Wednesday, April 28, 2021

From Indicators of Enrolment to Attendance Rate: A Critical Review of Frequently Used Indicators


Arun C Mehta
Formerly Professor & Head of EMIS Department
National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration
17-B, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi – 110016 (INDIA)
(E-Mail: acmehta100@gmail.com)

Background

Free and compulsory education to all children up to the age fourteen is constitutional commitment in India. At the time of adoption of the Constitution in 1950, it was decided to achieve the goal of universal enrolment within a period of ten year. Keeping in view the educational facilities available in the country at that time, the goal to achieve universal enrolment was ambitious to achieve it in a short span of ten years. Therefore the target date was revised a number of times despite significant improvement in all the spheres of elementary education. The government has recently launched a new programme Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to achieve the goal of universal primary education by 2007 and that of universal elementary education by 2010. To review the progress made in the area of elementary education, a set of indicators concerning to different aspects, such as, universal access, enrolment, retention and quality of education are constructed over time and analyzed at different levels. To assess the progress made during the decade 1990-2000, a lot of activities were initiated globally as a part of EFA: The Year 200 Assessment.  As a part of this exercise, in India a set of 18-core indicators concerning to elementary education and adult literacy were developed both at the all-India and state levels. Keeping in view the availability of data, a few of the 18 indicators were not constructed but at the same time a few additional indicators were constructed with special reference to conditions in India. Computation of out-of-school children, transition from primary to upper primary level of education and a few indicators concerning to access were form part of this additional set of indicators.

Review of indicators of enrolment

So far as the goal of universal enrolment is concerned, a variety of indicators were constructed to measure the progress made between 1990 & 2000 among which enrolment ratio is the most prominent one.  A variety of enrolment ratios are available all of which have some sort of limitations. In this note, first all such indicators are critically
analyzed and then the discussion is focused on 
Attendance Rate that is proposed a better indicator of children coverage than the traditional enrolment ratios. This is followed by a discussion on possible limitations in getting data on attendance.

The basic indicator that gives idea about coverage of child population (in a system) is the intake (entry) rate which is simply division of enrolment in Grade I to corresponding population at which a child is supposed to enter into the system (in most of the cases it is either '5' or '6').  However, while calculating the entry rate, repeaters are not considered and only fresh (new) entrants in Grade I are considered. This is because of the fact that repeaters are not the members of the present cohort but they have entered into the system some one or two years back. In case of gross enrolment (including children below & above ‘6’ in Grade I), the entry rate calculated is known as Gross Entry Rate otherwise it is known as Net Entry Rate. Entry rate is also known as Admission or Intake rate that demonstrates capacity of the system with regard to availability of schooling facilities. While calculating net entry rate, net enrolment (new entrants) in Grade 1 of age '6' is considered. A gross entry rate of 80 per cent means that about 80 per cent children (of entry age) including the overage and underage one are enrolled but a net entry rate of 80 per cent means that only 20 per cent children of entry age  ('5' or '6') are out of the system or are yet to be enrolled. Net entry rate is considered a better indicator of student coverage at the entry point (Grade I) than the gross entry rate. Unless the net entry rate is brought to hundred percent, the goal of universal enrolment cannot be achieved. Entry rate is also useful in knowing likely enrolment in subsequent grades in years that follow. However, in many systems age-grade matrix is not available and hence net entry rate cannot be calculated.
 

By enrolling all children of age-6 do not guarantee itself that the goal of universal enrolment will be achieved at its own, it is a necessary condition but not the sufficient condition. Children are to be retained in the system and should also acquire minimum levels of competencies. For that purpose other indicators, such as, Gross and Net enrolment ratio, dropout & retention rate, transition from primary to upper primary level and achievements levels should also be analyzed. The intake rate gives idea about coverage of child population of entry age-6 in Grade I but it fails to give any idea about children those who entered and then remained in the system in years that follow. For this purpose indicators concerning to enrolment ratio and retention need to be analyzed. A variety of ratios, such as, Overall, Gross (GER), Net (NER) and Age-specific enrolment ratios are available for this purpose. The overall enrolment ratio presents the overall view of the entire education system where as GER and NER presents information about the coverage of child population at a particular level, such as, primary and upper primary level of education. On the other hand age-specific enrolment ratio presents information about coverage of a particular age or age group. While assessing progress made between 1990 & 2000, as a part of EFA 18-core indicators, GER and NER were computed and analyzed.

The GER is division of enrolment (total) at school level í' in year 't' by a population in that age group á' which officially correspond to that level í'. Thus for calculating GER at primary level, total enrolment in primary Grades I-V irrespective of ages is considered which is then divided by the corresponding age-specific population, 6-11 (6+ to 10+) years to obtain GER. Similarly, total enrolment in upper primary grades VI-VIII is divided by the corresponding population 11-14 years (11+ to 13+) to obtain GER at upper primary level. This means that overage and underage children are included in GER, which resulted into GER more than hundred percent in many locations. In locations with small population, a slight over reporting of enrolment may also result into GER more than hundred. The GER is therefore considered crude indicator of child coverage and may present misleading picture of the true situation.  A GER more than hundred do not imply that the goal of UPE is achieved because of the overage and underage children. Alternatively, net enrolment of a particular age group is considered in place of total enrolment. One such indicator is Net Enrolment Ratio, which is an improved version of GER.

In NER, overage and underage children are excluded from enrolment and then ratio to the respective age-specific population is obtained. For example, enrolment in Grades I-V of age 6-11 years is considered which is than divided by 6-11 years population to obtain NER at the primary level. Similarly, NER at the upper primary or the entire elementary level can also be worked out. A NER of 77 per cent at the elementary level implies that 23 per cent children of age 6-14 years are still out-of-school. Unless these children are brought under the education system, the goal of universal elementary enrolment cannot be achieved. Achieving hundred percent NER does not itself guarantee that the goal of UEE will be achieved at its own. Those who enrolled will have to retain in the system up to the end of an educational cycle. The NER and other indicators should be calculated separately for boys and girls and in rural and urban areas and also at different administrative levels, as it would help to identify areas/locations that need immediate attention.

NER is considered a better indicator of enrolment than the GER. However, the limitation of NER is that it excludes overage and underage children from enrolment though they are very much in the system. The calculation of NER requires age & grade matrix that in most of the systems is not available. Alternate to GER and NER, age-specific enrolment ratio may be considered which gives enrolment ratio for a particular age or age group.  For example, an age-specific enrolment ratio of age '7' will include total enrolment of age '7' irrespective of grades which is then divided by the single age population '7' to obtain the ratio. The limitation of this ratio is that it considers total enrolment than enrolment in a particular grade that corresponds to age '7'. The calculation of age-specific ratio requires age-grade matrix, which as mentioned above is not readily available in many locations. An age-specific enrolment (age-7) of 67 per cent implies that 67 per cent children of age-7 are enrolled but it is not known in which grade are they enrolled. Or alternatively it can be said that 33 per cent children of age-7 are yet to be enrolled (in Grade I).

As it seems from the above discussion that Net Enrolment Ratio is a better indicator of enrolment than other indicators of enrolment. It presents coverage of child population of a specific age group in relation to corresponding grades.  In other words, it gives in percentage terms how many children of a specific age group are enrolled and at the same time also presents estimates of out-of-school children at that point of time. The calculation of net enrolment ratio needs age & grade matrix, which as mentioned above is not available in most of the cases. Sporadic attempts have been made to collect information on age & grade matrix but the same is not available on regular basis both at the state as well as the country level. Information on age & grade matrix is being collected in the DPEP districts but the same cannot be used to generate state-specific estimates of overage and underage because of the limited coverage of districts in a state. Till such time, the existing estimates from the Sixth All India Educational Survey conducted in 1993-94 should be used to know the percentage of overage and underage children both at the primary and upper primary levels of education. However, the same is not readily available at the district level as the publications containing district-specific data in case of most states is either not available or they do not contain this set of data. Whatever limited data is available on age & grade matrix is not free from the errors of measurement. For instance in India, enrolment is collected from the
recognized schools only where as the unrecognized private institutions which are large in number is not included in the annual collection of statistics. Data on age & grade matrix is obtained from the class registers where the date of birth of each and every child enrolled is written.  But in the process of transmitting age (in year) from the date of birth many approximations take place; hence the age & grade matrix is not free from errors (lot of confusion prevails so far as 5+ or 6+ or 6-11 or 5+ to 10+ population). Further, the date of birth it self may not be correct especially in rural areas where birth certificates are generally not available. On the discretion of the parents or even teachers the date of birth is recorded in the school registers.

Can attendance be a better indicator of enrolment?

The discussion presented above suggests that unless all children of age 6-11 years are enrolled, the goal of universal primary enrolment cannot be achieved. This is also true for other age groups, like 11-14 and 6-14 years. However, by enrolling children it self does not guarantee that the goal of universal enrolment will be achieved. It has been observed that children those who are enrolled do not attend schools regularly. For instance in India, compared to a GER of above 90 per cent at the primary level, the corresponding attendance rate is only 65 per cent. At the upper primary level also, the attendance rate is much lower than the corresponding GER and NER. Therefore indicators, such as, GER and NER cannot be considered better indicators of enrolment. Alternatively, it would be better to consider average attendance rate at different levels of education, which can be calculated either on daily, monthly, quarterly or even on annual basis. Keeping in view the availability of data, the attendance rate may either be gross or net in nature. The attendance rate is one of the important indicators of monitoring. For that purpose, it should be calculated separately for boys and girls and also at different levels. The school-specific attendance rates will help to identify schools that need immediate attention. Monthly attendance, if monitored properly will highlight possible reasons of low attendance and whether it is because of boys or girls, harvest season, festival season or because of the migratory population can also be known. All this is not possible to analyze in traditional enrolment ratios. Across countries, attendance rate is generally not available and is not part of the regular collection of statistics. In fact, it should be built-in in the information system itself.

Attendance rate can be calculated in relation to the number of school working days and children actually attending a class. For example, in a Class of 45 students in a school that functioned for 22 of 30 days in a month, attendance rate can be calculated in accordance to the actual number of days children attended schools. Some of them might have attended school for all the 22 days while others may not have. First, the maximum possible present days (attendance) is calculated by multiplying number of school days to number of students in a class. In this case it would come out (22 x 45) a total of 990 present days (care should be taken in case of schools that have tradition of marking attendance twice a day, in the first and last period. In that case both the maximum possible attendance days as well actual present days will be changed accordingly).  Now actual number of present days (number of days students actually attended a class) is counted in that month by observing the class register. Let us suppose that it come out to be 600 student present days. The average is calculated simply by dividing 600 by the maximum possible present days (990). This will give an average monthly attendance of 60.61 per cent in a class. By following the same procedure, average attendance in other classes and separately in case of boys and girls can be obtained either on daily, monthly, quarterly or annual basis. Once the average attendance is obtained in all the classes of a school, the same may be used to obtain average attendance for that school. In that case, first total student present days in a month are obtained by adding present days in different classes, which is then divided by the maximum possible present days (all classes) in that month. This can be obtained by multiplying school working days to total number of students in different classes in a school. Once the school-specific average attendance rates are calculated, it can be used to calculate the same at different levels. The above set of attendance rates are based on school registers, which should be built-in, in management information system.  Alternatively, attendance rates can also be worked out on household sample basis.  This was initiated recently in India and Gross, Net and Age-specific attendance rates were worked out. These rates are worked out in relation to total number of children in an age group attending school. If the attendance rate is calculated by considering all the children in Classes I-V, including the overage and underage children, the rate obtained is called Gross Attendance Rate. Otherwise if overage and underage children are not considered and only enrolment of a specific age group is considered in calculating rate, the rate thus obtained is termed as Net Attendance Rate. Similarly, age-specific attendance rate can also be calculated by considering a specific age children attending schools.

The GER, NER and Age-specific Enrolment Ratio can be adjusted in the light of actual average attendance. A GER of 95 per cent at primary level with 65 per cent attendance will give an adjusted-GER of 62 per cent. Similarly a GER of 59 per cent at upper primary level with 43 per cent attendance will give an adjusted-GER of 25 per cent. The adjusted-GER suggests that though 95 per cent children (including overage and underage) are enrolled in primary classes but only 62 per cent of them attend schools regularly. The corresponding figures at the upper primary level is 59 per cent against adjusted-GER of 25 per cent. But how ‘average attendance’ should be defined is an important question. Similarly who will be termed as ‘regular student’ and how migratory and nomads children will be treated are another important areas of concern.

Can reliable attendance rate be generated?

However, obtaining accurate attendance rate is a challenging task. Data users often question reliability of educational data and the official set of enrolment is found inflated. This is also reflected if the official set of data is compared with the corresponding statistics of the NCERT collected through All India Educational Surveys. A significant gap irrespective of an educational level is noticed both at the all-India and provincial levels and also in case of boys and girls. Information on attendance can be collected through teachers only, which like enrolment may not always present the real picture. Generally, three sets of enrolment are available in schools. First, the number of students whose names are written in the class register, second those who are marked present and third those who are physically present in the class on the day of visit. The third one in most of the cases is found lower than the second one and the second one lower than the first one. It may also be recalled that in developing countries, specifically in South Asia a number of incentives are being offered to children to improve both the enrolment and attendance. For instance, in India mid-day meal is one such scheme under which all primary school children are entitled to receive rice/wheat at the rate of 100 grams per day provided that they attend school for not less than 80 per cent of the total working days in a month. This has suddenly increased both enrolment as well as attendance across the country. Independent observers are of the opinion that in many cases the improvement in attendance is not genuine and like enrolment it is also inflated. The entire country is covered under the mid-day meal scheme. Schools that are covered under the scheme and have lifted the grains have at least 80 per cent attendance by default. In many locations, even it is found above 90 and even hundred percent that may be genuine or may also even be inflated. Thus obtaining attendance data from school registers through teachers may not bring forth the real picture about children attending schools. The same if collected from households may also not likely to improve the reliability of the attendance rate. However, advantage of HH survey is that children those who are enrolled in private unrecognized institutions are also covered in survey, which is not true in case of information collected from schools as a part of regular collection of statistics. The respondent in household surveys in most of the cases is the head of the household and not the members of the house. The head of the household is authorized to provide answer whether children in his/her house attending schools regularly. But how ‘regular’ is defined and interpret is an important mater. A student attending school for 50 per cent of the working days in a month will be considered regular or a student who attend schools for 75 or 80 per cent of the total working days. Can the head of the household provide this information accurately? This is doubtful especially when a large number of head of the households themselves are illiterate or literate without completing any schooling level.  The only option therefore left to collect reliable information on attendance is through visiting schools without prior notice. Naturally, this can be done on sample basis only. But who will conduct the survey is a moot question. Community, as it seems is the only option left for this purpose. What would be the frequency of such surveys and feedback mechanism are other important questions which needs to be properly addressed before such surveys are launched.

In view of National Education Policy 2020, a number of new indictors will be required to be constructed and meaning of a few of the existing indicators will have to be redefined. 


Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Status of School Education in India: Observations based on Recent Data

  

Arun C Mehta

Formally Professor & Head of EMIS Department

NIEPA, New Delhi (India)

(E-mail: acmehta100@gmail.com)

 

Introduction

It may be recalled that U-DISE is the main source of information on school education in India which has also attained the status of the Official Statistics from the year 2012-13 onwards. It may also be observed that from the year 2018-19, U-DISE was shifted from NIEPA to Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Education/HRD which had managed it since the inception in 1994-95 to 2017-18.  By now 2020-21 data must have been in the public domain but the same along with 2019-20 data is yet to be made available because of which 2018-19 is the latest set of data available in the public domain but the same is not complete as most of the indicators used to be disseminated at disaggregated levels previously is simply not available or are being added in installments on its online portal.   Even the number of schools, enrolment and teachers presented on U-DISE+ portal has changed. Also the Performance Grading Index (PGI) based on 2018-19 data computed by the ministry was also initially based on incomplete set of U-DISE+ 2018-19 data. Given these limitations, U-DISE 2017-18 data is the latest year but the same till recently was also yet to be disseminated by NIEPA (Readied in August 2018 now uploaded on April 2021 without ritual Foreword and From the VC’s Desk). Fortunately, through the U-DISE Reporter Module, raw as well as processed data for 2017-18 was available which has been used in the present note in knowing the status of School Education in India (later even link to download 2017-18 data was removed). Through the U-DISE+ portal, the number of schools, enrolment and teachers for 2018-19 with a few selective indicators is available in the public domain which has also been used wherever necessary (http://dashboard.udiseplus.gov.in/#!/reports). It is also important to mention that the process of 2020-21 U-DISE data collection must have been initiated on 30th September 2020 (now states are in process of inititing the same in April 2021) but the same is yet to be initiated in view of which the time-lag in the availability of educational statistics which was brought down to less than a year at the district and state levels and a year at the national level has again started increasing. The practice of using the same years' data in formulating Annual Work Plans & Budget (AWP&B) under SSA/RMSA/Samagra Shiksha and their appraisal during the Project Approval Board meeting has already been forfeited by more than two years which is a big setback to the process of strengthening EMIS in the Country but as it seems that it is not an issue to anyone, no one has raised the issue of widening gap between the data collection and data dissemination. Not a single publication based on U-DISE+ 2018-19 data has yet been brought out by the Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education which was otherwise a regular feature when the same was managed by the NIEPA, New Delhi.

A cursory look at the available information prima facia one gets the impression that not much improvement is visible as most of the indicators reflecting on different aspects of universal school education look almost stationary for the last ten years and there is no evidence that the rich dataset is being optimally utilized in formulating district plans which is otherwise an annual exercise and is being applied to all the districts of the Country. In addition, a huge decline in enrolment in general and primary classes, in particular, has adversely affected efforts being made to gain the target of universal enrolment. Since 2009, the year in which the Right to Education Act 2009 was enacted, district plans lack targets on different aspects of universalization which were otherwise regular features of plans developed previously; they were Gross and Net enrolment ratios, retention and transition rates, entry rates, and dropout rates and other such indicators reflecting on different aspects of universalization. Instead, local authorities are supposed to identify out-of-school children annually and impart them special training duration of which vary from 3 months to 2 years and made them to sit in the age-appropriate grades which are hard to be seen and is true for across the Country.

In this note, only critical indicators that influence universal school education have been analyzed apart from the basic information regarding coverage of schools in terms of enrolment and a host of a few other indicators.

Coverage

As against 15,35,610 schools covered in U-DISE 2016-17, as many as 15,58,940 schools spread over 721 districts from 7,457 blocks in  82,952 clusters located in 5,94,130 villages were covered during the year 2017-18; thus showing an increase of 23,330 schools (1.52 percent) against which a total of only 15,51,000 schools are reported to have been covered during 2018-19

Table 1

Coverage of Schools in 2018-19 (U-DISE+) over 2017-18 (U-DISE)*

Particular

Government

Aided

Private Unaided

Others

Total

Number of Schools

Number of schools ,2017-18

10,94,536

84,422

3,22,242

57,740

15,58,940

Number of schools ,2018-19

10,83,747

84,623

3,26,228

55,954

15,51,000

Absolute change in terms of number (2017-18 to 2018-19)

-10,789

201

3,986

-1,786

-7,940

Change in terms of percentage (2017-18 to 2018-19)

-0.99

0.24

1.24

-3.09

-0.51

 Total Teachers

 

 

 

 

 

Number of teachers ,2017-18

49,79,795

8,40,728

30,72,133

3,63,445

92,56,101

Number of teachers ,2018-19

49,47,608

8,19,847

33,04,373

3,58,911

94,30,839

Absolute change in terms of number (2017-18 to 2018-19)

-32,187

-20,881

2,32,240

-4,534

1,74,738

Change in terms of percentage (2017-18 to 2018-19)

-0.65

-2.48

7.56

-1.25

1.89

Total Enrolment 

 

Enrolment ,2017-18

13,17,55,633

2,79,88,914

8,33,08,685

79,17,112

25,09,70,344

Enrolment ,2018-19

12,87,16,369

2,75,30,022

8,41,22,799

79,69,394

 

24,83,38,584

Absolute change in terms of number (2017-18 to 2018-19)

-30,39,264

-4,58,892

8,14,114

52,282

-26,31,760

Change in terms of percentage (2017-18 to 2018-19)

-2.31

-1.64

0.98

0.66

-1.0

*Total may not match because of recognized and unrecognized madarsas which is not considered. Data has been downloaded from the official portals of U-DISE & U-DISE+ from time to time.

through U-DISE+; thus showing a decline of 7,940 schools (0.51 percent). Schools by management further show that the decline in coverage of schools is limited to Government schools which is to the tune of 10,789 schools (0.99 percent) which is also resulted in a decline in the total number of teachers (32.187, 0.65 percent) and enrolment (30,39,264, 2.31 percent) in 2018-19 over the previous year i.e. 2017-18; thus indicating an under the coverage of the total schools in 2018-19 through U-DISE+ operations that need thorough investigation and explanation. Decline in 2018-19 is a bit higher if the Government Aided schools are considered: Teachers:  20,881 (2.48 percent) & Enrolment: 4,58,892 (1.64 percent). In addition, U-DISE also covers unrecognized schools and Madrass all which  had also declined in 2018-19. On the other hand, schools (3,986 schools), as well as teachers (2,32,240 teachers) and enrolment (8,14,114 enrolment) in private unaided schools, have shown an increasing trend during the same period. Decline in coverage is mainly because of decline in number of schools in Assam, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand against increase in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The decline in schools, teachers, and enrolment in 2018-19 through U-DISE+ operations raises serious concern about of quality of data been collected (coverage, quality, sharing, consistency, dissemination in terms of publications, and timely & optimal utilization of data so collected) which need a thorough explanation as the same has serious implication for India to move towards the goal of universal school enrolment. Before 2020-21 data collection, a large number of schools across India are now approaching U-DISE+ authorities to obtain 11-digit unique identification code many of which also had approached during the previous year but because of the procedure adopted (approval at the state level), most of them remain uncovered. U-DISE up to 2017-18 was being managed by the academicians supported by professionals which is lacking now in U-DISE+ which is being managed by technical persons having lacking in understanding of basic concepts of education, educational indicators and even concept of an MIS. The decline in enrolment would adversely affect all enrolment based indicators which if analyzed at the disaggregated level may reveal more about the status of universal school education in India.

Facility Indicators

As has already been mentioned that most of the facility indicators remain almost stagnant (Table 2) in the recent past.  All schools (I to XII, 15,58,903 schools) together revels that more than 98 percent of schools in 2017-18 had a school building; the lowest percentage of such schools is observed in the case of Secondary Schools consisting only Grades IX and X (92.30 percent) and the highest 99.14 percent in case of integrated Higher Secondary schools but in absolute terms, the number is limited to only 52,833 schools of the total 15,58,903 schools. However, U-DISE+ reported that 9,410 (0.61 percent) of the total 15,51,000 schools reported not having school building in 2018-19 majority of which are the schools run by the Department of Education (5,131 schools, 54.53 percent). 

Despite improved facilities, still a majority of schools in India didn’t have electricity connection, computer facility and internet connection which are crucial in imparting online education/learning in digital mode because of the ongoing pandemic in view of which the next section deals with a detailed analysis of schools having computer and internet connectivity which is also crucial for online U-DISE+.

Table 2

Facility Indicators: All India, 2017-18

Facilities

Total

Facilities

Total

Building

98.24

Ramp

62.12

Boundary Wall

56.15

Physics Laboratory

39.49

Separate Room for HM/ Principal

55.53

Chemistry Laboratory

39.22

Electricity connection

63.14

Biology Laboratory

37.46

Library

77.38

Computer Laboratory

45.17

Librarian

6.72

Mathematics Laboratory

15.47

Playground

62.17

Language Laboratory

9.79

Computer

29.57

Geography Laboratory

15.24

Functional Computer

13.07

Home Science Laboratory

9.03

Internet Connection

13.61

Psychology  Laboratory

4.48

Drinking Water Facility(Functional)

90.1

Integrated Science Lab

47.8

Functional Drinking Water Facility

86.07

 

 

                      Source: U-DISE 2017-18, NIEPA, New Delhi

 Schools having Electricity & Computer Facility: 2017-18

Schools having electricity connection, computer, functional computer, and internet connection presented at the all-India level for the year 2017-18 and in a few selected states reveals that our schools are not equipped to meet challenges caused by the pandemic. Even the basic requirement such as, the electricity connection is yet to be provided to the majority of schools which is true for both the rural and urban areas. A glance at the Table 3 reveals that of the total 1.5 million schools engaged in school education in the country, only 63.14 percent of schools have got the electricity connection compared to a little more than 50 percent of such primary schools. It is also true that just schools having electricity connections don’t necessarily mean that schools get an uninterrupted power supply. It has also been observed in the past that schools generally do not have separate funds to pay electricity bills because of which generally observed that even schools have a connection but they do not have power in school. Maybe The Saubhagya Scheme or Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana launched by the Prime Minister will help electricity reach our remaining schools.