Impact of Primary Education on Literacy: An Analysis of Census 2001 Provisional Data by Arun C. Mehta I Introduction
F
Free and
compulsory education to all children up to the age fourteen is the
constitutional commitment in India.
Despite spectacular quantitative expansion in every sphere of elementary
education, the goal to achieve universal enrolment is still a far distant
dream. While adopting the constitution
in 1950, the goal of UEE was to be achieved in a period of ten years i.e. 1960. Keeping in view the educational facilities
available in the country at that time, the goal of UEE was far too ambitious to
achieve it in a short span of ten years.
Hence, the target date was revised a number of times. During the last decade 1991-2001, a number
of Centrally Sponsored Schemes, as well as, new programmes and projects were
initiated across the country. The
Operation Blackboard scheme initiated in 1987 also got momentum during this
period so as the large number of District Institutes of Educational Training
(DIETs) established across the country. The Andhra Pradesh Primary Education
Project, Bihar Education Project, UP Basic Education Project, Lok Jumbish and
Shiksha Karmi projects of Rajasthan and District Primary Education Programme
(DPEP) were the main programmes initiated during 1991-2001. The mid-day meal
scheme was also initiated during this period. Primary education remained in the
focus in all these programmes. The most recent among these programmes, namely
the DPEP is presently under implementation in about 248 districts across 18
states. In addition, the State Governments also initiated a number of other
programmes. The success of these programmes is partially reflected in primary
enrolment which increased from 97 million in 1991 to 111 million in 1999; thus
giving a rate of growth of 1.75 per cent per annum. The share of girls
enrolment during the same period increased from 41.5 to 43.5 per cent at the
primary and from 36.9 to 40.5 per cent at the upper primary level. The transition rate from primary to upper
primary level of education is about 86 per cent. However, still the dropout
rates are high at 40 and 57 per cent respectively at the primary and upper
primary levels of education. The attendance rate and learners attainment across
the country is also low. To improve upon
the situation, Government recently launched an ambitious programme, namely Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan, which envisages covering all non-DPEP districts before the
end of the ninth five-year plan with focus on entire elementary level. The success or
failure of primary education system has direct bearing on upper primary,
non-formal and adult and continuing education systems to expand. An inefficient primary education system, as
it is today, will continue to send a fewer number of primary graduates to upper
primary level of education. Needless to
mention that unless all children of age 6-11 years graduate primary level and
transit to upper primary level, the goal of UEE cannot be achieved. An
efficient primary education system is expected to contribute significantly to
total literates and also to literacy levels of population. However, an inefficient primary system will
extract more burden on non-formal and adult education programmes. The NLM authority is the main agency
responsible for the adult education, which undertakes literacy programmes
through Total Literacy Campaigns (TLC). The TLC also got momentum in early
1990's, which created environment for primary education system to expand. The
literacy rates across the country increased impressively from 52.21 per cent in
1991 to 65.38 per cent in 2001.
However, the country still has more than 296 million illiterates of age
7 & above and male/female differential in literacy is also high at 22
percentage points. The Census
2001 results are just released. So far, only total population and its male and
female distribution, 0-6 population, sex ratio, density of population and
literacy rates have been disseminated. The data is available both at the
all-India, as well as, state level. However, information on a variety of other
indicators included in the Census is eagerly awaited. An attempt has been made in the present article to use this set
of data to assess the contribution of formal education system to total
literates produced between the period 1991 to 2001. In addition indicators,
such as, male/female differential in literacy rate, literate per lakh
population, sex ratio among literate population and number of decades required
to achieve universal literacy have also been analysed to know more about
literacy development in the country. Needless to mention that the analysis
undertaken is purely quantitative in nature and qualitative aspects have not
been touched upon. By and large, the analysis is confined to all-India level
but wherever necessary, state-specific information is also presented and
analysed. The analysis presented is tentative in nature till more detailed set
of data about literates in different age groups and their educational
attainment is available. More specifically, the main objectives of the present
article are: · To analyse the Census definitions of literates and possible errors in enumeration; · To take a view of the literacy development in India; and ·
To assess the contribution of both the formal, as well
as, non-formal education systems to total literates produced between different
periods. First, definitions of literacy
and possible errors in enumeration are briefly discussed below. 2. Definition of Literacy and
Possible Errors in Enumeration The UNESCO definition of literate is “One who has acquired all the essential knowledge and skills which enable him/her to engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning in his/her group and community and whose attaining in reading, writing and numeracy make it possible to use these skills towards his/her own and his/her community’s development” (see Box). On the other hand, the NLM definition of literacy is acquiring the skills of reading, writing and arithmetic and the ability to apply them to one's day-to-day life. More specifically, the Census definition
is read and write with ability
any language. However, tests are not conducted by the enumerators in the Census
operations to know the ability of respondents about their literacy status. Ashish Bose very rightly pointed out that “we
have made no progress in our understanding or definition of what it means to be
lettered. And even in this limited definition, we have failed. No tests are
conducted by data collectors during surveys. People are merely asked whether
they are literate or not and entries are made”. The household proforma used
in 2001 Census also do not mention any specific guidelines to know the literacy
status of the members of the household. Needless to mention that the respondent
in the Census was the head of the household and were not the members of the household.
In fact, enumerators didn’t come into the contact of the members of the
household. The literacy status of the members of the household was entirely
based upon the response of the head of the household, which may not always be
correct. The Census didn’t adopt any procedure to counter check the responses
of the head of the households about the literacy status of the members of the
house. There is no question about the integrity of the head of households but
their perception of literate may vary from one head of the household to
another. This is more specifically true keeping in view that a large number of
head of the households themselves are illiterates. There may be significant
difference in the perception of a literate and educated head of the household
and that of an illiterate head of the household. Prima-facie, it
seems that the Census data do not present the true picture of the literacy
status of the population. There may be
measurement errors in enumeration also, which may be because of a variety of
reasons. First, those who are treated literates may be many of them are
illiterates. There ability to read and write with understanding is
questionable. This can be checked on sample basis. The external evaluations
conducted in the past also support this argument (NLM, 1994). Second, many a time when children in
households are reported to be in schools, the enumerator unconsciously treated
them as literates, which may not always be true. In all practical purposes, a child of Grade I was treated as
literate in 2001 Census so as the Child of Grade II. A child of age 9 or 10, if reported enrolled in school may also
not necessarily be literate because of the lateral entry. Many of them still be
in Grade I or II. The grossness in primary enrolment is in the tune of about 20
per cent (NCERT, 1998a), majority of them are over-aged children. This supports
the argument that the number of literates and also the literacy rates reported
in the Census are over estimated. The distribution of literates by age and
educational attainment when available will throw more light on this
aspect. Lastly, the majority of
enumerators in Census 2001 were the local school teachers. This may also
perhaps be one of the factors that might have influenced number of
literates. Therefore, the analysis of
literacy and number of literates presented below should be viewed in the light
of the above considerations. First, the
progress made in literacy is analysed 3. Improvement in Literacy Rates
More than
decline in population growth rate, it is the spurt in literacy rates that make
the present Census stand out from others in post-independence India. More than
three-fourths of our male population and a little more than half of the female
population are now literate compared to one-third of Indians still do not
possess even the basic proficiency in literacy. During 1991-2001, literacy
rates improved impressively from 52.21 per cent in 1991 to 65.38 per cent in
2001; thus showing an improvement of more than 13 percentage points (Table 1).
More glaring aspect of improving literacy rates is the significant increase of
14.87 per cent in case of female literacy rate, which is more than the increase
in the male literacy rate, which is increased by 11.72 per cent. However, still the male/female differential
in literacy rate is of the tune of almost 22 percentage points. This is also
reflected in the sex ratio among literate population, which is as low as 667
compared to 933 overall sex ratio. Despite the decline in number of illiterates
and improvised literacy rates, India has to go a long way to achieve the goal
of universal literacy. The progress in
literacy during the previous decade looks impressive mainly because of the fact
that during the last four decades, the same remained very low and only a little
progress could be achieved. Because of the parental thirst for education, the
literacy rates have now reached to somewhat reasonable levels (Reddy, 2001).
Therefore a literacy rate at 65 per cent appears to be far more credible. It is rather a mater of grate shame that
Kerala attained 65 per cent literacy way back in 60’s and even now many states
have literacy rates well below the national average of 65 per cent. The more
detailed Census data when available will throw more light on the status of
literates that are being produced.
However, 1991 Census suggests that about 25 per cent of the total
literates were just literates and had never been completed even primary
education. As mentioned above, the Census definition of literacy is read and
write but even the poorest of parents want their child to complete a bare
minimum elementary education. Will it
be possible in the near future? is a moot question. During
1991-2001, the highest change in literacy rate was recorded in case of Rajasthan
(22.48 per cent) followed by Dadra & Nagar Haveli (19.32 per cent), Madhya
Pradesh (19.91 per cent), Andhra Pradesh (17.02 per cent), Meghalaya (14.21 per
cent) etc. The improvement in literacy rates in case of Rajasthan, Madhya
Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh is worth noticing; all of which are the
educationally deprived states (Table 2).
However, the male/female differential especially in case of Madhya
Pradesh (26.52 per cent) and Rajasthan (32.12 per cent) is still very high and
do not suggest that the goal of universal literacy can be achieved in the near
future. The increase during 1991-2001 was lowest in case of Kerala (1.11 per
cent) followed by Chandigarh (3.95 per cent), Nagaland (5.46 per cent)
etc. The low increase at least in case
of Kerala and Chandigarh is mainly because of their base year (1991) literacy
rates, which were as high as 89.81 and 77.81 per cent. In 2001 also, Kerala has
the highest literacy rate (90.92 per cent) followed by Mizoram (88.44 per
cent), Lakshadweep (87.52 per cent), Goa (82.52 per cent), Delhi (81.82 per
cent), Dadra & Nagar Haveli (81.09 per cent), etc. On the other hand, more than half of the
total 7 & above population in Bihar is still illiterate. The state also has
the lowest literacy (47.53 per cent) rate and is the only state, which has less
than 50 per cent literacy rate across the country. Bihar is closely followed by
Jharkhand (54.13 per cent), Jammu & Kashmir (54.46 per cent), Arunachal
Pradesh (54.74 per cent) and Uttar Pradesh (57.36 per cent). Census 2001
further reveals that the increase in female literacy rate (39.29 to 54.16 per
cent) was much higher than the increase in their counterparts’ males (64.13 to
75.85 per cent). The lowest female literacy rate is noticed in case of Bihar
(33.57 per cent), followed by Jharkhand (41.82 per cent), Jammu & Kashmir
(41.82 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (42.98 per cent), Arunachal Pradesh (44.24 per
cent), Rajasthan (44.34 per cent) etc. Both the Orissa and Madhya Pradesh have
a little above 50 per cent female literacy rate against Kerala’s 87.86 per cent
which is also the highest in the country.
The low female literacy rates in these states are well reflected in the
male/female differential, which is still high at about 22 percentage points.
The States of Bihar (26.75 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (26.52 per cent), Orissa
(24.98 per cent), Rajasthan (32.12 per cent) and Uttar Pradesh (27.25 per cent)
have a very high significant male/female differential in literacy, all which
need immediate attention without which the goal of universal literacy even
cannot be dreamt. Though the situation during 1991-2001 in these states
improved but they still remained (in terms of literacy) the most deprived
states of the country. So far as the ranking of States & UTs by literacy rates
are concerned, it is found that the first three states namely, Kerala, Mizoram
and Lakshadweep maintained their position in 2001 also. The ranking of
Rajasthan is worth noticing which improved its position from 33 in 1991 to 29
in 2001. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar maintained their positions respectively at 31
and 34 where as Madhya Pradesh improved from 26 to 25. Similarly, West Bengal
improved its position from 19 to 18 but Orissa and Andhra Pradesh slide from 25
and 27 to 26 and 28. Maharashtra
retained its ranking at number 10 where as, Karnataka (21) and Tamil Nadu (12)
lost their positions to 22 and 13 in 2001. The improvement in literacy is also reflected in a variety of indicators calculated. Literates per lakh population suggest that on an average there are 55 thousand literates compared to only 29 thousand illiterates. A wide gap is also noticed between male (64 thousand) and female (46 thousand) literates per lakh population. Similar is the case with illiterates per lakh population, which are 21 thousand for male and 39 thousand per lakh for female population. Similarly, the female/male ratio of literacy rate improved from 61 in 1991 to 71 in 2001; which also shows differential in male/female literacy rate. In 1991, two States/UTs had below 40 per cent literacy rate compared to no state under this category in 2001. One significant improvement, which is quite visible, is increase in number of states from 6 to 16 in the literacy range 60-70. Only three State/UTs had literacy levels above 80 per cent in 1991, which has now been increased to 9 in 2001. 4. Decline in Illiterates
There has been a
decline during 1991-2001 in the absolute number of illiterates. The total number of illiterates declined is
31.96 million, 21.45 million among males and 10.51 million among females. It
may be noted that the four most educationally deprived states of the country,
namely Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh together have 298
million population of 7 & above, which is about 34 per cent of the total
population in 2001. The bifurcated parts of three newly created states, namely
Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttaranchal, if considered along with their parent
states will increase the share to 39.69 percent (345 million). However, the
number of literates they have is much lower than their share in the total 7
& above population. Together, they have 169 million literates, which is
only 30 per cent of the total literates in the country. Together with three new states, the share of
literates increases to 34.84 per cent (197 million), which is far below than
their share (39.69 per cent) to total 7 & above population. Individually,
Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh have 34.97, 17.86, 17.94 and
57.80 million illiterates respectively, which gives a total of 128.57 million
illiterates. This is 42.51 per cent of
the total illiterates in the country. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh alone have about
93 million illiterates (30.75 per cent).
The improvement in literacy programmes in these states would help in declining illiterates
by at least 43 per cent. Unless the goal of universal literacy is achieved in
these states, India too cannot become a literate state. The trend in
illiterates during the period 1991-2001, however indicate that these states
experienced a decline in illiterates but the decline is only marginal. During 1991-2001, the number of illiterates
in these four states along with three new states, declined by only 11.48
million which is about 36 per cent of the total 31.96 million decline at the
all-India level. The other states, which also have significant number of
illiterates, are Andhra Pradesh (25.69 million), West Bengal (21.27 million),
Maharashtra (19.00 million), Karnataka (15.13 million), Gujarat (14.70
million), Tamil Nadu (14.67 million), Orissa (11.47 million) and Assam (7.96
million). The number of illiterates in
rest of the states varies from 6.38 million in Punjab to 6,454 in Lakshadweep. Kerala
too have 2.16 million illiterates of 7 & above population. Many smaller
States & UTs are in a position to achieve the goal of universal literacy in
the near future. Even the female literacy rates in these states are well above
the 70 per cent. Of the total 31.96 million decline in number of illiterates during 1991-2001, the maximum contribution come from Andhra Pradesh (16.79 per cent) followed by Uttar Pradesh (14.09 per cent), Mahasashtra (12.48 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (11.43 per cent), Tamil Nadu (10.66 per cent) and Rajasthan (11.46 per cent). Similarly, of the total 203.61 million increase in number of literates, the contribution of these six states was 55.2 per cent with Uttar Pradesh share to the tune of 17.18 million. But a few states, such as, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Delhi, Manipur and Nagaland experienced increase in number of illiterates during 1991-2001 but except Bihar (- 9.33 per cent), elsewhere the increase is small in nature. However, Bihar contributed 6.13 per cent to total increase in number of literates. Definitions, Literate
5. Future Prospects
An attempt has also been made to project likely year
(in terms of number of decades)* by which the goal of universal
literacy (100 per cent) will be achieved (Table 2). The likely year is projected on the basis of progress made
during the decade 1991 and 2001 and the amount of unfinished task (100 –
Literacy Rate, 2001). Needless to mention that the method adopted is crude in
nature but gives enough indication about the rigorous efforts that would be
required to complete the unfinished task. One of the limitations of the
procedure adopted is that it should not be applied to states, which have very
high literacy levels, say about 80-85 per cent in the base year. Once a state
has 80 per cent and above literacy levels, its rate of increase during the next
decade is likely to be much lower than the states, which have low literacy
levels. Since both the Kerala and Mizoram fall in this category, likely year is
not attempted in these states. The results reveal that at the present rate of
increase (between 1991 and 2001), Bihar would need at least 5 decades to attain
the status of total literate state. However, it may attain 85 per cent literacy
levels in about four decades. Nagaland is also likely to take more than 6
decades to become total literate state.
Rest of the States/UTs would need about 1-3 decades. Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh,
Orissa and West Bengal are likely to take at least 1.80, 1.73, 2.71, 2.51 and
2.67 decades to fully become literate.
In all the states, females would take more years to become literate than
their male counterparts. Needless to mention that India cannot attain the
status of total literate state unless all of its States & UTs also attain
the same. 6. Comparison of NSSO (1997) & Census (2001)
Literacy Rates
An attempt has also been made in the present article
to compare literacy rates estimated by the NSSO for year 1997 with those of the
Census of India for the year 2007. It may be noted that the NSSO estimates are
based on the sample basis whereas the Census estimates are based on the
complete enumeration. However, both the estimates are based on the data
collected from the households and the respondent was the head of the household. As against the
NSSO literacy rate (Total) of 62 per cent in 1997, the Census estimate is 65
per cent in 2001. This otherwise suggests that during 1997 to 2001, literacy
rate was further improved by more than 3 percentage points, which is quite
possible (Table 3). This is also true
separately for male and female literacy rates. However, in a number of states,
a significant deviation in literacy is noticed. In case of only two states,
namely, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura, both the estimates are found almost same
which suggests that during 1997 to 2001, no progress was made in these states,
which may not be true. On the other hand, in about 19 states, the NSSO 1997
literacy rates are found higher than the actual 2001 Census literacy rates,
which put a question mark about the reliability of NSSO literacy rates at least
at the state level. Or the Census estimates are gross underestimation of the
actual literacy rates. In case of a few smaller states, such as, Andaman &
Nicobar Islands, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Pondicherry and Sikkim, the NSSO
literacy rates are significantly higher than the Census estimates. In Assam,
the difference is of the tune of almost 11 percentage points. In Kerala too,
the NSSO literacy rate was 93 per cent as against 91 per cent of the Census
2001. On the other
hand, there are a few states where the NSSO literacy rates of 1997 are found
much lower than the Census 2001 rates, which is quite possible. Some of these
states are, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa and
Rajasthan, most of which have also gained significantly between the period 1991
and 2001. In all these states, both the male and female NSSO literacy rates are
found much lower than the Census literacy rates; thus indicating
underestimation of the literacy rates or they significantly progressed between
the period 1997 to 2001. In case of
Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, both the
estimates compare well but this otherwise also suggest that no progress is made
in these states between the period 1997 and 2001, which is also not possible. The analysis
presented above beyond doubt indicate that NSSO estimates of literacy rates are
quite comparable at the all-India level but the same is not true in case of the
literacy rates at the state level. Both the estimates compare well only in case
of two states and in all other states; the same was either under or over
estimation of the actual literacy levels. Specially, in case of smaller states,
the NSSO estimates are not at all comparable. The NSSO may like to re look into
its sampling procedure. 7. Contribution of Formal
System to Total Literates (a) Trends
in 7 & Above Population The population
of seven & above years which was 686.57 million in 1991 increased to 858.22
million in 2001; thus showing an increase of 171.65 million, which is 25.00 per cent more than it was in 1991
(Table 4). This gives an annual rate of
growth of 2.26 per cent per annum. The
country had about 328.17 million illiterates in 1991, which has now been
declined by 31.96 million to 296.21 million in 2001. This gives an annual rate
of growth of - 1.02 per cent per annum.
This means that between 1991-2001, 31.96 million illiterates were made literate
which can be treated as the contribution of literacy campaigns. In fact, a few illiterates may also be added
from the population of 7 & above to
total illiterates between the periods 1991-2001. On the other hand, the number
of literates during the same period increased by more than 203.61 million to
562.01 million in 2001; thus giving an annual rate of growth of 4.60 per
cent. In 1991, there were 358.40
million literates in the country. This also indicates that the country produced
more than 203 million literates during the period 1991-2001. It may be noticed
that the rate of increase in literates is much higher at 4.60 per cent than the
increase in total 7 & above population (2.26 per cent). The increase in 7
& above population by 172 million was largely the clientele of the formal
education system most of which, as it seems, are now literates. Thus, the total literates (203.61 million)
between 1991-2001 are the addition of total illiterates who are now made
literate (31.96 million) and increase in seven and above population (171.65
million) who perhaps are made literates.
However, the decline in number of illiterates will be slightly low at
29.92 million, if projected figures of Jammu & Kashmir based on
interpolations between 1981-2001 are used. (b) Enrolment
Vs Literates Since the
literacy rate is computed for age 7 & above population, the corresponding
grade under the formal education system is Grade II. In fact, the NSSO data suggests that a few children aged below 7
are also literate (NSSO, 1991).
However, high incidence of drop out and low learners attainment (NCERT,
1998b)do not suggest that Grade I children be treated as literates. For that
mater even children of Grade II cannot be considered literate. Alternatively, children of Grade III can be
considered literate. Children of age-8 are expected to be in Grade III. In addition, children below and above age
‘8’ may also be in Grade III because of the early and lateral entry. Therefore,
in the first exercise Grade III enrolment during the period 1991-2001 is
estimated and termed literate. Enrolment in
India is available from two sources, namely, the MHRD and NCERT. However, it may be noted that the same from
the MHRD publications is latest available for the year 1992-93. Beyond that
year, the same is provisionally available up to the year 1998-99. In addition,
grade-specific enrolments in 1993-94 are also available from the all-India
educational survey (NCERT, 1998a). In order to obtain total enrolment in Grade
III, first the average enrolment (of available years) is calculated, which is
in turn multiplied by ten to obtain total (average) enrolment during 1991-2001.
The total enrolment in Grade III during the entire period from 1991 to 2001
comes out to be 196.3 million. It may be recalled that the country has produced
203.61 million literates during 1991-2001.
The total enrolment of 196.30 million in Grade III is thus treated as
the contribution of the formal education system, which is 95 per cent of the
total literates produced between 1991 and 2001. This otherwise indicates that
the contribution of NLM to be in the tune of only 7.31 million. It may be
recalled that decline in illiterate population during 1991 to 2001 was 31.96
million. This indicates two possibilities, (a) NLM contributes 7.31 million to
the total 31.96 million decline in illiterates and the balance 24.65 million is
contributed by the formal system; or (b) the contribution of the formal system
is much less than 24.65 million. In that case the contribution of NLM to the
total decline will improve and consequently the contribution of formal system
would be much lower than 24.65 million. In that case, NLMs' highest
contribution could be around 31.96 million. This can be verified by analysing
increase in number of literates among the age group 15-35 years between
1991-2001, which is not readily available. If true, this would mean that the
formal system failed to literate all of its clientele population, which was
added during the period 1991 to 2001.
However, even if the lowest enrolment of 18.48 million (1993-94) in
Grade III is considered average, will give a total enrolment of 184.8 million,
which is 90.76 per cent of the total literates. This indicates the contribution
of NLM to the tune of about 18.81 million, which is 59 per cent of the total
decline in illiterates during 1991-2001. In that case, the contribution of
formal system to the total decline would be only 13.15 million (41 per cent). Needless to
mention that a large number of children take admission in primary classes but
dropout from the system before the completion of an education cycle. This has contributed significantly to
wastage in the system. Had there been
no wastage in the primary education system, it would have contributed a large
number of literates to total literates. At present, dropout rate at the primary
level is about 40 per cent. More
specifically, it is better to apply correction factor on account of dropout to
the total enrolment in Grade III but the requisite set of data to compute
grade-to-grade dropout is not available. In addition, Grade III enrolment
should also be adjusted for the mort
ality rates that also vary from age to
age. Since the Grade III enrolment is
gross in nature, children of different ages constitute total enrolment. But
since the survival rates are not available, it is not possible to apply the
same to enrolment in Grade III. Alternatively, it is assumed that a student of
Grade IV be considered literate and contribution of formal education system is
assessed. Officially a child of age ‘9’ is supposed to be in Grade IV but
because of the early and lateral entry, a large number of over-age and
under-age children also form the total enrolment in Grade IV. By considering enrolment in Grade IV, we
assume that children have completed Grade III, survived and retained in the
system at least up to the Grade IV.
However, a few of them may dropout from the system (also because of
morality) even before the completion of Grade IV. During the period 1990-91 to
1998-99, the lowest enrolment in Grade IV was 16.15 million in 1990-91 and the
highest 18.36 million in 1998-99. The
average comes out to be 17.04 million, which gives a total enrolment of 170.40
million in Grade IV during the entire period from 1991 to 2001. This should be treated as the contribution
of formal system, which is 82.90 per cent of the total literates produced
between 1991 and 2001. The past data suggests that about 5 per cent children used to repeat a grade, in this case
Grade IV. Thus, 5 per cent children is
taken out from 170 million enrolment; which gives an effective enrolment of
161.88 million in Grade IV, which is 79.50 per cent of the total
literates. Alternatively, if the total
enrolment in Grade IV calculated on the basis of the lowest enrolment i.e.16.15
million, will give an enrolment of 161.5 million, which is 79.32 per cent of
the total literates. This should be
considered as the lowest possible contribution of the formal system to the
total literates produced between the periods 1991 to 2001. However, the
contribution may be slightly lower than 161.5 million, if survival factor is
also applied to enrolment. The recently
conducted Mid-term Assessment Survey of Learners' Achievement (NCERT, 1998b)
reveals that the learners’ attainment in Grade IV across the country is far
below than the expectations. Therefore
in the last alternative, children of Grade V is considered literate and total
enrolment in Grade V is obtained, which comes out to be 153.72 million. This is 75 per cent of the total literate
produced between the periods 1991-2001.
By assuming Grade V students as literates, we assume that children have
completed Grade IV, survived and retained in the system at least up to the
Grade V. However, it would be better
and safe to consider primary graduates as literate but completion rates
required to know graduates are not available.
It may however be noted that Gaj Raj (UNESCO, 1992) considered Grade IV
students as literate. 8. Concluding Remarks
During the previous decade, literacy rate has increased
from 52 to 65 per cent. Despite the impressive improvement in literacy rates in
case of female population, the male/female differential in literacy still
remained high at 22 percentage points. The number of illiterates has also
declined but the country still has more than 296 million illiterates. Tests are
not conducted to know the literacy status of the members of the household. The
respondent in the Census was the head of the household. The perception of an
educated head of the household and that of an illiterate head of the household
about literate differ and may affect significantly the actual number of
literates. This is more specifically true keeping in view a large number of
illiterate head of the households. Apart this, there may be a few errors in the
enumeration also. The actual literacy rate may perhaps be lower than what is
that been presented. The TLCs initiated in early 1990’s created positive
environment for the primary education to expand, however the tempo couldn’t be
maintained in the later part of the 1990’s. A large number of programmes
concerning to primary education were initiated in the country during the last
decade, which might have contributed significantly to total number of literates
produced during the period 1991 to 2001.
Therefore, an attempt has been made in the present article to assess the
contribution of formal education system to total literates produced. For this
purpose, literacy data of Census 2001 and enrolment data produced by the MHRD
have been extensively used. Different
alternatives attempted suggest that the contribution of the formal system to be
in the tune of between 162 to 196 million.
Even in the extreme case (Grade V, if considered literate), it comes out
to be 153 million (75 per cent), which should be the lowest possible
contribution of the formal system. This
also suggests that the maximum contribution of NLM to be in the tune of 50
million, which also includes its contribution to total decline in illiterates.
Whatever progress is reflected in literacy rates (7 & above), beyond doubt
is because of the ongoing educational programmes under the formal education
system. The real contribution of NLM would be known only when literacy levels
in the age group 15-35 years is available which is also the clientele of the
adult literacy programmes. In addition,
the educational attainment of literates will also throw light on the status of
literates being produced. NLM may not have
contributed to total literates significantly but why has the primary enrolment
increased? NLM influenced parents through its literacy campaigns to send
children to schools. Definitely it has created positive environment for the
primary education to expand. This is largely because of the aggressive
campaigns initiated by it during 1990’s, which generated demand for the primary
education. One of the many gains of TLC
has been the prominence given to education at decentralised levels and in the
agenda of government development departments. The new programmes concerning to
primary education initiated during 1990’s were also based upon the assumption
that the literacy campaigns have generated demand for education. This is also reflected in the state-specific
analysis of enrolment data during 1991-2001 (Table 5). Prima-facie, it suggests
that the states that have contributed significantly to total literates are the
ones, which have initiated TLCs in a big way.
A large number of districts during this period were declared total
literate in these states. However, the
tempo of early 1990’s couldn’t be maintained in the later part of the
decade. By and large, the states of
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat
and Karnataka have done comparatively better in the literacy phase where all
most all the districts were covered with the TLC projects. The TLC in these states have created
positive environment for primary education, which is well reflected in their
contribution to total literates produced between 1991 and 2001 which is above
80 per cent except in case of Andhra Pradesh. The other noticeable point is that all is not well with the official set of enrolment data. Researchers, time and again, had pointed out deficiencies, inconsistencies and overestimation in the official data, which is found to have contributed significantly to total number of literates produced between 1991 and 2001. This argument is further strengthened when the official statistics is compared with those of the all-India educational survey data. Over a period of time between second survey to the present sixth survey, the gap between the two estimates has increased significantly and the same was of the tune of 10.46 million at the primary and 16.32 million at the upper primary level of education. In all these surveys, the official estimates are found higher than the corresponding survey estimates. A close examination of grade-specific enrolment further reveals that the gap is more wide and significant in Grade I & II but in later grades of primary level, Grades III, IV and V in particular, it is not so significant. The both the set of estimates are also comparable at the upper primary level of education. Therefore, enrolment in Grade V, if considered literate will not present misleading picture of its contribution to total literates. TABLE 1 Literacy Rates (%) in India: 1951 to 2001
TABLE 2 (I)Literacy Statistics, Census of India 2001
Source: Adopted/calculated on the basis of Census of India 2001, Series-1, India, Provisional Population Totals, Paper-1 of 2001, Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, 2001. TABLE 2 (II)Literacy Statistics, Census of India 2001
* D = (100 – Literacy Rate in 2001) / (Literacy Rate, 2001 – Literacy Rate, 1991). Source: Adopted/calculated on the basis of Census of India 2001, Series-1, India, Provisional Population Totals, Paper-1 of 2001, Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, 2001. TABLE 3 Comparison of NSSO (1997) and Census Literacy Rates (2001)
Source: NSSO (1998) and Census (2001).
TABLE 4 Contribution of Formal Education System to Total Literates During 1991-2001 (Figures in millions)
* Sixth All India Educational Survey, NCERT, (1998), New Delhi. Rest of the figures are taken from the MHRD Publications in different years. In the parentheses percentage to total literates produced between 1991-2001 is presented. ** Provisional thereafter. @ The census couldn’t be conducted in Jammu & Kashmir in 1991.The number of literates (7 & above) in case of Jammu & Kashmir in 1991 is projected by the author on the basis of literates in 1981 and 2001, which is then added to number of literates in 1991 to obtain total literates in the country.
TABLE 5State-wise Average Enrolment in Grade IV and V: 1991 to 2001(Figures in millions)
Note: * New districts carved out after sanction of literacy campaigns. Hence, these states are fully covered. For details, see Literacy Campaigns, NLM: Annual Report: 1997-98, Directorate of Adult Education, MHRD, New Delhi, 1999. ** In few states, total contribution comes out to be more than 100 per cent which may be because of (i) either the grade-wise enrolment is overestimated; or corresponding estimates of literates are underestimated in states, like Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu; or (ii) it may be because of provisional set of data used in calculating average enrolment. *** Totals may not tally because of rounding of figures. Source: Computed by the author.
References
Census of India 2001,
Series-1, India, Provisional Population Totals, Paper-1 of 2001,
Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, 2001, New Delhi
·
Gajraj, Suren (1992), The
Impact of Primary Education on Literacy, Section of Statistics on Education,
Division of Statistics, STE-8, UNESCO, Paris. ·
IIPS (1998), National
Family Health Survey (II), International Institute of Population Sciences,
Mumbai. ·
MHRD (Different Years): Selected Educational Statistics. New Delhi: Government of India. ·
MHRD (Different Years): Education in India: Volume I (S). New Delhi: Government of India. ·
NCERT (1998a): Sixth All India Educational Survey Statistics on Schooling Facilities.
NCERT, New Delhi. ·
NCERT (1998b): Mid-Term Assessment Survey: An
Appraisal of Students Achievements, New Delhi. · NLM (1994): Evaluation of Literacy Campaigns in India: Report of Expert Group, National Literacy Mission, MHRD, New Delhi
·
NSSO (1991): Participation in Education: NSS
42nd Round, Sarvekshana, Volume XIV, No. 3, January – March,
1991, Department of Statistics, Ministry of Planning, Government of India, New
Delhi. ·
NSSO (1998): Attending an Educational Institutions in India: Its Level, Nature and
Cost, 52nd Round: July 1995 – June 1996, Department of
Statistics, Ministry of Planning, Government of India, New Delhi. ·
Reddy, C. Rammanohar (2001): India’s
Population, The Hindu, March 31, 2001, New Delhi. · Sharma, O.P. and Robert D. Retherford (1993), Literacy Trends in the 1980s in India, Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, New Delhi. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||