of primary and upper primary schools into it but the UDISE+ 2019-20 report is silent on it. Nor from the state sources, the real reason behind the steep decline in the number of schools covered under UDISE+ 2019-20 can be known. If the decline is due to the merging of schools, equally important is to know criteria based on which schools have been merged or a few of them are even closed down.

Madhya Pradesh

Quite a similar picture like Uttar Pradesh emerges when we analyze coverage of schools under UDISE+ in 2019-20 in the state of Madhya Pradesh under the Department of Education which has also witnessed a huge decline in the number of schools which is to the tune of 22,334 schools (-25 per cent) against which the number of private unaided schools has increased by 6.92 per cent (2,019 schools). The bifurcation of schools under the Department of Education in Madhya Pradesh further shows that the majority of schools that are declined are the primary only schools 18,553 schools, -31.28 per cent) which is followed by upper primary schools (17,072 schools, -29.27 per cent). Maybe because of primary and upper primary schools, the elementary schools increased by more than 13 thousand during the same period. Not only did the primary and upper primary schools are declined but a few schools under secondary (Grades IX & X, 1,871 schools) and higher secondary (Grades IX to XII, 1,688 schools) categories under the Department of Education have also shown a decline during the same period.

Table 10: Schools by Department of Education & Private Unaided Management: Madhya Pradesh

School Management	Change over 2018-19			%age Change
School Management	Department of Education	Private Unaided	All Schools	Department of Education	Private Unaided	All Schools
PS (I-V)	-18553	-1263	-20284	-31.28	-28.31	-22.92
UPS (I-VIII)	13300	3101	16556		18.25	90.97
HSS (I-XII)	1065	153	1217		3.86	29.51
UPS (VI-VIII)	-17072	-24	-17170	-74.38	-29.27	-57.16
HSS (VI-XII)	680	-1	709		-0.96	308.26
SS (I-X)	1522	154	1677		5.16	55.68
SS (VI-X)	283	-13	301	69.19	-28.26	57.44
SS (IX-X)	-1871	-50	-1981	-54.71	-27.62	-41.59
HSS (IX-XII)	-1688	-35	-1705	-51.91	-9.83	-36.54
HSS (XI-XII)	0	-3	-5	0.00	-23.08	-31.25
Total	-22334	2019	-20685	-25.00	6.92	-13.43

Concluding Observations

The above analysis reveals that there is a decline in the number of schools covered under UDISE in the recent past and most of the schools declined under the government management in general and the Department of Education in particular. On the other hand, the coverage of private unaided schools is on the rise the percentage share of which is increased from a mere 22 per cent in 2015-16 to 35 per cent in 2019-20 which is also reflected in the corresponding enrolment at the all levels of schools education in India all which reflect that slowly but surely India is moving towards privatisation of school education? Is this a cause of concern or a policy shift from the government to privatisation of school education? Or our parents have become conscious and are convinced that their wards can get quality education only in the private schools? These are the moot questions answers of which must come from the government. The percentage of government schools have come down from 76.4 per cent in 2011-12 to 67 per cent in 2018-19 and further to 65.1 per cent in 2019-20. Is the decline due to low coverage of government schools under UDISE+ or because of merging and de-merging of government schools. Coverage of unaided private schools under UDISE+, as reported above have increased by more than 11 thousand schools as compared to a decline by more than 42 thousand schools in the case of government schools in 2019-20. Certainly UDISE+ managers i.e. the Department of School Education & Literacy must come out with the details of the drastic decline in the number of schools covered under government management in the recent years or most specifically the year i.e. 2018-19 from which it has taken the charge of the UDISE+.

Elementary education in India is a constitutional commitment and a fundamental right of every child of age between 6 to 14 years, are we still working in that direction? It may be recalled that several centrally sponsored schemes were launched over time to achieve the goal of universal school education in India. Over a while, the focus of these programmes was shifted from strengthening infrastructure to improving retention and further to the quality of education. Both under the District Primary Education Programme and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme, a large number of government schools were opened based on the criteria that each of the habitations of the country must be made available a primary school within a distance of 1 km and an upper primary school within a distance of 3 km from the habitation; are these norms still relevant after SATH-E? Are these being followed anymore or have become irrelevant? Even within the newly opened schools a student-teacher ratio of 25: 1 was being maintained in case of primary and 35:1 in case of upper primary level. Hundreds of thousands of schools with even less than 25 students, were provided teacher(s) as per the criteria laid down. Still, at one point in time, there was a shortage of over a million teachers which were never met fully to meet the challenges of the unfinished task of universal schools education in India. Maybe because of these reasons the process of merging and de-merging in the name of Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital-Education (SATH-E) was initiated in January 2018 by the NITI Aayog and is termed as rationalisation and consolidation of elementary and secondary schools. Initially, Odisha, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh were the three states selected by NITI Aayog under SATH-E which has come to end in March 2020. These states were selected aiming to become the role model states in school education. The aim was to merge small schools having enrolment up to 20 with the nearby (not necessarily within a distance of 1/3 km) located school equipped with the better number of teachers, infrastructure, TLM, libraries and other facilities which are essential for smooth functioning of a school. These small schools were termed as surplus schools with more than one school in the neighbourhood by the Ministry in 2017 and it was ensured that citizen voices will be respected and merging will not force children to drop out but the new school may not necessarily be located in the neighbourhood as specified under the RTE 2009 Act. At the school level, it was envisaged that MIS will help School Manager, in fact, the Head Master/Principal of the school in determining the aims of the school, formulating strategic plans, distributing resources, and evaluating staff performance as well as organizational success partially which is currently being looked after under the ongoing Shaala Siddhi programme that too funded by the Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education and continuing even after SATH-E was launched in 2018. Needless to mention that the data collected through the seven domains of Shaala Siddhi is supposed to take care of most of these aspects? Strategic plans under SATH-E is termed School Improvement Plans under the Shaala Siddhi programme presently being managed by NIEPA. Data up to 2020-21 indicates that in as many as 3,43,028 schools either the self-evaluation under Shaala Siddhi is completed or in progress. Are the other areas mentioned in SATH-E not supposed to be taken care of by the ongoing Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan? Are these should not be covered under the annual work plan formulation under Samagra Shiksha? And why the merging and closing of schools are being guided and monitored from the top? Are a few questions answers of which is not available in the public domain.

Even years before the SATH-E, the process of merging was initiated and a good number of schools were merged in the states of Odisha, Rajasthan, etc which was protested by the activists, teachers, and parents. The Report Card of RTE: 2010 to 2020 by RTE Forum indicated that as many as 1,47,494 schools were either closed down or merged till 2017. Does it mean that schools under the DPEP and later SSA were opened in haste without using scientific techniques such as School Mapping advocated by the apex international institutions of education planning i.e. IIEP, Paris and NIEPA, New Delhi? Have we opened new schools where they were not required or viable or in the process had we had denied the right of many locations that deserved to have been provided with a new school or up-gradation of an existing school? Or the academic inputs about the location to open a new school were denied for non-academic reasons? We had shown hurry in the opening of schools in the past and now again we are in a hurry to merge or demerge or close down schools to ensure at least a good school in each location. At the time the Country was opening new schools the need for GIS Mapping was felt because of which School GIS covering all the states was developed. Is school GIS being used under SATH-E to close down or merge schools?

Table 11: Share of Government & Private Managements: Schools & Enrolment

2018-19 & 2019-20

Management	Schools			Enrolment
	2018-19	2019-20		2018-19	2019-20
	%age	%age	Number	%age	%age	Number
Government	67.0%	65.1	981146	49.0%	48.6%	121927212
Private Unaided	21.0%	22.4	337499	34.0%	35.4%	88913012
Government Aided	5.0%	5.6	84362	11.0%	10.8%	27014238
Other Government Managements	3.0%	3.4	51424	2.5%	2.5%	6215384
Madrasa	2.0%	1.6	23677	1.0%	1.3%	3183258
Unrecognized	2.0%	2.0	29600	2.0%	1.5%	3718579
Total	15,51,000	100.0	15,07,708	24,43,38,584	100.0%	25,09,71,683

Source: UDISE+ 2018-19 & 2019-20

The merger of schools has been advocated by the NITI Aayog to consolidate resources including teachers. The project was supposed to be monitored by both the state, as well as a central level for which Central Project Monitoring Unit and National Steering Group were created at the national level. At the state level, State Project Monitoring Unit was supposed to have been created. The national-level monitoring teams are being assisted by international agencies, such as The Boston Consultancy Group (BSG). Ironically another international agency, The World Bank played a pivotal role in formulating policy to open new schools under DPEP and now another international agency is helping India through NITI Aayog to merge, de-merge or even close down schools. Primal Foundation for Education Leadership was another private agency engaged in developing the roadmap for SATH-E along with BCG to kick start the data-driven analysis to promote academic monitoring of school education across the country. As it looks from the available resources that the process of merging and close down of schools initiated through three states will spread to the remaining states of the country. Do not know whether the national level institutions, like NIEPA was ever consulted or a part of formulating conceptual note of SATH-E? NIEPA used to be a great advocate of the use of the school mapping technique to decide to open a new school or up-gradation of an existing school. Both under the DPEP and SSA, states claim to have applied school mapping in deciding the location of a new school? It would be of interest to know whether school mapping is being carried out under SATH-E in deciding which school is to be merged/closed down and to merge to which school. In response to the request of the state, SATH-E 2.0, was commenced by NITI Aayog for another two years, from October 2020 in the initial three states. However, as it seems from the media coverage that all are not happy with the merging and demerging of schools as there are allegations that the process has adversely been affected by the efforts being made under RTE 2009? Hopefully, The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights is closely monitoring the process of merging and closing down of schools and will ensure that it will not violate the Constitutional provisions and concept of the neighbourhood as specified in The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE 2009), and will not affect children adversely and citizens right in the affairs of education at the local level shall be protected.

For more articles & analysis of current data, visit:

Education for All in India

Status of School Education in India: An Analysis Based on NSSO 75th Round

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 06:22:00 +0000

(Household Social Consumption: Education, July 2017 to June 2018)

Arun C Mehta
Formerly Professor & Head of EMIS Department
National Institute of Educational Planning & Administration, New Delhi
Email: acmehta100@gmail.com

Background

Different agencies used to collect information on school education in India either on regular basis through the administrative survey or occasionally through the household survey apart from which Census & Registrar General of India also collect information on educational variables through its decennial Census. In addition, information on a few educational variables is also being collected through the National Family Health Survey, the latest of which NFHS-5 is available for the year 2019-20. Over a period of time, administrative surveys in education in India have improved significantly and most of the limitations of the 1980s are addressed and data on most of the requisite variables are now available at disaggregated levels with a reduced time-lag more comprehensive information is now available than in the past.

Despite significant improvement in educational statistics in India still, information on all the requisite variables needed to assess the status of participation of children in educational programmes is not available. Information on such variables is either not required annually but the same, even if made available once in 4 to 5 years will serve the purpose. Because of the requirements, educational surveys have been conducting both on the census and also on a sample basis.

On the one hand, the All India School Education Survey was being conducted by the NCERT, New Delhi on a quinquennial basis the lasted of which is the Eight Survey with 30^th September 2008 as its date of reference, on the other hand, NSSO used to collect information on a few educational variables through its different rounds which are considered the most reliable source of information in India. It may be recalled that the unit of data collection in case of the administrative survey is school and that of the household surveys, it is the head of the household. It has been a practice to conduct surveys on social (including education sector) consumption the first of which through the 35^th Round was conducted between July 1980 to June 1981. The subsequent NSSO rounds and period of each survey conducted are as follows:

35^th Round: July 1980 to June 1981
42^nd Round: July 1986 to June 1987
52^nd Round: July 1995 to June 1996
64^th Round: July 2007 to June 2008
71^st Round: January 2014 to June 2014; and
75^th Round: July 2017 to June 2018

The latest social consumption survey with a focus on education was conducted during the period July 2017 to June 2018 incidentally the administrative survey through the U-DISE is also latest available for the year 2017-18 & 2018-19.

The main purpose of the 75^th Round survey was to collect information on the educational attainment of a person of age 3 to 35 years, expenditure incurred & population currently not attending apart their ability to use computers and internet and access to the same. Like other rounds of NSSO, the sample of the 75^th round was also comprehensive as it is based on 1,13,757 households enumerating 5,13,366 persons of age 3 to 35 years.

In the present note, the following indicators have been analysed both at the state as well as at the all-India level at different levels of school education and also for the corresponding age groups in the rural and urban areas.

· Gross Attendance Ratio

· Net Attendance Ratio

· Age-specific Attendance Ratio

· Percentage of Dropouts

· Reasons of Dropouts

· Computers & Internet Connectivity

Click to Read Full Article

Strategic Development Goal 4: Quality Education, Observations by Prof. Arun C Mehta

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Thu, 08 Jul 2021 03:24:00 +0000

Full Length Article

Education For All in India About Prof Arun C Mehta

Strategic Development Goal 4: Quality Education
Review of SDG 2020-21, Niti Aayog (June 2021)

By
Arun C Mehta
Formerly Professor & Head of EMIS Department
NIEPA, New Delhi
mailto:acmehta100@mail.com

Background

It has been a practice to compute indices to know the health of the school education system which are also helpful to look into the areas which need intervention. NIEPA also computed Educational Development Index (EDI) during the period 2005-06 to 2015-16, an index one each for the primary and upper primary level of education based on a set of 24 parameters all of which were based on UDISE. Recently two more indices, namely School Education Quality Index (SEQI) by the NITI Aayog (the first year 2016-17) and Performance Grading Index (PGI) by the Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education in consultation with the NITI Aayog were initiated. The objectives of both the SEQI & PGI being almost the same.

The objective of SEQI developed by NITI Aayog was to evaluate the performance of States & Union Territories intending to provide them a platform to identify strengths and weaknesses so that necessary course corrections are initiated.

The SEQI also strives to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and best practices amongst States & UTs. On the other hand, PGI envisages that the Index would propel States & UTs towards undertaking multi-pronged interventions to pinpoint the gaps and prioritize areas for intervention. Like SEQI, PGI is also expected to act as a good source of information for best practices to share amongst the States & UTs. Both the indices are based on a set of the same domains (see Table 1) but the number of indicators used and weightage assigned are different. While the review of SEQI and Performance Grading Index has already been undertaken separately, the present article undertakes a review of the latest SDG 2020-21 recently released by the NITI Aayog.

First, details of the School Education Quality Index is briefly presented below.

School Education Quality Index (SEQI)

While the total number of indicators and sectors which have been used in SEQI is comprehensive but a few of the crucial indicators, like retention rate, the ratio of primary to upper primary and upper primary to secondary schools/sections, and percentage of schools with female teachers, and a few others, such as, average annual drop-out rate at the primary level of education has not been considered which has got significant implications for the country to achieve the goal of universal school education.

It may also be of high importance to observe that enrolment in school education in India during 2015-16 and 2016-17 has shown a decline of about 9 million of which 6.8 million (primary, 5.32 million & upper primary, 1.51 million) alone declined in case of elementary level of education i.e. Grades 1 to 8 which has got serious implications for the country to achieve the goal of universal elementary level of education but declining enrollment has not been considered in computing SEQI. It was perhaps for the first time that enrolment at the upper primary level of education (Classes VI to VIII) had also been declined in 2016-17 from its previous level i.e. 2015-16.

Individually also, Grade I, V, VI & VII and Grade X, XI & XII all declined in 2016-17 which has got serious implications for enrolment at other higher levels of education to grow in years that follow. At least, the net apparent entry rate which is considered crucial for achieving universal enrolment should have been utilized. Needless to mention that even enrolment in Grade I had also declined to 25.29 million in 2016-17 from its previous level, i.e. 27.17 million in 2015-16.

As many as 30 indicators have been used in computing 2016-17 SEQI which are classified under two categories, namely Outcomes and Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes. Category one Outcome is further divided into four domains, namely Learning, Access, Infrastructure and Equity outcomes which have as many as 16 indicators as against 14 indicators including student and teacher attendance, teacher availability, training, accountability, and transparency all of which are not part of the regular collection of administrative data but provided by the states and is not available in the public domain and not an easy task to examine the validity of such data sets. Limited information has been provided on how such data set as stated by the States & UTs

Table 1

Domain-specific Number of Indicators used in PGI 2018-19 & Weightage Assigned

Category	Domain	Number of Indicators	%age Indicators	Weightage	%age Weightage	Number of Indicators with Same Values used in 2018-19 of 2017-18	Number of Indicators used in SEQI, NITI Aayog
I: Outcomes	1: Learning Outcomes & Quality	9	13	180	18	08	03 (360)
	2: Access	8	11	80	8	08	03 (100)
	3: Infrastructure & Facilities	11	16	150	15	00	03 (25)
	4: Equity	16	23	230	23	00	07 (200)
II: Governance & Management	1. Governance Processes	26	37	360	36	00	14 (280)
Total		70	100	1000	100	16	30 (965)

Source: The table prepared is based on PGI 2018-19, DoSE&L, Ministry of Education, Government of India.

was validated. On the other hand, as many as 10 indicators from NAS 2017-18 have been used as compared to 9 indicators from the U-DISE sources. The rest of the indicators are either obtained from the GoI portal, namely ShaGun, or have been reported by the States & UTs. Depending upon the nature of an indicator, a few indicators have been used for all the schools including Private Aided & Unaided management while a few others have been used only for Government and Government aided schools/management.

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)

SDG India Index 3.0 was recently launched by the NITI Aayog (in June 2021) for all the 16 SDG Goals including Goal 4: Quality of Education which is based on a set of 11 indicators all of which accept one indicator, namely percentage of students in Grade VIII achieving at least a minimum proficiency level is used for the year 2018-19. This brief note presents a few observations about Goal 4: Quality of Education. Overall SDG India Index 3.0 is based on a set of 115 indicators across 16 goals of which only 26 indicators are used for the year 2020-21 followed by 31 and 34 indicators respectively for the years 2019-20 and 2018-19, rest all indicators used are of the previous years. SDG India Index 3.0 is however based on the updated values of 55 indicators which need not necessarily be updated for the year 2020-21 for which the current report is presented.

A cursorily one gets the impression that even after so many years of Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and now after the SDG, the information system is not in a position to provide adequate data on all the indicators in a year for which an index is being computed. Maybe the efforts being made towards strengthening the information system are yet to be reflected in the availability of data. For example, efforts are being made in school education in India through the UDISE+ but the time lag in the availability of data in the case of school education has recently increased to more than 2 years from earlier less than a year.

Table 2

List of Quality Education Indicators used in SDG Index 2020-21

Sl. No.	Indicator	Source	Year	Present Value	Targeted Value & Justification
1	Adjusted Net Enrolment Ratio (ANER) in elementary education (class 1-8)	UDISE+	2018-19	87.26	100	This target corresponds to the global SDG target 4.1 which aims to ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable, & quality primary and secondary education.
2	Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher secondary (class 11-12)	UDISE+	2018-19	50.14	100	National Education Policy, 2020 aims to ensure that all students have universal, free and compulsory access to high-quality and equitable schooling from early childhood care and education (age 3 onwards) through higher secondary education (i.e., until class 12).
3	Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education (18-23 years)	All India Survey of Higher Education	2018-19	26.3	50	National Education Policy, 2020 aims for GER in higher education to reach 50 percent by 2035.
4	The average annual dropout rate at the secondary level (class 9-10)	UIDSE+	2018-19	17.87	8.8	This target corresponds to the global SDG target 4.1 which aims to ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable, & quality primary and secondary education. The National Education Policy, 2020 also aims to achieve a 100 percent Gross Enrolment Ratio at school education by 2030.
5	Percentage of students in Grade VIII achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in terms of nationally defined learning outcomes to be attained by the pupils at the end of the grade	Department of School Education & Literacy [Sourced from the NIF Progress Report 2020 V2.1, MoSPI/NAS, NCERT	2017-18	71.9	100	This target corresponds to the global SDG target 4.1 which aims to ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable, & quality primary and secondary education with relevant and effective learning outcomes
6	Percentage of persons with disability who have completed at least secondary education (15 years and above)	Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation [National Sample Survey - Report No. 583: Persons with Disabilities in India]	July to December 2018	19.3	100	This target corresponds to global SDG target 4.5 which aims to ensure equal access to all levels of education for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities by 2030.
7	Gender Parity Index (GPI) for higher education (18-23 years)	AISHE	2018-19	1	1	This target is aligned with the global SDG target 4.5 which aims to eliminate gender disparities in education.
8	Percentage of literate persons (15 years and above)	Periodic Labour Force Survey 2018-19	2018-19	74.6	100	This target is aligned with the global SDG target 4.6 that aims to ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men, and women, achieve literacy and numeracy, by 2030.
9	Percentage of schools with access to basic infrastructure (electricity, drinking water)	Ministry of Education	2018-19	84.76	100	National Education Policy 2020 aims to provide effective and sufficient infrastructure so that all students have access to safe and engaging school education at all levels from pre-primary school to Grade 12. It aims to take special care to ensure that no school remains deficient in infrastructure support.
10	Percentage of trained teachers at the secondary level (class 9-10)	Ministry of Education	2018-19	82.62	100	This target is aligned with global SDG target 4.c which aims to substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers.
11	Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) at the secondary level (class 9-10)	UDISE+ & Ministry of Education	2018-19	21	30	The National Education Policy 2020 proposes to ensure a pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) of under 30:1 at each level of school education

Source: SDG 2020-21, NITI Aayog.

A glance at the five top and bottom states (Table 3) across SEQI, PGI, and SDG indices suggested that different states appeared in these groups but a few states are common to all the three indices which is true for both the five top and bottom states. So far as the SEQI 2016-17 is concerned Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, Gujarat, and Himachal Pradesh appeared in the top five amongst large states. On the other hand, Tripura, Goa, Manipur, and Mizoram are the states which had found in top amongst the small States/UTs. On the other hand, only Kerala and Tamil Nadu who were the top within the five states are also listed within the top five so far as PGI 2019-20 is concerned. So far as the SDG 2020-21 is concerned, only Kerala found a place in the top five states but Chandigarh also appeared in the list of five top SDG 2020-21 states which is also true for PGI 2019-20.

Himachal Pradesh also appeared in the top five in the case of both SEQI 2016-17 and SDG 2020-21. Overall, Kerala is the only state which found a place in top five states across all the three index type followed by Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh each were amongst the top in case of only two of the three indices. So far as the SDG 2020-21 is concerned, only Kerala and Himachal Pradesh could appear in the top five. Within the small States & UTs, it is Chandigarh which appeared in two indices including SDG 2020-21. Like the top five states, Bihar and Arunachal Pradesh are the only states which have got a place in the bottom five across three indices. Madhya Pradesh and Assam also appeared in two indices out of three analysed in the present note.

Table 3

Five Top & Bottom States Distributed by Index

Index

Top Five States/UTs

Bottom States/UTs

SEQI 2016-17

Large States

Kerala

Haryana

Gujarat

Small States/UTs

Tripura

Goa

Manipur

Mizoram

Large States

Jammu & Kashmir

Telangana

Bihar

Jharkhand

Small States/UTs

Sikkim

Meghalaya

Nagaland

Arunachal Pradesh

PGI 2019-20

Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh

Kerala

Punjab

Tamil Nadu

(Level 2)

Assam

Bihar

Madhya Pradesh

Mizoram

Arunachal Pradesh

Chhattisgarh

Nagaland

Meghalaya

Ladakh (LEVEL 6 to 10)

SDG 2020-21

(All States & UTs together)

Kerala

Chandigarh

Delhi

Himachal Pradesh

Goa

Uttarakhand

Madhya Pradesh

Odisha

Assam

Tripura

Arunachal Pradesh

Nagaland

Bihar

Source: Grouped as per SDG, PGI & SEQI of the corresponding year.

Irrespective of indices or a set of indicators used in computing an index, Kerala appeared to be on top of the major states, to some extent the other such states are Tamil Nadu (except SDG 2020-21), Himachal Pradesh, and Chandigarh (except SEQI 2016-17). So far as the bottom five states are concerned as mentioned above Bihar and Arunachal Pradesh appeared in all the three indices followed by Madhya Pradesh (except SEQI) and Assam (except SEQI). Thus, a detailed analysis of these states concerning SDG 2020-21 about all the 11 indicators used in the computation is undertaken to know what these states have attained and what is the quantum of the unfinished task.

SDG 4.1 & 4.3: Enrolment Ratio

The first set of four indicators that we discussed below fall under SDG 4.1, 4.3 & 4.5 all of which related to enrolment at school and higher education level which is presented in Table 4 along with the indicator values of top and bottom states, indicator values at the all-India level, their targeted value and year by which targets are to be realized.

The first indicator we discuss below is adjusted-NER at the elementary level of education which at present at the all-India level in 2018-19 is 87.26 percent. An adjusted-NER of 87.26 percent suggests that a little over 87 percent are enrolled either in Grades I to VIII or also in the higher grades. The balance of about 13 percent of children of age group 6 to 13 years are not enrolled a few of them may either be dropped out, never enrolled or a few of them are enrolled in one level up than the elementary level of education.

A glance at the state-specific adjusted-NER reveals that none of the states even if they appear in the top five are perfect and still need improvement. The targeted adjusted-NER is 100 percent which is as described in the NEP 2020 by 2030 but SDG 2020-21 has failed to fix the annual target so on what basis & in what reference a particular indicator, its progress will be monitored. The targets at the national level show national commitment towards SDG and its indicators but in the absence of a state-specific target how it is achieved is an important question that needs to be answered even though in the Samagra Shiksha guidelines, there is the provision of result framework under which annual targets have been fixed but there is no provision for district-specific targets even though district annual plans are being formulated and appraised by the Project Approval Board annually. It is also quite possible.

Table 4

Gross Enrolment Ratio: 2018-19

Category	State/UT	Adjusted Net Enrolment Ratio at Elementary Level (Grades 1-8)	GER at Higher Secondary Level (Grades 11-12)	GER at Higher Education Level: 18-23 years	Gender Parity Index in Enrolment at Higher Education Level: 18-23 years x (years)
SDG Indicator		4.1	4.1	4.3	4.5
TOP States/UTs	Kerala	92.07	80.26	37.0	1.40
	Himachal Pradesh	97.82	81.79	39.6	1.30
	Tamil Nadu	85.49	72.32	49.0	0.97
	Chandigarh	85.78	83.43	50.6	1.54
BOTTOM States/UTs	Arunachal Pradesh	80.98	38.48	29.7	0.99
	Bihar	86.54	26.39	13.6	0.79
	Jammu & Kashmir	67.88	42.31	30.9	1.09
	Madhya Pradesh	81.19	43.73	21.5	0.97
	Assam	96.36	30.94	18.7	0.95
	All India	87.26	50.14	26.3	1
	Target	100	100	50.0	1
	Target Year/Annual Target	Not Mentioned	Not Mentioned	2035	Not Mentioned

Source: Grouped as per SDG: 2020-21, NITI Aayog, Government of India (June 2021).

that a state that found a place in the bottom states has a better indicator value than a state that has placed in the top five. One such state is Assam, which is reported to have an adjusted-NER of 96.36 percent much better than even Kerala which is on top of the states. It is good that target on adjusted-NER at the elementary level of education is set out but that itself is not sufficient to achieve unless a similar target is set for the primary level of education in general and entry rate, in particular, to ensure that all children aged-6 are enrolled and entered the system through Grade I unless that happens one cannot even dream of having achieved a 100 percent adjusted-NER.

Instead of an apparent entry rate, better to have a target on net entry rate (meaning how many aged-6 children are enrolled in Grade I) separately for boys and girls and also for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Other Backward Class children preferably first at the block and subsequently at the district and state levels.

The independent target of adjusted-NER has little or no meaning and may not be realized in isolation of entry rate which has become more important because of the recent decline in enrolment at school education in general and Grade I and primary level of education in particular. Further, a glance at adjusted-NER reveals that except Himachal Pradesh (97.82 percent), none of the other top placed states are in a position to attain a 100 percent which present is as described above is 87.26 percent at the all-India level.

Needless to mention that unless all the States & UTs attain 100 percent adjusted-NER, India may not afford to move towards universal enrolment at the elementary level of education. For example, in Bihar, about 13 percent of children of age 6+ to 13+ are yet to be enrolled in the corresponding elementary grades, i.e. Grades I to VIII as against the same in Madhya Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh which still have a high percentage of about 19 percent such children of this age group. Both Tamil Nadu and Chandigarh are also placed in the top five states but 14 percent of children of age 6+ to 13+ are still not enrolled in the corresponding grades.

Apart from the adjusted-NER, Table 5 presents a variety of enrolment ratios which are based on UDISE at different levels of education at the all-India level which reveals that despite significant improvement in all spheres of school education in India, the goal of universal school education is still a far distant dream which is not likely to be realized shortly. Enrolment decline during 2018-19 over the previous 2017-18 was in the tune of 2.63 million (Grade I declined by 0.34 million, 1.3 percent) will further deteriorate efforts being made towards achieving the goal of school education in general and universal primary education in particular.

The other SDG indicator we discuss below is Gross Enrolment Ratio at Higher Secondary level which is reported to be 50.14 percent at the all-India level in 2018-19. All the four top states have GER higher than at the all-India level and the five bottom states have lower values than at the all-India level. Even the top-notch state, namely Kerala has only 80 percent GER at the higher secondary level as against, 83.43 percent in the case of Chandigarh.

It may be recalled that it is gross enrolment ratio and not adjusted-NER considered in case of elementary level of education all which suggest that India has still miles to go to attain a GER of 100 percent in 2030. Amongst the bottom states, the lowest GER at this level of education is observed in one of the most populous states of the country, namely Bihar which reported to be having a GER as low as 26.39 percent as against 30.94 percent in the case of Assam. It may be reminded that Bihar and Arunachal Pradesh are the only two states which were placed at the

Table 5

Enrolment Ratio: All India Level: 2017-18 & 2018-19

Education Level	Type of Enrolment Ratio
	GER		NER		ASER		Adjusted-NER
	2017-18	2018-19	2017-18	2018-19	2017-18	2018-19	2017-18	2018-19
Primary	102.79	92.56	90.05	89.14	95.57	94.26	95.56	93.60
Upper primary	88.27	89.98	70.52	68.99	88.23	88.55	80.20	76.97
Elementary	97.22	91.64	89.02	81.46	92.75	92.08	92.73	87.26
Secondary	76.47	79.55	50.23	48.60	73.61	72.14	61.61	55.64
Higher Secondary	48.13	58.56	27.77	30.78	39.32	44.64	-	30.78

Source: UDISE 2017-18 (NIEPA, New Delhi) & UDISE+ 2018-19 (Department of School Education

& Literacy, Ministry of Education, Government of India).

bottom in the case of all the three indices, namely SEQI, PGI, and SDG. Low GER across the country further reiterated that to attain 100 percent GER at school education, more efforts in terms of disaggregated targets at the lower levels of education as well as meticulous planning is required to ensure that all aged-6 children enter into the system through Grade I at the appropriate age without ensuring which neither the goal of universal primary not elementary and secondary level of education is expected to realized shortly. NER at the secondary and higher secondary level of education further indicates that more than 50 and 70 percent of children in 2018-19 were yet to be enrolled in the corresponding grades.

The next indicator used in SDG 4 is GER at the higher education level which is reported to be 26.3 percent at the all-India level which as per AISHE 2019-20 has further increased to 27.1 percent as against a targeted 50 percent in the year 2035. The entire top-placed states as per SDG 2020-21 has much higher GER at the higher education level compared to 26.3 percent at the all-India level but the same is not true for the bottom-placed states except in the case of Jammu & Kashmir (30.9 percent) and Arunachal Pradesh (29.7 percent). The highest, 50.6 percent is observed in the case of Chandigarh UT followed by Tamil Nadu (49.0 percent) and Himachal Pradesh (39.6 percent). Even Kerala having on top of all indices has a low GER of 37 percent. On the other hand, GER at the higher education level in Bihar is reported to be as low as 13.6 percent compared to 21.5 percent in Madhya Pradesh and 18.7 percent in Assam all of which suggest a way to go to attain a 50 percent GER at higher education level in 2035.

The next indicator we discuss with the present set of SDG indicators is the gender parity index in enrolment at higher education level which indicates that the same concerning the targeted value of one is satisfactory which is also indicated in percent share of women enrolment at higher education level but the same in case of Bihar is as low as 0.79 which is the lowest amongst top and bottom states covered in the present note. Only such targets at lower levels of education will ensure that higher education level gets an adequate number of women higher secondary graduates to move towards a GPI of one.

The moot question is whether higher education grows independently? Can higher education enrolment grow independent to the lower level i.e. higher secondary level which is expected to send graduates to it? Certainly not. Higher education enrolment will grow in the line of enrolment at the immediate lower level, i.e. higher secondary level which is supposed to supply a continuous flow of higher secondary graduates to the higher education level.

This means that the population of age 18 to 23 years, all cannot be admitted to the higher education system simply because of the reason that they are not eligible. Higher education level can only accommodate higher secondary graduates. In the light of these observations, there is a need to redefine the Gross Enrolment Ratio at the higher education level to get a better picture of the participation of the relevant age population in higher education programmes. Therefore, instead of a total 18 to 23 years population, the number of higher secondary graduates may be considered in computing ratio which can be termed as Effective Enrolment Ratio at the higher education level.

SDG 4.1 & 4a, 4b & 4c: Dropout Rate, Basic Infrastructure & Teacher Indicators

The next of four of the total 11 indicators used in SDG 2020-21 is presented in Table 6 which includes the average annual dropout rate at secondary level and percentage of school with basic infrastructure i.e. electricity and drinking water facility in the school. The remaining two indicators related to teachers are the percentage of trained teachers and PTR at the secondary level of education. It is not known why the average annual dropout rate at the primary/elementary level is not used in SDG without checking which secondary level is not expected to receive an adequate number of elementary graduates. Average of
three best performing states i.e. 8.8 percent is considered targeted dropout rate at secondary level but no annual target is set out for the same. An average annual dropout rate of 8.8 percent may be considered high and which, even

Table 6

Dropout Rate, Basic Infrastructure & Teacher Indicators: 2018-19

Category	State/UT	Average Annual Dropout Rate: Secondary Level, Grades 9-10	%age of Schools with Access to Basic Infrastructure : Electricity & Drinking Water	%age of Trained Teachers at Secondary Level (Grades 9-10)	Pupil-Teacher Ratio at Secondary Level (Grades 9-10)
SDG Indicator		4.1	4a	4c	4c
TOP States/UTs	Kerala	9.14	99.24	94.53	16
	Himachal Pradesh	7.81	97.59	79.55	9
	Tamil Nadu	13.02	96.08	93.31	18
	Chandigarh	4.52	100.00	89.49	12
BOTTOM States/UTs	Arunachal Pradesh	35.98	50.94	79.04	14
	Bihar	28.46	88.66	78.44	58
	Jammu and Kashmir	17.81	80.14	80.09	12
	Madhya Pradesh	24.85	75.34	81.19	36
	Assam	31.47	59.51	29.29	11
	All India	17.87	84.76	82.62	21
	Target	8.8	100	100	30
	Target Year/Annual Target	No annual target but mentioned 2030 as a part of NEP 2020	No annual target but referred NEP 2020	No annual target	No annual target, referred NPE 2020

Source: Grouped as per SDG: 2020-21, NITI Aayog, Government of India (June 2021).

if achieved will help India to attain 100 GER at school education in 2030, is the moot question?. It may be observed that in addition to the dropout rate at this level of education, lower levels, especially primary level also have a high incidence of dropout which if not checked, the goal of 30 percent GER will be difficult to achieve. For states having a high dropout rate, a target of 8.8 percent annual dropout rate may be considered challenging, maybe separate state-specific targets based on enrolment projections techniques be set out.

Rather the whole exercise is initiated at least at the district level, if not block-level based on which in turn state targets should be fixed. SDG baseline indicators, if presented would help in accessing progress concerning a specific indicator and its progress over time. If required, a mid-term course correction of the target set must also be undertaken.

Table 7 reveals that the drop-out rate at the primary level, irrespective of the social category has shown an increase for the 2017-18 cohort from its previous level. Of the total enrolment (123.81 million) in Grades I to V in 2016-17, 3.51 percent dropped out from the system before the completion of a grade as against 4.45 percent during the year 2017-18.

It may be recalled that the size of enrolment in primary grades in 2017-18 was in the tune of 122.38 million in 2017-18. A 4.45 percent drop out at all-India level is termed as average annual drop out rate which over the primary cycle of five years come to around 17.8 percent which means that of the total enrolment in Grades I to V, roughly about 18 percent dropped out from the system before the completion of the primary level.

So far as the average annual dropout rate at secondary level within the top placed states are considered, the lowest 4.52 percent is observed in the case of Chandigarh and the highest, 13.02 percent in case of Tamil Nadu which may still be considered low, if the same is compared with the bottom-ranked states. It is better to have ambitious targets but still not well if the same is not achievable.

How with the present 35.98 percent annual dropout rate in the case of Arunachal Pradesh is brought to 8.8 which is also not likely to be attained in the case of Assam with a 31.47 percent dropout rate at this level of education. Another major state within the bottom list is Bihar which had an average annual dropout rate of 28.46 percent which means that at least 56.92 percent of students used to drop out without completion of secondary level of education. At the all-India level, the annual dropout rate at the secondary level is 17.87 percent.

The next indicator used in SDG we discuss is the percentage of schools with access to basic infrastructure for which electricity and drinking water facility in school has been considered target value of which is 100 percent as against the existing 84.76 percent in 2018-19. However, it is not mentioned how the combined indicator is arrived at and why two separate indicators, one each for electricity and drinking water have not been considered. All the top placed states, such as Kerala, Chandigarh (100 percent), Tamil Nadu, and Himachal Pradesh are very close to achieving the targeted 100 percent but the same is not true for bottom place states i.e. Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, and Assam.

A little lower than 50 percent of the total schools in Arunachal Pradesh still do not have access to basic facilities in the school. It is also not known out of 84.76 percent of schools how many schools have got access to tap water? just having access to drinking water will not serve the purpose unless the source of water is considered which in most cases is either a hand pump or well.

Table 7

Dropout Rate at Different Levels of School Education, 2018-19

All-India

Social Category	Primary Level, 2018-19			2017-18
Social Category	Girls	Boys	Overall	2017-18
General	3.62	3.61	3.62	1.92
Scheduled Castes	4.90	5.41	5.16	4.86
Scheduled Tribes	5.23	5.71	5.48	3.65
Other Backward Class	4.18	4.55	4.37	3.76
Overall	4.30	4.60	4.45	3.51
Social Category	Upper Primary Level, 2018-19			2017-18
Social Category	Girls	Boys	Overall	2017-18
General	2.78	2.27	2.51	2.87
Scheduled Castes	6.48	5.62	6.04	6.69
Scheduled Tribes	6.46	6.89	6.69	6.06
Other Backward Class	5.60	4.22	4.89	5.35
Overall	5.14	4.26	4.68	5.02
Social Category	Secondary Level, 2018-19			2017-18
Social Category	Girls	Boys	Overall	2017-18
General	13.02	13.37	13.2	14.95
Scheduled Castes	18.95	21.3	20.18	21.79
Scheduled Tribes	23.25	26.26	24.8	22.27
Other Backward Class	17.34	19.22	18.34	19.58
Overall	17.01	18.64	17.87	18.96

Source: Downloaded from the U-DISE+ portal.

The last two SDG indicators we discuss are the percentage of trained teachers and the pupil-teacher ratio at the secondary level whose present value in 2018-19 is 82.62 percent and 21 students per secondary teachers respectively which are perhaps the most important indicators towards attaining quality school education in general and secondary education in particular. Irrespective of whether a state is placed either in the top or bottom list, the percentage of trained teachers barring Assam is above 78 percent but the same in Assam is as low as 29.29 percent against an all-India value of 82.62 percent. It is not only Assam that has a majority of untrained teachers but most of the other states from the north-eastern region too have this percentage low which is also true for other levels of school education. Despite the high percentage of trained teachers, still, the absolute number of untrained teachers across India is large in number given the total number of teachers which is to the tune of 9.4 million. It is not mentioned whether untrained teachers lack academic or professional qualifications? Because of a large number of untrained teachers, district, as well as state plans which are being formulated annually, must set annual targets which must be attained in a time-bound manner. Apart from untrained teachers at the secondary level, there are untrained teachers also at the lower levels of school education in addition to which percentage of contractual teachers across the country are also on the rise.

The last indicator used in SDG 2020-21 is the pupil-teacher ratio at the secondary level which at present at the all-India level is 1:21which is targeted to be brought to 1:30; however NEP 2020 envisages a PTR of 1:30 irrespective of a level of education. 1:21 PTR at the secondary level at the all-India level doesn’t mean that all the States & UTs are comfortable concerning PTR which is reflected in PTR of Bihar (1: 58) and Madhya Pradesh (1: 36) and a host of other such states at this level of education. However, the same in most of the other top or bottom-placed states are comfortable. Another important question users would like to be enlightened on is whether the targeted PTR of 1:30 is based on enrolment and teacher projections? if yes, at what level these projections are undertaken, and its methodological details.

SDG 4.1. 4.5 & 4.6: Literacy Status, Education of Disabled Persons & Proficiency Level in Grade VIII

The last three of the total eleven indicators used in SDG 2020-21 we discussed below is proficiency level of students concerning learning outcomes, persons with disability completed secondary education and percentage of people who are literate none of which is available on regular basis from the official administrative sources such as UDISE-plus because of which year of each indicator used is different. So far as the percentage of students in Grade VIII achieving at least a minimum proficiency level (in terms of nationally defined learning outcomes) is concerned is used for the year 2017-18; the only source of which is the National Achievement Survey (NAS) conducted by the NCERT on 13^th November 2017 which is used for government and aided schools but in SDG, it is not mentioned that the indicator is used only for government & aided schools. It may also be observed that indicators concerning learning outcomes used in SEQI, PGI 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 and SDG 2020-21 all are based on the same previously used indicators generated through the NAS 2017-18.

A glance at the percentage of students in Grade VIII achieving at least a minimum proficiency level attained reveals that the same is above the all-India level (71.9 percent) in the case of two of the five bottom place states, namely Bihar (78.3 percent) and Assam (79.6 percent). On the other hand, one of the top placed states, namely Tamil Nadu with this percentage (71.3 percent) lower than at the all-India level (Table 8). All the states, both the top and the bottom-placed states have a much lower percentage of students in Grade VIII achieving at least a minimum proficiency level. Further, the gap between the proficiency level of two of the top-notch states, namely Kerala (86.8 percent) and Chandigarh (81.6 percent) is much higher than the two of the bottom-placed states, namely Arunachal Pradesh (60.0 percent) & Jammu & Kashmir (59.8 percent) but the still the same is much lower than the targeted 100 percent. Because of the pandemic, the next round of delayed NAS is now expected to take place in October/November 2021. Can we expect all schools including the private unaided schools to be included in the forthcoming round?

The last two indicators we discuss below are the percentage of persons with disability (15 years & above) who have completed secondary education and the percentage of persons (15 years & above) who are literate both of which as mentioned above are not available from the regular sources. The target of both of these indicators is a hundred which is to be attained by 2030. Given the present value at the all-India level (19.3 percent), it seems difficult to attain 100 percent disabled persons to complete the secondary level, especially when the same in case of most of the top and bottom-placed states have low to very low values. Even, in one of the top-notched states, namely Tamil Nadu, only 19.1 percent of the disabled persons have had completed secondary education in 2018 as against only 24.3 percent such persons in Kerala and

Table 8

Dropout Rate, Basic Infrastructure & Teacher Indicators

Category	State/UT	%age of Students in Grade VIII Achieving at least a Minimum Proficiency Level, 2017-18	%age of Persons with Disability (15 years & above) who have Completed Secondary Education: July-December 2018	%age of Persons (15 Years & above) who are Literate, 2018-19
SDG Indicator		4.1	4.5	4.6
TOP States/UTs	Kerala	86.8	24.3	94.60
	Himachal Pradesh	72.8	25.6	84.20
	Tamil Nadu	71.3	19.1	80.70
	Chandigarh	81.6	37.4	89.10
BOTTOM States/UTs	Arunachal Pradesh	60.0	10.3	79.90
	Bihar	78.3	18.5	64.70
	Jammu & Kashmir	59.8	19.7	76.40
	Madhya Pradesh	70.5	17.2	70.50
	Assam	79.6	16.8	84.90
	All India	71.9	19.3	74.6
	Target	100	100	100
	Target Year/Annual Target	Not mentioned	2030	2030

Source: Grouped as per SDG: 2020-21, NITI Aayog, Government of India (June 2021).

25.6 percent in Himachal Pradesh. The bottom-placed states have even much lower percentages; to mention a few Arunachal Pradesh (10.3 percent), Bihar (18.5 percent), Assam (16.8 percent), and Jammu & Kashmir (19.7 percent) are a few such states. It may also be quite possible that a few of the 15+ years person are still pursuing lower levels, such as primary & elementary levels in addition to which a few of them may never been to schools or a few are dropped out from the system before the completion. The average annual dropout rate as presented above at the secondary level is very high (17.87 percent). It is required to check the dropout rate not only of the disabled population but need to ensure that whosoever enter into the system irrespective of the level must continue and transit from one level of education to another without which the goal of 100 percent enrolment ratio in 2030 as envisaged in NEP 2020 may not be realized. Further, it is observed that all the top and bottom places states, except Bihar (64.70 percent) have a higher percentage of 15+ year population who were termed literate than at the all-India level (74.6 percent). The same in Kerala is as high as 94.60 percent compared to 89.10 percent in Chandigarh UT which with a little push can move towards attaining a 100 percent literacy rate but the same is not true for the rest of the states. Perhaps more emphasis on adult literacy programmes like in the 1990s is required to meet the challenges on the literacy front.

Concluding Observations

While analyzing 11 indicators used in SDG 2020-21 computation one gets the impression that the goal of 100 percent GER at school education level in 2030 is not the right insight. Concerning a few indicators, the improvement is quite satisfactory but the same is not true for the bottom-placed states which are also true for a few of the top-notched states. It may be recalled that details of how targets have been arrived at are not made available, in addition to which in most of the cases no annual targets have been set out in the absence of which it is not possible to monitor the progress over time which, if available may help in making the mid-course corrections. The targets fixed show the national commitment to attain SDG and the same must also be reflected in the school education plans being developed annually. A cursorily look at the state's plans indicates that targets are generally missing and if available, disaggregated target setting with the district as a unit of planning are not set out. It may be recalled that block-level was supposed to be in the focus when Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was launched but largely plans were never been formulated based on the outcome of block & school development plans as envisaged in SSA. In the later years of SSA, district plans were even formulated at the state level based on the EXCEL tables provided by the national level. Unless the district officers engaged in planning are thoroughly oriented and disaggregated targets are set out, the desired results are not expected to be reflected in India's efforts towards SDG. It has also been observed that the district and block level officers engaged in district plan formulation are generally not aware of the SDG goals in general and SDG 4 indicators in particular which were also true for Millennium Development & Education for All goals. Right now, for all indicators of SDG 2020-21, only one target is set out which applies to all the 38 States & UTs. How can there be one target for the entire country? Targets in each state must be based on a thorough diagnosis of the existing status of school education.

Another point that has been observed during the analyses of SDG 2020-21 is that none of the indicators used relates to the year 2020-21 as mostly they are of the year 2018-19. So far as the outcome indicator is concerned it is as old as of 2017. It is curious to know how inputs based on SDG 2020-21 (based on 2018-19 data) will be used in formulating annual work plan for the year 2021-22 currently under preparation, especially when more recent data is available i.e. 2019-20. A devise mechanism is required to be developed to ensure that SDG uses the current year’s data while computing SDG 2021-22.

It has also been observed that SDG uses few indicators for all schools; on the other hand, it uses only the government & aided schools in case of other indicators. It has been observed that the learning outcomes of 2017 have been in use irrespective of indices (SEQI, PGI & SDG) & the year for which the same is computed. There is no point in repetitive using the previously used indicators because of which it is envisaged that the next round of NAS will soon be commissioned and SDG will use learning outcomes of all schools including private unaided schools in its future computation. The outcome of SDG must be shared with the states and in turn with the district teams engaged in plan formulation and let there be a scope of its mid-year review.

Quick Observations on UDISE+ 2019-20 Report

noreply@blogger.com (Prof. Arun C. Mehta) — Thu, 01 Jul 2021 13:11:00 +0000

UDISE+ 2019-20 Report

Department of School Education & Literacy

Ministry of Education. Government of India

(Released on 1^st July 2021)

Unified District Information System for Education Plus 2019-20 Report

OBSERVATIONS

Arun C Mehta

Formerly Professor & Head of EMIS Department

NIEPA, New Delhi

Email: acmehta100@gmail.com

The Department of School Education & Literacy of the Ministry of Education, Government of India on July 1st released its first-ever report based on UDISE-Plus data for the year 2019-20 which presents a brief analysis of school education at the all-India level and state-specific statements for all the States & UTs of India including Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Union Territories. The Report was formally released by Education Minister on 30th June 2021 through a press release.

Unified District Information System for Education Plus 2019-20 Report

Here are the quick observations:

Age-specific Child Population

UDISE+ 2019-20 enrolment indicators are based on child population provided by the Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections, National Commission on Population, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, July 2020 which is a welcome development. It may be recalled that AISHE 2019-20 also brought out by the Ministry of Education in June 2021 was not based on the Official projections.

New Variables Additions

The following new variables have been added to UDISE+ 2019-20 Report, perhaps for the first time.

Number of schools by Affiliation Board
Percentage of all minority groups enrolment in addition to Muslim enrolment
Coverage of vocational education under National Skills Qualifications Framework (NSQF)
Number of Admission of students in Grade I who have a pre-school experience; and
Distribution of enrolment by below age 6, 6-10, 11-13, 9-10, 14-15, 16-17, and greater than 17 years

Statistical Tables

· In addition to indicators, most of the tables present absolute numbers which are of limited use and should have been avoided. To the extent possible, all the numbers should have been presented in the percentage form wherever possible.

· None of the tables have time-series information like three years in the previously published UDISE Flash Statistics in the absence of which one has to refer to previous year’s data which like UDISE+2019-20 is not available in the Report Form, one has to download from the portal. Better would be to bring out UDISE+ 2018-19 Report in a similar format which may be found useful by the users. However, one can download individual year reports from https://udiseplus. gov.in

· At the national level, most of the indicators are compared with 2012-13 UDISE data, the first year of the unification of DISE & SEMIS but the same for other years between 2012-13 to 2018-19 have not been presented except for 2018-19 in case of few variables, like teachers.

· In addition to the indicators presented a few indicators such as the source of drinking water, percentage of contractual teachers, GER of Muslim enrolment, etc should have found a place in the report.

Status of Universal Enrolment: All-India, 2019-20

Like previous years, UDISE+ 2019-20 also presents a variety of enrolment ratios all of which indicate that the goal of universal primary enrolment is very much in the sight and may be achieved in the years that follow. The justification that GER during the period 2012-13 to 2019-20 is declined because children started entering the system at the appropriate age is not fully correct. The reason for the decline in GER is the steep decline in enrolment in absolute form during the years 2016-17 to 2017-18 and 2017-18 to 2018-19.

Deliberately most of the indicators are not compared with the 2017-18 data which must be considered a benchmark year because this was the last year of U-DISE which was managed by NIEPA, New Delhi, and also because UDISE+ 2018-19 data was based on the incomplete number of schools. See a detailed study on these aspects:

· Recent U-DISE Data & Analysis: 2018-19

Patterns of Decline in Enrolment & its Implications for Universal Secondary Education in India: An In-depth Analysis of U-DISE 2016-17 Data by Arun C Mehta

Enrolment Ratios: 2019-20

Level	GER	NER	Adjusted-NER	ASER
Primary	102.7	91.4	97.3	97.3
Upper Primary	89.7	71.1	81.6	89.6
Elementary	97.8	83.7	94.4	94.4
Secondary	77.9	50.2	60.2	72.4
Higher Secondary	51.4	32.3	-	44.2

Source: UDISE+ 2019-20, DoSE&L, Ministry of Education.

The UDISE+ 2019-20 mentioned that “Since changes in GER are usually not much on a year-to-year basis” is factually wrong and misleading which are reflected in the GER at Primary level during 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on UDISE itself. UDISE+ 2019-20 further indicates that other levels of education (other than primary level) are still far away towards attaining a 100 percent enrolment ratio.

Enrolment Ratio: All India Level: 2017-18 & 2018-19

	Type of Enrolment Ratio
	GER		NER		Adjusted-NER
State/UT	2017-18	2018-19	2017-18	2018-19	2017-18	2018-19
Primary	102.79	92.56	90.05	89.14	95.56	93.6
Elementary	97.22	91.64	89.02	81.46	92.73	87.26

Source: UDISE (NIEPA, New Delhi) & UDISE+ (Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education

Efficiency Indicators

Good to observe a steep decline in the average annual dropout rate at the primary level of education from 4.5 percent for Cohort 2017-18 to 1.5 percent in Cohort 2018-19 which needs further analysis especially the repetition rate at this level which is reported to be 0.63 percent. The same is also low at 1.8 percent per annum at the upper primary level which is encouraging but the same at the secondary level is reported to be 17.3 percent per annum.

Further, the transition rate reveals that about 28 percent of students dropped out from the system between elementary to secondary level of education and the retention rate at this level of education is only 62 percent indicating a high dropout of 38 percent in between the system. Even retention rate at the elementary level of education is reported to be 77 percent thus indicating 23 percent dropout in between the system from one level of education to another. Hope while formulating annual work plan it will be looked into it.

Computer & Internet Facility

UDISE data over a period of time suggest that most of the facilities in schools are on improvement. However, the same in case of availability of Computer and Internet Connectivity in school is far than satisfactory as only 39 percent schools have a computer and another 22 percent have internet connectivity which has become more important because of COVID19 and ongoing pandemic classes are being held online. This is also crucial for UDISE+ which is said to be an online paperless system in the absence of which one can easily think how schools manage an online system. Schools rush to block level and cyber café for online uploading and updating of data.

Facility	Primary Only School	All Schools
Electricty	72.6	80.2
Internet	7.9	22.3
Computr	20.6	39.0

Because of the online learning classes across the country, it is more important to have the devices/computer/laptop and internet connectivity/data package at home which the NSSO 75^th Round data reveals that only 10.7 percent of the total households in India have got a computer and another 23.8 percent have got access to internet facilities. But the same in the rural areas is as low as 4.4 and 14.9 percent respectively as against 23.4 and 42 percent in the urban areas; thus showing a wide gap in the availability of computers and access to internet facilities between rural and urban areas. One could easily understand the fate of students during a pandemic, One can expect enrolment to decline but at the same time, Government schools can expect migration from private schools to its fold which is expected to be reflected in 2020-21 and 2021-22 data.

Readers are advised to refer to the source of information and give full reference to the material used.

Download UDISE+ 2019-20 Report