Educational Information System in India and its Limitations: Suggestions for Improvement

Arun C. Mehta
National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration
17-B, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi – 1 00 16 (INDIA)


The quantity of information and data collected and processed for the planning and management of educational activities has been constantly on the increase.  Educational planners and administrators in general and the education authorities at the central and more aggregated levels in particular, have been witnessing a steady growth in the amount and variety of information that has been collected and made available to them.   The size and the complexity of the educational system continue to expand as the population and economy grows; consequently, management problems increase which require Decision Support System (DSS) for which the data management is essential.  DSS is more needed at the sub-national level where large number of institutions is to be handled. We may note that with growing pressures of equity, quality, plurality, growth, information revolution and knowledge explosion that we are witnessing presently, the informational requirements of educational planning and management are tremendous; particularly in the face of multi-level and multi-party decision-making pattern referred to above.  There are different types of decision-makers, like students, parents, employers, legislators, planners and administrators, who are continuously engaged in the process of educational planning and management.  It is important for each one of them to have reliable and relevant information they require for decision-making vis-à-vis education.  But more importantly, it seems necessary that each group may be well aware about the information that others may possess.  It is their mutual inter-action that makes the decision-making actually effective. Thus, the gigantic nature of the task can be gauged from the fact that the system encompasses (1994-95) more than 180 million students of different socio-economic background, four million school teachers who are engaged in the task of imparting instructions, about one million institutions of varying quality and Rs.20,000 billion are being spent on education every year.

The Present Article

In the present article, first a brief introduction to educational information system is presented which is followed by a detailed list of agencies engaged in data collection.  Ever since the start of collection of educational statistics in the country, a number of changes have taken place in terms of data collection tools and coverage. Therefore, a brief history of educational statistics commencing from year 1864 has been presented.  How data capture formats are evolved and changes taken place in flow of information has also been critically analysed.  The limitations and gaps in the existing system has been discussed in detail which is followed by a list of publications along with the year for which they are latest available.  Suggestions for improvement in the existing system have also been presented.

Information System

At the national level, there are three main agencies, which collect statistics on education on regular basis.  They are: (a) Planning, Monitoring and Statistics Division, Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) on annual basis for all sectors of school education (b) University Grants Commission (UGC) on higher education and (c) National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on school education through occasional surveys.  All the three agencies referred above generate data with State/Union Territory, as a basic unit of consolidation. Only in case of MHRD; selected district level information was also collected on quinquennial basis for a short period.  The UGC compiles data according to university area, whereas NCERT collects data at the district level through its All India Educational Survey but releases only state-wise information. Besides statistics on institutions, teachers and enrolment, NCERT also collects and disseminates information on ancillary and other facilities in schools, such as, availability of playgrounds, black boards, school buildings, toilets and drinking water which is otherwise not available from any other agency.  Besides population statistics, the Office of the Registrar General of India provides information on many items through its Census of India publications.  Levels of educational attainment of population, educational-occupational classification pattern of the work force, age-education classification of children in the age-group 5-14 years and information on child workers according to age and sex are some of the useful items on which information is disseminated.  Apart from the agencies referred above, National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) also collects and disseminates statistics on education on sample basis (Mehta, 1996a).  Through its survey on Participation in Education, NSSO provided state-wise information on drop-outs and never-enrolled children and causes of their not been attending schools and reasons of drop-outs.  However, the period of conducting such surveys is not at regular interval, the latest been conducted in year 1986-87 and last in the year 1978-79.  Of late, IIPS through its National Family Health Survey and NCAER as a part of its Periodic Market Information Surveys disseminated information on some of the educational variables, such as, literacy rate, attendance rate, non-enrolment ratio and drop-out ratio.


Agencies Classified According to Nature of Information

 Regular Educational Statistics

  • Department of Education, MHRD (for all types of data)
  • University Grants Commission (for data on universities and colleges)

 Educational Statistics on Ad-hoc Basis

  • Census of India (for literacy and educational levels of population)
  • Central Statistical Organisation (for state and national income and other related statistics of various sectors of economy
  • Institute of Applied Manpower Research (for area- manpower surveys, vocational and technical education surveys)
  • Planning Commission (for data on annual and five year plans)
  • Directorate of Employment and Training (for data on industrial training institutes and employment exchanges)
  • Indian Council of Medical Research (for data on medical education)
  • Indian Council of Agriculture Research (for information on agriculture education)
  • Indian Council of Social Science Research (for research on various aspects of social sciences)
  • Association of Indian Universities (for studies in educational problems of higher education).
  • Directorate of Adult Education (for data on literacy based on Census publications).

Occasional Surveys

  • National Sample Survey Organisation (for socio-economic aspects of population)
  • National Council of Applied Economic Research (on non- enrolment ratio and drop-out rate at elementary level)
  • International Institute for Population Sciences through it National Family and Health Survey (on literacy and attendance rate and related information on children in the age-group 6-14 years).
  • National Council of Educational Research and Training (for survey and sample studies on educational problems) and
  • National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (for educational administration and planning surveys and research studies).

Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA), Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) and Institute of Applied Manpower Research (IAMR)  also collects data on educational variables occasionally through their research studies and sample surveys.

The list of agencies classified according to nature of collection and broad areas on which information is available is presented below.  As mentioned, the different agencies of educational statistics in India can be grouped under the following three heads:

      (i) Regular Educational Statistics

(ii) Educational Statistics on Ad-hoc Basis and

(iii) Statistics through Occasional Surveys.

The details of information on each of these items are presented Box 1.

Among the agencies mentioned above, MHRD is the main agency responsible for data collection on educational variables, hence, role in terms of flow of information, data capture formats, and publications and limitations has been presented below.

On the recommendations of the Sixth All India Conference on Educational Statistics (1980), a new set of forms  was evolved, which were in use till recently and popularly known as ES-Series forms.  Under the ES-Series, six forms were developed through which annual collection of statistics was envisaged, with September 30 as its date of reference. It was decided to collect basic statistics on education from State Education Departments with a staggering time schedule in different types of forms. Form ES-I was developed to collect numeric information, such as on, number of institutions, enrolment and teachers whereas information relating to financial, income and expenditure variables, March 30 as its date of reference, was proposed through Form ES-II.  Form ES-III was developed to collect information on examination results, so as Form ES-IV, for information on SC and ST population.  District-wise information was proposed to collect through Form ES-V and information on special studies through Form ES-VI.  The publications based on the ES-Series forms mainly disseminated information at the State  & UT level but except for a brief period, no information was disseminated at the district level.  The Form ES-V developed for district-wise information was withdrawn in year 1987 on the recommendations of the Seventh All India Conference on Educational Statistics.

In 1981, the Ministry of Education constituted a high level committee to review the entire Educational Statistical System in the country.  The committee recommended that the then existing ES-I be bifurcated into two forms, namely, ES-I(S) for school information and ES-I(C) for information on colleges.  Similarly, it also recommended that ES-II be bifurcated into two separate forms one each for schools and colleges.  On the recommendations of the Committee, later it was decided that in order to avoid duplication, from the year 1987-88 onwards, the collection of information relating to higher education be given to UGC.  However, the Department of Education would continue to collect and disseminate information relating to non-university courses.  Some of the other important recommendations of the Committee are presented in Box 3.  With the implementation of ES-Series forms, the time lag at one stage increased to about seven to eight years.  Therefore at this stage, idea of computerisation of educational statistics was cropped-up.  On an experimental basis, it was taken up initially in Uttar Pradesh in 1985-86 but soon followed in then nine educationally backward states of the country in collaboration with NIC in 1989-90 with the following main objectives:

  •  to reduce time-lag in the collection and dissemination of information;  and
  • to develop comprehensive database at the Central and State level with a view to make the  planning process effective.

The scheme was further extended to all the remaining States and UTs in the following year.  But initially, information relating to school education was only decided to computerize which till recently was being handled manually through ES-Series forms.  For the computerisation, three new forms, namely, S-1, S-2 and S-3 were evolved which are currently in use.   While information relating to Primary and Middle schools is being collected through Forms S-1, S-2 and S-3 are used for information relating to Secondary and Senior Secondary institutions.   Information collected from Primary and Middle schools is compiled manually at block level with the objective of putting block level macro information on to computer system.  On the basis of information received through S-1, S-2 and S-3, NIC generate statistical statements and the same is passed on to the State Education Departments for validation of data.  Once, the validated tables are received from the State Education Department, the final tables are generated by the NIC which in turn send it to Division of Planning, Monitoring and Statistics, Department of Education, MHRD. The Department of Education generates national level data and disseminates it for planners, researchers and other users.  In order to tone up the educational statistics, the scheme of Computerisation of Educational Statistics was further strengthened in year 1993-94 and provision of funds were made at the disposal of NIC for processing of the computerized data at the State & UT Headquarters.  To avoid delay, State/UT Governments were requested to get the new computerized forms printed in adequate quantity.   Despite this, time lag remains the main limitation of the system.

Flow of Information

As mentioned, the responsibility of managing educational statistics at the Central level is the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development.  In the Department of Education, the `Division of Planning, Monitoring and Statistics’ that is being headed by a Director are looking after the work relating to information system.  A Deputy Director looks after the statistical wing of this Division.  Two Assistant Directors, two Assistant Education Officers and other supporting staff assist Deputy Director. At the State level, responsibility of educational statistics is generally entrusted to `Statistics Cell’ attached to the Directorate of Primary/Secondary education.  Generally, Assistant or Deputy Director assisted by few Statistical Assistants/Computers and Clerks heads by a Statistical Officer or the Statistical Cell.  However, at the district level, generally the task is being handled by a Statistical Assistant,  but at the block/taluka/tehsil/mandal level, barring a few states, no separate staff has been provided for statistical work.

The Department of Education sends the blank copies of proformae to all the States & UTs.  Model institutional proforma along with manual instructions are also supplied to them, so as to ensure accuracy of the statistics so collected.  If need be, states can also add other items for their own use.  These proformae are then printed at the State level and distributed to institutions, through block and district level educational functionaries. To explain concepts and definitions of various items included in the proformae and also to train functionaries in collection of educational statistics, the Department of Education organises training programmes for those engaged in data collection work at the State level.  On being received request from the State Government, the department may also depute its officer for training of district level personnel.   At the State level, generally state, district and block level functionaries are involved in collection of educational statistics.  So far as the information relating to Primary and Middle schools is concerned, it is collected from the institutions itself and is consolidated at the block level in most of the cases.  Once, the block-wise aggregated data is received at the district level, the aggregation for district takes place at the district headquarters.  In some states, the district level functionaries also collect and consolidate data of Secondary and Higher Secondary schools.  At the State headquarters, the collection is done in respect of all the institutions of higher education, as well as, High/Higher Secondary schools where the collection is not done by the District Education Officers.  The data received from the DEO and institutions of higher education is consolidated at the State headquarters by the Statistical Cell of the Directorate of Education in prescribed peroforma  and send it to the Department of Education for aggregation at the all-India level and dissemination.

Limitations of the Existing System

Keeping in view the size of the education system, it is obvious that it has certain limitations, which may be administrative and non-administrative in nature.  The Regional Training Seminar on Educational Statistics (1970) organised by the then Asian Institute of Educational Planning and Administration and other such conferences and seminars identified a number of problems, time and again, to improve upon the existing system but despite these efforts the situation has not much been improved.  The problems identified are predominantly administrative in nature which include shortage of qualified staff, lack of training  facilities and  coordination between different data collecting agencies, multiplicity of questionnaires, deliberate non-response or willful mis-reporting,  delay in data collection, non-response and  delays in printing of documents.  Some of the other problems are lack of proper appreciation of the importance of educational statistics, ambiguous definitions, inadequate and in-explicit instructions and deficiencies in analysis and tabulation.  Amongst these, data-gaps is one of the serious limitations which has been discussed, time and again, by data users and researchers and well documented in the literature.  Therefore, in the present article, emphasis has been given to other problems, which are either administrative in nature or are system related limitations.

Multiple Directorates

The work relating to collection of educational statistics is being looked after by different directorates in different States & UTs which may create problem of coordination.  In some States, the work is being looked after by the Directorate of Primary Education while in other states,  it is being looked after by the Directorate of Secondary Education.   In few states,  both the  Directorates  are   combined and there is only one Directorate of Primary and Secondary Education. In case of separate directorates, there may be lack of coordination between the two which may delay the concerned publication.  The High Level Committee (1982) also observed that the absence of proper coordination amongst the Directorate of Education on the one hand and the lack of response from other departments concerned with educational institutions are, however, a matter of great concern, these being the major causes for delay in the collection of statistics.  The Committee also recommended that in case there is more than one Directorate of Education, the work of data collection may be located in the Secretariat, but no evidence is available which shows that the recommendation of the Committee is given a serious thought, as no structural changes are visible in the system.

Inadequate Machinery

The data collection system is almost identical in different States & UTs which is decentralised at the level of either district or block.  In some states, the system is decentralised but the data collection system is centralised.  Data collection work is also handled by different departments in different states which is mainly due to its level of planning.  It is in the states of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Arunachal Pradesh that educational planning is done at the district level but separate staff has not been provided for this purpose.  It is only in Jammu & Kashmir that separate staff under the Planning, Statistics and Survey Unit has been provided for data collection at the block level who also looks after monitoring of different schemes.    Whereas, separate system of educational statistics exists in states like, Bihar, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.  The High Level Committee (1982) also noted that the existing machinery at the state level is very weak and recommended that top priority for strengthening of staff be given by the concerned authorities particularly in those states where the existing machinery is comparatively weak but no significant improvement is noticed till date even fifteen years after the recommendation is made.   To improve the existing data flow, the Ninth All India Conference on Educational Statistics (1987) reiterated strengthening of statistical machinery at all levels from State Headquarters to down block level.

Untrained and Inadequate Staff

Though, information is not available on qualifications and training of staff involved in data collection work, it is general feeling that  they are not properly trained.  Whatever, training is imparted. it is only at the time of annual collection of statistics.   The frequent transfers of staff involved in data collection, further makes the task difficult.  The High Level Committee  (1982) also noted that the staff is not adequately qualified and trained and State Governments do not have a clear cut policy for recruitment and cadre development for staff entrusted with statistical work.  Since, the staff engaged in the work is not directly involved in the process of planning and management, they  generally do not become part of the system for which they work.  The High Level Committee  recommend that staff at the state level should be drawn from State Statistical cadre, if the cadre is not there, then person having post-graduate degree in Statistics, Mathematics or Economics and with experience in Educational Administration be only appointed.  In view of the recommendations of the Kothari Commission (1966), a committee on the reorganisation of the Statistical Unit was constituted which recommended that Division of Statistics and Information be staffed adequately, so that it can collect, compile and analyse statistics in time and brings out its publication without delay.  But, the present staffing position do not suggest that any significant improvement is made both at the Central and State & UT level and the position with regard to information collection and dissemination is far from the satisfactory.   Though, most of the State Education Departments have Statistical Cells under the charge of a Statistical Officer but still those who assist them is inadequate in number and are not trained in the work which  are they performing.

Printing & Distribution of Forms

In addition to formats supplied by the Department of Education, MHRD to State Directorates of Education for data collection, a number of other agencies both from within and outside Education Department collect statistics on regular and/or ad-hoc basis on educational variables.  The victim of this attitude is none other than the teacher, who has to fill-up a large number of forms, in an academic year (Kapoor, 1986).  The High Level Committee also recommend that the size, design and other particulars of the statements should be standardized by the state authorities for uniform use in all the areas. Time and again, need of a core group of variables required for educational planning is emphasised but hardly any progress is made, despite setting-up of a group of experts for identifying Core Information Framework for Educational Statistics  (Annual Report, MHRD: 1993-94).  The core group of variables should serve the purpose of all those concerned i.e. researchers, planners, policy makers and other data users and should be collected once in a year.   In order to avoid delay in printing and distribution of forms, the State Governments should decentralize the system and full autonomy be granted to Block and District level functionaries, so that smooth supply of forms is ensured.

Geographical Changes

Over a period of time, changes have been taken place in boundaries of some of the districts which create comparability problems.  Even, a large number of districts have been carved out in the recent past.  Also, it is difficult to construct a time-series required  for decentralised planning  with block/district as its basic unit. Even district-wise information is not available in one place and whatever is available is not uniform, both in terms of its coverage and time period.

Multiple Agencies

The existence of multiple agencies of educational statistics, and more importantly absence of coordination between them often produces different estimates even for same items, which creates serious comparability problems.  To cite an example, in year 1973-74, NCERT conducted its Third All India Educational Survey and Ministry of Education collected annual statistics.  Due to significant difference between enrolments of Uttar Pradesh in both the agencies, the corresponding MHRD publication couldn’t be released for many years.  Similarly, Mehta (1996b) has recently identified a number of significant deviations in the Sixth Survey and 1993-94 MHRD estimates.

Date of Reference

The date of reference of educational data varies from source to source.  In case of MHRD and NCERT, it is September 30 for numeric and March 30 for expenditure data.  Whereas date of references of Census, NSSO, NFHS, NCAER etc. do not coincide with either the MHRD or the NCERT data.  Due to difference in date of reference, and also due to its coverage, the different set of statistics in most of the cases is not comparable.  So far as the coverage is concerned, most of the MHRD publications disseminate information for all the States & UTs, as well as, at the all-India level but the same is not true in case of sample surveys referred above.   Though, Ministry collects and disseminates statistics at a regular interval but the same is not true in case of NCERT and other agencies.

Change in Definitions

The change in data concepts and definitions in different sources, sometime confuse not only to users but also to data reporting agencies (Kapoor, 1986).  However, to ensure accuracy of data collected and its proper compilation, a manual of instructions explaining various concepts and definitions for use of State and District level Officers has been developed by the Ministry.  The Department of Education organizes training courses for the statistical staff engaged at the State Headquarters to explain concepts and definitions given in the manual but the type of training imparted and duration of training is far from the satisfactory (MHRD, 1982).  Similarly, NCERT has also developed its own guidelines for Survey Officers (NCERT, 1993 & Mehta, 1996a).


As mentioned, one of the important limitations of the existing system is time-lag in educational data which at present is about five years.  It is, not only the problem of out-dated data but different publications are available for different years which makes it difficult to use the available statistics in any meaningful manner.  Even, different volumes of a publication are not available for the same year (Box 5).  Education in India which gives detailed state-wise information on institutions, teachers and enrolment is latest available for year 1991-92.  However, selected information (provisional) is latest available  for year 1994-95 but the same has certain limitations (Mehta, 1996b).  In Box 2, a complete list of MHRD publications along with the latest year for which a particular publication is  available is presented.

The Ninth All India Conference on Educational Statistics (1987) held at New Delhi also took note of the time-lag and identified the following factors which causes delay in collection and dissemination of educational data.

  •  Absence of statistical machinery at the block level and  inadequate staff at the District and State Headquarters
  • Multiplicity of Directorates
  • Delay in printing of institutional proformae in case of  some states
  • Data requirements of Central and State Governments were  not identical
  • Absence of monitoring mechanism to improve the data  flow at various levels
  • A high non-response from Universities and Colleges and other institutions falling under the administrative control of other departments and private schools and
  • Delay in publications of examination results by many   states universities.

In order to reduce time-lag in compilation and printing of educational statistics, in a Regional Workshop held to Operationalised the Programme of Action (1992), emphasis was laid for timely completion of educational data.   A especial drive was also launched in year 1993 to clear the tendency of the publication programme and about twenty publications were since brought out for the years 1987-88 to 1990-91, under the aforesaid drive but still the time-lag, as mentioned, is about five years.


Despite  gaps and limitations in the existing educational information system in the country, a huge amount of information is being generated both on regular and ad-hoc basis.  However, time and again, reliability of information so generated is questioned by data users and researchers.   The utilization of social data has also been questioned by the researchers.  Bose (1987)  mentioned that nothing would be lost, if data collection is stopped, as most of the information which is being generated in the country remains unutilized.  It has also been noticed that data disseminated  is not being utilised in formulation of educational plans, mainly because of the fact that the same is disseminated years after a particular plan is formulated.

At the macro level, barring a few variables, information required for planning is generally available but  the time-lag has marred the importance and utilization of statistics.  As has been presented, a large number of publications are not available for the current year and on an average, a time-lag of about five years has been noticed in the main publication i.e. Education in India.  However, one of the other publications of the MHRD, namely, Selected Educational  Statistics, is available for the latest year. Even  though, it disseminates  information on selected items on provisional basis but   provides information on some variables which are important from planning point of view.  The other main agency which collects information through its All India Educational Survey is the NCERT.  Though information generated is significant, but the time period between the two surveys is not uniform, so as the time-lag in information collected and information disseminated. For instance, the detailed information of the Sixth Survey conducted in 1993 has not yet been disseminated  which was planned to release in early 1996.  In view of this, the Ninth Five Year Plan may not be able to utilise the statistics which is otherwise collected for this purpose.  Hence, the plan document will be based on out-dated data, as has been a practice in the past,  as the latest set of statistics available from the MHRD publications is also partially available only for  the year 1990-91.   Similarly, 1991 Census age-distribution of population, literates according to educational level and children attending schools have not yet been released.

Compared to macro level, the information at the micro level is not adequate, uniform and  enough to undertake detailed exercise of plan formulation.  More specifically, micro level information is not available in a single document. Though, all the State & UTs are included in the NCERT survey, but despite collection of information at the block and district level, no information at a single place is disseminated for the disaggregated levels.  NIC facilities available at the District Headquarters should be used for dissemination of information. But  barring a few states, NIC facilities are not being utilised by the Education Department. However, NCERT has recently utilised  NIC facilities for its Sixth Survey.

Further, it has been observed that most of the information disseminated is in raw form except some indicators of enrolment.  Built-in procedures should be developed in the information system, so that indicators of educational development be generated as a part of annual collection which can be used directly in the exercises of plan formulation.  If the information system so developed is computerized, it may not be difficult to generate indicators, which can be of immense help in understanding the present status of educational development and efficiency of education system.  Similarly, the system should also able to produce future estimates on a variety of variables, such as, enrolment both in absolute and ratio form, age-specific population, out-of-school children and additional population needs to enroll to achieve UEE.   For this, built-in procedures should also be developed in the information system, so that time-series information can be generated which can be used for projection and forecasting of educational data.   Therefore, only an efficient EMIS can help to improve upon the existing limitations.   The sporadic attempts which have been made in the county in the recent past, may not bear fruits unless all the States & UTs develop their own MISs which should in turn be linked to MISs at the State and the National level.    Even, if a system which disseminate information at the State level at regular interval is developed, may not serve the purpose, as it fails to produce information relating to classroom interventions and factors relating to infrastructure facilities  available in schools and their utilisation. Hence, Local-level Information System needs to be developed which can produce on-line information and can also serve as a Decision Supports System, so that instant decisions at the local level can be taken.  Therefore, complete plan of action needs to be developed and computers can play a significant role in achieving the objective.

Some of the limitations presented above need immediate attention without which neither the time-lag can be reduced nor the quality of the information so generated can be improved to a significant affect.   The problem of time-lag  has been discussed  in many conferences and seminars and also it has got adequate attention in the literature but to no avail.  Therefore, unless strict remedial measures are taken, the situation may not improve significantly. The ad-hoc attitude in collection of educational statistics should  not be tolerated which can be checked, if persons  engaged in data collection work are involved in formulation of educational plans and also in its implementation.  After the due date, which may be decided in consultation with the State Education Departments, no data should be accepted and previous  years data be reported in the Official publications or the Planning Commission should not entertain State Plans which are based on outdated data.    The data collection work should be treated at par with those of the audit and accounts work under which all accounts are to be settled down as on or before March 30 each year.  Similarly, educational data should be strictly submitted and compulsory be audited on or before the due date.  Therefore, some mechanism of annual audit of educational data needs to be developed which will help in timely collection and would also ensure quality of data so collected.   One may also think of automatic termination of affiliation by CBSE, if a state is failed to supply the information by the requisite date.  Or financial grants to states under Centrally Sponsored Schemes of the Education Department should be stopped  immediately after the last date of submission of information is over.   At the State level, Education Secretary as well as Director of Education under whom jurisdiction the work of data collection  falls should be made accountable.  Likewise, accountability should also be fixed at each  and every level  at which collection of information is presently being delayed.  The District Education Officer and the Block Education Officer responsible for reliable and timely supply of data should be made accountable.  In case of five years of regular satisfactory supply of information, the concerned officer should be rewarded which may be in terms of advance increment(s) or weightage in promotion.  The Officer In charge should not be  frequently transferred, if unavoidable, may be given the responsibility of data collection at  his/her  new place of work.  At the grassroots level, it is general feeling that non-government institutions do not co-operate and supply information in time, which at present is one of the major causes of delay.  Provisions should be made in the law so that immediately after the due date, their recognition is automatically terminated.  The grants should be siege in case of government-aided schools for the same reasons.  The actor of the whole exercise is School Teacher/Head Teacher   who should also be made accountable provided that he/she is properly trained by the State Government and is getting benefits either in the form of honorarium or their promotion is linked to regular supply of data.  One of the  other areas where immediate attention  needs to pay is number of officials who are identified for  data collection work, which at present is not only grossly inadequate but unqualified and untrained staff is posted for the purpose.  Rationalization would definitely help in reducing time-lag and may also help in improving the quality of information.


Census of India, Paper-2 of 1991, Office of the Registrar General, Government of India, New Delhi, 1992.

IIPS (1995), National family Health Survey, MCH and Family Planning, India 1992-93,

Bombay, August.

Mehta, Arun C; (1996a), Introduction to All India Educational Surveys: School Education, EducationalAdministration and Technical Manpower Information System, NIEPA, New Delhi.

Mehta, Arun C. (1996b), Reliability of Educational Data in the Context of NCERT     

            Survey, Journal of Educational Planning  and Administration, NIEPA, New Delhi, July.

Ministry of Education and Culture (1982), Report of High Level Committee to  Review   

            the Educational Statistics System in India,  Government of India, New Delhi.

MHRD (1986 & 1992), NPE : Programme of Action, New Delhi, Government of India,

New Delhi.

MHRD, Annual Report : Different Years, Government of India, New  Delhi.

NCAER (1994), Non-enrolment, Drop-out and Private Expenditure, Delhi, September

(Reported in Margin, January-March, 1995).

NCERT (1993), Sixth All India Educational Survey (Guidelines for Survey Officers),

New Delhi..

NCERT (1993), Sixth All India Educational Survey (Guidelines for Survey Officers),

New Delhi

NIEPA (1992), Report of Use of Sample Survey Techniques in Educational Statistics, Educational Planning Unit (mimeograph), New Delhi.

NIEPA (1993 & 95),   National Sample Survey for Monitoring of UEE :1991-92, Report

(Phase II), NIEPA, New Delhi.

NSSO (1991), Participation in Education, 42nd Round (July 1986-June 1987),    Sarvekshana, Vol. XIV, No.3, January – March

Forty Years of Arun C Mehta at NIEPA: 1980 to 2019 (e-Book)

Forty years of Arun C Mehta at NIEPA: 1980 to 2019

Times of India, New Delhi, 21st September 2021

UDISE, Interview of Prof. Arun C Mehta in Times of India, New Delhi, 21st September 2021