Annual Status of Education Report (Rural) 2011

Provisional

January 16, 2012

They reached the remotest villages of India

ANDHRA PRADESH
Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET College, Adilabad College, Anantapur College, Chittor College, East Godavari College, Guntur College, Kadapa College, Karimnagar College, Khammam College, Krishna College, Kurnool College, Mahbubnagar College, Medak College, Nalgonda College, Nellore College, Nizamabad College, Prakasam College, Ranga Reddy College, Srikakulum College, Vishakhapatnam College, Vizianagaram College, Warangal College, West Godavari Wodiwichee

BIHAR
Aid India Akhil Bharatiya Gramin Vikas Parishad Akhil Bhartiya Shikshit Berojgar Yuva Kalyan Sansthan Akriti Samajik Sansthan All India Centre For Urban And Rural Development An Unit Of Research Chhatrachhaya Dalit Mukti Mission Disha Bihar Garima Samaj Vikas Sansthan Harijan Sewa Samiti Islahe Ummat Jan Kalyan Kendra Jawahar Jyoti Bal Vikas Kendra Nav Jeevan Ambedkar Mission Nav Jivan Manav Uthan Kendra Pandit Shree Ram Sharma Seva Sansthan Parivesh Purn Jagran Sansthan Popular Organization Women Empowerment & Research Sanhauli Pragati Bharti (Tulbul) Prerna Development Foundation Ram Kripal Sewa Sansthan R-Teach Commuication Sadbhavana Vikash Mandal Sahyoginee Samagra Manav Seva Samiti Samagra Vikas evam Shikshan Sansthan Sarv Shree Seva Sadan Sarvodaya Yuva Kalyan Sangh Shankar Human Advance Society for Initiative Mission Shanti Shilp Kala Kendra The Message Welfare Foundation Trishna Vidhyapati Jan Vikas Samiti Vikash Sarthi Local Volunteers of Madhepura

Govt. Govt. Govt. Govt. Govt.

HHS Golonda HHS Naroli HHS Rakholi HHS Silvassa HHS Dudhani

GOA D M C College, Mhapasa Khemrag Memorial New English School, Bandha Sridoracaculo college, Korli, Mhapasa, Goa GUJARAT
Anandi, Dahod Anandi, Panchmahal GLS College Gram Seva Trust Hina & Friends Group Innovative BSW college J.M. Patel Institute of Social Work K.R. Doshi MSW College KSKSV University Mahila Samakhya Manav Ekta Charitable Trust Memdabad Co-operative College Navbharti Vikas Trust Navratri Yuvak Mandal Nootanbharti Gramseva Mahavidhyalay Salal MSW College Samarpan Foundation Sarswati BSW College Sarvajanik MSW College Satkariya Seva Trust Shikshan & Samaj Kalyan Kendra Shree Kedareshvar Education & Charitable Trust (MSW College) Surbhi MSW College Yogeshvar Yuvak Mandal Local Volunteers of Valsad

ARUNACHAL PRADESH
NSS Unit of Government Higher Secondary School, Tawang Rupa Town Club, West Kameng Students of Lohit College Students of Tirap College Tarhuk Samaj Local Volunteers of Changlang, Dibang Valley, East Kameng, East Siang, West Siang, Upper Siang and Upper Subansiri

ASSAM
All India Students Federation (AISF), Golaghat All India Students Federation (AISF), Jorhat Assam Mahila Samata Society (AMSS), Nagaon Assam Valley Academy (AVA) Bhawanipur Cultural Society Bordaulguri Socio-Economic and Health Development Organisation (SEHDO) Daogaphu Youth Club Goalpara Cultural Society Integrated Community Development Society Kalang Kapili Integrated Development Society Klirdap Welfare Society Nabarun Shangha Community Centre North East Educational Social Forum North East Society for the Promotion of Youth and Masses Parijat Self Help Group Sankalpa Sishu Adhikar Suraksha Samiti Social Unity Keepers Association for All Society for Progressive Implementation and Development Udayan Uttaran

CHHATTISGARH
Adhar Svansevi Sansthan Chhattisgarh Janjati Vikas Parishad Government DIET College, Dhamtari Government DIET College, Durg Government DIET College, Janjgir Champa Government DIET College, Kawardha Government DIET College, Mahasamund Gramin Vikas Seva Sansthan Lalit Kala Manch Nav Jivan Jankalyan Sewa Samiti Nicchay Seva Samiti Pahela Kadam Sewa Sansthan Prakruti Sewa Sansthan SROTH Pratham Volunteers of Jashpur

DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI

Dadra Nagar Haveli Education Department Govt. HHS Khanvel

HARYANA All Indian Jat Heroes Memorial College, Rohtak Chandan Mal Karnani College Chaudhari Devi Lal College for Women, Murthal DN College, Hisar Dronacharya Govt. College Dyal Singh College, Karnal Government College, Barwala Government College, Kalka Government College, Narnaul Government PG College, Bhiwani Government PG College, Jind Maharaja Agrasen Girls College, Jhajjar MM College, Fatehabad Mukund Lal National College Nehru Yuva Kendra, Faridabad Nehru Yuva Kendra, Kurukshetra PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi Radha Krishan College RDS College (Girls), Rewari Sanathan Dharam College, Ambala SD College, Panipat Yasin Meo College, Mewat
ASER 2011

ii

HIMACHAL PRADESH
General Jorawar Singh College, Nadaun (Hamirpur) Govt. PG College, Kullu Govt. College, Balav, Mandi Govt. Degree College, Nahan Govt. Degree College, Una Govt. Degree Collage, Kinnaur Govt. PG College Seema (Rohru) Govt. Degree College, Theog Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Dharamshala Santosh Industrial Training Centre Ghumarawin Society For Human Interest and Rural Advancement Yuva Vikas Mandal, Jabli ZCA Academy, Chamba

JAMMU AND KASHMIR Govt. Degree College, Ramban Government Degree College, Udhampur Government DIET College, Kargil Government PG College, Bhaderwah Govt. Degree College, Kistwar Govt. Degree College, Pulwama Jehlum Education Trust College of Education, Baramulla Kamariya B Ed College, Srinagar Naushera Degree College,Rajouri Nehru Yuva Centre, Poonch The Students Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh Shah-i-Hamdan College of Education, Siligam Sheikh-ul-Alam College of Education, Kupwara Syed Ali Memorial Educational Trust, Beerwah Pratham Volunteers of Jammu and Kathua JHARKHAND Abhiyan Chetna Vikas Child Fund India Diya Seva Sansthan Gram Jyoti Kendra Jal Swaraj Jan Shabagi Kendra Jana Kalyan Parisad, Pattbari Lohardagga Gram Swaraj Sansthan Lok Hit Sansthan Lok Prerna Kendra Mahila Samagra Utthan Samiti Nav Bharat Jagriti Kendra Rural Outright Development Society Sahyogini Samaj Pragati Kendra Samajik Parivartan Sansthan Santhal Pargana Gram Rachna Sansthan Veer Jharkhand Vikas Seva Manch Vikash Bharti, Bishunpur Youth Welfare Committee KARNATAKA Akshara Foundation Basaveshwara Vidya Vardhaka Sangha Rural Development Foundation
ASER 2011

Center for Rural Development, Bellary Centre for Rural Studies, Manipal University Development Association Reconstruction for Institute DRC, Dharwad EMBARK Youth Association, Virajapet Institute of Social Studies And Research (ISSAR) Janaprayathna Malenadu Education And Rural Development Society Navachetana Rural Development Society Navodaya Educational and Environment Development Service (NEEDS) Nirantara Social Welfare Society PADI, Mangalore Parivarthan Peoples Organisation for Waste Land and Environment Regeneration Pragathi Urban and Rural Development Priyadashini Grameen Abhivruddi Sanste Sajjalashree SKA & GAS Lingasgur Sarvodaya Integrated Rural Development Society SCOPE Dharwad Seva Society Gataprabha SPOORTHI Samsthe Sri Balaji Sarvodaya Central Rural & Urban Development Trust Sri Kantha Vidya Samsthe Vishwabharati Trust, Anavatti Yashaswi Swayam Seva Samsthe Yashaswini Vividhodhesha Samaja Seva Samsthe Pratham Volunteers of Mysore

Jan Abhiyan Parishad Jan Sansadhan Vikas Evam Jiv Kalyan Samiti Jan Vikas Sansthan Jati Yuva Mandal, Gwalior Khandwa Mahak Education Society Krushna Vikas evam Prakuti Prabhandhan Santhan Lok Rujhan evam Manav Vikas Soudh Sansthan M.P. Paryavaran Sudhar Sangathan Ma Pitambara Lok Hit Sewa Sansthan Matrubhumi Manav Vikas Sansthan Narmada Welfare Society Path Pragati Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Shahdol Prakash Yuva Mandal Itora Samiti Pritam Shiksha evam Samaj Kalyan Sewa Samiti Rang Welfare Society Reform Activities by Youth Society Sahara Manch Sankalp Samajik Vikas Sansthan, Shivpuri Saress Welfare Society, Seoni Sharda Shiksha Samiti, Shahjapur Sharda Yog evam Prakrutik Shodh Sansthan, Umaria Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee Govt. Art & Commerce College Smt Susheel Gayan Shiksha Prachar Prasar Samitee, Guna Swadesh Gramotthan Samiti, Datia Swami Prakashand Samajik Sanshthan Swar Bharti Devi Samaj Kalyan Yuva Mandal, Sagar Synergy Sansthan The Initiative Educational and Welfare Society

KERALA Government DIET Government DIET Government DIET Government DIET Government DIET Government DIET Government DIET Kudumbashree

College, College, College, College, College, College, College,

Kollam Kozhikode Palakkad Pathanamitta Thrissur Wayanad Kannur

MADHYA PRADESH Bahi Parshavnath Balkalyan Shikshan Samiti Bal Pragati evam Mahila Shikshan Sansthan, Datia Betul Upkar Gramin Vikas Sansthan, Betul Bhimrao Jagruk Vikas Samiti Bread For Tribal Village Darshna Mahila Kalyan Samiti Dhara Vikas Samiti Dharti Gramothan evam Shabhagi Gramin Vikas Samiti Diksha Shaikshanik Samajik Seva Sansthan Disha Samajik Vikas Sansthan Samiti, Shivpuri Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Seva Parishad GD Public Society, Sheopur Gram Seva Trust, Paraswada Gramin Swalamban Samiti Gramin Vikas Mandal, Chhindwara Gramm Vikash Prasfutan Samiti Pindrukhi Gramm Vikash Prasfutan Samiti Silua Human and culture Society (Hans), Sidhi

MAHARASHTRA Sanchar Infotech Foundation AVHAN Bahuudeshiya Santha Disha Foundation Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Smajkarya Mahavidyalaya Gulbnabi Azad Samjkarya Mahavidyalaya Jagat Art. Comm & IHP Science College, Goregaon Mahatma Foundation Model Arts & Commerce College Nirmik Samajik Sanshodhan Va Vikas Kendra NSS Unit, Ahmadnagar NSS Unit, Akola NSS Unit, Aurangabad NSS Unit, Beed NSS Unit, Bhandara NSS Unit, Buldhana NSS Unit, Dhule NSS Unit, Hingoli NSS Unit, Jalgaon NSS Unit, Jalna NSS Unit, Kolhapur NSS Unit, Latur NSS Unit, Nagpur NSS Unit, Nandurbar NSS Unit, Nashik NSS Unit, Osmanabad NSS Unit, Ratnagiri NSS Unit, Sangli NSS Unit, Satara
iii

NSS Unit, Sindhudurg NSS Unit, Solapur NSS Unit, Washim Prahar Samajik Kalyankari Sanstha R.C. Bidkar Mahavidyalaya Saibaba Mahavidyalaya Sankalp Bahuudeshiya Prakalp Uday Bahuudesiya Sanstha Vanchit Vikas Loksanstha Nanded Yash Bahuudeshiya Sanstha Pratham Volunteers of Amravati, Pune, Raigad and Thane

MANIPUR Action for Women and Child Development Chingri Society Community Development Society Komlathabi Development Club Kumbi Kangjeibung Mapal Fishermen Association Our Carrom Club Peoples Development for Social Change The Youth Goodwill Association MEGHALAYA Khasi Students Union Local Volunteers of Jaintia Hills Martin Luther Christian University Ri-Bhoi Youth Federation Williamnagar College Students Union MIZORAM Hmarveng Football Club HS Adventure Club JF Sporting Club Kristian Thalai Pawl, Aizwal Branch Kristian Thalai Pawl, Dinthar Branch, Mamit Thalai Kristian Pawl, Kolasib Unit Thalai Kristian Pawl, Moria Unit, Lunglei Young Mizo Association, Kahrawt Branch, Champhai NAGALAND Confederation of Chang Students Union Govt Primary School Teachers of Mokukchung District Hills Club Lesiema Students Union Lotha Students Union Nagaland Society Peoples Agency for Development Walo Organisation Working Brigade Zunheboto Range Students Union Pratham Volunteers of Dimapur ODISHA Abha Mahila Mandal AMCS College Anchalika Mahavidyala, Natha Sahi AOMA,Malkangiri Basudevpur ITI College Bhairav Mahavidyalaya, Dabugan Bhaskar Multi Action Seva Samity Biswa Vikas
iv

Dakhina Rourkela Unnayana Parisada Deogarh Govt City School Gatiswar College Gopabundhu ITC College Govt. Autonomous College, Bhabanipatna Jiral College Khaira College Khambeswripali Mahabidyala Khyama Meher Degree College Maa Bhagabati Mahavidyalaya, Konark, Puri Mahima College, Panchan Gan Panchayat college, Baragarh Parsuram Gurukula Mahavidyalay Patitapaban Degree College Phulmatin Hemram Mahavidyalay Rural Organisation for Peoples Empowerment SADBHABANA,Keonjhar Sailandra Narayan College Science College, Polosara Sidheswar Baba Anchalika Vidyalaya Sri Ugratara College, J.K. Pur, Rayagada Swami Arupananda Mahavidyalaya.

Prashafvi B Ed College Pratap Sansthan Rajasthan T.T. College Ranthambhore PG College Sahaj Sansthan Shekhawati [Link]. College Shiv Shiksha Samiti Society for Agriculture and Rural Dovelopmet (SARD) Society to Uplift Rural Economy Suratgarh Educational and Social Welfare Trust The Ankur [Link] College Udaipur School of Social Work VAAGDHARA Veena Group Vidhya Bharti Sansthan Pratham Voulnteers of Ajmer, Hanumangarh and Jhalawar

SIKKIM Govt College, Namchi Govt College, Rhenock Govt College, Tadong TAMIL NADU Aid-et-action AVVAI Village Welfare Society Award Trust Council for Integrated Development (CID Trust) Gramodhaya Social Service Society GrassRoot Institute of Human Rights Education Jeeva Anbalayam Trust Leaf Society Manitham Charitable Trust Needs Trust New life for Differently Disabled Fedaration News Trust PRESS Trust Raise India Trust READ Rights Trust Rural Women Development Trust SODEWS Tamil Nadu Green Movement (TNGM Trust) Valarum Vandavasi VEPAGA WORLD Trust TRIPURA Agragati Social Organisation Chetna Social Organisation Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust, Tripura Pushparaj Club UTTAR PRADESH Akhil Bhartiya Shrawasti Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan Anuragini Bhartiya Gramotthan Seva Vikash Sansthan Devlopment of Human Enviroment and Study of Human Activities Disha Sewa Samiti Grameen Development Society
ASER 2011

PUNJAB
Akalia College of Education, Faridkot Bhramchari Club, Balachaour D. M College of Education, Moga Government DIET College, Sangrur Govt Senior Secondary School, Gurdaspur Govt Sr. Sec School, Kapurthala Innocent [Link] College, Jalandhar J.D College of Education, Muktsar Jeevan Jyoti Polytechnical College, Ferozpur Malwa Central College of Education, Ludhiana Mata Sahib Kaur Girls College, Tarn Taran Nehru Yuva Kendra, Mansa Punjabi University Campus, Mour Regional Institute of Management and Technology, Mandi Gobindgarh Sahara Trust, Rajpura Sajri Saver Club, Ropar Shaheed Bhagat Singh Youth Club, Hoshiarpur Sidhana Institute of Education, Amritsar Winner Cultural and Sports Club, Mohali

RAJASTHAN Shiv Arogya Sansthan AIMT College CUTs Diamond Shikshan Prashikshan Avam Shodh Sansthan, Makarana Doosra Dashak Educate Girls, Globally Gramin Yuva Vikas Samiti IIRM, Jaipur LUPIN M. L. V. PG College Mahant Shri Ragunandan Das T.T. College Matashree Gomati Devi Jan Sewa Nidhi Modi Institute of Management and Technology Parivartan Sansthan

Gramin Mahila Kalyan Sansthan Gramin Manav Seva evam Paryavaran Sudhar Samiti Gramoday Seva Asharm Gyan Sewa Samiti Indian Gospel Charitable Society Indian Medical Practioner Welfare Association Jadaun Gramodhyog Seva Sansthan Jan Kalyan Samiti Jankalyan Shikshan Prasar Samiti Janta Sewa Samiti Lakshya Gramin Vikas Society Manav Sewa Kendra Nehru Yuva Sansthan Nehru Yuva Mandal New Public School Samiti Open Sky Welfare Society Paramlal Seva Samiti Parmarth Gramodyog Janseva Sansthan Saptrang Vikas Sansthan Sarvangeen Grameen Vikas Sansthan Sarvjan Sewa Sansthan Savera Sharaddha Jan Kalyan Sikshan Sewa Sansthan Social Welfare Organization The Help Jan Kalyan Samiti Yuva Vikash Evam Prasikshan Sansthan Local Volunteers of Jhansi, Devoria, Ghaziabad, Bijnore, Etah, Mirzapur, Lucknow, J.P. Nagar, Kannauj and Ramabai Nagar Pratham Volunteers of Etawah, Mainpuri, Aligarh, Agra, Mathura, Firozabad, Varanasi, Ambedkar Nagar, Azamgarh, Jaunpur, Basti, Gorakhpur, Bareilly, Moradabad, Meerut, Rampur, Gautam Budh Nagar, Gonda, Bahraich, Sitapur, Pratapgarh, Kaushambi, Rae Bareilly, Hardoi and Barabanki

Bankura Christian College, Department of Sociology Barddhaman Sanjog Human Social Welfare Society Chatrya Kalyan Samity Dakshin Dinajpur Foundation for Rural Integration Economic and Nature Development Gour Mahavidyalay, NSS in Charge Unit -3 Jaganath Kishore College, NSS Unit Kajla Jana Kalyan Samity Mainaguri College, NCC Unit Vivekananda College, NSS UNIT Mathabhanga College, NCC Unit Matri O Shishu Bikash Kendra Raiganj University College Ramnarayanpur Kalika Sangha St Josephs College Turku Halasda Lapsa Hembrom Mahavidyalaya University of Kalyani, Department Of Rural Development & Management.

UTTARAKHAND Association for Rural Planning & Action Dolphin (PG) Institute of Bio Medical and Natural Sciences Faculty of Management Studies Gurukul Kangri University Government Polytechnic, Kashipur, U.S. Nagar Gram Suraxa Samiti, Manjiyali Naugaon, Uttarkashi Gram Vikas Sansthan, Dhali Kumaun Seva Samiti, Sitarganj, [Link] Manav Kalyan Samiti, Ukhimath, Rudraprayag Nav Jyoti Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kandikhal, Tehri Omkarananda Institute of Management & Technology, Rishikesh [Link], Bageshwar Prakhar Yuva evam Grameen Jan Jagrati Samiti R.N.I Inter College, Bhagwanpur (Haridwar) Society For Agriculture and Administrative Research Swami Vivekanand Samaj Sevi Sanstha Yuvak Mangal Dal (Samiti) WEST BENGAL Baharampur Krishnath College, History Department, Baharampur, Murshidabad.

ASER 2011

Supporters of ASER 2011

Abhijit Banerjee Abhimanyu Banerji Accountability Initiative Akhilesh Richhariya Amit Kaushik Amita Chudgar Anant Prakash Vyas Arvind Amin Ganesh Tak Gita Rao & Bhaskar Chakravorti Iqbal Dhaliwal ITC Kabir Bogra Maya Mitra Michael Walton Pratham UK Rishi Rajvanshi Rohini Mukherjee Rukmini Banerji Salimah Samji Shantanu Banerji Shobhini Mukerji Siddharth Jain Uttarayan Trust V.B Bewtra Viplow Shivhare

Special thanks to
A.P.M Mohammed Hanish Ankur Vaja Bendang Bommo Kamchi Bremil M. Sangma C. Vanengmawei Chow Nakasang D.W. Wangza Dilbag Singh Dimasahau Students Union Dipak Sharma Dr Jayaprakash Narayan Dr. O.P Verma, NSS Coordinator, Himachal Pradesh University Dr. S.S. Rajagopalan, Kalvi Network Dr. Vasanthi Devi, Kalvi Network Dwidengra Brahma Grace Zamnu H. Pauchen Phom H. Lalrinfeh Haigam Kauring Hopeful Khongstia Japinder Singh, Regional Institute of Management & Technology K.R. Variusmauii Kalaveni Srinivas Kelouzie Keisiezie Kerala Shasthra Sahithya Parishad Khrawboklang Tansong Khukheto Y Yepthomi Kripendra Das L. C. Somoranjit Meitei Lalhlinpuii Madhusudhanan, SCERT Manoranjan Mondal Manosh Kumar Mary Lalrunruati Mary Sada Mr. Ejanthang Ngullie Mr. Kelouzie Mr. Muzzamil Ahmed, Secretary to Dean College Development Council, Kashmir University Mr. Subor Rangslang Mr. Yapangchang Mr. Baikuntha Pandey, State Pedagogy, SSA Mr. Harishwar Dayal, Prof. St. Xaviers College Mr. Pashupati Nath Singh, Director-ADRI MTs of Dreams Foundation MTs of Loksatta MTs of Pragati Marg Kendra MTs of Sankranti Foundation MTs of Vasavya Mahila Mandali Namkhinlung Pamei Ngorum Besterday Moyon Nongmeithem Shyamjoy Singh P. Setsacho P. Subash Singh Padam Rai Pangarsenba Jamir Pangloi Konyak Pradip Tanti, President, Kumbha Panchayat, Cachar Priyadarsini Nair Prof. Nandeibam Mohendro Professor Mushtaq A. Kaw, Dean, College Development Council, Kashmir University Professor Talat Ahmad, Vice Chancellor, Kashmir University Punuto Aye R Lalchhingpuii R. Adeno Nguillie Binay Pattanayak, Education Officer, UNICEF Ranchi Remdorness Sunn Reshmi Thapa Rijiedstar Marbaniang Robert C Paoboi Roluk Buii Roshan Rai Satish G, DRC Dharwad Shankar Singh Yadav Showrish Kudkuli, Manipal University, Manipal Shri M Shivshanker, Secretary General Education, Government of Kerala Smt Saumya Gupta, DM, North District Suraj Sharma T. Chuba Chang Taba Anjum, Journalist, Arunachal Times Takar Bagan Tamal Chakraborty Tatro Sawin Tenzing Lepcha Tobom Dai Tokyo Mida Trilok Bandhu, Malwa Central College of Education Tumpe Basar Vanlalrualfela Hlondo Wasim Raja Yaben Tapak Yambem Chingshang Singh Zakaria Choudhury Zhoto Tunyi All Pratham State Heads, MTs and Accountants

vi

ASER 2011

Contents
Co 1.

List of partners.......................................................................................................................................................... Supporters of ASER 2011.......................................................................................................................................... The unseen change............................................................ Bringing hard evidence to the table..................................... From a Right to Schooling to a Right to Learning: Rethinking education finance .............................................. Yamini Aiyar ........................................................... Rukmini Banerji ....................................................... Suman Bhattacharjea ............................................. Baela Raza Jamil .................................................... John Mugo.............................................................. Wilima Wadhwa...................................................... Madhav Chavan ..................................................... M.R. Madhavan ......................................................

ii vi 1 11 13 14 17 19 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 35 36 37 38 39 40 43 44 54 55 56 58 60 61 65 75 113 189 227 246 250 275 276 277 282 287

Notes on ASER 2011

ASER and learning profiles: The pace of learning is too slow... Lant Pritchett .........................................................

Taking mothers along........................................................... 1,902 ASER partners............................................................ From Mumbai, Multan to Mombasa or Karachi, Kanyakumari to Kilimanjaro ................................................ Addressing inequalities: Breaking the cycles of illiteracy ...... Note on Sampling: ASER 2011 Rural....................................

2.

About the survey

ASER 2011 Training ................................................................................................................................................... ASER 2011 Monitoring & Recheck ............................................................................................................................ How to make a map and make sections.................................................................................................................... What to do in each section/ hamlet........................................................................................................................... How to sample households in a hamlet in a village..................................................................................................... What to do in each household................................................................................................................................... From 2005 to 2011: Evolution of ASER...................................................................................................................... ASER 2011: Reading tasks......................................................................................................................................... How to test reading?................................................................................................................................................ ASER 2011: Arithmetic tasks..................................................................................................................................... How to test arithmetic?............................................................................................................................................. What to do in a school?.............................................................................................................................................. School and home language information in ASER 2011 ..............................................................................................

3. 4.

Sample survey formats ............................................................................................................................................. Maps

Private schools 6-14 year olds ................................................................................................................................... Attendance in Primary School .................................................................................................................................. Reading: Std III & V ................................................................................................................................................... Math: Std III & V ....................................................................................................................................................... Multigrade classrooms: Std II ....................................................................................................................................

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

ASER 2011 (Rural) Findings ...................................................................................................................................... India ............................................................................................................................................................................ Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat ......................................................... Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala ...............................................

Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland .......................................................... 151

10. Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand .............................................................................. 11. Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Daman & Diu, Puducherry ....................................................................................... 12. Divisional estimates

Divisional estimates of learning outcomes and schooling status: Precision of ASER estimates...... Wilima Wadhwa..... Divisional estimates for states 2007-2011.................................................................................................................. Sample description .................................................................................................................................................... Village infrastructure and household characteristics ................................................................................................. Class-wise distribution of children in sample 2007-2011............................................................................................. Age-class composition in sample 2011........................................................................................................................ Sample design of rural ASER 2011...................................... Wilima Wadhwa .....................................................

Annexures

ASER 2011

vii

Notes on ASER 2011

The unseen change

Madhav Chavan
I The first news of 2012 based on ASER 2011 is that private school enrollment in most states is increasing although the Right to Education Act for free and compulsory education is in place. Over 25% of rural Indias children go to private schools and the numbers will rise in coming years as education and wealth increase. ASER covers rural districts. The urban numbers are probably changing more rapidly towards private education. The second piece of news is that not only are Indias learning levels very poor on an international absolute scale, the levels in government schools in the North have steadily declined with the exception of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. The decline is quite alarming and we expect that the results will be discussed, debated and perhaps even contested in some states. At first glance the decline of reading levels by 10-20 percentage points can seem shockingly impossible but I think there is enough in the data gathered over the years that indicates that this has been gradually building up possibly due to multiple factors, and something like Census 2011 has caused a major dip in the less functional state systems. It is noteworthy that private schools by and large everywhere, and the states of the South plus Gujarat and Maharashtra do not show a decline of reading levels as measured by ASER. In fact, some states show steady improvement over the years. On another note, a recent study by Education Initiatives concludes that scores on common questions in tests given five years apart have declined about 7-10% among Std 4 children of elite schools of India.2 There is an urgent need to find out why learning levels are declining and to at least arrest the decline and improve the learning levels. II When we started seven years ago, many doubted that we could do the first survey successfully and yet we called it the ANNUAL Status of Education Report from the very first year. Later there were questions raised if there was a need to do this massive survey every year. Those who do this year after year also wondered when not much change was observed year after year, whether all this annual business was worthwhile. But in 2011, the efforts in doing the annual survey seem to be even more justifiable at least for some time to come. This article attempts to explore the trends as seen from ASER measurements and observations over the last half a dozen years, or over a whole Plan period of India. I am sure the issue is more complex and many factors can be studied. We will be more than happy if researchers feel inspired to use our data to explore this fascinating phase of gradual but big, measurable but unseen changes in elementary education. Ever since we launched ASER, our focus has been on two simple key points. First; are all children enrolled in school? What kind of school? Second; are the children learning at least the very basics of reading and numeracy? While ASER has won many friends and admirers, we have had our share of critics. We have chosen to focus on some very basic outcomes of education. If these outcomes improve, there is reason to believe that inputs are working. When they decline, it is a sure sign that inputs are not working. Before we did the first survey, it was difficult for us to believe that over 90% rural children of this vast country were enrolled in schools. But once we had done the survey, we believed it. Many others including some eminent people did not, and said it was not consistent with their experience. A government sponsored independent survey around the same time came up with practically the same proportion of enrolled children. Every subsequent ASER threw up self-consistent numbers and trends at state and national level to further emphasize the validity and utility of the survey. Subsequently we also measured attendance, which showed that while enrollment was increasing in the Northern states, attendance of children in schools, which should be the real measure of enrollment, remained poor. The increase in enrollment was an intended clear goal of the system and the system responded to the signals coming from Delhi and state capitals. Large centralized systems respond to simple and clear instructions or goals and not fine print. In a centralized but ill-functioning system with huge gaps of knowledge and skill-sets, a complex message is lost in the game of Chinese whispers. Worse, it may lead to a dysfunctional system becoming worse. A few months ago a senior government official was heard explaining to a gathering of head teachers the essence of the Right to Education Act. Enroll all children. Do not beat them. Promote them to the next class. Make sure they do not drop out. Once you have done all this, you will have achieved RTE. But will learning happen simply if children stay in school?
1

1 2

Madhav Chavan is CEO and President, Pratham Education Foundation. See [Link]

ASER 2011

The Government of India has not emphasized improvement in learning goals. The results framework of the ministry that goes with the annual plan guidelines gives learning outcomes a late and vague mention - all this in spite of all the evidence pointing towards dismal learning by every measure. The ASER survey of childrens reading and arithmetic levels has its critics and admirers. Our admirers like its simplicity and the fact that it has been tested and proven to be robust. The tools and techniques have been replicated and found to work in other parts of the world. But, the detractors have other views ranging from doubting the very integrity of the exercise to whether it is correct to measure outcomes at all and everything in between. Unfortunately, surveys, their potential, their meaning, and their limitations are not well-understood. Subsequent to ASER, other higher level and more sophisticated studies have been undertaken by Education Initiatives. NCERT studies have been published, and many state governments have been measuring learning levels using different methods, some of which are close to the ASER approach. Often these results do not match thanks to different approaches, methods, and tools. However, broadly all indicate that learning is poor in Indian schools. ASER has followed the same basic procedures and has made sure that basic testing tools and methods of sampling and testing are the same every year for the core tests. As a result, although some of our findings may be inconsistent with other studies, they are self consistent year after year indicating good precision of the method and the techniques used. The massive data gathered over the last years are showing some interesting trends that deserve the attention of policy-makers and researchers alike. The right to free and compulsory education is now on the ground. How are people reacting to it? How is it impacting schools? We cannot merely look at its impact every five years. In five years a Std 1 child will complete primary education and a Std 6 child will either drop out or go on to complete secondary schooling. But, if we let things go on the way they are, demographic disaster awaits us at the end of the decade if not sooner. III Private school enrollment is increasing. So, whats new? There is plenty new. The RTE act, if seriously implemented, will make it impossible for low cost or affordable schools to operate. But over the last six years private school enrollment in rural India has gone up by 5.5 percentage points, which translates into an increase of just over 25%. It is quite likely that many, if not most, of the rural private schools do not meet RTE norms. So unless these children are all enrolled in RTE-compliant private schools, nearly 40 million rural children will have to be provided place in government schools. But, will the parents want to put their children in government schools even if they are good? Can they be compelled to do so? What information do we have relevant to this question? As far as private school enrollment is concerned, India can be divided into some broad regions. In the NorthWest, states like Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana have had high enrollment in private schools. Since 2006, these enrollment numbers have gone up by 5-7 percentage points- that is a 15-20% increase. The North-East shows mixed ratios with Assam and Arunachal being moderate, Tripura low, and Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur on the high side of private enrollment. In the East, states have traditionally had low enrollment in private schools, and these have gone up by about 1-3 percentage points- also a 20% increase. In this region Bihar has the unique distinction of actually decreasing the proportion enrolled in private school which is a likely reflection of the massive efforts to open schools, bring out of school children into school and appointing large numbers of teachers. But we also know that childrens attendance in Bihar is the lowest in the country and nearly 60% elementary school children in this state go to private tutors. Bihars immediate neighbors are also high tutor states. Maharashtra and AP show under 10% increase over their previous level of about 29% private school enrollment. But, the rest of the South is increasingly sending children to private schools. The major enrollment story is in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. Each story is different in these extremely diverse states. In Tamil Nadu, there are several strong reasons for attracting children to government schools - mid-day meal is said to be a major success over many years in bringing children to government schools. A few years ago a new child-centric, joyful, print-rich ABL methodology was introduced across the state. Yet, there is an overall increase of about 8 to 12 percentage points in private enrollment between Std 1 and 8 over five years. But a look at the charts below makes it obvious that the major increase is in Std 1-5 amounting to about 16 percentage points or
2 ASER 2011

almost a doubling of private school enrollment. In Std 6-7-8 the increase is about 7 percentage points. It appears that the government schools in Tamil Nadu are not able to convince the parents that government schools are better. Is this only because parents associate some kind of a status with private schools and are not concerned with what goes on in the classroom? If so, is there not a need to reach out to parents and convince them? Chart 1. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra: Trends in percentage of children enrolled in private schools, Std 1-8

In Uttar Pradesh, which could be seen as the exact opposite of Tamil Nadu as far as government school functioning is concerned, private school enrollment in Std 1-5 has jumped up almost 20 percentage points to double the original number; while in upper primary segments, which had a high private enrollment, the increase is small but still substantial at 5 percentage points. The data suggest that in earlier cohorts private school enrollment in the early grades was relatively low and it rose as we moved to higher grades. Now it looks like private school enrollment starts high from as early as Std 1. Perhaps, upper primary private schools are expanding to include primary segments and those who can afford it are sending their children to private schools. What is common between UP and Tamil Nadu apart from this big move towards private education? Serious research is needed to understand why parents in these two very different states are behaving similarly in massive numbers. In Kerala, where there was already more than 50% enrollment in private schools, there is still an eight percentage point increase in private enrollment. In the North-Western states, private school enrollment seems to have remained steady around 35-40% or inched up slowly, indicating a saturation effect. But Kerala seems to be breaking through any such saturation. It must be remembered that a very large proportion of private schools in Kerala are government aided, which are largely absent in the North-Western states. It is not clear if the existing private schools in Kerala are expanding, or more unaided private schools are opening. The RTE Act offers per child cost to unaided schools to accept 25% children of weaker sections. In Kerala, where only 40% are now in government schools and the number is going down, would it not make more sense to convert all government schools into aided schools rather than keeping them under a centralized government control? Why not opt for a government funded locally managed school model with either private groups or
ASER 2011 3

Panchayats running the schools? Or, Kerala, with a very high proportion of private schools, may be ready for vouchers even though there will be political question marks. Maharashtra presents a different case in contrast. Its private enrollment in primary segments has hardly gone up and the enrollments in upper primary segment, which are largely government aided schools, show no major increase either. The secondary segment in Maharashtra is largely private and aided, which is reflected in the chart. Why is the Maharashtra response to private schools like that of the Eastern states, which are poorer economically and educationally and not like Kerala? These four states in some ways represent the variation among education systems in different states of India. Is there one Indian education system? These questions present good research opportunities. However, it is almost predictable that unless regulation prevents it or unless suddenly a large population starts believing in neighborhood/common schools run by the government, the proportion of children going to private schools will go on increasing. The question is, how far? Based on previous ASERs and other studies, it is quite obvious that with increasing income and education of parents, people want to send their children to a private school if one is available nearby. Can government schools alone convince parents to do otherwise? Is there a need for greater social and political mobilization? Can it succeed? IV How effective are Bihar schools? What helps learning? When we published ASER2005 (the first one) many people were shocked (as were we), and some actually angry that the proportion of government school children in Bihar who could read was higher than in many other economically better off states. Bihar, of all the places! was an exclamation full of contempt often heard. But no one seemed to object that the ability to read in Bihar government schools was much higher than in UP or Rajasthan government schools. As gurus of surveys say, what surveys provide are measurements and observations. These give estimates upon processing, which are perceptions of reality through the lenses of the survey tools. There are statistical methods available to measure how good these are (and ASER passes these tests quite well3). ASER methods and tools have been replicated successfully by different groups in African countries and in Pakistan. What they mean or might mean is another thing. It is up to individuals to decide what comparisons to draw and what interpretations and inferences to make. So, let us try to unravel the mystery of why Bihar children do better in reading. I will leave it to the economists to do detailed work and test a primary hypothesis that emerges from the table below. Table 1. Percent children in different states and systems who can read at least a Std 1 text in Std 3, 2006-11; and % going to tutors in 2011 State and school type * Bihar (Govt) Bihar (Pvt) W Bengal (Govt) Rajasthan( Govt) Rajasthan( Pvt) UP (Govt) UP (Pvt) 2006 51.7 69.6 X 31.6 53.9 23.5 50.3 2007 52.6 71.4 X 28.7 53.8 25.8 53.2 2008 49.7 73.4 47.9 31.5 60.2 24.5 56.3 2009 42.3 72.5 49.3 25.8 52.1 23.3 48.7 2010 43.9 65.9 51.7 27.2 50.3 26.5 51.3 2011 29.9 72.7 46.8 22.6 53.2 18.0 50.7 % going to tutors in 2011 42.0 67.2 67.9 4.7 9.4 1.2 13.5

* W Bengal private school data not included due to small observation numbers. Bihar private school data points are also small.

Note that the estimated percentage of children who can at least read a Std 1 text in Std 3 in Bihar and West Bengal lies in between private schools and government schools of Rajasthan and UP. There is a dip in 2011 in all these government schools. We shall deal with the decline in 2011 a bit later. For the moment let us work only

See [Link]

ASER 2011

with numbers up to 2010. We know that there are many household factors that affect the learning levels of a child. Once these are controlled, as Dr. Wilima Wadhwa has shown in ASER 2009, the contribution of the private schools to the childs learning seems negligible in several states. In the present case, does tutoring represent all these factors to equalize? Table 2. Percent government school children who can read depending upon whether they go to tutor or not W Bengal Odisha Bihar Jharkhand Government school Government school Government school Government school Based on ASER2011 with tutor % Std 3 who can read at least a Std 1 text % Std 5 who can read at least a Std 2 text 53.9 44.1 without tutor 32.9 35.0 with tutor 55.9 52.8 without tutor 27.6 31.3 with tutor 35.5 53.8 without tutor 27.9 44.1 with tutor 38.1 52.9 without tutor 24.0 33.1

In all of the above states large but varied proportions of children go to private tutors. In other states the corresponding data points are low. The percentage of readers among government school children who go to tutors is unmistakably high in these high tutor and low private school states. If the effectiveness of a school system was measured by the proportion of children without tutors who can read texts of Std 1 and 2 respectively at Std 3 or Std 5, we see an even worse picture. In fact, for those who wish to compare states, once the tutor effect is removed, most states excepting Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh start looking very similar. It is observed in states where learning levels are declining that while the same proportion of children go to tutors year after year, their contribution to the childs learning level diminishes. This may mean that the tutor is a complementary factor and if the school functioning declines, the effectiveness of tutoring is lower too. This should make sense. It is noticeable that the impact of tutors is not the same in every state and in every class. It is as though tutoring is also a system, that functions well in some states and not in others. In other words, the learning level of a child in a government school results from many factors. School is an important factor but it is only one of the factors. Let us come to the observation that in 2011 the learning levels of government schools drop substantially. In fact, in government schools in Rajasthan, UP, and Bihar there is a continuous decline in learning levels over time until it drops sharply in 2011. It is noteworthy at the same time that the private school learning levels remain more or less unchanged. What is going on? One likely contributing factor for big a drop in 2011 is that there was Census in early 2011 and teachers were pulled out of classrooms right in the most productive part of the school year after the OctoberNovember festive season. But there are other factors changing as well. The school observation data from ASER can be used to track trends.4 The school attendance observed in UP and Bihar over the last five years is down from 67% in 2007 to 57% in UP and from 59% to 50% in Bihar. The drop between 2010 and 2011 is sharp. Rajasthan shows no such drop but W Bengal does so in 2011. Teacher attendance in Bihar and Rajasthan remains at around 85-90% but has declined in UP from 92% to 82%. Another important observation is that in Rajasthan, which remained unchanged in terms of childrens or teachers attendance, the proportion of multigrade classrooms has gone up from 52% to 62%. In UP it has gone up from 43% to 52%. In Kerala it has gone up from 2% to 9%. Note that all these are states with high proportions of children moving to private schools. With the exception of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu, the proportion of multigrade classes has increased in most states. Whether this is a consequence of a consciously adopted pedagogy or whether this reflects rationalization of teachers is not clear.

ASER is a household survey with sampling done to ensure a representative sample of children at the district level. However for every village that is sampled for the survey, one government school with primary sections is also visited. The ASER school data is based on these school observations.

ASER 2011

Just to be clear, I am not at all opposed to multigrade classrooms. In fact, I would prefer grouping children according to their current level rather than age alone. But the classroom management techniques and teacher preparation required in such situations is very high. If these are weak, as they today are, a multigrade classroom can prove to be a disaster. If ASER school observations over the years are correct, we are witnessing a quiet disaster. V Learning levels declining? Where? Why? The declining levels of learning and other factors are not unique to Rajasthan, UP, and Bihar. But there are exceptions as well. The effectiveness of a system can be increased or decreased by changing a variety of factors. But to clearly identify these, we first need to have a measure of effectiveness of the system. This is only possible if the system defines the outcomes it wants and works towards achieving them. If construction of toilets and ensuring that they function is the desired outcome that the system is aiming for, then the system will respond accordingly as long as there are no other conflicting factors such as lack of water. If the idea is to ensure that children learn reading, writing, arithmetic, a focused system can achieve this. If we further want the child to be free of fear, able to think and express, that can be done. But for all this, the system must function and it should be capable of receiving messages and translating them effectively into appropriate action. The exact opposite is also possible. In other words, the estimates of declining percentage of readers in every class may lead us to infer that the message being interpreted is that learning is not important. Below are some charts of learning levels of government school systems as measured by ASER in different states over the years. A quick look at these charts makes it evident that as they move from one class to the next, a higher proportion of children can read Std 1 level text or more. This is what one would expect, given that some children do acquire the very basic skills measured by ASER with every additional year in school although many do not. In Karnataka in 2011, for example, about 5.3% of children can read Std 1 level text in Std 1. This number grows to 41.5% by Std 3, and 70% in Std 5. In Tamil Nadu in 2011, 3.9% in Std 1, 26.1 in Std 3, and 67.5% in Std 5 can read a Std 1 level text. But to assess whether the system is becoming more effective at teaching children to read, we need to compare the proportion of children who could read Std 1 level text in 2006 with the same proportion in successive years at the same Std. If the ability of the system to teach basic reading is improving, this should be reflected in an increase in the proportion of children in (say) Std 3 who could read from 2006 to 2011. Chart 2. Tamil Nadu and Karnataka: Percent government schools children able to read at least Std 1 text in respective Std and year

A look at Std 4 in Karnataka and Std 5 in Tamil Nadu suggests that the effectiveness of the classroom as per the measure of % children who can read at least a Std 1 text is improving year after year. Although the proportion of children able to read a Std 1 text remains low in absolute terms at every Std in Tamil Nadu, the levels appear to be rising slowly year after year. At least they are not deteriorating for certain. In both states about 60-65% children can read at this level by the time they are in Std 5. However, in getting there, more Karnataka children

ASER 2011

learn to read in Std 2 and 3, while more Tamil Nadu children become readers with a jump as they move from Std 3 and 4. In Kerala, Andhra, and Maharashtra there is no observed improvement nor loss of effectiveness of schools by the same measure.5 Gujarat should be mentioned as a state that has also started showing a steady although slow improvement in reading levels over the last three years. One major initiative in the state for the last three years is that government officers visit randomly chosen schools to assess performance of children around November and cross check teachers evaluations. Childrens attendance, teacher attendance, and the proportion of multigrade classrooms in these states are largely unchanged or have improved and remain at high levels. Chart 3. Punjab and Haryana: Percent children in government schools able to read at least a Std 1 text in respective Std and year

Here is an interesting case: Haryana and Punjab - neighbours who share a common capital - show opposing trends. The two states are almost identical with respect to private school enrollment, student and teacher attendance, and multigrade classrooms. Outwardly, they should function with the same effectiveness. Yet, one is getting better while the other is in decline. While Punjab shows year after year improvement especially after Std 2, Haryana seems to show deterioration especially when children reach Std 5. In other words, the Punjab system has been converting non-readers into readers at Std 3 and 4 with increasing effectiveness year after year so far. In contrast, in Haryana, although more children learn to read as they go from say Std 2 to 3 or Std 3 to 4, each year fewer children are learning to read at each step and this shows up as a cumulative decline in the percentage of children reading at the same Std when compared across years. In Haryana, the proportion of children who can read in Std 5 was around 85% in 2006 while it has steadily declined to 75% in 2011. The increase in Punjab and the decline in Haryana are both obvious and statistically significant. Chart 4. Odisha and Jharkhand: Percent children in government schools able to read at least a Std 1 text in respective Std and year.

I have used only reading at Std 1 text level as a measure. It could look different if we used another measure, say ability to solve division sums.

ASER 2011

The estimated decline in learning levels at Std 3 in UP, W. Bengal, Rajasthan, and Bihar was already shown in a table above. The decline in Odisha and Jharkhand is sharper at all grade levels especially after 2008. Particularly noteworthy is the sharp decline at every Std in 2011. It may be noted that average attendance of children in these states is observed to be around 90%, and teacher attendance is also higher than the average among Northern and Eastern states. However, the main common factor is that multigrade classrooms have gone up by 7 to 10 percentage points. We are not aware of what else may have changed in the system. The sharp decline in 2011 is common with other Northern states and might be due to the additional Census factor laid over already poorly functioning systems. It should be reiterated that private schools systems in the North do not show a similar decline in these basic learning levels. These examples provide sufficient evidence that ASER can capture positive changes, negative changes, and note status quo in school systems over years. This brings us to a major negative change in two states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. In Madhya Pradesh, according to ASER 2005 36% government school children in Std 3 could read at least a Std 1 text. By 2006 this had jumped to 65%. There was a further jump in 2008 to 81% after stability for one year. However, in subsequent years the Std 3 classes had lesser and lesser proportion of children who could read. The conversion to readers after Std 3 also slowed down. As a result we see that by 2011 the proportion of basic readers has fallen way below what it was in Std 3 and Std 5 in 2005-2006. Chart 5. MP and Chhattisgarh: Percent children in government school able to read at least a Std 1 text in respective Std and year.

In neighbouring Chhattisgarh, the decline is observed after academic year 2008. The Chhattisgarh decline looks relatively smaller than in MP today. However, it is comparable to what MP had seen in 2010. In other words, it is more than likely that unless corrective action is taken, the Chhattisgarh chart of the next ASER in 2012 will look like the MP chart of 2011. How are the two states doing on other parameters observed by ASER? Table 3. MP and Chhattisgarh: School indicators, 2007 and 2011 Data for primary schools (1-5) % Childrens attendance Teachers attendance Multigrade classrooms Water provision and functioning Private school enrollment Madhya Pradesh 2007 67.0 91.3 61.8 78.5 13.0 2011 54.5 87.7 70.8 69.1 19.0 Chhattisgarh 2007 72.0 92.7 48.1 77.6 9.0 2011 73.1 84.6 62.5 73.4 12.5

ASER 2011

It appears that there is a general decline. The increase in multigrade classrooms combined with increased teacher absenteeism and lower attendance of children (not in Chhattisgarh) from already low levels could cause a decline in reading levels like in other states. There is no documentation available for any other negative factors creeping into the MP and Chhattisgarh systems that could lead to additional negative effects. The drops in learning levels are very high compared to other states because the baseline of learning levels in 2007-2008 for these two states was very high. How can such huge drops in the learning levels be explained? The answer may lie in why the learning levels might have gone up in the first place. We have seen above that in Punjab and Tamil Nadu, although to varying extents, the proportion of children able to read has gone up steadily. In Punjab, the government took up a specific program to improve basic reading and numeracy for three years. The whole system was oriented towards achievement of goals that would be measured. The campaign had intended consequences as the State Project Director of SSA provided from-the-front leadership. The learning levels were quite high to begin with and they went up in small jumps over the years. In Tamil Nadu, the SSA provided similar leadership for about 4 years to establish the ABL methodology. The explicit and primary goal of ABL is not improvement of reading, which may be an outcome of an overall change in pedagogy that allows children to learn at their own pace rather than being encouraged to achieve reading skills as a priority. Hence, a slower pace of change may be expected. It is important to note that gains in reading levels due to both are captured by ASER over the years. In Madhya Pradesh in 2005-06, and then again in 2007-08, the SSA took up very strong focused campaigns to improve reading and basic literacy with the involvement of teachers and village volunteers. In both years the respective State Project Directors provided leadership. Goals were set, officers and teachers were involved to achieve specific learning goals. In Chhattisgarh, there was a similar campaign for just one year, 2007-08. Once again, an energetic State Project Director of SSA led from the front, the school system was geared towards achieving set goals of basic reading and numeracy and there was a massive mobilization of volunteers in practically each village. In MP too, there was a massive volunteer campaign with volunteers working with children in each village. The impact that a systemic momentum can have is easy to believe. What is missed is the impact that volunteers can have on such a large scale when working with the system. Some individuals question our integrity and say that ASER cooks up figures to show Prathams work in good light. There are others more kind in questioning our integrity. In our defence we can point out that similar campaigns taken up in UP or in Assam failed to show improvement although the government was involved and there were volunteers mobilized. In Uttarakhand, learning levels hardly moved. In Maharashtra and Gujarat the respective governments took certain steps without Pratham involvement and reading levels went up. It is our experience that when the government leadership took up something energetically and when volunteers also participated, learning levels showed improvements. With the momentum of the school system missing or weak, learning levels did not show improvement. In other words in the period 2007-2009, any large scale volunteer-based campaign without the governments involvement yielded no noticeable improvement. This is noted in various Pratham reports. Fortunately, the world renowned MIT-based research group J-PAL has conducted rigorous randomized evaluations of Prathams work with volunteers.6 These large scale studies conducted in varied places such as Mumbai, Baroda, Jaunpur (UP) and West Champaran (Bihar) all point to the impact volunteers have on learning levels of children at the very basic level that ASER measures. There is also a large scale study involving school teachers in Bettiah in West Champaran in summer camps, where children were grouped according to their learning levels rather than by grade or age and taught basic reading and literacy with focus. This study showed that not only did children who attended camps make progress, but they retained their advantage over other children for at least two years.7 We have already seen the impact tutors have on learning levels of children in government schools although the school attendance in Bihar is recorded at about 60%. If the school system was more effective, learning levels would probably be higher (unless parents stop sending their children to tutors because schools are more effective, but this does not seem to happen in private schools and in advanced states such as Kerala).
6 7

[Link] See Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflos recent book Poor Economics, published in 2011.

ASER 2011

The volunteers who helped children in massive numbers can be thought of as tutors focusing on certain tasks of reading. With this it is entirely possible to see the kind of jumps at the basic level of learning that are noted by ASER. The effect of the campaigns in MP and Chhattisgarh is reflected in the measurement of their intended outcomes. The effect of campaigns of the previous year(s) is seen in ASER measurements which happen in OctoberNovember of the following academic year. The 2006 measurement in MP is a reflection of the campaign in 2005-2006 academic year and the 2008 measurement in Chhattisgarh is a reflection of the campaign of 20072008. The low learning levels jumped tremendously with the boost that came from the energetic campaigns. After 2008/2009, the campaigns were simply switched off by the new State Project Directors in the two states. The momentum was completely lost. Now, we see that not only are the focused learning improvement efforts off but other parameters are also going downhill. The impact of school summer vacations on childrens loss of learning has been studied in the United States and is said to impact socioeconomically disadvantaged children much more. Similar studies related to regular disruptions and vacations are badly needed in India. What happens if school and classroom functioning deteriorates? Is it possible that the fragile reading and numeracy skills acquired by a disadvantaged child in Std 2-3 will be forgotten or become rusty enough to once again classify the child as a non-reader? Our data suggests that this is what is happening in several states and needs to be studied further in depth. In short, the rise in learning levels is a combination of an energised school system which would enhance its effectiveness as compared to other neighbouring states and the volunteer/tutor effect would be added on to this. Once these effects are switched off, and other parameters also deteriorate, the consequences can be dramatically observed in falling of learning levels as seen above. VI In summary The ASER data over the years are self consistent and have thrown up trends in enrollment and changes in learning levels that require more research to be done but even as they are, they deserve close attention. There are two clear trends observable around the country. One is that private school enrollment is increasing in most states and where there are few private schools, private tutoring is a surrogate for private schooling that seems to have an equalizing impact to some extent in several backward states in the East. Should tutoring be seen as a harmful nuisance or a necessary support system in a society that is semi-literate with low skills and knowledge all around? At a time when the government has put in place an act for free and compulsory education with planned increase in spending on government schools and curbs on private schools, there is a need to understand why and how the private sector is expanding now that it caters to nearly half the rural children in several states, and a possibly larger share of urban children in many large states. The second is that while there are differences in the effectiveness of systems in different states in teaching children at different stages of schooling, the general level of effectiveness is scattered in a narrow band around a poor mean. Fortunately, everyone agrees with this! Trends over the last five-six years indicate that learning levels are gradually dropping in most large Northern and Eastern states while they are steady or improving slowly in the Southern and Western states. Private school effectiveness varies from state to state but ASER cannot detect a decline in private school effectiveness at the level of its measurement. These observations of learning level changes in government schools are correlated to other school observations that might affect the teachinglearning process. In addition, the special efforts undertaken by different state systems or the absence or reversal of these have to be taken into account to understand why the outcome measurements show changes. If this is done, a more practical strategy to improve learning levels in the more backward states can be evolved.

10

ASER 2011

ASER and learning profiles: The pace of learning is too slow

Lant Pritchett
1

One of the big advantages of the ASER approach of testing children out of school is that it can assess the performance of children at a wide variety of grade (and age) levels. Rather than seeing just a snapshot of how children at one grade do against some grade-based standard, the ASER approach shows the entire learning profile of what fraction of children in each grade are in which level of performance on literacy and numeracy. In the case of ASER this is easiest to interpret at the highest and lowest categories of performance, for instance what fraction of children can read a level 2 story and what fraction of children can do division of a one digit into a three digit number. The point I want to make about these learning profiles is that the differences across grades reveal important facts about the dynamics of learning, in particular the fact that progress is so slow that 4 out of 5 children who do not have mastery will fail to acquire mastery in an entire year of schooling. Let me explain using the overall rural results from 2010. Table 1 starts from the numbers from last years report on the fraction of children who can read at level 2 or do subtraction, both grade 2 curricular objectives. Many children finish grade 2 not having mastered these simple skills, which is not perhaps shocking. What is shocking is the bottom line for reading, which is that 75 percent of children (3 out of every 4) who do not acquire reading or arithmetic mastery at the grade appropriate level dont acquire it in the following year either, and 3 out of 4 of those who still dont master these skills wont get it even after another entire year of schooling. This implies that only 1 in 4 students is making progress across these very low thresholds of literacy and numeracy per year of schooling. Ill explain this simple calculation using reading from grade 4 to 5. The fraction of students that could read Level 2 text in grade 4 was 38.1 percent and in grade 5 was 53.4 percent, so the proportion that could read increased by 15.3 percentage points. But many children already could read, so if we want to see what fraction of those who could not read acquired this ability, lets adjust this gain by the fraction who could not read in grade 4 which was 61.9 percent (100-38.1). So the gain from grade 5 over grade 4 as a percent of those who could not read Table 1. Children gain slowly in skills even as they progress through gradesthree out of four children who enter grade 3 or higher without a grade 2 skill leave without gaining mastery Grade Can read level 2 text 1 3.4% 2 9.1% 3 20.0% 4 38.1% 5 53.4% 6 67.5% 7 76.2% 8 82.9% Total gain from Grade 3 to Grade 8 Average gain, Grades 3 to 8
a

Reading Gain from grade to grade 5.7% 10.9% 18.1% 15.3% 14.1% 8.7% 6.7% 62.9% 12.3% 75.9% (3 of 4 do not gain mastery in a year of instruction) Fraction of those who did not learn b 94.1% 88.0% 77.4% 75.3% 69.7% 73.2% 71.8% Can subtract (or above) a 5.5% 17.1% 36.4% 57.4% 70.3% 80.1% 84.3% 85.4%

Arithmetic Gain from grade to grade 11.6% 19.3% 21.0% 12.9% 9.8% 4.2% 1.1% 49.0% 11.4% 75.4% (3 of 4 do not gain mastery in a year of instruction) Fraction of those who did not learn b

87.7% 76.7% 67.0% 69.7% 67.0% 78.9% 93.0%

a. b.

Data from ASER 2010 (Rural) report tables 4 and 6. Formula is 100-((gain from previous grade)/(100-fraction that could do in previous grade))*100.

Lant Pritchett is Professor of the Practice of International Development, Harvard Kennedy School. He is a member of ASER Centres advisory board.

ASER 2011

11

in grade 4 was 24.7 percent (=15.3/61.9). This implies that one of each four children who entered grade 4 not able to read at Level 2 passed that threshold of literacy during that year. But it also means that three out of four children who came into grade 4 not reading at a Standard 2 level progressed on to grade 5 without having learned how to read. Overall this problem is exactly the same in arithmetic, with a slightly different pattern. More children pick up basic arithmetic quickly, so that by grade 3, 36.4 percent of children can do subtraction. But in the five additional years from grade 3 to grade 8 only 49 percent gain that level of arithmetic capability. This is because progress peters out and by grade 8, even though 15 percent still cannot do subtraction, there is almost no progress at all. This formulation of the learning problem in Indian rural basic education comes from seeing the entire learning profile and has been a contribution of the ASER approach. The flat learning profile which is the result of most students making no progress in answering particular questions has now been replicated in studies in Andhra Pradesh by the APRest study and in the work of Education Initiatives which have asked common questions across grades (see Beatty and Pritchett 2012). I also find this formulation of the learning problemthat three out of four dont learn enough to pass a low threshold in a yearthe most stark and striking. Imagine you are a child who came to school with the hope and promise that getting an education could transform your and your familys future by opening up the opportunities that learning enables. You perhaps werent school ready and so in grade 3 you still cannot read a simple (level 2) paragraph but you still have hope. But the odds are 3 out of 4 against you learning in grade 3. So now you are passed along to grade 4 as one of the 62 percent still not reading. You come again hoping that someone will notice, someone will help. Again the odds are against your hope, 3 out of 4 that you dont learn in grade 4 either. The result is that you could easily be one of the one in three children who complete lower primary schooling, passed through five entire years of schooling, having spent roughly 5,000 hours in school, still lacking the most fundamental of skills. And so, year after year, a dream deferred becomes a dream denied.

12

ASER 2011

Bringing hard evidence to the table

M R Madhavan
1

The ASER reports have performed a remarkable feat: bringing hard evidence to the table to measure outcomes of our elementary education system. To see the importance of this achievement, just look at the public discourse in various fields. Most government schemes and budgets track allocation and utilisation of funds. A department that has utilised a large proportion of its allocated funds in a year is judged to have performed well, and gets further funding for the next year. This frequently results in significant spending towards the end of the financial year, as departments want to show performance. In some cases, outputs are measured. For example, in a child immunisation programme, the measure may include (in addition to spending targets), the number of children who have been vaccinated. However, even this metric only measures the means to the end target of less disease or lower child mortality. Rarely is the desired outcome measured and even rarer is the link made with financial outlays. Another example can be used to illustrate the lack of outcome measures. The MNREGS is one of the key poverty alleviation schemes of the government. The central government publishes periodic data on the funds transferred to each state and the amount utilised. There is some further measurement the number of persondays of employment generated. However, the idea that the scheme is designed to be a safety net has been lost. Low utilisation can be interpreted in two ways: the government is unable to provide sufficient jobs to the jobseekers (bad result), or that there is sufficient availability in the economy for alternate jobs leading to low demand for the scheme (good result). The way to answer this is by asking whether potential NREGS job seekers are able to get jobs in the scheme. This can be obtained only by surveying people on whether they needed to access the scheme and whether they obtained jobs. The answer to this question is not available. Indeed, data on many social and economic indicators are not even collected or reported at annual intervals. India must be one of the few large economies which have no idea of their employment levels the only data comes from the National Sample Survey every five years; most countries provide such data on a quarterly basis. Most health statistics such as child and maternal mortality, malnutrition, use of family planning methods are collected in the NFHS surveys, at approximately five year intervals. Poverty levels are estimated every five years. It is in this context that the ASER reports have become invaluable. These reports measure the learning levels of children across the country at annual intervals. There are two main contributions. First, time-series and crosssectional (district-wise) data is available to researchers who can link this data to various inputs and see the effect of various policy interventions. More importantly, ASER has changed the discourse in the field of education from that of measuring outlays (money spent) and outputs (teachers hired, schools built) to that of outcomes (ability of children to read and do arithmetic). This change has not been reflected in some policies, though. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act was passed in 2009 and brought into effect in April 2010. The Act guarantees access to schools yesterdays problem that has been solved as evidenced by the 90% plus enrollment rates of children in first grade. The Act also requires all schools to have certain minimum norms which are measured as physical infrastructure (building, library, kitchen, toilets), teacher-student ratio, teaching hours. What the Bill misses is a focus on whether the students are actually learning. Indeed, the Bill prohibits schools from holding back students in the same class if they do not perform adequately, but it does not provide for any special measures to be taken to ensure that no child is left behind. Hopefully, the data from the ASER reports will indicate the gaps and motivate policy implementers to deliver quality education to children. This means a shift of focus from inputs to outcomes such as ensuring that children in elementary schools are learning basic skills of the 3 Rs, and developing the ability to think and create. Such skills will be essential for them to prosper in tomorrows knowledge economy. ASER has done an impressive job of measuring education outcomes. The skills built by the team in collating, assessing and evaluating data can be used to measure outcomes in areas such as health, livelihoods, and the effect of various government schemes. Perhaps, it is time for ASER Centre to expand to other socio-economic sectors.

MR Madhavan co-founded and heads research at PRS Legislative Research. He is a member of ASER Centres advisory board.

ASER 2011

13

From a Right to Schooling to a Right to Learning: Rethinking education finance

Yamini Aiyar
1

Indias elementary education system is at a crossroads. In 2009, the Indian Parliament passed the Right to Education (RTE) Act guaranteeing the provision of free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 to 14 years. At the heart of the law is a guarantee to ensure age-appropriate mainstreaming for all children. In other words, the Act is a guarantee that every child in India acquires skills and knowledge appropriate to her age. Now, as efforts to deliver on this guarantee gain ground, the country faces an important choice: should elementary education be delivered through the current model that focuses on the expansion of schooling through a top-down, centralized delivery system? Or should we use the RTE as an opportunity to fundamentally alter the current system and create a bottom-up delivery model that builds on an understanding of childrens learning needs and privileges accountability for learning rather than schooling? For decades, the primary goal of the Indian governments elementary education policy has been to create a universal elementary education system by expanding schooling through inputs. Substantial finances have been provided to meet this goal. Between 2007-08 and 2009-10, Indias elementary education budget increased from Rs. 68,710 to Rs. 97,255 crore in 2009-10.2 Most of this money has been used to build school-level inputs through a large education bureaucracy controlled and managed by state and central governments. To illustrate, PAISA analyzed the elementary education budgets of 7 states in the country for 2009-10 and 2010-11 (see Table 1 below for a state by state analysis). According to PAISA, on average, 77% of the education budget is invested in teachers and management costs. All critical teacher-related decision-making, for instance hiring or salary payment, lies with the state administration.3 Following teachers, the next largest investment is on the creation of school infrastructure - 15% of the budget. Funds for infrastructure development are often channeled to schools; however, key decisions related to sanctions and procurement are taken by the district. Importantly, while a school can demand infrastructure funds, it has no decision-making power over the timing of receipt of these funds and de-facto funds have to be spent based on priorities set by the state and district administration. Interventions aimed directly at children, such as the provision of free textbooks and uniforms and addressing the problem of out of school children, account for just 7% of the total investment. Table 1. Breakdown of elementary education budgets in 7 states Andhra Pradesh Teachers School Children Quality Management Misc 72% 13% 4% 2% 9% 0% Bihar 59% 25% 10% 1% 4% 0% Himachal Pradesh 79% 9% 1% 1% 9% 1% Madhya Maharashtra Rajasthan Pradesh 64% 21% 8% 1% 5% 0% 86% 5% 5% 1% 4% 0% 83% 9% 1% 2% 4% 1% West Bengal 67% 19% 10% 1% 4% 0%

Interwoven in this top-down system is an intent to involve parents in decision-making. In 2001, the Government of India (GOI) launched the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan ((SSA), now the programmatic vehicle for the delivery of the RTE) with a mandate that expenditure decisions be taken based on plans made at the school level through Village Education Committees (VEC). These plans are then aggregated at the district and state levels. Drawing on this model, the RTE mandates the creation of School Management Committees (SMCs) tasked with similar responsibilities. Despite this bottom-up planning structure, the centralized delivery system has disempowered these committees and in fact created disincentives for parental participation in a number of ways:
1 Director, Accountability Initiative, Centre for Policy Research. This is a summary version of a longer introduction to the PAISA District Studies, 2011. For those interested, the study is available on the following link: [Link] 2

Ministry of Human Resource Development (2011) Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education 2007-08 to 2009-10, Statement No. 7, Plan and NonPlan Budgeted Expenditure on Elementary Education (Revenue Account), [Link]/planbudget/[Link] Some states like Bihar and Madhya Pradesh experimented with decentralizing the hiring process to local governments, who were empowered only to hire contract teachers. However, even here all critical decisions related to salaries and regularization remained with the administration.

14

ASER 2011

First, teachers, as pointed out already, are not accountable to SMCs. Second, committees have spending powers over very little money. In 2010-11, committees had spending powers over just about 5% of SSA funds. Even these funds are expected to be spent based on norms set by GOI. So, if a school wants to spend more than the norm on, say, purchasing teacher material or if a school wants to invest more in improving childrens reading capabilities by dipping in to its maintenance fund - it cant. Table 2 below offers an illustrative example from Hyderabad of the different activities over which an SMC can actually take decisions. Third, governance inefficiencies further curtail SMC powers. As PAISA has repeatedly pointed out, school grants rarely reach schools before October (the PAISA district studies found that on average school grants reach school bank accounts toward the end of September/early October). These delays in fund flows mean that needs at the school often remain unmet owing to lack of money. More worryingly, PAISA found that in many districts, expenditures even for school grants are based on formal or informal orders received from district and block officials. Consequently, often monies are spent without adequate consideration to school needs. In essence, SSA has promoted a bottom-up delivery system with no bottom-up control or decision-making power. The result is thus a de-facto centralized, top-down system. Table 2. Activities for which SMCs in Hyderabad city can take decisions Activity Is SMC resolution sufficient? No Is any additional approval needed? Yes From whom? How long will Who can do What documents and it the procurement other things will be take? or appointment needed? 2 months SSA office Approval of design; Three quotatiions from local suppliers Local purchase at PWD rates Approval of work and measurements; Materials bought locally as per PWD rates; vouchers of payments maintained Interview Notice with Date and Time

Desks and Chairs Sintex Water Tank Roof Repairs

SSA Planning

Yes

No

2 weeks

SMC

No

Yes

SSA Civil / JE

1 month

SMC + SSA

Ayah

Yes

No

1 week

SMC

The shift towards enhancing learning requires that the system focus on the needs of individual schools and children. GOI has argued that implementing the RTE requires a system that recognizes the need for the creation of capacity within the education system and the school for addressing the diversified learning needs of different groups of children who are now in the school system.4 School Management Committees hold the key to implementing such a decentralized structure. The first and most critical step therefore in the shift from schooling to learning will be to empower school management committees. There are three immediate reform measures that could be implemented to achieve this goal:

Ministry of Human Resource Development (2011), Sarva ShIksha Abhiyan: Framework of Implementation

ASER 2011

15

1.

Moving away from the current norm-based funding system for SMCs to an untied block grant structure that would enable the school to take spending decisions based on its own felt needs. The quantum of the grant could be determined on the basis of per-child enrollment in schools, thus linking grant amounts with schoolspecific characteristics. Strengthening planning capacity through focused community level trainings. With the launch of RTE, budgets for community training have been significantly enhanced. However, for the moment, much of this money remains unspent as training is not priority. Prioritizing training and developing innovative methods to build planning capacity at the SMC level is essential. Strengthening transparency and monitoring. A transparent tracking system holds the key to a strong, accountable, decentralized system of delivery. Building structures to ensure real time tracking of finances is thus critical.

2.

3.

Will this lead to more learning for school children? At the very least, such a system will serve to strengthen parent engagement and ownership with the school and encourage accountability to parents. This is a critical first step.

16

ASER 2011

Taking mothers along

Rukmini Banerji
1

Not far from the village primary school, there was a group of women. I started chatting with them. How is the education in this school? I asked. I send my children to school said one lady. I even send my son and daughter to tuition and buy them books. Several women joined the conversation. How do you know if your child is learning well? I wanted to know. How can we tell? they said. We are not literate. But we send our children to school and we send them to tuition also. So they must be learning. It was a mild November day in Rohtas district in south-western Bihar. Rohtas is known as the rice bowl of the state. Canals criss-cross the district. The rice fields were green and stretched in all directions. Our village was in the Dehri block. It was afternoon. School was over. Children had come home, left their books and bags and were playing outside. Women sat in the sun cleaning rice and talking to each other. It felt good to sit in the afternoon sunshine. It was a good time for conversations. I had been asking children to come and read. What I had were several sets of reading tasks - letters, words, simple paragraphs and a short 8-10 line story - all in big black font, printed on white paper. Children were curious. I had been sitting on the edge of the womens group. Children crowded around me, some looking over my shoulder, some from the side. All of the texts contained basic, simple and familiar words that are easy to spell, everyday words, sentences and contexts that children could relate to. Nothing more than what is in the Std II textbook. Everyone tried to read. Many could read the letters and some could read the words, only a few managed to read the paragraph and the story. The women watched their childrens attempts. There was a woman in a blue sari. Her daughter was in Std 4 and could not read. Do you know if your child can read this? I asked the blue sari mother. How am I supposed to know? she argued back. I myself cannot read. Which of these are the hardest to read, do you think? I continued, pointing to the letters, words and sentences. I dont know. I am illiterate, she answered, somewhat irritated. Look at the paper, look at these things, what seems easy and what seems difficult? Now my blue sari mother became adamant. Why are you forcing me? I told you I cannot read. On the sidelines, her eight year old daughter was enjoying the interaction. Perhaps she was enjoying it because the tables were turned. She began to persuade her mother to focus on the paper. With some hesitation on her side and much encouragement from her daughter, the lady adjusted her pallu on her head and leaned over. This one must be easy, she said, pointing to the letters, because many children could do it. That one (pointing to the story) is not easy because even bigger children could not do it. Okay, I persisted. Do you know when your child has a fever? Of course!!! She looked at me in surprise; all mothers know when their child is sick. What do you do when your child has a fever? I asked her. The blue sari mother replied instantly. Thats simple. I feel her forehead. If it is hot then I know she has a fever. I do some simple things at home. If in two or three days the fever does not go down, I take her to the doctor. I can even take her to a private doctor. I ask the doctor for some medicine. After another few days if the fever does not go down then I will take her back to the same doctor and fight with him....... So you have an MBBS degree I said. What is that? she asked suspiciously. That is a medical degree I replied. Oh no no she laughed. Remember I told you that I am illiterate! I am very puzzled, I continued. Why is that even though you are illiterate you know exactly what you need to do when a child has fever but when it comes to her schooling you dont do anything when she cannot read? Now the blue sari mother was ready with her answer. That is very simple she explained. We go to the doctor only sometimes when there is problem. He cannot come to my house to cook and feed and take care of my children. I have to do it. But the teacher is with my child every day. My job is to send my child to school and teacher-jis job is to teach my child. I am doing my job and so she should do her job. Indias Parliament passed the Right to Education Act in 2009, thereby guaranteeing quality free and compulsory education to all children in the age group six to fourteen across the country. While most of the provisions of the Act are concerned with ensuring adequate inputs to schools, there are four key elements that have the potential to fundamentally transform the landscape of elementary education in India.

Rukmini Banerji is Director, ASER Centre

ASER 2011

17

First, in spirit the goal of the RTE Act is to ensure that every child (whether currently out of school or presently enrolled in school) has the opportunity to reach grade level competencies/educational levels appropriate to his or her age all the way up to age fourteen. Second, continuous, comprehensive evaluation of childrens progress through the elementary years means that teachers need to understand where the children are today, and plan for where to take them next based on that understanding. Third, efforts have to be made to explain childrens progress to parents. Fourth, every school has to develop a School Development Plan with the help of the local School Management Committee. By design, many members of these committees will be parents. Today, almost all of Indias children are enrolled in school. The journey to ensure schooling for all has needed efforts from both sides - governments and communities. The credit goes to governments who provided schooling and to parents who send their children to school. The next journey must be that of ensuring learning for all. Taking parents along on this journey is critical, urgent and long overdue. ASER 2011 shows that 46% of mothers of children who are in school today have not been to school themselves. At a rough estimate, there are probably 100 million mothers who are like our blue sari mother in Rohtas. New methods and mechanisms need to be innovated on scale to allow mothers to meaningfully participate in discussions and actions related to how childrens learning can be improved. Simple tools like those used in ASER are a good starting point. Without real participation of parents, especially mothers, the key objectives of RTE cannot be effectively translated from policy into practice.

18

ASER 2011

1,902 ASER partners

Suman Bhattacharjea
Namaste, I am [name] from [organization] in [district], and I am xx ASERs old. Every year, the ASER roll out in the field begins around September with state level training workshops for master trainers, one or two from each district in the state. Some come from ASER partner organizations and others from Pratham. Theres usually a mix of those who are four, five, or six ASERs old and those who are brand new, and this novel way of introducing themselves quickly separates the veterans from the freshers. So where do all these people around 1,000 master trainers and 25,000 volunteers each year actually come from? An incredible variety of partner organizations conduct ASER each year. From the Department of Sheep Husbandry in Kargil to Google in Gurgaon; from IIT Rourkee to Our Carrom Club in Manipur; from District Institutes for Education and Training (DIETs) in Chhattisgarh to the Tejas Mahila Mandal in Nagpur; from Deutsche Bank staff in Hyderabad to high school students all across Arunachal Pradesh. These are the institutions that visit 300,000 households and meet 700,000 children each year. Year after year, they make ASER possible. Given the basic calculation of close to 600 districts x 7 years, one might expect the total number of partners to date to be higher still. But ASER has been fortunate to partner with organizations with a steady presence across multiple districts and even multiple states. For example, Kudumbashree in Kerala has participated in ASER from its inception in 2005, and did ASER in the entire state single handedly for six consecutive years. Then theres Nehru Yuva Kendra, the network of youth clubs whose huge presence across rural India has facilitated ASER every year in multiple districts across ten states. Many organizations have participated in ASER more than once, and more than 10% - 200 organizations are veterans of four or more ASERs. Of these, 18 have been ASER partners every single year, from 2005 to 2011 (see box). More than a third of these are located in Jharkhand.
1

Veteran ASER partners

Institutions that have participated in ASER every year, from 2005 to 2011: Abhiyan, Jharkhand Akshara Foundation, Karnataka Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Rajasthan EMBARK Youth Association, Karnataka Gram Jyoti Kendra, Jharkhand Grassroot, Tamil Nadu Jawahar Jyoti Bal Vikas Kendra, Bihar Jiral College, Odisha Khaira College, Odisha Kudumbashree, Kerala Lohardaga Gram Swaraj Sansthan, Jharkhand Lok Prerna Kendra, Jharkhand Mahima College, Odisha Malenadu Education and Rural Development Society, Karnataka Nav Bharat Jagriti Kendra, Jharkhand

ASER has found twice as many partners in Maharashtra than in any Sahyogini, Jharkhand other state, testimony in part to the vibrant presence of colleges and non government organizations, but also due to Prathams long history Samajik Parivartan Sansthan, and extensive network in the state. On the flip side, there are states Jharkhand and districts where every year theres a long struggle to find partners, Sankalp Bahuuddeshiya Prakalp, and state ASER teams have on occasion come up with creative Maharashtra solutions. In Kargil, the only people willing to travel extensively around the district were personnel from the Department of Sheep Husbandry, who were pressed into service three years in a row. In Arunachal Pradesh, where colleges and NGOs are few and far between, students from government secondary schools have been regular ASER volunteers. Across India, some fascinating patterns emerge in terms of the type of organizations that do ASER. In Haryana, the ASER partner lists are heavily populated by colleges, and NGOs are sparse; whereas in Jharkhand, the situation is exactly the reverse. In Nagaland and Meghalaya, ASER is conducted mainly by students unions, and in Rajasthan, large numbers of [Link] colleges have joined in. The increasing participation of DIETs across the country is a very welcome trend. In 2007, all DIETs in Andhra Pradesh were instructed by the State Project Director (SPD) to participate in ASER, but since 2008, they have voluntarily chosen to do so and have conducted the survey across the entire state for five years in a row now.
1

Suman Bhattacharjea is Director (Research), ASER Centre

ASER 2011

19

Other states, too, have seen increased participation by DIETs over time, with a total of 48 of them in 9 states taking part in ASER 2011. Given that the ASER exercise is about engaging citizens in producing and thinking about evidence related to outcomes, getting current and future teachers to participate in an assessment of basic learning outcomes may contribute more towards improving quality in elementary education than centrally mandated policy directives ever could. In the coming years, a major challenge for ASER Centre will be to find ways to systematically build on these relationships with partners, not an easy task given their number and geographical spread, but a critical one if assessment is to lead to action. From 2012, we hope to engage in deeper collaborations with at least some of these institutions in the core areas of capacity building, research and assessment. Table 1. ASER partners 2005-11, by state and type of institution State DIET Himachal Pradesh Haryana Punjab Uttarakhand Jammu&Kashmir Tamil Nadu Kerala Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Gujarat Rajasthan Odisha Chhattisgarh Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Uttar Pradesh Bihar Jharkhand West Bengal Assam Arunachal Pradesh Manipur Meghalaya Nagaland Tripura Sikkim ALL INDIA 4 0 1 0 1 0 7 22 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 3% Type of partners who participated TTC 1 0 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 42 2% Univ / College 23 38 13 20 14 12 0 0 5 22 17 82 0 2 83 13 0 0 24 7 6 6 7 2 1 0 397 21% School 2 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 13 4 0 0 0 0 42 2% NGO 14 10 15 33 2 64 1 2 58 116 51 23 40 153 281 148 117 43 21 39 14 12 6 11 9 0 1283 67% Other 5 3 15 0 3 0 0 1 1 3 14 2 0 3 3 2 0 0 2 5 0 6 2 19 1 0 90 5% 49 54 61 53 24 76 8 25 64 141 98 112 48 159 383 166 117 43 47 52 33 28 15 32 11 3 1902 100%
ASER 2011

TOTAL

20

From Mumbai, Multan to Mombasa or Karachi, Kanyakumari to Kilamanjaro!

Baela Raza Jamil
1

In Lahore today (January 2, 2012), we kicked off our week-long training of 35 ASER district and provincial associates from all 9 regions of the country to build capacity for disseminating the results of ASER 2011. The spirit of ASER was buzzing with a unique chemistry of a youthful group. We decided to begin with personal statements on aser ne kya aser kiya (how did ASER impact me?) followed by names and backgrounds in that order. These confessional or declaratory identity markers are vital for the growing global ASER community, for defining ourselves in this unique program of citizen-led surveys. ASER is, after all, about citizens voices on learning and accountability. It can only be captured through an extension of the personal and the public voice as one, and we at ASER Pakistan are practicing that art of expression that commits to the challenges of learning and improvement - from parents and teacher union members to elected representatives. ASER truly bridges the public and private divide, merging field, theory and practice to address the crises in and opportunities for education. A journey that began perhaps as education tourism for the Pakistani civil society organizations in the summer of 2006-7 just outside Jaipur, Rajasthan and Delhi through open source sharing, truly hallmarked as the Pratham Way, has now been mainstreamed as an annual ritual for the measuring of education systems in Pakistan for the third year running. UWEZO in East Africa and ASER India are comrades in arms for informing and taking action for the EFA movement. With almost one million children surveyed in 5 countries annually, the methodology for literacy and numeracy measurement in ASER is neither quick nor dirty but very rigorous. As the countdown to 2015 gets underway, the local, national and global community has come to expect that this survey will provide information about progress made and challenges remaining. Dialogues are intensifying on: whole system/whole school reforms; what assessments tell us about learning gaps across gender and geographies; how to bridge inequality gaps; whether consensus is possible on the theme of quality exacerbating the inequality and transition gaps at all levels of the education spectrum. The ever-widening relevance gap due to knowledge obsolescence in a world inhabited by 7 billion people compels us towards perennial renewal of learning interfaced with local contexts and accessible technologies in classrooms and outside. While the centrality of the teacher as the universal provocateur and innovator cannot be minimized, what does this mean for countries diverse in terrain, practices and resources? Like ASER India, or UWEZO in East Africa, we are deeply cognizant that ASER Pakistan is not about naming and shaming governments but really about calling citizens to action as the primary stakeholders what is to be done for OUR children and what can we do NOW? On a popular note the India-Pakistan exchanges for ASER and Chalo Parho Barho (lets read and grow) initiatives are affectionately termed as the learning caravans from Mumbai to Multan. As teams navigate the spectrum of emergent relationships from South Asia to Africa in 2012 these could be from Mumbai, Multan to Mombasa or from Karachi, Kanyakumari to Kilamanjaro! Either way, the collaborations for people-led research will generate new genres of monitoring and sharing of learning resources. We love them at ITA/SAFED and are proud of the emergent multiple and distributed centers of leadership triggered by ASER India in 2008, and would be happy to support other South Asian countries in this much needed peoples enterprise of claiming their fundamental rights to quality education.

Baela Raza Jamil is Director, Programs for Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aagahi (ITA) and Coordinator for the South Asian Forum for Education Development (SAFED), Pakistan

ASER 2011

21

Addressing inequalities: Breaking the cycles of illiteracy

John Mugo
1

In August 2011, Zippora, Grace and I visited ASER from Uwezo East Africa. The experience in Delhi was refreshing, providing a taste of what Pratham and ASER are doing to promote learning in the various states in India. But besides the walk through Safdarjung, or the night train ride to Lucknow, or even the breath-taking visit to the Taj Mahal, one memory lingers vivid - the contrast I experienced in one rural village, around 30 kilometers from Delhi. As I cowardly walked behind my ASER friends to test children in this village, unsure whether the buffaloes would attack (the Kenyan buffalo is extremely wild), some children and mothers disappeared behind doors, not sure what our mission was. Getting them to direct us to a certain household took time as they could not understand well, nor could they read the list of names we attempted to present to them. But anyhow, we always got our feet into the right households. The encounter with so many non-literate parents openly revealed the hard time their children had, trying to break the chains of illiteracy in households without role models. Adults and children looked curiously at me, wondering perhaps which state of India I was from, but lacking the confidence to ask. On a number of occasions, I volunteered, through a translator, to reveal that I came from Africa, a country called Kenya. More often than not, this was followed by plain nods of appreciation, with no further discussion. But a little bit later, we walked into a well-built home, met a neatly-dressed father. Before I could sit down, he requested his daughter to offer me a glass of water. Hardly did I know the hospitality awaiting me. As we rose to proceed to the next household, the man quickly called in Hindi - ask this visitor to remain with us, and tell us more about Africa! This caught me off-guard, after the rhythm of under-confident and non-literate parents. I was confused, since I wanted to experience a little bit more of households and children. But my colleagues were quick to come to a decision - you remain, we will come back to collect you. I sat down again, the man disappeared behind the curtains and reappeared with a bowl of sweets and more water. I learned that he was an advocate. We held discussions in English (with translations for the daughter) comparing learning in India and in Kenya, and analyzing the various challenges related to poor quality of education. The confident and brilliant daughter informed me that she wanted to be a world badminton star, but her priority was also to get good grades in school. The contrast between these families was very familiar to me, as this is often the inequality between the urban and rural, the poor and the wealthy in most parts of Kenya. But the most disturbing observation relates to the extent to which these inequalities are affecting learning. In Kenya, we have established that children of educated mothers and fathers are by far more likely to remain in school and acquire basic learning competences, as compared to their counterparts whose parents have not completed the primary school cycle. Indeed, girls whose mothers have no schooling are 7 times more likely to be out of school than their peers whose mothers have completed primary education. Yet, the Uwezo Kenya findings reveal that 15% of fathers and 19% of mothers had never been to school. This is truly the biggest challenge of literacy. In both Kenya and India, a certain cycle is definitely prevailing - recycling illiteracy down the generations. My thought is that just as we consider orphans, children with disability and girls as vulnerable children and children with special learning needs, I would argue that children of non-literate parents need to be included in this category. Only if we focus on breaking the illiteracy cycles within these households, can we truly break the illiteracy cycles in our countries. But thanks for the water and the sweets!

John Mugo is Country Coordinator, Uwezo Kenya. Adapted from the ASER model, Uwezo is a four year initiative that aims to improve competencies in literacy and numeracy among children aged 6-16 in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, by using an innovative approach to social change that is citizen driven and accountable to the public.

22

ASER 2011

vey About the sur

ASER 2011

23

Note on sampling : ASER 2011 Rural

Wilima Wadhwa
Whats new in ASER 2011 The purpose of ASER 2011s rapid assessment survey in rural areas is twofold: (i) to get reliable estimates of the status of childrens schooling and basic learning (reading and arithmetic level) at the district level; and (ii) to measure the change in these basic learning and school statistics from last year. Every year a core set of questions regarding schooling status and basic learning levels remains the same. However a set of new questions are added for exploring different dimensions of schooling and learning in the elementary stage. The latter set of questions is different each year. ASER 2011 brings together elements from various previous ASERs. The core questions on school status and basic reading and arithmetic remain. From 2009-10, we retain questions on paid tuition, parents education, household and village characteristics. ASER 2011 once again visited one government primary school in every sampled village. Sampling Strategy (Household sample - childrens learning and enrollment data) The sampling strategy used helps to generate a representative picture of each district. All rural districts are surveyed. The estimates obtained are then aggregated (using appropriate weights) to the state and all-India levels. Like last year, the sample size is 600 households per district. The sample is obtained by selecting 30 villages per district and 20 households per village. The villages were randomly selected using the village directory of the 2001 Census. The sampling was done using the PPS (Probability Proportional to Size) sampling technique. PPS is a widely used standard sampling technique and is the appropriate technique to use when the sampling units are of different sizes. In our case, the sampling units are the villages. This method allows villages with larger populations to have a higher chance of being selected in the sample. In ASER 2010, we retained 10 villages from 2008 and 2009 and added 10 new villages. In ASER 2011 we dropped the 10 villages from ASER 2008, kept the 10 villages from 2009 and 2010 and added 10 more villages from the Census village directory. The 10 new villages were also chosen using PPS. The 20 old villages and the 10 new villages will give us a rotating panel of villages, which generates more precise estimates of changes. Since one of the objectives of ASER is to measure the change in learning, creating a panel is a more appropriate sampling strategy. Each district receives a village list with appropriate block information along with the data from the 2001 Census on total number of households and total population. The village list also specifies which villages are from 2009, from 2010 and which are new villages. Like past ASERs, the village list is final and cannot be replaced. This is to maintain randomness of the sample to obtain reliable estimates. For further information The ASER team has consulted with national level sampling experts including those at NSSO and ISI. For more information, please email contact@[Link].

24

ASER 2011

ASER 2011 Training

Each year since 2005, ASER has been done in practically every rural district in the country. In every district, ASER is conducted by volunteers from a local organization in the district; these are colleges and universities, NGOs, youth groups, womens organizations and others. We estimate that close to 25,000 young people volunteer to do ASER each year. This is how we are able to reach close to 3,00,000 households and meet more than 7,00,000 children annually. ASER is the largest annual effort to understand the status of schooling and learning of children in India. For such an effort to sustain itself year after year, it is critical to focus on strengthening and improving its internal processes. Training is one of the most important processes that help us to equip our volunteers with skills necessary for surveying a village and assessing children. Typically, ASER follows a 3 tier training structure. The National Workshop is followed by a state level training in every state. This is followed by district level training where volunteers are trained to conduct the ASER survey. National Workshop: During this workshop ASER state teams are oriented on ASER processes and survey material for the year is finalized. The workshop is also used to plan for state level trainings and partner selection. Each ASER state team comprises anywhere between 2 to 5 full time people, depending on the size and complexity of the state.1 New features this year:

An important feature of the National Workshop this year was the emphasis given to mock trainings. Members were informed in advance about the topics they had to train on and thus had an opportunity to plan their content and delivery. An elaborate recheck process was designed this year. The formats were piloted in the National Workshop and subsequent discussions during the workshop helped to crystallize the process.

State level training workshops: These workshops prepare Master Trainers who will then take charge of rolling out ASER in their districts. Master Trainers are usually a combination of participants from the district local partners and Pratham team members. Close to 800 Master Trainers from partner organizations participated in ASER 2011. Usually, state level trainings are organized for 4 days and have four main components:

Classroom sessions: To orient the participants on ASER process. Simple presentations and case studies help state teams carry out these sessions. Field practice sessions: Every element of ASER is practised extensively in the field. During the workshop, participants and trainers go to nearby villages. Mock Training: These sessions are intended to improve the training capabilities of participants and thus prepare them to impart training at the district level. Quiz: A quiz is administered towards the end of each state level training and immediate feedback is provided to participants. This helps to ensure that all participants have understood the ASER process and to identify participants who may not have obtained the minimal understanding required to conduct ASER.

Performance in mock trainings, field visits and the quiz was analyzed to identify weak Master Trainers, who were either eliminated or provided with additional support during district trainings. District level training workshops: In the past, these trainings were generally held for 2 days. However, in order to improve the quality of training, the time for training was increased for ASER 2011. Trainings in most districts were organized for 3 days this year. Like state level trainings, the key elements of district trainings included classroom sessions, field practice sessions, and a quiz. Typically, in most districts, volunteers scoring low on the quiz were either eliminated or paired with strong volunteers to carry out the survey.

1 ASER state team members are called ASER Associates or ASER Regional Team members. They are fellows with ASER Centre for a period of 2 -3 years. In addition to leading all ASER related activities in their state, they also participate in a course run by ASER Centre on assessment, survey, evaluation, research and communication. This course has recently received certification from Indira Gandhi National Open University.

ASER 2011

25

Some useful and effective innovations this year included the use of large flex banners. At the district level it is difficult to have a projector to show the survey formats to the whole group while training. To deal with this problem, we printed our survey formats on large flex banners that could be displayed easily while explaining how to fill survey formats to volunteers. These banners are quite portable, easy to use and an effective low cost substitute for projectors. Another innovation implemented in most states for ASER 2011 was the establishment of a call centre to support master trainers and volunteers in the field. Monitoring of trainings: A few processes were instated to ensure that the important aspects of trainings were implemented across all state and district trainings. Some of these were:

Call Centre: In most states, a person was assigned to interact with the Master Trainers on a daily basis and ensure that they have taken care of the basic processes in trainings, survey and recheck District Compilation Sheet: Survey results for every village in a district were compiled in a district compilation sheet. The sheet also had quiz marks and attendance records for volunteers. A lot of emphasis was given on this sheet for monitoring and recheck and it was ensured that quiz scores and daily attendance of volunteers are entered. In addition, most state trainings were attended by the respective Pratham State Head and a member of the Central ASER team.

Our effort each year is to improve our training processes. We have been able to substantially improve the quality of trainings this year. However, there is still scope to improve the training skills of our master trainers as well the quality of trainings at the district level. The detailed feedback received from ASER staff as well as from an external consultant will be instrumental in enabling us to make further improvements next year.

26

ASER 2011

ASER 2011 Monitoring & Recheck

The credibility of any survey rests on the validity of its data. Over the past 6 years, many measures have been taken to ensure that the ASER survey is done as well as possible. In 2011, we went one step further. Keeping in mind the cost and time constraints, and drawing on the extensive field experiences of our ASER team from past years, we instituted some new processes with a view to provide more support to the survey in the field and to further strengthen the survey. Some of the major changes were:

Training Duration Training for volunteers was extended to 3 days in most districts instead of the usual 2 days as in past years. Survey Duration In most districts, the survey was conducted on two consecutive weekends instead of one. This allowed increased amount of monitoring and recheck of villages between the two weekends. Purposive Monitoring & Recheck Almost everywhere, villages to be monitored and rechecked were selected on the basis of certain predefined criteria. This ensured that poorly surveyed villages could be identified and resurveyed immediately. In previous years, villages to be rechecked were selected randomly Documentation For the first time in ASER 2011, we recorded contact numbers, attendance information and quiz performance of all 25,000 surveyors. These data will be used for further analyses and dissemination purposes.

In ASER 2011, approximately 41% of all villages surveyed were either monitored or rechecked by Master Trainers. Some new features in ASER 2011 for supporting ASER in the field:

Call Centre In many states, an ASER call centre was set up at the state level. An ASER team member was responsible for regularly telephoning Master Trainers in every district to monitor the progress of the survey. This ensured instant troubleshooting of problems and prompt support to remote or problematic districts. Monitoring and Recheck This years process had several new elements and operated at different levels:1

Master Trainers visited at least four villages per district during the weekends when the survey was in the field. Master Trainers visited 4-8 villages out of the 30 villages in the district to recheck. These villages were selected based on examining the survey formats that were handed back by the volunteers and a district summary sheet compiled by Master Trainers. A recheck was also done across 14 states and 43 districts by a central team of ASER staff. These were cross-state visits by ASER team members from other states. SMS Recheck In Rajasthan, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh, Master Trainers texted testing data to a designated phone number. All the SMSs could be viewed on and downloaded from a website. These numbers were then analyzed by members of the ASER Central team and recheck villages chosen. This also enabled us to get a sense of the quality of the survey in these states at a very early stage.

In most cases, rechecked villages where problems were found were re-surveyed. If for any reason this was not possible, the data for that village was dropped.

1 At ASER Centre, we lay great emphasis on piloting all formats before they are finalized. The extremely detailed recheck format which was used this year was extensively piloted by all ASER team members who have many years of experience in the field. More importantly, the monitoring and recheck process was explained to and practiced by all master trainers in state trainings. Close to 25% of the time at these trainings was devoted to understanding and practising these processes.

ASER 2011

27

How to make a map and make sections

To start MAKING A MAP walk & talk:

To get to know the village, walk around the whole village first before you start mapping. Talk to people: How many different hamlets/sections are there in the village? Where are they located? What is the estimated number of households in each hamlet/section? Ask the children to take you around the village. Tell them about ASER. This initial process of walking and talking may take more than an hour. Rough map : It is often helpful to first draw all the roads or paths leading to the village. It helps to first draw a map on the ground so that people around you can see what is being done. Use the help of local people to show the main landmarks temples, mosques, river, road, school, bus-stop, panchayat bhavan, shop etc. Mark the main roads/streets/paths through the village prominently on the map. If you can, mark the directions north, south, east, west. Final map : Once everyone agrees that this map is a good representation of the village, and it matches with your experience of having walked around the whole village, copy it on to the map sheet that has been given to you.

Map:

ONCE THE MAP IS MADE, WE NEED TO PICK 4 SECTIONS OF IT. WE WILL SURVEY 5 HOUSEHOLDS IN EACH SECTION.

How to mark and number sections on the map you have made?

1. VILLAGE WITH HAMLETS If the village is divided into hamlets:

Mark the hamlets on the map and indicate approximate number of households in each hamlet. If the village consists of more than 4 different hamlets, then make chits with numbers for each hamlet. Randomly pick 4 chits. On the map, indicate which hamlets were randomly picked for surveying. If there are 4 or less hamlets, then go to all of these hamlets. Do not worry if there are more people in one hamlet than in another. We will survey a hamlet as long as there are households in it. Note: Marking selected hamlets on the map is very important. It helps in re-check.

2. VILLAGE WITH LESS THAN 4 HAMLETS

2 hamlets: Divide each hamlet in 2 parts and take 5 households from each section. 3 hamlets: Take 7,7 and 6 households from the 3 hamlets respectively. WHAT TO DO IF :

The hamlet has less than 5 households - then survey all the households in the hamlet and survey the remaining households from other hamlets. The village has less than 20 households- then survey all the households in the village.

3. CONTINUOUS VILLAGE If it is a village with continuous habitations:

Divide the entire village into 4 sections geographically. For each section, note the estimated number of households. We will survey all 4 sections of the village.

28

ASER 2011

What to do in each section/hamlet

In the entire village, information will be collected from a total of 20 randomly selected households. To do this, you need to select 5 households from each of the 4 previously selected hamlets/sections, regardless of the total number of households in each hamlet or section. Use the following procedure:

Go to each selected hamlet/section. Try to find the central point in that hamlet/section. Stand facing dwellings in the center of the habitation and start household selection from the left. Select households to survey using the every 5th household rule. While selecting households count only those dwellings that are residential. Household in this case refers to every 'door or entrance to a house from the street'.

WHAT TO DO IF :

The household has multiple kitchens: In each house ask how many kitchens or 'chulhas' there are? If there is more than one kitchen in a household, then randomly select any one of the kitchens in that household. You will survey only those individuals who eat from the selected kitchen. After completing survey in this house proceed to next 5th house (counting from the next house on the street, NOT from the next 'Chulha'). The household has no children: If there are no children at all or no children in the age group 3 - 16 in the selected household but there are inhabitants, INCLUDE THAT HOUSEHOLD. Take the information about the name of head of the household, total number of members of the household and household assets. Such a household WILL COUNT as one of the 5 surveyed households in each hamlet/section but NO information about mothers or fathers will be collected. The house is closed: If the selected house is closed or if there is nobody at home, note that down on your compilation sheet as "house closed". THIS HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT COUNT AS A SURVEYED HOUSEHOLD. DO NOT INCLUDE THIS HOUSEHOLD IN THE SURVEY SHEET. Move to the next/adjacent open house. There is no response: If a household refuses to participate, record the house on your compilation sheet in the "No response" box. However, as above, THIS HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT COUNT AS A SURVEYED HOUSEHOLD. DO NOT INCLUDE THIS HOUSEHOLD IN THE SURVEY SHEET. Move on to the next adjacent house.

Continue until you have 5 households in that hamlet/section in which the inhabitants were present, and they participated in the survey. Remember that you need to survey 5 households, regardless of the number of children you find. If you have reached the end of the section before 5 households are sampled, go around again using the same every 5th household rule. If a surveyed household gets selected again then go to the next household. Continue till you have 5 households in the section. Stop after you have completed 5 households in the hamlet/section. Now move to the next selected hamlet/section. Follow the same process using the 5th household rule. Make sure that you go to households ONLY when children are likely to be at home. This means that it should be on a Sunday.

ASER 2011

29

How to sample households in a hamlet in a village?

6 5

10

13

12

11

4 14

CENTRE
19

15

16

Locked/No response
21 22 23 24 25 20 18 17

32

31

30

29 28

27

26

What to do in a house with mutiple kitchens?

30

ASER 2011

What to do in each household

1. General information Household Number: Write down the household number in every sheet. Write 1 for the first household surveyed, 2 for the second household surveyed and so on till the 20th household. Total number of members in the household who eat from the same kitchen: Ask the adults present and write down the total number. If there are multiple kitchens/chulhas in the household, include only those household members who eat from the same kitchen. 2. Information about children aged 3-16 years We will collect information from the sample household about all children age 3-16 who regularly live in the household and eat from the same kitchen. Ask members of the household as well as neighbours to help you identify these children. ALL such children should be included, even if their parents live in another village or if they are the children of the domestic help in the household. WHAT TO DO IF:

There are older children: Often older girls and boys (in the age group 11 to 16) may not be thought of as children. Be sensitive to this issue. Avoid saying children. Probe about who all live in the household to make sure that nobody in this age group gets left out. Often older children who cannot read are very shy and hesitant about being tested. Children not at home: Sometimes children may not be at home during your visit to the house. They may be in the market, fields or even visiting a nearby town/[Link] the child is somewhere nearby, but not at home, take down information about the child, like name, age, and schooling status. Ask family members to call the child so that you can speak to her/him directly. If she does not come immediately, mark that household and revisit it once you are done surveying the other households. In case you are unable to meet with the child directly, because she/he may be outside the village, leave the testing information blank. There are relatives children who live in the sample household on regular basis: Sometime you will find children of relatives who live in the sample household. We will include these children because they live in the same household on a regular basis. But we will NOT take information about their parents because they do not live in this household. Children not living in the household: If there are children in the family who do not regularly live in the household, for e.g. children who are studying in another village or children who got married and are living elsewhere, we will not include them There are visiting children: Do not include children who have come to visit their relatives or friends in the sampled village or household. They do not regularly live in the sample household.

Many children may come up to you and want to be included out of curiosity. Do not discourage children who want to be tested. You can interact with them. But data must be noted down ONLY for children living in the 20 households that have been randomly selected. Now that we have identified which children to survey, let us review what information to collect about each child. One row of the household format will be used for each child.

Mothers name: At the beginning of the entry for each child, we will write the name of the childs mother. Note down her name ONLY if she is alive and regularly living in the household. If the childs mother is dead or not living in the household we will NOT write her name. If the mother has died or has been divorced and the childs stepmother (fathers present wife) is living in the household, we will include her as the childs mother.

Fathers background information: At the end of the entry for each child, we ask for the age and schooling information of the childs father. As in the case of the mother, we will only write this information if the father is alive and regularly living in the household. If the father is dead or not living in the household we will not ask for this information.
31

ASER 2011

If the father has died or has been divorced and the childs stepfather (mothers present husband) is living in the household, we will include him as the childs father. Childs name, age, sex and schooling status: The childs name, age and sex should be filled for all children aged 3 to 16 from the sample household selected for the survey. After noting down these details, there are two main blocks of information about each child. Children aged 3-16 years The first block For age 3-16 is to be asked for ALL children aged 3 to 16 in the household. On the household sheet:

Note down if the child is attending anganwadi (ICDS), balwadi, or nursery/LKG/UKG, etc. This information will be recorded in the first column Anganwadi or Pre-School Status. If the child goes to school, this information will be noted in the Schooling Status column. Note down their Std., whether they go to government/ private school, madarsa, EGS/AIE or any other school. If the child has never been to any anganwadi/preschool or school etc., record it in the Out of School children (Never enrolled) column. For children who have dropped out of/left school, note this information in the Out of School (Drop out) column.

Probe carefully to find out the class the child was in when she/he left/dropped out of school. Note the class in which the child was studying when she/he dropped out irrespective of the fact whether the child passed or failed in that class. Record the actual year when the child left school. E.g. if the child dropped out in 2002 write 2002. Similarly if the child dropped out in the last few months write 2011.

Children aged 5-16 years The remaining blocks of information For age 5-16 are to be filled ONLY for children aged 5 to 16.

Ask all children if they take any tuition, meaning paid classes in addition to regular school and note the response in Tuition column. If yes, ask if any school teacher takes the tuition class attended by the child. The school teacher could be teaching in ANY school, not necessarily the school where the child studies. If the child does not take tuition, do not ask this question. Also ask children if they attend the specific school which you have/will be surveying and note it in the Does child go to the surveyed school section. Askthe child/ parent what the official medium of instruction in the childs school is. All children in this age group will be tested in basic reading and basic math. (We know that younger children will not be able to read much or do sums but still follow the same process for all children so as to keep the process uniform).

3. Mothers background information We will ask some additional questions about the mother of each child in the age group 3-16 years who has been surveyed. We will ONLY ask this information about mothers whose names have been recorded earlier, against individual childrens name. No other mothers will be included. If the mother is not present in the household at the time of the survey, ask other adults/members in the family and note down the information .

32

ASER 2011

For each mother, we will ask her age, whether she has attended school or not and if yes, up to what class has she studied. Note down the class that she has successfully completed/passed. For example, if she has gone to school but says that she did not complete Std 1, enter 0 under Std. completed. 4. Children living outside the village (10-16 years) Ask the child/adult the names of all children of the sampled household in the age group of 10-16 who live outside the village. (More than 6 months in a year)

The child from the sampled household means that if the child had been staying in the household, she would have eaten from the same kitchen/chulha. Living outside means

1. The child has been living away from home for more than 6 months a year, or 2. The child left home in the last 6 months and will be living away for more than 6 months a year in the future. 5. Household indicators All information on household indicators is to be recorded based, as much as possible, on observation and evidence. However, if for some reason you cannot observe it note down what is reported by household members only and not by others.

Type of house the child lives in: Types of houses are defined as follows:

Pucca House: A pucca house is one which has walls and roof made of the following material:

Wall material: Burnt bricks, stones (packed with lime or cement), cement concrete, timber, ekra etc Roof Material: Tiles, GCI (Galvanised Corrugated Iron) sheets, asbestos cement sheet, RBC (Reinforced Brick Concrete), RCC (Reinforced Cement Concrete), timber etc.

Kutcha House: A Kutcha house is one which has walls and/or roof which are made of material other than those mentioned above, such as un-burnt bricks, bamboos, mud, grass, reeds, thatch, loosely packed stones, etc. Semi-Pucca house: A house that has fixed walls made of pucca material but the roof is made of material other than those used for pucca house.

Electricity in the household:

Mark yes or no by observing if the household has wires/electric meters and fittings or not. If there is an electricity connection, ask whether the household had electricity any time on the day of your visit, not necessarily when you are doing the survey.

Toilets: Mark yes or no by observing if there is a constructed toilet in the house. If you are not able to observe, then ASK whether there is a constructed toilet or not. Television: Mark yes or no by observing if the house has a television or not. If you dont see one, ASK. It does not matter if the television is in working condition or not. Cable TV: If there is a TV in the household, ask whether there is cable TV. This includes any cable facility which is paid for by the household (including Direct To Home (DTH) facility). Mobile phone: Mark yes if any member of the household owns a mobile phone. Reading material

Newspaper: Mark yes if the household gets a newspaper every day. Other reading material: This includes story books, magazines, religious books, comics etc. but does not include calendars.
33

ASER 2011

6. Other Questions for the household: Computer skills in the household: Mark yes if anyone in the household knows how to use a computer. This question should be asked to the family members. Do not observe. Language spoken in the household: Ask the child which language is spoken at home by the family members. Please refer to the list of languages and put the appropriate code in the given box. Write down the code of the language told by the respondent, regardless of what you may think the household speaks at home. If the language mentioned by the respondent is not in the Language Code List, then write 999. For eg., if the respondent says Avadhi is the language spoken at home, and Avadhi is not in the Language Code List, then write 999. If the family says they speak more than one language in the household, then find out which is the main language spoken at home. Accordingly, record ONLY 1 LANGUAGE CODE in the household format.

34

ASER 2011

From 2005 to 2011: Evolution of ASER

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Age group 6 14 Children were asked Enrollment status Type of school Children also did: Reading tasks Arithmetic tasks

Age group 3 16 Children were asked Enrollment status Type of school Children 5-16 also did: Reading tasks Arithmetic tasks

Age group 3 16 Children were asked Enrollment status Type of school Tuition status Children 5-16 also did: Reading tasks Arithmetic tasks

Comprehension tasks Writing tasks

Comprehension tasks Problem solving tasks English tasks

School visits

Mothers education Mothers were also asked to read a simple text Sampling : Randomly selected 20 ASER 2005 villages 10 new ASER 2006 villages

Mothers education School visits

Sampling : Randomly selected 20 ASER 2005 villages

Sampling : Randomly selected 10 ASER 2005 villages 10 ASER 2006 villages 10 new ASER 2007 villages

.................................................................................................................................................................................................

ASER 2008
Age group 3-16 Children were asked Enrollment status Type of school Children 5-16 also did: Reading tasks Arithmetic tasks

ASER 2009
Age group 3-16

ASER 2010
Age group 3-16 Children were asked Enrollment status Type of school Tuition status Children 5-16 also did: Reading tasks Arithmetic tasks

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

ASER 2005

ASER 2006

ASER 2007

ASER 2011
Age group 3-16 Children were asked Enrollment status Type of school Tuition status Children 5-16 also did: Reading tasks Arithmetic tasks

Children were asked Enrollment status Type of school Tuition status Pre-school status (Age 5-16) Children 5-16 also did: Reading tasks Arithmetic tasks

Telling time Currency tasks

English tasks

Everyday math tasks

Mothers education

Mothers education Fathers education Mothers were also asked to read a simple text Household characteristics Village information School visits Sampling : Randomly selected 10 ASER 2007 villages 10 ASER 2008 villages 10 new ASER 2009 villages

Mothers education Fathers education Mothers were also asked to dial a mobile number Household characteristics Village information School visits Sampling : Randomly selected 10 ASER 2008 villages 10 ASER 2009 villages 10 new ASER 2010 villages

Mothers education Fathers education

Household characteristics Village information Sampling : Randomly selected 10 ASER 2006 villages 10 ASER 2007 villages 10 new ASER 2008 villages
ASER 2011

Household characteristics Village information School visits Sampling : Randomly selected 10 ASER 2009 villages 10 ASER 2010 villages 10 new ASER 2011 villages
35

ASER 2011 : Reading tasks

All children were assessed using a simple reading tool. The reading test has 4 categories:

Letters : Set of commonly used letters. Words: Common familiar words with 2 letters and 1 or 2 matras. Level 1 (Std 1) text: Set of 4 simple linked sentences, each having no more than 4-5 words. These words or their equivalent are in the Std 1 textbook of the state. Level 2 (Std 2) text: Short story with 7-10 sentences. Sentence construction is straightforward, words are common and the context is familiar to children. These words or their equivalent are in the Std 2 textbook of the state.

Sample: Hindi basic reading test Similar tests developed in all languages

Child can choose the language in which she wants to read.

In developing these tools in each state language, care is taken to ENSURE

Comparability with the previous years tools with respect to word count, sentence count, type of word and conjoint letters in words Compatibility with the vocabulary and sentence construction used in Std 1 and Std 2 language textbooks of the state Familiarity with words and context through extensive field piloting
ASER 2011

36

How to test reading?

PARAGRAPH START HERE:
Ask the child to read either of the 2 paragraphs. Let the child choose the paragraph herself. If the child does not choose give her any one paragraph to read. Ask her to read it. Listen carefully to how she reads. The child is not at Paragraph Level if she: Reads the text like a string of words, rather than a sentence. Reads the text haltingly and stops very often. OR Reads the text fluently but with more than 3 mistakes. If the child is not at Paragraph Level then ask the child to read words. The child can read a paragraph, if she: Reads the text like she is reading a sentence, rather than a string of words. Reads the text fluently and with ease, even if she is reading slowly. Reads the text with not more than 3 mistakes.

If the child can read a paragraph, then ask the child to read the story.

WORDS
Ask the child to read any 5 words from the word list. Let the child choose the words herself. If she does not choose, then point out words to her. The child can read words, if she: Reads at least 4 out of the 5 words with ease.

STORY
Ask the child to read the story. The child is at Story Level if she: Reads the text like she is reading a sentence, rather than a string of words. Reads the text fluently and with ease. The child may read slowly. Reads the text with not more than 3 mistakes. If the child is at Story Level then mark the child at story level. If the child is not at Story Level, then mark the child at Paragraph Level.

If the child is at Word Level, then ask her to try to read the paragraph again and then follow the instructions for paragraph level testing. If she can correctly and comfortably read words but is still struggling with the paragraph, then mark the child at Word Level. If the child is not at word level (cannot correctly read at least 4 out of the 5 words chosen), then show her the list of letters.

LETTERS
Ask the child to read any 5 letters from the letters list. Let the child choose the letters herself. If she does not choose, then point out letters to her. The child can read letters, if she: Correctly recognizes at least 4 out of 5 letters with ease. If the child can read letters, then ask her to try reading the words again and then follow the instructions for word level testing. If she can read 4 out of 5 letters but cannot comfortably read words , then mark the child at Letter Level. If the child is not at letter level (cannot recognize 4 out of 5 letters chosen), then mark the child at Nothing Level. IN THE SURVEY SHEET, MARK THE CHILD AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL SHE CAN REACH.
ASER 2011 37

ASER 2011 : Arithmetic tasks

All children were assessed using a simple arithmetic tool. The arithmetic test has 4 categories:

Number recognition 1 to 9: randomly chosen numbers between 1 to 9 Number recognition 11 to 99: randomly chosen numbers between 11 to 99 Subtraction: 2 digit numerical problems with borrowing Division: 3 digit by 1 digit numerical problems.

Sample: Arithmetic test

Similar tests developed in all languages

38

ASER 2011

How to test arithmetic?

SUBTRACTION: 2 DIGIT WITH BORROWING START HERE:
Show the child the subtraction problems. She can choose a problem, if not you can point. Ask the child what the numbers are and then ask her to identify the subtraction sign. If the child is able to identify the numbers and the sign, ask her to write and solve the problem. Observe to see if the answer is correct. Even if the first subtraction problem is answered wrong, still ask the child to solve the second question with the same method. If the child makes a careless mistake, then give her another chance with the same question.

If she cannot do both subtraction problems correctly, then give her the number recognition (1199) task. Even if the child can do one subtraction problem correctly, give her the number recognition (11-99) task.

If she does both the subtraction problems correctly, ask her to do a division problem.

NUMBER RECOGNITION (11-99)

Point one by one to 5 numbers. Child can also choose. Ask her to identify the numbers. If she can correctly identify at least 4 out of 5 numbers then mark her as a child who can recognize numbers from 11-99.

DIVISION 3 digit by 1 digit

Show the child the division problems. She can choose one to try. If not, then you pick one. Ask her to write and solve the problem. Observe what she does. If she is able to correctly solve the problem, then mark her as a child who can do division. Note: The quotient and the remainder both have to be correct. If the child makes a careless mistake, then give her another chance with the same question.

If she cannot recognize numbers from 11-99, then give her the number recognition (1-9) task.

If the child is unable to solve a division problem correctly, mark her as a child who can do subtraction.

NUMBER RECOGNITION (1-9)

Point one by one to 5 numbers. Child can also choose. Ask her to identify numbers. If she can correctly identify at least 4 out of 5 numbers then mark her as a child who can recognize numbers from 1-9. If not, mark her as a child who cannot recognize numbers or nothing.

IN THE SURVEY SHEET, MARK THE CHILD AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL SHE CAN REACH.
ASER 2011 39

What to do in a school?
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Visit any government school in the village with classes from Std 1 to 7/8. If there is no school in the village which has classes from 1 to 7/8, then visit the government school with the highest enrollment in Std 1 to 4/ 5. If the village does not have a government school with primary classes, do not visit any school. In the top box of the School Observation Sheet, put a tick according to the school type. Note the time of entry, date and day of visit to the school. Meet the Head Master(HM). If the HM is absent, then meet the senior most teacher of the school. Explain the purpose and history of ASER and give the Letter to the HM. Be very polite. Assure the HM and teachers that the name of the school will not be shared with anybody. Ask the HM for the enrollment registers or any official document on the enrollment in that school.

Section 1: Childrens Enrollment & Attendance

Ask to see the registers of all the standards and fill in the enrollment. If a standard/class has many sections, then take total enrollment. Then move around to the classes/areas where children are seated and take down their attendance classwise by counting them yourself. You may need to seek help from the teachers to distinguish children class-wise as they are normally found seated in mixed groups. In such a case, ask children from each standard to raise their hands. Count the number of raised hands and accordingly fill the same in the observation sheet, class wise. Please note that only children who are physically present in the class while you are counting should be included. Attendance of class with many sections: Take headcount of the individual sections, add them up and then write down the total attendance.

Section 2: Note the official language used as the medium of instruction Section 3: Teachers

Ask the HM and note down the number of teachers appointed. The number of regular government teachers does not include the Head Master. Acting HM will be counted as a regular teacher. HM on deputation will be counted under the regular HM category. If the school has para-teachers, mark them separately. In many states para-teachers are called by different names such as Shiksha Mitra, education volunteer etc. Observe and count how many HMs/teachers are present and note the information.

Section 4: Classroom Observations- ONLY FOR STD 2 and STD 4

This section is for Std. 2 and Std. 4 only. If there is more than one section for a class, then randomly choose any one to observe. You may need to seek help from the teachers to distinguish children class-wise as they are normally found seated in mixed groups. Observe the seating arrangement of children. See whether children of each class are sitting alone or with children of other classes. Observe where children are sitting (in classroom, in the verandah or outside) and fill accordingly. Observe whether there is a blackboard where they are sitting and what is the condition of the blackboard (write on the blackboard) and fill accordingly. Observe if there was any other teaching material available like charts on the wall, board games etc. where they are sitting. (Material painted on the walls of the classroom does not count as teaching material.)

Section 5: Mid Day Meal (MDM)

Ask the HM/any other teacher whether the MDM was served in the school on the day of the visit today.

40

ASER 2011

Observe if there is a kitchen/shed for cooking the MDM. Observe whether the MDM was served in the school on the day of the visit. (Look for the evidence of the MDM in the school like dirty utensils or meal bought from outside). Mark accordingly.

Section 6: Facilities in the school

Count the total number of pucca rooms in the school excluding toilets and kitchen shed. Then count the number of rooms being used for teaching purposes. Observe if there is an office/store/office cum store. Mark yes if you observe any one of these. Observe if there is a play ground (Definition of Playground: it should be within the school premises with a level playing field and/or school playing equipment eg: slide, swings etc). Observe if there are library books in the school (Even if kept in a cupboard). Observe if library books are being used by children. Observe if there is a hand pump/tap which can be used for drinking water and if so, whether you could drink the water. If not, check whether any other drinking water facility is available.

Observe if the school has a complete boundary wall or complete fencing. Observe if there are computers in the school to be used by children and if yes, then did you see children using computers.

Section 7: School Grant Information (SSA) Assure the HM and others that the name of the school will not be shared with anybody. Ask the person answering this section about the grants very politely. If the person refuses to answer or is hesitant to answer this section, then do not force the person and move on to the next section.

For this section, note down information separately for financial year 2010-11 (1st Apr 2010 31st March 2011) and financial year 2011-12 (1st Apr 2011 until the date of the survey). The HM should be asked this section (In the absence of the Head Master, ask the senior most teacher present). Tick the type of school/standard and the designation of the person being asked (Head Master/ Regular teacher/ Para teacher). In case of school with Std. 1-7/8 with 2 separate HMs, and with separate SSA bank accounts, please take the grants information for the primary section (Std. 1-4/5) only.

Section 8: SSA Annual Grants This section is divided into two parts one for financial year 2010-11 (1st Apr 2010 31st Mar 2011) and one for financial year 2011-12 (1st Apr 2011 until the date of the survey). For each time period, ask if the school got four grants viz. School Maintenance Grant (SMG), School grant or School Development Grant (SDG), Teachers Grant/ Teacher Learning Material (TLM) and new classroom grant. If yes, then put a tick under Yes column Otherwise:

If the HM/ the respondent says that he/she has not received the grant or says that he/she is going to receive the grant in the future, then mark under No column. If the HM/ respondent has no knowledge of whether or not the school has received the grant, then mark under Dont know column.

If school has received the grant, then ask whether the entire amount was spent or not. Keep the following points in mind while marking this question:

ASER 2011

41

Did you spend the full amount: Mark Yes only if the full amount was spent. Mark No if nothing has been spent or any amount less than full has been spent. Mark Dont know, if the HM is not aware of whether the money has been spent or not.

Please Note: If there is a school with standards 1-7/8, and there are 2 HMs and 2 SSA bank accounts for section 1-4/5 and 5/6 -7/8, then note the grant information only for the primary section (Standard 1-4/5). Section 9: Activities carried out in the school (Since April 2010) This section has two parts. First we want to know whether the listed activities have taken place. Second we want to know which grant was used to undertake the activity. Ask if the school has done white wash /plastering, painting blackboard/ display board, building repairs (roof, floor, wall) etc, since April 2010. Then tick the appropriate box and then mark the grant under which this activity was undertaken. Note: There can be 3 different answers to this question. First option is SDG and/or SMG. If either SDG or SMG was used, then please tick SDG/SMG or both. If TLM was used, then please tick TLM. If its neither of these 3 grants but some other grant/source, then please tick on Any other grant and if the respondent says that the activity has happened but he doesnt remember the grant, then please tick on Dont know. Section 10: Meeting with officials Take information for this section only from the HM. If the HM is not available, then skip this section. How often does the HM meet the officials at the Block, Cluster and District level: Mark accordingly.

If the HM says once in 14-15 days or twice a month or fortnightly, please mark 2 times a month. If the HM says once in 29-30 days or once in a month, please mark under monthly. If the HM says once in 2-3 months or 4 times a year or quarterly, please mark Once in 2-3 months. If the HM says twice a year, or once in 6 months, please mark Once in 6 months. If the HM does not meet the particular official at all, please mark Never.

Section 11: Toilet facility in the school

Observe whether the school has a common toilet, a separate toilet for girls, a separate toilet for boys and a separate toilet for teachers. Ask the HM/ any teacher/ any child if you cannot tell who the toilets are for. For each type of toilet facility that you find in the school, note whether it is locked or not. If it was not locked, note whether it was usable or not. If 2 common toilets or other type of toilets are there in the school then take information about the toilet which is in a better condition.

IMPORTANT: After filling out the School Observation sheet, get the HMs name and contact number. Write this information in the relevant box given on the top right of pg 2 in the format. This is essential for recheck purposes.

42

ASER 2011

School and home language information in ASER 2011

The Right to Education Act recommends that the childs medium of instruction shall, as far as practicable, be in the childs mother tongue (Chapter V, Section 29, Clause 2 (f)). Several studies have indicated that children whose home language is different from the school language have lower attendance and learning levels.1 Given this background, for the first time in ASER, in 2011 we recorded the childs home language. This enables us to see how many children have a home language background that is different from the medium of instruction in school. Given the multiplicity of Indian languages and dialects, finalising a list of languages that could be used for the survey was a mammoth task in itself. As a starting point, we took into consideration the list of 22 scheduled languages mentioned in Census 2001.2 We also consulted experts at the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore. Their suggestion was that in addition to the list of scheduled languages list, we could also include a list of 100 non-scheduled languages. A further list of 234 mother-tongue languages was also suggested.3 (In the Mother tongue list, Hindi is listed in 49 different ways!) Including all three lists would have given us a list with over 350 languages. While this would have made the survey much more comprehensive, it posed quite a few problems for our volunteers and for data analysis. All these languages would have to be coded and extreme care would have to be taken in the field to fill in the codes correctly, which would have proved to be a cumbersome and complicated process in the field. Hence, given that this was our first attempt to engage with the question of language, we decided to use the list of 22 scheduled and 100 non-scheduled languages from Census 2001. For data collection, ASER volunteers were given the following instructions:

Ask the child or any adult in the household which language is spoken at home, by the family members. Refer to the list of languages and put in the appropriate code in the given box. If the family says they speak more than one language in the household, then find out which is the main language spoken at home. Accordingly, write ONLY ONE LANGUAGE CODE in the household format. Write down the code of the language mentioned by the respondent, regardless of what you may think the household speaks at home. If this language is not in the Language Code List, then write 999. For eg., if the respondent says Avadhi is the language spoken at home, and Avadhi is not coded in the Language Code List, then write 999.

1 See for example: Mohanty et al (eds) 2009), Just Multilingual Education, New Delhi: Orient Longman; Heugh, Kathleen et al (2007), Study on Medium of Instruction in Primary Schools in Ethiopia; Bhattacharjea, Wadhwa and Banerji (2011), Inside Primary schools, New Delhi: ASER Centre. 2 [Link] 3 [Link]

ASER 2011

43

Sample household survey sheet - English

44

ASER 2011

Sample household survey sheet - Hindi

ASER 2011

45

Sample village information sheet - English

46

ASER 2011

Sample village information sheet - Hindi

ASER 2011

47

Sample school observation sheet - English

48

ASER 2011

ASER 2011

49

Sample school observation sheet - Hindi

50

ASER 2011

ASER 2011

51

Village map

52

ASER 2011

re National Pictu The

ASER 2011

53

54

ASER 2011

ASER 2011

55

56

ASER 2011

ASER 2011

57

58

ASER 2011

ASER 2011

59

60

ASER 2011

ASER 2011 (Rural) Findings

The proportion of children currently not enrolled in school is declining

In ASER 2011, the proportion of children in the 6-14 age group not currently enrolled in school is 3.3%, down from 6.6% in 2006. In 2010, this number was 3.4%. 11 to 14 year old girls are the hardest to keep in school. Rural India shows substantial progress on this front. The figure for out of school girls (11-14) was 10.3% in 2006. It has declined to 5.2% in 2011. Many of the states that had a high proportion (over 10%) of 11-14 year old girls out of school in 2006 have made significant progress. In 2011, this proportion was lower than the All India average of 5.2% in states like Bihar (4.5%), West Bengal (4.3%) and Chhattisgarh (4.3%). Uttar Pradesh has shown the least progress with 11.1% girls in this age group out of school in 2006 and 9.7% in 2011. Substantial numbers of five year old children are enrolled in school. The All India figure stands at 57.8% for 2011. This proportion varies across states, ranging from 87.1% in Nagaland to 18.8% in Karnataka.

Private school enrollment is rising in most states

Nationally, private school enrollment has risen year after year for the 6-14 age group, increasing from 18.7% in 2006 to 25.6% in 2011. Two states in the country, Kerala and Manipur, have more than 60% of children enrolled in private schools. In both these states the proportion of aided private schools is high. According to ASER 2011 data, between 30 to 60% of children in rural areas of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh are enrolled in private schools. Tamil Nadu shows an increase of 11.6 percentage points in private school enrollment between 2007 and 2011. In Uttar Pradesh, private school enrollment has increased from 39.3% in 2010 to 45.4% in 2011.

Reading levels showing decline in many states

Nationally, reading levels have declined in many states across North India. The All India figure for the proportion of children in Std V able to read a Std 2 level text has dropped from 53.7% in 2010 to 48.2% in 2011. However, in a few states there is good news. In Gujarat, Punjab and Tamil Nadu the numbers for 2011 are better than for 2010. Several states in the north-eastern region of India also show positive change. Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh numbers remain unchanged from last year. Similar trends are observed in the proportion of Std III children able to read at least a Std I level text. In addition to the states mentioned above, Himachal Pradesh does not show any decline in Std III reading levels.

Arithmetic levels also show a decline across most states

Basic arithmetic levels also show a decline. Nationally, the proportion of Std III children able to solve a 2 digit subtraction problem with borrowing has dropped from 36.3% in 2010 to 29.9% in 2011. This decline is visible in almost every state; only Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu show improvements from 2010 to 2011. Several states in the north-eastern region of India also show positive change. There is no change in arithmetic levels for Std III in Gujarat. Among Std V children the ability to do the same task has dropped from 70.9% in 2010 to 61.0% in 2011.

ASER 2011

61

A quarter of all rural children attend primary schools where the medium of instruction is different from their home language1

ASER 2011 recorded childrens home and school language for the first time. The data indicates that childrens home language was different from the schools medium of instruction for one out of four children surveyed. This figure does not include most states of the North East or Jammu & Kashmir.2

Incidence of tuition is higher in Eastern states

In both government and private schools, between 20 to 25% of all children attend paid tuition classes outside school. This number varies considerably by state and by grade level. The proportion of children going to paid tutors remains high in the Eastern states of Odisha, Bihar and West Bengal, where private school enrollment is very low. Kerala is another state with a high incidence of tuition.

School observations
The school information reported in ASER is collected during a visit to one government school with primary sections in each sampled village. Teachers attendance is high

In ASER 2011, an average of about 87% of all appointed teachers were observed to be in school on the day of the visit. Gujarat stands out with 95.6% teachers attending in primary schools. Ten major states had teacher attendance figures that were 90% or higher.

Childrens attendance of concern in some states

At the All India level, childrens attendance shows a decline from 73.4% in 2007 to 70.9% in 2011 in rural primary schools. The decline is slightly steeper in upper primary schools, where it decreased from 75.6% in 2007 to 71.9% in 2011. In some states, childrens attendance shows a sharp decline over time: for example in primary schools of Bihar, average attendance of children was 59.0% in 2007 and 50.0% in 2011. In Madhya Pradesh this figure has fallen from 67.0% in 2007 to 54.5% in 2011; in Uttar Pradesh from 64.4% (2007) to 57.3% (2011) and in Manipur from 76.7% in 2007 to 52.3% in 2011.

More than half of all Std 2 and Std 4 classes are multigrade

For Std 2 and Std 4, ASER observes whether children in these classes are sitting together with children from other classes. Nationally, for rural primary schools, more than half of all classes visited were multigrade. For example Std 2 was sitting with one or more other classes in 58.3% of primary schools and 57.6% of schools with upper primary sections. In Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand and Meghalaya, more than 80% of observed Std 2 and 4 classrooms in primary schools were multigrade.

Computers increasingly available in upper primary schools

Almost a third of upper primary schools visited had computers (30.8%). In addition, in several states, the proportion of schools where children were observed using computers was high for example Kerala (78.7%), Tamil Nadu (51.1%), Gujarat (31.0%) and Maharashtra (30.6%). In contrast, only 7.9% of all government primary schools visited had computers. Kerala is a noteworthy exception, with 78.5% of primary schools having computers and 52.3% primary schools where children were observed using them.

1 2

The Right to Education Act states that medium of instructions shall, as far as practicable, be in childs mother tongue (Chapter V:29:f). Please consult the respective state pages for the language tables in these states.

62

ASER 2011

Schools get their grants, but not on time

Between FY 2008-9 and FY 2010-11 the flow of SSA grants to schools improved significantly. However, this improvement occurred largely between FY 2008-9 and 2009-10. In fact a marginal decrease in the proportion of schools receiving grants is observed between FY 2009-10 and 2010-11. The data suggest that schools tend to get their grants during the second half of the fiscal year. There is a slight drop in the proportion of schools receiving grants in the first half of the fiscal year between 2010-11 and 2011-12.

RTE Indicators
Not much change in compliance on PTR and CTR

At the All India level, there has been a marginal improvement in the proportion of schools complying with RTE norms on pupil-teacher ratio, from 38.9% in 2010 to 40.7% in 2011. In 2011, Kerala stands out with 94.1% of schools in compliance, and in Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Manipur, more than 80% schools are in compliance with these norms. At the All India level, there has been a marginal decline in the proportion of schools with at least one classroom per teacher, from 76.2% in 2010 to 74.3% in 2011. In Mizoram, 94.8% of schools comply with the teacher-classroom norms and in Punjab, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra more than 80% of schools are in compliance.

No major changes in building, playground and boundary wall provision

All India figures for 2011 show no significant improvement in the proportion of schools with an office cum store. This figure remains at 74%. Similarly, for the country has a whole, about 62% of visited schools had a playground, both in 2010 and in 2011. However, there has been an increase in the proportion of all schools that have a boundary wall, from 50.9% in 2010 to 54.1% in 2011.

Drinking water provision unchanged

Nationally, the proportion of schools with no provision for drinking water remained almost the same 17.0% in 2010 and 16.6% in 2011. In the North East, the proportion of schools with no water provision ranged from 23.8% in Assam to 87.3% in Manipur in 2011. The proportion of schools with a useable drinking water facility has remained steady at about 73%. Kerala has the best record with 93.8% schools that have a useable drinking water facility.

Better provision of girls toilets

The All India proportion of schools with working toilets has increased marginally from 47.2% in 2010 to 49.1% in 2011. The proportion of schools where there was no separate girls toilet has declined from 31.2% in 2010 to 22.6% in 2011. Also, there has been a substantial improvement in the proportion of schools that have separate girls toilets that are useable. This figure has risen from 32.9% in 2010 to 43.8% in 2011.

More libraries in schools, and more children using them

The proportion of schools without libraries has declined from 37.5% in 2010 to 28.6% in 2011. Children were seen using the library in more schools as well up from 37.9% in 2010 to 42.3% in 2011.

ASER 2011

63

India

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 558 OUT OF 583 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 69.9 68.0 71.5 69.3 74.1 68.7 66.8 70.8 57.0 56.8 57.2 Pvt. 25.6 25.7 25.3 27.8 22.5 25.6 28.0 23.1 27.0 27.9 25.9 Other 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 Not in Total School 3.3 5.3 1.9 1.8 2.1 4.8 4.4 5.2 15.3 14.6 16.1 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 10.3% in 2006 to 7.3% in 2007 to 7.2% in 2008 to 6.8% in 2009 to 5.7% in 2010 to 5.2% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8

7.5 5.0 2.7 7.1 5.8 3.5 8.8

10

11

12
5.5

13

14

15

16 Total
100

26.5 43.0 17.5

4.1 14.6 38.8 28.0 6.3 4.1 4.3 5.5 3.7 4.9 4.5

3.3 4.5 3.4 3.8 6.8 5.6 9.9

100 100 100 100 100 100 4.1 100

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

12.0 41.8 23.6 11.3 13.8 34.7 30.9

8.3 42.9 24.0 12.1 12.5 35.0 33.3

9.5 42.5 27.2 10.3 13.8 39.1 28.7

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 41.8% children are 8 years old but there are also 12.0% who are 7, 23.6% who are 9, 11.3% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 25.9 5.9 10.3 5.0 36.8 60.3
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

19.8 24.3

1.3 1.5

6.0 3.0

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

65

India
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 38.4 16.6 8.5 4.7 3.5 1.7 1.2 1.0 10.4

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Letter 39.4 34.6 22.9 14.4 9.7 5.8 4.0 2.6 17.8 Word 15.3 28.3 28.4 21.2 14.6 9.3 6.3 4.3 16.6 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.9 11.8 21.5 25.7 24.1 20.5 16.2 12.7 16.9 3.0 8.7 18.8 34.2 48.2 62.8 72.4 79.4 38.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 8.5% children cannot even read letters, 22.9% can read letters but not more, 28.4% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 21.5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 18.8% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language* % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 74.7 25.4 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language. * This table does not include data for Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, Tripura, Meghalaya, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh. Please consult the respective state pages for the language tables.

66

% Children

ASER 2011

India
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 36.5 15.0 7.5 3.8 2.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 9.5

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 42.2 38.5 26.9 17.2 12.0 7.4 5.0 3.4 20.3 16.9 32.8 35.7 30.6 24.1 18.8 15.4 12.5 23.8 Subtract 3.2 11.0 23.2 32.3 33.5 32.8 30.0 26.3 23.4 Divide 1.2 2.7 6.7 16.1 27.6 39.4 48.3 56.8 22.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 7.5% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 26.9% can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 35.7 % can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 23.2% can do subtraction but not division, and 6.7% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 20.0 23.9 23.9 26.9 22.5 22.5 23.3 21.8

12.0 15.7 19.1 21.3 23.3 23.5 24.3 26.1 19.5 23.0 25.0 25.9 26.2 24.1 25.0 24.8 17.1 20.3 22.3 23.4 25.4 27.6 28.1 30.7 23.3 26.5 28.6 29.8 28.2 26.1 26.4 27.4 15.0 18.2 20.7 22.2 25.2 26.0 26.6 29.0 18.1 20.9 23.4 25.3 23.7 24.0 23.9 22.4 15.8 19.5 21.2 24.0 25.4 25.8 27.7 28.4 18.9 21.1 23.2 23.3 23.1 21.6 22.2 22.4

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

67

India

RURAL

Performance of states
Table 8: School enrollment and learning levels 2011 Out of school State % Children (Age: 6-14) out of school Private school % Children (Age: 6-14) in private school Std I-II : Learning levels % Children (Std I-II) who CAN READ letters, words or more 87.3 87.9 73.0 59.7 75.8 88.4 79.7 81.3 92.3 89.9 63.5 85.3 97.1 65.7 91.2 97.0 86.2 96.2 96.6 67.7 72.5 87.2 65.5 62.8 89.0 63.6 78.1 84.8 72.1 Std III-V : Learning levels

% Children (Std I-II) % Children (Std III-V) % Children (Std III-V) who CAN who CAN READ who CAN DO RECOGNIZE numbers Level 1 (Std 1) SUBTRACTION (1-9) or more text or more or more 89.7 89.8 75.5 62.5 75.0 86.2 79.0 83.8 95.4 91.5 64.0 85.8 96.9 63.9 91.6 96.4 89.6 97.1 97.7 66.0 82.8 90.5 66.5 69.3 92.9 66.0 76.6 88.3 73.8 70.9 65.4 50.3 52.1 52.5 59.4 63.4 69.8 82.1 56.7 48.4 59.7 82.2 44.2 77.9 77.1 61.6 85.6 70.7 56.6 51.7 74.9 52.7 50.0 71.8 47.8 64.2 61.1 57.5 64.5 65.2 35.7 48.4 39.9 41.9 43.4 64.5 75.5 50.9 41.0 47.5 67.5 30.1 56.0 73.1 43.5 85.1 70.8 43.5 49.0 73.6 40.4 41.9 67.9 34.5 50.9 53.8 46.5

Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Daman & Diu Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Odisha Puducherry Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal All India

2.8 3.8 4.2 3.0 2.4 0.0 2.7 1.4 0.6 2.5 4.7 2.8 0.1 2.2 1.1 1.1 5.8 0.6 2.0 3.7 0.0 1.6 4.5 0.9 1.3 6.1 1.1 4.3 3.3

34.7 17.0 14.5 5.5 11.0 22.3 10.8 43.4 26.6 37.7 12.8 20.0 60.8 17.2 30.3 71.1 54.3 13.7 40.9 5.0 45.0 39.6 35.1 27.0 5.0 45.4 31.3 6.3 25.6

68

ASER 2011

India

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

School observations
Table 9: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 9230 4836 9389 8419 8473 5359 5821 5810

14066 14748 14240 14283

Student and teacher attendance

Table 10: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 11: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

73.4 74.3 72.9 70.9 75.6 77.0 73.4 71.9

% Teachers present 90.9 89.1 87.1 87.2 87.3 88.6 86.4 86.7 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

% Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 12.3 11.4 13.2 17.1 11.8 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average)

8.9 12.6 16.1

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.2

53.5 55.3 52.8 49.6 60.6 61.8 53.5 52.3

73.7 69.2 63.9 65.2 53.7 57.1 52.0 51.5

Other school information

Table 12: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 2.2 9.6 2.0 9.0 Table 13: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 92.4 92.1 3.2 4.3 100 4.3 3.6 100 72.1 69.2 13.0 15.1 14.9 15.7 100 100

2.9 3.6 Headteacher appointed but not present at 12.2 9.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 84.9 86.7 of visit Total 100 100

88.3 89.0 100 100

Table 14: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 54.0 47.6 55.8 51.0 55.2 49.0 58.3 53.1 50.4 42.0

Std I-VII/VIII 53.1 43.9 54.0 41.6 57.6 45.6

69

ASER 2011

India

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 2009-2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 2010-2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Maintenance 13169 77.0 13.7 9.3 12277 84.9 5.3 9.9 13764 83.7 9.3 7.0 grant Development 12601 69.7 20.3 10.0 11763 80.5 8.7 10.8 13496 76.7 15.3 8.0 grant TLM grant

DID SCHOOLS GET 11658 87.3MONEY ON TIME? 13172 83.4 10.2 6.5 THEIR 5.9 6.8 13649 85.2 9.7 5.2

Table 16: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch.

Maintenance 11381 57.9 30.4 11.7 11563 59.3 26.5 14.2 13125 55.0 35.2 9.8 grant Development 10941 53.5 34.2 12.3 11082 57.3 28.2 14.5 12856 50.8 38.7 10.5 grant TLM DID SCHOOLS GET 10879 60.5MONEY ON TIME? grant 11330 64.4 26.7 8.9 THEIR 27.6 12.0 12966 53.1 38.4 8.5

Table 17: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 26.2 50.4 47.7 26.4 47.8 38.6 68.4 71.5 59.8 46.1 36.2 89.1 55.5 76.5 68.7 38.8 % schools No 70.0 46.4 49.0 70.1 49.2 58.2 28.9 26.0 37.4 50.2 60.4 8.5 41.3 20.7 27.4 56.3 Don't know 3.9 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.2 2.7 2.5 2.8 3.8 3.4 2.4 3.2 2.7 3.9 4.9
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

70

India

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 2412 1759 1689 1511 2045 4557 17.3 12.6 12.1 10.8 14.6 32.6 2790 1844 1841 1533 1853 4209 19.8 13.1 13.1 10.9 13.2 29.9 Table 19: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 43.4 39.8 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 49.9 60.6 68.7 61.2 71.0 61.1 47.5 58.2 66.7 58.9 73.7 59.4 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

13973 100.0 14070 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 20: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 21: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 1.3 2.2 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 7.4 19.7 30.7 37.2 43.6 34.8 23.8 11.8 22.8 32.2 35.8 48.0 38.8 25.8

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 1478 2198 2008 1678 1295 1005 2796 11.9 17.6 16.1 13.5 10.4 8.1 22.4 1561 2394 2111 1652 1269 937 2704 12.4 19.0 16.7 13.1 10.1 7.4 21.4

12458 100.0 12628 100.0

Table 22: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 74.0 62.0 50.9 17.0 10.3 72.7 10.9 41.8 47.2 31.2 18.7 17.2 32.9 80.7 76.4 37.5 24.6 37.9 82.1 84.4 74.1 62.6 54.1 16.6 9.9 73.5 12.2 38.8 49.1 22.6 15.0 18.7 43.8 82.1 78.2 28.6 29.1 42.3 83.7 87.4

71

ASER 2011

Table 23: Performance of states on Right to Education indicators 2010 and 2011 School Facilities % Schools that have: Boundary wall Toilet available and useable Girls toilet available and useable Drinking water provision & available Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal Library Library TLM TLM books books in use observed in observed in available by children Std 2 Std 4 % Schools that have: Library & Teaching-Learning Materials

Number of schools visited 2010

RURAL

Andhra Pradesh 70.7 64.9 54.2 59.6 87.6 70.9 77.4 49.8 77.3 85.0 77.6 75.0 81.9 41.4 62.9 94.8 61.1 79.1 82.2 83.1 75.0 46.2 80.3 84.7 64.5 74.3 87.9 83.0 79.3 81.3 74.0 74.1 88.6 88.1 88.8 76.6 89.7 78.7 60.8 71.1 67.4 67.8 42.0 50.6 62.0 62.6 55.0 49.4 68.7 67.6 91.2 89.2 51.9 57.2 70.1 60.9 19.0 44.4 67.0 34.1 50.9 78.9 79.5 69.1 71.4 82.8 74.6 83.0 44.5 36.8 40.7 83.6 92.6 63.8 65.6 43.3 35.9 37.0 46.4 70.3 84.0 83.1 72.6 68.0 58.7 80.5 25.3 40.0 57.9 82.2 61.1 68.3 42.3 67.2 54.1 72.7 80.1 92.1 40.7 70.7 35.5 47.8 48.5 71.0 23.4 74.5 82.9 69.5 77.6 40.2 84.4 68.2 63.4 73.5 33.6 41.6 45.5 39.5 13.8 13.9 23.9 9.9 68.1 66.4 72.3 41.7 11.1 6.4 5.1 6.4 40.2 24.5 55.6 53.9 44.4 61.2 65.4 44.6 43.0 47.4 53.4 52.1 47.2 34.2 33.4 85.0 82.5 57.6 58.2 69.0 73.1 53.0 69.4 64.3 61.0 55.6 37.4 37.1 78.5 68.6 50.3 88.3 90.4 76.7 78.8 82.1 86.0 85.7 93.8 58.2 71.6 43.9 31.9 28.9 44.9 43.2 35.2 8.4 24.4 14.8 52.1 30.8 60.0 30.6 51.8 34.7 58.7 49.4 69.9 50.3 48.4 35.1 30.8 30.3 53.9 33.9 59.7 24.0 49.5 23.7 49.1 32.9 71.8 74.3 66.2 71.1 59.0 69.1 75.8 81.9 38.4 44.2 31.8 84.1 84.2 38.5 33.8 26.8 24.7 73.8 80.6 26.8 37.5 20.9 36.6 73.4 41.1 92.8 68.6 98.1 23.4 89.8 42.6 78.3 15.3 59.2 18.6 59.4 33.1 96.5 49.7 81.9 46.8 74.3 56.2 94.6 66.3 83.8 42.7 96.7 21.9 88.4 47.4 89.3 53.3 96.3 41.2 86.0 43.8 82.1 82.0 52.7 28.7 46.6 36.3 22.4 75.5 76.9 76.0 70.0 37.3 42.4 83.2 81.8 56.0 68.5 38.7 64.9 82.0 89.3 70.9 75.7 94.0 97.8 86.7 74.9 43.9 69.6 98.6 92.1 78.5 93.9 84.5 96.5 90.4 94.7 94.2 87.0 83.7 85.9 80.3 79.9 79.1 82.4 84.0 74.6 78.3 67.9 70.1 52.8 68.0 51.0 61.0 80.2 82.8 75.4 83.2 84.5 91.1 79.4 83.9 64.8 69.5 49.9 67.7 88.4 92.0 78.6 76.3 44.7 46.0 48.5 49.1 77.6 73.3 29.6 26.8 20.0 20.7 86.2 87.0 72.9 78.7 83.8 83.0 64.6 78.2 80.3 88.6 50.7 61.6 73.5 92.4 92.6 83.1 98.1 56.3 58.7 86.1 83.8 9.2 7.1 22.0 36.3 6.4 27.1 13.3 9.0 65.3 84.7 96.0 94.4 63.7 67.1 79.1 76.8 35.4 28.3 48.7 77.1 47.7 82.3 49.5 60.8 62.5 71.4 68.6 66.1 48.0 48.9 47.5 47.0 78.7 83.8 33.6 45.7 18.1 35.4 63.6 71.4 52.9 61.2 57.3 54.1 61.5 56.5 19.3 23.3 60.9 64.6 33.1 37.8 13.7 27.4 80.0 81.5 20.8 28.1 77.0 78.3 59.2 67.3 25.1 36.7 53.2 60.7 25.3 30.3 12.2 22.0 64.0 63.7 13.0 19.7 6.3 9.1

632

Number of schools visited 2011

ASER 2011

India

State

PTR & Classrooms

% Schools complying with: Playground Norms for Norms for Office/ pupil teacher Store/ teacher classroom Office Cum ratio ratio Store

2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 66.5 64.7 69.9 70.3 68.6 52.7 49.2 64.8 60.8 38.6 33.4 25.4 28.1 66.9 62.8 92.0 94.7 77.6 73.9 90.2 39.4 71.4 70.8 36.5 38.4 48.5 44.2 31.6 42.6 41.3 42.4 26.8 28.4 38.2 64.8 57.8 62.4 70.8 29.1 31.5 66.5 54.3 5.9 1.6 15.6 31.3 1.7 12.1 9.2 3.3 46.8 66.5 66.0 70.4 23.3 31.7 57.8 55.2 19.8 23.9 22.9 37.2 20.4 40.5 31.8 42.0 37.9 42.3 82.9 97.3 98.5 83.9 97.2 48.7 40.0 40.2 48.3 81.3 91.8 76.1 95.4 52.7 73.5 82.4 71.7 80.7 88.5 95.6 72.2 91.5 88.3 52.1 71.1 72.1 86.1 97.0 73.7 89.8 71.7 78.6 95.8 98.8 82.3 96.4 23.0 51.3 53.3 51.7 84.2 95.0 80.0 92.8 35.6 79.0 87.3 78.0 82.1 87.6 87.2 34.4 48.8 67.1 72.2 64.1 66.3 83.2 78.9 94.8 96.2 67.6 67.1 87.5 89.0 68.8 76.1 74.3 92.6 90.4 96.6 94.1 81.0 77.2 94.7 95.9 38.4 20.6 26.8 46.5 36.0 51.0 43.5 48.9 76.9 81.8 89.2 90.6 72.1 74.7 93.3 92.5 32.3 35.9 69.6 74.2 79.1 82.1 65.3 71.6 76.4 78.2

642 61.7

56.4 53.4

Arunachal Pradesh

259

207 78.0

70.4 79.8

Assam

519

510 33.6

29.0 67.7

10.5 13.6 28.2 31.8

Bihar

967

1022

8.8

5.3 48.2

Chhattisgarh

425

392 39.6

51.3 64.2

Gujarat

623

650 62.7

62.0 84.2

Haryana

528

389 40.3

41.2 75.1

Himachal Pradesh

261

274 60.6

65.3 76.7

Jammu & Kashmir

357

87.5

Jharkhand

547

537 11.2

15.3 81.2

Karnataka

769

781 69.4

71.2 82.8

Kerala

275

328 89.2

94.1 80.3

Madhya Pradesh

1219

1195 19.4

21.5 81.4

Maharashtra

902

829 58.9

62.9 87.6

Manipur

125

133 74.3

88.1 62.5

Meghalaya

110

85 54.3

51.4 84.2

Mizoram

174

148 89.1

75.2 57.6

Nagaland

223

217 91.9

85.5 78.6

Odisha

741

769 22.5

25.7 74.0

Punjab

449

489 34.9

30.4 76.9

Rajasthan

896

872 46.4

47.4 82.0

Tamil Nadu

662

683 47.0

52.3 75.2

Tripura

98

94 68.5

75.0 60.0

Uttar Pradesh

1896

1900 16.1

16.5 81.6

Uttarakhand

337

297 13.7

16.3 87.4

West Bengal

408

401 26.2

34.4 64.8

All India

14240

14283 38.9

40.7 76.2

72

sh Andhra Prade adesh Arunachal Pr Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat

Andhra Pradesh
Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 62.3 61.1 59.9 54.9 64.8 66.4 63.1 69.5 50.7 48.9 52.4 Pvt. 34.7 32.9 38.7 44.1 33.5 28.3 32.5 24.2 28.4 31.9 25.2 Other 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 Not in Total School 2.8 5.7 1.1 0.8 1.4 5.1 4.2 6.0 20.7 19.1 22.2 100 100

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 22 OUT OF 22 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 8.6% in 2006 to 8.1% in 2007 to 6.6% in 2008 to 10.8% in 2009 to 6.6% in 2010 to 6.0% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

% Children

100

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8

8.0

10

11

12

13
3.5 3.5

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

24.2 44.2 20.1

2.4 14.1 49.1 22.7 8.3 1.6 2.5 2.7 1.6 1.8 2.9 13.8 47.6 24.0 9.0 8.2

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

4.0 3.5 2.5 6.4 6.7 1.3 1.8 6.8

14.9 48.8 22.1

7.9 55.7 21.9 9.2 11.8 48.7 30.3

10.7 54.5 24.6

13.0 55.3 21.9

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 47.6% children are 8 years old but there are also 13.8% who are 7, 24.0% who are 9, 9.0% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 16.4 1.3 18.8 9.6 33.0 49.0
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

30.0 39.2

0.1 0.2

1.8 0.8

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

75

Andhra Pradesh
Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 19.6 5.7 2.8 1.7 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 4.4 Letter 48.7 27.7 11.9 5.9 3.9 1.8 1.9 0.8 13.8 Word 25.1 40.4 31.1 18.0 11.1 6.8 4.4 2.5 18.5 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 4.2 15.5 29.9 31.1 23.7 20.0 13.4 10.2 18.9 2.4 10.8 24.3 43.3 60.1 70.9 80.0 86.1 44.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

RURAL

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 2.8% children cannot even read letters, 11.9% can read letters but not more, 31.1% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 29.9% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 24.3% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 69.2 30.8 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

76

% Children

ASER 2011

Andhra Pradesh
Arithmetic
Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 16.5 4.0 1.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.5 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 42.1 21.1 7.6 2.8 2.3 0.6 0.9 0.4 10.5 37.3 54.9 44.5 27.6 18.3 11.5 10.9 9.2 28.0 Subtract 3.4 17.5 39.9 44.7 40.1 35.2 29.0 24.6 29.4 Divide 0.7 2.4 6.1 23.9 38.2 52.2 58.8 65.4 28.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

RURAL

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 1.9% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 7.6% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 44.5% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 39.9% can do subtraction but not division, and 6.1% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 17.8 30.9 22.9 36.7 13.9 26.3 14.5 26.8

11.0 16.4 17.0 18.6 20.8 17.3 24.6 13.5 24.8 29.0 33.1 31.5 37.6 31.7 36.7 28.5 21.2 22.9 24.7 22.3 24.7 22.4 24.1 19.8 31.6 40.6 36.7 37.4 37.1 40.4 35.3 39.2 12.0 13.7 14.7 14.7 12.6 17.3 13.2 13.0 23.5 26.3 25.0 29.8 26.4 32.9 22.9 24.4 11.6 14.8 16.7 16.2 18.4 12.6 14.6 9.8 20.0 25.1 27.6 29.0 31.5 29.8 26.4 29.5

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

77

Andhra Pradesh
Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 379 229 608 477 156 633 475 157 632 510 132 642

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

75.9 76.1 72.4 75.2 77.4 76.9 72.6 74.4

% Teachers present (average) 86.4 80.1 83.0 85.5 84.0 81.2 82.7 77.0 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

4.5

5.3

8.5

4.8

2.6

3.2

9.0

3.1

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

58.0 59.3 50.0 55.5 62.7 61.9 49.4 50.4

59.9 43.6 49.7 56.1 33.5 30.4 30.4 24.4

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.0 0.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 92.3 95.2 2.1 5.5 100 2.2 2.6 100 85.8 84.5 5.8 4.7

1.1 0.3 Headteacher appointed but not present at 15.5 9.8 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 83.4 90.0 of visit Total 100 100

13.7 10.3 86.3 89.7 100 100

8.4 10.9 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 54.4 46.9 66.3 58.6 62.9 53.9 63.6 58.7 50.5 37.1

Std I-VII/VIII 59.9 52.5 55.6 48.7 48.8 44.1

78

ASER 2011

Andhra Pradesh
School funds and activities (PAISA)

RURAL

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 6.0 6.6 631 623 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 604 grant Development 586 grant TLM grant

86.8 6.5 6.8 77.5 15.2 7.3

601 91.4 2.7 589 87.8 5.6

92.4 4.0 3.7 88.4 7.5 4.0

The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

DID SCHOOLS5.7 5.0 THEIR MONEY ON TIME? GET 595 92.1 3.7 4.2 623 91.0 5.8 3.2 600 89.3
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 18.7 74.0 7.3 15.4 76.7 7.9

Maintenance 466 grant Development 455 grant

576 62.2 21.7 16.2 552 58.2 26.3 15.6

606 64.9 26.6 8.6 598 62.7 28.3 9.0

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY600 58.3 33.0 8.7 grant 454 18.7 74.5 6.8 545 54.3 31.0 14.7
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 23.6 37.9 44.8 15.4 41.1 37.7 61.8 73.9 39.8 43.0 72.3 93.8 40.3 87.5 69.2 72.3 % schools No 73.9 59.3 51.9 81.0 55.8 58.8 36.0 23.2 57.2 53.7 24.7 4.0 56.4 10.4 26.4 24.9 Don't know 2.5 2.8 3.3 3.6 3.2 3.5 2.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.1 2.2 3.3 2.0 4.4 2.8
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

79

Andhra Pradesh
Right to Education indicators
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 161 122 115 97 77 56 25.6 19.4 18.3 15.5 12.3 8.9 186 131 106 91 68 52 29.3 20.7 16.7 14.4 10.7 8.2

RURAL

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 53.2 59.2 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 43.0 32.1 40.4 16.9 24.1 38.3 48.8 35.0 41.6 13.7 36.0 43.6

As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books.

628 100.0

634 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 1.4 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 18.0 34.3 66.7 63.0 76.2 73.2 46.7 11.5 32.1 42.6 49.0 64.3 68.1 33.5

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 82 88 65 89 88 63 102 14.2 15.3 11.3 15.4 15.3 10.9 17.7 97 97 88 83 84 49 81 16.8 16.8 15.2 14.3 14.5 8.5 14.0

577 100.0

579 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 64.7 70.3 52.7 22.8 12.4 64.8 23.4 38.1 38.6 53.1 9.2 12.3 25.4 90.2 87.6 8.0 14.4 77.6 66.9 99.1 69.9 68.6 49.2 23.1 16.2 60.8 24.6 42.0 33.4 39.9 10.2 21.8 28.1 88.3 87.2 5.4 20.8 73.9 62.8 99.1

80

ASER 2011

Arunachal Pradesh
Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 78.9 79.3 78.3 77.9 79.0 81.9 81.3 82.6 77.2 76.2 78.4 Pvt. 17.0 15.3 18.2 19.3 16.7 13.6 14.8 12.1 10.3 11.3 9.0 Other 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.6 Not in Total School 3.8 5.0 3.2 2.4 4.2 4.3 3.5 5.3 11.8 11.6 12.1 100 100

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 11 OUT OF 13 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 8.7% in 2006 to 6.9% in 2007 to 5.6% in 2008 to 5.7% in 2009 to 4% in 2010 to 5.3% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

% Children

100

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8

8.7 6.6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 Total
100

34.1 32.4 15.8

9.0 5.5 9.9 9.2 8.2 5.8 8.9 5.9 5.2

10.1 16.0 34.0 18.3 9.5 2.6

100 100 100 100 5.1 100 9.1 100

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

9.2 14.8 26.4 20.2 16.9 6.5 14.2 22.6 23.2 10.4 11.1 8.7 6.8 8.1 4.0 10.0 32.4 12.8 16.1

2.7

13.5 15.2 27.9 17.4

6.4 23.3 22.5 17.5 13.3

12.6 18.4 26.5 22.4 16.1 100

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 26.4% children are 8 years old but there are also 14.8% who are 7, 20.2 % who are 9, 16.9% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 7.6 4.0 8.3 3.8 52.1 66.7
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

21.8 20.8

0.3 0.2

10.0 4.6

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

81

Arunachal Pradesh
Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 17.5 6.8 3.8 1.1 1.6 1.4 0.4 0.7 4.8 Letter 41.4 26.4 13.0 8.2 5.6 3.1 3.8 2.4 14.9 Word 32.2 42.3 35.6 20.8 11.6 6.7 5.3 3.9 22.8 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 6.2 15.7 27.0 31.9 26.0 19.0 15.7 13.3 20.0 2.7 8.8 20.6 38.0 55.2 69.7 74.8 79.7 37.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

RURAL

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 3.8% children cannot even read letters, 13% can read letters but not more, 35.6% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 27% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 20.6% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language

%Children who took the reading test in:

% Children

Of the % Children who tested in: Adi 25.0

% Children whose home language was: Mishmi 13.7 Monpa 6.0 Miri/Mishing 4.4 Other * 50.8 Total 100

English Hindi Total

95.6 4.4 100.0

English

* 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above. Data for home language of children tested in Hindi has not been reported here due to small cell sizes.

Note: In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Even though English is the primary language of instruction in government schools, children were given the choice of reading either in English or Hindi. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This included 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

82

ASER 2011

Arunachal Pradesh
Arithmetic
Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 14.8 5.7 4.2 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.7 4.4 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 35.7 21.0 12.7 6.9 6.5 2.7 2.4 1.3 12.8 43.5 52.6 37.7 18.0 12.9 7.7 6.9 3.5 26.2 Subtract 4.1 16.1 35.4 49.1 39.3 30.9 24.3 20.5 27.9 Divide 2.0 4.7 10.0 24.3 40.2 57.4 65.0 73.9 28.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

RURAL

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 4.2% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 12.7% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 37.7% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 35.4% can do subtraction but not division, and 10% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 7.8 9.4 8.6 7.8 II 8.2 III IV V VI VII VIII Total 10.5 45.5 11.9 48.3 9.3 35.0 8.8 27.0

8.9 11.1 11.9 13.1 10.8 17.9

37.1 40.5 48.6 54.6 50.1 55.4 34.3 43.3 9.5 11.5 12.1 10.9 12.8 15.4 16.5 8.6 8.1 8.4 10.6 10.0 10.0 10.4 7.3 10.0 8.8 9.8 8.6 50.3 48.5 50.7 51.7 45.4 49.1 37.1 43.3 51.0 26.9 28.5 36.3 34.4 42.1 38.9 25.8 9.5 10.7 30.1 25.8 28.9 21.9 28.0 27.1 27.1 26.3

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

83

Arunachal Pradesh
Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 135 105 240 138 138 276 152 107 259 136 71 207

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

80.9 86.6 82.8 77.9 79.7 88.1 82.0 82.5

% Teachers present (average) 91.3 82.7 86.1 76.2 82.3 80.9 84.2 79.4 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

7.0

0.7

5.5

6.7

9.2

1.5

5.1

1.4

1.0

2.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.6

71.1 89.6 86.3 65.7 73.5 94.0 78.8 74.3

77.0 54.1 57.0 44.0 39.0 30.3 36.7 32.8

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 1.5 0.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 99.3 96.3 0.0 0.7 100 3.7 0.0 100 66.4 67.7 15.4 17.7 18.3 14.5 100 100

2.5 0.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 6.3 16.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 91.3 83.3 of visit Total 100 100

1.5 13.3 97.1 86.7 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 40.0 41.5 54.1 46.1 35.4 28.6 27.1 24.8 32.0 23.7

Std I-VII/VIII 44.7 38.5 23.7 23.9 18.5 21.9

84

ASER 2011

Arunachal Pradesh
School funds and activities (PAISA)
Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2010-2011

RURAL

Yes

Yes

Yes

% Schools No Dont know

Maintenance 256 grant Development 253 grant TLM grant

55.1 32.4 12.5 49.8 36.0 14.2

225 80.4 8.0 11.6 215 67.0 12.6 20.5

199 63.8 17.6 18.6 194 60.3 18.6 21.1

The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY194 65.5 18.0 16.5 ON TIME? 255 69.0 20.0 11.0 223 82.5 11.2 6.3
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 34.5 41.2 24.3 30.2 42.8 27.0

Maintenance 226 grant Development 222 grant

185 30.8 49.7 19.5 184 29.9 50.0 20.1

188 34.0 42.0 23.9 185 30.3 44.3 25.4

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY183 27.9 48.6 23.5 grant 218 46.8 31.7 21.6 184 31.0 50.0 19.0

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

85

Arunachal Pradesh
Right to Education indicators
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 83 48 27 20 32 35 33.9 19.6 11.0 8.2 13.1 14.3 66 41 36 20 17 24 32.4 20.1 17.7 9.8 8.3 11.8

RURAL

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 18.5 13.7 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 23.8 23.1 20.0 11.5 42.9 22.0 33.3 23.5 50.0 37.5 52.6 29.6

As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books.

245 100.0

204 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 71.4 33.3 20.3 9.1 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.3 29.3

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 15 29 24 29 24 18 78 6.9 13.4 11.1 13.4 11.1 8.3 35.9 11 34 27 22 12 4 61 6.4 19.9 15.8 12.9 7.0 2.3 35.7

217 100.0

171 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 77.0 59.2 25.1 36.9 9.9 53.2 20.8 53.9 25.3 60.4 11.3 16.2 12.2 39.4 34.4 87.0 6.7 6.3 64.0 47.2 78.3 67.3 36.7 30.4 9.0 60.7 30.8 39.0 30.3 51.2 17.9 8.9 22.0 52.1 48.8 80.3 10.6 9.1 63.7 47.5

86

ASER 2011

Assam

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 22 OUT OF 23 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 77.8 75.4 80.1 78.7 81.6 75.0 73.2 76.9 62.0 60.3 63.9 Pvt. 14.5 14.4 14.8 15.7 13.7 13.8 14.3 13.4 14.9 13.5 16.5 Other 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.9 3.1 4.1 3.9 4.3 3.4 3.1 3.9 Not in Total School 4.2 6.7 2.2 2.6 1.6 7.1 8.6 5.5 19.6 23.1 15.7 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 5% in 2006 to 9.9% in 2007 to 8.3% in 2008 to 6.4% in 2009 to 7.4% in 2010 to 5.5% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8

7.6

10

11

12

13
4.4 5.9

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100

26.1 40.6 21.2

3.8 14.0 39.2 29.7 7.4 3.2 3.3 5.6 3.9 4.1 3.6 14.1 39.2 28.2 9.9 7.5

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

5.4 7.8 6.7 6.1 6.6 9.8

14.8 30.1 36.5

7.8 39.7 28.1 12.0 11.6 27.7 39.3 11.4

100 100

7.2 36.5 32.3 13.2 13.4 31.8 37.4

4.0 100

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 39.2% children are 8 years old but there are also 14.1% who are 7, 28.2% who are 9, 9.9% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 35.6 6.5 2.9 2.5 45.1 70.9
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

12.5 14.8

1.4 3.4

2.6 2.0

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

87

Assam
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 36.2 16.0 8.5 4.3 3.7 2.6 1.9 2.0 11.0 Letter 40.0 34.8 22.2 15.0 12.6 7.0 4.2 2.8 19.4

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 17.3 30.3 33.7 28.6 20.8 15.9 12.7 8.0 21.7 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 4.2 13.2 20.6 26.7 26.7 25.4 23.0 18.2 19.1 2.3 5.8 14.9 25.4 36.2 49.2 58.1 69.0 28.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 8.5% children cannot even read letters, 22.2% can read letters but not more, 33.7% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 20.6% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 14.9% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Note: This tool was also available in Bodo, Bangla, English and Hindi.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language

%Children who took the reading test in:**

Of the % Children who tested in:** Assamese

% Children

% Children whose home language was: Bengali 17.2 89.7 Bodo 2.5 5.7 Karbi/Mikir 3.1 0.2 Other * 32.8 3.2 Total 100 100

Assamese Bengali Hindi English Total

82.9 14.2 1.6 1.3 100.0

Assamese Bengali

44.5 1.1

* 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above. Data for home language of children tested in Hindi and English has not been reported here due to small cell sizes. ** Data in this table does not include the following districts - Bongaigaon, Darrang, Kokrajhar and Nalbari. The data for these four districts is being processed.

Note: In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction of government schools. In Assam, children were given the choice of reading in Assamese, Bengali, Hindi, English or Bodo. Figures for Bodo have not been included as they are currently being processed. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This included 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

88

ASER 2011

Assam
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 32.9 14.5 6.6 4.3 3.3 2.7 2.2 1.9 9.9

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 48.9 42.9 32.3 21.6 17.4 8.6 7.0 4.4 25.4 14.7 33.6 37.6 37.1 33.0 28.6 22.3 18.7 28.4 Subtract 2.9 8.0 20.4 28.3 32.4 36.5 37.6 36.2 23.4 Divide 0.7 1.0 3.1 8.7 14.0 23.7 31.0 38.8 12.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 6.6% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 32.3% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 37.6% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 20.4% can do subtraction but not division, and 3.1% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 18.2 27.3 18.0 29.6 15.2 28.2 15.0 30.6

7.8 11.4 15.5 17.2 20.6 26.0 28.2 33.7 16.3 30.0 32.2 31.0 24.0 24.4 29.3 38.7 11.0 12.9 13.8 19.0 20.7 23.0 21.6 29.4 24.2 29.0 31.2 40.5 30.7 27.8 30.3 27.9 8.0 9.2 12.6 14.8 17.8 18.5 22.2 26.5 22.6 30.7 24.8 35.1 28.7 28.2 27.7 30.4 6.8 12.5 12.6 15.2 14.7 18.7 21.8 24.3 24.4 29.5 30.2 31.5 34.3 27.9 33.3 36.9

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

89

Assam

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 513 35 548 527 26 553 503 16 519 483 27 510

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

71.2 70.8 69.0 71.1 72.6 65.3 69.6 69.4

% Teachers present (average) 88.3 88.1 90.8 92.8 85.4 81.6 67.7 84.6 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

% Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 13.8 12.4 15.3 11.8 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average)

8.8 16.0 12.5

7.4

0.6

1.1

0.2

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.2

48.1 49.3 45.6 48.1 47.1 36.0 31.3 33.3

70.5 70.6 74.4 79.0 53.9 36.4 20.0 58.3

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.0 0.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 99.0 98.5 1.0 0.0 100 0.4 1.1 100 75.0 80.8 18.8 7.7

0.0 0.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 5.9 3.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 94.1 96.3 of visit Total 100 100

12.5 14.3 87.5 85.7 100 100

6.3 11.5 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 39.0 33.3 55.9 49.0 44.1 41.5 53.4 50.6 36.7 37.5

Std I-VII/VIII 52.0 43.5 33.3 26.7 41.7 38.1

90

ASER 2011

Assam

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 6.6 7.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 489 grant Development 469 grant TLM grant

82.0 14.1 3.9 68.4 27.1 4.5

487 87.7 5.8 442 81.9 10.6

484 78.7 14.1 7.2 474 70.9 21.3 7.8

DID SCHOOLS8.1 2.6 THEIR MONEY 484 87.0 8.5 4.6 GET 466 90.3 4.5 5.2 ON TIME? 504 89.3
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 74.4 21.5 4.2 63.1 31.9 5.0

Maintenance 429 grant Development 404 grant

413 46.0 40.0 14.0 367 43.9 42.8 13.4

452 42.0 46.5 11.5 440 40.0 47.3 12.7

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 449 55.0 36.3 8.7 grant 438 82.2 15.3 2.5 379 50.1 39.3 10.6
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 19.0 38.4 39.0 18.5 32.8 27.5 36.2 41.6 32.1 45.1 15.0 82.6 30.3 61.7 39.2 16.2 % schools No 74.9 58.1 56.4 77.4 63.7 68.6 59.1 54.3 64.2 50.2 80.1 14.4 65.6 35.1 55.9 79.3 Don't know 6.1 3.6 4.6 4.1 3.5 4.0 4.7 4.1 3.7 4.6 4.9 3.0 4.1 3.2 5.0 4.5
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

91

Assam
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 44.4 38.2 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 68.1 84.0 82.5 90.9 90.9 66.4 70.2 90.9 90.6 85.3 90.5 71.0 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 210 91 66 50 52 45 40.9 17.7 12.8 9.7 10.1 8.8 160 94 79 45 49 75 31.9 18.7 15.7 9.0 9.8 14.9

514 100.0

502 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 19.1 42.9 75.0 91.7 100.0 83.3 32.3 25.9 53.7 83.3 60.0 66.7 88.2 35.2

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 137 98 64 33 15 3 32 35.9 25.7 16.8 8.6 3.9 0.8 8.4 119 99 63 30 10 7 23 33.9 28.2 18.0 8.6 2.9 2.0 6.6

382 100.0

351 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 57.3 61.5 19.3 23.2 16.0 60.9 19.1 47.8 33.1 52.2 18.5 15.6 13.7 71.4 67.1 79.2 10.3 10.5 80.0 66.6 54.1 56.5 23.3 23.8 11.7 64.6 13.1 49.2 37.8 34.3 19.3 19.0 27.4 71.1 72.2 71.9 14.5 13.6 81.5 59.6

92

ASER 2011

Bihar

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 37 OUT OF 37 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 90.1 89.4 90.4 89.1 92.0 90.3 89.6 91.2 83.1 82.8 83.7 Pvt. 5.5 5.1 5.9 7.4 4.1 4.7 5.9 3.3 3.4 3.7 2.9 Other 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.5 Not in Total School 3.0 4.1 2.1 2.0 2.3 3.9 3.4 4.5 12.2 12.2 11.9 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 17.6% in 2006 to 9.7% in 2007 to 8.8% in 2008 to 6% in 2009 to 4.6% in 2010 to 4.5% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

7.0 8.9 3.4 8.3 11.7 5.8 8.3 4.9 8.3 6.4 7.9 5.2 8.0

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100

23.4 42.0 17.1 10.4 5.1 15.3 25.2 33.8 7.0 4.8 5.2 7.4 4.4 1.6 6.5

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

9.6 33.7 20.2 20.1 14.4 16.5 37.7

6.8 31.5 19.6 21.0

14.8 16.5 37.7 13.2 6.3

7.2 31.1 25.5 16.4

4.0 100 7.7 100

15.4 23.2 31.5 15.6

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 33.7% children are 8 years old but there are also 9.6% who are 7, 20.2% who are 9, 20.1% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 46.3 12.1 2.9 2.0 40.5 75.5
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

4.8 5.7

1.4 2.0

4.2 2.7

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

93

Bihar
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 53.9 25.9 12.9 7.1 4.7 2.1 1.6 1.6 16.4

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Letter 30.6 35.1 26.2 17.0 10.3 5.9 3.2 1.8 18.7 Word 9.4 23.1 29.1 21.1 13.9 8.3 4.8 3.2 15.5 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.1 8.5 16.5 24.2 21.6 16.6 12.4 9.3 14.0 3.1 7.5 15.4 30.7 49.5 67.0 78.0 84.2 35.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 12.9% children cannot even read letters, 26.2% can read letters but not more, 29.1% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 16.5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 15.4% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 47.0 53.0 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

94

% Children

ASER 2011

Bihar
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 51.0 23.2 11.2 5.5 3.7 2.2 1.4 1.7 14.9

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 35.0 40.5 29.5 18.1 11.7 6.2 3.5 2.1 21.0 9.1 22.7 29.7 26.7 17.5 11.3 8.7 5.6 17.6 Subtract 3.3 9.3 20.7 30.6 30.2 26.8 21.6 16.2 19.3 Divide 1.6 4.4 8.9 19.1 36.9 53.5 64.8 74.3 27.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 11.2% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 29.5% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 29.7% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 20.7% can do subtraction but not division, and 8.9% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 37.7 61.6 46.1 64.0 47.7 54.8 46.7 60.8

23.9 31.5 37.9 39.9 42.3 44.2 51.6 54.8 53.3 56.5 64.1 65.1 66.6 67.2 70.3 65.8 32.9 38.5 43.4 47.4 51.2 56.5 55.9 61.0 53.2 62.9 68.7 65.8 68.5 73.4 73.3 66.4 31.8 38.8 42.3 46.9 55.5 55.9 59.8 63.6 41.5 37.6 62.7 66.5 63.7 66.9 67.7 65.0 31.5 38.3 41.8 48.2 50.9 55.4 58.9 63.0 53.0 60.9 66.7 60.5 66.6 61.9 64.5 63.0

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

95

Bihar

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 481 491 972 353 607 960 265 702 252 770

967 1022

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

59.0 57.0 56.1 50.0 56.6 57.9 55.9 49.1

% Teachers present (average) 85.7 81.7 84.6 85.1 85.8 82.8 80.6 85.2 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

% Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 31.1 34.8 34.4 49.0 34.7 29.4 33.6 49.7 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average)

0.7

0.9

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.0

0.3

21.5 16.2 13.8

8.0 18.4 15.9 14.9

8.1

57.5 49.8 55.0 55.8 47.1 41.3 39.1 44.5

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 5.7 1.5 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 96.8 98.0 1.2 2.0 100 1.6 0.4 100 91.7 93.4 3.6 4.7 100 5.1 1.5 100

14.5 3.9 Headteacher appointed but not present at 9.9 8.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 75.6 87.4 of visit Total 100 100

10.8 10.1 83.5 88.4 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 70.0 65.8 66.7 67.0 67.6 63.7 72.3 67.3 55.9 52.2

Std I-VII/VIII 55.4 51.7 53.0 43.4 57.3 50.5

96

ASER 2011

Bihar

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 8.2 7.8 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 857 grant Development 842 grant TLM grant

71.5 14.4 14.1 72.9 13.2 13.9

686 86.7 5.1 690 85.9 6.2

990 79.2 14.8 6.1 986 82.7 11.6 5.8

DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 988 85.2 10.8 4.0 ON TIME? 863 75.2 13.1 11.7 698 88.7 5.6 5.7
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 43.4 37.5 19.2 46.0 35.0 19.1

Maintenance 710 grant Development 692 grant

634 59.5 28.6 12.0 631 59.6 29.6 10.8

963 28.4 63.6 8.1 966 29.3 62.7 8.0

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 966 32.4 61.2 6.4 grant 695 46.9 35.8 17.3 638 61.0 29.2 9.9
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 32.9 38.1 40.9 18.5 58.4 31.9 63.1 59.7 53.6 41.5 7.1 86.7 33.1 72.8 74.6 15.7 % schools No 63.9 58.9 56.4 79.3 39.7 66.2 34.3 38.0 44.2 54.9 90.1 11.7 64.4 25.4 23.1 81.0 Don't know 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.6 2.3 2.2 3.7 2.8 1.7 2.5 1.8 2.4 3.3
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

97

Bihar

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 2 4 21 27 77 800 0.2 0.4 2.3 2.9 8.3 85.9 3 6 26 42 71 862 0.3 0.6 2.6 4.2 7.0 85.4 Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 2 0.0 50.0 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 0.0 65.0 73.9 82.7 93.4 91.2 80.0 82.6 88.2 84.1 96.4 94.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

931 100.0

1010 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 5.6 8.3 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 10.3 35.7 55.0 65.4 68.9 55.3 51.8 17.2 34.2 42.6 52.1 67.5 52.3 45.8

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 26 56 71 110 106 77 386 3.1 6.7 8.5 13.2 12.7 9.3 46.4 43 81 95 124 98 96 412 4.5 8.5 10.0 13.1 10.3 10.1 43.4

832 100.0

949 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 68.6 48.0 47.5 9.6 11.7 78.7 19.3 47.2 33.6 49.9 15.1 16.9 18.1 70.8 64.1 47.1 24.7 28.2 63.6 56.4 66.1 48.9 47.0 6.8 9.4 83.8 19.0 35.3 45.7 37.6 8.2 18.9 35.4 72.1 66.3 38.9 29.3 31.8 71.4 54.5

98

ASER 2011

Chhattisgarh

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 15 OUT OF 16 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 86.4 84.8 86.4 86.2 86.7 87.1 87.4 86.9 75.9 75.1 76.8 Pvt. 11.0 10.3 12.3 12.8 11.7 8.7 8.6 8.8 9.4 9.6 9.3 Other 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 Not in Total School 2.4 4.8 1.1 0.9 1.4 4.0 3.8 4.3 14.6 15.3 13.7 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 13.6% in 2006 to 8.5% in 2007 to 8.7% in 2008 to 4.9% in 2009 to 3.2% in 2010 to 4.3% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

3.8 6.4 8.6 6.3 5.1 5.7 4.9 4.9

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 4.2 100

17.4 62.2 16.6 2.2 10.0 44.6 36.7 2.7 3.1 8.4 1.9 3.1 3.8 7.8 40.8 40.2 8.6 33.1 43.8

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

34.0 41.4 10.6 7.5 29.9 45.7 10.2

6.2 30.1 43.1 12.6

8.6 25.7 44.7 13.0

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 40.8% children are 8 years old but there are also 7.8% who are 7, 40.2% who are 9 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 45.1 4.2 10.9 3.5 30.9 76.2
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

10.8 14.9

0.7 0.6

1.7 0.7

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

99

Chhattisgarh
Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 36.0 11.8 5.6 2.9 2.3 1.6 1.0 0.7 7.9 Letter 49.0 46.6 27.5 14.5 10.1 5.5 5.4 4.0 20.6 Word 11.1 28.7 36.9 27.9 15.5 9.5 7.5 3.7 17.9

RURAL

Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 2.4 8.4 20.2 29.5 28.2 22.1 16.0 12.4 17.6 1.5 4.5 9.8 25.2 44.0 61.3 70.2 79.2 36.1

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 5.6% children cannot even read letters, 27.5% can read letters but not more, 36.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 20.2% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 9.8% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 0.6 99.4 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

100

% Children

ASER 2011

Chhattisgarh
Arithmetic
Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 36.9 12.7 4.3 2.5 2.3 0.9 1.3 0.4 7.8 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 52.1 53.6 37.4 20.5 13.2 9.8 7.5 4.8 25.2 7.7 27.1 38.9 34.1 27.6 19.4 20.9 13.7 23.9 Subtract 2.2 5.6 16.6 34.3 38.1 35.7 31.5 31.0 24.3

RURAL

Math Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Divide 1.1 1.1 2.8 8.7 18.9 34.3 38.8 50.1 18.8

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 4.3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 37.4% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 38.9% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 16.6% can do subtraction but not division, and 2.8% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 1.1 7.4 2.8 8.3 0.9 0.5 7.7 II 1.2 4.8 3.1 1.4 0.4 III 0.7 8.6 3.4 0.9 9.8 0.8 IV 1.6 3.6 1.8 9.2 1.2 V VI VII 2.1 9.5 2.6 2.4 1.5 VIII 3.8 9.0 3.2 2.6 1.5 Total 1.7 8.0 3.1 12.8 1.7 9.9 1.2 8.5

2.1 2.0 3.0 2.7 1.9 1.8 9.4 12.5 1.9 1.3

5.4 17.1 4.1

2009 2010 2011

9.1 12.4 18.9 15.0 10.5 17.4 19.2 8.3 11.0 5.9 10.5

7.4 11.9

8.2 12.1

2.4 16.3 6.0

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

101

Chhattisgarh
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 344 76 420 336 25 361 301 124 425 351 41 392

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

72.0 76.5 69.7 73.1 72.5 77.0 72.5 78.1

% Teachers present (average) 92.7 82.4 86.6 84.5 83.3 70.5 86.5 82.9 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

9.1

4.8 12.4 10.4

8.0

8.3

8.9

2.5

0.0

0.7

0.7

0.3

0.0

5.3

0.0

0.0

49.3 60.4 42.6 53.0 45.3 66.7 51.6 65.0

80.8 64.4 63.1 57.5 54.6 47.4 56.3 55.0

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 1.1 7.1 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 97.0 94.3 1.4 1.7 100 3.9 1.8 100 93.3 97.6 5.0 1.7 100 2.4 0.0 100

6.5 4.3 Headteacher appointed but not present at 9.2 7.3 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 84.3 88.5 of visit Total 100 100

11.7 17.9 87.2 75.0 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 65.6 48.1 62.9 48.6 66.6 56.1 75.3 62.9 65.8 56.6

Std I-VII/VIII 60.0 52.4 60.3 38.9 82.1 65.8

102

ASER 2011

Chhattisgarh

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 7.8 8.6 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 315 grant Development 309 grant TLM grant

76.5 8.6 14.9 74.1 13.6 12.3

373 85.5 6.7 360 83.3 8.1

379 85.5 7.1 7.4 379 81.8 10.6 7.7

DID SCHOOLS4.4 10.1 THEIR MONEY 380 90.5 4.7 4.7 GET 355 88.2 6.2 5.6 ON TIME? 317 85.5
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 62.1 20.0 17.9 59.7 24.0 16.3

Maintenance 285 grant Development 283 grant

323 31.0 55.7 13.3 313 29.4 57.2 13.4

364 34.9 54.1 11.0 364 40.4 47.8 11.8

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 364 39.0 51.7 9.3 grant 287 69.0 17.4 13.6 311 32.8 55.6 11.6
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 22.7 58.1 45.8 24.9 38.7 22.7 85.5 78.2 76.1 45.3 25.4 91.3 69.2 80.9 72.9 24.2 % schools No 70.2 37.6 50.0 69.9 56.3 73.3 10.8 18.3 20.4 49.4 70.2 5.3 27.6 15.6 22.2 67.2 Don't know 7.1 4.3 4.2 5.2 5.0 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.5 5.3 4.4 3.4 3.2 3.5 4.9 8.7
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

103

Chhattisgarh
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 68 71 61 63 67 92 16.1 16.8 14.5 14.9 15.9 21.8 100 76 73 42 39 46 26.6 20.2 19.4 11.2 10.4 12.2

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 23.8 18.3 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 56.1 70.6 82.5 61.3 69.0 60.4 35.2 69.1 70.7 64.7 70.5 48.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

422 100.0

376 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 4.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 4.9 33.3 52.9 55.0 85.7 79.4 35.8 16.2 35.3 65.5 64.3 88.9 94.1 40.4

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 34 108 91 48 27 27 52 8.8 27.9 23.5 12.4 7.0 7.0 13.4 24 100 107 44 40 13 23 6.8 28.5 30.5 12.5 11.4 3.7 6.6

387 100.0

351 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 78.6 44.7 48.5 12.9 9.6 77.6 28.9 41.5 29.6 46.2 16.3 17.5 20.0 88.5 83.2 27.1 36.5 36.5 86.2 94.7 76.3 46.0 49.1 13.0 13.8 73.3 34.7 38.5 26.8 51.8 11.5 16.0 20.7 86.1 78.9 21.3 40.3 38.4 87.0 93.8

104

ASER 2011

Gujarat

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 25 OUT OF 26 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 86.1 82.1 89.3 88.6 90.2 82.5 82.8 82.1 58.4 60.4 55.8 Pvt. 10.8 12.4 9.1 9.8 8.2 12.7 13.7 11.5 21.5 23.3 19.2 Other 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.4 Not in Total School 2.7 5.1 1.3 1.1 1.4 4.4 2.9 6.1 19.4 15.4 24.5 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 11.7% in 2006 to 7.6% in 2007 to 10.9% in 2008 to 10.2% in 2009 to 8% in 2010 to 6.1% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7

7.8

10

11

12
4.2

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100

26.0 62.0 1.1

9.2 75.7 10.5 7.7 73.8 12.3 8.3 69.9 14.3 5.6 71.4 14.6

3.6 4.2 4.4 6.0 5.1 7.0 6.3

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

2.0 3.1 2.4

1.6 3.1 1.6

6.3 66.0 21.0 7.6 63.5 18.8

100 100

7.5 67.2 17.4

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 73.8% children are 8 years old but there are also 7.7% who are 7, 12.3% who are 9 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 34.2 2.4 5.5 0.9 49.7 85.5
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

7.5 9.8

0.5 0.5

2.7 1.0

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

105

Gujarat
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 29.5 11.4 4.2 2.2 1.2 1.1 0.5 0.9 5.8 Letter 47.2 33.7 16.3 10.3 6.0 2.7 2.3 2.3 14.1

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 16.9 33.8 34.5 22.8 14.4 6.6 5.8 4.2 17.1 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 2.9 12.3 25.0 28.2 29.2 25.5 20.1 12.9 20.2 3.6 8.8 20.1 36.5 49.2 64.2 71.4 79.8 42.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 4.2% children cannot even read letters, 16.3% can read letters but not more, 34.5% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 25% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 20.1% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 99.3 0.8 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

106

% Children

ASER 2011

Gujarat
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 30.0 12.4 5.3 2.9 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 6.4

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 53.6 45.8 26.6 15.7 9.9 6.0 4.7 3.8 19.5 12.8 33.0 43.4 36.8 29.5 20.6 15.7 12.9 25.8 Subtract 2.3 6.4 19.4 30.6 36.0 40.9 36.4 29.3 26.2 Divide 1.3 2.4 5.3 14.1 22.7 31.3 42.1 53.0 22.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 5.3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 26.6% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 43.4% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 19.4% can do subtraction but not division, and 5.3% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 3.9 5.5 5.5 6.8 II 5.6 7.1 8.9 9.5 III 6.0 7.1 IV 5.8 9.0 V VI VII VIII Total 6.9 27.9 8.3 33.2 9.3 35.3 10.5 47.8

7.4 7.3 10.2 13.0 9.2 9.0 9.1 11.9 9.8

19.8 23.5 26.6 26.1 40.3 31.1 35.2 26.0 29.4 33.8 39.9 40.4 44.0 38.8 31.0 23.8 8.5 10.7 9.5 10.7 10.4 21.4 36.9 44.1 35.9 40.8 39.4 39.8 28.8 9.8 11.3 10.5 10.6 11.1 14.3 39.7 52.4 49.8 46.3 54.4 45.7 56.2 40.7

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

107

Gujarat

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 76 558 634 73 591 664 66 557 623 67 583 650

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

81.0 83.9 87.4 85.0 85.5 83.1 84.4 84.9

% Teachers present (average) 94.7 95.4 94.7 95.6 93.0 94.8 95.9 94.4 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

5.6

0.0

0.0

1.5

2.4

3.9

3.2

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

68.1 77.8 85.0 87.9 85.9 76.8 81.3 86.4

85.7 84.1 78.7 88.1 69.9 76.5 77.2 71.3

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.0 5.6 0.2 4.3 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 85.9 81.3 4.7 17.2 9.4 100 1.6 100 43.4 39.1 26.6 29.9 30.1 31.0 100 100

0.0 0.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 18.2 8.0 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 81.8 92.0 of visit Total 100 100

94.4 95.5 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 59.2 58.6 76.8 69.0 56.1 51.7 64.2 62.7 28.4 27.6

Std I-VII/VIII 38.2 36.6 33.6 30.7 32.8 28.6

108

ASER 2011

Gujarat

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 6.8 7.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 541 grant Development 545 grant TLM grant

82.4 14.6 3.0 88.3 8.6 3.1

440 87.5 5.7 443 87.6 5.0

609 79.3 17.1 3.6 604 82.6 14.6 2.8

DID SCHOOLS1.9 1.8 THEIR MONEY 613 91.2 8.0 0.8 GET 453 94.5 1.6 4.0 ON TIME? 567 96.3
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 8.9 7.1 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 74.7 20.1 5.2 83.4 11.9 4.7

Maintenance 498 grant Development 495 grant

415 81.9 9.2 421 85.5 7.4

544 65.3 30.2 4.6 540 67.0 29.1 3.9

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 542 70.1 26.8 3.1 grant 518 88.6 8.3 3.1 423 89.1 5.0 5.9
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 40.7 54.9 48.8 34.5 57.0 48.9 59.5 66.7 51.8 46.3 63.9 89.3 36.6 75.4 73.8 54.6 % schools No 57.6 43.6 49.3 63.6 41.4 49.1 39.5 32.5 47.0 50.9 34.3 9.9 61.6 23.4 24.5 42.1 Don't know 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.0 0.8 1.2 2.8 1.8 0.8 1.8 1.2 1.7 3.3
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

109

Gujarat
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 69.6 37.5 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 70.8 35.5 53.7 31.3 32.3 37.3 60.0 40.7 43.9 17.2 39.1 38.0 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 27 25 34 46 74 384 4.6 4.2 5.8 7.8 12.5 65.1 37 37 33 47 85 391 5.9 5.9 5.2 7.5 13.5 62.1

590 100.0

630 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.0 5.6 14.3 30.3 26.1 16.0 15.9 10.0 18.2 22.2 25.0 21.4 10.4 12.4

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 20 31 25 32 39 46 360 3.6 5.6 4.5 5.8 7.1 8.3 65.1 22 33 27 29 35 54 335 4.1 6.2 5.1 5.4 6.5 10.1 62.6

553 100.0

535 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 80.2 75.4 84.5 14.2 6.5 79.4 2.6 32.6 64.8 12.7 20.7 16.7 49.9 95.6 94.8 16.2 35.2 48.5 88.4 96.4 82.8 83.2 91.1 10.3 5.9 83.9 2.1 28.4 69.5 5.2 8.0 19.1 67.7 97.0 96.2 17.0 38.8 44.2 92.0 97.8

110

ASER 2011

Haryana desh Himachal Pra ir u and Kashm Jamm Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala

Haryana

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 16 OUT OF 20 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 54.9 56.5 52.9 49.8 57.1 58.7 55.2 63.0 60.3 58.2 62.9 Pvt. 43.4 41.0 46.0 49.3 41.7 39.2 43.2 34.4 32.7 35.9 28.7 Other 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 Not in Total School 1.4 2.1 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.8 1.5 2.1 6.5 5.6 7.7 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 8.4% in 2006 to 7% in 2007 to 5.1% in 2008 to 4.3% in 2009 to 1.8% in 2010 to 2.1% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8

7.2

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 Total
100

29.0 40.4 18.8

4.6 6.1 5.2 7.3 6.9 5.4 9.8 6.0 6.6

6.0 19.1 33.6 27.6 7.7 5.1 6.0 7.2 4.9 5.2 7.2 17.9 38.5 22.2 11.1 20.4 31.2 28.3

100 100 100 100 100 100 3.6 100

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

14.2 39.6 21.7 11.8 17.9 33.9 27.5

16.2 39.1 22.4 10.5

20.2 33.8 24.1 11.0

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 38.5 % children are 8 years old but there are also 17.9% who are 7, 22.2% who are 9, 11.1% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 8.9 1.7 26.0 11.9 28.1 40.3
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

32.7 43.8

0.5 0.5

3.8 1.8

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

113

Haryana
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 27.4 10.3 5.1 4.0 2.0 0.9 1.1 0.4 6.5 Letter 39.1 27.4 16.5 9.1 5.5 2.7 1.4 0.7 13.0 Word 21.0 30.5 24.8 13.6 10.9 6.0 3.3 2.8 14.4

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 6.1 14.9 22.5 23.5 15.6 12.7 9.1 8.4 14.2 6.4 16.9 31.0 49.9 66.0 77.7 85.1 87.7 52.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 5.1% children cannot even read letters, 16.5% can read letters but not more, 24.8% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 22.5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 31% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 78.5 21.5 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

114

% Children

ASER 2011

Haryana
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 24.8 7.9 3.8 2.5 1.8 1.1 1.0 0.4 5.5

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 38.8 29.0 18.6 12.5 8.2 3.7 2.3 1.0 14.4 28.0 34.6 27.2 19.7 13.5 11.4 7.9 8.4 19.0 Subtract 6.4 22.1 32.8 33.0 26.3 22.6 20.6 17.0 22.7 Divide 2.2 6.5 17.7 32.3 50.2 61.3 68.3 73.2 38.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 3.8% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 18.6% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 27.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 32.8% can do subtraction but not division, and 17.7% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 5.1 II 5.2 III 7.2 IV 7.3 V VI VII VIII Total 7.3 14.7 13.6 25.3 11.0 21.6 8.0 20.1

9.6 7.6

6.3 10.6

11.0 11.2 14.5 14.0 17.1 16.8 16.3 19.7 9.6 11.1 13.7 12.5 15.1 12.4 15.3 19.1 17.8 20.6 23.6 27.1 30.3 29.7 24.5 32.4 8.0 4.9 9.9 7.7 8.8 10.3 12.8 12.2 11.9 13.0 6.5 10.1 9.7 8.3 7.9 7.9 17.9 17.6 23.3 22.1 25.0 21.7 21.9 25.1 16.2 18.1 23.4 23.3 21.5 20.7 19.3 19.1

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

115

Haryana
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 335 95 430 361 167 528 302 226 528 244 145 389

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

82.1 83.6 82.9 76.4 84.4 85.0 81.7 78.8

% Teachers present (average) 91.8 86.4 89.8 84.9 90.6 84.7 87.8 85.9 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

2.3

1.4

0.3

7.1

1.2

0.6

1.4

0.7

0.0

1.5

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.6

0.0

0.0

80.7 81.4 79.7 65.8 84.9 87.3 77.6 67.6

72.6 56.8 63.5 50.7 62.7 32.3 44.9 45.0

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 4.4 4.2 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 89.9 92.3 6.9 3.1 100 7.2 0.4 100 73.1 66.4 15.1 25.9 11.9 100 7.7 100

4.8 0.7 Headteacher appointed but not present at 5.7 10.1 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 89.6 89.2 of visit Total 100 100

12.0 15.8 83.5 80.0 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 37.8 30.0 36.6 25.7 33.0 30.1 46.1 35.7 25.8 22.2

Std I-VII/VIII 29.4 25.2 31.3 28.9 35.7 26.9

116

ASER 2011

Haryana

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 4.8 8.9 2.4 4.1 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 2.4 3.8 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 449 82.2 12.0 5.8 grant Development 421 74.4 18.8 6.9 grant TLM grant

456 92.8 415 87.0

377 91.3 6.4 365 83.6 12.6

DID SCHOOLS8.8 3.2 THEIR MONEY375 92.0 6.7 1.3 GET 409 92.7 5.4 2.0 ON TIME? 443 88.0
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 5.0 5.5 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know 4.9 7.5

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 5.0 5.9

Maintenance 403 79.2 15.9 grant Development 371 67.9 26.2 grant

418 65.6 29.4 381 62.5 32.0

347 62.8 32.3 334 48.8 43.7

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY342 61.7 34.8 3.5 grant 387 80.9 16.0 3.1 392 65.6 30.1 4.3
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 31.9 61.3 49.4 36.3 58.4 47.0 59.1 61.9 48.4 42.7 47.5 85.6 46.8 66.4 77.3 83.5 % schools No 66.9 38.2 50.3 63.7 41.6 52.7 40.3 37.5 51.3 56.4 52.0 13.8 53.0 32.5 21.3 15.7 Don't know 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.3 1.2 1.4 0.9
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

117

Haryana
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 51.7 44.4 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 69.7 52.4 56.3 63.2 60.3 59.7 48.3 63.0 60.0 41.9 65.6 58.8 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 34 36 45 52 86 271 6.5 6.9 8.6 9.9 16.4 51.7 25 31 49 42 60 178 6.5 8.1 12.7 10.9 15.6 46.2

524 100.0

385 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 8.7 23.1 30.8 29.3 39.1 30.6 24.9 22.9 37.0 22.2 26.7 68.8 28.9 29.1

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 34 56 50 54 56 35 203 7.0 11.5 10.3 11.1 11.5 7.2 41.6 15 37 38 39 50 24 151 4.2 10.5 10.7 11.0 14.1 6.8 42.7

488 100.0

354 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 85.9 79.9 82.4 17.7 7.7 74.6 2.0 30.1 67.9 10.0 13.4 23.9 52.8 72.2 67.6 35.4 33.0 31.6 51.0 93.5 80.3 79.1 84.0 14.6 7.1 78.3 3.2 26.8 70.1 6.1 4.3 21.6 68.0 73.7 67.1 21.8 35.5 42.6 61.0 94.0

118

ASER 2011

Himachal Pradesh
Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 72.8 76.0 69.2 64.7 74.7 79.2 78.2 81.0 86.7 85.7 88.7 Pvt. 26.6 23.2 30.5 34.9 24.9 20.0 21.1 18.0 11.5 13.0 8.8 Other 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not in Total School 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.9 1.4 2.5 100 100

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 12 OUT OF 12 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 2.7% in 2006 to 2.2% in 2007 to 1% in 2008 to 1.1% in 2009 to 0.4% in 2010 to 1.0% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

% Children

100

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7

6.2

10

11

12
2.2

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100

39.0 52.7

2.5 25.3 53.7 15.7 1.7 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.3 3.1 21.8 59.5 14.2 23.5 54.6 15.7 19.7 58.4 15.6

2.8 2.8 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.6 7.1

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

100 100 100 100 100 100

15.3 54.1 24.4 19.7 54.3 20.1

19.1 45.7 24.9

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 59.5% children are 8 years old but there are also 21.8% who are 7, 14.2% who are 9 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 14.4 0.7 15.8 3.8 32.6 56.8
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

36.4 38.1

0.0 0.1

0.8 0.4

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

119

Himachal Pradesh
Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 12.1 3.6 2.1 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 2.4 Letter 51.0 19.4 8.5 4.7 2.0 1.4 0.4 0.4 10.5 Word 27.1 43.5 22.6 8.0 5.7 1.5 1.2 0.4 13.6 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 5.6 20.4 35.5 30.2 18.2 10.8 6.5 3.4 16.5 4.2 13.2 31.3 56.0 73.9 86.3 91.5 95.8 57.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

RURAL

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 2.1% children cannot even read letters, 8.5% can read letters but not more, 22.6% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 35.5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 31.3% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 11.4 88.7 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

120

% Children

ASER 2011

Himachal Pradesh
Arithmetic
Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 7.9 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.5 1.4 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 46.0 20.5 10.0 5.2 2.0 1.5 0.3 0.4 10.3 38.1 49.2 32.3 14.4 9.5 6.2 7.0 3.3 19.7 Subtract 6.2 24.4 43.5 44.0 28.4 20.4 13.9 15.7 24.9 Divide 1.8 4.4 13.4 35.8 59.8 71.9 78.4 80.1 43.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

RURAL

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 0.7% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 10% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 32.3% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 43.5% can do subtraction but not division, and 13.4% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 1.4 6.2 1.6 0.5 II 2.0 4.8 5.5 2.3 III 3.4 5.7 3.7 2.8 IV 3.6 6.1 3.3 3.6 V VI VII 6.3 VIII 8.0 9.9 7.5 6.0 Total 4.2 17.1 7.6 21.6 5.6 20.1 3.5 15.3

4.6 4.1

10.9 12.5 14.4 20.7 12.8 30.1 22.6 23.1 8.5 8.4 10.2 8.5 7.1 2.9 3.9 5.8 4.6 16.3 19.5 17.2 19.8 22.2 35.8 23.9 22.7 16.4 15.2 23.3 18.9 22.4 19.3 27.7 22.3 8.3 12.3 10.9 18.6 20.3 20.4 16.8 20.1

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

121

Himachal Pradesh
Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 224 26 250 310 22 332 195 66 261 224 50 274

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

88.6 90.4 90.1 90.7 91.6 89.9 89.4 89.0

% Teachers present (average) 88.5 90.8 89.4 86.6 89.6 85.0 83.7 81.4 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

2.4

1.0

1.6

1.4

0.0

0.0

1.6

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.0

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

91.3 91.6 92.8 91.4 95.7 90.5 93.8 88.0

70.3 73.9 70.8 68.8 68.2 61.1 47.5 44.9

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.0 19.2 0.0 9.7 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 96.3 97.7 2.1 1.6 100 0.9 1.4 100 84.1 88.0 7.9 7.9 100 6.0 6.0 100

0.0 3.1 Headteacher appointed but not present at 3.8 9.9 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 96.2 87.0 of visit Total 100 100

80.9 90.3 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 60.8 54.6 57.4 53.7 58.7 54.0 50.7 44.8 80.0 61.5

Std I-VII/VIII 54.6 40.0 58.1 49.2 74.5 65.2

122

ASER 2011

Himachal Pradesh
School funds and activities (PAISA)

RURAL

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2.5 3.4 3.7 3.0 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 3.0 3.9 2.7 3.9

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 310 90.7 7.1 2.3 grant Development 296 83.5 15.2 1.4 grant TLM grant

245 93.9 235 93.6

263 94.3 259 92.3

The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

DID SCHOOLS3.5 1.3 THEIR MONEY263 98.9 0.0 1.1 GET 231 97.4 0.9 1.7 ON TIME? 317 95.3
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 5.1 4.4 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know 3.6 3.6

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch.

Maintenance 278 85.6 11.2 3.2 grant Development 268 82.1 15.3 2.6 grant

236 84.3 10.6 225 85.8 9.8

252 84.5 11.9 247 81.8 14.6

GET 228 88.2 8.8 3.1 ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS6.1 2.5 THEIR MONEY249 87.2 11.2 1.6 grant 281 91.5
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 18.3 56.3 47.1 26.3 38.6 34.4 61.0 66.9 59.5 50.0 38.8 79.8 32.0 72.9 53.9 63.1 % schools No 80.3 42.2 51.4 72.0 60.2 64.0 37.4 31.9 39.3 49.2 60.0 17.5 65.6 24.4 44.1 34.0 Don't know 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.2 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.0 2.9
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

123

Himachal Pradesh
Right to Education indicators
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 125 54 45 14 11 8 48.6 21.0 17.5 5.5 4.3 3.1 160 61 18 21 6 5 271 59.0 22.5 6.6 7.8 2.2 1.9 100

RURAL

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 32.4 30.2 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 42.6 47.6 61.5 20.0 57.1 39.4 32.1 38.9 55.0 40.0 100.0 34.7

As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books.

257 100

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 11.3 37.0 30.4 50.0 62.5 50.0 23.4 15.9 29.0 23.5 53.3 100.0 71.4 22.6

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 37 80 39 24 17 11 14 16.7 36.0 17.6 10.8 7.7 5.0 6.3 45 98 46 20 18 5 9 241 18.7 40.7 19.1 8.3 7.5 2.1 3.7 100

222 100

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 75.5 76.0 37.3 12.5 4.3 83.2 10.8 33.2 56.0 31.1 10.6 19.6 38.7 91.5 87.5 19.7 39.0 41.3 82.0 98.0 76.9 70.0 42.4 11.5 6.7 81.8 7.9 23.6 68.5 12.5 2.4 20.2 64.9 89.8 89.0 11.4 46.1 42.4 89.3 99.3

124

ASER 2011

Jammu and Kashmir

School enrollment and out of school children
Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 59.4 61.6 55.6 52.7 58.9 63.7 60.1 67.7 68.5 68.4 68.9 Pvt. 37.7 34.1 42.2 45.5 38.4 32.9 37.0 28.4 20.9 23.5 18.2 Other 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 Not in Total School 2.5 4.0 1.8 1.3 2.3 3.0 2.4 3.7 10.1 7.7 12.5 100 100
% Children

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 14 OUT OF 14 DISTRICTS

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 8.3% in 2006 to 5.8% in 2007 to 5% in 2008 to 3.1% in 2009 to 3.7% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total
100 7.4 5.4 8.9 7.4 5.9 5.7 3.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 3.7 100

19.8 36.9 27.1 10.0 4.0 12.3 29.8 38.4 8.1 3.4 3.2 4.0 2.3 4.7 2.7 9.7 28.9 37.8 14.7 13.8 24.2 42.4

6.2

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

10.9 30.3 37.5 11.3 11.6 25.5 44.2 10.7

8.8 30.7 42.5 10.3

11.1 26.0 45.9 10.6

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 28.9% children are 8 years old but there are also 9.7% who are 7, 37.8% who are 9, 14.7% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 14.0 3.1 24.0 14.2 27.7 45.5
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

24.4 34.1

0.7 0.4

9.3 2.7

100 100

Note: Jammu and Kashmir data for 2010 not available.

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

125

Jammu and Kashmir

Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 14.2 6.0 2.9 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 3.7 Letter 49.9 33.7 23.5 16.6 9.7 6.6 5.4 3.9 18.8 Word 23.3 33.2 28.3 25.4 20.0 13.4 9.3 7.2 19.8 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 8.8 17.0 27.8 31.2 32.8 32.0 28.5 24.8 25.1 3.7 10.2 17.5 25.1 36.2 46.8 56.0 63.6 32.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

RURAL

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 2.9% children cannot even read letters, 23.5% can read letters but not more, 28.3% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 27.8% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 17.5% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language %Children % who took the reading test in: English Urdu Hindi Total 91.6 6.7 Of the % Children tested in: English Urdu % Children whose home language was: Kashmiri Dogri 52.2 32.0 24.7 5.4 Ladakhi 1.3 0.0 Other* 21.7 62.6 Total 100 100

1.7 scheduled languages except those specified above. Data for home 100 to small cell sizes.

* 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and nonlanguage of children tested in Hindi has not been reported here due

Note: In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. In Jammu and Kashmir, where the medium of instruction in government schools is English, children were given the choice of reading in English, Urdu or Hindi. Hindi tools were used in only in Jammu division. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

126

% Children

ASER 2011

Jammu and Kashmir

Arithmetic
Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 12.0 4.8 3.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 3.1 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 42.9 27.0 17.5 9.9 6.6 5.7 2.8 1.4 14.3 36.1 45.2 40.7 38.2 28.9 22.3 20.9 17.8 31.0 Subtract 8.2 19.8 33.1 37.8 41.0 42.3 40.1 40.3 32.6 Divide 0.7 3.2 5.7 12.8 22.5 28.8 35.5 40.1 18.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

RURAL

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 17.5% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 40.7% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 33.1% can do subtraction but not division, and 5.7% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 6.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 4.1 II 5.4 III 6.5 IV 5.9 V VI VII VIII Total 9.2 23.7 14.5 23.1 0.0 0.0 6.7 21.4

8.0 11.8 12.6 17.9

13.0 22.4 21.0 19.2 32.5 30.3 28.1 33.9 8.5 11.2 14.7 19.3 14.9 20.5 22.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 7.5 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 12.5 13.7 18.4 25.7 33.8 25.0 32.8 27.9

2009 2010 2011

19.3 20.5 19.2 22.7 19.1 18.8 23.6 29.8

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

127

Jammu and Kashmir

Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 115 176 291 81 276 357 0 0 0 76 281 357

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

81.4 86.4

0.0 80.3 83.5 89.8

0.0 76.5

% Teachers present (average) 92.6 92.1 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

0.0 90.1 87.0 91.2

0.0 83.4

3.4

0.0

0.0

5.5

2.8

0.4

0.0

7.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

68.2 84.8

0.0 71.2 72.5 85.7

0.0 62.3

80.4 73.1

0.0 74.0 51.3 61.3

0.0 38.8

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed Headteacher appointed but not present at time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 1.8 7.3 90.9 100 1.3 10.7 88.0 100 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 96.1 4.0 0.0 100 84.5 9.7 5.8 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 60.2 53.0 77.5 72.2 84.7 79.7 49.4 37.0

Std I-VII/VIII 46.9 42.2 63.8 55.6

128

ASER 2011

Jammu and Kashmir

School funds and activities (PAISA)
Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Schools % Schools Yes 77.8 74.7 83.1 No 8.8 11.8 8.0 Dont know 13.4 13.5 8.9 No. of Schools 351 346 354 2010-2011 % Schools Yes 86.0 77.2 91.5 No 12.3 19.9 7.3 Dont know 1.7 2.9 1.1

RURAL

Maintenance 351 grant Development 348 grant TLM grant 350

The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Schools % Schools Yes 75.1 74.8 No 12.8 11.9 Dont know 12.2 13.4 No. of Schools 334 329 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes 61.1 56.5 No 35.0 39.5 Dont know 3.9 4.0

SSA school grants

EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Maintenance 329 grant Development 329 grant

TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY ON TIME? grant 329 81.8 9.7 8.5 336 67.0 31.0 2.1

Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 18.4 48.1 43.6 15.0 27.3 17.4 60.6 54.4 42.8 69.3 12.2 90.2 75.7 85.7 49.9 13.9 % schools No 81.6 51.9 56.4 85.0 72.8 82.7 39.1 45.6 57.2 30.4 87.5 9.8 24.3 14.3 49.2 85.0 Don't know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.2
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

129

Jammu and Kashmir

Right to Education indicators
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2011 2011 School No. of schools % of schools enrollment 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 157 70 43 35 23 21 349 45.0 20.1 12.3 10.0 6.6 6.0 100.0 Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2011

RURAL

RTE 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 12.6 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 4.5 9.3 18.2 16.7 35.3 12.5

As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books.

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2011 2011 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL No. of schools 17 5 17 47 61 43 107 327 % of schools 5.2 10.7 5.2 14.4 18.7 13.2 32.7 100.0

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2011 RTE norm: At least one classroom per teacher Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 % Schools that do not meet classroom to teacher norms 0.0 20.8 40.0 48.7 51.0 75.0 61.3 50.2

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2011 82.0 52.7 28.7 47.2 6.2 46.6 33.4 30.3 36.3 61.0 6.9 9.8 22.4 71.7 68.8 49.3 23.9 26.8 70.9 76.4

130

ASER 2011

Jharkhand

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 20 OUT OF 22 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 81.0 79.5 82.2 80.9 83.5 79.9 79.1 80.5 69.3 71.0 67.2 Pvt. 12.8 13.1 12.8 14.3 11.2 13.0 13.8 12.2 14.3 13.4 15.5 Other 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 Not in Total School 4.7 6.1 3.4 3.3 3.5 6.0 5.8 6.4 15.6 14.9 16.3 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 13% in 2006 to 8% in 2007 to 9.4% in 2008 to 7.5% in 2009 to 4.9% in 2010 to 6.4% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

7.6 8.3 4.3 8.3 10.0 5.8 6.3 6.3 7.3 5.8 5.9 5.0 7.8

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 2.5 100 7.4 100

30.2 35.4 16.1 10.6 6.6 14.6 26.4 30.2 7.5 6.9 6.9 2.6 5.6 7.8 5.6

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

12.8 32.2 19.4 17.0 14.6 20.8 33.5

7.2 9.1 32.0 17.8 19.5 17.2 21.5 32.5 12.0

7.9 34.9 23.4 15.7

16.0 27.2 29.7 14.2

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 32.2% children are 8 years old but there are also 12.8% who are 7, 19.4% who are 9, 17.0% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 27.8 10.9 5.7 4.1 48.6 68.0
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

8.5 10.7

1.8 1.8

7.5 4.5

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

131

Jharkhand
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 49.2 22.0 10.3 7.6 4.4 2.0 1.0 1.5 14.5 Letter 34.7 39.6 29.3 19.2 12.6 7.6 4.0 2.9 20.9 Word 10.7 23.3 29.9 24.2 17.1 11.0 7.1 5.0 16.8

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 2.9 8.7 17.7 23.9 24.9 21.8 15.1 10.4 15.3 2.4 6.5 12.8 25.1 41.0 57.5 72.9 80.3 32.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 10.3% children cannot even read letters, 29.3% can read letters but not more, 29.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 17.7% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 12.8% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 38.8 61.2 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

132

% Children

ASER 2011

Jharkhand
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 49.7 20.6 9.1 5.1 2.5 1.7 1.3 1.3 13.6 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 37.5 45.6 35.4 23.8 16.0 9.0 4.9 4.8 24.5 9.7 22.5 32.3 29.0 23.4 19.4 14.4 11.1 20.5

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 2.1 8.7 17.5 30.0 34.1 32.0 28.8 24.1 20.8 Divide 1.1 2.6 5.8 12.0 24.0 37.8 50.7 58.7 20.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 9.1% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 35.4% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 32.3% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 17.5% can do subtraction but not division, and 5.8% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 18.9 42.5 25.1 37.7 27.5 40.1 25.1 38.6

13.4 14.5 17.3 19.6 19.8 24.6 23.3 29.7 39.9 38.7 39.5 49.4 44.9 45.8 38.9 46.7 15.3 20.4 22.1 25.3 26.7 32.3 33.2 38.7 38.9 39.8 35.9 40.3 38.3 32.2 30.7 42.1 16.6 21.1 22.4 27.0 30.2 33.3 37.3 39.0 31.8 31.7 42.4 37.7 45.3 33.6 51.0 51.0 13.9 19.2 22.9 23.8 27.4 30.1 32.8 37.9 36.5 41.0 36.6 42.1 36.4 42.6 36.0 39.1

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

133

Jharkhand
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 246 300 546 190 336 526 188 359 547 164 373 537

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

62.3 62.7 62.3 59.1 62.0 63.6 58.7 55.1

% Teachers present (average) 92.3 90.8 89.4 91.1 85.0 86.3 81.8 85.1 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

% Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 24.1 18.1 22.3 28.5 22.3 18.0 28.5 34.8 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average)

0.0

0.0

1.2

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.3

24.1 28.7 26.6 19.6 24.5 26.4 19.0 12.9

79.5 74.9 77.4 79.1 44.8 55.2 56.7 51.0

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 2.3 1.6 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 96.6 97.6 1.7 1.7 100 1.2 1.2 100 91.1 93.5 3.6 5.3 100 6.0 0.5 100

0.0 13.5 Headteacher appointed but not present at 12.3 6.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 87.7 79.8 of visit Total 100 100

3.7 13.0 94.1 85.4 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 82.3 74.9 78.1 76.3 76.9 75.3 84.8 82.5 62.8 51.7

Std I-VII/VIII 65.3 58.3 59.7 52.4 65.0 61.8

134

ASER 2011

Jharkhand

RURAL RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 6.5 6.6 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 6.1 5.4 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 423 70.9 17.5 11.6 grant Development 425 75.3 12.0 12.7 grant TLM grant

400 90.5 3.0 393 89.8 3.6

512 83.8 10.2 504 84.5 10.1

DID SCHOOLS9.1 8.4 THEIR MONEY503 86.5 9.5 4.0 GET 401 93.3 3.2 3.5 ON TIME? 441 82.5
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 9.8 8.8 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know 9.0 9.5

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch.

Maintenance 311 48.6 38.6 12.9 grant Development 306 52.0 34.6 13.4 grant

369 72.6 17.6 354 70.9 20.3

501 28.1 62.9 495 29.9 60.6

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY497 32.4 59.6 8.1 grant 310 56.1 34.2 9.7 355 74.7 19.4 5.9
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 29.4 40.9 39.1 14.4 55.6 25.6 72.8 57.8 63.5 39.6 10.9 90.7 43.9 72.7 70.3 12.3 % schools No 67.1 56.7 58.4 82.7 41.7 71.4 25.9 40.9 35.2 57.3 86.4 7.9 54.2 25.6 27.4 85.6 Don't know 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.9 2.7 3.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 3.1 2.7 1.4 2.0 1.7 2.3 2.1
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

135

Jharkhand
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 41 55 51 48 68 270 7.7 10.3 9.6 9.0 12.8 50.7 55 62 49 45 57 262 10.4 11.7 9.3 8.5 10.8 49.4

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 55.6 42.5 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 72.1 87.9 83.3 86.3 96.2 88.8 74.1 80.9 81.8 81.8 95.6 84.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

533 100.0

530 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 3.9 18.4 30.4 35.3 13.3 26.5 18.8 10.9 19.2 30.8 25.5 62.1 29.3 22.7

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 69 74 60 62 44 25 81 16.6 17.8 14.5 14.9 10.6 6.0 19.5 51 110 66 61 61 38 93 10.6 22.9 13.8 12.7 12.7 7.9 19.4

415 100.0

480 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 84.1 38.5 26.8 15.8 10.4 73.8 18.0 55.2 26.8 29.7 24.6 24.8 20.9 82.9 76.1 38.4 33.2 28.4 73.4 92.2 84.2 33.8 24.7 11.1 8.3 80.6 19.1 43.5 37.5 23.4 18.3 21.8 36.6 78.6 74.3 26.5 35.4 38.2 75.7 89.0

136

ASER 2011

Karnataka

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 27 OUT OF 27 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 76.5 74.3 77.2 75.8 78.7 76.8 76.2 77.3 60.3 58.9 61.8 Pvt. 20.0 20.0 20.8 22.5 19.1 18.3 19.6 16.9 22.6 22.5 22.7 Other 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 Not in Total School 2.8 5.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 4.5 3.9 5.1 16.7 18.1 15.2 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 8% in 2006 to 6.2% in 2007 to 5.9% in 2008 to 6.1% in 2009 to 5.9% in 2010 to 5.1% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4.1 4.7 5.8 5.4 1.1 6.5 8.9 1.2 4.0

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 100

10.6 61.4 23.9 6.1 4.9 0.8 5.8 1.1 1.6 2.2 41.2 48.0 37.7 51.6 6.7 34.8 52.3

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

38.5 48.6 6.2 6.1 33.0 53.3 7.4 33.0 48.0

7.5 35.3 49.6

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 37.7% children are 8 years old but there are also 4.9% who are 7 years old or younger, 51.6% who are 9 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 52.9 10.3 27.7 9.5 13.6 57.1
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

4.8 21.2

0.4 1.1

0.6 1.0

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

137

Karnataka
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 21.0 8.3 3.8 2.1 3.6 2.6 0.9 0.9 5.4 Letter 52.4 31.7 19.9 12.1 9.1 6.0 4.8 3.5 17.3 Word 20.4 37.9 33.0 23.5 15.1 10.8 8.1 6.7 19.4

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.9 14.0 24.6 30.0 28.0 23.3 20.4 16.9 20.3 2.3 8.1 18.7 32.2 44.3 57.4 65.8 72.0 37.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 3.8% children cannot even read letters, 19.9% can read letters but not more, 33% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 24.6% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 18.7% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 80.9 19.1 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

138

% Children

ASER 2011

Karnataka
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 21.7 6.8 3.9 2.1 2.6 1.0 1.2 1.5 5.0 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 47.8 32.3 17.4 10.1 7.9 5.8 3.3 2.3 15.7 25.0 47.3 46.2 40.0 28.5 22.9 22.9 17.5 31.3

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 4.2 12.8 29.8 38.6 41.3 39.1 32.4 32.6 29.1 Divide 1.4 0.8 2.7 9.2 19.6 31.2 40.3 46.2 18.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 3.9% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 17.4% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 46.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 29.8% can do subtraction but not division, and 2.7% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 7.1 5.0 4.8 4.6 II 7.0 7.5 7.0 5.8 III 9.5 7.4 7.2 7.7 IV 8.3 9.2 7.6 6.7 V VI VII 8.4 8.5 7.0 8.6 VIII 6.7 8.8 6.2 5.8 6.6 Total 8.4 15.5 7.7 21.1 6.7 17.7 7.7 18.9

9.9 9.1 9.1 7.6 6.9 6.4 9.6 10.5

15.6 16.7 18.7 13.4 24.2 16.5 13.7

2009 2010 2011

20.4 21.6 26.5 20.3 20.7 26.4 21.9 14.2 16.0 17.5 23.7 16.8 22.6 14.7 18.9 12.2 17.5 17.6 20.5 27.0 21.0 17.3 17.2 14.6

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

139

Karnataka
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 168 582 750 133 625 758 113 656 769 106 675 781

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

78.3 88.0 81.7 90.4 75.0 79.6 70.9 85.2

% Teachers present (average) 91.6 94.5 92.9 92.6 85.0 91.7 88.9 88.6 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

% Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 10.1 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average)

1.5

5.5

1.0 16.7

8.2 19.3

1.9

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

66.1 84.1 67.3 90.5 64.3 70.1 52.4 81.8

76.1 84.3 82.5 78.4 43.3 62.2 51.8 52.0

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.0 4.4 0.6 2.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 94.6 94.2 1.8 3.6 100 2.9 2.9 100 66.5 62.4 18.5 22.1 15.1 15.5 100 100

3.7 0.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 2.5 1.2 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 93.8 98.8 of visit Total 100 100

95.6 97.4 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 84.8 81.1 87.6 82.5 85.9 71.7 89.4 66.3 49.7 43.1

Std I-VII/VIII 69.1 42.4 73.5 31.2 81.4 29.9

Note: In Karnataka, the official government school policy is to have mixed groups in Std. I-III.

140

ASER 2011

Karnataka

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 3.0 3.6 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 1.1 7.8 2.5 7.7 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 2.2 7.1 2.7 3.0 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 728 92.7 4.3 grant Development 700 83.0 13.4 grant TLM grant

669 91.2 654 89.9

771 95.1 764 89.9

DID SCHOOLS3.0 2.2 THEIR MONEY765 95.0 3.0 2.0 GET 664 94.3 1.4 4.4 ON TIME? 723 94.7
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 6.6 9.0 6.3 10.1 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know 3.4 3.9

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 4.7 5.4

Maintenance 658 85.1 10.2 grant Development 631 75.4 19.2 grant

654 84.4 637 83.7

761 75.6 21.0 752 70.0 26.2

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY753 74.2 22.6 3.2 grant 651 82.2 13.7 4.2 648 87.4 5.1 7.6
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 30.2 54.0 53.1 22.4 47.6 46.8 71.1 80.3 62.3 37.5 35.7 94.2 33.8 65.2 81.1 35.3 % schools No 67.5 44.0 45.0 75.9 50.6 51.3 27.3 18.4 36.3 60.3 62.6 4.3 64.7 33.6 16.9 62.1 Don't know 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.5 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.2 2.0 2.6
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

141

Karnataka
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 133 86 64 55 111 297 17.8 11.5 8.6 7.4 14.9 39.8 136 81 91 64 109 293 17.6 10.5 11.8 8.3 14.1 37.9

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 46.4 41.3 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 8.6 19.7 19.2 15.5 41.0 30.6 10.1 22.5 23.8 18.0 35.8 28.8 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

746 100.0

774 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 9.7 8.9 14.5 17.4 27.8 20.4 17.2 2.3 4.1 11.0 14.9 25.0 21.5 15.0

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 52 35 66 78 81 91 286 7.6 5.1 9.6 11.3 11.8 13.2 41.5 56 46 80 93 91 84 291 7.6 6.2 10.8 12.6 12.3 11.3 39.3

689 100.0

741 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 71.8 66.2 59.0 17.3 7.0 75.8 5.6 56.0 38.4 18.2 31.1 18.9 31.8 97.3 92.6 7.6 27.6 64.8 92.8 95.2 74.3 71.1 69.1 11.7 6.5 81.9 6.0 49.9 44.2 10.9 32.8 15.2 41.1 95.8 90.4 7.4 34.8 57.8 94.0 97.9

142

ASER 2011

Kerala

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 14 OUT OF 14 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 38.4 40.0 37.9 38.0 37.7 40.1 40.1 40.1 45.7 45.1 46.3 Pvt. 60.8 59.0 61.1 61.1 61.2 59.2 59.0 59.4 52.7 53.1 52.3 Other 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 Not in Total School 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 3.9% in 2006 to 0.4% in 2007 to 0.2% in 2008 to 0.2% in 2009 to 0.1% in 2010 to 0.1% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2.8 2.8 3.4 3.8 2.1 2.5 1.3 1.9

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

18.1 61.2 17.9 0.6 13.5 63.5 19.6 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.4 14.3 63.1 18.5 12.4 62.4 19.9 11.7 67.4 17.4

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

13.3 63.6 19.3 17.4 62.0 17.8

15.7 68.1 12.0

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 63.1% children are 8 years old but there are also 14.3% who are 7, 18.5% who are 9 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 15.7 2.7 45.4 12.4 11.4 26.4
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

26.0 58.3

0.8 0.3

0.8 0.0

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

143

Kerala
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 3.7 2.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 1.0 Letter 38.1 17.9 8.7 3.2 1.8 1.4 1.3 0.9 8.4

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 45.3 33.9 21.5 11.8 6.9 4.9 3.3 1.3 15.1 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 7.0 23.0 23.6 19.4 17.0 13.3 9.3 7.3 14.8 5.9 23.1 45.5 65.1 73.9 80.0 85.8 90.1 60.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 0.7% children cannot even read letters, 8.7% can read letters but not more, 21.5% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 23.6% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 45.5% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 98.5 1.5 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

144

% Children

ASER 2011

Kerala
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 4.6 1.6 1.9 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.8 1.4

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 33.1 11.8 5.7 2.9 2.0 1.5 0.8 1.2 6.8 54.6 58.9 40.5 25.9 19.4 14.7 11.9 6.9 27.6 Subtract 6.5 24.6 44.3 48.6 44.6 33.4 24.7 17.8 30.8 Divide 1.3 3.1 7.7 21.9 33.2 49.3 62.2 73.3 33.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 1.9% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 5.7% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 40.5% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 44.3% can do subtraction but not division, and 7.7% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 36.7 33.4 35.0 39.9 39.0 39.5 33.6 33.1

28.2 32.7 30.3 39.0 36.8 39.6 42.0 42.4 20.1 28.3 29.6 35.6 39.2 38.8 35.8 41.9 21.4 33.1 31.2 34.4 41.8 34.2 35.1 41.5 28.7 32.4 37.6 43.3 43.0 43.1 42.6 47.8 26.3 23.7 36.2 35.0 44.3 40.7 45.2 46.1 29.4 32.1 40.2 40.7 44.1 44.5 43.3 39.9 18.6 23.6 31.7 32.2 40.8 33.8 42.1 36.9 24.6 26.7 32.9 31.6 36.4 35.2 35.3 41.3

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

145

Kerala

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 127 64 191 178 78 256 176 99 275 177 151 328

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

90.0 91.9 93.1 91.9 91.5 91.8 91.2 90.8

% Teachers present (average) 90.2 87.1 94.0 92.8 87.7 92.6 90.2 92.7 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

3.6

0.6

0.0

0.0

3.6

1.3

1.0

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

93.7 96.5 97.6 97.7 92.9 96.1 94.9 97.3

58.4 54.6 71.2 68.8 39.0 50.0 47.4 46.9

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.9 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 4.1 6.0

0.0 0.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 5.4 5.0 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 94.6 95.0 of visit Total 100 100

97.2 98.1 100 100

24.7 21.5 Computers but no children using them on 18.8 26.2 day of visit Computers & children using them on day 56.5 52.3 of visit Total 100 100

11.3 15.3 84.5 78.7 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 4.5 2.9 4.6 3.6 7.9 7.1 6.7 6.3 3.9 2.1

Std I-VII/VIII 3.9 1.3 6.3 2.2 9.4 8.7

146

ASER 2011

Kerala

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 7.1 6.6 3.1 4.7 218 195 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 1.4 1.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 4.3 0.6 2.3 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 226 89.8 grant Development 213 88.7 grant TLM grant

94.5 4.1 91.8 6.7

323 95.1

301 82.4 15.3

DID SCHOOLS0.9 2.1 THEIR MONEY323 96.6 2.8 0.6 GET 222 99.1 0.5 0.5 ON TIME? 234 97.0
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 89.1 8.9 86.2 11.7 2.0 2.1 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know 4.3 5.1

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 5.1 6.9 202 188

Maintenance 175 82.3 12.6 grant Development 160 76.9 16.3 grant

303 79.5 16.2 275 72.0 22.9

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY299 89.6 6.7 3.7 grant 183 90.7 5.5 3.8 204 96.6 2.9 0.5
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 20.1 67.4 54.6 25.6 53.0 55.7 73.1 74.4 53.9 55.7 40.5 92.3 32.4 91.0 66.7 82.7 % schools No 79.2 30.6 42.7 71.3 44.3 41.7 25.6 24.3 43.5 43.0 56.9 7.0 65.1 8.0 30.2 15.3 Don't know 0.7 2.0 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.7 1.3 1.3 2.7 1.3 2.6 0.6 2.6 1.0 3.2 2.0
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

147

Kerala

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 53 31 34 15 40 94 19.9 11.6 12.7 5.6 15.0 35.2 68 36 44 20 36 118 21.1 11.2 13.7 6.2 11.2 36.7 Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 0.0 1.7 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 0.0 18.8 35.7 10.3 12.5 10.8 0.0 4.7 15.8 0.0 10.6 5.9 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

267 100.0

322 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.0 18.5 24.0 62.5 20.0 12.2 19.7 0.0 16.7 23.3 22.2 61.5 19.8 22.4

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 0 2 34 31 18 18 136 0.0 0.8 14.2 13.0 7.5 7.5 56.9 3 2 40 36 24 18 178 1.0 0.7 13.3 12.0 8.0 6.0 59.1

239 100.0

301 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 88.3 76.7 82.1 2.6 11.7 85.7 0.4 41.4 58.2 5.1 90.4 78.8 86.0 1.9 4.4 93.8 0.3 28.1 71.6 0.9

8.7 15.4 42.3 15.1 43.9 68.6 98.5 98.8 96.6 94.1 16.9 1.9 20.7 27.3 62.4 70.8 98.1 97.8 100.0 100.0

148

ASER 2011

esh Madhya Prad Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland

ASER 2011

Madhya Pradesh
Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 79.7 79.0 79.1 77.0 81.5 81.5 78.1 85.2 72.3 71.3 73.4 Pvt. 17.2 16.3 18.2 20.4 15.6 15.1 18.6 11.2 14.4 16.7 11.6 Other 0.9 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 Not in Total School 2.2 4.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.2 3.1 3.3 13.3 12.1 14.9 100 100

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 43 OUT OF 45 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 7.3% in 2006 to 5% in 2007 to 3.5% in 2008 to 3.9% in 2009 to 3.3% in 2010 to 3.3% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

% Children

100

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

8.3 6.0 9.7 6.3 6.2 8.0 8.6 8.5 8.1 6.6

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 6.7 100

32.7 45.2 13.9 5.2 18.6 40.1 25.4 4.8 5.6 5.2 7.2 4.6 6.0 5.4 14.8 43.5 20.3

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

18.0 31.7 30.8

10.5 39.2 22.7 11.8 13.8 33.2 31.7

11.5 38.9 26.5 10.4

13.9 31.5 31.7 10.9

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 43.5% children are 8 years old but there are also 14.8% who are 7, 20.3% who are 9, 9.7% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 29.9 5.0 5.1 2.1 41.8 68.9
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

19.1 20.3

1.3 2.3

2.9 1.4

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

151

Madhya Pradesh
Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 45.3 23.6 12.7 7.0 5.7 2.8 2.3 1.6 12.8 Letter 39.3 41.7 33.8 24.3 17.0 11.0 8.5 5.3 23.1 Word 10.1 21.6 26.3 24.6 17.5 13.4 9.9 6.4 16.6 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 2.9 7.7 15.7 19.7 21.8 19.7 17.5 15.3 15.1 2.4 5.4 11.4 24.4 38.0 53.2 61.8 71.3 32.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

RURAL

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 12.7% children cannot even read letters, 33.8% can read letters but not more, 26.3% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 15.7% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 11.4% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 96.7 3.3 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

152

% Children

ASER 2011

Madhya Pradesh
Arithmetic
Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 47.8 24.7 13.6 7.1 6.0 2.8 2.8 2.1 13.5 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 41.3 47.0 40.9 31.5 21.3 16.2 12.0 7.4 27.7 8.0 21.6 30.5 32.3 28.1 24.0 21.2 16.8 23.1 Subtract 1.8 4.9 11.6 21.3 26.9 29.1 29.7 27.9 19.0 Divide 1.1 1.8 3.5 7.8 17.7 27.9 34.3 45.9 16.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

RURAL

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 13.6% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 40.9% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 30.5% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 11.6% can do subtraction but not division, and 3.5% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 3.0 4.6 3.1 4.1 II 4.7 6.4 3.4 4.9 III 5.2 8.8 4.1 5.6 IV 5.6 V VI VII VIII Total 6.5 19.2 10.0 26.1 6.9 19.0 6.5 15.4

8.0 7.6

9.3 11.4

12.8 13.5 17.0 19.5 20.8 23.7 23.7 30.6 9.2 10.8 11.8 13.4 16.5 5.6 5.8 6.8 8.9 10.0 14.7 7.2 6.9 8.1 8.6 15.7 21.0 25.1 27.6 26.9 29.5 33.3 35.4 10.7 11.9 16.1 16.0 20.2 25.3 25.6 33.7 12.0 12.3 14.8 11.9 17.8 21.1 19.1 17.7

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

153

Madhya Pradesh
Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 921 334 1255 936 293 709 510 843 352

1229 1219 1195

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

67.0 68.0 65.9 54.5 64.9 66.4 67.6 50.9

% Teachers present 91.3 92.7 88.5 87.5 85.5 89.5 87.1 82.7 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

% Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 14.9 11.9 15.3 38.7 19.6 14.0 10.4 48.6 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average)

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.9

37.5 36.1 33.2 19.3 34.6 30.8 30.5 15.1

76.9 80.0 68.9 69.6 50.7 61.9 51.4 49.5

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.8 5.7 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 95.2 95.4 3.7 1.1 100 3.5 1.1 100 89.0 86.8 8.5 10.0 2.6 100 3.2 100

0.7 4.5 Headteacher appointed but not present at 7.4 6.8 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 91.9 88.7 of visit Total 100 100

11.9 13.5 87.3 80.7 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 72.3 61.8 72.5 62.2 68.9 59.9 76.3 71.0 76.3 59.7

Std I-VII/VIII 63.4 52.6 63.8 53.9 71.8 66.4

154

ASER 2011

Madhya Pradesh
School funds and activities (PAISA)

RURAL

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 1111 67.2 22.1 10.7 1101 84.7 5.7 9.6 1118 grant Development 1031 50.7 37.3 11.9 1049 77.5 12.5 10.0 1077 grant TLM grant

77.7 14.0 8.2 65.3 24.2 10.5

The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY ON TIME? 1126 82.2 10.7 7.2 1071 87.9 5.5 6.6 1104 77.1 16.3 6.6
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know 46.7 41.7 11.6 41.1 46.5 12.5

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch.

Maintenance 919 39.1 48.0 13.0 1040 56.1 26.5 17.4 1044 grant Development 862 30.1 56.4 13.6 998 51.9 29.2 18.9 1001 grant

TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY ON TIME? grant 925 52.3 37.6 10.1 1012 60.9 24.0 15.1 1016 38.6 50.7 10.7

Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 18.9 51.6 44.7 26.2 30.5 31.3 77.7 75.8 68.1 35.7 16.5 89.0 82.0 74.4 74.1 32.9 % schools No 76.8 44.3 51.5 69.8 65.7 65.0 19.4 21.5 28.8 60.0 79.3 8.1 15.0 22.3 21.8 61.4 Don't know 4.3 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.6 2.9 2.8 3.1 4.3 4.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 4.1 5.7
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

155

Madhya Pradesh
Right to Education indicators
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 126 144 161 154 218 406 10.4 11.9 13.3 12.7 18.0 33.6 176 190 192 155 168 291 15.0 16.2 16.4 13.2 14.3 24.8

RURAL

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 59.1 60.7 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 83.0 87.0 86.8 73.9 84.2 80.6 71.8 78.4 82.9 84.3 87.5 78.5

As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books.

1209 100.0

1172 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 1.1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 5.0 18.9 30.3 29.2 28.1 46.4 18.6 15.2 28.7 35.2 46.0 48.9 54.6 25.0

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 185 258 190 130 113 101 130 16.7 23.3 17.2 11.7 10.2 9.1 11.7 220 261 210 134 89 53 84 20.9 24.8 20.0 12.8 8.5 5.0 8.0

1107 100.0

1051 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 69.4 61.0 37.4 13.4 8.1 78.5 20.0 29.8 50.3 50.8 8.5 11.8 28.9 83.9 81.0 43.7 27.3 29.1 89.8 94.7 64.3 55.6 37.1 19.3 12.1 68.6 24.3 43.9 31.9 43.8 6.2 26.6 23.4 82.3 77.2 41.3 27.2 31.5 86.7 92.1

156

ASER 2011

Maharashtra

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 31 OUT OF 33 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 68.2 59.5 85.6 84.7 86.7 49.5 49.4 50.0 25.1 26.9 23.4 Pvt. 30.3 38.4 13.2 14.0 12.2 48.7 49.0 48.0 69.6 68.3 70.7 Other 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 Not in Total School 1.1 1.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.8 5.0 4.6 5.4 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 6.1% in 2006 to 3% in 2007 to 2.6% in 2008 to 2% in 2009 to 1.7% in 2010 to 1.8% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4.6 5.1 6.2 7.4 1.8 2.0 2.3 7.7 8.7 2.2 2.0 7.7

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.7 100

7.6 56.9 30.9 6.6 4.7 4.3 3.6 4.7 5.6 2.1 37.1 51.2 32.9 54.4

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

31.4 54.9

30.9 54.8 8.3 31.1 54.3

35.1 48.6

6.0 33.8 48.7

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 32.9% children are 8 years old but there are also 4.7% who are 7 years old or younger, 54.4% who are 9, 6.2% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 59.1 13.6 11.7 4.7 19.0 70.3
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

8.5 10.0

0.5 0.7

1.2 0.8

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

157

Maharashtra
Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 13.1 4.5 2.7 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.4 3.0 Letter 48.6 21.9 10.8 5.0 3.4 2.3 1.5 0.9 11.5 Word 29.7 42.2 22.9 13.0 7.2 5.0 3.0 2.1 15.5

RURAL

Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 6.3 22.6 37.4 33.5 24.8 18.1 13.1 10.8 21.2 2.4 8.8 26.2 47.6 63.5 73.8 81.6 85.9 48.9

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 2.7% children cannot even read letters, 10.8% can read letters but not more, 22.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 37.4% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 26.2% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 86.1 13.9 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

158

% Children

ASER 2011

Maharashtra
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 12.5 4.4 2.2 0.9 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.6 2.9 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 65.2 37.2 18.4 9.1 6.0 4.0 3.3 2.0 17.7 18.5 45.6 43.2 31.3 20.7 15.9 11.1 9.9 24.7 Subtract 2.7 11.6 32.2 43.2 39.2 35.1 32.3 26.3 28.5

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Divide 1.1 1.1 4.0 15.5 32.9 44.0 52.3 61.2 26.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 2.2% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 18.4% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 43.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 32.2% can do subtraction but not division, and 4.0% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 3.3 7.5 3.3 3.9 II 4.0 7.1 4.6 5.3 III 4.9 IV 5.6 V VI VII VIII Total 5.5 13.7 9.6 16.2 6.0 15.3 6.7 16.8

7.3 7.2

7.9 10.6

23.1 22.4 21.4 19.8 13.2 12.2 11.8 12.0 9.0 10.1 10.9 11.2 11.7 15.3 5.7 6.7 5.4 5.5 8.0 7.8 7.3 7.7 7.8 11.2 8.9 14.2 24.8 30.6 27.4 28.7 17.2 12.7 15.3 13.5 15.2 24.6 24.3 30.4 12.9 15.7 14.5 12.9 23.3 22.8 25.1 23.7 17.2 13.6 17.9 13.6

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

159

Maharashtra
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 488 411 899 485 450 935 435 467 902 408 421 829

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

91.7 90.7 91.5 89.6 92.8 90.6 92.4 90.0

% Teachers present 94.1 94.9 93.8 89.8 89.8 92.8 91.7 89.0 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

0.8

0.2

1.4

1.0

0.0

1.2

0.2

1.0

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

0.0

0.3

93.7 93.7 94.4 90.3 97.7 94.3 96.7 91.5

83.1 84.7 80.6 73.9 63.6 71.7 66.3 61.8

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 1.8 6.9 1.6 5.8 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 52.5 41.9 20.4 27.5 27.1 30.6 100 100

4.5 5.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 2.7 5.9 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 92.8 89.1 of visit Total 100 100

91.3 92.6 100 100

81.8 80.3 Computers but no children using them on 6.3 10.7 day of visit Computers & children using them on day 11.9 9.0 of visit Total 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 49.5 46.2 46.7 42.9 47.5 46.8 47.6 45.6 27.7 22.8

Std I-VII/VIII 26.7 22.7 34.3 26.9 41.3 36.0

160

ASER 2011

Maharashtra

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 3.0 3.0 772 747 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 5.4 6.2 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 3.2 4.4 6.2 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 868 93.9 3.1 grant Development 778 80.3 16.7 grant TLM grant

92.1 2.5 89.6 4.3

777 92.4

753 76.1 17.7

DID SCHOOLS0.8 1.3 THEIR MONEY765 93.5 2.9 3.7 GET 770 95.2 1.2 3.6 ON TIME? 896 97.9
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 7.5 7.4 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 82.0 14.3 3.7 73.5 23.0 3.5

Maintenance 789 grant Development 712 grant

733 65.4 27.2 715 64.1 28.5

734 65.7 29.3 5.0 707 57.6 37.1 5.4

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY719 66.3 29.4 4.3 grant 806 88.1 9.6 2.4 735 69.4 24.8 5.9
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 21.7 50.3 54.0 23.6 53.2 52.2 66.1 75.6 58.4 35.7 43.0 92.9 54.8 78.6 69.3 39.7 % schools No 76.1 47.4 44.3 74.1 44.5 45.9 31.9 22.7 39.5 62.4 54.1 5.7 42.5 19.5 26.7 54.8 Don't know 2.2 2.2 1.7 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.1 2.0 2.9 1.4 2.8 2.0 4.0 5.5
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

161

Maharashtra
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 148 91 83 99 146 319 16.7 10.3 9.4 11.2 16.5 36.0 170 86 78 91 145 241 21.0 10.6 9.6 11.2 17.9 29.7

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 41.4 39.3 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 45.8 44.9 47.7 41.8 36.4 41.2 36.5 41.3 50.6 22.3 36.9 37.1 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

886 100.0

811 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 6.2 14.1 4.9 10.3 26.8 14.9 12.4 10.0 12.3 15.0 30.0 29.4 22.2 18.2

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 65 111 74 93 72 110 273 8.2 13.9 9.3 11.7 9.0 13.8 34.2 72 118 69 68 74 110 221 9.8 16.1 9.4 9.3 10.1 15.0 30.2

798 100.0

732 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 34.2 85.0 57.6 18.7 12.3 69.0 2.9 44.1 53.0 13.7 32.3 10.8 43.2 97.2 94.7 14.0 19.6 66.5 78.3 90.7 33.4 82.5 58.2 16.7 10.2 73.1 3.1 52.1 44.9 9.0 34.4 14.1 42.6 96.4 95.9 16.2 29.5 54.3 74.9 95.8

162

ASER 2011

Manipur

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 8 OUT OF 9 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 27.7 26.9 29.5 29.4 29.6 24.8 25.3 24.2 23.3 21.0 25.6 Pvt. 71.1 71.0 69.7 69.8 69.7 73.5 73.1 74.0 67.6 67.1 68.0 Other 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.2 Not in Total School 1.1 2.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.6 1.4 1.7 8.7 11.3 6.2 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 5.9% in 2006 to 7.1% in 2007 to 4.6% in 2008 to 2.3% in 2009 to 3.3% in 2010 to 1.7% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total
100 5.4 5.8 6.3 3.4 7.1 7.4 8.1 2.2 6.2 8.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 6.4 100

17.0 38.5 21.8 14.4 3.3 11.3 25.9 31.3 13.9 4.2 5.4 5.6 4.1 8.7 3.4 8.9

8.3

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

11.0 31.1 19.0 19.3

8.6 25.5 30.1 11.9 11.4 6.7 34.3 19.2 14.4 10.3 11.8 20.4 31.2 18.3

37.5 29.8 16.0

11.4 31.4 31.1 16.3

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 31.1% children are 8 years old but there are also 11.0% who are 7, 19.0 % who are 9, 19.3% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 7.0 1.6 52.0 26.5 12.3 22.8
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

27.8 48.4

0.0 0.0

0.9 0.9

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

163

Manipur
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 4.0 1.8 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.2 1.3 Letter 46.7 16.8 8.1 7.8 4.9 3.1 2.0 0.4 13.1 Word 33.2 43.3 24.1 14.1 8.4 4.8 3.6 1.1 18.7

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 8.6 21.3 31.4 26.2 15.2 13.4 7.8 8.1 17.3 7.4 16.8 35.6 51.1 71.3 78.1 85.9 90.1 49.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 0.8% children cannot even read letters, 8.1% can read letters but not more, 24.1% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 31.4% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 35.6% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Note: This tool was also available in Metei Mayek and Manipuri.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language

%Children who took the reading test in:

% Children

Of the % Children who tested in: Manipuri Tangkhul 53.8 15.0

% Children whose home language was: Kuki 7.0 Hmar 4.3 Kabui 2.9 Paite 2.9 Anal 1.9 Other * 12.2 Total 100

English Manipuri Total

98.0 2.0 100.0

English

* 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above. Data for home language of children tested in Manipuri has not been reported here due to small cell sizes.

Note: In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. In Manipur, where the medium of instruction in government schools is English or Manipuri, children were given the choice of reading in English, Manipuri or Meitei Mayek. Figures of Meitei Mayek have not been included due to insufficient data. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

164

ASER 2011

Manipur
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 5.2 2.0 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.2 1.5

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 33.1 10.3 4.6 3.4 2.3 1.2 0.5 0.6 8.3 53.3 57.8 38.8 20.8 9.7 6.9 6.1 3.2 27.7 Subtract 7.1 24.7 39.5 45.5 38.2 28.5 17.0 14.1 27.5 Divide 1.4 5.2 16.4 29.3 49.6 62.9 75.7 81.9 35.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 0.8% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 4.6% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 38.8% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 39.5% can do subtraction but not division, and 16.4% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 22.3 54.0 18.2 48.5 15.0 49.9 15.1 48.8

17.2 18.0 19.5 26.0 24.1 26.6 28.9 35.3 43.6 52.4 53.1 53.7 58.6 53.5 59.2 59.9 12.0 18.8 16.0 17.1 17.6 21.6 15.2 29.7 42.4 46.0 49.5 50.7 45.7 49.9 51.8 55.2 9.9 13.2 11.3 14.7 16.9 16.4 15.4 27.6 38.9 41.3 49.2 51.9 48.6 52.9 59.3 61.7 11.0 15.3 13.2 12.5 13.6 23.2 20.8 19.8 43.0 43.3 43.7 51.3 52.4 50.4 52.6 57.2

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

165

Manipur
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 111 36 147 107 35 142 97 28 125 99 34 133

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

76.7 74.0 66.1 52.3 80.0 79.7 71.3 56.8

% Teachers present 90.2 82.9 70.8 78.5 80.4 71.8 75.1 72.0 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

% Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 13.0 14.1 17.2 42.6 11.8 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average)

7.7 11.1 27.3

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

3.1

3.5

0.0

0.0

62.0 64.1 38.7 13.8 73.5 76.9 44.4 15.2

63.7 50.0 27.3 42.6 28.1 17.2 30.8 20.6

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.0 0.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 97.8 97.9 0.0 2.2 100 2.1 0.0 100 70.4 81.8 25.9 12.1 3.7 100 6.1 100

2.7 0.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 28.0 15.0 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 69.3 85.0 of visit Total 100 100

31.6 16.0 68.4 84.0 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 22.9 14.7 28.2 26.5 40.7 35.2 47.6 37.0 5.7 8.8

Std I-VII/VIII 22.6 21.9 28.0 20.0 36.7 26.7

166

ASER 2011

Manipur

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 123 grant Development 112 grant TLM grant

65.0 34.2 0.8 49.1 50.0 0.9

107 66.4 10.3 23.4 107 56.1 15.9 28.0

120 66.7 10.8 22.5 117 55.6 19.7 24.8

DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 123 68.3 9.8 22.0 ON TIME? 125 74.4 25.6 0.0 106 73.6 7.6 18.9
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 34.0 49.1 17.0 23.2 55.6 21.2

Maintenance 106 grant Development 99 grant

98 24.5 50.0 25.5 97 21.7 51.6 26.8

97 11.3 54.6 34.0 94 9.6 55.3 35.1

TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY ON9.4 57.3 33.3 grant 105 37.1 48.6 14.3 95 24.2 53.7 22.1 96
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti 96.8 96.9 98.4 98.0 98.2 96.8 97.9 98.3 97.7 94.5 98.0 100.0 100.0 % schools No 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.1 1.7 2.3 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Don't know 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material 100.0 Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 100.0 100.0

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

167

Manipur
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 0.0 9.1 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 20.0 42.1 64.3 37.5 44.4 25.7 5.9 21.7 9.1 0.0 25.0 11.9 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 43 22 22 15 11 9 35.3 18.0 18.0 12.3 9.0 7.4 56 21 23 13 6 9 43.8 16.4 18.0 10.2 4.7 7.0

122 100.0

128 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 22.2 33.3 16.7 33.3 75.0 75.0 37.5 20.0 50.0 83.3 81.3 16.7 68.0 58.6

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 3 12 12 15 23 12 33 2.7 10.9 10.9 13.6 20.9 10.9 30.0 6 7 13 9 25 12 48 5.0 5.8 10.8 7.5 20.8 10.0 40.0

110 100.0

120 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 68.1 72.3 11.1 84.6 10.3 5.1 21.4 38.5 40.2 78.5 4.7 8.4 8.4 48.7 38.4 90.8 3.4 5.9 59.2 47.8 66.4 41.7 6.4 87.3 6.4 6.4 31.3 33.6 35.2 64.7 5.9 14.1 15.3 23.0 20.6 92.9 5.5 1.6 43.9 29.8

168

ASER 2011

Meghalaya

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 6 OUT OF 7 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 38.6 38.1 39.8 42.8 36.6 37.7 39.7 35.7 35.3 38.9 31.7 Pvt. 54.3 52.4 55.0 51.0 59.2 53.1 48.0 58.1 45.0 38.5 51.6 Other 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 0.7 0.3 1.0 Not in Total School 5.8 8.2 4.0 5.1 2.9 7.8 11.0 4.7 19.0 22.2 15.7 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 5.4% in 2006 to 6.4% in 2007 to 2.7% in 2008 to 4.4% in 2009 to 6.8% in 2010 to 4.7% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

3.4 7.9 8.9 7.8 9.6 7.6

12

13

14
8.5

15

16 Total
100 100

8.0 17.7 19.8 20.9 10.7 11.1 6.5 5.9 4.8 4.3 4.4 4.4 7.0 13.2 21.8 17.1 17.1

7.6 8.5 5.7

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

13.6 19.1 18.0 14.8 12.3 12.7 24.4 13.7 17.4

100 4.2 100 7.0 100 7.3 100

11.9 16.9 21.8 16.3 11.1 10.7 10.5 20.4 21.1 20.5 15.9

17.5 21.5 27.7 16.9 12.1 100 19.1 30.4 25.3 18.2 100

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 13.6% children are 8 years old but there are also 5.9% who are 7 years old or younger, 19.1% who are 9, 18.0% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 9.1 4.0 9.1 10.1 29.0 31.7
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

44.6 48.4

0.7 1.1

7.4 4.7

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

169

Meghalaya
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 17.5 9.4 6.2 4.1 4.8 4.2 4.2 2.2 8.1 Letter 33.5 18.7 7.2 5.4 3.4 5.4 2.2 6.2 13.3 Word 36.8 39.2 38.3 24.9 14.9 10.2 4.5 2.5 26.7

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 8.0 19.6 20.7 29.2 23.5 24.2 17.2 6.0 18.7 4.2 13.1 27.5 36.4 53.5 56.0 71.9 83.2 33.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 6.2% children cannot even read letters, 7.2% can read letters but not more, 38.3% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 20.7% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 27.5% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Note: This tool was also available in Garo and English.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose home language was: Garo 52.7 47.3 100 Garo / Khasi English 31.5 16.3 Khasi 21.6 51.4 Maram 9.8 4.9 Other * 37.2 27.4 Total 100 100

Of Children whose school language was Garo or Khasi: % Children whose : %

% Children who took the reading test in:

% Children

Of the % Children who tested in:

Home language is the same as school language 51.7 Home language is different from school language Total 48.3 100

Garo / Khasi English Total

* 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above.

Note: In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. In Meghalaya, where the medium of instruction in government schools is Garo, Khasi or English, children were given the choice of reading in any one of these languages. Figures for Garo and Khasi have been combined. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This included 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

170

ASER 2011

Meghalaya
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 13.5 6.7 6.5 5.1 4.8 4.7 4.4 2.2 7.0 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 43.4 32.9 20.6 14.3 10.9 12.1 4.7 8.4 22.8 39.0 47.7 41.5 38.3 20.5 18.0 16.4 6.4 33.4

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 3.8 11.1 28.4 32.7 42.5 36.6 27.5 19.1 22.8 Divide 0.4 1.6 3.1 9.6 21.3 28.7 47.1 64.0 14.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 6.5% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 20.6% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 41.5% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 28.4% can do subtraction but not division, and 3.1% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 2.7 4.8 4.7 7.0 II 5.7 III 4.3 IV 3.9 7.6 V VI VII VIII Total 5.8 28.3 9.8 21.2 9.8 18.9 11.8 22.3

8.4 14.9 15.7 11.0 9.2 13.8 22.6 27.4

23.7 28.0 25.8 29.9 24.7 29.9 37.3 34.6 7.5 10.9 5.7 7.3 22.8 17.2 16.0 23.4 20.4 20.7 19.3 35.5 7.9 10.4 13.9 13.1 21.8 14.7 8.6 10.9 10.9 31.4 22.2 26.7 21.1 20.6 20.6 19.2 14.8 14.7 18.8 22.3 19.0 21.0 25.0 23.3 20.2 22.8 23.7 26.6

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

171

Meghalaya
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 107 9 116 135 9 144 101 9 110 76 9 85

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 2009 2010 2011 Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V

Std I-IV/V

85.0

76.9

74.7

75.5

% Teachers present (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

92.5

88.9

94.4

94.7

1.2

7.1

6.1

12.2

1.3

0.8

0.0

1.5

84.9

62.7

60.2

59.5

83.5

71.7

81.7

87.0

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed Headteacher appointed but not present at time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 0.0 3.9 96.2 100 0.0 3.5 96.6 100 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 98.6 1.4 0.0 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 56.2 47.2 67.4 63.4 68.8 66.7 82.9 81.2

172

ASER 2011

Meghalaya

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 8.1 8.6 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 9.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 5.2 7.9 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 123 grant Development 116 grant TLM grant

65.9 26.0 38.8 52.6

95 69.5 21.1

77 62.3 32.5 76 46.1 46.1

92 37.0 47.8 15.2

DID SCHOOLS8.2 8.2 THEIR MONEY ON TIME? GET 96 78.1 17.7 4.2 78 83.3 10.3 6.4 122 83.6
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 9.6 9.2 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants Maintenance grant Development grant

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch.

98 45.9 39.8 14.3 95 20.0 65.3 14.7

94 37.2 53.2 87 21.8 69.0

73 38.4 50.7 11.0 69 24.6 62.3 13.0

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 72 47.2 43.1 9.7 grant 98 65.3 19.4 15.3 93 37.6 58.1 4.3

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

173

Meghalaya
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 76 18 6 2 3 2 71.0 16.8 5.6 1.9 2.8 1.9 55 19 2 2 2 3 66.3 22.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 3.6

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 52.9 52.1 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.7 35.3 50.0 50.0 0.0 100.0 48.6 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

107 100.0

83 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 36.4 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 25.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 50.0 15.8 42.9 20.0 50.0 25.0 100.0 33.3 37.1

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 39 18 12 9 7 3 7 41.1 19.0 12.6 9.5 7.4 3.2 7.4 29 14 12 7 5 1 5 39.7 19.2 16.4 9.6 6.9 1.4 6.9

95 100.0

73 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 33.6 45.5 13.8 70.6 5.5 23.9 34.9 40.6 24.5 64.8 9.1 11.4 14.8 40.0 26.8 78.0 6.4 15.6 59.4 50.9 41.6 39.5 13.9 77.8 12.4 9.9 23.1 52.6 24.4 44.1 33.9 3.4 18.6 51.3 46.5 63.8 5.0 31.3 69.6 35.4

174

ASER 2011

Mizoram

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 8 OUT OF 8 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 85.6 85.2 85.3 86.2 84.2 87.2 87.4 87.0 79.8 78.9 80.9 Pvt. 13.7 12.6 14.5 13.7 15.5 11.5 11.1 12.0 8.6 8.0 9.3 Other 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 Not in Total School 0.6 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.2 1.3 1.1 11.5 12.9 9.8 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 4.4% in 2006 to 5.4% in 2008 to1.8% in 2009 to 4.4% in 2010 to 1.1% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

5.5 3.0 6.7 1.4 6.2 7.4 3.5 6.7

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 4.0 100 5.8 100

22.9 45.5 26.0 2.4 10.7 43.3 29.6 11.0 1.8 2.3 6.9 7.6 8.0 2.3 10.2 28.2 39.9 13.1

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

9.7 25.5 34.2 10.9 9.6 6.3 26.7 34.3 13.4 9.0

22.0 34.4 18.0

23.6 31.5 20.9 10.2

6.4 23.0 38.4 17.4 12.6 100

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 28.2% children are 8 years old but there are also 10.2% who are 7, 39.9 % who are 9, 13.1% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 36.7 6.6 13.4 5.3 37.9 71.5
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2009 & 2011

11.9 16.2

0.0 0.0

0.2 0.3

100 100

Note: Mizoram data for 2007 not available.

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

175

Mizoram
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 5.3 2.3 1.4 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.6 Letter 46.4 11.3 3.9 2.7 2.8 1.9 1.7 2.4 10.8 Word 39.6 38.6 14.7 11.0 4.8 2.8 1.7 1.1 17.1

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 5.9 35.0 40.4 18.9 14.1 7.2 3.3 6.2 18.6 2.8 12.8 39.6 66.4 78.4 87.9 93.3 89.9 52.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 1.4% children cannot even read letters, 3.9% can read letters but not more, 14.7% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 40.4% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 39.6% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Note: This tool was also available in English and Mara.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language

%Children who took the reading test in:

% Children

Of the % Children who tested in: Lushai/Mizo 87.0 45.7

% Children whose home language was: Bengali 1.2 53.0 Lakher 6.1 0.1 Pawi 2.8 0.1 Other * 3.0 1.1 Total 100 100

Mizo or Mara English Total

69.6 30.4 100.0

Mizo or Mara English

* 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above.

Note: In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium in instruction in government schools. In Mizoram, where the medium of instruction in government schools is Mizo, Mara (only in Saiha district) or English, children were given the choice of reading in any one of these languages. Figures for Mizo and Mara have been combined. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

176

ASER 2011

Mizoram
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 4.7 1.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.7 1.1 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 44.2 12.0 4.8 2.6 1.9 1.5 2.2 2.1 10.5 45.8 50.8 18.3 10.2 4.7 2.7 1.5 2.0 20.4

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 3.4 28.0 50.0 30.3 25.6 15.3 7.8 6.0 22.8 Divide 2.0 8.0 26.7 56.3 67.7 80.4 88.5 89.3 45.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 0.3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 4.8% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 18.3% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 50% can do subtraction but not division, and 26.7% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt 5.3 1.7 0.5 6.5 5.3 2.1 0.3 5.8 2.1 0.6 8.9 3.4 0.9 6.4 7.6 4.3 4.3 0.9 1.4 9.7 5.6 1.6 6.3 7.4 3.2 2.3 6.8 28.5 3.3 11.5 0.9 12.7 I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total

2009 2010 2011

17.5 23.6 35.9 29.3 33.7 38.0 37.0 24.2 17.1 18.1 13.0 21.9 9.7 4.6 12.7

6.7 14.9 17.2 17.3 21.8 14.5 10.4

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

177

Mizoram
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2009 135 17 152 2010 166 8 174 2011 135 13 148

Student and teacher attendance Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2009, 2010 and 2011 2009 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 2010 Std I-IV/V 2011 Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2009, 2010 and 2011 2009 2010 Std I-IV/V 2011

86.0

86.5

85.6

% Teachers present (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

93.8

94.5

91.0

0.8

2.0

3.0

0.8

0.0

0.0

82.3

88.2

83.7

78.7

78.2

67.8

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed Headteacher appointed but not present at time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 0.0 3.5 96.5 100 2.2 5.4 92.4 100 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 92.6 1.8 5.5 100 94.5 3.2 2.4 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2009 2010 Std I-IV/V 20.9 19.1 32.1 30.1 15.2 14.3 2011

178

ASER 2011

Mizoram

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 3.5 4.1 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 4.4 2.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 4.2 0.7 3.0 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 143 grant Development 122 grant TLM grant

85.3 11.2 63.1 32.8

159 93.1

142 95.1

145 79.3 17.9 2.8

133 78.2 18.8

DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 141 96.5 2.8 0.7 ON TIME? 142 78.2 20.4 1.4 158 93.0 5.1 1.9
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know 2.4 4.3

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 61.9 29.4 43.0 47.4 8.7 9.7

Maintenance 126 grant Development 114 grant

156 79.5 18.0 2.6 152 62.5 34.9 2.6

126 78.6 19.1 117 63.3 32.5

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 125 76.8 20.8 2.4 grant 125 62.4 30.4 7.2 156 79.5 18.0 2.6
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 24.4 75.2 78.0 47.6 56.4 68.2 52.6 58.8 67.2 61.6 71.2 80.7 48.1 80.7 76.0 73.5 % schools No 75.6 23.9 21.2 51.5 42.6 31.8 47.4 41.2 31.9 37.4 26.9 17.5 51.9 19.3 21.0 26.5 Don't know 0.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 1.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

179

Mizoram
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 5.1 16.4 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 4.6 50.0 0.0 16.7 60.0 55.6 0.0 0.0 24.8 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 64 70 17 6 2 2 39.8 43.5 10.6 3.7 1.2 1.2 83 34 18 10 3 0 56.1 23.0 12.2 6.8 2.0 0.0

0.0 5 + HM see note 100.0 10.9

161 100.0

148 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.0 7.7 5.9 100.0 100.0 88.2 42.4 0.0 0.0 12.5 50.0 0.0 33.3 5.2

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 4 13 40 37 20 7 27 2.7 8.8 27.0 25.0 13.5 4.7 18.2 13 29 38 19 7 7 9 10.7 23.8 31.2 15.6 5.7 5.7 7.4

148 100.0

122 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 80.1 40.7 35.5 47.3 4.1 48.5 7.1 37.3 55.6 43.4 14.5 11.3 30.8 40.2 36.0 93.6 4.7 1.7 96.5 94.4 92.1 70.7 47.8 25.4 3.6 71.0 2.1 45.8 52.1 12.4 44.6 9.9 33.1 53.3 51.0 72.9 15.0 12.1 98.6 99.3

180

ASER 2011

Nagaland

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 11 OUT OF 11 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 57.1 56.6 58.6 58.1 59.1 56.5 55.8 57.3 49.1 48.4 49.9 Pvt. 40.9 40.1 40.2 40.8 39.6 40.3 40.4 40.2 39.4 39.2 39.5 Other 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Not in Total School 2.0 3.2 1.1 1.0 1.3 3.2 3.9 2.5 11.5 12.3 10.6 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 6.4% in 2006 to 4.5% in 2007 to 5.8% in 2008 to 3.7% in 2009 to 3.2% in 2010 to 2.5% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total
100 7.2 8.9 5.2 7.0 4.2 3.7 7.9 8.4 100 100 100 100 100 5.9 100

8.6 36.3 34.4 10.5 5.2 7.5 9.3 2.5 8.3 1.9 7.2 6.3 23.6 36.3 17.8 7.6

5.0

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

26.0 29.5 16.9

6.5 21.3 30.1 15.9 13.1

25.2 24.1 22.6 12.0 7.8 16.5 32.4 21.8 11.3

21.9 29.6 24.2 11.2

20.8 40.1 21.9 10.8 100

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 26.0% children are 8 years old but there are also 9.3% who are 7 years old or younger, 29.5% who are 9, 16.9% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 2.3 0.3 7.4 3.0 46.7 50.9
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

40.4 44.1

0.0 0.0

3.2 1.7

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

181

Nagaland
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 5.1 1.7 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.5 Letter 42.9 20.3 11.7 7.7 3.0 2.5 2.9 1.4 14.9 Word 42.4 49.8 29.8 17.9 10.7 5.1 2.5 2.5 25.3

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 6.8 22.5 38.1 36.4 27.0 20.6 11.3 5.6 22.4 2.8 5.7 19.6 37.7 59.0 71.6 83.3 90.0 35.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 0.9% children cannot even read letters, 11.7% can read letters but not more, 29.8% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 38.1% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 19.6% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % children who tested in English: % children whose home % children whose home % % language was: language was: 16.9 3.4 Konyak Regma 11.4 3.3 Lotha Chang 10.1 2.8 Zeliang AO 8.1 2.5 Khezha Angami 6.3 1.9 Yimchungrey Chakru/Chokri 5.6 1.5 Kuki Phom 16.8 5.4 Sangatam Other * 100.0 4.1 Khiemungan Total
* 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above.
Note: In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. In Nagaland, where the medium of instruction is English, children were given the reading tool only in English. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This included 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

182

% Children

ASER 2011

Nagaland
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 3.4 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.0 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 32.4 13.4 6.9 4.7 2.8 1.5 1.4 0.7 10.3 54.7 54.4 34.9 20.7 11.3 5.9 4.2 2.3 29.7

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 8.6 28.3 49.9 53.8 45.1 36.8 24.5 13.4 33.1 Divide 1.0 2.9 7.6 20.8 40.5 55.5 69.9 83.3 25.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 0.7% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 6.9% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 34.9% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 49.9% can do subtraction but not division, and 7.6% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 18.5 42.0 12.3 43.1 7.7 33.3 12.6 40.4

15.4 14.6 19.1 19.6 27.1 12.7 16.3 23.7 28.5 34.3 40.2 40.1 38.5 49.9 48.5 57.7 12.9 10.8 7.6 7.2 9.3 7.1 8.4 14.6 13.2 14.8 21.7 8.7 7.8 5.8 6.8 10.3 36.4 36.8 41.1 40.0 40.8 45.9 52.1 54.5 26.5 31.9 34.7 32.2 32.2 30.0 40.0 39.8 11.7 11.4 12.0 13.0 11.1 15.0 15.6 14.5 32.2 36.3 40.4 39.0 42.2 43.1 45.0 52.8

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

183

Nagaland
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 213 23 236 215 27 242 202 21 223 173 44 217

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

85.0 84.4 81.9 82.3 79.9 87.3 83.0 81.6

% Teachers present 91.6 89.2 87.2 90.8 93.0 80.0 86.3 85.8 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

3.0

1.9

3.1

3.0 13.6

0.0

0.0

4.8

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

83.5 80.2 74.4 72.8 81.8 85.2 68.4 78.6

64.7 56.1 49.7 63.2 45.5 51.9 27.8 47.5

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 90.4 92.3 8.6 1.0 100 4.2 3.6 100 35.0 43.2 35.0 27.3 30.0 29.6 100 100

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 10.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 89.7 97.5 100.0 100.0 of visit Total 100 100 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 3.4 2.9 16.0 13.6 18.7 17.5 13.0 13.3 4.8 4.6

Std I-VII/VIII 11.1 12.0 28.6 28.6 15.0 16.7

184

ASER 2011

Nagaland

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 0.0 0.0 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 0.5 4.9 2.0 5.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 1.9 5.6 2.3 5.2 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 217 grant Development 207 grant TLM grant

98.2 1.8 89.4 10.6

204 94.6 200 92.5

214 95.8 213 89.2

DID SCHOOLS1.4 0.0 THEIR MONEY 214 94.9 3.3 1.9 GET 201 93.0 2.5 4.5 ON TIME? 217 98.6
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 8.1 8.6 7.8 9.3 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know 5.0 7.7

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 78.7 18.6 75.5 21.6 2.7 2.9

Maintenance 221 grant Development 208 grant

197 83.3 193 82.9

181 76.2 18.8 181 70.7 21.6

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 178 78.1 18.0 3.9 grant 214 84.1 15.4 0.5 194 85.1 6.2 8.8

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

185

Nagaland
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 98 51 25 9 15 16 45.8 23.8 11.7 4.2 7.0 7.5 87 51 34 10 11 18 41.2 24.2 16.1 4.7 5.2 8.5

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1.1 5.2 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 6.3 9.1 22.2 30.8 28.6 8.1 18.6 12.9 20.0 18.2 50.0 14.5 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

214 100.0

211 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.0 14.3 0.0 19.1 37.5 42.3 21.4 0.0 0.0 7.7 15.4 42.9 65.0 38.9

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 2 13 11 42 54 30 46 1.0 6.6 5.6 21.2 27.3 15.2 23.2 8 11 19 22 30 26 73 4.2 5.8 10.1 11.6 15.9 13.8 38.6

198 100.0

189 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 83.6 63.8 43.3 56.9 6.0 37.0 13.8 32.3 53.9 47.8 9.4 12.2 30.6 48.3 43.5 86.7 4.1 9.2 81.9 30.7 92.6 65.6 35.9 70.3 6.2 23.4 6.2 33.8 60.0 22.0 18.4 9.9 49.7 51.7 48.9 91.0 5.7 3.3 92.1 43.8

186

ASER 2011

Odisha Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttarakhand

Odisha

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 30 OUT OF 30 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 91.2 86.8 93.3 93.8 92.8 89.2 89.1 89.2 66.8 68.7 64.7 Pvt. 5.0 5.5 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.9 5.5 4.3 9.1 9.4 8.8 Other 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not in Total School 3.7 7.6 2.1 1.7 2.5 5.8 5.4 6.4 24.1 22.0 26.4 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 13.7% in 2006 to 12.4% in 2007 to 12% in 2008 to 9.9% in 2009 to 7.2% in 2010 to 6.4% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7

7.7

10

11

12
5.1

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100

40.5 46.8

3.1 15.9 61.3 14.4 3.7 3.4 2.6 2.4 4.5 4.0 11.7 65.6 12.8 13.2 60.5 16.3 7.0 69.0 12.6

5.4 6.3 6.6 8.9 7.1 7.1 6.1

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

100 100 100 100 100 100

11.3 57.6 21.7 8.2 66.7 13.5

14.2 59.5 16.2

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 65.6% children are 8 years old but there are also 11.7% who are 7, 12.8% who are 9 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 28.5 4.5 2.6 1.8 61.1 84.6
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

6.0 7.6

0.2 0.3

1.6 1.3

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

189

Odisha
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 44.9 16.9 8.0 4.5 3.1 0.9 1.3 0.9 11.1 Letter 34.5 34.8 22.6 13.3 8.3 4.8 3.9 2.1 16.3

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 13.2 29.0 29.1 24.2 19.3 12.8 9.2 5.6 18.0 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.5 11.2 23.4 29.6 30.3 26.3 21.5 15.5 19.9 3.8 8.1 16.9 28.5 39.1 55.2 64.1 75.9 34.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 8% children cannot even read letters, 22.6% can read letters but not more, 29.1% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 23.4% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 16.9% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 91.9 8.1 100.07

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language

190

% Children

ASER 2011

Odisha
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 47.0 18.1 8.2 4.3 3.0 1.4 1.7 1.3 11.6

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 35.8 39.5 28.9 18.7 14.4 8.9 6.8 5.3 20.4 12.8 29.1 34.9 32.5 26.7 20.9 18.0 11.3 23.3 Subtract 3.2 10.8 21.2 29.5 33.7 33.7 31.4 29.3 23.6 Divide 1.3 2.4 6.8 15.1 22.2 35.1 42.1 52.9 21.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 8.2% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 28.9% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 34.9% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 21.2% can do subtraction but not division, and 6.8% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 46.7 50.5 49.7 69.1 48.1 64.9 44.8 63.2

32.9 45.5 43.7 50.3 50.8 51.5 51.0 52.1 57.0 60.8 40.1 52.6 62.3 42.3 55.3 36.8 35.6 44.5 51.6 50.2 52.2 55.3 55.8 56.0 64.9 68.7 81.9 67.9 81.2 66.1 68.1 60.9 36.2 41.2 49.1 48.8 49.9 54.7 52.0 55.2 54.4 65.7 81.1 68.7 78.3 72.9 67.5 48.4 29.6 39.9 43.6 48.6 45.9 50.4 51.8 50.8 62.0 55.5 63.7 61.2 75.2 75.0 69.5 55.4

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

191

Odisha

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 406 306 712 403 344 747 383 358 741 390 379 769

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

72.4 74.1 71.9 77.7 70.1 73.0 72.3 72.8

% Teachers present 91.1 92.3 89.1 91.5 87.2 90.4 83.8 87.9 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

% Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 12.9 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average)

8.3 11.9

4.7 13.2

9.1

9.6

8.1

0.4

0.0

1.3

0.3

0.0

0.4

0.7

0.7

51.6 54.8 51.5 61.9 44.7 50.5 51.4 47.0

77.9 80.1 74.3 77.7 62.3 71.1 56.0 61.9

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 8.1 10.8 4.9 9.3 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 97.5 95.1 1.7 0.8 100 3.5 1.4 100 88.1 87.8 3.8 8.2 100 5.5 6.7 100

5.8 3.9 Headteacher appointed but not present at 6.2 8.5 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 88.0 87.6 of visit Total 100 100

81.2 85.8 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 72.1 59.1 70.8 64.9 77.0 66.8 80.0 69.9 65.1 48.8

Std I-VII/VIII 71.9 62.4 69.4 58.1 73.5 61.7

192

ASER 2011

Odisha

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 4.6 9.8 4.1 9.3 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 5.8 11.8 6.3 11.5 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 606 grant Development 598 grant TLM grant

65.2 20.6 14.2 72.1 14.1 13.9

572 85.7 540 86.7

730 82.5 719 82.2

DID SCHOOLS5.3 8.2 THEIR MONEY 718 84.5 6.3 9.2 GET 555 92.3 2.3 5.4 ON TIME? 610 86.6
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 52.2 31.0 16.8 59.3 24.9 15.8

Maintenance 529 grant Development 518 grant

530 71.7 14.9 13.4 495 72.9 15.0 12.1

720 76.5 13.2 10.3 710 76.2 13.4 10.4

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 693 60.6 30.3 9.1 grant 523 76.5 13.2 10.3 505 76.6 13.1 10.3
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 35.5 65.8 54.6 33.8 47.7 36.5 79.0 76.5 67.3 49.4 25.3 85.9 32.9 78.2 76.7 26.8 % schools No 59.5 29.0 40.6 61.7 47.9 58.7 16.7 20.2 29.3 44.7 69.6 10.8 62.9 17.7 17.7 67.7 Don't know 5.0 5.2 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.7 4.3 3.3 3.5 6.0 5.1 3.3 4.3 4.1 5.6 5.5
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

193

Odisha
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 60.4 58.0 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 73.3 79.8 91.5 78.2 84.6 77.5 73.0 74.7 78.6 79.8 84.0 74.3 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 155 120 111 78 103 158 21.4 16.6 15.3 10.8 14.2 21.8 187 113 91 94 110 156 24.9 15.1 12.1 12.5 14.7 20.8

725 100.0

751 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 9.2 8.7 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 25.0 32.0 29.4 38.9 40.0 38.9 26.0 17.7 20.8 31.0 35.3 35.7 38.9 20.9

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 121 131 93 75 45 37 34 22.6 24.4 17.4 14.0 8.4 6.9 6.3 132 141 92 88 46 32 46 22.9 24.4 15.9 15.3 8.0 5.6 8.0

536 100.0

577 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 74.6 44.5 40.7 15.2 14.5 70.3 15.5 40.1 44.4 30.3 19.5 15.5 34.7 81.3 76.9 34.7 18.5 46.8 74.3 88.6 83.0 36.8 46.4 11.2 14.3 74.5 14.9 33.3 51.8 25.2 10.2 17.8 46.8 84.2 81.8 15.3 18.2 66.5 78.5 93.5

194

ASER 2011

Punjab

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS 19 OUT OF 19 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 58.4 59.7 56.8 52.9 61.6 62.4 60.7 64.6 60.7 61.1 60.2 Pvt. 39.6 37.0 42.4 46.1 37.8 34.3 36.1 32.0 28.6 28.9 28.2 Other 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 Not in Total School 1.6 2.9 0.5 0.6 0.4 2.8 2.9 2.6 10.3 9.6 11.2 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 5% in 2006 to 4.9% in 2007 to 4.9% in 2008 to 6.2% in 2009 to 2.7% in 2010 to 2.6% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8

8.8

10

11

12

13
4.0 5.0

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100

29.0 37.6 20.5

4.6 15.6 34.6 30.9 9.2 4.0 2.9 3.6 3.4 3.3 2.6 15.8 35.9 25.7 12.9 13.7 30.0 33.1 13.4 11.3 38.9 27.2 13.1

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

5.7 6.9 5.9 5.4 5.6

12.5 29.9 36.4 12.2 10.5 31.5 34.8 14.4

100 100 4.3 100

11.4 31.3 34.0 16.4

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 35.9% children are 8 years old but there are also 15.8% who are 7, 25.7% who are 9, 12.9% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 10.0 2.0 10.8 5.8 30.1 44.8
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

47.2 45.8

0.2 0.5

1.7 1.2

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

195

Punjab
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 21.9 4.8 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 4.2 Letter 50.6 29.1 12.3 6.7 4.7 2.9 2.0 1.8 14.6

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 19.9 39.8 27.5 11.8 7.6 5.4 2.7 2.6 15.8 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.8 15.4 29.9 26.1 15.1 11.5 8.8 6.1 15.2 3.9 10.9 28.7 54.4 71.9 79.3 85.7 88.7 50.2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 1.7% children cannot even read letters, 12.3% can read letters but not more, 27.5% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 30.0% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 28.7% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 81.4 18.6 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

196

% Children

ASER 2011

Punjab
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 17.2 2.8 1.8 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 3.3

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 41.4 22.0 11.3 5.9 5.1 2.6 1.2 1.2 12.0 31.0 41.0 25.4 16.4 10.4 10.4 8.9 8.8 20.0 Subtract 7.3 30.9 45.1 33.1 22.5 20.3 19.7 15.6 25.1 Divide 3.1 3.3 16.4 43.5 61.3 66.1 69.6 73.5 39.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 1.8% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 11.3% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 25.4% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 45.1% can do subtraction but not division, and 16.4% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 14.4 25.1 20.8 35.0 10.1 28.7 8.5 23.7

9.1 11.7 13.8 13.6 16.2 14.6 12.6 20.4 22.8 20.9 23.0 30.9 28.7 20.7 26.2 29.6 13.3 15.1 23.8 19.7 23.1 17.6 21.4 28.1 29.3 30.4 37.6 30.8 41.5 31.5 35.6 43.9 8.5 6.2 9.1 11.5 8.5 8.7 9.4 10.5 10.8 9.0 9.9 10.4 9.2 11.6 7.3 7.0 25.4 26.5 29.4 32.0 31.0 32.9 29.8 24.3 19.4 23.8 25.7 26.4 22.5 25.7 23.5 23.5

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

197

Punjab

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 383 61 444 431 38 469 391 58 449 457 32 489

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

80.6 84.4 82.5 81.7 82.6 85.6 84.4 79.6

% Teachers present (average) 85.6 84.8 89.1 87.1 87.3 82.2 84.6 84.1 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

3.8

1.7

0.0

2.2

1.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

72.3 82.5 78.1 77.7 82.1 86.5 87.9 75.0

57.9 54.7 64.2 60.2 46.2 41.9 54.0 48.3

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.0 0.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 94.0 93.1 3.7 2.4 100 4.9 2.0 100 57.9 56.3 17.5 21.9 24.6 21.9 100 100

3.5 1.2 Headteacher appointed but not present at 3.5 3.6 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 92.9 95.2 of visit Total 100 100

7.1 11.8 92.9 88.2 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 47.4 37.4 45.6 46.5 53.3 39.1 44.2 41.5 35.0 33.9

Std I-VII/VIII 41.7 40.6 47.4 26.5 36.7 36.7

198

ASER 2011

Punjab

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2.9 3.2 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 1.3 3.3 3.5 3.0 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 5.2 7.9 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 383 grant Development 377 grant TLM grant

83.6 13.6 87.0 9.8

400 95.5 369 93.5

480 84.6 10.2 480 78.1 14.0

DID SCHOOLS1.7 2.1 THEIR MONEY 481 92.5 4.2 3.3 GET 378 96.3 2.7 1.1 ON TIME? 422 96.2
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 7.5 4.0 6.5 2.8 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 63.3 31.8 79.4 15.8 4.9 4.8

Maintenance 286 grant Development 310 grant

374 88.5 356 90.7

478 24.5 58.6 17.0 478 28.9 54.8 16.3

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 476 41.4 44.5 14.1 grant 373 94.1 3.2 2.7 363 94.2 4.1 1.7
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 21.5 41.5 32.7 22.8 48.2 35.4 50.9 63.6 40.0 32.9 46.5 71.9 39.6 66.5 46.3 50.4 % schools No 64.5 50.2 58.5 66.5 45.1 55.0 42.2 29.7 49.8 56.9 45.8 21.0 47.2 26.7 42.9 38.5 Don't know 14.0 8.3 8.8 10.7 6.7 9.6 6.9 6.7 10.2 10.2 7.7 7.1 13.2 6.9 10.8 11.1
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

199

Punjab
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 41.9 46.1 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 66.2 57.1 71.8 74.0 76.6 65.1 64.4 75.0 68.2 70.0 85.7 69.6 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 76 86 61 45 62 112 17.2 19.5 13.8 10.2 14.0 25.3 95 71 71 51 69 128 19.6 14.6 14.6 10.5 14.2 26.4

442 100.0

485 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 4.2 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 5.2 19.5 33.3 29.6 61.5 45.2 23.1 10.9 10.6 26.2 20.5 35.0 33.3 17.8

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 42 94 65 66 38 25 60 10.8 24.1 16.7 16.9 9.7 6.4 15.4 51 96 70 65 60 31 46 12.2 22.9 16.7 15.5 14.3 7.4 11.0

390 100.0

419 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 78.9 69.1 82.8 8.9 8.0 83.1 0.9 37.9 61.2 7.3 16.9 26.5 49.4 91.8 89.2 4.1 30.0 66.0 94.6 98.0 79.5 71.4 84.0 8.4 8.8 82.9 1.9 39.5 58.7 4.9 4.0 34.8 56.2 95.0 90.6 5.6 24.0 70.4 93.9 96.4

200

ASER 2011

Rajasthan

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 31 OUT OF 32 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 60.2 59.7 59.8 56.7 63.9 61.6 59.6 64.3 55.4 56.4 54.1 Pvt. 35.1 33.4 36.9 41.0 31.5 32.0 36.2 26.7 27.6 30.3 23.5 Other 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Not in Total School 4.5 6.7 3.0 2.0 4.3 6.3 4.2 8.9 16.8 13.2 22.3 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 19.6% in 2006 to 14.4% in 2007 to 14.8% in 2008 to 12.2% in 2009 to 12.1% in 2010 to 8.9% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8

6.8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 Total
100

38.6 34.8 15.1

4.8 6.9 7.1 6.1 6.2 3.2 7.1 7.0 9.4 6.2

11.3 22.7 30.7 23.2 5.3 2.7 7.7 18.2 36.5 16.6 11.2 8.1 22.2 24.9 26.6

100 100 100 100 100 100 5.7 100

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

2.7 3.0

9.4 12.9 38.8 17.0 11.9 22.0 24.7 27.2 10.0 8.7 13.5 37.2 22.4

9.1 2.8 9.4

22.2 29.4 22.4 10.9

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 36.5% children are 8 years old but there are also 18.2% who are 7, 16.6 % who are 9, 11.2 % who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 12.3 2.6 4.6 2.8 42.5 52.9
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

34.4 37.9

0.3 0.2

6.0 3.5

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

201

Rajasthan
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 51.3 19.6 8.1 3.8 2.4 1.0 0.5 0.8 11.3 Letter 34.8 41.6 28.7 15.5 9.7 4.1 2.9 1.9 18.3 Word 9.1 24.1 31.5 24.4 18.2 8.8 4.7 3.1 16.1

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 2.2 8.7 18.0 26.3 27.0 22.3 16.0 11.9 16.5 2.7 6.0 13.8 30.1 42.7 63.9 75.9 82.3 37.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 8.1% children cannot even read letters, 28.7% can read letters but not more, 31.5% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 18% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 13.8% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 23.1 76.9 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

202

% Children

ASER 2011

Rajasthan
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 50.3 18.7 7.7 3.0 2.3 1.0 0.5 0.8 10.8 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 37.3 46.9 35.8 21.3 13.2 6.5 4.0 2.7 21.9 9.3 25.6 34.9 33.3 27.7 18.5 12.3 8.7 21.8

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 1.9 6.6 16.1 28.3 33.2 31.9 31.0 25.2 21.4 Divide 1.1 2.2 5.5 14.2 23.7 42.2 52.3 62.7 24.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 7.7% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 35.8% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 34.9% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 16.1% can do subtraction but not division, and 5.5% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 1.5 6.8 3.3 1.5 7.6 0.9 7.1 II 2.1 8.8 3.6 2.6 1.4 6.9 III 2.5 4.7 3.3 1.1 9.1 IV 3.0 4.8 4.0 1.5 8.6 V VI VII 5.8 VIII 8.9 Total 3.8 11.2 6.1 14.7 4.3 12.6 1.9 8.5

3.6 3.9 5.8 7.4 4.6 4.8 1.7 2.4 8.9 8.7

9.2 11.2 11.1 13.6 13.1 19.6 7.5 12.0 5.3 2.9 9.8 7.9 3.1 9.7

2009 2010 2011

12.0 11.4 13.1 11.5 16.1 14.0 13.8 26.5 9.3 10.5 12.4 12.9 15.9 15.3 18.9

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

203

Rajasthan
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 393 488 881 276 594 870 290 606 896 273 599 872

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

67.8 72.0 71.2 69.8 72.6 74.2 73.6 70.8

% Teachers present 91.3 92.8 90.1 90.9 85.3 88.9 88.0 86.4 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

% Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 14.4 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average)

9.8

9.1 11.6

8.8

6.9

5.8

8.5

0.3

0.0

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.0

0.2

0.2

41.0 48.4 46.3 45.7 53.4 56.6 50.2 41.3

74.9 79.5 73.9 75.9 50.7 58.2 53.5 50.3

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 2.8 1.7 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 96.5 97.4 1.8 1.8 100 1.9 0.7 100 78.5 66.5 14.5 16.9 7.0 16.6 100 100

0.9 3.2 Headteacher appointed but not present at 8.0 7.8 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 91.1 89.0 of visit Total 100 100

8.3 11.3 88.9 87.1 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 67.9 52.6 60.5 52.7 65.6 53.6 77.2 63.0 63.9 46.3

Std I-VII/VIII 65.1 51.5 66.0 52.3 67.0 53.6

204

ASER 2011

Rajasthan

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 5.6 5.7 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 6.3 6.9 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 771 grant Development 720 grant TLM grant

70.7 23.7 57.6 36.7

809 79.1 13.7 7.2 759 73.4 18.2 8.4

843 81.4 12.3 803 62.5 30.6

DID SCHOOLS8.6 4.0 THEIR MONEY 847 86.9 8.2 5.0 GET 809 88.8 6.8 4.5 ON TIME? 781 87.5
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know 9.6

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 39.4 53.6 39.9 53.5 7.0 6.6

Maintenance 645 grant Development 619 grant

761 47.7 40.9 11.4 714 47.5 40.3 12.2

782 50.5 39.9

755 41.9 47.8 10.3

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 791 57.1 35.0 7.8 grant 650 55.4 39.1 5.5 744 55.9 34.1 10.0
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 16.4 46.7 38.9 20.7 37.1 28.7 49.5 63.5 43.1 42.3 34.5 88.7 44.5 76.9 55.8 49.4 % schools No 79.7 50.1 58.0 75.8 59.9 67.8 46.9 33.5 53.9 54.0 62.6 9.3 52.9 20.8 41.3 47.1 Don't know 3.9 3.3 3.0 3.5 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.0 3.1 3.7 2.9 2.1 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.5
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

205

Rajasthan
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 115 110 150 112 163 237 13.0 12.4 16.9 12.6 18.4 26.7 113 109 148 115 168 213 13.1 12.6 17.1 13.3 19.4 24.6

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 46.3 58.1 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 44.0 48.2 59.2 49.3 63.9 53.7 45.8 44.6 55.1 42.9 64.5 52.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

887 100.0

866 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 3.0 2.4 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 3.8 9.9 13.5 22.5 32.4 32.7 18.0 4.4 18.2 15.1 18.8 32.0 24.3 16.9

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 81 97 101 114 163 94 130 10.4 12.4 13.0 14.6 20.9 12.1 16.7 105 89 90 116 147 92 149 13.3 11.3 11.4 14.7 18.7 11.7 18.9

780 100.0

788 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 91.2 51.9 70.1 20.9 11.1 68.0 3.5 31.1 65.4 19.6 13.3 16.8 50.3 76.1 72.1 36.3 40.4 23.3 83.8 94.8 89.2 57.2 72.6 21.9 8.5 69.5 3.3 26.9 69.9 9.3 5.5 19.0 66.3 80.0 74.7 33.0 35.4 31.7 84.5 97.0

206

ASER 2011

Tamil Nadu

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 29 OUT OF 29 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 71.5 72.7 68.6 66.3 71.0 76.1 73.8 78.3 73.8 73.0 74.5 Pvt. 27.0 24.8 30.6 32.9 28.2 21.8 23.8 19.9 19.2 19.5 18.9 Other 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.4 Not in Total School 0.9 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.6 1.9 1.3 6.4 6.7 6.2 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 3.9% in 2006 to 2.3% in 2007 to 1.2% in 2008 to 1.1% in 2009 to 1.8% in 2010 to 1.3% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total
100 2.0 1.0 1.7 9.0 2.4 1.9 3.8 3.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

44.4 49.7 1.1 21.6 67.0 1.9 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.2 3.1 8.3

5.9

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

17.8 71.0 8.3 18.2 67.4 10.3 8.0 78.0

10.4 68.8 16.7 10.7 69.0 14.3

14.2 67.9 11.7

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 71.0% children are 8 years old but there are also 17.8% who are 7, 8.3% who are 9 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 8.2 0.9 14.3 2.0 42.1 59.5
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

34.6 36.7

0.7 0.6

0.1 0.3

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

207

Tamil Nadu
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 54.2 20.3 9.7 5.3 3.5 1.4 1.2 0.6 11.0 Letter 31.3 35.6 21.9 11.9 7.7 3.8 2.5 1.5 13.6 Word 10.5 30.4 40.9 32.2 20.8 14.8 9.5 8.5 20.7

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.0 9.4 20.5 31.5 35.7 31.3 26.0 22.7 23.3 1.1 4.3 7.1 19.0 32.3 48.8 60.8 66.8 31.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 9.7% children cannot even read letters, 21.9% can read letters but not more, 40.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 20.5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 7.1% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 92.2 7.8 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

208

% Children

ASER 2011

Tamil Nadu
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 45.9 15.7 7.8 4.9 3.7 1.7 1.1 0.5 9.3 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 33.8 28.6 18.5 9.6 5.5 3.1 1.8 0.9 11.8 17.1 46.2 51.7 45.0 31.6 24.0 16.8 14.6 30.5 Subtract 2.5 7.6 20.2 34.2 44.9 46.4 45.4 38.8 31.3

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Divide 0.8 1.9 1.8 6.4 14.2 24.8 34.9 45.1 17.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 7.8% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 18.5% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 51.7% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 20.2% can do subtraction but not division, and 1.8% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 15.7 32.1 20.9 33.9 16.4 27.8 15.1 24.9

10.8 12.9 13.8 16.0 16.7 18.3 17.5 17.1 26.5 29.5 33.5 37.5 39.9 30.9 29.5 30.8 16.3 20.9 19.5 22.3 24.1 22.5 19.6 20.0 28.6 31.9 37.2 41.4 36.1 29.4 33.1 35.2 12.7 13.6 16.0 14.8 19.8 17.6 16.7 17.1 22.4 26.4 29.9 31.3 30.3 29.4 25.9 28.0 11.6 12.8 14.6 16.3 17.5 15.2 16.4 14.5 19.4 24.6 30.7 24.4 25.3 29.5 20.5 24.7

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

209

Tamil Nadu
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 388 213 601 385 260 645 395 267 662 448 235 683

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

91.2 91.7 89.9 89.7 90.2 90.1 90.7 89.2

% Teachers present 96.3 90.6 86.5 91.6 91.3 87.4 79.9 89.0 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

0.5

0.0

1.0

1.4

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

94.2 94.5 93.9 91.4 93.2 93.3 97.7 92.7

88.8 70.0 61.6 75.1 74.0 48.5 34.0 54.9

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.0 13.4 0.6 5.6 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 27.5 21.8 26.0 27.1 46.6 51.1 100 100

0.0 0.6 Headteacher appointed but not present at 10.5 5.6 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 89.6 93.9 of visit Total 100 100

86.6 93.9 100 100

70.3 66.9 Computers but no children using them on 11.9 14.3 day of visit Computers & children using them on day 17.8 18.9 of visit Total 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 76.1 69.3 77.8 74.1 81.8 78.3 71.2 68.2 77.8 70.1

Std I-VII/VIII 71.5 63.3 76.2 69.5 67.4 61.9

Note: In Tamil Nadu, the official government school policy is to have mixed groups in Std. I-IV.

210

ASER 2011

Tamil Nadu

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 5.4 6.8 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 1.8 4.0 4.6 4.8 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 4.6 4.4 5.9 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 555 grant Development 499 grant TLM grant

82.5 12.1 62.7 30.5

546 94.1 498 90.6

657 91.0

631 82.9 11.3

DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 601 53.6 42.1 4.3 ON TIME? 394 12.2 83.0 4.8 180 16.1 76.1 7.8
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 3.6 5.3 5.3 3.1 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know 4.5 5.7

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 80.2 12.7 62.2 29.8 7.1 8.0

Maintenance 504 grant Development 450 grant

551 91.1 491 91.7

623 85.1 10.4 601 78.4 16.0

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 586 72.2 23.7 4.1 grant 350 10.0 82.6 7.4 161 18.0 72.1 9.9
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 19.3 53.3 51.0 29.1 60.5 51.0 57.8 85.1 50.0 52.4 63.0 92.7 82.8 83.9 58.7 53.5 % schools No 79.3 44.8 47.0 68.8 37.6 46.9 40.8 13.8 48.7 45.7 34.5 6.2 16.1 14.4 38.7 43.6 Don't know 1.3 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.9 2.6 1.1 1.1 1.7 2.6 2.9
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

211

Tamil Nadu
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 160 95 76 73 101 151 24.4 14.5 11.6 11.1 15.4 23.0 213 97 90 75 95 106 31.5 14.4 13.3 11.1 14.1 15.7

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 69.6 63.4 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 58.0 67.1 52.9 32.1 39.1 53.0 55.6 47.6 42.4 25.6 33.3 47.8 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

656 100.0

676 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 8.5 22.7 44.9 37.0 31.9 35.9 24.8 14.3 31.8 33.9 30.6 36.0 39.8 25.1

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 107 86 72 61 61 55 134 18.6 14.9 12.5 10.6 10.6 9.6 23.3 126 88 77 78 55 60 114 21.1 14.7 12.9 13.0 9.2 10.0 19.1

576 100.0

598 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 55.0 68.7 60.9 12.8 6.7 80.5 7.0 48.5 44.6 20.8 23.0 21.0 35.1 95.4 93.3 20.9 21.3 57.8 96.7 99.4 49.4 67.6 58.7 13.6 8.9 77.6 9.6 42.0 48.4 21.2 15.0 21.2 42.7 92.8 92.5 23.2 21.6 55.2 96.5 99.4

212

ASER 2011

Tripura

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 4 OUT OF 4 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 92.9 93.1 92.7 92.6 92.7 94.0 93.9 94.0 92.1 91.5 93.0 Pvt. 5.0 4.1 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.6 3.3 1.7 Other 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.7 Not in Total School 1.3 1.9 0.4 0.3 0.6 2.0 2.1 2.0 4.7 4.7 4.7 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 7.3% in 2006 to 5.8% in 2007 to 3.8% in 2008 to 3.4% in 2009 to 3.4% in 2010 to 2.0% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8

7.9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 Total
100

8.3 34.1 43.8 5.3 1.3 3.4 4.9 6.4

5.9 8.1 7.8 3.4 6.8 9.0 7.8 9.3

22.3 55.9 8.4 7.3 15.4 54.2 14.1 12.0 58.9 14.2 8.2 21.0 45.8 21.5 12.0 64.8

100 100 100 100 100 100 6.7 100

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

4.8 6.4

17.5 47.0 21.4

15.9 48.2 22.7

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 15.4% children are 8 years old but there are also 7.3% who are 7, 54.2% who are 9, 14.1% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 56.6 26.5 14.8 7.3 21.9 55.8
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

5.1 8.7

0.3 0.4

1.3 1.3

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

213

Tripura
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 16.0 7.0 3.5 1.8 2.4 1.9 0.6 0.0 4.0 Letter 39.3 27.8 12.3 4.3 5.3 4.2 2.2 1.4 11.9

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 25.5 36.2 27.0 18.0 10.9 8.2 5.9 4.9 17.5 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 11.3 18.2 35.6 38.4 26.2 13.1 6.6 9.9 20.8 7.9 10.8 21.6 37.5 55.3 72.7 84.8 83.8 45.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 3.5% children cannot even read letters, 12.3% can read letters but not more, 27% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 35.6% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 21.6% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Note: This tool was also available in Kok Borok and English.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language Of children who tested in Bengali % Children whose home language was: Bengali Other * Total % 66.1 33.9 100.0

* 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above. Note: In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. In Tripura, where the medium of instruction in government schools is Bengali or Kok Borok, children were given the choice of reading in Bengali, Kok Borok or English. Figures for Kok Borok and English have not been included due to insufficient data. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This included 22 Scheduled languages and 100 NonScheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

214

% Children

ASER 2011

Tripura
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 9.0 5.7 3.2 0.4 2.5 2.3 1.0 0.8 3.0

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 39.5 25.7 10.9 6.9 5.2 4.2 3.1 0.8 11.7 33.5 39.0 31.2 19.3 17.3 13.0 8.2 7.2 21.3 Subtract 16.1 25.7 40.9 47.1 37.2 33.9 33.4 24.8 33.1 Divide 2.0 4.0 13.8 26.3 37.7 46.6 54.4 66.5 30.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 3.2% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 10.9% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 31.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 40.9% can do subtraction but not division, and 13.8% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII 0.0 Total 69.3 45.6 72.5 77.5 72.7 93.6 72.1 78.6

57.4 62.8 64.8 67.2 73.7 75.0 73.2 80.0 45.8 31.4 48.9 13.7 33.3100.0100.0 65.3 64.2 71.2 74.1 65.0 72.7 83.2 85.6 96.0 42.6 65.3100.0 74.1100.0100.0100.0 56.9 67.7 70.2 69.8 73.4 77.9 80.2 84.2 75.2100.0100.0100.0 88.7100.0100.0100.0 61.0 62.7 69.2 73.9 72.0 75.0 79.7 82.5 79.5 89.4 66.3 45.5100.0100.0 73.8 58.5

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

215

Tripura

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 36 26 62 58 44 102 44 54 98 46 48 94

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

75.9 75.3 67.8 67.2 84.5 73.8 62.4 63.3

% Teachers present (average) 85.1 88.8 88.3 86.9 79.5 84.3 81.5 79.0 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

4.8

7.1 17.1 17.4

0.0

7.5 25.9 27.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

52.4 51.8 36.6 41.3 86.7 47.5 24.1 27.1

53.6 48.2 52.4 57.8 47.8 41.9 25.5 29.8

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 2.4 2.8 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 95.2 93.3 2.4 2.4 100 6.7 0.0 100 88.5 89.6 3.9 7.7 100 6.3 4.2 100

3.7 14.3 Headteacher appointed but not present at 3.7 8.6 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 92.6 77.1 of visit Total 100 100

12.2 16.7 85.4 80.6 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 33.3 32.1 30.2 28.6 34.2 23.5 35.7 33.3 30.8 28.6

Std I-VII/VIII 62.5 35.1 44.0 21.3 54.6 50.0

216

ASER 2011

Tripura

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants Maintenance grant Development grant TLM grant No. of Sch. 79 78 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 9.9 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

55.7 34.2 10.1 66.7 24.4 9.0

72 76.4 16.7 6.9 68 63.2 25.0 11.8

91 61.5 28.6

88 56.8 31.8 11.4

DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY ON TIME? 79 69.6 21.5 8.9 74 82.4 8.1 9.5 91 79.1 11.0 9.9
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. 57 52 April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants Maintenance grant Development grant

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 35.1 45.6 19.3 38.5 38.5 23.1

74 37.8 50.0 12.2 68 36.8 51.5 11.8

80 18.8 67.5 13.8 78 23.1 61.5 15.4

TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY ON TIME? grant 54 42.6 37.0 20.4 74 48.7 41.9 9.5 79 29.1 57.0 13.9

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

217

Tripura
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 14.3 0.0 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 36.4 42.9 15.0 21.4 46.7 31.5 25.0 25.0 40.0 30.8 31.8 25.0 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 9 11 8 20 16 32 9.4 11.5 8.3 20.8 16.7 33.3 17 17 12 10 15 23 18.1 18.1 12.8 10.6 16.0 24.5

96 100.0

94 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.0 25.0 50.0 20.0 50.0 56.5 40.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 37.5 83.3 64.5 53.9

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 4 7 7 3 15 15 38 4.5 7.9 7.9 3.4 16.9 16.9 42.7 1 9 13 7 10 9 41 1.1 10.0 14.4 7.8 11.1 10.0 45.6

89 100.0

90 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 88.8 89.7 19.0 32.6 27.4 40.0 8.6 48.4 43.0 48.5 15.2 6.1 30.3 52.7 32.3 64.6 15.6 19.8 88.4 75.3 76.6 78.7 25.3 41.3 18.5 40.2 15.4 53.9 30.8 35.9 28.1 14.1 21.9 35.6 35.9 71.7 4.4 23.9 90.4 96.8

218

ASER 2011

Uttarakhand

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 12 OUT OF 13 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 66.5 68.6 62.9 58.5 67.9 71.3 66.1 77.0 76.9 74.2 79.8 Pvt. 31.3 28.5 35.2 39.5 30.2 26.2 31.2 20.7 16.8 20.5 12.9 Other 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.6 1.2 Not in Total School 1.1 1.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 1.5 1.8 1.2 5.4 4.7 6.2 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 3.4% in 2006 to 4.1% in 2007 to 2.7% in 2008 to 3% in 2009 to 4% in 2010 to 1.2% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8

7.6

10

11

12

13
3.9 5.8

14

15

16 Total
100 100

31.2 37.8 19.5

5.6 19.2 36.8 24.2 8.4 6.7 5.2 7.3 6.8 5.3 4.4 15.3 37.2 23.0 10.6 18.6 33.7 26.3 8.7

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

7.1 7.4 8.2 8.6 6.3 5.8

100 100 100 100 100 6.9 100

9.5 37.4 25.7 11.9 13.0 34.4 30.9

12.0 37.1 27.7 12.0

14.6 36.0 25.6 12.6

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 37.2% children are 8 years old but there are also 15.3% who are 7, 23.0 % who are 9, 10.6 % who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 17.9 3.2 13.5 7.3 36.0 55.9
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

29.1 31.9

1.2 0.7

2.3 1.1

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

219

Uttarakhand
Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 29.7 12.5 5.7 3.5 2.4 1.0 0.2 0.3 7.4 Letter 40.8 34.5 18.0 12.0 5.9 3.4 3.2 0.8 15.7 Word 19.0 28.6 28.9 18.8 11.5 4.6 2.9 2.7 15.4

RURAL

Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 4.9 10.7 21.4 23.1 22.2 17.7 10.6 8.3 15.1 5.6 13.6 26.1 42.7 58.0 73.3 83.1 87.9 46.4

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 5.7% children cannot even read letters, 18% can read letters but not more, 28.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 21.4% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 26.1% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 33.5 66.6 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

220

% Children

ASER 2011

Uttarakhand
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 31.6 12.6 5.3 2.6 2.0 1.1 0.4 0.4 7.5 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 40.3 37.7 23.7 15.7 8.3 5.0 3.3 1.7 17.8 22.4 33.8 40.0 28.6 20.6 16.7 14.1 9.7 23.9 Subtract 4.8 12.4 21.6 32.5 35.4 32.0 21.5 22.5 22.7

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Divide 1.0 3.7 9.4 20.6 33.9 45.2 60.7 65.7 28.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 5.3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 23.7% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 40% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 21.6% can do subtraction but not division, and 9.4% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 3.6 4.8 3.9 4.8 II 4.8 2.8 6.1 4.8 III 3.7 5.5 5.7 5.3 IV 4.8 5.2 6.9 5.9 V VI VII 3.5 7.5 8.2 VIII 8.8 8.4 8.8 Total 4.6 18.9 6.0 29.5 6.6 26.2 6.6 32.3

4.2 5.1 6.5 7.3 7.5 5.3 6.7 7.5

13.2 17.9 21.3 18.5 19.3 20.7 26.4 24.6 17.5 22.4 28.0 36.4 35.0 41.5 28.4 42.7 19.1 24.8 26.0 27.7 26.1 35.0 26.5 30.9 6.9 10.5 25.5 22.4 31.1 36.3 37.9 31.0 44.7 38.4

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

221

Uttarakhand
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 316 16 332 347 7 354 321 16 337 285 12 297

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 2009 2010 2011 Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V

Std I-IV/V

85.6

84.3

89.5

82.5

% Teachers present (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

91.6

94.5

91.2

92.0

4.8

0.9

1.6

5.4

0.4

0.3

0.0

0.0

78.8

79.4

89.3

76.0

81.3

84.8

77.9

82.0

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed Headteacher appointed but not present at time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 2.3 12.6 85.1 100 0.5 10.0 89.5 100 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 93.6 5.1 1.3 100 94.2 4.4 1.5 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 67.7 60.9 60.9 55.8 60.5 55.6 71.4 64.2

222

ASER 2011

Uttarakhand

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 5.1 4.1 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 6.7 8.3 8.9 8.6 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 8.4 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 316 grant Development 314 grant TLM grant

84.5 10.4 83.8 12.1

315 85.1 291 82.5

287 76.0 15.7

278 67.3 21.2 11.5

DID SCHOOLS2.7 3.0 THEIR MONEY 284 86.6 8.8 4.6 GET 294 87.1 6.1 6.8 ON TIME? 333 94.3
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 69.8 22.9 72.7 20.7 7.3 6.6

Maintenance 275 grant Development 275 grant

287 33.1 52.3 14.6 277 31.4 54.2 14.4

267 59.9 28.1 12.0 258 55.8 30.6 13.6

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 260 60.8 29.6 9.6 grant 294 86.4 8.5 5.1 278 50.0 38.5 11.5
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 17.5 41.9 42.1 24.6 37.3 36.2 55.0 54.5 49.8 46.5 24.6 82.1 63.1 68.0 58.5 24.1 % schools No 79.4 55.9 55.8 73.2 60.5 61.6 41.6 42.7 46.5 50.4 73.6 14.3 33.2 28.4 36.0 69.7 Don't know 3.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.4 2.9 3.7 3.2 1.8 3.6 3.7 3.6 5.5 6.1
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

223

Uttarakhand
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 229 41 15 14 12 21 69.0 12.4 4.5 4.2 3.6 6.3 202 28 15 13 14 19 69.4 9.6 5.2 4.5 4.8 6.5

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 84.3 78.8 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 90.9 84.6 92.3 94.7 100.0 83.3 100.0 88.9 83.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

5 + HM 100.0 see note 84.2 86.3

332 100.0

291 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 2.9 3.4 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 9.1 28.6 37.5 100.0 100.0 66.7 12.6 12.0 50.0 55.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 15.3

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 155 47 18 9 5 5 9 62.5 19.0 7.3 3.6 2.0 2.0 3.6 120 42 10 12 2 3 9 60.6 21.2 5.1 6.1 1.0 1.5 4.6

248 100.0

198 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 87.9 67.4 67.0 22.1 9.7 68.3 5.8 40.9 53.4 47.7 11.5 16.9 24.0 82.4 79.1 52.3 27.2 20.4 96.3 95.1 83.0 67.8 61.1 19.3 12.5 68.2 4.9 35.4 59.7 14.1 13.2 19.4 53.3 87.3 82.1 17.7 41.8 40.5 94.2 93.2

224

ASER 2011

Uttar Pradesh West Bengal iu Daman and D Puducherry

Uttar Pradesh

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 68 OUT OF 69 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 46.0 43.2 48.9 44.8 53.8 42.1 39.0 45.7 31.3 31.4 31.2 Pvt. 45.4 45.9 44.7 49.5 38.9 47.5 51.9 42.4 45.7 47.4 43.7 Other 2.5 2.2 2.9 2.3 3.6 1.9 1.7 2.2 1.1 0.9 1.4 Not in Total School 6.1 8.6 3.5 3.4 3.7 8.5 7.4 9.7 21.9 20.3 23.7 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 11.1% in 2006 to 8.4% in 2007 to 10.2% in 2008 to 9.5% in 2009 to 9.7% in 2010 to 9.7% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

9.2 9.6 5.0 5.5 9.8 9.7 5.3 6.3 6.0 2.9 5.5 6.1 3.9 5.4

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 1.8 100 4.9 100

27.0 35.0 17.7 11.1 4.3 13.7 30.9 26.4 9.2 5.4 6.0 1.7 5.6 1.8 6.1

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

11.6 35.0 18.7 16.0 15.0 26.7 27.4

6.2 9.3 35.1 19.7 16.6

15.7 27.9 30.4 10.3

6.5 10.3 38.5 22.2 13.4

17.3 33.3 25.5 13.0

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 35% children are 8 years old but there are also 11.6% who are 7, 18.7 % who are 9, 16.0% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 7.9 2.4 8.2 5.9 33.9 44.4
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

31.1 37.0

2.7 2.8

16.2 7.7

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

227

Uttar Pradesh
Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 47.4 22.5 13.7 8.3 6.3 2.8 2.3 1.8 16.5 Letter 37.3 39.7 30.6 22.7 16.1 11.1 8.2 5.6 24.1 Word 9.4 20.0 22.4 19.9 15.2 10.1 7.2 5.0 14.1

RURAL

Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.3 8.7 15.1 17.9 19.2 17.5 15.2 11.3 12.7 2.7 9.1 18.3 31.2 43.3 58.5 67.1 76.4 32.6

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 13.7% children cannot even read letters, 30.6% can read letters but not more, 22.4% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 15.1% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 18.3% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 93.9 6.1 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

228

% Children

ASER 2011

Uttar Pradesh
Arithmetic
Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 45.0 20.1 11.5 6.5 4.3 2.3 1.9 1.4 14.8 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 40.9 45.2 36.8 28.5 21.1 14.2 10.3 7.1 28.4 11.1 24.2 29.8 30.1 27.0 24.1 21.2 19.0 22.8 Subtract 2.3 8.5 15.5 21.8 26.3 29.6 29.7 27.5 17.9

RURAL

Math Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Divide 0.7 2.0 6.4 13.2 21.4 29.8 36.8 45.0 16.1

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 11.5% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 36.8% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 29.8% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 15.5% can do subtraction but not division, and 6.4% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 3.8 5.2 3.8 3.7 II 4.1 5.9 4.5 4.6 III 4.6 5.9 5.1 4.8 IV 5.8 6.4 5.0 5.8 V VI VII VIII Total 5.8 18.0 7.0 18.5 5.9 15.0 6.1 14.5

6.4 7.3 7.3 8.4 7.6 7.3 6.2 8.1

9.0 11.5 9.4 11.8 8.4 9.0

11.6 15.1 17.0 17.3 19.5 20.1 21.9 24.5 12.8 15.4 18.6 19.6 21.0 19.2 20.7 24.8 10.1 12.4 14.5 16.2 16.8 16.4 17.9 18.9 9.2 10.1 11.5 13.0 13.5 14.8 16.1 15.4 15.6 19.2

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

229

Uttar Pradesh
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 1885 99 1984 1799 1633 1601 90 263 299

1889 1896 1900

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

64.4 59.7 57.6 57.3 64.5 61.7 57.6 57.2

% Teachers present 92.0 89.3 81.0 82.1 90.8 85.8 79.8 83.8 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

% Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 19.8 27.0 30.5 33.2 22.7 20.2 26.6 28.1 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average)

0.1

0.1

0.6

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

31.0 20.4 17.4 16.7 35.1 20.2 11.8 13.4

75.8 69.9 53.1 55.7 70.7 60.5 46.9 54.0

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 4.8 7.4 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 98.8 98.8 0.8 0.4 100 1.1 0.1 100 97.0 97.0 3.0 0.0 100 2.4 0.7 100

5.4 7.6 Headteacher appointed but not present at 26.0 18.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 68.6 73.7 of visit Total 100 100

24.7 17.0 70.6 75.6 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 42.7 43.1 50.1 50.0 51.4 46.5 53.8 51.8 44.4 42.6

Std I-VII/VIII 43.2 40.0 48.4 42.0 55.9 49.7

230

ASER 2011

Uttar Pradesh

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 5.2 26.8 9.5 28.2 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know 6.2 13.7 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 1750 grant Development 1715 grant TLM grant

66.0 11.6 22.4 1799 68.0 59.1 16.2 24.7 1763 62.3

1884 80.2

1880 72.3 12.8 14.9

DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY ON TIME? 1759 75.0 10.0 15.0 1733 74.6 7.0 18.4 1883 80.5 9.9 9.6
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch.

Maintenance 1592 grant Development 1567 grant

42.6 31.0 26.4 1759 37.0 30.2 32.8 37.1 34.8 28.1 1736 32.8 32.5 34.7

1870 54.1 28.8 17.1 1861 46.2 35.1 18.7

TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY ON TIME? grant 1608 51.6 29.4 19.0 1705 38.1 34.7 27.2 1862 39.3 45.8 15.0

Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 15.5 38.4 41.1 26.3 43.1 28.0 83.7 78.2 79.7 44.8 34.5 88.4 80.2 73.7 65.8 16.9 % schools No 78.2 55.7 53.1 67.9 51.7 66.5 11.8 17.2 15.8 48.8 59.7 7.0 15.0 21.0 27.3 72.9 Don't know 6.3 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.2 5.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 6.4 5.8 4.6 4.8 5.4 6.9 10.2
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

231

Uttar Pradesh
Right to Education indicators
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 87 188 300 306 404 606 4.6 9.9 15.9 16.2 21.4 32.1 108 215 334 316 346 580 5.7 11.3 17.6 16.6 18.2 30.5

RURAL

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 19.8 19.6 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 50.3 77.6 93.8 89.9 97.7 83.9 51.9 81.4 95.5 91.5 96.7 83.5

As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books.

1891 100.0

1899 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 2.5 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 5.0 15.4 33.4 37.6 60.5 65.9 18.4 6.7 18.1 35.0 37.2 76.9 72.2 19.7

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 132 556 620 345 112 50 44 7.1 29.9 33.4 18.6 6.0 2.7 2.4 130 625 603 324 93 44 40 7.0 33.6 32.4 17.4 5.0 2.4 2.2

1859 100.0

1859 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 88.6 60.8 44.4 6.9 10.9 82.2 6.7 45.9 47.4 24.9 25.3 15.9 33.9 73.5 69.6 51.4 25.8 22.9 89.3 71.2 88.1 71.1 57.9 5.4 10.2 84.4 7.4 38.8 53.9 16.6 19.1 16.9 47.4 79.0 74.2 22.9 39.9 37.2 94.7 95.0

232

ASER 2011

West Bengal

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 17 OUT OF 17 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 87.8 86.8 87.3 86.3 88.3 89.6 87.3 91.9 79.4 76.5 82.6 Pvt. 6.3 5.0 9.0 9.8 8.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 Other 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.3 Not in Total School 4.3 6.6 2.2 2.4 2.0 6.3 8.4 4.3 17.0 19.7 14.2 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 12.1% in 2006 to 8.3% in 2007 to 7.7% in 2008 to 8.5% in 2009 to 5.5% in 2010 to 4.3% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8

7.4

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 Total
100

30.0 37.4 19.0

6.3 7.9 5.7 8.3 6.8 5.2 8.6 6.8 4.5 9.2

4.2 17.2 40.5 24.2 6.1 3.9 3.8 14.2 3.8 2.6 2.6 15.6 39.3 24.6 10.9 13.6 32.6 29.7

100 100 100 100 100 100 5.1 100

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

35.7 27.7 13.8 11.4 27.7 31.9 13.9

9.8 32.0 31.3 15.1

11.8 33.4 32.5 14.6

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 39.3% children are 8 years old but there are also 15.6% who are 7, 24.6% who are 9, 10.9% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 30.4 10.7 11.1 6.5 41.6 66.7
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

7.6 11.1

2.1 1.3

7.1 3.7

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

233

West Bengal
Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 20.2 9.7 5.2 3.4 2.4 1.9 0.9 0.4 5.7 Letter 45.3 33.6 19.9 13.9 8.4 5.3 3.3 1.1 16.8 Word 21.8 29.5 26.9 22.2 15.3 9.4 5.5 3.4 17.0

RURAL

Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 8.1 14.8 23.9 26.6 25.2 25.5 17.1 14.8 19.5 4.6 12.4 24.1 33.9 48.8 57.9 73.2 80.3 40.9

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 5.2% children cannot even read letters, 19.9% can read letters but not more, 26.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 23.9% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 24.1% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 91.9 8.1 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

234

% Children

ASER 2011

West Bengal
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 15.9 7.0 4.1 2.3 1.5 1.7 0.5 0.4 4.3 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 48.2 35.3 22.0 16.6 10.2 6.3 3.9 1.0 18.4 27.7 35.3 33.2 24.7 24.8 20.9 15.7 13.4 24.6 Subtract 5.7 16.4 27.0 36.4 32.1 32.1 26.0 25.9 25.1

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Divide 2.6 6.0 13.7 20.2 31.4 39.0 53.8 59.2 27.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 4.1% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 22% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 33.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 27% can do subtraction but not division, and 13.7% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 66.9 55.4 73.2 73.2 70.8 66.1 72.9 63.9

30.6 45.6 63.0 74.0 83.3 84.9 83.7 88.5 40.5 54.9 59.5 67.0 62.7 68.6 75.6 89.7 51.5 63.9 68.7 74.2 75.6 80.8 85.7 86.6 63.9 71.4 74.4 83.6 87.7 79.2 78.9 71.2 50.6 63.9 69.8 68.6 75.6 76.1 80.1 83.1 60.7 73.1 65.0 65.1 65.4 61.3 75.4 72.9 56.6 65.3 67.4 72.7 76.9 77.5 82.4 81.7 54.0 69.9 69.9 79.4 45.8 52.4 60.6 65.4

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

235

West Bengal
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 395 9 404 417 7 424 406 2 408 400 1 401

Student and teacher attendance

Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 2009 2010 2011 Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V

Std I-IV/V

69.7

65.9

68.5

60.7

% Teachers present (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

90.6

87.7

85.6

86.3

14.7

20.9

15.8

27.9

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

50.7

39.8

45.7

26.9

71.4

68.4

58.4

59.6

Other school information

Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed Headteacher appointed but not present at time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 1.1 4.7 94.2 100 0.8 4.5 94.8 100 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 99.0 0.5 0.5 100 96.4 2.3 1.3 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 36.7 24.6 46.6 38.7 42.6 33.8 38.7 30.9

236

ASER 2011

West Bengal

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)

Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 5.9 5.9 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Dont Sch. know 2010-2011 % Schools No Dont know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 390 grant Development 371 grant TLM grant

70.5 23.6 59.6 34.5

377 80.4 10.6 9.0 363 73.6 17.4 9.1

380 72.1 17.9 10.0 375 62.4 28.0 9.6

DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 379 77.8 14.0 8.2 ON TIME? 381 74.8 21.0 4.2 374 85.3 8.6 6.2
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Dont know 9.3

SSA school grants

% Schools No. Dont of Yes No know Sch. 39.3 54.1 30.4 62.3 6.7 7.3

Maintenance 331 grant Development 329 grant

346 31.2 59.5 9.3 320 28.1 62.2 9.7

364 39.6 51.1

353 33.7 56.1 10.2

ON TIME? TLM DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY 363 42.2 48.8 9.1 grant 327 45.0 50.5 4.6 322 32.3 59.0 8.7

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see [Link]

ASER 2011

237

West Bengal
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 40 68 74 65 76 72 10.1 17.2 18.7 16.5 19.2 18.2 51 61 81 55 69 71 13.1 15.7 20.9 14.2 17.8 18.3

RURAL

Right to Education indicators

Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 25.8 25.0 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 69.6 77.5 87.7 66.7 90.0 73.9 57.1 66.7 73.6 74.6 85.5 65.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteachers room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

395 100.0

388 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 6.9 25.6 37.1 86.7 95.0 75.0 35.2 19.7 22.5 35.1 75.9 94.1 93.8 35.5

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 20 83 92 79 36 25 15 5.7 23.7 26.3 22.6 10.3 7.1 4.3 41 84 91 70 37 20 21 11.3 23.1 25.0 19.2 10.2 5.5 5.8

350 100.0

364 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 79.3 42.0 34.1 19.3 13.5 67.2 7.6 40.3 52.1 44.5 14.5 17.4 23.7 71.7 65.3 50.5 17.8 31.8 86.0 63.0 81.3 50.6 42.3 21.1 15.5 63.4 8.6 42.0 49.5 26.1 19.2 13.4 41.2 78.0 71.6 39.2 18.8 42.0 87.0 55.6

238

ASER 2011

Daman and Diu

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 77.2 79.4 77.2 73.4 81.9 78.9 74.8 83.4 85.3 86.4 84.2 Pvt. 22.3 19.6 22.5 26.0 18.2 20.3 23.8 16.6 11.9 11.9 11.8 Other 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.1

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 2 OUT OF 2 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

Not in Total School 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.7 2.9 100 100
% Children

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 1.7% in 2006 to 1.6% in 2007 to 0.9% in 2008 to 1% in 2009 to 0.4% in 2010 to 0.0% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

0.2 6.8 6.3 6.9 1.1 1.6 7.7 7.8 3.2 5.6

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

32.6 53.8 13.5 1.3 8.1 72.7 11.1 11.9 58.9 22.7 11.0 46.4 32.0

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

0.2 2.7

4.5 1.2 2.1 4.3

5.8 51.6 28.7 7.7 7.3 55.9 28.1 8.3 52.3 26.4

13.8 53.9 22.4

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 58.9% children are 8 years old but there are also 11.9% who are 7, 22.7% who are 9 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 16.3 0.3 18.0 10.0 47.5 60.7
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

18.2 29.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

239

Daman and Diu

Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 15.6 6.8 1.5 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 2.9 Letter 54.6 36.3 18.0 4.6 7.1 3.8 2.6 1.8 14.8 Word 20.6 41.4 41.1 30.0 20.7 10.6 8.7 4.5 21.8 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 6.1 8.9 34.7 39.3 26.9 36.2 32.6 20.7 26.4 3.1 6.6 4.8 25.1 45.1 49.0 55.8 73.0 34.1

RURAL

Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 1.5% children cannot even read letters, 18% can read letters but not more, 41.1% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 34.7% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 4.8% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 100.0 0.0 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

240

% Children

ASER 2011

Daman and Diu

Arithmetic
Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 16.9 10.1 4.0 2.5 1.2 1.6 1.9 0.0 4.3 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 56.9 30.1 28.0 22.9 15.2 10.5 7.5 4.8 20.9 20.5 41.7 43.2 39.1 21.6 21.2 20.1 8.3 26.4 Subtract 4.1 15.9 22.3 31.5 40.9 44.9 34.8 34.6 29.6 Divide 1.7 2.3 2.6 4.0 21.1 21.8 35.8 52.3 18.8

RURAL

Math Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 4.0% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 28.0% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 43.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 22.3% can do subtraction but not division, and 2.6% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 30.8 79.3 26.6 68.7 35.9 79.7 30.4 82.8

25.2 20.8 35.8 28.1 34.7 38.4 25.6 35.7 75.9 82.0 79.0 77.2 87.2 81.6 59.7 80.6 12.9 21.2 30.7 21.4 36.8 28.7 27.6 27.2 61.0 76.9 71.5 70.6 65.3 79.7 61.4 57.7 35.4 32.8 26.9 41.0 41.1 37.5 29.1 41.4 71.7 62.5 80.2 81.4 86.2 85.3 84.6 86.9 28.0 26.4 35.6 33.4 30.0 34.1 28.8 24.6 78.8 90.8 87.3 85.3 89.6 78.0 75.0 75.0

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

241

Puducherry

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 2 OUT OF 2 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children

Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 54.9 59.2 44.1 39.2 48.7 65.9 63.4 68.5 68.7 62.5 73.8 Pvt. 45.0 39.7 55.9 60.8 51.3 33.9 36.1 31.6 27.0 32.4 22.5 Other 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 2.1 2.3 1.9 Not in Total School 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.8 1.9 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. NOT IN SCHOOL = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 2.3% in 2006 to 0.0% in 2007 to 1.2% in 2008 to 0.7% in 2009 to 0.2% in 2010 to 0.0% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7

6.1 7.6 8.8

10

11

12
2.3

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100

54.6 37.1

0.0 22.9 66.4 1.2 0.6 0.6 7.1

3.1 0.0 6.5 1.7 5.4 2.9 2.0

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

23.0 67.0

100 100 100 100 100 100

14.2 67.8 11.0 10.0 77.2 10.6 69.2 18.4

0.0 1.0

15.7 66.7 14.8 10.1 72.6 14.2

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 67.0% children are 8 years old but there are also 23.0% who are 7, 8.8% who are 9 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school

Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 0.9 0.0 27.4 0.0 28.1 27.0
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

43.6 73.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

242

Puducherry
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 35.7 19.2 11.7 6.1 4.3 1.7 1.0 0.0 8.4 Letter 37.3 25.6 27.9 7.5 8.5 4.9 4.5 5.6 13.7 Word 23.1 30.4 29.8 28.6 21.2 16.5 11.5 6.2 19.9

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 4.0 16.0 19.5 33.3 35.8 36.2 34.0 28.5 27.2 0.0 8.8 11.1 24.5 30.3 40.7 49.0 59.8 30.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 11.7% children cannot even read letters, 27.9% can read letters but not more, 29.8% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 19.5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 11.1 % can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language

Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 100.0 0.0 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

243

% Children

ASER 2011

Puducherry
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 23.7 10.5 3.3 0.0 3.6 1.1 0.5 0.0 4.5 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 27.8 21.8 8.5 7.5 6.6 4.4 2.5 1.1 8.8 39.8 50.7 52.6 43.2 28.9 28.7 18.5 13.5 32.8 Subtract 8.0 12.1 31.6 35.6 33.1 41.4 43.0 35.4 31.8

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Divide 0.8 4.9 4.0 13.7 27.7 24.3 35.5 50.0 22.2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 3.3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 8.5% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 52.6% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 31.6% can do subtraction but not division, and 4.0% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 52.6 55.6 44.1 38.5 27.0 45.4 32.2 45.4

33.3 50.9 56.1 46.9 55.2 54.7 55.7 62.2 40.0 48.8 71.3 69.9 58.7 42.4 75.5 55.0 36.5 38.3 46.5 47.1 41.9 49.0 52.2 37.2 28.1 42.6 45.4 43.2 32.7 58.4 49.2 18.1 21.1 20.5 29.5 30.2 28.9 25.2 28.6 26.5 33.6 41.8 38.4 45.5 49.7 59.9 51.5 59.4 22.2 25.6 29.7 37.4 33.4 36.5 31.8 31.6 36.4 41.6 44.6 56.0 32.6 50.9 60.3 45.3

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: Does the child take any paid additional class currently? Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

244

tes isional Estima Div

Divisional estimates of learning outcomes and schooling status: Precision of ASER estimates
Wilima Wadhwa
1

Every year since 2005, ASER has presented estimates of learning and of schooling status at the state and district level. The survey design of ASER is based on the premise of generating estimates at the district level. Having estimates of learning levels at this level is desirable since education plans are made at the district level. As a result, ASER is one of the largest surveys undertaken by a non-government organization with a sample size of approximately 700,000 children in the age group of 3 16 years. ASER is a household survey, undertaken in all rural districts of India. Within each district, 30 villages are randomly chosen2 and in each village 20 households are randomly selected, for a total of 600 households per district. This translates into around 900 1200 children per district. The statistical precision of district level estimates is an issue because of the ASER sample design namely clustering and absence of stratification at the village level. In a design without clustering, children in the relevant age group would be directly sampled. Not only is this expensive (in terms of survey time), but it is also difficult to have a reliable population frame that could be used for sampling. Instead ASER employs a two-stage clustering design. The first stage clustering happens when villages are randomly picked. The second stage clustering is when households within a village are randomly picked and the children belonging to that household are tested. While this is an inexpensive and practical way of sampling children, it is well known that clustering increases the variability of estimates. One way of increasing precision at the district level would have been to stratify the village sample according to age of children or school type. However, this would require a prior household listing, which is expensive in terms of both time and resources. The ASER sample is stratified, however, at the district level. Insofar as outcomes within a district are more homogenous than across districts, stratification within the district leads to more precise estimates at the state level. Ramaswami and Wadhwa (2009)3 studied the precision of ASER state and district level estimates for a selection of states and variables for the year 2008. They find that state level averages are estimated precisely with a margin of error of 5% or less. However, district-level estimates are less precisely estimated. The precision varies both across states and districts and according to the learning outcome. In both cases, learning outcomes of children in class 3-5 are relatively less precisely estimated. Two commonly used measures of precision are the margin of error and the 95% confidence interval. The margin of error is the % interval around the point estimate that almost certainly contains the population estimate (i.e., with 95% probability). For instance, if x is the margin of error then the population proportion lies within + x% of the sample proportion with 95% probability. Suppose

p is the estimated sample proportion and

is the associated standard error. From statistical theory,

it is known that the interval [

] contains the population proportion with 95% probability 95% confidence

interval. The margin of error expresses the confidence interval in terms of the sample estimate. It is thus defined as

me =

2 p

A margin of error of 10% is regarded as an acceptable degree of precision in many studies.4 Estimates with a margin of error in excess of 20% are regarded as estimates with low precision.

Director (Statistics), ASER Centre Villages are chosen from the 2001 Census Directory using PPS (Probability Proportional to Size) sampling. 3 Ramaswami, Bharat and Wadhwa, Wilima (2009), Survey Design and Precision of ASER Estimates, mimeo. 4 United Nations (2005), Designing Household Survey Samples: Practical Guidelines, Studies in Methods, Series F No. 98, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division.
2

246

ASER 2011

Note that the margin of error depends on the standard error and the estimated proportion, and the standard error itself depends on the estimated proportion. For a given sample size, therefore, a lower precision will be associated with a variable which has a lower incidence in the population and/or a higher standard error. Further, in the case of proportions, for a given sample size, the standard error is the largest for a population proportion close to 0.5. On the other hand, for a given incidence, one way to reduce the standard error and therefore increase precision is to increase the sample size. In the case of ASER, as shown by Ramaswami and Wadhwa (2009), precision is not an issue at the state level. At the district level, however, since sample sizes in sub-populations of interest are often much smaller than the total sample size, precision can be an issue. Increasing the sample size at the district level, for a national survey, however, is extremely costly. In the past, ASER has clubbed classes while presenting district level estimates, in an attempt to increase the sample size. However, precision gains from this strategy were limited, especially for variables whose estimated proportions were in the vicinity of 0.5. One way to provide sub-state estimates with acceptable levels of precision is to club districts within a state.5 Many states have administrative divisions, comprised of two or more districts that can be used as units of analysis. These divisions are at a level of aggregation between the state and district level. This year, we provide divisional estimates from 2007 to 2011 for those states that have administrative divisions.6 These are Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.7 In addition, in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Odisha and Tamil Nadu, divisions were created using geographical regions commonly used in the states.8 Divisional estimates are provided for the following 6 variables: % children in the age group 6-14 years who are out of school % children in the age group 6-14 years who are in private school % children in class 1-2 who can read letters, words or more % children in class 1-2 who can recognize numbers (1-9) or more % children in class 3-5 who can read level 1 (Std 1) text or more % children in class 3-5 who can do subtraction or more. In addition to the point estimates for 2007 2011, the 95% confidence interval [

p 2 ] is also presented. The point estimate

as well as the confidence interval is presented for each division and also for the state as a whole. Figure 1 presents the margin of error for the four learning outcomes in selected states in 2011. As is clear from the figure, most of these are below 5%. Also, note that learning outcomes in class 3-5 are less precisely estimated as compared to those in class 1-2. Similar numbers are obtained for previous years. At the division level too, among the four learning outcomes the variability is highest for learning levels in class 3-5. As a result, the margin of error is the highest for these variables. In discussing the division level estimates we will concentrate on these variables since they give us the worst case scenario.

5 For instance, NSS surveys are not representative at the district level. However, they are representative for NSS regions, which are formed using agroclimatic criteria. 6 We decided to go with the state administrative divisions, rather than the NSS regions, since these are more commonly used within the state. 7 The composition of each division was obtained from the state websites, and is reported alongside the divisional estimates presented in this report. 8 See the section on Divisional Estimates in this report for the exact composition.

ASER 2011

247

We can look at division level estimates in two ways. First, for a particular year and state, one can examine the precision of estimates across divisions; and second, for a particular state and division, we can look at the margin of error across years. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 present the margins of error for language and math in class 3-5 in 2011 across divisions of selected states. Language learning outcomes at division level in most states are estimated

with margins of under or close to 10%. The exceptions are Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Across the board, precision levels are lower for math learning outcomes. Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu have margins of error that are closer to 15% and those for Madhya Pradesh are close to 20-25%.

Figures 3.1 and 3.2 present the margins of error, for language and math in class 3-5, for one division in the selected states, from 2007 to 2011. Margins of error are fairly robust over time, except in MP when they spike in 2011. Again, across the board precision levels are lower for math learning outcomes. Why are margins of error consistently higher for math in class 3-5? Similarly, compared to learning outcomes in class 1-2, why are learning outcomes in class 3-5 less precisely estimated? First, for a given sample size, the margin of error is inversely proportional to the incidence of the variable concerned. What this implies is that any variable that has a low incidence in the population will be estimated with a high margin of error. Intuitively this makes sense because if something is not observed very frequently, one would need a much larger sample size to measure it accurately. However, this is not that much of a problem if the standard error is small. To see why,

248

ASER 2011

consider the case of out of school children say the point estimate is 0.04 (i.e., 4%) with a standard error of 0.01 (i.e. 1% point). The margin of error would be 50% (=((2 * 0.01)/0.04)*100) which is very high. However, note that this translates into confidence bounds of +2 percentage points, i.e., with 95% probability the true proportion of out of school children lie between 2% and 6%. In other words, given a low incidence, a high margin of error may still translate into tight confidence bands. Another way of looking at this is by focusing on in-school children instead of out of school children. If out of school children are 0.04 then in-school children will be 0.96 or 96% with the same standard error of 0.01 giving a margin of error of only 2.1% and confidence bounds of +2 percentage points. Second, the margin of error is directly proportional to the standard error. For a given sample size, a large standard error, implying imprecise estimation, will not surprisingly result in a high margin of error. In the case of proportions, the standard error itself depends on the value of the proportion, and is larger the closer the value is to 0.5. Intuitively, the reason behind this is that the greatest uncertainty is associated with a proportion of 0.5, requiring larger sample sizes to measure it accurately. By and large, class 1-2 learning outcomes (i.e. the % of children in Class 1-2 who can read letters or more/ recognize numbers 1-9 or more) are higher as compared to class 3-5 outcomes (i.e. % of children in class 3-5 who can read Std 1 level text or more/do subtraction or more), resulting in lower margins of error.9 Similarly, in class 3-5, language outcomes are better than math outcomes and often math outcomes are close to 0.5 resulting in higher margins of error for math.10 Overall, the divisional estimates are more precisely estimated as compared to district level estimates. Clubbing districts increases the sample size and lowers the standard errors. It also smoothes the jumpiness in point estimates often observed at the district level. One of the problems associated with large standard errors and therefore with wide confidence intervals is that it is difficult to identify significant changes across districts and time. The use of divisional estimates resolves this problem to a large extent.

10

Often sample sizes are also larger for class 1-2, which would result in lower margins of error. This also explains the large margins of error for Madhya Pradesh in both language and math learning outcomes in 2011. Both these learning levels fell in 2011 and the point estimates are close to 0.5.

ASER 2011

249

Divisional Estimates
Andhra Pradesh
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 4.39 Coastal Andhra
1.04

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 26.05

2.53

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Coastal Andhra division of Andhra Pradesh, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 82.36 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 2.84 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 85.20 % and 79.52 %. List of districts under each division

2008 2.92
0.58

2009 5.30
1.30

2010 3.11
0.67

2011 2.67
0.63

2008 22.83
2.31

2009 28.51
2.35

2010 35.61
3.10

2011 33.85
3.01

5.14 Rayalaseema
1.56

3.71
1.12

6.08
2.00

4.81
1.68

3.42
1.14

27.29
4.55

30.98
5.12

23.88
3.59

31.40
4.56

31.87
4.24

3.64 Telangana
0.69

3.75
0.79

7.18
1.93

2.82
0.64

2.61
0.67

34.09
3.70

31.51
2.98

33.12
3.06

38.69
3.29

37.14
3.18

4.25 State
0.60

3.38
0.44

6.15
0.99

3.30
0.49

2.80
0.43

29.27
1.99

27.58
1.80

29.36
1.71

36.10
2.04

34.69
1.95

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Coastal Andhra 2008 2009 86.47
2.26

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 87.18
2.54

Coastal Andhra Srikakulam

2010 85.40
3.39

2011 89.66
2.22

2008 88.80
2.12

2009 87.79
2.04

2010 88.72
2.93

2011 91.50
2.11

Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore Rayalaseema

82.36 88.86
2.84 2.10

84.89 89.10 Rayalaseema

3.85 3.37

82.71
3.31

85.41
4.25

86.91
3.20

88.68
3.64

89.75
3.14

85.95
3.18

87.58
3.98

90.68
2.84

78.29 83.75 Telangana

3.03 2.55

78.43
3.43

86.07
2.81

84.46
2.98

82.16
2.67

86.12
2.31

81.31
3.07

88.57
2.42

86.76
2.72

81.27 86.96 State

1.87 1.50

82.87
1.77

85.68
1.98

87.28
1.59

85.57
1.67

87.93
1.41

85.12
1.59

88.47
1.72

89.68
1.47

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Coastal Andhra 2008 2009 68.84
3.10

Chittoor % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 67.59
2.90

Cuddapah (Y.S.R.) Kurnool Anantapur Telangana Adilabad Nizamabad Karimnagar Medak Rangareddy Mahbubnagar Nalgonda Warangal Khammam

2010 73.73
3.34

2011 78.40
2.74

2008 65.58
2.94

2009 67.32
2.87

2010 66.73
3.37

2011 70.68
3.13

78.22 74.21
2.42 2.43

75.81 75.28 Rayalaseema

4.72 3.82

68.47
4.78

68.79
5.16

68.34
4.49

70.12
5.39

71.01
4.38

67.77
4.88

65.72
5.43

67.02
4.64

69.26 68.33 Telangana

3.10 2.96

61.64
3.27

66.11
3.15

63.03
3.24

57.16
3.29

57.92
3.05

57.12
3.62

59.52
3.38

55.19
3.52

74.66 72.05 State

1.81 1.71

66.23
2.05

69.80
2.12

70.94
2.00

64.25
2.07

63.37
1.93

63.81
2.10

63.66
2.21

64.54
2.15

250

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
Bihar
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 4.74 Bhagalpur Darbhanga Kosi Magadh Munger Patna Purnia Saran Tirhut State
2.43

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 3.97

1.72

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Bhagalpur division of Bihar, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 67.73 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 8.74 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 76.47 % and 58.99 %. List of districts under each division Bhagalpur Bhagalpur Banka Darbhanga Madhubani Darbhanga

2008 6.32
2.96

2009 4.75
1.82

2010 5.94
3.71

2011 5.90
2.23

2008 5.85
2.83

2009 3.46
1.82

2010 4.26
2.69

2011 2.98
1.95

4.78
1.74

5.49
1.47

5.46
2.98

3.25
1.12

2.63
0.97

5.69
1.62

6.34
1.65

3.79
1.65

3.23
1.27

5.26
1.49

9.80
2.80

6.45
4.35

5.13
1.21

5.39
1.73

2.36
0.85

4.62
1.79

6.61
5.22

1.74
0.78

2.92
1.49

1.68
0.72

6.15
1.87

4.18
1.37

5.01
1.45

4.79
2.34

2.98
1.07

6.69
2.06

11.91
3.44

5.47
1.69

8.83
2.31

7.63
1.62

6.19
1.82

5.03
1.09

3.46
0.93

3.64
1.00

3.40
0.99

7.53
1.79

7.05
1.90

4.82
1.55

3.19
1.05

4.82
1.26

4.34
1.05

2.97
0.81

2.82
0.90

1.43
0.54

3.00
0.84

12.64
2.33

11.15
2.79

8.85
2.12

5.28
1.35

9.58
1.90

9.88
3.96

7.50
1.86

5.86
1.34

3.08
1.22

4.37
1.60

3.19
1.22

3.92
1.25

2.47
0.87

4.63
2.60

1.46
0.59

6.17
2.50

4.14
1.55

1.72
0.71

3.21
1.08

2.47
1.13

11.70
3.01

15.03
3.10

8.35
2.92

9.44
2.22

10.04
2.58

6.75
1.61

7.71
1.54

2.95
0.76

3.40
0.91

1.87
0.63

7.22
1.80

7.06
1.70

4.48
1.32

5.25
1.39

4.65
1.19

6.45
0.77

5.65
0.58

4.03
0.54

3.48
0.45

2.95
0.37

7.36
0.73

8.26
0.84

4.96
0.61

5.16
0.62

5.50
0.56

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Bhagalpur Darbhanga Kosi Magadh Munger Patna Purnia Saran Tirhut State 2008 2009 67.54
8.00

Samastipur % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 64.00
8.39

Kosi Supaul Madhepura Saharsa Magadh Jehanabad Aurangabad Gaya Nawada Munger Begusarai Khagaria Munger Lakhisarai Sheikhpura Jamui

2010 75.01
5.90

2011 55.34
6.10

2008 68.98
6.20

2009 64.01
9.43

2010 76.32
5.57

2011 56.93
6.17

67.73 69.38
8.74 6.10 6.94 6.20 3.61 3.41 4.39 5.65 4.42 1.84 5.95 5.60 6.18 4.48 4.82 4.61 4.90 5.61 3.77 1.84

74.28 58.52 69.47 75.15 68.47 76.60 76.21 71.30 75.39 79.49 79.14 70.96 77.47 68.48 76.58 62.69 74.67 68.22

71.91
6.58

56.28
6.76

55.90
5.79

67.04
6.70

61.90
5.29

70.88
6.37

56.69
6.62

58.35
5.81

65.90
5.87

55.61
7.38

53.85
5.94

68.54
7.37

75.70
7.01

66.78
5.06

52.94
7.53

55.28
5.22

73.27
4.25

72.13
4.91

54.12
5.33

70.69
7.20

77.48
4.68

75.21
4.39

72.94
4.75

61.23
4.82

70.06
4.71

67.88
4.55

59.99
4.60

75.71
4.04

71.04
4.78

73.43
4.46

70.30
4.35

69.41
4.26

80.45
4.23

78.66
4.12

66.69
4.56

75.39
3.84

79.25
5.09

81.46
4.41

77.80
4.25

71.37
4.35

74.13
4.44

79.89
3.90

62.55
4.69

74.11
5.13

70.05
4.47

74.23
4.43

80.45
3.89

66.65
4.76

67.18
8.47

68.78
7.29

64.50
6.85

73.15
6.11

69.49
5.47

70.80
8.33

67.81
7.36

65.38
6.34

66.04
4.01

66.59
3.90

59.97
4.50

73.43
4.42

67.68
3.25

68.14
4.17

65.28
4.03

58.28
4.51

71.00
1.86

68.45
1.96

59.66
1.87

72.05
1.96

69.96
1.72

72.17
1.85

68.21
1.98

62.49
1.84

ASER 2011

251

Divisional Estimates
Bihar
Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Bhagalpur Darbhanga Kosi Magadh Munger Patna Purnia Saran Tirhut State 2008 2009 53.24
8.75

List of districts under each division % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 68.54
6.34

Patna Nalanda

2010 60.88
6.54

2011 52.82
5.85

2008 62.41
6.30

2009 57.02
8.72

2010 66.29
6.32

2011 Patna 47.81

5.42

63.34 63.26
6.03 5.58 6.31 4.63 3.52 3.56 5.73 6.14 4.59 1.78 6.03 4.36 6.60 3.86 3.98 4.09 6.02 4.95 3.37 1.64

Bhojpur Buxar Kaimur (Bhabua) Rohtas Purnia Araria Kishanganj Purnia Katihar Saran Gopalganj Siwan Saran Tirhut Pashchim Champaran Purba Champaran Sheohar Sitamarhi Muzaffarpur Vaishali

69.04 62.11 71.42 68.32 76.79 73.84 74.50 72.36 67.88 72.93 63.08 62.22 63.02 72.27 69.27 65.84 68.79 67.69

64.96
5.19

59.43
5.56

47.25
4.57

70.12
5.90

58.14
4.84

65.88
5.51

57.01
5.60

39.74
3.90

60.05
5.71

57.81
6.31

52.70
5.75

70.41
6.29

64.36
8.03

69.28
5.24

59.14
5.83

50.62
5.74

68.57
4.41

75.45
4.42

50.00
4.72

75.21
4.94

65.54
4.54

67.30
4.33

77.24
4.20

46.26
4.70

66.53
4.08

62.27
4.09

57.01
4.74

79.09
4.00

67.49
4.44

70.55
4.16

62.36
4.43

59.31
5.06

70.32
4.22

64.73
4.42

58.47
4.11

67.97
3.50

69.80
4.44

68.56
4.75

66.13
4.55

56.12
4.19

55.98
4.14

70.56
4.89

43.90
4.77

67.46
5.46

55.90
6.15

57.68
4.30

72.29
4.49

41.72
5.35

68.63
5.79

67.83
6.00

60.91
6.10

66.23
6.41

67.57
5.82

71.11
6.17

64.96
6.06

56.33
5.99

53.81
4.13

59.45
3.80

51.87
3.76

67.39
5.16

57.46
3.77

54.99
4.23

54.90
3.79

46.64
3.90

62.11
1.74

63.81
1.74

52.06
1.67

69.81
1.88

62.21
1.80

63.73
1.80

63.14
1.78

48.38
1.73

252

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
Chhattisgarh
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 7.89 Bastar Bilaspur Raipur Surguja State
2.65

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 3.17

1.71

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Bastar division of Chhattisgarh, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 74.90 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 6.53 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 81.43 % and 68.37%. List of districts under each division

2008 4.31
1.66

2009 5.61
2.25

2010 1.83
1.06

2011 1.72
1.21

2008 6.27
3.77

2009 2.11
1.30

2010 3.37
2.03

2011 4.45
2.41

4.56
1.07

3.95
0.94

3.01
1.01

2.59
1.01

2.86
0.85

11.56
2.95

13.06
3.63

10.33
3.02

11.46
3.14

10.79
2.79

4.39
0.88

4.73
1.08

2.59
1.06

1.73
0.72

2.63
0.76

7.78
2.11

9.35
2.12

9.48
2.26

8.74
2.03

10.96
2.74

3.27
1.52

5.70
1.72

4.08
1.34

1.01
0.64

1.60
0.89

8.72
3.21

10.84
3.27

12.30
3.99

14.98
4.35

15.59
4.73

4.61
0.64

4.64
0.65

3.34
0.64

1.86
0.46

2.40
0.45

8.54
1.40

10.33
1.56

9.41
1.51

10.09
1.52

11.01
1.68

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Bastar Bilaspur Raipur Surguja State 2008 2009 92.33
5.07

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 70.61
7.01

Bastar Uttar Bastar Kanker Bastar Dakshin Bastar Dantewada Bilaspur Raigarh Korba Janjgir-Champa Bilaspur Raipur Kawardha (Kabeerdham) Rajnandgaon Durg

2010 83.16
6.56

2011 75.01
10.26

2008 94.40
2.85

2009 93.44
4.12

2010 83.47
6.96

2011 70.00
10.35

74.90 94.09
6.53 4.62 3.47 5.58 2.36 3.63 2.98 1.79 2.54 1.28

77.20 92.97 82.68 94.38 76.21 93.62 78.93 93.82

90.46
3.04

88.96
3.66

75.81
5.36

78.15
4.48

92.69
3.04

90.00
3.40

90.02
2.89

73.53
5.72

89.12
2.70

89.32
2.74

76.90
4.61

83.97
2.97

94.97
1.59

88.81
2.56

89.23
2.74

78.59
4.12

89.67
3.97

83.95
4.61

74.17
6.67

77.75
5.97

95.40
2.26

90.45
3.62

81.75
4.87

72.90
7.00

89.97
1.70

87.56
1.91

75.82
2.98

79.58
2.31

94.36
1.20

90.03
1.65

87.43
1.86

74.97
3.00

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Bastar Bilaspur Raipur Surguja State 2008 2009 82.23
5.66

Raipur Mahasamund % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 56.80
6.69

Dhamtari Surguja

2010 74.96
8.16

2011 63.68
6.91

2008 81.21
6.18

2009 72.25
7.11

2010 58.47
7.95

2011 49.62
6.78

Koriya Surguja Jashpur

60.53 89.63
8.11 4.03 3.70 4.98 2.45 3.51 3.52 2.62 4.65 1.78

54.04 84.01 67.66 85.51 50.89 83.46 59.65 85.15

71.14
4.91

66.14
5.30

44.72
5.12

42.20
4.39

80.28
4.00

70.02
4.80

53.39
6.76

33.73
4.91

71.19
4.08

70.60
3.90

52.91
5.40

53.12
4.32

78.56
3.91

64.26
4.30

58.23
5.17

39.44
5.17

75.57
5.15

69.70
5.65

55.18
8.50

45.56
4.99

81.66
4.41

62.94
5.68

59.82
6.76

42.81
9.08

73.37
2.52

69.63
2.64

52.54
3.21

48.92
2.52

79.94
2.26

66.79
2.61

57.14
3.30

39.89
3.19

ASER 2011

253

Divisional Estimates
Gujarat
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 3.11 Central North Saurashtra South State
0.80

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 5.35

1.33

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Central division of Gujarat, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 77.51 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 4.06 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 81.57 % and 73.45 %. List of districts under each division Central

2008 5.21
1.54

2009 4.17
0.74

2010 3.53
0.84

2011 2.73
0.73

2008 10.22
2.76

2009 9.93
2.07

2010 9.90
2.15

2011 11.22
2.50

4.35
1.45

3.81
1.26

5.23
1.17

3.78
1.12

3.51
1.05

4.41
1.20

5.49
1.44

11.74
2.44

8.25
2.35

8.79
2.11

3.87
0.86

3.94
0.96

3.74
0.81

5.35
1.13

1.91
0.57

7.70
2.41

10.37
2.51

8.23
1.62

15.02
2.37

12.81
2.91

2.70
1.12

3.42
0.93

4.00
1.15

2.71
0.81

2.88
0.93

4.10
2.13

5.17
1.41

12.65
2.99

7.52
2.16

8.20
2.94

3.63
0.54

4.22
0.65

4.26
0.47

4.00
0.52

2.66
0.41

5.76
0.98

8.28
1.22

10.22
1.09

10.71
1.19

10.84
1.40

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Central North Saurashtra South State 2008 2009 73.82
4.18

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 79.60
3.71

Ahmadabad Anand Kheda Panch Mahals Dohad Vadodara Narmada North Banas Kantha Patan Mahesana Sabar Kantha Gandhinagar Saurashtra Kachchh

2010 78.52
3.45

2011 80.55
4.20

2008 69.31
4.77

2009 72.13
4.54

2010 77.91
3.49

2011 78.71
4.25

77.51 69.26
4.06 4.40 2.97 5.36 2.06 4.58 6.07 4.06 4.91 2.58

82.19 69.21 83.44 72.91 84.17 82.38 81.29 72.53

72.01
4.85

83.59
3.74

76.03
5.03

83.80
4.51

71.09
5.79

75.39
4.95

83.08
3.73

73.93
5.06

78.11
3.54

83.55
3.76

85.52
3.16

86.19
2.93

71.58
4.02

76.43
3.90

77.98
4.01

85.19
3.44

81.25
4.15

81.78
3.97

71.11
5.75

85.82
4.55

81.75
5.45

79.80
4.93

81.15
4.24

75.29
5.00

75.77
2.16

81.64
1.89

79.71
2.26

83.44
1.98

72.59
2.56

75.39
2.32

79.60
1.96

78.95
2.30

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Central North Saurashtra South State 2008 2009 52.73
4.07

% Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 44.07

3.99

Surendranagar Rajkot Jamnagar Porbandar Junagadh Amreli Bhavnagar South Bharuch The Dangs Navsari Valsad Tapi Surat

2010 57.48
3.78

2011 59.26
4.51

2008 37.94
4.46

2009 34.97
4.45

2010 43.14
4.04

2011 35.03
4.48

56.20 56.04
3.84 4.74 3.79 5.09 2.26 4.49 5.26 4.14 4.92 2.37

71.65 62.88 68.52 58.05 64.96 65.06 64.90 59.83

60.95
5.24

65.73
4.91

63.92
4.75

67.73
5.50

52.45
5.61

42.96
5.60

50.83
5.07

44.15
4.58

58.50
3.90

68.94
3.35

68.22
3.93

60.61
4.16

38.67
4.23

43.53
4.05

45.94
3.78

52.33
4.56

58.56
4.69

59.70
4.60

60.46
5.24

55.76
5.87

48.67
4.56

45.87
5.67

49.40
5.36

40.66
5.42

57.29
2.26

63.00
2.05

63.34
2.32

56.52
2.60

43.62
2.43

41.05
2.45

46.61
2.23

43.36
2.48

254

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
Haryana
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 2.44 Ambala Gurgaon Hisar Rohtak State
0.74

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 36.33

4.15

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Ambala division of Haryana, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 79.05 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 4.31 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 83.36 % and 74.74 %. List of districts under each division

2008 1.72
0.51

2009 1.44
0.48

2010 0.71
0.29

2011 1.07
0.72

2008 35.34
3.97

2009 38.07
4.36

2010 30.19
3.97

2011 37.38
4.16

6.73
1.90

6.53
2.05

5.70
2.22

2.17
0.85

2.46
1.03

32.39
4.81

38.19
4.28

34.87
5.00

37.18
5.16

38.33
5.26

3.09
0.78

2.00
0.85

2.06
1.02

0.49
0.24

0.77
0.39

34.86
3.94

43.24
3.95

38.40
4.20

46.13
4.02

43.14
5.20

2.24
0.70

1.24
0.56

3.46
2.69

1.05
0.65

0.62
0.38

40.78
4.11

42.59
4.08

52.90
4.03

49.90
4.62

58.36
4.61

3.61
0.60

2.90
0.65

3.14
0.91

1.10
0.30

1.37
0.41

36.10
2.16

40.34
2.08

40.78
2.31

41.84
2.35

43.39
2.63

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Ambala Gurgaon Hisar Rohtak State 2008 2009 86.31
3.73

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 82.53
3.97

Ambala Ambala Kaithal Kurukshetra Panchkula Yamunanagar Gurgaon Mahendragarh Rewari Mewat Faridabad Gurgaon Hisar

2010 83.98
4.26

2011 77.95
4.56

2008 80.23
4.14

2009 86.99
3.35

2010 84.21
4.20

2011 83.33
4.06

79.05 77.29
4.31 5.39 5.03 3.44 2.48 4.55 3.99 3.78 3.24 2.04

69.84 70.73 77.98 78.79 84.85 83.69 77.74 77.24

83.58
3.91

88.33
2.94

77.45
6.02

71.67
4.98

73.06
3.82

84.01
3.87

89.55
2.90

81.04
5.79

84.09
4.05

89.20
2.90

84.28
5.30

76.69
5.70

79.03
4.06

84.21
3.68

90.44
2.67

84.83
5.45

88.05
4.00

88.79
3.26

87.90
5.11

85.91
3.38

83.50
3.10

89.39
4.11

89.18
3.39

87.72
6.00

85.26
2.01

87.95
1.62

81.27
2.88

78.80
2.49

78.45
1.99

85.81
1.91

88.81
1.60

83.77
2.83

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Ambala Gurgaon Hisar Rohtak State 2008 2009 63.69
5.35

Bhiwani % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 70.32
4.41

Fatehabad Hisar Jind

2010 61.74
4.92

2011 62.35
4.75

2008 58.30
4.53

2009 60.11
5.15

2010 56.59
5.57

2011 53.10
4.22

Sirsa Rohtak Jhajjar Karnal Panipat Rohtak Sonipat

68.09 67.79
4.00 4.30 5.00 4.03 2.25 4.32 3.37 3.72 4.53 2.01

73.58 71.82 70.55 76.18 75.71 75.64 72.23 73.33

70.11
4.95

75.92
3.99

71.89
5.00

69.54
5.05

60.68
4.31

67.81
5.31

71.61
4.05

65.66
5.71

71.68
4.37

75.08
3.72

69.41
5.72

69.57
4.70

70.42
4.24

68.81
4.51

72.48
3.71

67.54
4.79

73.59
4.75

74.06
4.62

75.30
5.28

73.79
4.04

70.64
4.84

73.21
5.00

73.34
4.75

71.96
5.02

70.17
2.43

72.37
2.19

69.79
2.66

70.86
2.32

65.69
2.31

67.85
2.54

69.29
2.30

64.46
2.67

ASER 2011

255

Divisional Estimates
Himachal Pradesh
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 1.12 Kangra
0.86

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 26.70

5.29

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Kangra division of Himachal Pradesh, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 90.08 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 3.30 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 93.38 % and 86.78%. List of districts under each division

2008 0.81
0.53

2009 0.83
0.65

2010 0.33
0.27

2011 0.85
1.22

2008 28.53
6.79

2009 23.62
5.29

2010 27.37
5.86

2011 26.59
5.80

0.75 Mandi
0.64

0.40
0.27

0.38
0.28

0.09
0.10

0.42
0.27

22.27
4.75

23.44
4.86

22.81
4.69

26.40
4.97

28.37
5.41

1.01 Shimla
0.49

0.61
0.33

0.83
0.43

0.64
0.45

0.30
0.22

17.02
4.24

19.23
3.91

18.33
4.32

20.54
4.29

24.45
5.26

0.96 State
0.42

0.62
0.24

0.67
0.30

0.33
0.16

0.55
0.47

22.56
2.97

24.26
3.36

21.97
2.88

25.30
3.13

26.63
3.22

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Kangra 2008 2009 87.23
4.78

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 92.67
2.72

Kangra Chamba Kangra Una Mandi Bilaspur Hamirpur Kullu Lahul & Spiti Mandi Shimla Kinnaur Shimla

2010 92.91
2.72

2011 91.67
4.29

2008 89.72
3.33

2009 87.15
4.54

2010 93.15
3.10

2011 95.42
2.29

90.08 86.88
3.30 4.42

93.44 92.96 Mandi

2.22 3.03

95.44
3.09

90.18
4.30

94.25
3.60

94.50
2.35

94.83
2.87

97.68
1.12

90.24
4.40

96.24
2.43

92.97 89.59 Shimla

2.67 3.83

92.08
3.75

92.85
3.06

90.80
3.80

93.80
2.38

90.37
3.32

91.31
3.73

94.57
2.76

94.19
2.83

92.05 89.71 State

1.63 2.25

91.52
2.33

92.05
1.95

92.33
2.31

93.61
1.45

91.61
1.87

92.10
2.08

92.64
2.04

95.38
1.43

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Kangra 2008 2009 78.19
6.02

Sirmaur % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 71.25
5.49

Solan

2010 83.08
3.70

2011 80.33
4.36

2008 75.97
5.48

2009 79.62
6.65

2010 79.24
4.77

2011 76.30
4.73

80.34 84.59
4.09 4.78

89.02 85.14 Mandi

2.55 3.19

84.39
3.99

76.77
5.28

82.02
6.81

87.68
2.96

83.18
3.98

84.17
3.83

71.65
5.85

73.26
7.75

85.51 83.02 Shimla

3.78 3.96

85.95
3.76

84.79
3.90

84.95
3.50

82.68
3.93

73.34
5.24

82.06
5.28

81.37
4.16

77.26
4.45

84.73 84.33 State

2.10 2.41

82.36
2.87

81.63
2.55

82.13
3.03

79.98
2.79

77.60
2.95

81.80
3.21

77.51
3.06

75.51
3.48

256

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
Jharkhand
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 Kolhan North Chotanagpur Palamu Santhal Pargana South Chotanagpur State 9.42
2.05

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 6.11

2.23

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Kolhan division of Jharkhand, in 2007, % of Std III children who could read letters or more is 94.61 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 2.47 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 97.08 % and 92.14 %. List of districts under each division

2008 12.98
3.91

2009 7.64
2.14

2010 7.18
2.28

2011 8.53
2.18

2008 3.54
1.40

2009 6.44
2.22

2010 6.62
2.29

2011 9.10
3.21

2.91
0.80

3.28
0.98

3.33
1.20

1.55
0.48

1.81
0.70

14.99
3.19

13.83
2.78

14.13
2.51

11.28
2.08

17.20
3.61

4.01
1.74

3.73
1.44

2.86
1.73

3.13
1.54

3.69
1.01

6.44
2.75

3.30
1.36

3.05
2.15

2.44
1.20

7.31
2.69

6.20
1.45

7.89
1.84

8.72
2.13

5.86
1.78

6.61
1.25

5.61
2.57

7.67
2.68

3.96
1.31

4.29
1.54

5.84
2.04

4.98
1.35

3.15
0.89

4.66
1.52

3.61
1.01

5.15
1.50

13.50
4.22

17.12
4.08

17.51
4.48

15.97
3.99

21.79
4.00

4.97
0.63

5.61
0.84

5.40
0.82

3.77
0.61

4.65
0.60

10.32
1.57

9.94
1.39

9.98
1.34

8.80
1.18

12.83
1.64

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Kolhan North Chotanagpur Palamu Santhal Pargana South Chotanagpur State
2.47 5.17 5.75 5.13 5.17 2.56

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 88.05
3.44

Kolhan Pashchimi Singhbhum Purbi Singhbhum Saraikela-Kharswan North Chotanagpur Chatra Hazaribagh Kodarma Giridih Dhanbad Bokaro Palamu Garhwa

2008
4.66 3.58 7.24 4.29 5.85 2.40

2009 72.94
7.77

2010 65.46
8.52

2011 64.79
7.83

2008 82.70
4.41

2009 78.71
6.67

2010 69.20
8.10

2011 68.13
6.63

94.61 84.99 75.04 71.54 67.88 50.89 79.10 70.02 71.60 67.15 76.90 68.85

77.38
4.17

70.99
4.71

69.17
5.41

74.00
5.05

72.87
3.31

77.88
4.30

72.66
4.83

68.21
5.64

69.55
7.88

56.76
8.34

55.42
6.02

65.81
5.86

47.89
7.25

65.61
7.77

56.33
8.36

51.69
6.00

82.64
3.54

81.46
3.60

60.22
5.80

78.14
5.14

68.45
4.23

81.48
3.56

82.05
3.75

61.59
5.48

76.98
4.46

72.28
6.77

64.08
5.03

71.14
4.86

68.99
5.79

76.97
4.20

73.03
7.19

67.46
5.11

77.08
2.30

71.45
2.72

63.50
2.74

75.09
2.48

68.43
2.40

77.21
2.25

72.62
2.78

63.97
2.74

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Kolhan North Chotanagpur Palamu Santhal Pargana South Chotanagpur State
6.03 4.12 6.64 4.11 5.13 2.33

Palamu Latehar % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 48.48
6.74

Santhal Pargana Deoghar

2008
7.02 3.91 6.48 4.60 5.06 2.30

2009 55.19
7.50

2010 45.30
8.05

2011 41.87
6.43

2008 51.24
6.96

2009 52.81
7.52

2010 44.90
7.72

2011 30.45
5.59

Godda Sahibganj Pakur Dumka Jamtara South Chotanagpur Ranchi Lohardaga Gumla Simdega

55.67 58.29 69.51 66.35 64.22 58.77 63.44 59.24 60.25 63.06 64.10 62.05

65.66
4.38

64.53
3.92

58.68
4.98

66.03
4.75

55.22
4.67

58.13
4.87

58.06
4.77

52.59
4.73

58.30
10.49

57.68
6.56

40.17
5.87

58.13
7.68

45.16
6.09

45.95
7.34

50.04
6.54

36.86
5.67

48.60
4.80

56.78
5.12

45.18
4.46

63.63
4.12

50.06
5.29

48.99
4.85

58.55
4.75

41.75
4.73

55.96
4.99

59.76
6.42

45.71
6.82

47.82
6.96

44.44
5.66

44.25
5.28

47.58
6.46

29.62
6.56

57.58
2.68

58.93
2.51

48.40
2.68

58.94
2.79

50.11
2.57

51.41
2.64

53.81
2.67

41.03
2.74

ASER 2011

257

Divisional Estimates
Karnataka
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 1.57 Bangalore Belgaum Gulbarga Mysore State
0.46

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 13.34

2.01

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Bangalore division of Karnataka, in 2007, % of Std III children who could read letters or more is 87.27 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 2.67 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 89.94 % and 84.60 %. List of districts under each division Bangalore Chitradurga Davanagere Shimoga Tumkur Kolar Bangalore Bangalore Rural Belgaum Belgaum Bagalkot Bijapur Gadag Dharwad Uttara Kannada Haveri

2008 1.11
0.35

2009 1.51
0.41

2010 1.57
0.43

2011 1.03
0.41

2008 20.50
2.66

2009 17.78
2.57

2010 21.62
2.93

2011 24.38
2.98

2.25
0.61

2.69
0.54

2.21
0.57

2.40
0.78

2.70
0.76

10.62
2.51

13.51
2.75

14.21
2.70

16.72
3.11

15.74
2.43

9.17
1.87

10.24
2.74

8.52
1.89

7.70
1.52

6.35
1.67

10.14
2.73

12.82
2.61

13.70
3.09

13.82
2.69

13.30
2.95

1.73
0.55

1.16
0.35

1.33
0.40

1.69
0.47

1.20
0.39

11.92
2.32

25.08
3.11

21.08
2.95

26.60
3.08

26.51
3.33

3.46
0.55

3.57
0.73

3.17
0.52

3.13
0.47

2.79
0.51

11.58
1.19

18.10
1.45

16.77
1.41

19.98
1.52

20.04
1.53

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Bangalore Belgaum Gulbarga Mysore State 2008 2009 91.46
2.09

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 84.39
3.07

2010 89.08
2.91

2011 91.21
2.58

2008 87.17
3.05

2009 87.49
2.81

2010 88.16
3.22

2011 91.49
2.66

87.27 88.68
2.67 3.48 3.78 2.17 1.65 2.69 3.15 3.78 2.30 1.62

80.43 80.00 73.00 75.88 93.46 89.99 83.46 83.39

85.09
3.26

83.72
3.90

83.96
3.42

81.40
3.32

81.23
3.51

82.87
3.73

82.93
3.92

84.91
3.13

75.30
3.83

73.69
4.50

75.52
4.63

69.98
3.72

77.87
3.58

73.61
4.17

77.45
4.50

76.26
4.76

91.53
2.19

93.99
1.87

91.03
2.78

93.03
1.92

85.94
2.72

89.46
2.68

90.99
2.40

90.56
2.60

85.74
1.66

85.59
1.82

85.34
1.84

82.07
1.70

82.96
1.68

83.29
1.83

85.20
1.79

85.75
1.81

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Bangalore Belgaum Gulbarga Mysore State 2008 2009 66.37
3.62

% Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 49.00

4.30

Gulbarga Gulbarga Bidar Raichur Koppal Bellary Mysore Udupi Chikmagalur Mandya Hassan Dakshina Kannada Kodagu Mysore Chamarajanagar

2010 59.39
4.23

2011 65.24
4.16

2008 49.76
4.37

2009 54.25
4.36

2010 54.57
4.36

2011 53.60
4.48

58.99 64.28
3.86 3.58 4.19 3.86 2.03 3.79 3.93 3.93 3.12 1.95

57.64 58.78 43.50 48.41 65.37 68.74 57.20 60.59

66.82
3.71

60.42
4.86

57.09
4.95

39.35
3.99

40.57
4.37

45.36
4.19

47.40
4.94

45.33
5.42

43.84
4.54

42.12
4.64

44.87
4.84

30.44
4.01

24.51
3.40

26.29
4.20

22.48
3.86

33.29
4.26

75.32
3.38

72.50
3.43

71.15
3.64

55.58
3.83

46.12
3.59

54.19
4.11

47.70
4.20

57.39
4.19

63.99
2.08

59.56
2.35

59.66
2.39

44.53
2.14

41.09
2.17

46.02
2.34

44.53
2.46

47.49
2.48

258

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
Kerala
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 0.30 Central Kerala
0.23

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 58.67

7.02

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Central Kerala division of Kerala, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 96.87 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 1.54 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 98.41 % and 95.33%. List of districts under each division

2008 0.27
0.20

2009 0.12
0.14

2010 0.03
0.05

2011 0.00
0.00

2008 55.19
6.78

2009 51.19
7.36

2010 61.26
5.88

2011 68.70
4.97

0.67 North Kerala

0.36

0.15
0.11

0.05
0.06

0.12
0.12

0.00
0.00

56.48
5.90

46.53
6.54

44.28
5.85

44.50
6.14

52.20
5.67

0.22 South Kerala

0.20

0.17
0.14

0.11
0.11

0.11
0.13

0.00
0.00

51.06
6.23

49.97
5.02

57.74
4.94

57.39
4.83

62.67
5.04

0.39 State
0.15

0.20
0.09

0.10
0.06

0.09
0.06

0.08
0.06

55.18
3.72

50.48
3.54

51.46
3.49

54.21
3.34

60.79
3.10

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Central Kerala 2008 2009 94.44
2.41

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 96.69
1.71

Central Kerala Palakkad Thrissur Ernakulam Idukki North Kerala Kasaragod Kannur Wayanad Kozhikode Malappuram South Kerala Kottayam

2010 97.22
2.47

2011 93.92
2.80

2008 97.21
1.62

2009 93.04
3.40

2010 98.92
1.13

2011 94.96
2.54

96.87 98.88
1.54 1.02

96.36 97.60 North Kerala

1.41 1.45

96.64
2.00

98.37
1.13

97.67
1.39

95.14
2.20

97.06
1.54

96.85
1.66

97.93
1.54

96.40
1.73

96.78 99.04 South Kerala

1.91 0.78

98.53
1.18

98.65
1.19

98.72
0.95

96.65
2.08

98.77
0.97

97.55
1.58

97.62
1.82

98.50
1.24

96.66 98.49 State

0.95 0.65

96.73
1.07

98.15
0.92

97.10
0.99

96.13
1.18

97.67
0.82

96.01
1.28

98.09
0.92

96.88
1.03

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Central Kerala 2008 2009 78.76
4.83

Alappuzha % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 69.48
5.54

Pathanamthitta Kollam Thiruvananthapuram

2010 83.29
3.72

2011 82.96
3.59

2008 77.51
4.80

2009 74.48
5.30

2010 79.69
4.26

2011 67.68
4.71

81.05 85.70
4.00 2.89

79.45 82.22 North Kerala

4.48 3.23

84.80
2.83

83.99
3.30

83.85
3.59

65.69
6.67

68.88
3.88

69.46
4.58

73.99
4.19

62.70
5.15

85.42 88.53 South Kerala

3.29 2.42

84.65
3.70

91.98
2.11

80.28
2.97

79.33
4.45

79.65
3.39

81.42
3.22

83.41
3.17

71.07
3.75

82.15 85.50 State

2.27 1.72

82.99
2.23

86.86
1.80

82.15
1.93

71.89
3.24

75.31
2.43

75.54
2.56

79.23
2.27

67.46
2.63

ASER 2011

259

Divisional Estimates
Madhya Pradesh
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 Bhopal Chambal Gwalior Hoshangabad Indore Jabalpur Rewa Sagar Shahdol Ujjain State 2.13
0.57

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 16.76

3.28

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Bhopal division of Madhya Pradesh, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 95.44 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 1.83 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 97.27 % and 93.61%. List of districts under each division Bhopal Rajgarh Vidisha Bhopal Sehore Raisen Chambal

2008 1.46
0.78

2009 1.96
0.66

2010 2.07
0.84

2011 2.16
1.05

2008 17.11
3.61

2009 17.64
3.54

2010 19.20
3.39

2011 22.25
4.10

0.61
0.42

2.01
1.08

1.33
0.68

2.54
1.26

2.11
0.76

12.76
3.72

10.55
3.38

17.51
3.73

12.95
3.11

13.27
3.57

1.55
0.75

1.54
0.75

0.87
0.46

1.34
0.66

2.02
0.77

6.79
2.51

8.25
2.30

6.74
2.04

7.72
2.61

12.18
2.87

1.77
0.82

2.01
0.99

2.25
0.95

1.27
0.64

2.86
1.56

10.81
3.52

14.11
4.17

16.04
4.27

12.31
2.83

17.96
6.14

4.10
1.21

3.01
1.26

6.00
2.52

4.81
1.22

4.48
1.47

13.69
2.74

16.07
3.08

16.67
3.19

23.58
3.44

20.23
3.02

1.63
0.48

1.88
0.50

1.74
0.51

1.57
0.60

0.98
0.38

11.64
2.27

16.08
2.86

12.49
2.47

14.98
2.62

14.26
2.45

2.03
0.67

1.56
0.56

1.97
0.88

1.13
0.55

2.21
0.91

16.22
3.43

19.39
4.62

10.71
2.77

12.29
3.57

17.65
4.12

1.79
0.47

1.25
0.49

1.46
0.53

0.36
0.20

1.73
0.53

10.73
2.94

12.18
2.98

12.00
2.80

9.11
1.97

8.84
2.22

1.88
0.97

1.58
0.57

1.15
0.57

1.36
0.50

1.22
0.65

4.77
1.90

8.94
3.46

3.24
1.72

6.20
1.95

12.35
3.64

2.50
0.81

2.02
0.62

1.90
0.56

0.88
0.32

2.23
0.68

21.38
3.14

31.51
4.06

30.54
4.04

26.78
3.44

30.05
4.14

2.16
0.27

1.87
0.27

2.31
0.44

1.81
0.26

2.23
0.32

13.16
1.00

16.18
1.20

14.81
1.10

15.43
1.07

17.17
1.17

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Bhopal Chambal Gwalior Hoshangabad Indore Jabalpur Rewa Sagar Shahdol Ujjain State 2008 2009 97.10
1.05

Sheopur % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 95.15
1.70

Morena Bhind Gwalior Gwalior Datia Shivpuri Guna Hoshangabad Betul Harda Hoshangabad Indore Jhabua Dhar Indore West Nimar Barwani East Nimar Jabalpur Katni

2010 79.50
4.84

2011 60.01
6.37

2008 97.10
1.10

2009 96.18
1.27

2010 78.64
4.92

2011 62.12
6.36

95.44 97.57
1.83 1.08

93.03 97.87
2.97 3.60 1.47 1.19 2.07 3.05 2.48 3.32 1.14 0.79 1.31 1.61 1.54 0.90 1.08 1.93 1.87 2.27 1.45 0.49

97.71
1.72

80.88
6.00

47.74
6.71

92.57
2.88

97.67
1.60

97.91
1.41

81.95
5.46

50.80
6.45

87.69 96.56 96.61 96.60 97.57 98.92 94.06 96.36 86.83 95.39 91.42 94.49 87.64 93.99 96.53 96.91 93.01 96.57

97.28
1.70

74.91
5.47

56.97
7.01

88.56
3.82

94.96
2.55

95.60
2.60

72.44
7.00

58.69
7.07

97.76
1.44

80.48
5.50

64.87
9.11

96.24
1.65

95.43
2.52

96.10
1.73

80.30
5.84

65.23
9.49

94.89
2.56

82.01
3.58

64.04
4.72

96.80
1.42

98.45
0.94

92.72
2.97

82.79
3.76

60.14
4.41

91.70
2.84

84.72
3.05

68.88
4.51

93.66
1.99

95.35
1.31

90.73
2.54

82.51
3.51

66.41
4.55

95.51
2.02

93.42
2.87

75.53
6.31

85.24
3.57

94.36
1.93

93.49
2.47

91.27
3.33

69.56
7.05

93.77
2.38

93.44
2.70

60.46
5.03

90.65
2.68

93.13
2.27

94.56
1.92

94.25
2.06

61.00
4.85

96.05
3.09

93.96
3.18

68.35
6.81

86.74
3.19

93.23
2.47

95.37
2.74

93.38
3.65

61.27
7.12

97.40
1.13

85.99
3.31

75.61
4.20

95.63
1.48

96.21
1.55

96.28
1.71

85.57
3.48

73.36
4.48

95.44
0.75

85.44
1.35

65.69
1.94

92.40
0.85

95.67
0.58

94.36
0.79

84.73
1.46

63.92
1.93

260

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
Madhya Pradesh
Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Bhopal Chambal Gwalior Hoshangabad Indore Jabalpur Rewa Sagar Shahdol Ujjain State
2.94 4.79 4.39 2.63 1.66 3.09 4.16 2.88 3.80 2.93 1.14

List of districts under each division % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 87.78
3.28

Jabalpur Narsimhapur

2008
2.21 3.43 2.84 2.74 1.05 2.79 1.99 2.03 4.45 1.75 0.83

2009 93.14
1.63

2010 55.08
4.97

2011 35.38
4.99

2008 88.62
3.05

2009 88.71
2.51

2010 44.96
5.11

2011 22.73
4.61

89.69 94.57 72.45 88.62 75.02 90.08 93.30 94.10 94.04 97.48 78.60 84.76 73.34 94.68 83.94 91.57 77.65 82.94 85.93 95.38 82.99 91.72

Mandla Chhindwara Seoni Balaghat Rewa Satna Rewa Sidhi Sagar Tikamgarh Chhatarpur Panna Sagar Damoh Shahdol Umaria Shahdol Dindori Ujjain Neemuch Mandsaur Ratlam Ujjain Shajapur Dewas

88.75
3.51

54.43
7.18

30.66
5.20

68.42
4.88

85.38
3.92

83.94
3.93

52.51
6.32

25.98
4.94

86.08
3.67

55.73
4.28

36.34
4.86

68.16
4.84

83.72
4.23

81.72
4.20

35.26
4.72

26.38
4.41

95.36
1.67

55.00
5.95

48.52
8.81

87.56
3.86

89.16
3.68

92.89
2.28

49.60
4.90

31.38
8.36

90.06
3.51

58.70
4.59

41.36
4.39

92.66
1.79

95.91
1.36

86.32
4.51

50.49
4.31

31.71
4.00

77.36
3.52

65.97
4.13

45.19
4.00

69.75
3.58

74.58
3.60

68.85
3.91

54.29
4.36

29.16
3.64

91.30
3.10

85.47
4.08

51.83
6.58

64.54
4.69

89.46
2.82

83.51
4.38

73.88
5.43

30.07
5.59

83.16
3.39

74.84
5.29

35.57
4.35

79.48
3.63

83.88
2.80

76.70
4.38

71.10
5.76

23.20
3.51

80.96
4.48

75.96
5.19

35.65
6.00

68.71
5.27

75.40
4.35

73.96
5.55

66.03
6.47

21.13
5.13

94.10
1.63

78.23
3.73

64.95
4.49

82.90
3.40

91.34
2.47

90.06
2.54

66.60
4.39

47.85
5.26

87.49
1.13

67.21
1.73

44.20
1.81

77.71
1.37

85.93
1.10

81.88
1.42

57.63
1.88

30.12
1.63

ASER 2011

261

Divisional Estimates
Maharashtra
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 1.89 Amravati
0.62

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 26.47

4.60

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Amravati division of Maharashtra, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 89.04 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 3.04 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 92.08 % and 86.00%.

2008 1.66
0.65

2009 1.08
0.44

2010 0.85
0.46

2011 0.73
0.40

2008 30.08
3.94

2009 34.78
3.90

2010 26.92
4.07

2011 33.60
4.39

2.02 Aurangabad
0.52

1.71
0.51

0.83
0.30

1.23
0.40

1.14
0.38

21.21
2.63

23.63
2.86

21.00
2.26

23.01
2.36

28.51
3.13

2.15 Konkan
1.30

1.19
0.76

1.54
0.99

1.54
0.98

2.35
1.31

20.16
4.44

19.36
3.92

27.57
6.21

12.10
3.99

14.56
4.65

1.53 Nagpur
0.71

1.80
0.79

0.51
0.30

0.63
0.34

0.43
0.25

29.85
3.60

30.28
3.65

31.08
3.62

30.67
3.37

34.76
3.75

2.36 Nashik
0.77

2.03
0.69

1.56
0.77

1.66
0.53

1.35
0.58

28.05
4.07

24.50
3.99

30.98
4.13

32.61
3.99

35.79
4.20

0.92 Pune
0.35

0.92
0.33

0.52
0.22

0.77
0.39

0.71
0.46

28.31
3.70

28.56
3.81

28.21
3.41

28.39
3.88

29.74
4.28

List of districts under each division Amravati Buldana Akola Washim

1.78 State
0.28

1.53
0.25

0.98
0.22

1.12
0.21

1.08
0.24

25.78
1.59

25.92
1.57

28.19
1.60

26.43
1.56

30.31
1.77

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 94.40
3.32

Amravati Yavatmal % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 89.85
2.71

Aurangabad Nanded Hingoli

2010 95.38
1.92

2011 86.25
4.06

2008 83.01
4.55

2009 95.07
3.08

2010 94.46
2.74

2011 87.12
4.14

89.04 84.28 Amravati

3.04 4.05

Parbhani Jalna Aurangabad Bid Latur Osmanabad Konkan Thane Raigarh Ratnagiri Sindhudurg

90.16 91.25 Aurangabad

2.27 1.98

90.80
2.34

94.26
1.80

89.93
2.78

92.79
1.98

90.53
2.07

91.99
2.13

93.78
1.83

91.98
2.10

97.04 97.21 Konkan

1.58 1.42

92.88
3.56

97.07
3.16

91.41
4.12

97.37
1.44

94.85
3.04

93.27
3.05

96.53
3.09

90.03
4.09

91.30 87.54 Nagpur

2.31 3.39

96.62
1.79

90.57
2.50

88.69
2.96

90.48
2.71

88.09
3.53

96.30
1.82

88.41
2.99

87.71
3.05

91.03 87.81 Nashik

2.96 3.53

92.86
2.92

95.95
1.77

94.33
2.11

92.28
3.03

86.87
3.50

91.45
2.80

95.09
2.03

94.10
2.03

95.27 96.25 Pune

1.95 1.51

93.27
2.28

94.87
1.89

92.98
3.22

95.18
1.89

95.07
1.63

94.09
2.00

94.10
2.31

93.65
3.13

92.14 91.09 State

1.07 1.17

93.03
1.14

94.75
0.86

91.18
1.29

93.02
1.04

90.09
1.25

93.29
1.04

93.88
0.98

91.58
1.21

262

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
Maharashtra
Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 86.90
3.58

List of districts under each division % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 65.96
5.06

Nagpur Wardha Nagpur Bhandara Gondiya Gadchiroli Chandrapur Nashik Nandurbar Dhule Jalgaon Nashik Ahmadnagar Pune Pune Solapur Satara

2010 80.70
4.80

2011 65.79
5.43

2008 58.32
5.88

2009 69.19
4.99

2010 60.70
5.46

2011 40.51
5.37

80.81 79.09 Amravati

3.82 3.85

83.55 84.34 Aurangabad

2.50 2.35

84.28
2.76

83.15
2.55

76.43
3.33

64.49
3.66

67.09
4.09

70.31
3.93

67.44
3.48

56.11
4.49

90.51 91.70 Konkan

2.80 3.30

90.09
3.37

85.40
4.31

82.35
5.16

77.94
4.63

89.03
3.51

78.96
5.11

69.28
5.60

67.93
6.57

82.11 79.27 Nagpur

2.89 4.46

86.02
2.76

79.91
3.44

73.42
3.27

62.79
4.30

53.65
4.93

68.54
4.16

47.16
4.11

45.01
4.54

85.30 84.21 Nashik

3.36 3.12

84.94
3.59

88.55
3.14

81.39
3.94

56.94
5.94

57.81
4.84

73.31
5.10

74.89
4.82

52.66
5.72

86.88 89.54 Pune

3.48 2.39

89.65
2.37

90.39
2.05

82.19
3.86

77.12
3.75

70.13
4.33

79.90
3.90

74.66
3.77

67.73
5.01

84.97 85.31 State

1.36 1.29

86.75
1.30

85.48
1.34

77.84
1.75

67.42
2.01

66.37
2.04

73.70
1.92

67.56
1.96

56.03
2.35

Kolhapur Sangli

ASER 2011

263

Divisional Estimates
Odisha
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 4.22 Central
1.07

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 3.13

0.88

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Central division of Odisha, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 86.18 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 2.69 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 88.87 % and 83.49 %. List of districts under each division Central Mayurbhanj Baleshwar Bhadrak Kendrapara Jagatsinghapur Cuttack Jajapur Nayagarh Khordha Puri North Bargarh Jharsuguda Sambalpur

2008 4.72
1.45

2009 3.78
1.09

2010 2.45
0.73

2011 2.55
0.72

2008 4.70
1.17

2009 5.49
1.18

2010 5.66
1.35

2011 6.00
1.03

6.42 North
0.95

7.34
1.49

5.29
1.24

2.04
0.58

3.21
0.92

4.23
1.04

5.19
1.07

4.14
0.96

6.87
1.75

5.27
1.30

14.48 10.53 South

2.70 1.56

10.43
1.70

9.55
2.28

5.64
1.16

2.69
0.80

3.54
1.01

3.11
0.93

3.49
0.90

3.60
0.78

7.99 State
1.02

7.16
0.88

6.27
0.78

4.45
0.80

3.71
0.53

3.31
0.53

4.48
0.66

4.36
0.62

5.35
0.80

5.04
0.61

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Central 2008 2009 92.38
2.22

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 82.37
2.86

2010 85.28
3.56

2011 77.83
3.80

2008 82.80
2.59

2009 90.07
2.63

2010 80.33
3.81

2011 75.08
3.96

86.18 85.22
2.69 2.54

72.92 73.64 North

3.29 3.95

90.20
2.98

72.30
4.50

71.47
4.32

70.75
3.46

72.16
4.11

91.08
2.29

70.62
4.43

69.76
4.16

60.54 71.83 South

4.80 3.73

84.27
3.04

66.76
3.53

54.20
4.26

57.38
4.97

69.67
3.72

81.08
3.52

61.53
3.67

53.58
4.19

73.59 78.13 State

2.31 1.95

88.85
1.61

76.05
2.26

67.68
2.59

70.33
2.38

76.02
1.97

87.08
1.75

71.94
2.34

66.02
2.56

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Central 2008 2009 76.95
3.41

Debagarh Sundargarh % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 67.50
3.17

Kendujhar Dhenkanal Anugul Subarnapur Balangir South Ganjam Gajapati Kandhamal Baudh Nuapada Kalahandi Rayagada Nabarangapur Koraput Malkangiri

2010 71.75
3.49

2011 69.23
3.72

2008 67.23
3.10

2009 73.62
3.54

2010 64.13
3.67

2011 56.60
3.95

76.42 77.64
2.64 2.60

57.58 63.10 North

3.27 3.27

68.59
3.48

57.96
3.47

55.13
4.00

42.65
3.67

47.14
3.52

62.87
3.74

44.70
3.92

38.29
3.86

51.13 63.04 South

4.45 3.74

61.86
3.98

50.26
3.38

42.97
3.75

39.10
4.86

51.70
4.29

55.22
4.78

42.17
3.98

32.12
4.01

63.58 69.43 State

2.16 1.89

69.53
2.15

61.39
2.13

56.59
2.36

52.08
2.52

57.39
2.19

64.40
2.43

52.11
2.37

43.52
2.45

264

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
Punjab
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 2.52 Doaba
1.75

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 22.84

4.77

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Doaba division of Punjab, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 91.86 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 3.19 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 95.05 % and 88.67 %. List of districts under each division

2008 2.37
1.00

2009 4.41
2.42

2010 0.76
0.38

2011 0.50
0.35

2008 38.31
4.53

2009 28.58
5.15

2010 32.85
5.18

2011 37.73
5.38

1.71 Majha
0.89

2.39
1.10

3.75
1.94

1.93
1.05

2.04
0.86

38.38
6.05

49.14
6.67

39.96
6.36

40.78
4.74

40.96
4.95

3.59 Malwa
0.83

2.90
0.54

6.05
2.41

1.88
0.45

1.75
0.50

32.42
2.83

40.14
2.71

27.65
3.31

38.87
3.11

39.83
2.85

2.94 State
0.63

2.69
0.44

5.23
1.55

1.66
0.36

1.56
0.36

31.83
2.39

41.65
2.34

30.50
2.64

38.03
2.33

39.64
2.25

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Doaba 2008 2009 88.81
5.76

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 87.76
4.56

Doaba Hoshiarpur Jalandhar Kapurthala SBS Nagar (Nawanshahr) Majha Gurdaspur Amritsar Tarn Taran Malwa Bathinda Faridkot Fatehgarh Sahib

2010 90.74
3.01

2011 86.51
3.19

2008 82.83
4.92

2009 85.09
6.71

2010 92.69
2.98

2011 89.34
3.40

91.86 81.49
3.19 4.91

82.92 92.63 Majha

6.19 3.04

92.91
3.47

83.73
3.99

87.58
3.34

80.23
7.59

90.23
3.58

91.31
4.18

85.85
4.01

90.40
3.53

87.23 85.83 Malwa

2.50 2.08

90.24
2.12

88.26
2.16

87.42
2.57

84.84
2.98

83.47
2.23

86.91
2.35

87.82
2.22

91.06
2.17

87.23 86.24 State

2.06 1.73

90.48
1.87

87.69
1.67

87.22
1.73

84.48
2.52

84.55
1.81

87.40
2.16

88.35
1.70

90.45
1.64

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Doaba 2008 2009 75.11
4.77

Firozpur % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 66.45
5.53

Ludhiana Mansa Moga Muktsar Sangrur SAS Nagar Patiala Rupnagar

2010 77.97
4.69

2011 80.27
3.75

2008 66.37
5.71

2009 77.77
4.69

2010 83.17
3.83

2011 80.30
4.48

70.22 73.25
5.49 4.33

61.48 68.11 Majha

9.58 6.76

70.97
6.02

72.83
4.38

71.74
4.37

59.75
9.88

65.80
6.85

66.00
6.52

75.89
4.39

71.86
5.11

75.48 69.07 Malwa

3.35 2.82

70.79
3.04

72.51
2.80

73.74
2.84

73.26
3.69

63.02
2.95

68.97
3.45

78.13
2.70

71.19
3.26

71.35 69.70 State

3.04 2.33

71.67
2.39

73.80
2.14

74.94
2.06

68.93
3.22

64.20
2.51

70.12
2.65

78.79
2.00

73.61
2.41

ASER 2011

265

Divisional Estimates
Rajasthan
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 6.31 Ajmer
1.51

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 25.20

4.78

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Ajmer division of Rajasthan, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 71.5 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 5.19 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 76.69 % and 66.31 %. List of districts under each division Ajmer Ajmer Bhilwara Nagaur Tonk Bharatpur

2008 5.70
1.61

2009 5.81
1.61

2010 7.12
1.54

2011 6.54
1.77

2008 35.47
5.23

2009 31.69
4.63

2010 36.39
5.26

2011 33.56
5.43

5.91 Bharatpur
1.53

8.39
2.01

7.00
3.14

6.33
1.79

3.47
0.87

35.74
5.02

42.40
5.34

40.33
5.45

40.49
5.18

41.83
5.58

7.53 Bikaner
1.56

5.89
1.64

5.95
1.59

4.00
1.16

2.40
0.79

34.93
4.29

42.60
4.75

36.77
4.78

40.00
4.83

45.57
5.04

2.99 Jaipur
0.81

2.81
0.76

2.54
0.95

1.78
0.58

1.24
0.52

40.28
4.52

50.98
4.32

44.75
4.33

47.45
3.99

49.42
4.29

9.49 Jodhpur
1.77

11.39
2.16

11.50
2.00

9.52
2.10

7.74
1.83

14.87
3.15

17.59
3.52

20.23
3.84

21.85
3.59

24.48
3.98

6.61 Kota
1.70

7.64
1.67

6.52
2.10

5.63
1.50

2.99
1.18

25.98
4.85

31.22
5.35

30.58
5.21

33.59
4.62

34.47
5.27

8.19 Udaipur
2.06

9.14
2.50

6.78
1.54

6.67
1.58

5.98
1.58

10.76
2.73

12.35
2.95

12.62
2.98

16.66
3.75

19.43
2.98

6.53 State
0.62

7.14
0.75

6.56
0.71

5.81
0.61

4.49
0.58

26.72
1.82

32.68
2.05

30.38
1.86

33.42
1.87

35.09
1.95

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 74.23
4.81

Bharatpur % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 72.07
4.75

Dhaulpur Karauli

2010 71.67
5.28

2011 61.26
5.83

2008 71.69
4.66

2009 74.29
4.57

2010 70.91
5.10

2011 63.46
6.10

Sawai Madhopur Bikaner Bikaner Churu Ganganagar Hanumangarh Jaipur Alwar Dausa Jaipur Jhunjhunun Sikar

71.50 71.52 Ajmer

5.19 4.80

67.12 65.67 Bharatpur

5.27 5.27

75.75
4.94

70.06
5.30

69.81
6.20

70.25
5.66

65.15
4.81

74.80
5.46

67.88
5.26

72.37
6.00

71.06 70.51 Bikaner

5.16 5.01

74.14
5.33

77.24
4.73

71.60
4.75

69.29
5.14

69.24
5.17

74.48
5.29

78.29
4.65

72.54
4.56

75.26 68.51 Jaipur

4.50 5.43

76.82
6.31

74.37
3.76

72.62
5.38

77.20
4.60

70.68
4.58

73.64
5.94

75.83
3.91

73.66
5.42

63.92 64.45 Jodhpur

5.02 4.76

67.06
5.49

60.66
4.98

54.26
4.79

65.07
5.17

67.27
4.36

68.46
5.69

61.22
5.12

54.57
4.77

67.74 64.86 Kota

4.77 4.79

71.31
4.79

76.21
5.22

70.08
6.04

70.04
4.77

68.64
4.57

73.03
4.67

77.30
4.71

71.56
5.82

67.06 59.17 Udaipur

4.87 5.04

64.16
5.24

68.09
4.72

67.83
5.15

68.65
4.91

57.32
5.41

65.01
5.35

71.20
4.67

68.02
4.88

69.60 65.98 State

1.94 2.03

71.29
2.19

70.03
1.94

65.51
2.21

70.91
1.96

66.77
1.94

71.26
2.18

70.81
1.95

66.48
2.22

266

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
Rajasthan
Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 58.10
4.94

List of districts under each division % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 48.96
5.49

Jodhpur Barmer Jaisalmer Jalor Jodhpur Pali Sirohi Kota Baran Bundi Jhalawar Kota Udaipur Banswara Chittaurgarh Dungarpur Rajsamand Udaipur

2010 52.33
5.56

2011 48.87
5.24

2008 43.52
5.35

2009 47.32
5.74

2010 41.47
5.36

2011 36.50
5.65

58.04 60.42 Ajmer

5.44 5.09

54.22 62.68 Bharatpur

4.95 5.05

58.13
5.50

52.66
5.33

56.41
5.14

53.63
5.14

54.49
5.56

56.19
5.38

47.50
5.83

49.23
5.75

65.51 75.76 Bikaner

4.45 4.17

65.48
5.00

68.18
4.68

63.14
4.12

56.59
5.49

63.67
4.91

59.40
5.22

64.72
4.95

55.29
4.61

67.35 66.85 Jaipur

4.14 4.29

62.77
4.47

63.23
4.60

60.03
5.48

63.95
4.72

53.37
4.45

52.81
4.81

54.45
5.23

48.71
5.17

55.99 57.92 Jodhpur

4.63 4.67

55.34
5.24

52.14
4.77

42.20
4.46

49.19
4.78

46.20
4.81

46.53
4.91

45.80
5.25

28.90
4.39

50.13 58.91 Kota

4.66 5.27

50.96
5.36

59.05
6.20

49.44
6.13

46.03
5.41

45.21
5.80

42.54
5.97

52.70
6.08

36.76
5.70

48.27 55.45 Udaipur

4.83 5.26

41.72
5.69

55.83
4.92

49.25
4.27

35.29
4.58

34.20
4.99

32.11
6.15

44.27
4.93

31.74
4.11

57.88 62.00 State

1.91 1.92

55.88
2.12

57.40
1.98

52.66
2.06

51.13
2.08

47.63
2.06

47.45
2.20

49.48
2.11

40.39
2.09

ASER 2011

267

Divisional Estimates
Tamil Nadu
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 Central East North South West State 1.08
0.52

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 14.38

3.52

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Central division of Tamil Nadu, in 2007, % of Std III children who could read letters or more is 49.57 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 6.23 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 55.80 % and 43.34 %. List of districts under each division Central Salem Namakkal Karur Tiruchirappalli Pudukkottai East Viluppuram Perambalur Ariyalur Cuddalore Nagapattinam Thiruvarur Thanjavur North Thiruvallur Kancheepuram Vellore Dharmapuri Tiruvannamalai South Sivaganga Madurai Virudhunagar Ramanathapuram Thoothukkudi Tirunelveli Kanniyakumari West Erode The Nilgiris Coimbatore Dindigul Theni

2008 0.86
0.46

2009 0.89
0.44

2010 0.79
0.36

2011 0.63
0.29

2008 22.16
4.46

2009 19.44
3.06

2010 19.35
3.72

2011 25.18
3.28

0.97
0.32

0.48
0.21

0.80
0.31

1.38
0.60

0.86
0.41

15.69
2.46

18.88
3.13

14.95
2.37

20.67
3.38

23.91
2.92

1.94
0.59

0.33
0.21

0.69
0.36

0.90
0.46

1.06
0.68

13.50
2.52

17.59
3.08

21.09
2.73

26.11
3.85

26.42
3.68

0.81
0.33

0.89
0.36

1.14
0.37

0.94
0.38

0.67
0.28

15.56
3.64

26.62
4.01

26.25
4.16

34.84
5.74

32.30
4.95

0.88
0.44

0.82
0.42

1.25
0.49

0.71
0.33

1.00
0.74

19.76
4.74

18.17
3.59

17.54
3.96

22.90
5.30

26.93
4.13

1.18
0.21

0.63
0.14

0.93
0.17

0.98
0.22

0.85
0.23

15.49
1.45

20.55
1.65

19.69
1.47

25.07
2.06

27.04
1.79

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Central East North South West State
6.23 5.16 5.61 4.37 6.43 2.57

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 55.02
6.72

2008
5.79 4.56 4.74 5.29 6.56 2.38

2009 59.55
5.86

2010 51.81
7.03

2011 55.49
5.51

2008 63.20
7.21

2009 65.90
5.80

2010 54.70
7.29

2011 59.60
5.76

49.57 60.82 55.76 51.03 60.21 52.18 67.97 60.51 69.81 50.62 60.25 54.74

55.34
4.97

60.34
5.26

60.67
4.96

63.18
4.92

61.53
5.19

64.50
4.51

65.89
5.09

69.60
5.19

67.10
5.53

67.30
5.15

62.97
5.43

71.04
5.92

63.12
5.28

75.79
5.06

73.44
5.61

70.07
5.55

65.08
5.15

73.52
4.48

68.19
5.06

70.53
4.61

64.44
5.04

72.67
4.82

76.40
4.89

72.06
4.85

68.68
6.07

58.18
7.05

66.73
5.12

74.08
6.01

60.59
7.24

72.63
6.27

60.85
7.51

75.55
5.27

62.42
2.49

63.03
2.62

62.75
2.41

66.63
2.60

62.63
2.62

69.95
2.36

67.47
2.73

69.25
2.47

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Central East North South West State
5.29 4.54 4.92 5.04 5.94 2.34

% Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 39.42

5.40

2008
6.02 3.63 4.31 4.81 5.64 2.22

2009 54.56
6.29

2010 44.74
4.90

2011 39.45
5.10

2008 45.03
5.54

2009 38.30
5.67

2010 37.09
5.31

2011 31.19
5.21

48.15 50.63 43.59 34.25 44.65 48.42 56.87 55.13 56.44 41.16 49.24 45.68

42.99
4.09

46.24
4.48

48.59
4.50

41.15
4.60

25.02
3.64

29.89
3.84

38.11
4.74

34.95
4.39

54.14
4.56

52.70
5.04

44.88
5.93

34.98
4.56

35.78
4.75

34.00
4.33

41.37
3.89

40.53
5.42

59.66
4.47

62.86
3.88

62.62
4.09

51.56
4.39

44.75
4.56

48.40
4.43

49.38
3.94

55.11
4.48

59.09
6.14

57.71
6.10

52.33
4.45

50.11
6.47

34.17
4.57

55.20
5.74

53.97
6.39

46.47
4.43

53.04
2.30

52.50
2.30

50.00
2.33

42.92
2.31

36.27
2.15

39.66
2.23

43.18
2.20

41.88
2.33

268

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
Uttar Pradesh
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 2.65 Agra
0.94

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 37.54

4.22

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Agra division of Uttar Pradesh, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 64.67 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 4.56 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 69.23 % and 60.11 %. List of districts under each division Agra Mathura Agra Firozabad Mainpuri Aligarh Aligarh Mahamaya Nagar (Hathras) Etah Allahabad Fatehpur Pratapgarh Kaushambi Allahabad Azamgarh Azamgarh Mau Ballia Bareilly Budaun Bareilly Pilibhit Shahjahanpur Basti Siddharthnagar Basti Sant Kabir Nagar

2008 5.86
1.12

2009 3.84
0.88

2010 3.85
0.97

2011 5.16
0.91

2008 45.12
4.00

2009 40.81
3.96

2010 51.47
4.10

2011 57.38
3.70

1.82 Aligarh
0.61

5.31
1.23

6.58
1.51

6.15
1.76

6.27
1.63

24.67
4.33

38.70
4.91

42.67
4.70

35.80
5.37

44.55
5.09

3.90 Allahabad
1.02

5.04
1.13

3.26
0.90

4.16
1.02

5.19
1.11

35.05
3.99

39.12
4.59

36.76
5.00

42.84
4.42

47.77
4.05

2.39 Azamgarh
1.14

3.71
1.41

3.99
1.70

1.68
0.67

1.87
0.79

33.30
4.10

39.36
5.26

42.73
5.09

51.20
5.61

53.13
4.86

8.53 Bareilly
2.14

7.80
1.95

9.99
2.16

10.91
2.92

13.03
1.97

20.55
3.63

26.22
3.87

30.11
3.72

33.87
4.13

39.58
3.96

3.93 Basti
1.19

7.25
1.95

5.62
1.79

5.16
1.39

6.79
1.64

26.50
4.55

26.86
3.58

38.84
4.46

40.16
4.48

45.36
4.61

3.86 Chitrakoot
0.89

4.29
0.99

3.86
0.85

5.29
1.20

6.22
1.36

18.21
3.68

19.26
4.08

22.32
4.65

23.64
4.14

22.78
4.35

3.72 Devipatan
1.31

8.47
1.90

7.96
1.84

10.11
2.05

15.18
2.56

15.62
3.42

24.36
4.04

20.72
3.62

20.89
4.08

25.98
3.89

4.17 Faizabad
1.13

4.99
1.26

4.29
1.19

5.86
1.60

4.47
1.34

33.45
3.49

41.57
4.06

35.76
4.04

39.34
3.76

46.03
4.13

2.96 Gorakhpur
0.71

4.93
1.19

3.01
0.77

1.76
0.48

2.63
0.73

37.49
4.00

42.83
3.78

46.69
4.36

50.75
4.01

52.94
3.54

1.90 Jhansi
0.57

2.85
0.83

1.88
0.83

2.54
0.89

4.18
1.27

14.32
3.54

23.53
5.09

14.82
3.94

19.56
5.28

25.58
5.53

2.05 Kanpur
0.67

4.60
1.03

3.71
0.79

3.40
0.83

4.52
1.28

18.22
3.27

33.03
3.50

34.36
3.65

40.68
3.66

39.50
3.84

5.88 Lucknow
1.02

9.05
1.34

7.20
1.31

6.58
1.14

7.00
1.45

26.03
2.85

30.62
3.16

32.12
3.22

34.24
3.23

38.61
3.88

3.17 Meerut
0.93

3.06
0.80

3.16
0.94

2.95
0.80

3.61
1.06

37.75
4.40

46.79
4.61

39.70
4.52

52.09
4.22

57.55
3.60

3.60 Mirzapur
1.09

3.76
1.13

2.57
1.01

3.65
1.15

2.03
0.76

23.74
4.15

27.77
4.95

27.52
4.85

28.09
4.73

32.70
4.91

2.98 Moradabad
1.03

6.47
1.59

6.96
1.74

7.80
1.75

9.22
1.62

28.12
4.34

43.71
4.07

46.67
4.42

43.85
4.77

55.56
3.87

6.43 Saharanpur
3.01

6.31
2.21

3.78
1.53

7.34
2.53

8.51
2.56

36.91
6.33

42.13
6.23

35.04
6.14

35.99
5.32

53.17
6.22

2.96 Varanasi
0.78

2.42
0.70

1.79
0.60

1.85
0.66

2.56
0.69

36.09
3.87

39.36
4.05

38.66
4.40

42.21
3.95

54.88
4.29

3.93 State
0.31

5.63
0.36

4.92
0.36

5.22
0.39

6.13
0.40

29.05
1.02

35.86
1.09

35.83
1.12

39.33
1.14

45.36
1.13

ASER 2011

269

Divisional Estimates
Uttar Pradesh
Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Agra 2008 2009 68.04
4.20

List of districts under each division % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 66.17
5.06

Chitrakoot Hamirpur Mahoba Banda Chitrakoot Devipatan Bahraich Shrawasti Balrampur Gonda Faizabad Bara Banki Faizabad Ambedkar Nagar Sultanpur Gorakhpur Mahrajganj Gorakhpur Kushinagar Deoria Jhansi Jalaun Jhansi Lalitpur Kanpur Farrukhabad Kannauj Etawah Auraiya Kanpur Dehat

2010 67.76
3.94

2011 65.30
3.93

2008 60.41
4.27

2009 66.55
4.23

2010 68.07
3.77

2011 67.50
3.66

64.67 61.40
4.56 4.29

68.32 51.95 Aligarh

7.74 5.44

66.93
5.29

62.07
5.74

54.68
6.52

67.58
7.11

50.77
5.04

67.50
4.88

59.84
5.95

57.10
6.33

71.89 61.79 Allahabad

3.57 4.63

71.04
3.77

62.23
4.63

66.93
4.00

66.63
4.54

59.69
4.37

67.68
4.26

59.85
4.41

67.20
4.02

59.81 67.12 Azamgarh

6.45 4.61

70.08
4.96

73.12
6.62

72.37
4.23

63.60
6.81

64.79
4.89

68.09
5.20

72.63
6.05

71.18
4.85

67.93 61.38 Bareilly

6.32 4.74

58.21
5.39

64.47
5.04

56.12
5.38

67.47
6.30

60.90
4.69

58.19
5.38

62.74
5.33

59.49
5.49

67.63 54.08 Basti

4.47 4.81

66.48
5.79

64.68
6.12

57.83
5.35

62.00
4.42

52.88
5.41

64.02
5.48

62.07
5.93

62.11
5.18

65.47 67.65 Chitrakoot

5.12 4.65

73.92
4.80

62.27
5.43

64.24
4.52

61.54
5.66

65.40
4.71

71.51
5.13

61.28
4.81

64.33
4.61

69.85 56.05 Devipatan

5.31 4.66

57.68
5.39

54.44
5.34

45.67
4.64

66.20
5.27

56.04
4.74

55.90
5.39

56.60
5.23

56.43
4.97

68.57 51.96 Faizabad

4.34 4.39

65.66
5.01

62.22
5.43

61.11
4.26

70.83
3.98

57.99
4.18

62.82
5.21

65.58
5.57

63.95
4.35

64.49 66.31 Gorakhpur

4.67 4.24

75.87
3.96

72.96
4.35

71.63
3.88

59.85
4.69

61.69
4.06

72.82
4.26

71.95
4.31

71.88
3.58

72.14 60.65 Jhansi

5.07 5.78

71.59
5.20

73.90
5.18

68.99
5.25

66.68
4.93

57.81
5.88

69.35
5.37

72.50
5.42

64.99
5.50

64.56 60.15 Kanpur

5.46 3.84

63.20
4.65

70.41
3.90

66.92
3.98

64.48
5.66

57.78
3.60

60.69
4.86

67.70
4.05

67.72
4.10

59.95 53.58 Lucknow

4.17 3.73

57.86
4.23

60.57
4.46

55.35
5.09

61.72
3.86

54.32
3.56

56.57
4.01

60.81
4.09

58.47
4.55

76.35 77.61 Meerut

4.62 3.72

76.40
4.55

79.87
4.30

72.06
4.52

77.20
3.89

76.29
3.90

75.01
4.69

77.65
4.58

77.37
4.17

74.74 57.72 Mirzapur

5.51 5.49

70.06
4.85

68.08
6.82

75.42
4.43

66.14
5.68

55.86
5.60

65.40
4.69

65.45
6.19

74.97
4.23

69.55 71.13 Moradabad

6.55 4.25

69.35
5.28

65.21
5.21

62.14
5.18

70.48
6.68

71.60
3.99

70.87
5.09

66.66
4.69

66.60
4.59

68.51 75.66 Saharanpur

6.59 5.86

82.00
5.03

77.64
6.26

69.58
5.56

63.87
7.38

77.48
5.10

83.28
4.98

77.68
6.79

70.74
4.71

69.43 69.30 Varanasi

4.20 3.69

75.73
4.08

82.90
4.02

69.47
4.34

65.47
4.13

64.86
4.23

72.65
3.90

78.73
4.29

71.25
4.36

67.22 62.08 State

1.30 1.18

68.00
1.25

67.31
1.35

63.56
1.24

65.70
1.30

61.07
1.15

66.29
1.25

66.59
1.30

65.99
1.18

270

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
Uttar Pradesh
Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Agra 2008 2009 48.74
5.55

List of districts under each division % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 46.77
5.24

Lucknow Kheri Sitapur Hardoi

2010 51.40
4.96

2011 46.76
4.77

2008 35.38
4.21

2009 35.07
4.13

2010 42.28
4.99

2011 38.85
3.99

54.36 48.80
4.30 4.00

Unnao Lucknow Rae Bareli Meerut Meerut Baghpat Ghaziabad Gautam Buddha Nagar Bulandshahar Mirzapur Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) Mirzapur Sonbhadra Moradabad Bijnor Moradabad Rampur Jyotiba Phule Nagar Saharanpur Saharanpur Muzaffarnagar Varanasi Jaunpur Ghazipur Chandauli Varanasi

46.87 53.56 Aligarh

6.51 5.33

46.81
6.21

46.67
5.78

42.70
5.43

44.95
5.97

39.16
5.17

37.67
6.60

38.37
5.66

32.86
4.43

51.29 50.25 Allahabad

4.96 4.57

48.06
5.19

47.16
5.11

44.35
4.22

39.27
5.13

33.66
4.60

38.06
5.76

34.08
4.21

33.82
4.74

55.64 57.47 Azamgarh

5.27 6.14

45.95
4.39

57.08
6.97

59.32
4.37

37.39
5.84

45.02
7.43

32.01
4.69

49.51
7.39

49.50
4.15

45.00 45.00 Bareilly

5.23 4.93

31.46
5.77

38.63
4.85

35.86
4.40

39.92
5.66

30.21
4.46

21.39
4.44

26.16
4.44

24.80
4.01

49.18 45.92 Basti

5.62 4.90

47.27
6.07

52.01
6.00

44.07
5.35

36.49
5.60

29.77
4.11

35.10
5.41

38.42
5.61

26.29
4.07

49.84 47.71 Chitrakoot

6.11 5.41

43.75
5.55

42.98
4.50

40.20
4.41

45.37
6.12

33.81
5.61

34.79
5.60

33.28
4.42

30.52
4.04

58.28 42.89 Devipatan

6.25 6.09

38.78
5.28

48.85
5.40

38.29
4.87

52.15
6.32

28.10
5.66

26.37
4.85

31.84
5.00

25.31
4.46

53.08 45.90 Faizabad

4.62 4.06

49.32
5.26

49.86
5.72

43.76
4.26

40.03
4.47

29.02
3.62

32.99
5.49

35.96
5.01

29.37
3.94

54.70 51.22 Gorakhpur

5.01 4.83

60.21
5.03

66.85
4.36

58.57
4.00

40.24
5.33

34.99
5.21

46.23
5.84

52.41
4.70

36.48
4.20

46.52 47.49 Jhansi

4.79 6.07

48.55
6.27

52.46
6.45

48.03
5.14

46.62
4.73

37.78
5.96

42.66
6.08

42.86
5.28

41.10
4.68

47.80 42.59 Kanpur

4.68 3.85

41.32
4.12

51.73
4.80

45.78
4.98

45.70
4.54

29.46
3.55

29.08
4.02

39.20
5.26

37.79
4.85

40.39 38.01 Lucknow

3.74 3.93

36.20
3.64

41.39
4.27

40.20
4.52

30.76
3.80

22.56
3.83

22.02
3.12

30.79
4.00

28.85
4.18

71.03 71.17 Meerut

5.06 3.99

69.28
5.66

71.87
3.74

67.21
4.38

57.25
5.74

54.04
5.38

55.86
6.19

61.43
4.13

48.06
4.90

50.91 51.47 Mirzapur

7.03 4.94

46.38
6.04

50.50
5.58

55.06
5.27

38.25
7.47

32.03
4.94

31.13
5.28

32.79
5.34

37.77
5.44

54.00 56.94 Moradabad

6.41 4.98

51.63
5.52

50.23
5.54

43.09
4.47

48.08
6.58

37.87
5.03

38.47
5.46

37.16
5.10

29.10
3.79

56.81 73.12 Saharanpur

8.13 6.04

67.30
6.20

64.83
6.74

59.04
6.08

53.02
8.67

59.56
7.95

56.55
7.60

55.17
8.58

39.64
6.13

59.77 58.32 Varanasi

4.60 4.07

61.18
4.68

68.40
4.85

55.81
4.39

45.21
4.76

42.75
4.75

43.79
4.75

51.06
5.37

41.15
4.04

52.16 50.66 State

1.35 1.26

48.55
1.42

52.67
1.40

47.83
1.21

42.85
1.40

35.22
1.31

35.69
1.42

40.17
1.37

34.45
1.14

ASER 2011

271

Divisional Estimates
Uttarakhand
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 1.75 Garhwal
0.75

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 27.75

4.42

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Garhwal division of Uttarakhand, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 78.35 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 3.74 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 82.09 % and 74.61%. List of districts under each division

2008 0.65
0.34

2009 1.11
0.43

2010 1.25
0.58

2011 0.80
0.47

2008 30.38
4.78

2009 25.69
4.69

2010 28.81
4.95

2011 31.12
4.86

2.91 Kumaon
1.31

1.42
0.79

1.64
0.82

2.36
1.28

1.58
0.97

21.24
3.79

24.51
4.53

23.55
4.21

29.32
5.34

31.69
5.07

2.24 State
0.71

0.98
0.39

1.35
0.44

1.73
0.65

1.09
0.47

25.00
3.07

27.86
3.36

24.72
3.20

29.03
3.64

31.33
3.59

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 80.49
4.10

% Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 78.75
4.08

Garhwal Uttarkashi Chamoli Rudraprayag

2010 80.52
4.01

2011 76.53
4.23

2008 79.67
3.87

2009 79.63
3.98

2010 78.26
4.20

2011 74.79
5.23

78.35 79.85 Garhwal

3.74 4.02

Tehri Garhwal Dehradun Garhwal

80.37 79.76 Kumaon

3.82 5.63

87.88
3.78

80.47
3.98

80.83
4.18

80.29
4.06

78.89
5.22

86.30
3.77

79.61
4.37

79.87
3.74

Hardwar Kumaon Pithoragarh Bageshwar

79.23 79.82 State

2.69 3.30

83.88
2.80

80.50
2.85

78.09
3.13

79.42
2.90

79.36
3.12

82.70
2.73

78.85
3.04

76.65
3.64

Almora Champawat

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 70.69
4.00

Nainital Udham Singh Nagar % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 63.42
4.22

2010 69.94
4.42

2011 61.06
4.80

2008 59.14
4.88

2009 57.19
5.03

2010 61.36
4.97

2011 48.97
4.47

70.70 73.54 Garhwal

3.68 4.31

73.27 77.62 Kumaon

4.54 4.97

77.58
4.87

72.46
3.90

70.66
4.50

67.55
5.31

60.82
6.00

68.22
6.20

65.01
4.64

55.07
4.61

71.76 75.21 State

2.86 3.27

73.79
3.08

71.01
3.04

64.17
3.68

65.12
3.32

59.83
3.78

62.20
3.91

62.91
3.47

50.95
3.43

272

ASER 2011

Divisional Estimates
West Bengal
School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 5.39 Burdwan
1.07

% Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 1.59

0.66

Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. The numbers below the estimate, in the second row, are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. For instance, In Burdwan division of West Bengal, in 2007, % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 92.74 %. With 95% probability, the true population proportion lies within 2.31 % points of the estimate, i.e., between 95.05 % and 90.43%. List of districts under each division

2008 6.12
1.55

2009 5.38
1.53

2010 3.68
0.92

2011 3.44
1.02

2008 3.47
1.28

2009 4.93
1.44

2010 3.68
1.13

2011 4.30
1.56

3.58 Jalpaiguri
0.88

5.17
1.17

5.71
1.50

5.96
1.58

5.31
1.26

9.19
2.94

10.25
2.10

11.01
1.88

10.65
2.40

10.89
2.29

4.92 Presidency
1.11

5.60
2.03

6.04
1.51

4.61
1.11

4.60
1.39

4.45
1.24

3.79
1.12

5.13
1.27

4.80
1.39

5.33
1.42

4.81 State
0.62

5.70
0.98

5.68
0.90

4.58
0.69

4.32
0.72

4.31
0.88

5.29
0.86

6.54
0.90

5.86
0.94

6.29
1.01

Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Burdwan 2008 2009 86.09 2010 90.06 2011 89.18 2007 91.84 2.28 80.19 4.02 92.46 2.24 89.13 1.69 2008 84.74 2009 88.13 2010 90.70 2011 92.07 92.74 84.39 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more

Burdwan Birbhum Barddhaman Hugli Bankura Puruliya Medinipur Jalpaiguri Darjiling Jalpaiguri Koch Bihar Uttar Dinajpur Dakshin Dinajpur

2.31 4.57 4.01 76.68 78.39 76.95

3.19 3.31 78.49 74.67

4.18 3.56 80.33 82.30

2.74 2.66 79.75 79.80

Jalpaiguri

5.46 4.38 4.18 90.12 88.53 87.69

5.50 4.97 88.91 87.15

4.37 3.27 89.04 90.37

5.62 4.47 87.21 90.31

Presidency

2.57 3.44 3.18 87.85 83.96 84.02

3.81 3.90 86.62 84.77

3.65 3.30 84.83 87.20

4.37 3.36 86.76 88.33

State

2.05 2.46 2.31

2.50 2.42

2.37 2.04

2.47 2.08

Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Burdwan 2008 2009 70.02 2010 76.82 2011 65.01 2007 87.38 2.81 68.38 4.41 64.18 4.79 75.87 2.86 2008 63.64 2009 65.09 2010 71.20 2011 60.46 88.26 73.04 % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more

Maldah Presidency Murshidabad Nadia North Twenty Four Parganas Haora South Twenty Four Parganas

2.70 3.94 5.40 66.44 61.53 66.06

4.39 4.53 55.05 52.92

4.89 5.51 49.36 57.51

5.28 5.13 47.16 45.19

Jalpaiguri

4.86 3.86 4.65 67.70 66.66 65.54

5.09 5.36 67.08 62.14

3.97 4.86 51.49 55.24

5.00 5.93 55.29 52.54

Presidency

5.31 3.90 5.03 76.95 67.69 67.59

6.53 5.02 68.44 61.06

4.17 4.58 55.52 60.03

6.89 4.91 60.40 53.83

State

2.96 2.38 3.06

3.40 2.92

2.79 3.09

3.85 3.12

ASER 2011

273

Annexures

274

ASER 2011

Surveyed districts 2011 Age 3-5 All 3630 2488 4658 11425 3008 99 320 202 4136 3318 1977 2849 5458 4432 1756 9469 4939 1643 1526 2030 2510 5444 1383 16626 42258 235 2948 7129 2589 845 770 1063 1296 2922 118 1627 3855 5112 894 862 4256 2315 798 756 967 1214 2522 117 1321 3209 2253 2179 2777 2556 18757 17204 8457 36433 21381 6421 4665 7257 9284 19440 913 11753 29435 1521 1283 11468 1057 889 7409 3842 5996 9782 8727 4222 19200 11415 3340 2339 3864 4849 10356 456 6482 16442 1871 1413 12931 7261 2221 1915 20409 11232 89 113 530 290 240 9177 5566 3473 5326 8681 8477 4235 16916 9842 3081 2326 3393 4435 9084 457 5271 12705 156 164 1650 897 753 47 52 423 249 173 92 317 75 3033 2264 1198 2592 2815 2930 1351 6050 4118 779 879 1088 1207 3840 235 1925 5694 1536 1461 11076 5610 5456 2177 5955 5347 40718 21650 18785 5361 2974 1115 60 165 35 1692 1243 583 1280 1532 1476 675 3262 2106 396 443 598 651 2023 107 1033 3355 2380 2278 16012 8362 7650 2581 1374 1326 1162 6662 3706 2956 1092 638 454 1207 2359 1057 32 152 40 1341 999 593 1288 1246 1454 676 2740 1986 383 436 490 556 1817 128 892 2291 1870 1760 15212 7503 7709 2475 1197 1278 Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls SurSur- Surveyed Age3-16 veyed veyed houseAll districts villages holds Age 6-14 Age 15-16 22 11 22 37 15 1 2 1 25 16 12 14 22 27 14 45 33 8 7 8 11 30 2 19 32 4 29 4 69 13 17 68 12 17 567 558** 4 29 840 109 2019 346 496 16017 31 925 19 550 11291 18547 2 51 1121 30 893 17781 28724 11 260 6305 13001 8 175 4384 10375 6 155 3066 7070 8 214 4674 8843 31 925 18504 30438 43 1266 25368 51952 14 389 8400 11564 27 805 16165 24566 20 583 11742 27030 375 8088 16909 348 6933 10584 424 8687 18513 723 14747 27578 26 540 807 24 1191 2287 18 361 614 446 8871 16261 1068 21775 57504 630 12731 23251 285 5586 10242 649 13179 21317

Sample description

ASER 2011
22 13 23 37 15 1 2 2 25* 20 12 14 22 27 14 45 33 9 6 8 11 30 2 19 32 1 29 3 69 13 17 568 551 580 17 17 13 13 69 69 4 4 29 29 4 4 32 32 19 19 2 2 30 30 11 11 8 7 7 9 9 33 33 45 45 14 14 27 27 22 21 14 14 12 12 12 20 20 20 25* 26 26 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 15 15 15 35 37 37 23 22 23 10 13 13 22 22 22 Sikkim was surveyed late and data could not be incorporated in the Provisional Report 17320 2308 40740 6966 10001 26350 3474 96215 13223 14506 4116 650 17988 2526 2796 327372 633465 115705 2110 345 9674 1319 1438 61036 2000 305 8224 1207 1358 18318 2307 66100 9053 9749 9144 1245 35515 4795 5038 9170 1062 30389 4258 4711 54003 441427 233809 205757 3916 517 12127 1644 1961 76333 1965 295 6486 873 991 1950 222 5613 771 970 40623 35421

Andhra Pradesh

Actual cistricts

State

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

22

22

Arunachal Pradesh

13

Assam

23

16

Bihar

37

37

Chhattisgarh

16

16

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Goa

Gujarat

26

25*

Haryana

20

20

Himachal Pradesh

12

12

Jammu & Kashmir

14

13

Jharkhand

22

22

Karnataka

27

27

Kerala

14

14

Madhya Pradesh

45

45

Maharashtra

33

33

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

11

10

Odisha

30

30

Puducherry

Punjab

19

18*

Rajasthan

32

31

Sikkim

Tamil Nadu

29

29

Tripura

Uttar Pradesh

69

69

Uttarakhand

13

13

West Bengal

17

16

Total

583

555

Note: Girls and boys may not add to all children since gender has not been recorded for 2683 children. * These states are complete. Some districts were split in subsequent years. ** Data for 6 districts is incomplete.

275

Bank

P.D.S

Pukka

Toilet T.V.

Kutcha

Electricity

Post Office

STD Booth

Electricity

Cable TV Mobile

Pukka Road

Internet cafe

Solar Energy

Private School

Semi Pukka

Newspaper

Primary Health Centre Private Health Clinic

Govt Sec. School

Aanganwadi/Pre School

Electricity today

Other reading material

7.6 26.5 13.6 10.0 15.0 8.5 17.7 4.7 14.8 4.9 13.7 9.2 37.8 28.1 43.1 55.1 25.6 17.7 22.0 23.1 32.6 25.0 61.5 17.9 11.9 4.2 4.5 12.7 21.6 61.6 16.7 4.7 22.0 18.9 47.3 19.4 51.1 10.0 72.9 20.5 71.8 18.5 17.9 8.2 9.5 28.6 14.6 25.7 18.4 10.4 5.6 16.2 24.8 8.7 25.9 7.2 31.6 17.0 17.8 8.8

Govt Prim School

Andhra Pradesh 24.2 18.9 33.4 17.9 44.4 68.8 72.0 43.2 61.4 32.7 41.9 16.8 77.1 98.4 20.7 52.2 12.3 13.8 19.8 14.2 16.2 70.8 66.2 42.9 62.5 23.4 22.8 27.6 35.6 38.5 24.1 23.6 17.8 66.2 26.8 57.0 42.6 71.1 43.3 15.0 77.0 33.3 16.5 71.0 46.7 38.4 91.3 46.2 22.9 15.0 15.9 15.9 35.4 7.8 22.7 10.3 21.0 12.8 33.7 13.9 28.8 66.0 62.9 33.8 16.7 35.1 78.5 53.9 53.4 13.3 64.6 83.3 66.0 54.2 31.3 27.1 85.4 13.2 99.4 15.4 98.8 11.0 93.4 13.5 99.0 14.2 94.8 27.0 89.8 6.1 94.2 21.7 95.9 12.0 45.3 23.6 14.3 8.9 6.5 94.1 7.7 38.9 57.6 15.8 10.2 11.6 97.6 18.9 95.8 81.4 1.8 1.2 26.5 100.0 93.4 48.8 59.3 18.4 55.8 24.0 63.8 46.8 55.0 36.9 83.8 49.8 55.4 24.4 85.6 51.9 42.5 7.2 31.8 14.5 32.4 27.7 61.3 26.7 11.3 61.3 35.3 15.7 10.6 17.7 79.3 27.7 8.2 3.3 16.6 31.9 14.3 12.4 60.6 79.6 34.7 18.7 31.2 88.2 50.8 51.3 22.4 34.7 99.2 65.2 22.7 46.1 98.5 63.2 80.8 66.0 79.9 54.2 98.8 53.0 78.7 18.4 93.8 58.3 87.2 51.8 97.2 61.1 94.2 27.4 92.7 19.1 99.1 55.6 91.4 43.5 89.5 33.2 92.1 42.3 94.0 16.7 58.7 36.2 31.3 7.7 8.5 99.4 59.0 23.2 38.1 96.4 62.6 24.0 36.9 50.0 27.7 42.4 53.3 12.2 8.3 25.6 9.3 76.9 28.2 17.7 52.4 33.1 97.9 99.5 95.5 83.5 87.0 51.4 93.9 83.8 75.4 94.9 99.5 8.7 42.5 76.4 40.9 43.1 16.5 49.9 98.0 84.0 32.7 39.1 98.4 13.0 49.2 29.3 21.7 38.5 55.1 36.5 62.5 47.1 25.0 20.7 35.6 25.4 13.7 20.6 44.0 25.4 23.1 30.3 11.7 63.5 29.5 20.7 6.1 12.8 96.5 69.0 12.0 23.7 93.9 68.8 17.2 17.7 76.0 61.6 30.1 11.1 15.3 98.9 88.3 40.3 58.1 95.9 26.5 26.8 20.6 52.1 44.7 23.2 14.7 23.7 81.4 46.4 27.0 29.6 90.4 21.7 25.4 53.0 98.9 46.7 90.3 14.0 64.3 37.9 95.8 62.1 97.6 15.6 74.8 37.5 88.8 8.0 92.1 13.5 68.1 9.8 98.2 10.5 96.4 21.7 63.4 67.2 98.4 56.1 97.4 49.0 77.0 77.0 96.7 2.5 84.8 27.7 45.9 56.9 89.7 24.5 68.6 36.6 74.5 35.9 84.8 51.5 57.7 13.9 23.4 98.4 80.2 59.8 67.7 98.1 8.5 27.6 63.9 92.7 29.7 78.0 52.6 44.4 17.9 21.9 99.7 91.6 34.7 24.3 97.2 26.1 34.6 39.3 95.4 80.0 84.0 75.0 54.2 52.2 36.4 100.0 65.0 60.0 70.8 100.0 10.2 18.8 71.0 98.5 97.6 84.2 92.0 48.5 67.9 77.5 95.7 77.9 69.2 44.0 49.8 10.1 82.8 37.5 95.8 96.5 50.0 23.9 64.0 49.7 46.4 95.8 61.9 58.4 84.1 81.7 81.2 84.7 55.4 20.4 97.1 48.2 90.8 82.9 56.1 34.3 87.7 37.5 80.4 88.6 48.0 28.0 81.3 66.7 66.9 54.8 65.7 41.8 6.7 41.2 82.4 18.8 5.9 5.9 100.0 58.8 31.3 29.4 100.0 6.1 40.6 53.3 99.5 99.0 82.9 33.3 88.9 44.4 38.9 22.2 0.0 100.0 88.2 41.2 12.5 100.0 49.4 36.8 13.8 95.2 92.4 27.5 15.0 68.7 38.6 29.0 11.0 9.2 98.1 41.7 16.2 27.0 97.3 70.4 16.5 13.1 83.7 78.0 24.2 45.6 30.9 55.9 36.6 91.2 88.7 92.5 80.1 61.0 51.0 76.8 64.6 87.4 58.9 57.1 40.0 20.9 16.8 71.4 68.7 89.6 80.5 36.0 24.4 63.1 47.1 65.5 35.5 37.3 30.8 64.7 64.0 52.7 45.1 35.1 26.0 93.1 91.2 89.8 60.9 46.1 31.5 94.2 88.9 63.9 42.1 31.2 26.7 69.6 48.0 40.8 39.0 51.7 46.9 17.3 65.3 33.8 33.6 8.9 61.5 98.2 76.4 16.1 30.7 93.2 42.6 29.7 27.7 40.4 31.3 23.1 16.2 10.5 66.8 48.8 6.6 73.8 32.3 14.5 8.4 14.5 90.0 30.9 12.6 35.3 93.1 64.6 20.1 15.3 55.9 50.5 48.7 35.3 27.7 65.9 12.2 57.2 41.6 10.5 7.2 25.6 91.0 49.2 20.1 25.6 80.6 63.5 29.6 6.9 82.7 72.8 73.7 63.3 54.5 67.7 9.3 9.1 5.9 6.3 64.2 12.3 93.6 28.0 93.5 58.8 80.4 14.0 86.9 17.8 90.2 15.1 82.1 11.0 55.9 82.4 7.5 8.3 92.2 52.4 59.8 6.4 74.2 15.5 82.2 27.4 59.7 17.9 83.7 30.5 77.4 20.3 48.8 7.1 84.6 17.2 85.2 19.8 81.9 14.5 87.3 10.1 68.3 13.2 78.5 5.7 77.2 12.4 60.3 9.4 73.4 11.3

85.1 99.8 70.7

72.5

32.8

90.2 46.6

56.6 17.9

7.6 99.5

Govt Middle School

68.2 47.5

39.8 97.2

16.4

29.3

54.3 97.2

74.2 54.8

77.2 73.4

80.7 10.2

Arunachal Pradesh

60.8 83.8 20.5

Assam

47.6 82.4 30.0

Bihar

63.3 79.0 41.7

Chhatisgarh

79.4 95.9 32.7

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

94.1 100.0 55.6

Daman & Diu

100.0 100.0 11.8

Goa

96.0 100.0 84.0

Gujarat

88.7 99.3 66.7

Haryana

92.8 98.8 50.5

Himachal Pradesh

53.0 99.7 45.0

Jammu & Kashmir

60.9 95.1 34.7

Jharkhand

55.5 79.6 26.3

Karnataka

90.6 99.6 62.5

Kerala

92.8 99.2 98.4

Madhya Pradesh

69.2 92.8 35.5

Maharashtra

85.3 98.8 49.0

Manipur

59.2 91.0 16.3

Meghalaya

52.6 88.3 24.8

Mizoram

77.3 100.0 51.5

Nagaland

43.6 99.2 20.4

Odisha

73.9 93.3 35.9

Puducherry

85.4 100.0 56.3

Punjab

95.2 98.7 53.1

Rajasthan

85.0 96.8 52.7

Tamil Nadu

85.0 99.5 67.3

Tripura

82.2 94.4 49.1

Uttar Pradesh

85.7 94.6 33.4

Uttarakhand

52.5 97.7 33.2

Village infrastructure and household characteristics

West Bengal

54.2 90.0 38.0

ASER 2011

All India

75.6 93.9 45.0

17.9

Computer Usage
12.6

276
% of villages with the following characteristics % of households with the following characteristics

STATES

Class-wise distribution of children in sample 2007-2011

All India Andhra Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

ASER 2011

277

Gujarat

Haryana

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu and Kashmir

Jharkhand

Karnataka

278

ASER 2011

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

ASER 2011

279

Nagaland

Odisha

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Tripura

280

ASER 2011

Uttarakhand

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

ASER 2011

281

Age - Class composition in sample 2011

282

ASER 2011

ASER 2011

283

284

ASER 2011

ASER 2011

285

286

ASER 2011

Sample design of rural ASER 2011

Wilima Wadhwa
The purpose of rural ASER 2011 is twofold: (i) to get reliable estimates of the status of childrens schooling and basic learning (reading, writing and math ability) at the district level; and (ii) to measure the change in these basic learning and school statistics from last year. Every year a core set of questions regarding schooling status and basic learning levels remains the same. However a set of new questions are added for exploring different dimensions of schooling and learning in the elementary stage. The latter set of questions is different each year. ASER 2006 and 2007 tested reading comprehension for different kinds of readers. ASER 2007 introduced testing in English and asked questions on paid tuition, which were repeated in 2009. ASER 2008 for the first time had questions on telling time and oral math problems using currency. In addition, ASER 2008 incorporated questions on village infrastructure and household assets. Investigators were asked to record whether the village visited had a pukka road leading to it, whether it had a bank, ration shop, etc. In the sampled households information on assets like type of house, phone, television, etc was recorded. These questions were repeated in 2009 and in addition fathers education was also recorded. ASER 2010, while retaining the core questions and questions on parents education, household and village characteristics introduced for the first time higher level testing tools. Questions on critical thinking were introduced these were based on simple mathematical operations that appear in Standard 5 textbooks. ASER 2011 brings together elements from various previous ASERs. The core questions on school status and basic reading and arithmetic remain. In addition, parents education, household and village characteristics continue to be surveyed. Every alternate year, ASER surveyors visit a government primary or upper primary school in each sampled village. The school information is recorded either based on observations (such as attendance or usability of the facilities) or with information provided by the school (such as grants information). School observations have been reported in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2010 and are also reported in ASER 2011. Beginning in 2010, school information is also collected on RTE indicators. Finally, ASER 2011 continues the process of strengthening and streamlining started in 2008. Re-check of 4 or more villages in each district was introduced in 2008. This process was further strengthened in 2009. In ASER 2010, special attention was focused on improving training. In ASER 2011, in addition to the above, master trainers monitored the survey process in the field. Since one of the goals of ASER is to generate estimates of change in learning, a panel survey design would provide more efficient estimates of the change. However, given the large sample size of the ASER surveys and cost considerations, we adopted a rotating panel of villages rather than children. In ASER 2010, we retained the 10 villages from 2008 and 2009 and added 10 new villages. In ASER 2011 we dropped the 10 villages from ASER 2008, kept the 10 villages from 2009 and 2010 and added 10 more villages from the census village directory. The sampling strategy used generates a representative picture of each district. All rural districts are surveyed. The estimates obtained are then aggregated to the state and all-India levels. Since estimates were to be generated at the district level, the minimum sample size calculations had to start at the district level. The sample size is determined by the following considerations: Incidence of what is being measured in the population. Since a survey of learning has never been done in India, the incidence of what we are trying to measure is unknown in the population.1 Confidence level of estimates. The standard used is 95%. Precision required on either side of the true value. The standard degree of accuracy most surveys employ is between 5 and 10 per cent. An absolute precision of 5% along with a 95% confidence level implies that the estimates generated by the survey will be within 5 percentage points of the true values with a 95% probability. The precision can also be specified in relative terms a relative precision of 5% means that the estimates will be within 5% of the true value. Relative precision requires higher sample sizes. Sample size calculations can be done in various ways, depending on what assumptions are made about the underlying population. With a 50% incidence, 95% confidence level and 5% absolute precision, the minimum sample size required in each strata2 is 384.3 This derivation assumes that the population proportion is normally distributed. On the other hand, a sample size of 384 would imply a relative precision of 10%. If we were to require a 5% relative precision, the sample size would increase to 1600.4 Note that all the sample size calculations require estimating the incidence in the population. In our case, we can get an estimate
1 2 3

For the rural sector we can use the estimates from ASER 2010 to get an idea of the incidence in the population. Stratification is discussed below. The sample size with absolute precision is given by z pq where z is the standard normal deviate corresponding to 95% probability (=1.96), 2
d
2

p is the incidence in the population (0.5), q = (1-p) and d is the degree of precision required (0.05).
4

The sample size with relative precision is given by

zq rp
2

where z is the standard normal deviate corresponding to 95% probability (=1.96), p is the incidence in the population

(0.5), q = (1-p) and r is the degree of relative precision required (0.1).

ASER 2011

287

of the incidence from previous ASER surveys. However, incidence varies across different indicators so incidence of reading ability is different from incidence of dropouts. In addition, we often want to measure things that are not binary for which we need more observations. Given these considerations, the sample size was decided to be 600 households in each district.5 Note that at the state level and at the all-India level the survey has many more observations lending estimates at those levels much higher levels of precision. ASER has a two-stage sample design. In the first stage, 30 villages are randomly selected using the village directory of the 2001 census as the sample frame.6 In the second stage 20 households were randomly selected in each of the 30 selected villages in the first stage. Villages are selected using the probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling method. This method allows villages with larger populations to have a higher chance of being selected in the sample. It is most useful when the sampling units vary considerably in size because it assures that those in larger sites have the same probability of getting into the sample as those in smaller sites, and vice verse.7, 8 In the selected villages, 20 households are surveyed. Ideally, a complete houselist of the selected village should have been made and 20 households selected randomly from it. However, given time and resource constraints a procedure for selecting households was adopted that preserved randomness as much as possible. The field investigators were asked to divide the village into four parts. This was done because villages often consist of hamlets and a procedure that randomly selects households from some central location may miss out households on the periphery of the village. In each of the four parts, investigators were asked to start at a central location and pick every 5th household in a circular fashion till 5 households were selected. In each selected household, all children in the age group of 5-16 were tested.9 The survey provides estimates at the district, state and national levels. In order to aggregate estimates up from the district level households had to assigned weights also called inflation factors. The inflation factor corresponding to particular household denotes the number of households that the sampled household represents in the population. Given that 600 households are sampled in each district regardless of the size of the district, a household in a larger district will represent many more households and, therefore, have a larger weight associated with it than one in a sparsely populated district. The advantage of using PPS sampling is that the sample is self weighting at the district level. In other words, in each district the weight assigned to each of the sampled household turns out to be the same. This is because the inflation factor associated with a household is simply the inverse of the probability of it being selected into the sample times the number of households in the sample. Since PPS sampling ensures that all households have an equal chance of being selected at the district level, the weights associated with households in the same district are the same. Therefore, weighted estimates are exactly the same as the unweighted estimates at the district level. However, to get estimates at the state and national levels, weighted estimates are needed since states have a different number of districts and districts vary by population. Even though the purpose of the survey is to estimate learning levels among children, the household was chosen as the second stage sampling unit. This has a number of advantages. First, children are tested at home rather than in school, allowing all children to be tested rather than just those in school. Further, testing children in school might create bias a since teachers may encourage testing the brighter children in class. Second, a household sample will generate an age distribution of children which can be cross-checked with other data sources, like the census and the NSS. Third, a household sample makes calculation of the inflation factors easier since the population of children is no longer needed. Often household surveys are stratified on various parameters of interest. The reason for stratification is to get enough observations on entities that have the characteristic that is being studied. The ASER survey stratifies the sample by population in the first stage. No stratification was done at the second stage. Finally, if we were to stratify on households with children in the 3-16 age group, we would need the population of such households in the village, which is not possible without a complete houselist of the village.

Sample size calculations assume simple random sampling. However, simple random sampling is unlikely to be the method of choice in an actual field survey. Therefore, often a design effect is added to the sample size. A design effect of 2 would double the sample size. At the district level a 7% precision along with a 95% confidence level would imply a sample size of 196, giving us a design effect of approximately three. However, note that a sample size of 600 households gives us approximately 1000 1200 children per district. Of these 30 villages, 10 are from ASER 2009, 10 from ASER 2010 and 10 are newly selected in 2011. They were selected randomly from the same sample frame. The 10 new villages are picked as an independent sample. Probability proportional to size (PPS) is a sampling technique in which the probability of selecting a sampling unit (village, in our case) is proportional to the size of its population. The method works as follows: First, the cumulative population by village calculated. Second, the total household population of the district is divided by the number of sampling units (villages) to get the sampling interval (SI). Third, a random number between 1 and the SI is chosen. This is referred to as the random start (RS). The RS denotes the site of the first village to be selected from the cumulated population. Fourth, the following series of numbers is formed: RS; RS+SI; RS+2SI; RS+3SI; . The villages selected are those for which the cumulative population contains the numbers in the series.
8 Most large household surveys in India, like the National Sample Survey and the National Family Health Survey also use this two stage design and use PPS to select villages in the first stage.

9 In larger villages, the investigators increased the interval according to a rough estimate of the number of households in each part. For instance, if a village had 2000 households, each part in the village would have roughly 500 households. Selecting every 5th household would leave out a large chunk of the village un-surveyed. In such situations, investigators were asked to increase the interval between selected households.

288

ASER 2011