Manual on Educational Indicators for School Education under Samagra Shiksha

Introduction

This manual provides a comprehensive guide for planning officers under Samagra Shiksha to understand, compute, and utilize educational indicators effectively. Samagra Shiksha, an integrated Centrally Sponsored Scheme by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, supports school education from pre-primary to Class 12. It emphasizes universal access with equity, improving quality, and systemic reforms, aligning with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

Universal School Education in India: Challenges and Prospects by 2030: Historical Efforts and Evolving Targets for Universal School Education in India

NEP 2020 aims for 100% Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in school education by 2030 and a 50% GER increase in higher education by 2035. Monitoring through indicators is crucial for achieving these targets, reducing disparities, and ensuring inclusive education.

Target Audience: This manual is prepared primarily for planning officers engaged in Samagra Shiksha at national, state, district, block, and cluster levels. It is also useful for educators, policymakers, and researchers involved in school education planning.

Objectives

• To equip users with knowledge of key educational indicators, their computation, interpretation, and application in planning.
• To promote gender-specific and disaggregated analysis (by national/state/district/block/cluster) for targeted interventions.
• To align with Samagra Shiksha objectives, NEP 2020 goals, and data sources like UDISE+ for evidence-based decision-making; and 
• To highlight the role of indicators in monitoring progress toward universal school education and addressing equity gaps.

Indicators measure progress in access, participation, retention, quality, equity, infrastructure, teachers, and efficiency. Data from sources like UDISE+, NAS, and SDMIS enable computation. Gender-specific indicators (e.g., separate for boys/girls) and disaggregation help identify gaps – e.g., low girls’ enrolment in rural districts – for targeted interventions like scholarships or infrastructure in aspirational districts.

This manual draws from Samagra Shiksha guidelines (framework and PAB minutes), UNESCO technical guidelines, Performance Grading Index (PGI), National Achievement Survey (NAS), and resources like “Concepts and Terms in Educational Planning and Administration” by Y.P. Aggarwal and R.S. Thakur (2003). For each indicator: Name, Purpose/Objective, Definition, Data Requirements, Source of Data, Computation Method (with examples), Interpretation and Analysis, Implications in Planning is presented.

Sections include Access, Participation, Retention, Quality, Equity, Infrastructure and Facilities, Teachers, and Efficiency (including financial utilization) indicators.

Educational Indicators: Definitions, Types, Characteristics, Limitations, Monitoring, and Evaluation

Educational indicators are essential tools for assessing the performance, efficiency, and effectiveness of school education systems in India. Drawing from “Concepts and Terms in Educational Planning and Administration” by Y.P. Aggarwal and R.S. Thakur (2003), and resources on educationforallinindia.com by Prof. Arun C. Mehta, this section provides foundational knowledge.

Definitions

Educational indicators are statistical measures, such as indices, ratios, or growth rates, calculated using educational, demographic, economic, and other data to assess the state of an education system (IIEP, Paris). According to Nuttall, an education indicator informs about the performance or behaviour of an education system and aids decision-making. They provide processed information for studying educational phenomena, as per the World Education Report (1991). In the Indian context, indicators like GER and dropout rates help track progress under Samagra Shiksha and NEP 2020’s universal enrolment goals.

Types of Indicators

Indicators are classified based on their focus in the educational process:

• Input Indicators: Measure resources invested, e.g., number of teachers, classrooms, budget allocation (e.g., teacher training funds under Samagra Shiksha).
• Process Indicators: Assess implementation and delivery, e.g., pupil-teacher ratio (PTR), teaching methods.
• Output Indicators: Reflect immediate results, e.g., enrolment rates (gross/net), completion rates, transition rates.
• Outcome Indicators: Evaluate long-term impacts, e.g., literacy rates, employability, survival rates (percentage of cohort reaching a grade).

Other examples  include:

• Gross Enrolment: Total enrolment regardless of age.
• Net Enrolment: Enrolment of official age group.
• Survival Rate: Cohort reaching a specific grade.
• Dropout and Repetition Rates: Measures of wastage.
• Coefficient of Efficiency: Internal efficiency (ideal pupil-years vs. actual).
• School Life Expectancy: Expected years of schooling.
• Educational Wastage: Combined dropout and repetition.

These types support school education planning, e.g., output indicators like GER monitor NEP 2020’s 100% target.

Characteristics of a Good Indicator

A good indicator should be:

• Policy-Relevant: Addresses key issues like equity under Samagra Shiksha.
• User-Friendly: Comprehensive, timely, and limited in number for practical use.
• Derived from a Framework: Interpretable in context with other variables.
• Technically Sound: Valid, reliable, comparable across levels (national to cluster).
• Feasible: Measurable at reasonable cost using available data (e.g., UDISE+).
• Sensitive: Detects changes in the system, e.g., gender disparities.

These ensure indicators aid effective planning, as emphasized in UNESCO guidelines and Prof. Mehta’s work on UDISE+.

Limitations of Indicators

While useful, indicators have constraints:

• Qualitative Gaps: Fail to capture aspects like teaching quality or student motivation (e.g., NAS scores may overlook socio-emotional learning).
• External Influences: Affected by factors like poverty or migration, leading to misinterpretation.
• Oversimplification: Reduce complex issues to numbers, ignoring nuances (e.g., high GER may mask over-age enrolment).
• Data Dependency: Rely on accurate, timely data; inconsistencies in UDISE+ can skew results.
• Comparability Issues: Variations in definitions across states/districts.
• Cost and Feasibility: Resource-intensive in remote clusters.

These limitations highlight the need for complementary qualitative analysis in Samagra Shiksha planning.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring: A continuous management function during program implementation, tracking progress against benchmarks (e.g., regular UDISE+ data checks for enrolment targets). It identifies issues for corrective actions, ensuring operational efficiency.

Evaluation: A periodic accountability tool assessing program effectiveness, efficiency, and impact (e.g., PGI or NAS for outcomes). It can be formative (mid-course feedback) or summative (post-implementation review).

Differences

• Focus: Monitoring on processes and implementation; evaluation on outcomes and impacts.
• Timing: Monitoring is ongoing/frequent; evaluation is interval-based/strategic.
• Purpose: Monitoring for operational adjustments; evaluation for policy insights and accountability.
• Approach: Monitoring uses routine data (e.g., attendance rates); evaluation involves in-depth analysis (e.g., cohort studies).

In school education, monitoring supports daily Samagra Shiksha operations (e.g., fund utilization), while evaluation informs NEP 2020 revisions (e.g., assessing GER progress). Prof. Mehta’s analyses on educationforallinindia.com emphasize EMIS like UDISE+ for both.

Articles on Indicators from educationforallinindia.com

Prof. Arun C. Mehta’s website lists relevant articles on indicators, concepts, and computation:

• Analysis of UDISEPlus 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24: Trends in enrolment ratios, GER, dropout rates for national goals.
• Computing Un-computed Indicators NEP2020: Methods for NEP-related indicators like un-computed ratios.
• Decoding UDISE+ 2021-22 Enrolment Ratios under Samagra Shiksha: Computation and analysis of enrolment indicators.
• School Education in India: Where Do We Stand? Analysis based on UDISEPlus 2023-24 (PDF): Overall status using key indicators.

These align with Aggarwal and Thakur’s concepts, focusing on UDISE+ for planning.

Additional Relevant Indicators for School Education Planning

From Aggarwal and Thakur, and Prof. Mehta’s resources, other indicators include:

• Survival Rate: Percentage of cohort reaching a grade (e.g., Grade 5); tracks retention.
• Coefficient of Efficiency: Ideal vs. actual pupil-years; measures internal efficiency.
• School Life Expectancy: Expected schooling years; informs long-term planning.
• Educational Wastage Rate: Combined dropout/repetition; identifies inefficiencies.

These complement Samagra Shiksha indicators for holistic planning.

Section 1: Indicators of Access

Access indicators track enrolment and school availability, supporting NEP 2020’s 100% GER goal.

Section 2: Indicators of Participation

Participation indicators assess active involvement.

Section 3: Indicators of Retention

Retention indicators monitor completion and dropouts.

Section 4: Indicators of Quality

Quality indicators evaluate learning and environment, incorporating NAS.

Section 5: Indicators of Equity

Equity indicators address disparities, per Samagra Shiksha objectives.

Section 6: Indicators of Infrastructure and Facilities

From PGI/Samagra Shiksha.

Section 7: Indicators Related to Teachers

Teacher indicators ensure quality staffing.

Section 8: Indicators of Efficiency

Efficiency indicators include financial and systemic.

Analysis of Available Indicators: UDISE+ 2020-21 to 2023-24

Based on “UDISE National Data 2020-21, 2022-23, and 2023-24” by Prof. Arun C. Mehta.

Major Findings

• Enrolment Decline: Total enrolment (Pre-Primary to Higher Secondary) dropped from 264.4 million (2020-21) to 248.0 million (2023-24). Primary enrolment fell from 122.0 million to 107.8 million.
• Access Indicators: GER declined: primary (103.3% to 93.0%), upper primary (92.2% to 89.7%), secondary (79.8% to 77.4%), higher secondary (53.8% to 56.2%). NER and ANER also fell, e.g., primary NER from 92.7% to 79.0%, ANER from 98.6% to 85.9%. ASER for primary (6-10 years) dropped from 98.6% to 85.3%.
• Retention/Dropout Trends: Dropout rates increased: primary (0.8% to 1.9%), upper primary (1.9% to 5.2%), secondary (14.6% to 14.1%). Transition rates decreased, e.g., upper primary to secondary (91.3% to 83.3%). Retention rates fell: primary (95.4% to 85.4%), elementary (81.2% to 78.0%).
• Positive Developments: Total teachers increased from 9.7 million to 9.8 million. PTR improved: primary (26:1 to 21:1), upper primary (19:1 to 18:1), secondary (18:1 to 16:1), higher secondary (27:1 to 24:1). Infrastructure coverage is high: electricity (91.8%), drinking water (98.3%), toilets (98.6%), girls’ toilets (97.2%). Computer access rose from 47.7% to 57.2%, internet from 49.7% to 53.9%. Vocational schools under NSQF grew from 12,292 to 18,610. Residential schools increased from 34,946 to 43,389.
• Equity Aspects: Enrolment for SC (47.8 million to 42.8 million), ST (24.9 million to 23.4 million), OBC (113.5 million to 106.5 million), and minorities (45.5 million to 46.4 million) declined. GER for SC/ST improved slightly, e.g., ST higher secondary from 45.2% to 48.7%. CWSN enrolment stable at ~2.1 million, but CWSN-friendly toilets low at 34.4%.
• School Infrastructure and Types: Total schools decreased from 1.51 million to 1.47 million. Government schools dominate (~1.01 million), followed by private unaided (331,108) and aided (80,313).

Prof. Mehta notes that despite declines, indicators like GER for marginalized groups show resilience, but trends indicate stagnation or regression post-2021-22.

Major Issues

• Enrolment Decline and Access Gaps: Sharp drops in primary and elementary levels suggest increased out-of-school children, possibly due to post-COVID effects, migration, or under-reporting. Low GER (<100%) highlights barriers in rural and marginalized areas, challenging NEP’s 100% GER goal.
• High Dropout and Low Retention: Elevated secondary dropout (14.1%) and declining transition rates (e.g., 83.3% upper primary to secondary) indicate systemic bottlenecks like economic pressures, lack of vocational options, and quality issues.
• Equity Disparities: Declining enrolment for SC/ST/minorities and low CWSN-friendly facilities (34.4%) exacerbate inequalities, contradicting NEP’s inclusion focus.
• Infrastructure Gaps: While basic facilities are near-universal, digital infrastructure (computers 57.2%, internet 53.9%) and CWSN-specific facilities (ramps 52.3%) remain inadequate, limiting NEP’s tech-integrated learning goals.
• Data Comparability Challenges: Shift to SDMIS in 2022-23 raised incompatibility concerns, with varying cut-off dates (September 2020-21/2021-22; March 2022-23/2023-24). Prof. Mehta argues indicators remain comparable as they reflect point-in-time realities.

Strategies to Bridge Gaps

• Enhance Access and Retention: Implement targeted OOSC mainstreaming, scholarships, and transport in low-GER districts/blocks. Strengthen vocational education under NSQF to reduce secondary dropouts.
• Equity Interventions: Prioritize girls, SC/ST, and CWSN through hostels, incentives, and inclusive infrastructure in aspirational districts, aligning with Samagra Shiksha’s equity component.
• Quality and Infrastructure Upgrades: Accelerate digital connectivity and teacher training in high-PTR clusters. Use NAS data for remedial programs in underperforming areas.
• Data and Monitoring Improvements: Standardize EMIS methodologies for consistency; conduct regular audits and cohort tracking to address limitations.
• Policy Alignment: Scale up mid-day meals, community mobilization, and public-private partnerships to reverse enrolment declines.

Prof. Mehta suggests integrating UDISE+ with SDMIS for robust tracking and using disaggregated data for localized planning.

Data Limitations

• Methodological Changes: SDMIS in 2022-23 altered data collection (student-based vs. school-based), affecting comparisons with pre-2022 data. Cut-off date variations introduce inconsistencies.
• Inconsistencies and Under-Reporting: Possible inaccuracies in self-reported data, especially for private schools and minorities. Efficiency indicators (e.g., dropout) rely on prior-year data, introducing biases.
• Scope Gaps: Limited coverage of qualitative aspects (e.g., learning outcomes beyond NAS) and external factors (e.g., socio-economic influences). Prof. Mehta cautions users to account for methodology shifts.
• Timeliness and Granularity: Delayed releases and aggregated national data limit real-time, cluster-level analysis.

Towards NEP 2020 Goals

NEP 2020 envisions 100% GER by 2030, but declining trends (e.g., primary GER at 93%) make this “far-reaching,” per Prof. Mehta. Progress in PTR and infrastructure supports quality goals, but high dropouts hinder universal retention. Equity for marginalized groups shows marginal gains, yet gaps persist. To achieve targets, accelerated strategies like foundational learning focus, digital equity, and localized planning are essential. The document warns that without addressing data limitations and enrolment declines, universal school education by 2030 remains challenging, urging evidence-based reforms under Samagra Shiksha.

Concluding Observations

This comprehensive manual covers indicators from Samagra Shiksha (framework, PAB, PGI), UNESCO guidelines (e.g., ASER, repetition), NAS, and Aggarwal & Thakur’s document for holistic monitoring. Use UDISE+/NAS dashboards for data; compute gender-specific/disaggregated versions annually. Compare with national benchmarks (e.g., PGI) to adjust plans, ensuring alignment with NEP 2020 and Samagra objectives like equity in aspirational districts. Refer to MoE guidelines and educationforallinindia.com for updates.