A Study of Small Primary Schools in India Analysis of School Report Cards of selected Districts in four states

S.M.I.A. Zaidi

Department of Educational Planning National University of Educational Planning and Administration

17-B, Sri Aurobindo Marg New Delhi – 110 016

2012

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The education system in India comprises of three levels namely elementary, secondary

and tertiary education. However, elementary education is generally of 8 years of

schooling and that includes 5 years of primary and 3 years of upper primary education.

But this pattern is not uniform across the country and in some states and union territories

elementary education is still of 7 years duration. As far as primary schools are concerned

a huge number of primary schools are functioning in the country and such schools having

only primary section are more than 8 lakh as per the DISE data. However, if we take into

account the total enrolment of students in these schools these primary schools are of

various sizes. We have very small schools, small schools, medium sized schools, large

schools and even very large schools functioning in various states of the country.

The present study focuses on examining the functioning of small primary schools of the

country. This study defines small primary schools as those schools that have only primary

section and have total enrolment in the school up to maximum 25 children. The study

looks at the functioning of these schools to investigate whether these schools are better

managed and better performing schools as has been found in many studies conducted in

various other countries of the world.

The study covers all 3025 small schools, as defined in this study, of four districts located

in four states of the country and these states represent four different regions. The districts

are Jammu from Jammu & Kashmir (northern region), Jorhat district from Assam

(eastern region), Raigad district from Maharashtra (western region) and Mandya district

from Karnataka (southern region). The study is based on the analysis of secondary data

of these 3025 small primary schools taken from the school report cards produced and

maintained under DISE.

In addition to the secondary data the study also focused on collecting first hand data from

selected schools. The study covers a sample of 285 small primary schools from these four

districts and survey of all these 285 schools has been conducted for the study. This survey

work was carried out by the local investigators who were appointed for the said purpose

and these investigators worked under the guidance of a district level nodal person and

block level nodal persons identified for the said purpose. The contributions made by these

investigators as well as the nodal persons are highly appreciated as without their help and

cooperation this study could not have been carried out.

At the outset we put on record our thanks to the state project directors of SSA of the four

states for allowing us to cover their states under this study and for facilitating us in

conducting in-depth field study of small primary schools in their states. We are also

thankful to the district level elementary education officers and district project

coordinators of SSA of the four districts that have been covered under this study. It was

under the direction of these officials that we could get all cooperation and support from

the district and block level education officials and local field investigators in these

selected districts.

2

(i)

We are grateful to the following persons from Jammu district who were involved in the

field work of this study.

Shri Jagdeep Pada, District level nodal person from Jammu district

Shri Gopal Sharma, Shri Sanjay Gupta and Shri Jugal Kishore from District

Project office SSA Jammu

Shri Vishwa Nath, ZEO Marh block, Shri Devender Singh ZRP Dansal block and

Shri Tshering Norbo, ZEO Bhalwal block of Jammu district

Shri Mukesh Kumar, Investigator Marh block, Shri Himmat Singh Investigator

Dansal block and Shri Sohan Lal Investigator Bhalwal block.

We thankfully acknowledge the contributions of the following persons from Jorhat

district who were instrumental in conducting the field work of this study

Shri B.C. Phukan, District Mission Coordinator SSA Jorhat

Shri Parakh Goswamy, District Programme Officer SSA Jorhat & District level

nodal person

Shri Satya Ranjan Kalita and Shri Prangshu Pranjal Borah, Investigators East

Jorhat block

Smt. Papori Saikia, Investigator North West Gorhat block.

Our thanks are due to the following persons from Raigad district who facilitates us in

conducting the field work of this study

Shri D.D. Patil DEO Mandya and district nodal person

Shri M.D. Mhatre, Shri J.G. Patil and Shri Ninad Nagle from DPO SSA Mandya

Mrs. J.B. Kale, BEO Sudhagad block, Mrs. Sunita Gajanan Palkar, BEO

Mangaon block and Mrs. Bharti N. Korgaonkar, BEO Pen block

Mrs. Vandana Surendra Shinde, Shri Sushil Chandrakant Thamke, Investigators

Sudhagad block

Shri Pravin Suresh Hujare and Shri Vaibhav Vilas More, Investigators Mangaon

block

Shri D.B. Bandgar and Shri Kiran Narayan Kadam, Investigators Pen block

We put on records our thanks to the following persons from Mandya district who were

directly or indirectly involved in the field work of this study

Shri K. Gopal, DDPI Mandya

Shri Dhananjay Asstt. Porogramme Coordinator SSA and district nodal person

Mandya

Shri Ramu N.M., BEO Malavelli block and Shri Swamy, BEO Pandavpura block

Ms. Divya J. Investigator Malavelli block and Shri N. Mahadevappa Investigator

Pandavpura block

3

(ii)

We are thankful to all the respondents who gave their free and frank valuable responses

to the questions asked from them that have helped us to accomplish the task of this study.

We are

grateful to the head masters of all the 285 schools covered under this study as without

their inputs given in the form responses to our questions the study would not have been

completed.

We put on record our deep sense of gratitude to the Vice Chancellor NUEPA, Professor

R. Govinda for giving continuous support and encouragement throughout the period of

conducting this study. In NUEPA several faculty and staff members have helped us in

different ways to facilitate our work in conducting the study. We are thankful to the staff

of EMIS department and our special thanks are due to Prof. Arun C. Mehta and members

of his DISE team for making all kinds of data available to us that were required to

accomplish this study.

Several people have been involved in this study under various capacities. We put on

record our thanks to Ms. Sital Mohanty, project assistant who worked in this project for a

few months and Ms. Yamini, project computer operator who also worked in the project

for six months. Out thanks are due to Mr. Jameel Ali Chishti, Consultant SEMIS project

who has helped us in transforming the raw data of small primary schools, available in the

schools report cards, in table form that facilitated us in the analysis of secondary data of

the small primary schools of the four selected districts. Our thanks are due to Mrs.

Kanchan Sharma, Senior Stenographer, Department of Education Planning for her

secretarial assistance and helping us in taking this report in this final shape.

The library staff, administration and accounts section staff of NUEPA have given us all

kinds of support at various stages of conducting this study. Our sincere thanks are due to

all of them. Many faculty and staff members of NUEPA have helped us in one way or the

other during the period of conducting this study. Since it is not possible to take their

names individually we put on record our sincere thanks to all of them

New Delhi (S.M.I.A. Zaidi)

June 2012

4

(iii)

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Contents

List of Tables

Chapter I Introduction 01-13

Chapter II Development of Primary Education in India since 14-31 Independence

Chapter III Small Primary Schools in India 32-58

Chapter IV Small Primary Schools in Four Sample Districts: 59-95 Analysis of Schools Report cards

Chapter V Small Primary Schools in Four districts: Analysis of 96-119 Sample Schools’ data

Chapter VI Management of Small Primary Schools 120-138

Chapter VII Case Study a Few Very Small Schools 139-144

Chapter VIII Findings and Conclusion 145-155

References

5

(iv)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.01 Sample Size covered in the study

Table 2.01 Literacy Rates in India since Independence Table 2.02 Growth of Primary Education in India Table 2.03 Participation of Girls in Primary Education in India Table 2.04 Gross Enrolment Ratio and Drop out rates at Primary

Level in India

Table 2.05 State wise number of Primary Level Institutions by Management (2007-08)

Table 2.06 Number of Primary Level Institutions by category of Schools (2009-10)

Table 2.07 State wise Number of Teachers at Primary level (2007-08) Table 2.08 State wise Enrolment at Primary Level (I-V) in 2007-08 Table 2.09 State wise Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) and Dropout Rates

at Primary Level (2007-08)

Table 3.01 State wise Number of Educational Institutions Imparting Primary Education in India (2009-10)

Table 3.02 State wise Number of Educational Institutions Imparting Primary Education in India (2009-10)

Table 3.03 State wise Number of Primary Schools according to Enrolment Size (2009-10)

Table 3.04 State wise Percentage of Primary Schools according to Enrolment Size (2009-10)

Table 3.05 State wise Number of Total and Small Primary Schools in India (2009-10)

Table 3.06 Percentage of Small Primary Schools: Categorization of States and UTs (2009-10)

Table 3.07 District wise Total Number of Primary and Small Primary Schools in Jammu & Kashmir (2009-10)

Table 3.08 Percentage of Small Primary Schools: Categorization of Districts of J&K (2009-10)

Table 3.09 District wise Total Number of Primary and Small Primary Schools in Assam (2009-10)

Table 3.10 Percentage of Small Primary Schools: Categorization of Districts of Assam (2009-10)

6

Table 3.11 District wise Total Number of Primary and Small Primary Schools in Maharashtra (2009-10)

Table 3.12 Percentage of Small Primary Schools: Categorization of Districts of Maharashtra(2009-10)

(v)

Table 3.13 District wise Total Number of Primary and Small Primary Schools in

Karnataka (2009-10)

Table 3.14 Percentage of Small Primary Schools: Categorization of Districts of

Karnataka (2009-10)

Table 3.15 State wise Number of Districts having Category wise Percentage

of Small Primary Schools in four sample states (2009-10)

Table 3.16 Block wise Total Number of Primary and Small Primary

Schools in Jammu district, Jammu & Kashmir (2009-10)

Table 3.17 Block wise Total Number of Primary and Small Primary Schools

in Jorhat district, Assam (2009-10)

Table 3.18 Block wise Total Number of Primary and Small Primary Schools

in Raigad district, Maharashtra (2009-10)

Table 3.19 Block wise Total Number of Primary and Small Primary Schools

in Mandya district, Karnataka (2009-10)

Table 3.20 District wise Number of Blocks having Category wise Percentage of Small Primary Schools in four sample districts (2009-10)

Table 4.01 Number of Primary and Small Primary Schools in Sample districts (2009-10)

Table 4.02 Year of Establishment of Small Schools Table 4.03 Location of Small Schools Table 4.04 Type of Small Schools Table 4.05 Small Schools having I-V or I-IV grades Table 4.06 Distance pf Small Schools from Block headquarter Table 4.07 Distance pf Small Schools from CRC Table 4.08 Number of academic Inspections of Small Schools Table 4.09 Number of Visits to Small Schools by BRC coordinator during last one

year

Table 4.10 Number of Visits to Small Schools by CRC coordinator during last one year

Table 4.11 Number of days Small Schools functioned during last academic session Table 4.12 Teaching Staff sanctioned in Small Schools Table 4.13 Teaching Staff in position in Small Schools Table 4.14 Small Schools having vacant positions of teachers Table 4.15 Number of Small Schools having female teachers Table 4.16 Number of para teachers in Small Schools Table 4.17 Number of Small Schools having head masters Table 4.18 Pupil teacher ratio in Small Schools Table 4.19 Small Schools according to the Enrolment size

7

Table 4.20 Number and percentage of Small Schools having Zero Enrolment in

Primary Grades

Table 4.21 Percentage of Girls in Small School Enrolment

Table 4.22 Number of small Schools according to availability of Pucca Rooms

Table 4.23 Number of small schools according to availability of Partially Pucca

Rooms

Table 4.24 Number of small Schools according to availability of kachcha Rooms

Table 4.25 Number of small Schools according to availability of class rooms

Table 4.26 Number of small Schools according to availability of other Rooms

(vi)

Table 4.27 Small Schools according to the condition of class rooms

Table 4.28 Small Schools according to the availability of facilities

Table 4.29 Number of Small schools having dinking eater facility

Table 4.30 Small Primary school according to the source of drinking water

Table 4.31 Small Primary school according to toilet facility

Table 4.32 Small Primary school according to availability of books in Library

Table 4.33 Student Class rooms ratio in small schools

Table 5.01 Block wise Coverage of Sample Schools in four districts

Table 5.02 Age of head master of Small Schools

Table 5.03 Teaching Experience of Headmasters of Small Schools

Table 5.04 Experience of Head master (as a head master) of small primary schools

Table 5.05 Years of stay of Head masters in the present school

Table 5.06 Number of Small Primary Schools according to their Year of

Establishment

Table 5.07 Total Number of Teachers in Position Small schools

Table 5.08 Number of Small Primary Schools having male teachers

Table 5.09 Number of Small Primary Schools having female teachers

Table 5.10 Small Primary Schools according to their Enrolment Size

Table 5.11 Grade wise Average and maximum Enrolment in Small Primary Schools

Table 5.12 Number of Small Schools having zero enrolment in various grades

Table 5.13 Percentage of Girls’ Enrolment in Small Primary Schools Table 5.14 Number of Small Primary Schools according to Availability of Buildings

Table 5.15 Number of Small Primary Schools according to Availability of Class

rooms

Table 5.16 Number of Small Primary Schools according to Availability of Other

rooms

Table 5.17 Small Schools according to Availability of various Facilities (i)

Table 5.18 Small Schools according to Availability of various Facilities (ii)

Table 5.19 Small Schools according to Availability of various Facilities (iii)

Table 5.20 Distance of nearest habitation from the Small Primary Schools

Table 5.21 Population of habitation that is nearest from the Small Primary Schools

Table 5.22 Habitations Served by Small Primary Schools

Table 6.01 Reasons for Low Enrolment given by small schools

Table 6.02 Number of VEC/SDMC members of Small Primary Schools

8

Table 6.03 Number of Small Schools’ VEC/SDMC meetings held during last one year

Table 6.04 Small Schools getting VEC/SDMC Support Table 6.05 Type of Support given by VEC/SDMC in school management Table 6.06 Problems faced by the Teachers of Small Primary Schools Table 6.07 Problems faced by the Small Primary Schools Table 6.08 Steps proposed by the Small Primary Schools to solve their problems Table 6.09 Small Schools’ Responses on Need for Improvement in their Functioning

and Performance

Table 6.10 Improvements required in Small Schools

(vii)

9

Chapter I: Introduction

The Context

Development of education is important for ensuring over all development of a country.

For developing countries it is more or less mandatory to focus on the development of

education sector. However, within the education sector, the level of education which is

supposed to be compulsory in the country becomes a priority sector. This is the reason

that in India priority in the field of education has been given to elementary education

right from the time of independence. It was perceived that every citizen of the country

should be able to participate in basic education and complete at least elementary

education i.e. eight years of schooling.

One the most important goals in the education sector in India has been to universalize

elementary education and thus it was expected that elementary education should be

compulsorily provided to all children free of cost till they attain the age of 14 years. It

was the directive of the Constitution of India, as per Article 45, to the government to

provide free education to all children of the country till they attain the age of 14 years.

The government had to therefore make all provisions for elementary schooling in all

nooks and corners of the country so as to enable all children to attend schools irrespective

of their caste, class or place of residence.

Further, in 1993 the Supreme Court judgment made education a fundamental right of

every child of the country up to 14 years of age and now it has become an Act popularly

known as ‘right to education act’. Constitutional directive and international commitments

to achieve the goal of Universalization of Elementary Education (UEE) mandated the

Government of India and State governments to make provisions for all children of the

country to have access to elementary education. Issues such as in equal access, high

dropout rates and poor quality of education in elementary education sector took the centre

stage in formulation of educational policies, plans and programmes in India.

10

Elementary education in India is of eight years duration and it comprises of two parts

namely primary education for five years (grades I – V) and upper primary (or middle)

education of three years (grades VI – VIII). However, it may be mentioned here that this

pattern is not uniformly practiced across the country as in some states elementary

education is of only seven years duration which includes four years of primary and three

years of upper primary education. This is despite the fact that Indian Education

Commission (1966) recommended a uniform structure of education comprising of 10

years of secondary, two years of higher secondary and three years of first degree course

which is popularly known as 10+2+3 pattern. Ten years of secondary is further sub

divided into 5 years of primary, 3 years of upper primary and 2 years of secondary

education i.e. 5+3+2 pattern.

Since primary education is a part of elementary education in India, Universal Primary

Education (UPE) has been a cherished a goal as a first step towards achieving the goal of

Universalization of Elementary Education (UEE). It may be mentioned that if children

successfully complete 5 years of primary education the chances of their participation in

upper primary become bright if provision of upper primary schooling is available in

nearby area. It is therefore clear that the first task towards achieving the goal of UEE is to

ensure that all children successfully complete five years of primary education.

The first step towards achieving the goal of universalization of primary education is to

make provision of primary schooling in all areas. So, universal access becomes the first

component of universalization of education. This can be achieved by providing primary

schooling facilities in all the villages/habitations of the country within a reasonable

distance. Increasing access to schooling entails opening more schools (where ever

needed) with necessary infrastructure to ensure that children can be benefited by

attending these schools.

The criterion for opening new schools depends upon the policy of individual states as

development of school education is primarily the responsibility of states. It may be noted

that, in order to make provision for primary schooling facilities, there are certain norms

11

fixed in the various states. In general there are two types of norms available in the states

which are namely the population norm and the distance norm. As a population norm it is

expected that a primary school may be provided to all the habitations having a population

of 300 or more. However, schools may be available either within habitation or at the most

within a distance of one kilometer from the habitation which covers the distance norm.

The population norm has been kept to ensure that at least 40 to 50 children are available

for schooling so that the school becomes financially viable.

In order to make provision for primary schooling in the smaller habitations where

population is less than 300 and formal primary school is not a viable option and therefore

states are expected to make alternatives schooling provision and establish Education

Guarantee Schools (EGS) or Alternative and Innovative Education (AIE) centers. So the

provision of alternative schooling centers has been made for the habitations where the

child population of 6-10 years age group is expected to be less than 40.

Size of Primary Schools in India

As mentioned above a primary school is generally expected to have about 40 or 50

children and it is perceived that if the number of children available for schooling is less

than 40, a formal primary school may not be viable and therefore the provision may be

made for opening alternative schools such as EGS and AIE centres. But if we look at the

size of primary schools in the country the DISE data reveals that primary schools in India

are of all sizes i.e. from very small to very large size if we take enrolment as an indicator

of the school size.

In the DISE reports the schools, both primary and upper primary, have been classified

into 5 categories viz. (i) schools having only primary section, (ii) schools having both

primary and upper primary sections, (iii) schools having primary, upper primary and

secondary / higher secondary sections, (iv) schools having upper primary section only,

and (v) schools having upper primary with secondary / higher secondary sections. If we

12

look at the data related to the first category of schools i.e. primary only, which means the

schools that have only primary section, we find the following scenario.

According to 2009-10 DISE data, there were 4.25 percent primary schools where the

enrolment was more than 300. There were another 5.11 percent primary schools where

the enrolment was reported between 221 and 300. In about 13.38 percent primary schools

the enrolment was between 141 and 220. In another 13.16 percent primary schools the

enrolment was in the range of 101 and 140. Further, in about 27.81 percent primary

schools the enrolment ranges from 51 to 100 students. There were 23.36 percent primary

schools where number of students was found to be between 26 and 50. As against the

general perception it is surprising to note that about 12.55 percent primary schools in the

country were those where the enrolment was only 25 or less than 25 students.

The DISE 2009-10 data reported above reveal that about 36 percent primary

schools in India have maximum enrolment of 50 students. It may further be noted that

about 12.5 percent primary schools have only 25 students or even less than that This

means that on an average 1 out of every 8 primary schools in India had maximum

enrolment of 25 students. The figures are revealing as these data put a question mark on

the sanctity of population norm for the provision of primary schooling facilities. It seems

important to probe further about these small sized primary schools.

Several studies in other countries specially developed countries have been

conducted on functioning of small schools. However, it may be noted that in the literature

there are only a few studies available that probe into the functioning and efficiency of

these small schools in the Indian context that may highlight their problems or their

achievements. The proposed study is a modest attempt to investigate about these small

primary schools in the country.

Small Schools: The Concept

In this regard generally the question is posed as to how small are the small schools. It

may be noted that small and big are relative terms and there cannot be any fixed criteria

13

to define small or big as far as the size of schools is concerned. As observed by Mark

Bray (1987), ‘Small is a relative term, and what one person may call a small school,

another may call a large one. Moreover, primary and secondary schools have to be treated

separately. Most people would consider a primary school with 180 pupils to be medium

sized, but the same people might consider a secondary school with only 180 pupils to be

rather small’

As there is no internationally accepted definition of small schools and it depends upon the

context in which the small schools are being explained. Further what is the criterion for

defining a school as small may also vary from situation to situation and even from

country to country. The criterion may be in terms of enrolment size, number of teachers,

availability of space and building, under utilization due low enrolment etc. However,

generally the schools are termed as small when the enrolment in the school is below

certain number which means the criterion for defining small schools is in terms of

number of children enrolled in the school.

By looking at the studies conducted in various countries on small schools it may be noted

that in some countries a school having less than 150 children is considered small school

and in some other country the magic number taken by researchers to define small school

is 100. For example in the Jamiacan context, a study conducted recently (Lunan 2010)

mentions that small schools are defined as schools which have an enrolment of less than

60; and where there is excess space in a school, often due to declining student enrolment.

In this regard according to Bray (1987),who investigated the cost effective strategies for

small schools located specially in rural areas, it is dangerous to set cut off points that are

too rigid, Governments do sometimes need to set specific cut off points e.g. to decide

which schools are eligible for special grants and staffing. However, he opines that these

definitions have problems like the schools on the border line may constantly require a

change of classification if their size fluctuates each year, and the institutions out side the

limits gain no help, even though their problems are barely different from schools that are

just inside the limits.

14

The Present Study: Rationale

In the country, the DISE data for the year 2009-10 show that, there were about 0.80

million, 791997 to be exact, schools that have only primary section which there by means

that the number of standalone primary schools was about 7.92 lakh in the country. Out of

these about 12.55 percent schools have 25 or even less than 25 children enrolled.

However, in absolute terms number of these schools is as many as 99388 where the

enrolment is 25 or even less than that. These data indicate that about one out of every

eight primary schools in India has a maximum enrolment of 25 students. This is contrary

to the population norm kept for the provision of viable primary school facilities. It seems

important to understand various issues surrounding the functioning of these small

schools.

It may be noted that there is lack of studies that probe into the functioning and efficiency

of small schools in the Indian context. The lack of literature highlighting the problems

faced by small schools makes it difficult to understand the context of their existence in a

country with a large growing population. This study is a humble attempt to investigate

about the functioning of small primary schools in the country and it is expected that this

study will further increase the current understanding about the functioning of these

schools in India.

For the present study only primary schools are taken into account and these are the

schools which have only primary section i.e. classes I to V or in some states only I to IV.

It is a study of small primary schools in India and for the purpose of this study small

primary schools are defined as those primary schools where the enrolment is 25 or less

than 25 students as per 2009-10 DISE data. The reason for taking enrolment as a criterion

to define small school in this study is that it is the size of the school in terms of number of

students studying that generally decides about the number of teachers to be appointed,

building to be made available and infrastructure and other facilities to be provided to the

school.

15

Review of Literature

As mentioned above studies on small schools have been conducted in several developed

countries and these studies pertain to primary schools as well as secondary schools and

these studies have probed about the viability, functioning, effectiveness and efficiency

and the quality of education imparted in these schools. However, a very few studies in the

Indian context have also been undertaken by researchers on the functioning of small

schools and therefore this is an area which is least researched in the country.

International Context of Small Schools

In other countries and especially in European countries, numerous studies have been

conducted to evaluate the functioning and efficiency of small schools. There are diverse

views on the existence of these small schools so much so that some researchers have

advocated the small schools while some others think that these mall schools are burden to

the education system. In this regard it is worth mentioning that in United Kingdom a

paper was published in British Journal of Educational Studies in 1997 entitled ‘A

Critique of Existing Research into Small Primary schools’ authored by Emma Philips.

The author has evaluated major studies carried out in United Kingdom on small primary

schools and is of the view that research in this area is flawed for the reasons like; there is

no agreed definition of a ‘small primary school’; investigations have been biased in their

favour as a result of problems in research design and the ways in which data have been

analysed; and there has been a neglect of certain key issues, notably those affecting pupil

grouping. Some selected studies on small primary schools are reviewed as follows.

Maurice Galton (1993) in his paper entitled ‘Managing Education in Small Primary

schools’ writes that despite frequent criticisms of small schools, evidence collected over

the last decade indicates that smaller English primary schools offer a curriculum and

maintain standards compatible with those offered by larger institutions. In recent years,

informal clustering arrangements have enabled small schools to increase the range of

subjects offered, improve resources and end the isolation of both teachers and pupils.

16

Schools clusters typically develop through a three stage pattern consisting of initiation

(early connections and limited involvement among schools), consolidation

(implementation of cluster agreements but with minimal alterations to existing practices),

and reorientation (staff “ownership” of the cluster leading to greater reflection on and

innovation in teaching strategies). Targeted training approaches by both internal and

external support persons facilitate the transition from one stage to the next. Author is of

the view that developments such as devolved budgeting and the demands for increased

specialization resulting from the National Curriculum may require more formal cluster

arrangements, called federations or consortia, to deal with matters such as joint hiring,

common purchasing policies, and shared time tables. It is suggested by the author that

legislation will be required to allow individual schools to delegate some of their powers

to the federation management committee. Government funding of pilot projects would

allow existing clusters to experiment with management strategies.

‘A Review of Primary schools in England (1994-98)’ opines that researchers found that

small schools could provide a caring, stable environment where pupils’ progress could be

tracked more closely and problems identified earlier than in larger schools. It is therefore

clear that pupils in small schools are not disadvantaged in comparison with those in larger

schools simply because of the size of the school. However, at the same time a

disproportionate number of smallest schools have serious weaknesses and they require

special measures. The review finds that the quality of teaching in small schools is slightly

better than in larger schools; the influence of teaching of the head teacher, which may

account for as much as one-third of the teaching seen during an inspection, has a very

strong, and usually positive, impact on the overall judgement about the quality of the

teaching in a small school. One of the great strengths of small schools, according to the

review study, is their ethos. Very good provision for spiritual, moral, social and cultural

development of pupils, considerable parental involvement in their children’s learning,

and strong links with the community all contribute significantly to the establishment of

caring, welcoming schools often seen as playing an essential role at the heart of local

community.

17

Wilson, Valerie & Joanna McPake ‘Managing Change in Small Primary schools (1998)’

in their paper refer to a research study conducted on the strategies used by head teachers

in small Scottish primary schools to manage mandated educational changes. The

research, according to authors, focused on four initiatives of the past decade; 5-14

Curriculum Guidelines, School Development Planning, Staff Development and

Appraisal, and Devolved School Management. The findings of the research suggest a

small-school management style involving criterion of a collegial team; networking with

outside colleagues and resources; and situational management based on realistic

assessment of context, tasks, and available resources. It also offers recommendations for

head teachers, education authorities, and national organizations to support continuing

development of a small-school management style.

The Education Review Office (ERO) New Zealand, evaluated ‘Small Primary Schools’

of the country (1999), finds that small schools not only have a smaller student body but

also have smaller class size. Parents may prefer small schools, particularly for primary

schools children, because they are believed to have more supportive ‘family’ atmosphere.

The relatively small size of the school buildings and grounds may foster this extended

family feeling. Small schools, especially those in rural areas, are often the hub of their

community, which may take considerable pride in maintaining good school facilities.

With a smaller number of families involved with the school there may be stronger links

between the school and the community. However, small schools also face a number of

challenges that may or may not be disadvantageous for students, depending upon the

success of the school’s strategies for overcoming them. Small schools tend to have less

experienced principals and have fewer staff which impacts on the quality of educational

leadership at the school. Principals of small schools also have regular teaching workload,

including responsibility for a class. They may find the combined demands of teaching

and managing the school difficult. In addition, where teachers in small schools are

relatively new to teaching they need considerable support from the principal as they are

less likely to have other experienced colleagues on site for advice and support.

Highlighting the reasons for being small, the study suggests that some small urban

schools remain small because of limitations such as the size of their site. Others have low

18

student roles because they are perceived to provide a poor quality education. As a result

fewer students enroll and the school struggles with the challenges posed by its declining

enrolment. Schools may then enter in a spiral of decline in which difficulty in attracting

quality teachers and poor staff morale lead to further reduction in student numbers.

Wilson and McPake (2000) in their paper Managing Change in small Scottish Primary

Schools refer to a research study conducted on the strategies used by head teachers in

small Scottish primary schools to manage mandated educational changes. The research,

according to authors, focused on four initiatives on the past decade; 5-14 Curriculum

Guidelines, School development Planning, Staff development and Appraisal and

Devolved School Management. The findings of this research suggest a small-school

management style involving criterion of a collegial team; networking with out side

colleagues and resources and; situational management based on realistic assessment of

context, tasks and available resources. Authors also offer recommendations for head

teachers, educational authorities and national organizations to support continuing

development of a small school management style.

Tsiakkiros A. & P. Pashiardis ‘The Management of Small Primary Schools: The Case of

Cyprus’ (2002) investigated the perceptions of Cypriot teachers on the management of

small primary schools. For the study seven areas were selected for examination and these

are: management and leadership; teachers in small schools; advice and support; pupils in

small schools; curriculum and resources; community and parents; and the future of small

schools. The study was carried out by taking opinion, through a questionnaire, of 144

teachers working in one, two and three teacher schools. Interviews were also conducted

with teachers working in each type of small schools. The study finds that working or

being educated in small schools has both benefits as well as difficulties for teachers and

pupils and that the very smallness of these schools creates opportunities as well as

problems. It is found that Cypriot teachers face more difficulties than principals working

in these small schools. This was more evident for teachers working in one and two-

teacher schools. The study showed that the management of small primary schools in

19

Cyprus needs improvement and for this purpose a number of measures to facilitate

teaching and learning in these schools have been suggested by the authors.

The Indian Context

Small schools have generally not been explored in depth in the Indian education system.

This is despite the fact that existence of small schools is not a recent phenomenon in the

country and such schools have been functional in India from the time immemorial but

these schools have been overlooked by the researchers in the past. One of the reasons for

this may be that there is no clear definition of a small school. The lack of a clear

definition of a small school makes it difficult to even synthesize the available literature.

However, a common trend observed in the country is that small schools are usually

prevalent in rural regions, and flung areas, scattered habitations and in difficult mountain

and hill areas. Though developing nations like India are often faced with the challenge of

addressing the issues associated with small schools but nevertheless they are often over

looked by not only planners and policy makers but even by the researchers also. The lack

of attention for these schools could be attributed to the fact that these schools are often

not viewed as viable solutions to address issues faced in the education sector and these

schools may be considered as simply temporary arrangement for making provision for

education. However, the DISE data quoted above negate all these contentions even if the

definition of a small school at primary level is as conservative as the enrolment of only

25 children.

Aruna Roy (1980) in her study ‘Schools and Communities : An Experience of Rural

India’ presents that in Rajasthan in spite of opening a number of schools to improve

access to primary education, the schools were plagued by problems of low enrolment and

attendance as the schools drew only 40 percent children of age group 6-11. Some

problems that have been highlighted in the study as factors affecting enrolment at

primary level were; (i) children were busy during the day as they had to work and family

could not afford to get a substitute to them, (ii) the teacher usually did not view the

village as a desirable place to stay and had to commute long distances to work making

20

him/her dependent on the local transport facilities that were often unreliable and this also

alienated teacher from the village, and (iii) the curriculum did not take the environment

into consideration. To improve the situation it was necessary to make the schools more

relevant to the village life, to involve parents in planning, to run it at times when children

could be spared from domestic or farm work, to select the teachers from the village and

to adopt the curricula and teaching methods to the local environment. Based on the above

recommendations an appropriate programme was introduced in three villages of

Rajasthan. The author describes that the implementation of a locally relevant education

programme proved to be successful in reaching out to more number of students and the

programme was extended to ten more villages with a total attendance at the schools of

more than five hundred children.

Yash Aggarwal (1997) in his study ‘Small Schools: Issues in Policy and Planning’

discusses some factors in favour of and some against the small schools in the Indian

context. In this regard the factors that have been listed in favour of small schools are such

as (i) it reduces the travel time for students because they are located at a convenient

distance, (ii) the mere presence of school in the locality acts as a motivating factor for the

parents to send their children for education, (iii) a small school is likely to be more

attached to the community with parents and teachers having better interaction as

compared to large schools, (iv) the community may become more sensitive to the

problems located in their settlement and may also take an interest in the management and

functioning of the school, (v) the quality of the classroom interaction particularly at the

primary level can be improved considerably with the active involvement of the teacher

and greater emphasis on the activity based teaching using low cost teaching-learning aids

produced from locally relevant material.

Some factors that go against the small schools, according to author, are (i) there may not

be enough students in small schools to have an independent section for each class and

thus multi-grade teaching may become necessary, (ii) the marginal cost of enrolment of

children increases as more and more smaller habitations are provided independent

schools, (iii) geographical isolation creates issues of timely supply of resources, (iv) there

21

is little contact between the school and higher administrative structure which may

adversely affect the in-service training, and (v) teachers working at isolated places find

that their grievances are not easily looked into by the educational administrators working

at the district and state level.

The study also highlights that even though nearly half of the primary schools in the

country had less than 75 children enrolled and majority of these schools may not be

economically viable, the studies dealing with the unit costs, spatial distribution, internal

efficiency, student flow characteristics and planning and management issues associated

with small schools were generally lacking. Primary schools where total enrolment was 60

or less were classified as small schools in this study. Although it is difficult to generalize

on the basis of the findings of the case study of one of the educationally backward

districts of Assam (Darrang district), a number of policy implications for small schools

were identified. These are such as; quality improvement poses a very serious challenge in

the context of smaller schools, the focus of educational planning should shift from supply

to demand side management and schools with low enrolment were most deprived and

prone to academic administrative handicaps. The study also demonstrated that small

schools were not necessarily located in smaller habitations and that there is a need for

rationalizing schools locations through extensive micro planning exercises. The author

also emphasizes the need for intensive efforts to promote research and improve the

quality of data base on small schools and for developing alternative models of schooling

which may not be necessarily viewed as cheap alternatives.

Dreze J. & Geeta Gandhi Kingdon (1999) in their study School Participation in Rural

India’ presented an analysis of the determinants of schools participation in rural north

India that was based on a household survey which included detailed information on

schools characteristics. School participation was characterized according to house hold,

village and schools variables. For the household variables, the probability of schools

participation increased with parental education and household wealth, children belonging

to scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST) and other backward castes (OBC) were

less likely to go to school than children belonging to general caste, and the chances of a

22

girl being enrolled were higher if her parents considered education to be important for

female children. Under the schools and village variables, the variables had a higher

influence on primary schools participation among girls than boys and female

participation was about 15 percent points higher when local schools provided a mid-day

meal than when it did not. Grade attainment was found to be positively influenced by

several school quality variables, teacher attendance, parent-teacher cooperation,

infrastructure maintenance and student teacher ratio

Blum, N and R. Diwan (2007) in their study ‘Small, Multi-grade Schools and Increasing

Access to Primary education in India: National Context and NGO Initiative’ highlight

that smalls schools are a significant feature of the educational landscape in India, with

approximately 78 percent of primary schools having three or even less than three teachers

to attend all the 4 or 5 grades and more than 55 percent schools with 100 or less than 100

students in 2005. These schools are described to be typically characterized by low

enrolment, too few teachers to cover the required grades levels resulting in multi-grade

teaching and learning and a scarcity of resources and support which in turn often leads to

poor educational quality, students’ disillusionment, and high dropout rates and low rates

of retention. The study finds that many of these schools especially in rural areas were

established in direct response to domestic and international pressure to achieve Education

for All (EFA) and the Millennium development Goals (MDGs) and that they represent an

important part of the efforts to improve access to primary education for the most

marginalize groups in the country. Case studies were conducted on two schools run by

NGOs, the Bodh Shiksha Samiti School in Rajasthan and RIVER school in Andhra

Pradesh, and the research applied both qualitative and quantitative methods in order to

understand the contemporary context to small schools.

The findings of this study indicate that the two schools operated by the NGOs have tried

to address key issues facing small schools such as limited number of teaching staff, the

poor physical condition of school building and the lack of both teaching and learning

material and facilities. Improving the teaching and learning circumstances have been

effectively addressed by including teacher support from NGO staff, provision of adequate

23

and appropriate teaching and learning materials and the development of strong school-

community links. The research study also suggested that approaches to small, multi-grade

schools such as those used by Bodh and River help to provide not just access, but

meaningful access to education for children living in poverty. The research provides

some insight on approaches and gives some recommendations that can be adapted in

small schools to improve the quality of education within the constraint of available

resources.

The literature review presented above for small schools of other countries as well for

India suggests that small schools are capable of providing quality education at least in the

international context. However, it needs to be seen whether it is true in the Indian context

also. In an article published in 2008 in a newspaper B. Mishra states that in the

international context it has been found that about 82 percent of out of school children in

the world are from the rural areas of south and west Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The

article also says that according to latest global monitoring reports of Educational for All

(EFA) and that of International Labour Organization (ILO) covering 152 developing

countries show that about 52 such countries are unlikely to achieve the Millennium

Development Goal (MDG) of enrolling all primary age group children in the schools.

With issues of access and cost (direct as well indirect) of education affecting the

children’s ability to enroll and attend schools in the Indian context it seems important to

investigate and analyze the reasons of large number of children being out of school on the

one hand and presence of as high as 12.55 percent small primary schools in India that

may be termed as economically unviable as these schools have only 25 or even less than

25 children. The present study focuses on the second issue and attempts at investigating

about the reasons for existence of about one lakh small primary schools in the country.

Objectives of the Study

As mentioned above this study aims at analyzing the status of small primary schools in

selected states and districts of the country and also carry out an in depth analysis of

24

selected schools in these states and districts. More specifically the following are the main

objectives of the study.

1. To examine the status of small primary schools in selected districts.

2. To investigate in to the reasons of having small primary schools, and

3. To analyze a few items related to provision and participation as collected in the DISE report cards of all the small primary schools.

Research Questions

The study seeks to address the following questions that emerge out of the rationale of the

study.

Why are there so many small primary schools in the selected districts?

What facilities are available in these schools in terms of teachers as well as

building, infrastructure etc?

What problems are faced by these small schools in managing their affairs

efficiently and effectively?

What problems are faced by the teachers of these small schools?

What is the performance of these small schools in terms of utilization of facilities

and the funds made available to the schools?

Are these small primary schools viable or the need is only for opening alternatives

schools in these areas?

Methodology

The study has mostly used the secondary data available in DISE reports for the year

2009-10 and focused on analyzing the report cards of all the small primary schools of

selected districts for the same year. However, in addition to the secondary data primary

data were also collected from the field and that was done by undertaking survey of a

sample of small schools in the selected districts.

25

Sample Design

The DISE data for the year 2009-10 show that in India there were 12.55 percent primary

schools that had enrolment of 25 children or even less and these primary schools for this

study have been defined as small schools. However, there are 12 states and two union

territories where the share of small primary schools is more than 12.55 percent, i.e. more

than the national average, of the total primary schools. Leaving aside the hill states the

number of such states is 7 and the union territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and

Pondicherry. These seven states are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Jammu &

Kashmir, Maharashtra and Karnataka.

The study was conducted in 4 states and these four states represent one from each of the

four geographical regions of the country. So the study covered Jammu & Kashmir from

the north region as it has the highest percentage (42.31) of small schools in the country.

From eastern region the study covers Assam, which has 14.45 percent small primary

schools. Maharashtra, which represents western region having 29.67 percent small

primary schools, has been covered in the study, and Karnataka, having 39.87 percent

small primary schools, was included in the study from southern region.

From each of the four selected states one district was selected and covered in the study.

The districts from the states were selected from amongst (i) districts that have relatively

higher number of small primary schools and (ii) districts where the ratio of small primary

schools is more than the state average. This study in this way covers Jammu district from

Jammu & Kashmir state, Jorhat district from Assam, Raigad district from Maharashtra

and Mandya district from Karnataka state.

From each of the selected district applying a simple random sampling method a sample of

10 percent small primary schools was taken for in-depth study of small schools.

26

However, final coverage of the number of schools under this study are given in the

following table

Table 1.01 Sample Size covered in the study

S.

No.

District Name Total no.

of Small

Schools

No. of

Schools

covered in

Sample

No. of

Questionn-

aires

rejected

Final

Sample

size

covered

% Sample

Finally

covered

1 Jammu 659 66 5 61 9.26

2 Jorhat 679 68 8 60 8.83

3 Mandya 541 54 0 54 9.98

4 Raigad 1146 115 5 110 9.60

TOTAL 3025 303 18 285 9.42

Data Collection

As mentioned above the study is based on both primary and secondary data. The

secondary data were collected from the DISE reports and primary data were collected

from the field. Since the study focuses on district as a unit for collection and analysis of

data, informal discussion and personal interview were conducted with district level

authorities especially with the district education officer looking after elementary

education and district project coordinator and MIS in-charge of district project office

SSA. For collecting data from selected sample of schools structured questionnaires were

administered. For this purpose local investigators were appointed and one nodal officer

was identified in each of the selected districts to supervise the field data collection.

Field Visits

Since the study was based on the analysis of primary data that were collected from the

field, visit to the selected districts was necessary. The researcher personally visited all the

four selected districts to have discussion with district officials and also held discussions

with head masters and teachers of several schools covered in the study. In each district a

27

nodal officer was identified to supervise data collection. Field Investigators were also

appointed in the districts for collecting data from the schools.

Limitations of the Study

The present study on small schools covers only those schools that have only primary

sections and thus the scope of this study is limited to stand alone primary schools as it

does not cover schools that have primary section but are attached to middle or secondary

or higher secondary schools. Though it is a limitation of this study but this has been done

because the definition of the small schools used for this study i.e. schools having 25 or

less than 25 students enrolled will hardly be applicable to the schools which have both

primary and upper primary sections leaving apart the schools where primary section is

running along with upper primary and secondary or primary section running along with

upper primary, secondary and higher secondary sections.

Though it claims to be a national study it covers only four states of the country that

represent four regions namely north, east, west and south region. Further from each

region the study covers only one state and it cannot be claimed that one state represents

the whole region and thus the four states may not be representative to the whole country.

So, the findings of this study may not be applicable to the whole country i.e. all the states

and union territories.

Further, the study covers only one district from each of the four selected states and from

each district a sample of 10 percent small primary schools has been covered. The study

therefore cannot claim to be applicable to the whole of these four states and its findings

may not necessarily be applicable to all the districts of these four states.

The study covers only formal primary schools and has not touched upon the alternatives

schooling centers like Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) centers or Alternative and

Innovative Education (AIE) centers despite the fact that these alternative education

centers also are imparting primary education. However, these alternative education

28

centers have not been taken into account in this study deliberately as these centers are

expected to be small schools by design. This is because these centers are recommended to

be opened in the places/habitations where formal primary schools are not viable due to

having less population and thus the prospective number of children available for

schooling may not be even 40.

29

Chapter II

Development of Primary Education in India since Independence

India has a long tradition of imparting education to its people though initially the facility

of imparting education was provided to selected few only. The development of education

was the responsibility of kings and they use to make arrangement for imparting education

to their children and other people. For this purpose there were Gurukuls established by

them where the teacher was totally paid by the king’s government. These were the

educational institutions which were residential in nature and where the teacher i.e. ‘guru’

and the pupils live together. Here there was no fixed timing of the instructions and the

teacher used to impart not only education but also several types of training to their pupil

so as to develop their skills for various jobs. Even military training was also imparted to

the children so that they can become soldiers to defend the empire from any kind of

aggression. Such training was mainly imparted to the children of royal families so that

they can take the responsibility of defending their subject.

Even during the British period the education could not expand properly as it was the

deliberate policy of Britishers to impart education to only a selected few people who can

help them in establishing their empire and running the day to day affairs of the country

under their guidance. However, several social reformers on their own took up the

responsibility of expanding education in the country to the extent possible so that the

benefits of education reach the masses and they become aware about their rights and

responsibilities. As a result during pre-independence period a large number of

educational institutions were established across the length and breadth of the country.

However, this expansion was relatively more with respect to primary education. Despite

all these efforts the participation rate of children at primary level was quite low and even

the literacy rate was very low.

At the time of independence the education sector was less developed and the educational

facilities to the masses were very scant. This is the reason that people’s participation in

education, even in the basic education, was far from satisfactory. The level of educational

30

development was so low that in 1951 which was the first year when the census was

conducted in India after the independence the literacy rate of the country was only 18.33

percent which was 27.16 percent for male population and as low as only 8.86 percent for

female population. The following table shows the progress of literacy in India during the

post independence period.

Table 2.01: Literacy Rates in India since Independence

S.No. Year of Census Total Literacy Male Literacy Female Literacy

1 1951 18.33 27.16 8.86

2 1961 28.30 40.40 15.35

3 1971 34.45 45.96 21.97

4 1981 43.57 56.38 29.76

5 1991 52.21 64.13 39.29

6 2001 64.84 75.26 53.67

Source: Census of India (Various years)

The literacy rates given in the above table for the years 1951, 1961 and 1971 relate to

population aged five years and above while those for the years 1981, 1991 and 2001

relate to the population seven years and above.

Data presented in Table 2.01 show that in India during half a century after independence

the literacy has increased to about three and a half time. However, the increase in male

literacy accounts to less than three times while for females it has increased by about six

times. It may be noted that as a result of faster growth in female literacy the gender

literacy disparities have declined substantially during last 50 years.

It is clear from the above table that at the time of independence the literacy rate was even

less than 20 percent and for females it was less than 10 percent. It may be noted that

generally the source of spreading literacy is increasing participation in basic education

and it is therefore clear that low literacy rate shows that the participation in basic

education is also low. One of the reasons for low participation in basic education may be

low access which means enough basic educational facilities were not available. Such was

the situation of basic education in the country at the time of independence that

Constitution makers had to put it in the Directive Principles of the State Policy of the

31

Constitution that provision of free and compulsory education for all children of the

country up to 14 years of age may be made by the government. The expansion that took

place in the elementary education sector after independence is the result of such

Constitutional provision.

Expansion in Primary Education

Primary education facilities have grown many fold in the country during last more than

five decades. Whether it is the number of schools, number of teachers or number children

enrolled in the primary classes the increment has been tremendous. The number of

schools imparting primary education has increased almost four times, the number of

teachers has also increased more than four times and the enrolment in primary classes has

increased to almost seven times during 1950-51 to 2007-08. The following table 2.02

presents data about the number of schools, teachers and number of students enrolled in

primary schools and sections in the country.

Table 2.02: Growth of Primary Education in India

(Enrolment in Millions, Teachers in Thousands)

Year No. of

Schools

Enrolment

Boys

Enrolment

Girls

Total

Enrolment

Teachers

Male

Teachers

Female

Total

Teachers

1950-51 209671 13.8 5.4 19.2 456 82 538

1955-56 278153 17.1 7.5 24.6 574 117 691

1960-61 330399 23.6 11.4 35.0 615 127 742

1965-66 391064 32.2 18.3 50.5 764 180 944

1970-71 408378 35.7 21.3 57.0 835 225 1060

1975-76 454270 40.6 25.0 65.6 955 283 1248

1980-81 494503 45.3 28.5 73.8 1021 342 1363

1985-86 528872 52.2 35.2 87.4 1094 402 1496

1990-91 560935 57.0 40.4 97.4 1143 473 1616

1995-96 593410 60.9 46.2 107.1 1176 558 1734

2000-01 638738 64.0 49.8 113.8 1221 675 1696

2005-06 772568 70.5 61.6 132.1 1326 858 2184

2006-07 784852 71.1 62.6 133.7 1403 920 2323

Growth

Rate

2.385 2.970 4.472 3.526 2.027 4.412 2.646

32

Source: GOI, MHRD, Statistics on School Education 2006-07, New Delhi 2009

The data presented in the above table reveal that in terms of educational institutions the

number of schools imparting primary education has increased by three and a half times

during the period 1950-51 to 2006-07. It shows that the schools have increased with

average annual growth rate of 2.38 percent. It thereby means that after independence

because of focus on elementary education substantial progress has been made in

increasing the provisions in terms of opening schools.

As far as participation of children in primary education is concerned, the number of

children enrolled in primary classes has increased by 7 times during 56 years after

independence. However, this shows that the average annual growth rate of enrolment was

3.52 percent. But it is worth mentioning here that the growth of girls’ enrolment has been

far more as compared with the boys’ enrolment. As against average annual growth rate of

2.97 percent for boys the girls’ enrolment has increased with the average annual growth

rate of 4.47 percent. It is therefore clear that gender disparity in enrolment has decreased

over a period of time.

At primary level during 56 years after independence the number of teachers has increased

from 5.38 lakh in 1950-51 to 23.23 lakh in 2006-07. It shows that teachers have increased

to more than fourfold and the average annual growth rate of teachers has been 2.64

percent per annum during this period. Here also it is heartening to note that the growth of

female teachers (4.41 percent) is far more than that of male teachers (2.02 percent).

The table also reveals that if we compare the growth of institutions, teachers and

enrolment we find that highest is the growth in enrolment followed by growth in teachers

and the growth of schools is the lowest of these three. It means that government has not

been able to increase the number schools or even increase the number of teachers in

proportion with the increase in enrolment. This clearly shows that the schools are more

crowded now than these were in 1950-51 and the pupil teacher ratio has also increased at

primary level over a period of time. Despite the fact that free and compulsory education

up to 14 years of age is a Constitutional directive the government has not been able to

33

provide educational facilities for even primary education that matches with the growth of

enrolment.

Gender Disparities in Primary Education

All kinds of disparities prevailing in the country have been a common feature in the

Indian education system also and gender disparities are no exception to it. The following

table presents data on participation of girls in primary education as against the boys in the

country during last about five and a half decades as well as share of females in teachers at

primary level.

Table 2.03: Participation of Girls in Primary Education in India

Year Percentage

of Girls in

Enrolment

No. of Girls

per 100

Boys in

Enrolment

Gender

Parity

Index in

Enrolment

No. of

Females per

100 Male

Teachers

Pupil

Teacher

Ratio

1950-51 28.1 39 0.41 20 24

1960-61 32.6 48 0.50 21 36

1970-71 37.4 60 0.63 27 39

1980-81 38.6 63 0.67 33 38

1990-91 41.5 71 0.75 41 43

1995-96 43.1 76 0.82 47 43

2000-01 43.7 78 0.82 55 43

2005-06 46.6 87 0.94 65 46

2006-07 46.8 88 0.94 66 44

Source: GOI, MHRD, Statistics on School Education 2006-07, New Delhi 2009

The gender disparities can be seen in terms participation of girls in education as against

the participation of boys. Data presented above on participation of girls in primary

education show that in 1950-51 the percentage of girls in enrolment at primary level was

only about 28 which has increased to about 47 in 2006-07 and it shows that gender

disparities in primary enrolment are very low and equity has been more or less achieved.

Further number of girls per 100 boys in enrolment at primary level has increased from 39

in 1950-51 to 88 in 2006-07 which shows impressive progress in terms of girls’

enrolment. The figures on gender parity index in primary enrolment show an increase

34

from 0.41 in 1950-51 to 0.94 in 2006-07. These figures presented in the table reveal that

lot of progress has been made in the participation of girls in primary education and

gender disparities have been reduced considerably though still such disparities prevail but

these are of a very low order.

As far as availability of female teachers at primary level is concerned number of female

teachers has substantially increased over a period of time but still the proportion of

female teachers is not up to a desired level. The number of females per 100 male teachers

at primary level which was only 20 in 1950-51 has increased to 66 in 2006-07. It is

generally perceived that at primary level majority of the teachers should be females or at

least 50 percent female teachers should be there to ensure the participation of girls. On

this consideration even in 2006-07 the situation is not satisfactory as number of female

teachers is still only about two third that of male teachers.

The table further shows that with the passage of time the number of teachers has not

increased in the same proportion as that of enrolment and as a result the pupil teacher

ratio has been continuously increasing in the country at primary level. The pupil teacher

ratio at primary level in India has increased from 24 in 1950-51 to 44 in 2006-07.

However, if we look at the trend of increasing pupil teacher ratio we find that there is

continuous increase in the pupil teacher ratio from 1950-51 till 2005-06 but it is

heartening to note that the pupil teacher ratio has declined in 2006-07 to 44 from that of

2005-06 when it was slightly higher at 46.

Participation in Primary Education: Progress in Enrolment and Retention

Access and availability of primary schooling facilities across the country is a necessary

but not sufficient condition for achieving the goal of universal participation which

includes universal enrolment and universal retention. Important indicators related to these

items are gross enrolment ratio and retention/dropout rates at primary level. The

following table presents data on gross enrolment ratio and dropout rate at primary level in

the country.

35

Table 2.04: Gross Enrolment Ratio and Dropout rates at Primary Level in India

Year GER(I-V)

Boys

GER (I-V)

Girls

GER (I-V)

Total

Drop Out

Rate (I-V)

Boys

Drop Out

Rate (I-V)

Girls

Drop Out

Rate (I-V)

Total

1950-51 60.6 24.8 42.6 - - -

1960-61 82.6 41.4 62.6 61.7 70.9 64.9

1970-71 95.5 60.5 78.6 64.5 70.9 67.0

1980-81 95.8 64.1 80.5 56.2 62.5 58.7

1990-91 94.8 71.9 83.8 40.1 46.0 42.6

2000-01 104.9 85.9 95.7 39.7 41.9 40.7

2005-06 112.8 105.8 109.4 28.7 21.8 25.7

2006-07 114.6 108.0 111.4 24.6 26.8 25.6

Source: GOI, MHRD, Statistics on School Education 2006-07, New Delhi 2009

The figures presented in the above table show the gross enrolment ratio at primary level

for various years in the country for the last about 55 years after independence. Though

GER is not a very good indicator to know about the participation of children but because

the data on net enrolment ratio are not available over a period of time here GER figures

have been presented to show the progress made in country in terms of primary level

enrolment for boys, girls as well as for total children. The table reveals that over all GER

at primary level has increased from 42.6 percent in 1950-51 to 111.4 percent in 2006-07.

However, if we look at the GER figures for boys and girls for the same years we find that

the progress made by girls is far better than that of boys. The GER for boys has increased

from 60.6 percent in 1950-51 to 114.6 percent in 2006-07 where as for girls this increase

is far more impressive which is from only 24.8 percent in 1950-51 to as high as 108

percent in 2006-07. It the net increase in GER for boys is of the order of 54 percent

points where as for girls it is about 83 percent points increase. The data on GER further

show that the gender disparity has tremendously gone down over a period of time as the

gap between boys and girls that was about 36 percent points in 1950-51 has narrowed to

only about 6.6 percent points in 2006-07.

The drop out figures at primary level i.e. between grades I-V presented in table for the

period 1960-61 to 2006-07 also show that good progress has been achieved in reducing

the dropout rates. The overall dropout rate at primary level was as high as about 65

36

percent in 1960-61 which virtually means out of every 100 children taking admission in

grade I only 35 children were reaching grade V. However in the year 2006-07 the dropout

rate has declined to the level of 25.6 percent in primary classes which means the 2006-07

data presented here show that out of 100 children enrolled in grade I as many 74 children

are reaching grade V. Thus the retention rate at primary level has increased from 35

percent to 74 percent during the period 1960-61 to 2006-07.

It is clear from the data presented in the above table that dropout rates for girls have

declined more than that of boys. The boys’ dropout rate at primary level has declined

from 61.7 percent in 1960-61 to 24.6 percent in 2006-07 i.e. net decline of about 37

percent points. However, for girls the dropout rate at primary level which was 70.9

percent in 1960-61 has come down to 26.8 percent in 2006-07 which shows a net decline

of about 44 percent points. The gap between the boys and girls dropout rate was about 9

percent points in 1960-61 which has come down to about 2.2 percent points in 2006-07.

It can be inferred from these data that gender disparities have declined to a considerable

extent not only in enrolment but also in drop outs at primary level.

Primary Education in India: Present Status

As mentioned above very impressive progress has been made in the country in expansion

of primary education during last more than five decades after independence. The latest

figures related to primary education available from MHRD pertain to the year 2007-08.

In order to show the present status of primary education in India state wise figures for

2007-08 have been presented here.

Primary Level Institutions

The number of primary schools has increased substantially in the country during last five

and half decades after independence and that has been presented in Table 2.02

37

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Table 2.05: State wise number of Primary Level Institutions by Management (2007-08)

S.No. State/UT Govt. Local Bodies Private Aided Private Unaided

Total Number %age Number %age Number %age Number %age

1 Andhra Pr. 4886 7.82 49349 79.00 2246 3.6 5983 9.58 62464

2 Arunachal Pr 1435 91.93 0 0.00 2 0.13 124 7.94 1561

3 Assam 30054 96.82 483 1.56 0 0.00 505 1.63 31042

4 Bihar 45942 99.92 0 0.00 22 0.05 16 0.03 45980

Chhattisgarh 31858 93.61 9 0.03 173 0.51 1994 5.86 34034

6 Goa 942 75.18 0 0.00 170 13.57 141 11.25 1253

7 Gujarat 0 0.00 15679 89.89 344 1.97 1420 8.14 17443

8 Haryana 9321 68.53 4 0.03 153 1.12 4124 30.32 13602

9 Himachal Pr. 10699 92.90 1 0.01 4 0.03 813 7.06 11517

J & K 11775 88.08 0 0.00 151 1.13 1443 10.79 13369

11 Jharkhand 19279 97.28 0 0.00 500 2.52 39 0.20 19818

12 Karnataka 25089 86.90 78 0.27 280 0.97 3424 11.86 28871

13 Kerala 2547 37.44 58 0.85 3928 57.75 269 3.95 6802

14 Madhya Pr. 81529 82.80 0 0.00 906 0.92 16028 16.28 98463

Maharashtra 673 1.58 36654 86.31 2818 6.64 2322 5.47 42467

16 Manipur 2017 78.70 0 0.00 408 15.92 138 5.38 2563

17 Meghalaya 2539 38.37 0 0.00 2475 37.4 1604 24.24 6618

18 Mizoram 989 56.45 206 11.76 155 8.85 402 22.95 1752

19 Nagaland 1442 86.76 0 0.00 0 0.00 220 13.24 1662

Orissa 46005 92.44 0 0.00 356 0.72 3404 6.84 49765

21 Punjab 12331 93.15 10 0.08 73 0.55 824 6.22 13238

22 Rajasthan 2544 4.60 48098 86.88 217 0.39 4502 8.13 55361

23 Sikkim 481 62.31 0 0.00 0 0.00 291 37.69 772

24 Tamil Nadu 373 1.27 22036 75.04 1763 6.00 5192 17.68 29364

Tripura 2110 98.09 0 0.00 11 0.51 30 1.39 2115

26 Uttar Pr. 99058 77.85 0 0.00 28189 22.15 0 0.00 127247

27 Uttarakhand 12291 80.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 3065 19.96 15356

28 West Bengal 0 0.00 49913 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 49913

29 A&N Islands 190 84.07 8 3.54 0 0.00 28 12.39 226

Chandigarh 20 66.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 33.33 30

31 D&N Haveli 160 91.95 0 0.00 13 7.47 1 0.57 174

32

Daman &

Diu 47 94.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 6.00 50

33 Delhi 1 0.04 1796 69.91 44 1.71 728 28.34 2569

34 Lakshadweep 21 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 21

Puducherry 244 78.96 0 0.00 3 0.97 62 20.06 309

INDIA 458892 58.25 224382 28.48 45404 5.76 59149 7.51 787827

38

Source: GOI, MHRD, Statistics on School Education 2006-07, New Delhi 2009

The above table (Table 2.05) presents state wise number of Primary Schools by

management which includes government schools, local body schools, private aided

schools and private unaided schools. The table reveals that in 2007-08 there were total

787827 primary schools in the country which are run under various managements.

Highest number of primary schools (58.25 percent) are management by the government

i.e. the state governments followed by the schools managed by local bodies (28.48

percent). The schools run by private managements account for 13.27 percent schools in

the country which includes 5.76 percent private aided schools and 7.51 percent private

unaided schools. This shows that about 87 percent primary schools are totally funded by

the government which includes government schools and local bodies’ schools while

another 5.7 percent primary schools, though run privately, are given grants in aid by the

government and thus there are only 7.5 percent primary schools in the country that are

run by purely private bodies which do not get any funds from the government.

There are two states where no primary school is run by the state government and these

states are Gujarat and West Bengal. In these states all government funded primary

schools are managed by the local bodies. Further in Delhi also state government manages

only one primary school and rest of the 1796 government primary schools are managed

by local bodies. As against these states and union territories there are 14 states and five

union territories where no primary schools are run by the local bodies and here all

government funded schools are run by the state governments. These states are Arunachal

Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur,

Meghalaya, Nagaland, Orissa, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The five

union territories where no primary school is managed by local bodies include

Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Lakshadweep and Puducherry.

There are five states and four union territories that have reported that they have no private

aided school and these states are Assam, Nagaland, Sikkim, Uttarakhand and West

Bengal whereas the union territories coming under this category are Andaman & Nicobar

Islands, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep. The data presented in the table

39

show that in two states namely Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal and in Lakshadweep

union territory there is no private unaided primary schools.

In nine states and three union territories more than 90 percent primary schools are

managed by state/UT government. These states are Arunachal Pradesh (91.93), Assam

(96.82), Bihar (99.92), Chhattisgarh (93.61), Himachal Pradesh (92.90), Jharkhnad

(97.28), Orissa (92.44), Punjab (93.15), Tripura (98.09) and these union territories

include Dadra & Nagar Haveli (91.95), Daman & Diu (94) and Lakshadweep (100%).

Out of these states and union territories Lakshadweep is an exception as here cent percent

primary schools are the government schools and there is not a single primary school that

is managed by either the local body or by any private body.

The following Table 2.06 presents the number of primary level institutions by type of

schools as per 2009-10 DISE data. The categories of schools given in the table include

schools having only primary section, schools having primary with upper primary sections

and schools having primary with upper primary and secondary/ higher secondary

sections.

Table 2.06: Number of Primary Level Institutions by category of Schools (2009-10)

S. Name of the State / Schools Schools Schools Total

N. Union Territory having only

Primary

Section

having

Primary

with

Upper

Primary

section

having

Primary,

Upper

Primary

and Sec/HS

section

number of

Primary

Level

Institutions

1 Andhra Pradesh 68927 15695 1346 85968

2 Arunachal Pradesh 3481 880 199 4560

3 Assam 38910 1441 828 41179

4 Bihar 43679 23171 533 67383

5 Chhattisgarh 33442 3316 768 37526

6 Goa 1007 58 107 1172

7 Gujarat 11062 27631 804 39497

8 Haryana 9772 1208 2577 13557

9 Himachal Pradesh 11403 698 930 13031

10 Jammu & Kashmir 14719 8372 2480 25571

40

11 Jharkhand 26149 13681 856 40686

12 Karnataka 26256 29153 2016 57421

13 Kerala 6685 2450 1025 10100

14 Madhya Pradesh 91204 12416 1997 105617

15 Maharashtra 47057 27008 3531 77596

16 Manipur 2389 637 631 3657

17 Meghalaya 8243 373 190 8806

18 Mizoram 1526 340 53 1919

19 Nagaland 1681 282 305 2268

20 Orissa 35265 15796 649 51710

21 Punjab 14160 885 1909 16954

22 Rajasthan 50275 39353 9577 99205

23 Sikkim 768 227 179 1174

24 Tamil Nadu 33840 10458 3669 47967