(A) All India Educational
Survey (NCERT)
The responsibility
of collecting information on variables relating to schools was entrusted to the
then Ministry of Education and Culture but later the task was taken over by the National Council of Educational Research and
Training (NCERT) in year 1965 when it conducted Second All-India Educational Survey (Box 1). Thereafter, all the remaining educational
surveys were conducted by the NCERT in collaboration with the State Governments. Over a period of time, a lot of changes
have been taken place both in terms of its coverage and methodology adopted in
collection and dissemination of educational statistics but they all have an
important common objective of providing the basic data needed for planning
additional facilities to attain the status of `Education for All' in the
country. Exceptionally in the Third survey, all sectors of education, namely,
school, higher and technical education were covered but in all other surveys information
related to only school education were collected and disseminated. The First All India Educational Survey was
conducted by the Ministry in the year
1957 in collaboration with the
NCERT. The main objective of this survey was to identify rural habitations
without schooling facilities.
Though, decennial population
according to habitation, village, district
and state was available through regular Census operations but the same
was not available for the year in which a particular survey was conducted. Therefore, the survey collected its own data
from the habitations itself but adequate attention was paid so that the same do
not deviate significantly from the figures provided by the Census actuaries. These surveys gave enough indication about the
availability of schooling facilities habitation-wise and also percentage of
rural population served by the schooling facilities in their vicinity so that
opening and upgradation of schools can be properly planned in the year which
follows survey. But over a period of
time, the survey couldn't cope-up with the plan year and the time-lag increased
with each successive survey.
However, there is no doubt that these surveys have thrown a lot of
valuable data which is of immense use to both Educational Planners and Policy
Makers. Srivastava (1988) discussed the
objectives of each educational survey conducted up to year 1987 which are
briefly summarised below.
The main objective
of the First survey conducted by the Ministry was to identify and enumerate all
distinct habitations in the country, as well as, education institutions up to
school level and also the habitations served by them. The date of reference of the survey was March 31, 1957 so as to
use survey data for planning school education.
So far as the utilisation of data is concerned, it was mainly used to
know the habitations unserved by the primary schooling facilities within a
reasonably walking distance and also to prepare locational plans to identify
where new schools are to be opened.
With a gap of about eight years,
the Second survey was conducted in 1965 with December 31 as its date of reference but its scope was wider than
the First survey. The main objective,
apart from studying the condition of schools in terms of their staff, student
and physical facilities, was to revise and update the data collected in the
First survey with an aim to prepare `District Development Plans' to locate new
schools. The scope of the Third survey
was much more wider and comprehensive than the first two surveys in the sense
that other components, such as, higher education, educational administration
and technical education were also included in the survey. The date of reference of the Third survey
was December 31, 1978. The
responsibility of collecting information on higher education was entrusted to
University Grants Commission (UGC) whereas
National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration
(NIEPA) was given the responsibility of
educational administration
and
Box 1
All-India Educational
Surveys: Date of Reference
Survey Agency Date of
Reference
First Survey Ministry
March 31, 1957
Second
Survey NCERT December 31, 1965
Third
Survey NCERT December 31, 1973
Forth
Survey NCERT September 30, 1978
Fifth
Survey NCERT September 30, 1986
Sixth
Survey NCERT September 30, 1993
|
Institute of Applied Manpower Research (IAMR) of technical
education. Again, updating and revision
of statistics collected in the Second survey was one of the main objective but
a number of new proformae were evolved and implemented to gather information on
variables of vital importance. Such
variables were hostel, building, playground, library, laboratory, incentive
schemes (free uniforms, mid-day meal and text-books), teachers and
finance. In the next survey, not only
the date of reference was changed to September 30 but gap between the two
surveys was also reduced to five years from the existing eight years, data
through this survey was made available for year 1978-79. No significant change, in terms of its
coverage, was noticed and again the main objective was to revise the statistics
collected during the previous survey.
The period between the two surveys was again changed to eight years when
Fifth survey was conducted in the year 1986 with September 30 as its date of
reference. The main objective of this
survey was to assess the facilities available in the primary schools and also to
collect detailed information on teachers so as the information generated can be
viewed in the light of National Policy of Education (1986). The latest Sixth survey was conducted in
1993 to collect information as on September 30 which shows a gap of about seven
years as compared to earlier five/eight years.
The main objectives of the survey were as follows ( NCERT, 1993):
·
to assess the present position of
educational facilities at various school stages in respect of (i) coverage of
the school-going population (ii) the distance to be covered by a child to reach
school and (iii) enrolment in general and of SC and ST children and girls in
particular with special reference to UEE;
·
to assess the position of
educational inputs, like, blackboard and chalk, library, laboratory, textbook
bank etc;
·
to assess the availability of
physical facilities, like school building, playground, furnitures, etc;
·
to assess the availability of
basic amenities, like medical check-up, drinking water, urinals
etc;
·
to identity incentive schemes and
the number of beneficiaries;
·
to know about the academic and
professional qualifications of working teachers with special reference to
teaching of science and mathematics, and to determine attrition rate in the
teaching profession;
·
to assess the availability of
other educational facilities like, non-formal education, education for disabled
children and pre-primary education;
·
to create databases on the
variables of Sixth survey that can be shared by different agencies and
·
to develop MIS to be maintained
and updated on an annual basis at various levels of administration.
The methodology adopted in the Sixth survey in terms of its
organisation, coverage, flow of information, training, limitations and dissemination is presented below in detail.
(i) Coverage and
Organisation
All the previous
surveys except the present one were based on the complete enumeration of all
the educational institutions and as its name suggests
All-India Educational Survey, no information was collected on
sample basis. However, for the first time in the history of All-India
Educational Surveys, both the methodologies, namely, complete enumeration and
sample survey have been employed in the latest Sixth survey for which eight
structured questionnaires were developed as a survey tools (Box 2). It was
planned to collect information on sample basis from schools to know medium of
instructions and languages taught, grade-wise repetition rates and monitoring
improvement programmes. Keeping in view
the time-lag in earlier surveys, it was decided to use computers for
information processing so that the time-lag be reduced for which the services
of National Informatics Centre (NIC)
were utilised. Earlier, during the
Third survey unsuccessful attempts were made to partially tabulate and
computerise the survey data but due to a number of problems, it was decided not
to use computers in successive surveys.
Hence, for the first time, it
was a joint venture of MHRD, NCERT and NIC at the Central level and Education
Department at the State level.
So far as the
coverage of the survey is concerned all the States and Union Territories were
covered and all the proformae mentioned above were canvassed. The main activities of the survey were
concentrated at the District, State and National level. The survey was conducted under the over-all
guidance of two committees, namely, Steering and Advisory Committees
constituted for the purpose. The role
of these committees was to monitor the progress and to provide administrative and academic support. The Steering Committee was chaired by the
Union Education Secretary while the Director (NCERT) was the Chairman of the
the Advisory Committee. Those who were involved in data collection, data users,
educationists and sample survey experts
were the members of both these committees. To conduct survey,
District Survey Units (DSU) were
established in all the revenue districts of the country except those in the
Union Territories. But at the block
level, no separate structure was created and work was handled by the Block
Education Officers. At the State and
Union Territory, a State Survey Unit
was established with State Survey Officer as its incharge. At the National level, though NCERT was the
responsible for the coordination and management of the survey but Department of
Education, MHRD and NIC were also actively involved in the conduct of the
survey. All the work relating to
computerisation, such as, development of software, data entry, generation of
graphs, charts, diagrams and tables was
entrusted to NIC. NIC was also involved
in the training programmes conducted
for survey functionaries at different levels.
In the Sixth survey,
about ten thousand Survey Officers were involved in the management and
execution of collection and computerisation of data. So far as the organisational aspects of the survey is concerned,
the functionaries at the block level had a crucial role to play but keeping in
view the expertise available at the block level and involvement of block
functionaries in a number of other tasks do not suggest that they are competent enough to handle the enormous
task efficiently. However, the tasks
assigned to them included other than to receive blank forms from District
Survey Officer (DSO) and distribute them to head of the institutions and Patwari, scrutiny of all the filled-in
proforma and reconciliation of discrepancies pointed out by the Data Entry
Agency. Among others, the main
responsibility of District Survey Unit was scrutiny of five per cent of filled-in
proforma. Similarly, apart from coordination
and management, State Survey Unit was entrusted to scrutiny one per cent of
filled-in proformae and reconciliation of inconsistencies, if
during computer validation stage some thing
abnormal is noticed
Box 2
Survey Tools: Sixth All-India Educational Survey
Form
Respondent
Village Information Form All Villages
Urban Information
Form All Urban Areas
School
Information Form-1 All Recognised
Schools
School
Information Form-2 Sampled
Schools (SS)
Teacher
Information Form All Teachers
of SS
Educational Finance From
All Districts
Educational Statistics- A Flash
All CD Blocks/Urban Areas
College
Information Form All Degree
Colleges with
Classes XI and XII
(ii) The Respondents
The respondent of different
forms vary from form to form which mainly depends upon the objectives of a
particular form for which it is developed.
For example, Village Form was canvassed to each and every village which
is listed in 1991 Census or even the new villages came into being after 1991
Census have also been included in the survey.
Generally, the Village Form was responded by the School Teacher/Head
Teacher who were helped by the Village
Patwari and knowledgeable person of the village. School Form-1 was canvassed to all recognised schools and
independent Junior/Intermediate Colleges.
But School Form-2 was canvassed to only sample recognised schools and
independent colleges to obtain information on special variables mentioned
above and was responded by the Principal/Headmaster
of the school or independent college.
Like School Form-2, Teacher Information Form was filled up by all the
teachers of the sample schools.
Whereas, Educational Finance Form was canvassed at the district level
and the respondent was the District Survey Officer. Based on the Village, School and College forms, the aggregated
data was supplied by the Block Education Officer in a form, entitled
Educational Statistics - A Flash on
priority basis to next higher survey authority.
(iii) Training
For successful
implementation of any survey, training of those involved in conduct of survey
plays an important role. In the Sixth
survey, due attention was paid to training and it was imparted to functionaries
at different levels of operation. For
example, a three days training was proposed at the state level to District
Survey Officers (DSO), Assistant Survey Officers (ASO) and Statistical
Assistants. The trained DSO will in
turn imparted a two days training to Block Education Officers and Principal of
Central Schools, Sainik Schools and Navodaya Vidhayalaya for which they
received help from the NCERT and NIC.
So far as the contents of the training at the State level is concerned
topics like, duties and role of DSO/ASO in conduct of survey, discussion on
survey tools, coding procedure, manual scrutiny of the filled-in forms,
maintenance of records and registers, despatch of filled-in forms to Data Entry
Agency and data validation on computer were envisaged to discuss which seems to
be very ambitious in a programme of three days. The same themes with
particular reference to information at the block level except that of data
validation on computers were envisaged
to cover in two days training at the district level. Since, the detailed report of the survey operations is not yet
available, it is not known how much training was actually imparted at different
levels.
(iv) Flow of Information
Before the conduct
of Sixth survey, the method of collection and consolidation of educational
statistics was same as that of the
regular collection of statistics by the Department of Education, MHRD. It was a usual practice to tabulate
information manually at the block level which in turn was aggregated at the
district, state and national level. The
manual system was time consuming and chances of errors in terms of information
loss was also high. Therefore as
mentioned above, the NIC computer facilities available at different levels were
utilised for data processing, tabulation and dissemination of information. In the modified method of information
collection, it was envisaged that information from the district would directly
flow to national level through NIC computers.
One of the unique distinction between survey and the official
methodology of collecting information is the basic unit on which information is
collected. In the MHRDs collection, the
basic unit is generally the institution but in the survey, it is habitation
according to which information is collected.
Apart from the habitations, some information in the survey is also
collected according to school as its basic unit.
(v) Provisional
Statistics
In the latest
survey, the following information has already been disseminated in a document
titled Sixth All-India Educational Survey
-Provisional Statistics released
recently by the Minister of Human Resource Development. Initially, the Provisional Statistics was
planned to released in May 1994 but the same could be released
only in November 1995. If the past
trend is any indication, it is unlikely that the entire survey statistics would
be available in the near future. The
information generated in the provisional volume is presented for all the
States/Union Territories and a country as a whole and for the first time, it is
also made available on NIC terminals and on computer floppies. As mentioned, information on the following
variables have been made available which, as mentioned, is generated through a proforma,
Educational Statistics - A Flash. Progress has also been presented since the
previous Fifth survey is conducted in 1987. Thus, state-wise information on the
following variables is available through this publication though reliability of
statistics disseminated is questioned by many data users (Mehta, 1996).
* Educational facilities in rural habitations
* Schools in rural and urban areas
* Class-wise enrolment
* Enrolment in rural and urban areas
* Gross enrolment ratio
* Percentage of girls enrolment in rural and
urban areas
* Teachers in rural and urban areas and
* Female teachers in rural and urban areas.
|
(vi) Dissemination Plan
Apart from the
provisional statistics, a number of other publications based on Sixth survey
has also been planned to release both at the State and All India level. It is expected that all the states would
publish their own State Survey Report
which would also include district-wise
information. The second phase of the
publication would be undertaken after completion of data entry and validation
in case of all the States & Union Territories. The main report of the survey which was planned to release in early 1996 (not released till December,
1996) would contain detailed information aggregated from the Village and School
schedules (Box 3). Analysis on some
aspects relating to teachers and women education is also expected to be
released separately. Thus a time-series
at four points of time commencing from Third survey to present Sixth survey is
expected to be available to data users for detailed analysis. However, it may be noted that information
relating to earlier surveys at the district level is not readily available to
users as the same was not properly disseminated (Mehta, 1993) and available at
a single place.
(vii) Limitations
Despite few gaps,
the information generated through different All India Educational Surveys is of
significant nature in the sense that the same is not available from any other agency. Also, it provides an
important clue to know intricacies of Education
for All in the country in terms of
its coverage and infrastructural facilities available in schools. Some of these limitations are highlighted
below.
(a) It is of general
practice that survey collects data from institutions, aggregate them at the
block and district levels but disseminate information only at the State and
National level which means a lot of information is lost in the process of
aggregation. The information at the
district is left to the states for its dissemination. But the past experience shows that the same is not uniformly
disseminated and also the date of dissemination vary from state to state. Thus,
there is need to properly develop district level dissemination plan so that the
same is made available in a single
document may be on selected items and should also be available on NIC terminals
installed at the district headquarters. While disseminating information, user
should not be forgotten as was the practice for the last many years. The information generation is for users and
of the users. The Dessmination plan
should be in accordance to data needs of educational planners, policy makers,
researchers and other data users and for that purpose a periodical urvey should be conducted to collect their needs.
The, sound
BOX 3
Items Covered in Sixth All-India
Educational Survey
*
Enumeration of every distinct
habitation
*
Enumeration of every recognised
primary,upper primary secondary and higher secondary school
*
Habitations with and without
schooling facilities primary, upper primary and secondary stage
*
Schooling facilities at various
school stages habitations predominantly populated by SC/ST population
*
Unrecognised schools in rural
areas
*
Availability of physical
facilities in schools
*
Minority community schools
*
Languages and medium of
instructions
*
Gradeiwse enrolment and repeaters
(Total, SC, ST)
*
Teachers (stagewise) working in
schools, their academicand professional qualification with
*
special reference toscience and
mathematics teachers
*
Attrition of teachers
*
Academic inputs like,
laboratories, library etc. available in the schools relevant to various
stages
*
Integrated educational programmes
for disabled children
*
Availability of resendential
accommodation for teachers
*
Pre-primary schools
*
Non-formal education centres
*
Health/Physical facilities in
schools and
*
Educational finance. |
Source: NCERT
(1993), New Delhi.
dissemination plan would
ensure that a user get both hard and soft copies of information so that he/she can manipulate data according to
his/her own requirements.
(b) It has also been
observed that training imparted to those involved in the survey work is
inadequate and generally it takes place only at the time of survey and also no
training is ensured on regular basis.
Since the gap between the two surveys is very long, it may not be
possible to involve the same Survey
Officers again in the next survey which otherwise can immensely help in
conducting the survey. It has been observed
that the State Survey Officers in a
majority of states also manage
Educational Management Information System
(EMIS) which may adversely affect the quality of information so
generated. Even though, the deviation
noticed between the survey and official enrolment statistics at the elementary
level is of the tune of about 16.3 million (Mehta, 1996). In fact, the
responsibility of survey work at the state level should be entrusted to some
other agency other than the State Officers who manage EMIS.
(c) May be due to corresponding plan periods, the time period
between the two surveys is not uniform but that has certainly affected the
quality of the time-series produced.
One of the other limitations of the survey statistics is that the same
is not disseminated in time and on an average a time-lag of about five to six
years has been noticed between its date of reference and date of release which
makes the statistics less utilised. The corresponding Five Year Plan for which
the survey was initially planned even couldn't use the statistics which is
otherwise collected for it.
(d) During the two surveys, a lot of progress takes place in a
country like ours but the next set of the
statistics would be generated only after a gap of about seven to eight
years which means use of out-dated statistics for next many years. Thus, the time period between the two
surveys needs to be reduced to at least
five years as planned and should strictly in confirmation with the
corresponding five year plans and should be ready well in advance before the
pre-plan activities are initiated.
(e) So far as the availability of educational facilities are
concerned a good amount of information is now available over a period of
time but hardly any data is available
on their utilisation which should be incorporated in any future survey of this
nature, as its significance cannot be overlooked any further especially when
the focus at present is on quality of education and learners achievement and
indicators of classroom interventions and school effectiveness.
(f) A number of indicators can be computed, if grade-wise
enrolment is available for at least two consecutive years. The computation of these indicators is based
on the Student Cohort Analysis
and are useful to know the internal efficiency of the education
system. Input/output and wastage ratio,
cohort survival and drop-out rates and amount of wastage on account of drop-out
and repetition are some of the efficiency related indicators which should be
computed separately for boys/girls, rural/urban, SC/ST and general population
and can be used in planning exercises at different levels. In the absence of two years data from survey
sources, the indicators mentioned above cannot be computed which are otherwise
very important to know the efficiency level of an educational system. Similarly, in the absence of grade-wise
enrolment for two consecutive years, it is not possible to know future course
of enrolment which is otherwise must for reliable planning at any level. Since, the official data on grade-wise
enrolment is available at a time-lag of about five to six years, the same along
with survey data cannot be used in
enrolment projection exercises.
Better, it would be to collect and disseminate enrolment (grade-wise)
statistics at least for two consecutive years. Even, if the official grade-wise
enrolment is available for the adjacent year, the same cannot be utilised in
projection exercises, as a significant deviation has been noticed in both set
of the statistics (Mehta, 1996).
(g) So far as the retention (or drop-out) rate is concerned, the
user is relied upon the official source because of the non- availability of the
indicator from the All India Educational Surveys. Due to frequent changes in time period between the two surveys,
it is not possible to compute the indicator in any meaningful form. The indicator has its own significance and
the progress of any programme/project relating to UPE/UEE/EFA cannot be judged
efficiently, unless drop-out rate at different levels is available. In-built
procedures would have been developed to produce retention rate at the
elementary level as the last survey was conducted in the year 1986-87 and the
present one in 1993-94 which means those who have taken admission in Grade I in
year 1986-87 would have reached to Grade VIII after a period of eight years in
1993-94.
(B)All India Educational
Administration Survey: NIEPA
Ever since the
country got independence in 1947, a lot
progress is made in all spheres of education field but the system of
educational administration and supervision remained more or less unchanged. A
large number of committees and commissions including the Kothari Commission
(1966) recommended that educational administration in India should be
modernised and strengthened. In the
light of these recommendations, the Ministry of Education decided to conduct a
survey of educational administration in all the States and UTs and the responsibility to conduct survey was
entrusted to then National Staff College
for Educational Planners and Administrators which is now renamed as
NIEPA. The First Survey on Educational
Administration in India was conducted in year 1973-74 as a part of Third All
India Educational Survey conducted by the NCERT. The survey was first of its kind which yielded comprehensive information about the administrative
structure of Indian education with a focus on set-up and functioning of
governmental machinery at different levels.
The other objective of the survey was to analyse the data, generated
mainly through a set of questionnaires, with
the intention of bridging the gap between planning and
implementation. The survey covered
formal and non-formal, full-time and part-time and governmental and
non-governmental activities covering from pre-primary up to post-graduate and
research levels. The all-India volume
of the survey was also published but its
date of reference was September 1, 1975 (December 31, 1973 being the
corresponding date of reference of NCERT survey). A compact volume of
educational organograms was also brought out which covered educational
structures of all the States/UTs at different levels. The survey report of the last state could be published in the
late seventies which shows time-lag in
information collected and information disseminated.
For about twenty
years (1973 to 1991), no survey on educational administration was conducted
though a number of innovative
programmes, practices and policies including NPE (1986) and its revised Policy
Formulations (1992) and Programme of
Action were initiated which improved the inspection and supervision procedure
of the educational programmes to a great extent. Between the intervening period, NCERT conducted its educational
surveys in years 1978 and 1986.
The Second All India Educational
Administration Survey could be conducted only in the year 1990-91 but reports
of only few states are made available.
However, the scope of survey was enlarged and the structures, systems,
processes, functions, challenges and innovative tasks which have been
carried-out in educational administration in general and school education in
particular have been thoroughly studied in the survey.
Objectives
More specifically, the
main objectives of the Second All India Educational Administration Survey were:
*
to understand the present status
of educational administration in terms of structures, systems and processes at various levels;
*
to study the experiments,
innovations and changes; and
*
to identify major issues and
future tasks of educational planning
and management.
In order to conduct survey, information was collected at
different levels, such as, Secretariat, Directorate and Inspectorate level. In addition, educational institutions under
different managements and departments including those of the Education Department were gathered and
analysed mainly at the school level.
However, technical, professional and higher education have not included
in the survey. On the basis of sample
survey, information was gathered at different levels and institutions mentioned
above for which three structured questionnaires, namely, state level, area
level and institutional level were developed and canvassed in the field. A framework was designed to select a sample
by the Multistage Purposive Sampling
Technique, covering at least 10 per cent of the total number of districts
adequately representing each State/UT of the country. However, considering the time and feasibility aspects, only one
out of every fifteen districts in each State/UT was selected on the basis of it being the most
representative and from each district thus selected two representative blocks,
that is, one rural and the other urban, were taken for the study (State Survey
Reports, NIEPA). Similarly, a
representative sample of schools of different types was selected from each of
the sampled district/block. In addition,
information from secondary sources was also utilised and discussions on related
issues and problems in meetings, workshops and seminars also helped to
understand educational administration at different levels. Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Arunachal
Pradesh, Chandigarh, Goa, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan,
Sikkim and Tripura are some of the
states of which the Second survey published reports are available. Reports of Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh
and Meghalaya are expected to be released soon.
Information and
Communication System was one of the eleven chapters presented in the First
srvey report. The other chapters were on: general background of a state,
educational legislation, educational organisation and administration,
institutional administration, personnel administration, educational planning,
administration of physical resources, supervision and inspection, financial
administration and problems and issues which were supported by a number of
appendices. More or less, the majority
of chapters are retained in the Second survey report but few chapters such as
on, educational policies and programmes,
role of local bodies, educational programmes for disadvantaged groups,
academic support system, institutional planning and management and prospects
for the future are added to previous version.
A variety of indicators of educational development and a select
bibliography is also added which is of a significant nature and provides useful
information to user at a single place.
In the present
article, administration of educational information system in three states, namely, Madhya Pradesh,
Punjab and Kerala is critically analysed for which survey reports mentioned
above have been extensively utilised.
(I) Madhya Pradesh
The department
concerned with the over-all planning in the state was responsible for
collection of information on all sectors of economy including those of the
Education Department and hence, there was no seperate machinery for data
collection work at the secretariat level.
But at the directorate level, elaborate set-up was created for data collection and dissemination which
was headed by a Deputy Director of Education who was assisted by one Assistant
Director, five Statistical Assistants and Statistical Clerks. In each of the ten divisions, the work of
data collection was being handled by one Assistant Statistician-cum-Planning
Officer which was assisted by one Statistical Clerk for the purpose of
collection and compilation of the data.
Provision of one Statistical Clerk was
also made in each of the then 45 districts which was considered
inadequate. The collection work was
mainly based on the forms received from the Ministry but the State Directorate
also added some items for its own use which is still collected under the All
India Educational Survey conducted by the NCERT. The periodicity of the collection was annual and it was collected
through Divisional Superintendents of Education and the DEOs. It was realised at that time that the
statistical machinery in the state, especially at the district and divisional
levels were not adequate and needs to be further strengthened as it was unable
to handle the large amount of data that has to be collected. Hence, it was
recommended that more responsible posts should be created both at the district and
divisional levels. The information
collected was disseminated by the Directorate of Education through its
publication, namely, Educational
Statistics which contained important statistics of educational institutions
in the state. The state did not have
any feedback system so that it can receive problems and experiences from the
field to the headquarters of the education department.
It seems from the
Second survey report that statistical machinery both at the divisional and
district level has been adequately strengthened in the intermediary period (Box
4). In place of Deputy Director, the
statistical work at the directorate level is now being looked after by a Joint
Director of Statistics who is assisted by one Deputy Director, one Assistant
Director, Seven Assistant Statistical Officers, two UDC and one LDC. Similarly a post of Planning Officer was
also created who is assisted by Assistant Statistical Officer and one each UDC
and LDC. At the divisional level, the
data is being collected through the Joint Director and through Deputy Director
at the district level. The directorate
of Public Instructions brings outs publication from time to time,
Educational Statistics remained the main
publication on education. In addition, the DPI also brought out publication
based on the Fifth All India Educational Survey in 1989 which contained
district level information for all the districts of the state. The main collection is based on the
following four type of forms; (a) schedule of returns (b) prescribed forms (c)
census records and (d) periodical return.
At the time of the
first survey in 1979, the tabulation and compilation work was carried out
either manually or with the help of calculators. But the state has now adopted computerised system of data
tabulation and analysis for which they adopted a software, namely, COPE
developed jointly by the MHRD and NIEPA to collect data on primary
education. The computers are installed
and being utilised in the directorate as well as in case of some districts. But still, the state is facing the problem
of time-lag in dissemination of educational statistics for one or the other
reason for which computers need to be installed in all the remaining districts
of the state. Under the DPEP programme, the state is separately developing
computerised EMIS in all the nineteen districts covered under the programme for
which grants are received from the Government of India through the donor
agencies.
(ii) Punjab
Compared to Madhya
Pradesh, information relating to statistical system presented in the First
Survey report of Punjab was not
elaborate. The Directorate of
Education was responsible for data collection work where a Statistical Branch,
headed by a Statistical Officer, was created for the purpose. The Statistical Officer was being assisted
by one General Assistant, three Statistical Assistants, four Computers, one
Draftsman and one Clerk. The forms
supplied by the Ministry of
BOX 4
Strength of Statistical
Machinery in Madhya Pradesh |
First Survey (1976) |
Second Survey (1991) |
Directorate
Level |
Deputy Director(1)
Joint Director(1)
|
Assistant Director(1)
Deputy Director(1) |
Statistical Assistant(5)
Assistant Director(1) |
Statistical Clerks(10)
Assistant Statistical
|
Officer(7)
|
UDC(2) |
LDC(1) |
Divisional
Level |
Assiatant-Statistics-cum Assitant Director(1) |
Planning Officer(1)
Assistant Statistical
|
Statistical Clerk(1)
Officer(1) |
UDC(1) |
LDC(1) |
District
Level |
Statistical Clerk(1)
Planning Officer(1) |
Assistant Statistical Officer(1) |
UDC(1) |
LDC(1) |
Block
Level |
Investigator |
Source NSCEPA (1976)
NIEPA (1994)
(Education were in use
for collecting information. The DPI
used to publish annual reports of the progress and activities of the
department. At the time of Second
survey in Punjab, the statistical machinery at the Directorate level was still
under the charge of a Statistical Officer.
In the Office of DEO, there was one Officer in charge of
statistics. At the block level, no
seperate staff had been provided but the BEO was given the responsibility of
data collection work. The present
machinery for collection and dissemination of information, as it seems is
inadequate which often delays dissemination of information. The schools did not have enough stationery
and storage facilities. Most of the
schools were understaffed and often, even without any non-teaching staff.
The Department
started use of computers in 1990 when it installed computers in Directorate of
Colleges and Secondary Education for compilation and supply of all type of
information. Due to lack of adequate
contingency funds/traveling allowances and shortage of ministerial staff, it
was not possible to transmit the compiled data on time to higher
authorities. A study conducted by
NIEPA (1984) on modernisation of educational administration in the state recommended
that the state should develop an Integrated
Educational Management Information System but till recently no such steps
have been initiated in this direction.
There is substantial gap found between the collection and publication of
data, as the data collection which was prompted in 1973-74 and was printed well
in time became somewhat slow in 1989-90
and its printing was also delayed.
(Iiv) Kerala
Like other states,
Kerala too did not have seperate machinery for data collection on education at
the Secretariat level. The work
relating to data collection, processing and dissemination was being looked after by the Statistical
Unit of the Directorate of Public Instructions. The unit was headed by the Statistical Officer who was
assisted by two Research Officers and some of the Assistants drawn from the
Statistics Department of the State Government.
The Deputy Director incharge of Planning and the Survey Officer of
the DPI were also concerned with the
collection and dissemination of
educational statistics. Proposal for
the establishment of Statistical Cell in each of the eleven administrative
districts was under consideration of the State Government. The formats provided by the Ministry of
Education and Welfare were being utilised for data collection and the DPI used to disseminate some of the
information it collected through its periodicals. In the intermediary periods between the two surveys, the post of
Incharge Statistical Unit was upgraded to the level of a Joint Director (Box 5)
who was assisted by two Research Officers.
The office of the DEO collects data and information through nine annual
statements of which three related to statistical information on
institutions. On an average, the DEO
has to submit about 95 statements as compared to 73 forms, a secondary school
has to submit to next higher level. The
Statistics Cell started regular dissemination through its annual publications,
namely, Educational Statistics and Administration Report of General Education. Computer was not been used as the same was not
available in the DPI. Keeping in view
the time-lag in the data which is mainly due to inadequate staff both at the
directorate and district levels, the existing machinery needs to be further
strengthened. Since, four districts of
the state are presently covered under the DPEP programme, the process of
developing an EMIS has already been started.
From the above
discussion, it emerges that in most of the states, the work relating to data
collection is being looked after by the Directorate of Education and no
seperate set-up has been created at the Secretariat level. Over time, though information machinery has
been strengthened at all levels,
namely, Directorate, Divisional and the District level but the situation is
still far from the satisfactory. More
specifically, the staffing pattern at the district level is inadequate which perhaps is the main
reason of delay in collection and dissemination of information. Though, all the three states studied
disseminate some educational statistics but their coverage and frequency is not
readily available so as the utilisation.
Computerisation of the information system, as it looks today, is the
major challenge before the states and different initiatives taken in order to
develop an EMIS are still at the
initial stage.
(C) Technical Manpower
Information System: IAMR
During 1960's, it
was realised that the country has a surplus manpower which was in shortage in
1950's. It was as early as in the year
1966, when it was first felt to develop a technical manpower information
system. Under the Sixth Plan (year 1984), the Government of India set-up a
National Technical Manpower Information
System (NTMIS) with following as its main objectives (Dasgupta, 1988):
·
to estimate short and long term
requirement of different categories of engineering and technical manpower in
different fields with branches of specialisation;
·
to estimate supply of different
categories of engineering and technical manpower on the basis of existing
intake and out-turn figures;
·
to estimate and anticipate gaps in
demand and supply position in the present and the future years;
·
to collect and analyse data to
match job requirements with facilities for education and training;
·
to provide forecasts about
adequacy of manpower equirements in the future years and consequently
about the adequacy of the current
enrolment rate and
·
to undertake studies for
assessment of future needs for giving indications about the specialised areas
and fields requirement urgent attention for expansion of facilities for
education and training.
The responsibility of collection of data was entrusted to
Institute of Applied Manpower Research (IAMR). Though, the headquarters of NTMIS is located in national capital
but it has twenty one nodal centers which are set up in different parts of the
country. Further, there are four zonal
centers located in four regions of the country i.e. Eastern, Western, Northern
and Southern regions. Every nodal
centre is provided with a computer of its own and these centers collect all
relevant information regarding technical manpower in their area and thus form a
complete data base. The data generated
by the nodal centers regarding various states is supplied to the central body
of NTMIS in the form of computer disks.
The central body on the basis of data supplied by the state centers
generates data at the national level.
The lead centre of NTMIS, on the basis of the data supplied by the nodal
centers generates data base at the national level. All the nodal centers of NTMIS are well connected to the lead
centre but the networking of nodal centers in communication is rather
weak. All the relevant data regarding
the technical manpower of the states is also kept in the nodal centers in various
states and it can be used by the state as well as by any other
organisation. The POA (1992) envisaged
that All India Council for Technical
Education will take over the scheme
of NTMIS during 1992-93 and take urgent steps, with the help of Government and
non-Government institutions, organisations and professional societies for
developing and maintaining a current data base for the planning and development
of technical education in the most effective manner. It will also launch schemes for coordination between the
Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council and NTMIS and also
prepare a national directory of occupations and fixing intake level with the
help of higher technical institutions, professional bodies and industry. `Manpower Profile-India Year Book' is the
main publication of IAMR which is latest available for year 1995.
Conclusions
The discussion
presented above reveals that as envisaged, the process of collecting
information on all the three identified
areas, namely, school education, educational administration and technical
manpower was started but the date of
reference and periodicity vary from survey to survey. On the one hand, six all-India educational surveys were
conducted since 1957 but only two surveys on educational administration are
conducted that too a gap of more than twenty years. Despite time-lag and un-even gap between the two surveys, no
doubt the All India Educational Surveys conducted by the NCERT has thrown
enormous amount of vital information which is otherwise not available from any
other agency. If available on time, the
survey data can be of immense use to both planners and policy makers so that
reliable educational plans can be formulated at different levles. Despite certain limitations in terms of its
coverage and dissemination, information relating to infrastructure and ancillary facilities available in
schools,
BOX 6
National Technical Manpower
Information System
Flow
Items
(Annual)
·
Annual Out-turn
·
Return from other states of
graduates after completing education
·
Return to other states after
completing education in the state under consideration
·
Migration to other states for job
or education
·
Flow into academic sector for job
·
Flow into academic sector for
further studies
·
Flow into economic sectors
·
Graduate drop-out from advanced
programme
·
Flow of graduates after completing
education in the home state and other
states
·
Flow of graduates after completing
education in their respective home
states into the state
Stock Items
·
Enrolment for education in a
course yielding the graduates under
consideration
·
Number of graduates working as
teachers
·
Number of graduates studying for
higher qualifications
·
Number of graduates working in the
academic sector, not as teacher
·
Number of graduates in the pool of
unemployed
·
Number of graduates employed in
different economic sectors
·
Number of Technical persons
employed in different economic sectors
·
Total employment, output and
capital in different economic sectors
Parameters
·
Desired output in different
economic sectors
·
Desired Programmes in the Colleges Regarding
Research/Consultancy
Continuing Educational Programmes
·
Other Desired Changes Like
Changes in Teacher/Pupil Ratio
Changes in Degree/Diploma Ratio
R/D
activities within establishments
·
Programmes under Strategic Thrust Areas Like
Space Programmes,Communication/Computerisation/Electronics/Special
Energy-
atomic, bio and other Non-onventional Programmes
Source: A.K.Dasgupta (1988).
access, age-grade matrix, teachers attrition rate etc. are some
of the important variables on which
information has been generated through surveys. The limitations identified above in no way
undermined the importance of the statistics so generated over a period of
time. However, if information collected
is disseminated on time and block is identified as a basic unit of
dissemination, the same would be more meaningful in the context of
disaggregated target setting which at present is in the focus.
So far as the All
India Educational Administration Survey conducted by the NIEPA is concerned,
for a majority of states the survey reports are still pouring in. The reference year of the survey was 1990-91
which means initiatives to conduct next survey should have been started by now
but keeping in view the existing backlog, it is not expected that the same
would be conducted in the near future.
Further, it has been observed that a seperate unit has been established
in the Institute of Applied Manpower Research with the sole objective of
collecting information on technical manpower in the country. Keeping in view the type of information
generated through NTMIS, it can be concluded that the same is useful for manpower planning which can be further utilised
in more meaningful manner when NTMIS would come under the All India Council of
Technical Education as was envisaged in the National Policy of Education
(1992).
References
·
Dasgupta, A.K (1988),
`India's Educational Statistics', paper
presented in the Second Seminar on Social Statistics, CSO, New Delhi, February 4-6.
·
Mehta, Arun C. (1993),
`A Note on Educational Statistics in India', Journal of Educational
Planning and Administration, VII(1), pp 105-17, January, New Delhi.
·
Mehta, Arun C. (1995),
`Education For All in India- Myth and
Reality', Kanishka Publishers and Distributors, Delhi.
·
Mehta, Arun C. (1996), `Reliability of Educational Data in
theContext of NCERT Survey', Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, NIEPA, New Delhi,
July.
·
MHRD (1986 & 1992),
National Policy on Education, New
Delhi, Government of India.
·
MHRD (1986 & 1992), NPE : Programme of Action (Revised),
New Delhi, Government of India.
·
NCERT (1993),
Sixth All India Educational Survey (Guidelines for Survey Officers),
New Delhi..
·
NIEPA, Educational Administration in Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab : Structure, Processes and Prospects
for the Future, Vikash Publishing
House, New Delhi (different volumes & years).
·
Singh, L.S.U.P.B, (1988),
`Role of Household Surveys in Collection and Compilation of Social
Statistics', paper presented in the
Second Seminar on Social
Statistics, C.S.O, February 4-6, New Delhi.
·
Srivastava, A.B.L.,(1988),
`Coverage and Quality of Data from All
India Survey', paper presented in the Second seminar on Social Statistics, CSO, February 4-6, New Delhi.