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
TN
Haryana
Gujarat
HP
Small States/UTs
Tripura
Goa
Manipur
Mizoram
|
Large States
Jammu
& Kashmir
UP
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
|
|
Girls
|
Boys
|
Overall
|
|
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
|
|
Girls
|
Boys
|
Overall
|
|
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
|
|
Girls
|
Boys
|
Overall
|
|
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 13th
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.
Posts
