Training Programme on Using Indicators in Planning Elementary Education (New Delhi, February Every Year)


The quantity of information and data collected and processed for the planning and management of educational activities has been constantly on the increase. India has a fairly developed educational information system. States and UTs which have a mixed of small and large educational systems have certain common limitations. Inadequate machinery, shortage of qualified and trained staff, lack of coordination between data collecting agencies and deficiencies in analysis and tabulation are some of the common limitations. It is thus of paramount importance to know the structure of information system about its size and complexities. efficient information system helps in proper monitoring and implementation of educational programmes and projects. Monitoring and evaluation are essential components of educational management and are complementary processes. More specifically, monitoring is a process of watching periodically the progress of programme with a view to identify problems and shortfalls and take immediate remedial corrective measures to optimize effectiveness of the programme. Timely availability of information, in this regard, can play a significant role in improving the effectiveness of the programme. It is not that the information system is required only for monitoring of educational programmes but it also plays an important role to identify the major goals and purposes of education.

However, the most important task is identification of information need and selection of core indicators. This data set forms the basis to develop educational plans. Once the efficient information system is created, the next important task is its utilization. In fact, the information system should generate indicators required for efficient and reliable planning of educational programmes. In built procedures and routines should be developed to produce indicators, which should be a regular feature of an information system.

Various agencies involved in collecting educational data bring out regular publications. The data provided in the publications become a useful instrument in planning when they are used to develop various indicators to make comparative assessments regarding levels of development of education, functioning of the system, its trends, disparities and directions regarding future course of development of education. Therefore, interpretation of data is the most crucial part of planning exercises, which may also help in presenting statistical information more correctly and effectively. Proper selection of indicators and interpretation may also enrich educational reports and statistical documents. All this necessitates developing of technical competency in planning among educational administrators.


With the above background, NIEPA organized a Training Programme on Using Indicators in Planning Elementary Education at New Delhi from February 18-22, 2002, which was fifth in the series. The overall objective of the programme was to strengthen capacities of the participating officers in use of information for decision‑making purposes in general and to provide educational planners with the necessary skill to develop a system of key indicators on the functioning of education system in particular. The focus of the programme was on elementary education.

More specifically, the main objectives of the programme were

  • To identify appropriate information for planning education at disaggregated level
  • To train the participants to develop and interpret a set of indicators
  • To familiarize participants in the use of indicators in planning educational programmes.


It was expected that at the end of the programme, the participants would have a better understanding of their educational information system. They also learnt as how to identify information need and appropriate use of the existing databases. The participants were also expected to develop skills to construct and analyze indicators that will help them to prepare status reports of educational development.


The different themes of the programme were focused on information system, construction, and use of indicators in educational planning. More specifically, the following themes were covered in the programme:

  • Education for All
  • Educational Planning in India
  • Data Requirements for Educational Planning
  • Educational Information System in India
  • Indicators: Concepts, Definitions, Classification and Use
  • Indicators of Educational Development: Access and Coverage
  • From Indicators of Enrolment to Attendance, Completion and Graduation Rates
  • Indicators of Educational Development: Internal Efficiency of Education System
  • Indicators of Educational Development: Financial Parameters
  • Indicators of Quality of Education
  • Measures of Inequalities and Disparities
  • Role of Indicators in Enrolment Projections


A day‑to‑day schedule of the programme is presented in the Annexure I.


The duration of the programme was one week from 18-22 February 2002. The venue of the programme was the Lecture Hall (Room No. 113) of the Institute. Prof. B. P Khandelwal, Director, NIEPA inaugurated the programme at 1000 hrs. on Monday, February 18, 2002. Prof. M. Mukhopadhyay, Joint Director Chaired the inaugural session.


The methodology of the programme was designed to suit the objectives of strengthening skill of the participants in using indicators in planning elementary education. The programme methodology included lectures, demonstration, practical exercises and group discussions. During the practical sessions, the participants learnt construction and use of indicators by taking real life data.


Members of the NIEPA faculty, as well as, experts from other organizations were invited to interact with the participants. The list of resource persons is presented below:

NIEPA, New Delhi

Prof. B. P. Khandelwal, Director
Prof. M. M. Mukhopadhyay, Joint Director

Dr. R. Govinda, Senior Fellow and Head, School and Non-Formal Education Unit
Dr. Y. P. Aggarwal, Senior Fellow and Head, O. R. S. M Unit
Dr. S. M. I. A. Zaidi, Fellow, Sub-National Systems Unit
Dr. Y. Josephine, Associate Fellow, Educational Administration Unit
Dr. K. K. Biswal, Associate Fellow, Educational Planning Unit
Dr. N. K. Mohanty, RTA, Educational Planning Unit
Mr. A. C. Mohanty, Project Assistant, Sub-National Systems Unit
Dr. Arun C. Mehta, Fellow, Sub-National Systems Unit

Prof. Shri Prakash
Birla Institute of Management Technology
Sector IV, Pushpa Vihar
New Delhi – 110017


About 54 officers from sixteen States & Union Territories participated in the programme. A list of participants is presented in Annexure II.


A set of selected articles was provided to the participants. These papers were related to the themes that were discussed during the programme. The detailed list is enclosed in Annexure III. In addition, a suggested list of related articles was also provided to the participants.


The Sub-National Systems Unit of the institute conducted the present programme. A team consisting of Prof. B. P. Khandelwal, Head Sub-national Systems Unit and Director, NIEPA, Dr. Arun C. Mehta, Fellow, Sub-national Systems Unit and Mr. A. C. Mohanty, Project Assistant, Sub-national Systems Unit looked after the day-to-day management of the programme. Dr. Mehta was the Programme Coordinator. Ms. Anjali Arora provided the secretarial assistance before the commencement of the programme and Mr. Ram Babu during the conduct of the programme


The Programme was concluded on Friday, February 22, 2002.


In this part, first a brief introduction of information system is presented which is followed by a description on ‘Education for All’, ‘Educational Development in India’, ‘Data Requirements for Educational Planning’ and a ‘Core List of Basic Indicators of Educational Development’. Needless to mention that the list presented is only suggestive one and other indicators depending upon the situation at disaggregated levels may be added to make it more meaningful and local-specific. In a separate section, possible alternative indicators, such as, attendance, completion and graduation rates have also been presented.


At the national level, there are three main agencies that collect statistics on education on regular basis. They are: (a) Planning, Monitoring and Statistics Division, Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) on annual basis for all sectors of school education (b) University Grants Commission (UGC) on higher education and (c) National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on school education through occasional surveys. All the three agencies referred above generate data with State and Union Territory, as a basic unit of consolidation. Only in case of MHRD selected district level information was also collected on quinquennial basis for a short period. The UGC compiles data according to university area, whereas NCERT collects data at the district level through its All India Educational Survey but releases only state‑wise information. Besides statistics on institutions, teachers and enrolment, NCERT also collects and disseminates information on ancillary and other facilities in schools, such as, availability of playgrounds, blackboards, school buildings, toilets and drinking water which is otherwise not available from any other source.

Besides population statistics, the Office of the Registrar General of India provides information on many items through its Census of India publications. Levels of educational attainment of population, educational‑occupational classification pattern of the work force, age‑education classification of children in the age‑group 5‑14 years and information on child workers according to age and sex are some of the useful items on which information is disseminated.

Apart from the agencies referred above, National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) also collects and disseminates statistics on education on sample basis. Through its survey on `Participation in Education’, NSSO provided state‑wise information on dropouts and never enrolled children and causes of their not been attending schools and reasons of dropouts. Recently, it has conducted a survey on `Attending an Educational Institution in India: Its Level, Nature and Cost’ (52nd Round). However, the period of conducting such surveys is not regular, the latest been conducted in 1995‑96 and the previous two in the years 1978-79 and 1986-87. Of late, IIPS through its `National Family Health Survey’ and NCAER as a part of its `Periodic Market Information Surveys’ also disseminated information on some of the educational variables, such as, literacy rate, attendance rate and non‑enrolment and dropout ratio.

The apex educational and research institutions, such as, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA), Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) and Institute of Applied Manpower Research (IAMR) also collects data on educational variables occasionally through research studies and sample surveys. However, the Department of Education, MHRD remains the main data-collecting agency apart from the NCERT. Also, under the District Primary Education Programme, significant efforts are made to develop computerized Educational Management Information System with block and district as its basic unit of data collection, dissemination and analysis. In an about 143 of the total 593 districts, data for the year 2001 are now made available under the DPEP information system through the DISE. This is perhaps the most significant and sincere effort in the recent past towards developing a computerized information system under the education sector.


In 1990, the term Education for All (EFA) was coined in the Jomtien Conference to emphasis the commitment made to universalize education. The major objective of EFA is to ensure that every person has access to minimum educational facility. In a way, EFA is not very different from the concept of Universalisation of Elementary Education (UEE). The major objective of UEE is to bring all children of 6-14 age–group within the fold of education. EFA, on the other hand, targets all children, youth, and adults for educational attachment. Here education refers to all formal and non-formal modes of learning and adult education. Thus, EFA has a broader connotation as compared to that of UEE. The Jomtien Conference considered primary education as part of the basic needs of the child. By looking at primary education from a “basic needs” perspective, the Conference helped Governments to integrate various developmental programmes with educational programmes. Also, in Jomtien conference, stress was laid on an integrative development of primary education. Integration in educational activities is considered necessary at the grassroots level to achieve EFA. All the above features make EFA different from UEE.

More specifically the main objectives of Educational for All in India are as follows:

· Expansion of early childhood care and development activities

· Universalisation of Elementary Education with the following programme components:

  1. Access to elementary education for all up to 14 years of age;
  2. Universal formal or non-formal stage through formal or non-formal education programmes; and
  3. Universal achievement at least of minimum level of learning.

· Drastic reduction in literacy rate especially in the age-group 15-15 years and to bring literacy level in this age-group to at least 80 per cent; and

· Provision of opportunities to upgrade education, creation of necessary structures and improving the content and process of education to relate it better to environment and working conditions.

To review the progress of EFA, the Fourth Global Meeting of the International Consultative Forum on EFA was held in April 2000 in Senegal. The convenors of this forum were UNDP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF and World Bank. Certain indicators usually judge the progress of EFA in India. Literacy rates, access to primary education, participation in primary education, retention rates and quality of primary education are some of the basic indicators that were used to monitor the progress of EFA. In this regard, a number of activities were initiated in the country. The first National Workshop on EFA: The Year 2000 Assessment was held at New Delhi in May 1999 and the Second one in January 2000. The 18-core indicators and studies on ‘Learning Conditions’ and ‘Learners Achievements’ prepared for EFA assessment were critically discussed and reviewed in these workshops. In addition, a set of 23 studies covering different aspects of education was also presented and discussed so as the ‘Country Report on EFA Assessment’. Dakar was followed by a number of activities at the international level and in India; a number of regional conferences on EFA were also planned a53nd organized. The major goals of Dakar Framework is presented below:

· expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children;

· ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, children in difficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnic minorities, have access to and complete free and compulsory primary education of good quality;

· ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults are met through equitable access to appropriate learning and life skills programmes;

· achieving a 50 per cent improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing education for all adults;

· eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and achieving gender equality in education by 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’ full and equal access to and achievement in basic education of good quality; and

· improving all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring excellence of all so that recognized and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills.


Universal Literacy

Over a period of time, a significant progress is made in the field of literacy and continuing education programmes but the goal of universal literacy continues to remain elusive and still a distant dream. The literacy rate in India, according to 2001 census, is around 65.4 per cent. For males the figure is 75.9 per cent, and for females, it is 54.2 per cent. In comparison to the literacy rates of males (27.2 per cent) and females (8.86 per cent) in 1951, the literacy rates in 2001 show a substantial increase. About 81 districts have literacy rate lower than 50 per cent and 297 districts have lower literacy rates than the national average of 65.38 per cent. On the other hand more than 59 districts have above 80 per cent literacy rates, most of the districts of Kerala and Mizoram have above 80 per cent literacy rates. Despite impressive achievements, the number of illiterates in India has gone up substantially during the period 1951 to 1991. It was perhaps for the first time that the number of illiterates in absolute terms has declined in India. Projection exercises however reveal that the goal of universal literacy is not likely to be realized in the near future. The detailed Census estimates on literacy are eagerly awaited.

Universalisation of Elementary Education

Provision of free and compulsory education to all children until they complete the age of fourteen, is a directive principle of the Constitution. While adopting the Constitution in 1950, the goal was to provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of fourteen, within the next ten years. Keeping in view the educational facilities available at that time in the country, the goal was too ambitious to be achieved within a short period of ten years. Till 1960, all efforts were focused on to provision of schooling facilities. It was only after near realization of the goal of access that other components of Universalisation of Elementary Education, such as, enrolment and retention started receiving attention of planners and policy makers. It is the quality of education, which is at present in focus in all the programmes relating to elementary education in general and primary education in particular.

Since 1950 impressive progress has been made in every sphere of elementary education. In 1950-51, there were about 210 thousand primary and 14 thousand upper primary schools which has now been increased to 598 and 177 thousand respectively in the year 1996-97; thus showing an average annual rate of growth of 2.36 and 5.77 per cent. Over a period of time, the percentage of habitations having access to primary schools/sections within a distance of one kilometer and upper primary schools/sections within a distance of three kilometers has also improved significantly. Similarly, the percentage of rural population having access to schooling facilities has improved tremendously. At present about 83.36 and 76.15 per cent of the total habitations in the country are served by the primary and upper primary schooling facilities, which cater the need of 93.76 and 85.01 per cent population. The ratio of upper primary to primary schools over a period of time has also improved significantly which is at present 3.4.

Despite these achievements, about 23.9 thousand primary schools in 1993-94 were functioning either in the tents or in open space. As many as, 51.6 thousand schools had ‘kachcha’ (temporary) buildings. Of the total 28.9 thousand schools not having instructional room, Government schools constituted more than 65 per cent of the total schools compared to 32 per cent in local body managed schools. The average number of rooms available for instructional purposes was 1.74 in primary schools compared to 3.98 in upper primary schools. Drinking water facilities were available in about 44 per cent primary schools compared to 19 per cent schools having urinals. The average enrolment in 1993-94 was 114 and 250 respectively in the primary and upper primary schools.

The improvement in schooling facilities is quite visible in enrolment at the primary and upper primary levels of education which has increased from 19.15 and 3.12 million in 1950-51 to 97.4 and 34.0 million in 1990-91 and has further increased to 110.4 and 41.0 million in the year 1996-97. The increase in enrolment is also reflected in the corresponding enrolment ratio, which is at present 90.6 and 62.4 per cent respectively at the primary and upper primary levels of education. Enrolment ratio of Scheduled Castes (107.81%) and Scheduled Tribes (106.97) population over time has also improved significantly. The share of girls enrolment to total enrolment both at the primary (43.44 per cent) and upper primary (39.80 per cent) levels of education has also increased many fold and is higher than the corresponding increase in boys enrolment.

The retention rate at the elementary level over a period of time has improved significantly but is still low at 47.3 per cent. Despite no detention policy, as many as 8.7 and 6.4 per cent pupils repeat Grades I and II compared to 8.6, 7.0 and 6.8 per cent repeat Grades III, IV and V. This severely affects the efficiency of education system that is efficient to the extent of only 63 per cent. Both boys (7.7 years) and girls (8.4 years) are taking more years to graduate primary cycle than ideally required 5 years. The cohort survival rate to Grade V is as low as 52 per cent and only 483 of 1,000 pupils graduated primary cycle.

The number of teachers over time has increased many folds but the percentage of female teachers to total teachers both at the primary and upper primary levels of education is still low at 32.68 and 35.79 per cent. The majority of teachers are trained. The pupil-teacher ratio at primary and upper primary level is 45:1 and 38:1. Teacher salaries constitute more than 90 per cent of the total recurring expenditure on primary education. So far as the share of education to Gross National Product (GNP) is concerned, the increase is not as envisaged in policy document (6 per cent); however, it has increased from 1.2 per cent in year 1950‑51 to currently 3.7 per cent.

Do the quantitative expansion of educational facilities imply that the target of universal enrolment will be achieved by the turn of the present century? The official estimates of enrolments give reasonably sound reasons to believe that the stipulated targets cannot be achieved by the turn of the present century. However, projection exercises undertaken in the recent past indicate that India may attain the status of universal primary education sometime after year 2007. It may be noted that heavy dependence on the formal school system, and the traditional modes of delivery of primary education may not achieve the desired objective. To achieve the goal of ‘Universal Elementary Education’, the Government has recently initiated a new scheme called ‘Serva Shiksha Abhiyan’. Also, the scope of DPEP is likely to be extended to upper primary classes, initially in DPEP phase one districts.


To achieve EFA in near future there is thus a need to take an integrative approach for development of primary education, with more emphasis on alternative strategies for improving access, participation, retention and internal management of schools. All this is expected to achieve through better planning and effective implementation, which require information on a number of variables.

Planning exercises are of two types, micro and macro level planning. In micro planning, educational plans are prepared at the sub‑national level, such as, institution, village, block and district level, whereas macro plans are developed at the level which is just above the sub‑national level i.e. state and national level. At the district level, blocks, villages and educational institutions are the units of micro planning but at the state level, district is a unit of micro planning. In India, barring a few states, educational planning is carried‑out at the state level, which do not ensure adequate participation of functionaries working at the grassroots level. Of late, National Policy on Education (NPE, 1986 & 1992) and Eighth Plan envisaged disaggregated target setting at least at district level. This is also one of the major objectives of a number of projects and programmes currently under implementation in different parts of the country. Therefore, development of district plan at district and lower levels with emphasis on participative planning is of recent origin

In order to meet data requirements for diagnosis of educational development, a variety of information relating to both general and educational scenario needs to be collected. Information, such as on, geography, irrigation, transportation, industry and administrative structure is required, so as to prepare a general scenario of the existing infrastructural facilities available in a district and its sub‑units.

So far as the educational variables are concerned, required information can be grouped under information relating to demography, literacy and education sectors. Under the demographic variables, total population and its age and sex distribution separately in rural and urban areas needs to be first collected. Apart from total population, age‑specific population in different age groups is also required. For programmes relating to primary and elementary education, population of age groups 6‑11, 11‑14 and 6‑14 years and for adult literacy and continuing education programmes, population of age‑group 15‑35 years is required. Similarly, single‑age population (age `6′) is another important variable on which information needs to be collected. In addition, information on some of the vital indicators, such as, expectation of life at birth, mortality (death) rates in different age‑groups, fertility (birth) rate and sex ratio at birth is required so that the same is used to project population.

For adult literacy and continuing education programmes, number of literate and illiterates in different age groups is required which should be linked to population in different age groups.

Universal access to educational facilities is one of the important components of Education for All; hence a variety of information relating to population of village/habitation is required, so that micro planning and school mapping exercises are undertaken. Exercises based on school mapping play an important role to open new schools or whether an existing school is to be upgraded or closed down. Thus, number of habitations distributed according to population slabs is required so that opening of school is linked to existing norms. Habitations served by schooling facilities also needs to be collected so as the rural population served by schooling facilities. Information relating to adult learning and non‑formal education centers is also required which should be viewed in relation to illiterates, out‑of‑school children and child workers.

Once the population is accessed to educational facilities, the next important variable is number of institutions. Within the institutions, availability of infrastructural facilities and their utilisation needs to be analysed thoroughly. Information relating to buildings, playgrounds and other ancillary facilities, such as, drinking water, electricity and toilets needs to be collected. In other words, complete information relating to scheme of Operation Blackboard with reference to its implementation, adequacy, timely supply and utilisation needs to be collected. Similarly, number of classrooms and their utilisation, schools distributed according to class‑sizes and sections is also required to judge teaching arrangements.

Enrolment is the next important variable on which detailed information is required. Both aggregate and grade‑wise enrolment together with number of repeaters over a period of time needs to be collected separately for boys & girls, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes population, rural & urban areas and for all blocks and villages of a district. Similarly, detailed information on number of teachers distributed according to age, qualifications, experience and subjects along with income and expenditure data is also required for critical analysis, so that optimum utilisation of existing resources is ensured.

It is not only the past and present information that is required but for proper and reliable educational planning, information on few variables is also required in future. All the data required for planning is not available as information on a good number of variables is conspicuous by their absence. Generally, secondary sources are explored for diagnosis of the existing situation but for the variables that are not available at lower or the lowest level, primary data needs to be collected. For example, age‑grade matrix is one such variable that is not readily available at the micro level but plays an important role in setting‑out-disaggregated targets. Information on age‑grade matrix and other variables of similar nature may be collected through small-scale sample surveys at the local level. For information on demographic variables, Census publications should be explored. Information on educational variables can be obtained from the publications of the State Education Departments. However, state‑wise information can also be obtained from the publications of MHRD. Information on infrastructure, access, ancillary facilities and age‑grade matrix is available from the NCERT publications but only at few points of time.

Before the concept and definition of indicators is presented, first the basic term like primary and secondary data, stage and institution-wise data and stock and flow statistics is discussed.


(i) Primary and Secondary Data

When information is first time collected, it is termed as primary data; otherwise it is known as secondary data. Primary data is generally scattered in files, registers and records so as to collect them either from the institutions concerned or can even be collected from the sampling unit, such as, teacher, school and student. The primary data is generally termed as raw which has no use to planners and decision making authorities, as it do not serve as a tool of decision support system. The information thus collected is processed, analysed and tabulated with the help of statistical indicators, so that it becomes derived information. Simple statistics, such as, averages, index numbers, ranks and growth rates can be used to generate derived data. The derived information in the form of indicators can also be used to analyse present status of educational facilities and its utilization.

(ii) Cross-sectional and Time‑Series Data

Generally two types of statistics, namely cross‑section and time‑series information is available. If information is available at a single point of time, it is known as cross‑sectional data. For example, state‑wise literacy rates and its male and female distribution in 1991 is an example of cross‑sectional data. Cross‑sectional data is also known as stock statistics. Stock statistics do not have flow of information and whatever is available that restrict to only a single point of time. On the other hand, information available on more than two points of time is known as time‑series information that is also known as flow statistics. While analysing educational development, both types of statistics is needed. For projecting enrolment, we need enrolment over a period of time, whereas for analysing present status of educational development, cross‑sectional data is required.

(iii) Institution and Stage‑wise Data

The third type of statistics generally we deal with is institution‑wise and stage‑wise information both of which can be cross‑sectional and/or time‑series in nature. For example, stage‑wise enrolment at the primary level includes all children of those who are currently in primary classes irrespective of schools. Thus while collecting stage‑wise information, enrolment irrespective of schools is considered which means primary stage enrolment include enrolment in primary, middle, high and secondary schools. Otherwise, if consider enrolment in a particular type of school, it is termed as institution‑wise enrolment. Thus, enrolment in primary classes in primary schools is an example of institution‑wise information. In fact, a large number of children are in primary classes who are otherwise not in primary schools but are in middle and other higher levels of school education.


In order to understand what an indicator is and other questions of similar nature, let us first define an indicator itself. An indicator is that which points out or directs attention to something (Oxford Dictionary). According to Jonstone (1981), indicator should be something giving a broad indication of the state of the situation being investigated. The most common use of indicators is to examine the relative state of development of different systems accomplished over a period of time in a specified field of human concern. For example, primary enrolment of two districts do not produce any information but the same, if linked to corresponding age‑specific population, can be used to compare the status of primary education.

In our day‑to‑day life we also come across various indicators which can be classified into three broad categories, namely, input, process and output indicators. Various process control machines, such as, videocassette recorder, automatic milk booths and automatic weighing machines are some of the examples of these indicators. However, in the field of education, the classification of indicators under these categories is not an easy task. Generally, we view education as a system, which receives inputs in the form of new entrants, transforms these inputs through certain internal processes, and finally yields certain outputs in the form of graduates. The output from a given cycle of education is defined as those students who complete the cycle successfully and the input used up in the processes of education are measured in terms of student years. These indicators can further be classified into four categories, namely, indicators of Size or Quantity, Equity, Efficiency and Quality.

Educational indicators can answer a variety of questions. System’s level of development, accessibility and children taking advantage of educational facilities are some of the questions, which relate to coverage of an education system. The next set of questions relates to internal efficiency of the education system. Information on number of children who enter into the system and complete an education cycle, those who dropout from the system in between and number of children who reach to the next higher level can be obtained, if indicators of efficiency are computed. Similarly inequalities in the system, if any, can be detected and disadvantage group(s) be identified with the help of indicators of efficiency. The last set of questions relates to resources provided to education and how they contribute to the quality of educational services and whether resources being used in the most effective way possible, all of which answered efficiently, if indicators for disaggregated target groups are available.


Keeping in view the objectives of EFA presented above, a variety of indicators need to be developed to judge the performance vis-à-vis different components. A suggestive core list of indicators is presented below.

A. Demography and Literacy

In addition to educational variables, a few demographic indicators also need to be constructed. One simple indicator is annual population growth rate, which should be calculated for the total, as well as, age-specific population, i.e. 6-11 and 11-14 years. This indicator may be termed crucial as the future clientele population depends up on this apart from other indicators, like birth and death rates. The other demographic indicators are density of population and sex ratio.

One of the important components of EFA is Universal Literacy. Therefore, indicator needs to be developed on literacy rates (total and 15+ population) separately for male/female, rural/urban and SC and ST population. Gender parity index may also need to be constructed.


Indicator 1: Rate of Growth of Population: Total, 6-11, 11-14, 6-14 and 15-35 years.

Indicator 2: Sex Ratio

Indicator 3: Density of population Literacy

Indicator 4: Literacy Rates (Male/Female, Rural/Urban and SC/ST): (a) Total (7+ population); (b) 15-24 years olds; (c) adult literacy rate: percentage of the population aged 15+ that is literate and (d) Literacy Gender Parity Index: Ratio of female to male literacy

B. Access

Access to primary education in India is affected by many factors. It depends on number of schools available, the walking distance to schools, transport facilities and road conditions. Apart from the physical distance to schools, existences of social barriers also affect access to primary schooling. Physical distance and social barriers are therefore critical issues that need to be addressed to while creating provisions of access to primary schooling. Apart from this, there exists high degree of disparities between regions, males and females, and between social groups in the country.

The simplest indicator of access is coverage of habitations by the schooling facilities. The norm for this purpose varies from state to state. The policy at the all-India level is that all the habitations having population 300 and more should be provided a primary school/section within a distance of 1 kilometer. Similarly, a habitation having population 500 and more is entitled to have an upper primary school within the distance of 3 km. Thus, the basic indicators of access are percentage of habitations served by the primary schooling facilities within a distance of 1 km. and upper primary schooling facilities within a distance of 3 km. As an alternative, percentage of rural population served by a primary school/section within 1 km. and an upper primary school within a distance of 3 km. can also be considered as indicators of access. The ratio of upper primary-to-primary school also gives idea about the availability of upper primary schools. The policy directive in this regard is one upper primary school for every two primary schools.

Experience shows that establishment of formal schools may not alone create universal access to primary education. The need is therefore to create alternative modes of primary education, wherever necessary, to increase the level of access to schooling facilities. To achieve EFA, more stress is also laid on the participation of the community in improving the level of access to primary schooling. In this respect, micro planning plays an important role in enrolling children as well as increasing the level of participation of children in primary education.

However, availability of a school does not guarantee that schools are being utilised and the minimum facilities that required for smooth functioning of school is available. But from the limited set of data that is available on facilities and practically no data on utilisation, indicators cannot be considered on these aspects. The other indicators which may also be considered indicators of access is gross enrolment in early childhood development programmes as percentage of corresponding official age-group population i.e. 3-5 years. This indicates a state’s capacity to prepare children for primary education. A high gross enrolment ratio in early childhood development programme indicates adequate capacity for this type of programme within the state. A ratio approaching 100 or more than 100 indicates that early childhood centres are available to accommodate children of age-group 3-5 years.

Similarly, the gross and net entry rates (intake/admission) can also be considered as an indicator of access. The apparent intake rate reflects the general level of access to primary education. It also indicates the capacity of education system to provide access to Grade I for the official school entrance age population. This indicator should be used only when net intake rate due to non-availability of data is not possible to compute. A high intake rate also indicates a high degree of access to primary education. Since, the computation includes all children including those of over-age and under-age children, the rate may cross hundred. If the over-age and under-age children are taken out from Grade I enrolment, the rate calculated is termed as net intake rate. A high net intake rate indicates a high degree of access to primary education for the official primary school entrance age children and a high proportion of pupils of the same age in the first primary grade. Both the policy makers and planners are very much interested in this rate. Unless, this is brought to hundred, the goal of universal primary education can not be achieved. Similarly based on this rate, enrolment of Grade V or VIII in future can also be projected.

Indicator 5: Percentage of habitations having population 300 and more and access to primary schooling facilities within a distance of 1 kilometer.

Indicator 6: Percentage of rural population having access to primary schooling facilities within a distance of 1 kilometer.

Indicator 7: Percentage of habitations having population 500 and more and access to upper primary schooling facilities within a distance of 3 kilometer; and

Indicator 8: Percentage of rural population having access to upper primary schooling facilities within a distance of 3 kilometer.

Indicator 9: Ratio of upper primary schools to primary schools.

Indicator 10: Gross enrolment in early childhood development programmes expressed as percentage of the official age-group population i.e. ages 3-5 years.

Indicator 11: Percentage of new entrants to primary Grade I who have attended some form of organized early childhood development programme.

Indicator 12: Apparent (gross) intake (admission/entry) rate: new entrants in primary Grade I as a percentage of the population of the official entry age i.e. age-6 population.

Indicator 13: Net intake rate: new entrants to primary Grade I who are of the official primary school entrance age (`6’ years) as a percentage of the corresponding population.

Once the indicators of access are developed, one may also like to develop indicators relating to facilities in schools and teaching-learning arrangements. Percentage of schools having buildings, percentage of building less schools, average number of instructional rooms, percentage of schools need major and minor repairs are some of the indicators which can be constructed. Similarly, percentage of schools having drinking water facility, toilets, playground, electricity etc may indicate availability of physical facilities in school.

B. Teachers

Once the indicators of access are analyzed, the next set of indicators that need to construct relates to teachers. The simplest indicator is pupil-teacher ratio, which presents average number of pupils per teacher in an educational level. The indicator can be computed both at the primary and upper primary level of education. This indicator is used to measure the level of human resources input, in terms of number of teachers, in relation to the size of the pupil population. The pupil-teacher ratio should be compared to state norms on the number of pupils per teacher for type of education. Higher the ratio may have adverse effect on teaching learning process, as the teacher has to give attention to more pupils than in an ideal class of 25-30 pupils. Similarly, percentage of female teacher is another indicator that relates to teachers and is easily available at disaggregated levels. Percentage of trained teachers also reflects upon the quality of teachers that are available so as the age of teacher which gives information about the experience. Similarly, number of schools distributed according to number of teachers, number of sections, average enrolment per section, class-size, average number of teachers and percentage of single teacher schools are some of the other indicators which gives information regarding quality of teaching inputs. However, except, pupil-teacher ratio, trained teachers and percentage of female teachers, other indicators mentioned above are not possible to construct in the absence of requisite data. Attrition rate of teachers is another indicators that give information regarding number of teachers who retire, transfer or die during an academic year that is not available on regular basis. NCERT as a part of its Sixth survey has collected information on this aspect. On an average, the attrition rate at the all-India level is about 2 to 3 per cent but vary from state to state.

Indicator 14: Percentage of female teachers at the primary and upper primary levels.

Indicator 15: Percentage of trained teachers at the primary and upper primary levels distributed according to sex

Indicator 16: Pupil-teacher ratio at the primary and upper primary level.

C. Coverage

One of the other important indicators, which give information about the coverage of child population, is the Enrolment Ratio. A variety of enrolment ratios, such as, overall enrolment ratio which gives the overall scenario of total education system, level enrolment ratio (Gross and Net) which shows coverage of relevant age group population and age-specific enrolment ratio which presents ratio of single age population (or age-group) attending schools are available. The computation of these ratios and their applicability depends upon the availability of data. However, Gross Enrolment Ratio can easily be constructed but is termed crude, as it is total enrolment irrespective of age, as a percentage of corresponding age-specific population. This needs age-grade matrix that is not available, in the absence of which GER is used to show level of participation and capacity of an education system. Thus, Gross Enrolment includes over-age and under-age children that vary from system to system. At the all-India level, it is estimated to be around 22 per cent at the primary level.

A high GER indicates a high degree of participation, whether the pupils belong to the official age group or not. A GER approaching 100 indicates that a state/district has accommodated all of its school-age population. More than 100 GER need not means that the goal of UPE/UEE is achieved; and therefore a GER of 100 per cent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for universal primary enrolment. However, it may be noted that as we approach Universalisation, the percentages of over-age and under-age children will start declining so as the dropout rates.

If data available, NER is used to measure the extant of participation of children belonging to the official primary school age, as it is considered more precise indicator than the GER. The value of NER can not exceed 100, as its maximum value is 100 per cent. Higher the ratio means that majority of children of the official age group are covered under the system. The difference between the GER and NER is termed as grossness. If the NER is below 100 per cent, that need not guarantee that the balance of students are out-of-school. These students may be enrolled under the non-formal system of education. Therefore, the more precise indicator of coverage, as mentioned above, is the age-specific enrolment ratio that considers all children of a specific age-group population.

Coverage of child population need not guarantee that children attend schools regularly, which can be known only, if data on attendance rate is available. This is not available on regular basis but is recently collected by the NSSO as part of its 52nd Round (1995-96) on `Attending an Educational Institution in India: Its Level, Nature and Cost’. Apart from other indicators, it constructed two indicators, namely, Gross Attendance Rate and Net Attendance Rate that are of vital importance. Needless to mention that these indicators give information regarding children attending schools which is considered a better indicator than the enrolment ratio. The indicator is separately made available for all the major states and for rural and urban areas and for male and female population.

Indicator 17: Gross Enrolment Ratio: enrolment (total) in Grades I-V as percentage to the corresponding official age-group population i.e. 6-11 years will give GER at primary level. Similarly enrolment in Grades VI-VIII as a percentage to 11-14 years population will give GER at upper primary level.

Indicator 18: Net Enrolment Ratio: enrolment in Grades I-V (age-group 6-11 years) as percentage to 6-11 years population will give NER at primary level. Similarly enrolment in Grades VI-VIII (age-group 11-14 years) as a percentage to 11-14 years population will give NER at upper primary level.

Indicator 19: Age-specific enrolment Ratio: enrolment (total) of a particular age `a’ as percentage of total population of that age `a’ gives age-specific enrolment ratio.

D. Efficiency

Next to indicators of coverage are the indicators relating to efficiency of education system. Two basic indicators are drop out and repetition rate that need to compute grade-wise. The reciprocal of dropout is known as retention, which is computed at the end of an education cycle. In India, the level of dropouts and the extent of absenteeism are high. Planning exercises need to adopt appropriate strategies to bring down the level of dropouts and absenteeism in primary schools. Micro planning exercises may help in reducing the level of dropouts.

Based on dropout and repetition rates, a variety of other indicators relating to efficiency of system can be constructed. The origin of efficiency lies in economics but it has relevance in every spheres of life. In simple terms, efficiency can be defined as a optimal relationship between input and output. An activity is said to perform efficiently, if a given quantity of output is obtained with minimum inputs or a given quantity of input yields maximum outputs. Thus, by the efficiency we mean to get maximum output with minimum inputs or with a minimum input, maximum output is obtained. The best system is one, which has both input and output exactly the same that is known as a perfect efficient system. Efficiency may be of two types, namely internal and external efficiency. We may have a system that is internally efficient but externally inefficient or vice‑versa. A system may have no drop‑out, low repetition and high output but the output that is produced may not be acceptable to the society and the economy.

What are input and outputs in an education system? Let us suppose that a student has taken admission in a particular grade and he/she remains in the system for at least one complete year. A lot of expenditure on account of cost of teachers, room, furniture and equipment’s is incurred on those who stay in the system, which can be converted into per student cost and is termed as one student year. On the other hand every successful completer of a particular cycle is termed as output, which is also known as a graduate.

Based on a hypothetical (theoretical) cohort of 1,000 pupils, indicators, such as, input/output ratio, wastage ratio, average number of years the system is taking to produce graduates, wastage on account of drop out and repetition etc. can be constructed. Better it would be to construct these indicators at disaggregated levels and separately for boys and girls, rural and urban areas and SC and ST population. The method assumes that (a) the existing rates of promotion, repetition and drop‑out in different grades would continue through out the evolution of cohort; (b) a student would not allow to continue in the system after he/she has repeated for three years, thereafter, he/she will either leave the system or would be promoted to next higher grade; and (c) no student other than 1000 would be allowed to enter the cycle in between the system.

Indicator 20: Transition Rates by Grades: promotion, repetition and dropout rates at primary and upper primary levels of education separately for boys and girls.

Indicator 21: Transition rate from primary to upper primary level and from upper primary to high school/ higher secondary level separately for boys and girls.

Indicator 22: Survival rate to Grade V: percentage of a pupil cohort actually reaching Grade V in relation to initial cohort of 1,000 pupils, i.e. input/output ratio.

Indicator 23: Coefficient of efficiency: ideal number of pupil years needed for a cohort to complete the primary cycle, expresses as a percentage of the actual number of pupil-years, i.e. wastage ratio which is reciprocal of input/output ratio.

Similarly, cohort survival and drop out rate can also be computed to know systems capacity to retain children in the system. Reasons of an inefficient system can also be worked out and can be divided into two parts, namely, wastage on account of repeaters and dropouts.

Other indicators that are required to measure the progress of EFA relate to investment on education and quality of education that are presented below:

E. Investment on Education

Indicator 24: Per pupil cost at primary level: recurring expenditure at primary level is divided by enrolment in primary classes (I-V)

Indicator 25: Expenditure on Primary Education (a) as percentage of Gross National Product (GNP); (b) per pupil, as a percentage of GNP per capita.

Indicator 26: Expenditure on primary education as percentage of total expenditure on education.

Keeping in view the nature of an indicator and purpose, it may be constructed either over time or for a single year. Thus, the information requirements vary from indicator to indicator not in terms of nature of variable but also in terms of time period. Reliability of data used in constructing indicators should be ensured. While taking stock of the educational development, all the sources of data, such as, primary and secondary, data generated through sample surveys by the semi governmental agencies and also by the researchers and research organisations should be explored. Similarly, both the qualitative, as well as, quantitative variables should be used in assessing progress of the EFA.


The basic indicator that gives idea about the coverage of child population (in a system) is the intake (entry) rate which is simply division of enrolment in Grade I to the corresponding population at which a child is supposed to enter into the system (in most of the cases it is either ‘5’ or ‘6’ year). However, while calculating the entry rate, repeaters are not considered and only fresh (new) entrants in Grade I are considered. This is because of the fact that repeaters are not the members of the present cohort but they have entered into the system some one or two years back. In case of the gross enrolment (including children below & above ‘6’ in Grade I), the rate calculated is known as Gross Entry Rate otherwise it is known as the Net Entry Rate. Entry rate is also known as Admission or Intake rate that demonstrates capacity of the system with regard to availability of schooling facilities. While calculating the net entry rate, net enrolment (new entrants) in Grade I of age ‘6’ is considered. A gross entry rate of 80 per cent means that about 80 per cent children (of entry age) including the overage and underage one are enrolled but a net entry rate of 80 per cent means that only 20 per cent children of entry age (‘5’ or ‘6’) are out of the system or are yet to be enrolled. Net entry rate is considered a better indicator of student coverage at the entry point (Grade I) than the gross entry rate. Unless the net entry rate is brought to hundred percent, the goal of universal enrolment cannot be achieved. Entry rate is also useful in knowing the likely enrolment in the subsequent grades in years that follow. However, in many systems age-grade matrix is not available and hence net entry rate cannot be calculated.

By enrolling all children of age-6 do not guarantee itself that the goal of universal enrolment will be achieved at its own, it is a necessary condition but not the sufficient condition. Children are to be retained in the system and should also acquire the minimum levels of competencies. For that purpose other indicators, such as, Gross and Net enrolment ratio, dropout & retention rate, transition from primary to upper primary level and achievements levels should also be analyzed.

The intake rate gives idea about the coverage of child population of entry age-6 in Grade I but it fails to give any idea about children those who entered and then remained in the system in years that follow. For this purpose indicators concerning to enrolment ratio and retention need to be analyzed. A variety of ratios, such as, Overall, Gross (GER), Net (NER) and Age-specific enrolment ratios are available for this purpose. The overall enrolment ratio presents the overall view of the entire education system where as GER and NER presents information about the coverage of child population at a particular level, such as, primary and upper primary level of education. On the other hand age-specific enrolment ratio presents information about the coverage of a particular age or age group. While assessing the progress made between the period 1990 & 2000, as a part of the EFA 18-core indicators, GER and NER were computed and analyzed.

The GER is division of enrolment (total) at school level í’ in year ‘t’ by a population in that age group á’ which officially correspond to that level í’. Thus for calculating the GER at primary level, total enrolment in primary Grades I-V irrespective of ages is considered which is then divided by the corresponding age-specific population, 6-11 (6+ to 10+) years to obtain GER. Similarly, total enrolment in upper primary grades VI-VIII is divided by the corresponding population 11-14 years (11+ to 13+) to obtain GER at the upper primary level. This means that overage and underage children are included in GER, which resulted into GER more than hundred percent in many locations. In locations with small population, a slight over reporting of enrolment may also result into GER more than hundred. The GER is therefore considered a crude indicator of child coverage and may present misleading picture of the true situation. Because of the overage and underage children, a GER more than hundred do not imply that the goal of UPE is achieved. Alternatively, net enrolment of a particular age group is considered in place of total enrolment. One such indicator is the Net Enrolment Ratio, which is an improved version of the GER.

In NER, overage and underage children are excluded from the enrolment and then ratio to the respective age-specific population is obtained. For example, enrolment in Grades I-V of age 6-11 years is considered which is than divided by the 6-11 years population to obtain NER at the primary level. Similarly, NER at the upper primary or the entire elementary level can also be worked out. A NER of 77 per cent at the elementary level implies that 23 per cent children of age 6-14 years are still out-of-school. Unless these children are brought under the education system, the goal of universal elementary enrolment cannot be achieved. Achieving hundred percent NER does not itself guarantee that the goal of UEE will be achieved at its own. Those who enrolled will have to retain in the system up to the end of an educational level. The NER and other indicators should be calculated separately for boys and girls and in rural and urban areas and also at the different administrative levels, as it would help to identify areas/locations that need immediate attention.

NER is considered a better indicator of enrolment than the GER. However, the limitation of the NER is that it excludes overage and underage children from the enrolment though they are very much in the system. The calculation of NER requires age & grade matrix that in most of the systems is not available. Alternate to GER and NER, age-specific enrolment ratio may be considered which gives enrolment ratio for a particular age or age group. For example, an age-specific enrolment ratio of age ‘7’ will include total enrolment of age ‘7’ irrespective of grades which is then divided by the single age population ‘7’ to obtain the ratio. The limitation of this ratio is that it considers total enrolment than enrolment in a particular grade that corresponds to age ‘7’. The calculation of age-specific ratio requires age-grade matrix, which as mentioned above is not readily available in many locations. An age-specific enrolment (age-7) of 67 per cent implies that 67 per cent children of age-7 are enrolled but it is not known in which grade are they enrolled. Or alternatively it can be said that 33 per cent children of age-7 are yet to be enrolled (in Grade I).

As it seems from the above discussion that the Net Enrolment Ratio is a better indicator of enrolment than other indicators of enrolment. It presents coverage of child population of a specific age group in relation to corresponding grades. In other words, it gives in percentage terms how many children of a specific age group are enrolled and at the same time also presents the estimates of out-of-school children at that point of time. The calculation of net enrolment ratio needs the age & grade matrix, which as mentioned above is not available in most of the cases. Sporadic attempts have been made in India to collect information on age & grade matrix but the same is not available on the regular basis both at the provincial as well as the country level. Information on the age & grade matrix is being collected in the DPEP districts but the same cannot be used to generate state-specific estimates of overage and underage children because of the limited coverage of districts in a state. Till such time, the existing estimates from the Sixth All India Educational Survey conducted in 1993-94 can be used to know the percentage of the overage and underage children both at the primary and upper primary levels of education. However, the same is not readily available at the district level as the publications containing district-specific data in case of the most states is either not available or they do not contain this set of data. Whatever the limited data that is available on age & grade matrix is not free from the errors of measurement. For instance in India, enrolment is collected from the recognized schools only where as the unrecognized private institutions which are large in number is not included in the annual collection of statistics. Data on age & grade matrix is obtained from the class registers where the date of birth of each and every child enrolled is written. But in the process of transmitting age (in year) from the date of birth many approximations take place; hence the age & grade matrix is not free from errors (lot of confusion prevails so far as 5+ or 6+ or 6-11 or 5+ to 10+ population). Further, the date of birth it self may not be correct especially in the rural areas where birth certificates are generally not available. On the discretion of the parents or even teachers the date of birth is recorded in the school registers.

Can attendance be a better indicator of enrolment?

The discussion presented above suggests that unless all the children of age 6-11 years are enrolled, the goal of universal primary enrolment cannot be achieved. This is also true for the other age groups, like 11-14 and 6-14 years. However, by enrolling children it self does not guarantee that the goal of universal enrolment will be achieved. It has been observed that children those who are enrolled do not attend schools regularly. For instance in India, compared to a GER of above 90 per cent at the primary level, the corresponding attendance rate is only 65 per cent. At the upper primary level also, the attendance rate is much lower than the corresponding GER and NER. Therefore indicators, such as, GER and NER cannot be considered better indicators of enrolment. Alternatively, it would be better to consider average attendance rate at different levels of education, which can be calculated either on daily, monthly, quarterly or even on annual basis. Keeping in view the availability of data, the attendance rate may either be gross or net in nature. The attendance rate is one of the important indicators of monitoring. For that purpose, it should be calculated separately for boys and girls and also at different levels. The school-specific attendance rates will help to identify schools that need immediate attention. Monthly attendance, if monitored properly will highlight possible reasons of low attendance and whether it is because of boys or girls, harvest season, festival season or because of the migratory population can also be known. All this is not possible to analyze in the traditional enrolment ratios. Across countries, attendance rate is generally not available as it is not a part of the regular collection of statistics.

Attendance rate can be calculated in relation to the number of school working days and children actually attending a class. For example, in a Class of 45 students in a school that functioned for 22 of the 30 days in a month, attendance rate can be calculated in accordance to the actual number of days children attended schools. Some of them might have attended school for all the 22 days while others may not have. First, the maximum possible present days (attendance) is calculated by multiplying the number of school days to number of students in a class. In this case it would come out (22 x 45), a total of 990 present days (care should be taken in schools that have tradition of marking attendance twice a day, in the first and last period. In that case both the maximum possible attendance days and actual present days will be changed accordingly). Now actual number of present days (number of days students actually attended a class) is counted in that month by observing the class register. Let us suppose that it come out to be 600 student present days. The average is calculated simply by dividing 600 by the maximum possible present days (990). This will give an average monthly attendance of 60.61 per cent in a class. By following the same procedure, average attendance in other classes and separately in case of boys and girls can be obtained either on daily, monthly, quarterly or annual basis. Once the average attendance is obtained in all the classes of a school, the same may be used to obtain average attendance for that school. In that case, the first total student present days in a month are obtained by adding the present days in different classes, which is then divided by the maximum possible present days (all classes) in that month. This can be obtained by multiplying school working days to the total number of students in different classes in a school. Once the school-specific average attendance rates are calculated, it can be used to calculate the same at different levels. The above set of attendance rates are based on the school registers, which should be built-in, in the management information system. Alternatively, attendance rates can also be worked out on the basis of household survey. This was initiated recently in India and Gross, Net and Age-specific attendance rates were worked out. These rates are worked out in relation to the total number of children attending school. If the attendance rate is calculated by considering all the children in Classes I-V, including the overage and underage children, the rate obtained is called Gross Attendance Rate. Otherwise if the overage and underage children are not considered and only enrolment of a specific age group is considered in calculating the rate, the rate thus obtained is termed as Net Attendance Rate. Similarly, age-specific attendance rate can also be worked out by considering a specific age children attending schools.

The GER, NER and Age-specific Enrolment Ratio can be adjusted in the light of the actual average attendance. A GER of 95 per cent at the primary level with 65 per cent attendance will give an adjusted-GER of 62 per cent. Similarly a GER of 59 per cent at the upper primary level with 43 per cent attendance will give an adjusted-GER of 25 per cent. The adjusted-GER suggests that though 95 per cent children (including overage and underage) are enrolled in primary classes but only 62 per cent of them attend schools regularly. The corresponding figures at the upper primary level is 59 per cent against adjusted-GER of 25 per cent. But how ‘average attendance’ should be defined is an important question. Similarly who will be termed as ‘regular student’ and how migratory and nomads children will be treated are another important areas of the concern.

Can reliable attendance rate be generated?

However, obtaining accurate attendance rate is a challenging task. Data users often question reliability of educational data and the official set of enrolment is found inflated. This is also reflected if the official set of data is compared with the corresponding statistics of the All India Educational Surveys conducted by the NCERT. A significant gap irrespective of an educational level is noticed both at the all-India and provincial levels and also in case of boys and girls. Information on the attendance can be collected through the teachers only, which like enrolment may not always present the real picture. Generally, three sets of enrolment are available in the schools. First, the number of students whose names are written in the class register, second those who are marked present and third those who are physically present in the class on the day of the visit. The third one in most of the cases is found lower than the second one and the second one lower than the first one. It may also be recalled that in the developing countries, specifically in the South Asia a number of incentives are being offered to the children to improve both the enrolment and attendance. For instance, in India mid-day meal is one such scheme under which all the primary school children are entitled to receive rice/wheat at the rate of 100 grams per day provided that they attend school for not less than 80 per cent of the total working days in a month. This has suddenly increased both the enrolment as well as attendance across the country. Independent observers are of the opinion that in many cases the improvement in the attendance is not genuine and like enrolment it is also inflated. The entire country is covered under the mid-day meal scheme. Schools that are covered under the scheme and have lifted the grains have at least 80 per cent attendance by default. In many locations, even it is found above 90 and even hundred percent that may be genuine or may also even be inflated. Thus obtaining attendance data from the school registers through the teachers may not bring forth the real picture about the children attending schools. The same if collected from the households may also not likely to improve the reliability of the attendance rate. However, advantage of the HH survey is that children those who are enrolled in the private unrecognized institutions are also covered in the survey, which is not true in case of the information collected from schools as a part of the regular collection of the statistics. The respondent in household surveys in most of the cases is the head of the household and not the members of the house. The head of the household is authorized to provide answer whether children in his/her house attending the schools regularly. But how ‘regular’ is defined and interpret is an important mater. A student attending school for 50 per cent of the working days in a month will be considered regular or a student who attend schools for 75 or 80 per cent of the total working days. Can the head of the household provide this information accurately? This is doubtful especially when a large number of the head of the households themselves are illiterate or literate without completing any schooling level. The only option therefore left to collect the reliable information on attendance is through visiting the schools without the prior notice. Naturally, this can be done on the sample basis only. But who will conduct the survey is a moot question. Community, as it seems is the only option left for this purpose. What would be the frequency of such surveys and feedback mechanism are the other important questions which needs to be properly addressed before such surveys are launched.

Can completion rate be an alternative indicator of enrolment & attendance?

Even if some mechanism is developed to generate reliable attendance rate, a host of other issues concerning to the classroom transactions would need to be addressed. It is not possible to compare different educational systems because of the number of days a school function (in a year), actual duration of classroom transactions and type of transaction taking place all that vary from school to school. Even within a country, it is not possible to compare the attendance rate in schools under different managements. Schools are not at par with reference to the duration of classroom transactions, number of teachers and teaching-learning aids. The quality of classroom transactions solely depends upon the teachers, their qualifications, experience, training and subject specialization. It also depends upon the pupil-teacher ratio, average number of teachers per section, whether multi-grade teaching is taking place and type of the teaching aids being utilized all that vary from school to school. The leadership provided by the Head Master/Head Teacher also influence classroom transactions so as the physical and ancillary facilities available in the schools. The attendance rate may therefore be considered a better alternative indicator of enrolment but because of the considerations presented above it may not be possible to use it globally for measuring the participation rate. Second, there is no guarantee that students who attend schools regularly would also complete the educational level. It is because of these reasons completion rate may be considered an ideal alternative indicator of enrolment than the attendance rate.

Information on completion rates can be generated in a variety of ways. The methodology developed should be dynamic in nature so that information over a period of time can be analyzed duration of which depends upon the composition of an educational level. Information on number of graduates is generally available on the regular basis but the same needs to be linked to the enrolment in Grade I (four years back) through which graduates enter into the system. Had there been no wastage in the system (i.e. the perfect efficient system), graduates will take exactly five years to complete the primary and three years to complete upper primary level. But in the reality, the situation is not so as a large number of repetitions (across grades) are taking place every year. In addition, a number of children drop out from the system without completing an educational level. It is precisely because of this reason that the issue of completion rate gets complicated. Because of the repetition, it is not possible from the secondary sources to find out the true completion rates as some graduates take five years others may take six or more years to complete the primary level. Alternatively, completion rates can also be obtained by using the Reconstructed Cohort method that is based upon a set of three assumptions. First, the existing grade-specific transition rates such as dropout, promotion and repetition remain constant, second no fresh admissions are allowed in between the evolution of the cohort and third, after repeating a grade certain number of times, students will either be dropped out from the system or they will be promoted to the next higher grade. The significant limitation of this methodology is in its assumption regarding the constant transition rates in years that follow, which may not always be true. Second, a few students may not leave even after three or four repetitions and continue to remain in the system. Lastly, no consideration is given to input conditions as well as the quality of outcomes that the system is producing.

Because of the above considerations some mechanism would need to evolve to generate the true completion rates. One such alternative is tracking of each and every child who enters into the system till he/she remains in the system. This can be done either by using the past school registers or by maintaining the same in the future. By following the methodology, completion rates starting different cohorts (years) can be generated either by considering transfers or even without transfers. During the evolution of cohort, a pupil who leaves school for any reason, except death, before completion of an educational level and who does not transfer to another school (including the unrecognized one) is termed as dropout. A few others who leave the system with the transfer certificates and if the receiving school sends pupils record, or the parent/guardian provide information regarding the school into which the pupil is transferring are termed as transfers. The number of transfers, if significant may influence the completion rates dramatically. The other important aspect is the question of new entrants those who join the system in between the evolution of cohort. These students are not the members of the original cohort and as such they should not be considered in generating the completion rates. We are interested only in the original members of the cohort as how they move into the system. This can be done in two ways either by considering repeaters or without considering repeaters. If the repeaters are not considered, completion rate would produce percentage of children (in relation to Grade I) those who have exactly taken five years to complete the primary level. On the other hand, a few children repeat a grade once or more and hence would not be able to complete the level in five years but continue to remain in the system. These children are expected to take six or more years to complete the primary cycle and hence should not be ignored. Therefore the ideal situation would be to generate completion rates with the repeaters until the last student leave the system. Thus we may have two sets of the completion rates, one for those who exactly take five years and other for those who take more than five years to complete the primary level. The third alternative may be to consider both together. The only information that needs to be analyzed is the class registers that is readily available in most of the schools. The completion rates should be generated separately for boys and girls and also at the disaggregated levels. One such study was recently undertaken in India that is termed as ‘Cohort Study’. This has been experimented in the DPEP states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. School-specific completion rates are now available in these states along with the achievement levels in a few sampled schools. The study tracked children from the school registers from grade one to another until they complete primary schooling (Grade V) in exactly five years but ignored children those who repeat a particular grade.

Completing the primary level it self does not guarantee that children will automatically transit to the upper primary level. Therefore, once the completion rates are available, the next important indicator that needs to be analyzed is transition from the primary to upper primary level of education. The transition rate is calculated by considering Grade VI enrolment (minus repeaters) in relation to the enrolment in Grade V the previous year. (It is better to consider number of students who complete Grade V successfully and then transit to Grade VI). It may however be noted that without attaining the status of universal primary enrolment, the goal of universal elementary education too cannot be achieved. Primary enrolment is a function of 6-11 years population but the same is not true in case of the upper primary enrolment, which is a function of primary graduates. Availability of primary graduates along with transition from primary to upper primary level would decide the future expansion of upper primary education. After transition rates are analyzed, completion rate at the end of the upper primary level (Grade VIII) would be the next indicator that needs to be analyzed.

Once the completion rates both at the primary and upper primary levels of education are available, the next important issue is their interpretation. High completion rates suggest that the system is efficient one as most of the students are taking five years to graduate the primary level. On the other hand, low completion rates would mean that the system is inefficient one as only few students are taking five years and others are either dropped out from the system or taking more than five years to graduate primary education. Once the completion rates are available the same should be linked to the corresponding single-age population to know coverage of child population (of a specific age) graduating an educational level. This can certainly be considered a better indicator of coverage than the traditional enrolment ratio. It would present percentage of child population (say age 11) graduating an educational level (say primary) in any given year. While calculating percentage, if all the graduates irrespective of the age are considered, the ratio that would be obtained is termed as Gross Completion Ratio. Otherwise graduates of a specific age (say age 11), if considered in calculating percentage would term as Net Completion Ratio. By and large, Gross & Net Completion ratios would also take care of the overage and underage children as well as children those who take more than five years to complete an educational level. In case of the universal primary education, all children of a specific age (say age 11) would need to complete an educational level.

Is it completion or graduation rate that can be an ideal alternative?

No doubt the Completion Rate and Gross & Net Completion Ratios proposed above are the better indicators than the traditionally used enrolment indicators. However, the more pertinent question is whether the completion rate under different managements can be compared, as all the members of a cohort do not have the identical input conditions in schools under different managements. Second, because of the early or lateral entry all the members of the cohort are not of the same age. Third, the methodology proposed takes cognizance of only number of students who successfully complete an education cycle and do not take into account the quality of output that the system is producing. It may be possible that a system has very high completion rate but the outcome that it has been producing is not acceptable to the economy or alternatively a system has very low completion rate but the outcome is acceptable to the economy. Therefore unless the achievement level is linked to the outcomes, the Gross & Net Completion Ratios would serve only a limited purpose. Therefore, the next indicator that should be considered is the achievement level of graduates. Because of the no detention policy in the primary grades, examination results in India by and large are not considered an indicator of student’s achievement. Quality of education in India is measured in terms of the learner’s achievement. State Governments are responsible for establishing requirements for the school graduation and maintaining standards. Since education is a state subject, states are free to adopt local-specific curriculum, syllabus, textbooks and medium of instruction. However, while assessing the quality of outcomes, they are generally guided by the Minimum Levels of Learning specified by the NCERT. Keeping in view the educational development, parental background, socio-economic background of an area, graduation requirements may vary from one area to another. Attempts have been made in the recent past in India to conduct achievement tests in the DPEP states in subjects like language, mathematics and environment science but tests have not yet been imparted on to the primary school outcomes.

Therefore in addition to the completion rate presented above, Graduation Rate should also be generated to know the quality of outcomes. The completion rate is purely a quantitative analysis that provides a measure of how many pupils complete an educational level ignoring the qualitative aspects. The Completion Rate is cumulative rate, which calculate the number of students who complete schooling. It is calculated as a percent of those who were the members of the initial cohort and could have completed over a five-year period primary schooling. But who is a graduate and how graduation rates are calculated is a pertinent question. Is the completion and graduation rates same, if not how do they differ is another important question. An outcome that meets the graduation requirements (i.e. achievement tests of his/her district/state, if any) should be considered graduate. In other words, achievement tests should be imparted on to the school completers to know whether they fulfill requirements of a graduate. Graduation rates should be calculated based on the school outcomes only. If a student is not considered graduate, then he/she is not included in calculating the graduation rate. On the other hand completion rates are calculated based on all students who are graduates, plus those who are not considered graduates as per the achievement tests. The graduation rate is a cumulative rate, which calculates the number of students who actually graduate as a percent of those who were members of the initial cohort and could have graduated over a five-year period (Grades I-V). Alternatively, graduation rate can also be calculated in relation to the number of completers those who meet the graduation requirements instead of the total number of initial cohort members. In that case, the rate calculated would be known as percentage of the completers those who meet graduation requirements. Can there be pupils who complete five years of schooling and are not termed graduates? Yes, this is quite possible if they do not fulfill the requirement of graduation in terms of attainment. These students can be awarded school completion/attendance certificate, as they do not meet the graduation requirements. Neither the completion nor the graduation rate can be greater than 100 per cent.

Is the system ready to generate completion & graduation rates?

A variety of completion & graduation rates and ratios have been proposed in the present article as an alternative to the traditionally used indicators of enrolment. Many countries especially from the South Asian region are not in a position to generate these rates on the regular basis. Countries in this region are still struggling with as how to generate the reliable statistics of enrolment. Over reporting of enrolment, error of measurement in generating age & grade matrix, time lag and gaps in the educational data are some of the major limitations in the existing set of enrolment. Question mark on the reliability of educational data in India is another major area of concern. This is more so relevant to the enrolment data in India that has initiated a number of steps to improve upon the existing EMIS. Over reporting of enrolment and attendance in India is mainly because of the incentive schemes and other parameters linked to the enrolment. However, there are a few administrative limitations also, which are also responsible for this state of the affairs. Multiple data collection agencies, lack of coordination between different education departments, problems in the printing & distribution of data capture formats, inadequate, under qualified & untrained staff for the MIS at all levels, ineffective feedback mechanism, unsatisfactory dissemination and poor utilization are some of the other important limitations in the existing information system. However, the most significant limitation is the lack of the accountability in the affairs of the data management, as it seems that no one is accountable for this state of the affairs right from the national to the grassroots levels. Because of the interventions in India, in an about 192 of the 593 districts, the data tabulation process has improved effectively but the reliability of data still remained a major area of concern because of the involvement of the teachers in supplying the information. As it seems that for the time being, it is not possible to get the reliable data from the schools. Therefore, the indicators proposed in the present article (mostly based on school registers) may not be able to construct. The only alternative left is to collect the information on the basis of the household surveys, like NFHS and NSSO, which are considered far more reliable than the information collected through the schools & teachers. But these surveys are not being conducted on the regular basis to gather information on the educational variables. It may also be noted that under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme, it is mandatory that the districts conduct household surveys to gather information on out-of-school children and reasons of never been enrolled and dropout. A large number of districts under SSA have already conducted such surveys but the same need further refinements. The methodology & formats used, the unit of consolidation, level of computerization, dissemination and utilization are unless made uniform may not serve the purpose. By and large the teachers conducted these surveys and unless the community is involved in the conduct of the survey, data feeding, dissemination and utilization, one cannot expect much improvement in the quality of the educational data. (The Lok Jumbish has successfully involved the community in Rajasthan in the affairs of the data collection and use.) Once this system is streamlined, the dependability of collecting information on enrolment & attendance from the schools through teachers would become redundant.

The Indicators Repot


In case of preparation of status report on educational development or a national/state/district report on the development, the first step is to prepare a list of indicators which are to be included in the report which should be linked to policy goals and targets. While analysing policy goals, both long term and short-term targets should be considered which should also include goals and targets setout in the current plan. It should also be decided whether the presentation should show trend changes, variation in states and districts, rural and urban comparisons or whether comparison according to age and gender is required to include in the report or not. The report may cover all of these areas, which depends upon the type of information that is available. All the sources should be explored which may include Government and non-Governmental agencies collecting educational data both on regular and/or ad-hoc basis and on census or sample basis.

Once the area of analysis is finalized, the next important task is to identify indicators, which can be grouped under Demand, Resources, Access, Participation and Output indicators. Indicators relating to clientele population, access, participation and output should at least form part of the report, which may be supplemented by indicators relating to other areas. Thus, indicators such as, enrolment ratios distributed according to urban & rural areas, percentage habitations covered under schooling/NFE facilities, targeted and actual children enrolled should be computed and presented in the report. The appropriate selection of statistical tables has effective impacts. The design of display tables should aim at easy interpretation of the main areas of concern. Broadly, the following aspects should be considered while selecting type of indicators:

· Include information essential for highlighting policy‑relevant trends and contrasts, not minute details that will obscure the main message;

· Present the net results, relegating the detail tables used for calculation to a separate technical reference section; and

· Highlight the magnitude of difference between comparative groups of the analytical variables.

The selected indicators can also be displayed through graphs, charts and thematic maps. The selection of a graph type should be related to nature and time frame of indicator so chosen. The presentation of statistical numbers through graphs and maps has become so common that they have become almost synonymous and found place in most of the reports. The transformation of numbers into graphs and maps has made statistics accessible to people who are not accustomed to reading tables. A graph presented should enable readers to see directly both overall pattern and details and it should presented in such a fashion that they don’t need to refer any other document/table for clarification. Both time‑series and cross‑sectional data can be used and graphs be created. For time‑series related indicators, Line Graph, Area Chart and Bar Diagrams are most appropriate to create. For relational graphics, XY‑Graphs may be used. In order to show regional variations, Thematic Maps should be drawn which may depict either states or districts or any other micro unit. All this can be handled efficiently with the computers. One such software is Microsoft EXCEL, which can be used for basic data analysis and creation of graphs and charts. The advantage of using this software is in its interface with other two components, namely, MS‑WORD and PowerPoint Presentation.

Annexure I
Training Programme on Using Indicators in Planning Elementary Education
(New Delhi, February 18-22, 2002)


Monday, February 18, 2002
0930 hrs. Registration
1000 hrs. Inaugural Session
Prof. B. P. Khandelwal
– Prof. M. Mukhopadhyay
1130 hrs. Education for All in India
– Dr. R. Govinda
1400 hrs. Educational Planning in India
– Dr. S. M. I. A Zaidi
1445 hrs. Indicators: Concept, Definitions & Classification
– Dr. Arun C. Mehta
1600 hrs. Educational Management Information System in India
– Dr. Y. P. Aggarwal
Tuesday, February 19, 2002
0900 hrs. Library
1000 hrs. Data Requirements for Educational Planning
– Dr. Arun C. Mehta
1145 hrs. Demographic Indicators
– Dr. N. K. Mohanty
1415 hrs. Indicators of Educational Development: Access & Coverage
– Dr. S. M. I. A Zaidi
1545 hrs Indicators of Educational Development: Access & Coverage: Practical Exercise
– Dr. S. M. I. A Zaidi
Wednesday, February 20, 2002
0900 hrs. Library
1000 hrs. Indicators of Educational Development: Efficiency of Education System
– Dr. Arun C. Mehta
1145 hrs. Practical Exercise on Indicators of Efficiency of Education System
– Dr. Arun C. Mehta
1415 hrs. Measures of Inequalities and Disparities
– Dr. S. M. I. A. Zaidi
1545 hrs. Practical Exercise on Measures of Inequalities and Disparities
– Dr. S. M. I. A. Zaidi
Thursday, February 21, 2002
0900 hrs. Library
1000 hrs. Computation of Out-of-School Children
– Dr. Arun C. Mehta
1130 hrs. From Indicators of Enrolment to Attendance, Completion & Graduation Rates
– Dr. Arun C. Mehta
1415 hrs. Indicators of Quality of Education
– Prof. Shri Prakash
1545 hrs. Indicators of Quality of Education (Continued)
– Prof. Shri Prakash
Friday, February 22, 2002
0900 hrs. Library
1000 hrs. Indicators of Educational Development: Financial Parameters
– Dr. Yazali Josephine
1145 hrs. Practical Exercise on Indicators of Educational Development: Financial Parameters
– Dr. Yazali Josephine
1400 hrs. Role of Indicators in Enrolment Projections
– Dr. Arun C. Mehta
1530 hrs. Evaluation and Valediction

Annexure II
Training Programme on Using Indicators in Planning Elementary Education
(February 18, 22, 2002)


  1. Shri K. Sudhakar Reddy
    Addl. Project Coordinator DPEP
    District Primary Education Programme,
    R.R. District – 500 001
    Andhra Pradesh
  2. Shri D.N. Murty
    Additional Project Coordinator
    Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
    East Godawary District
    Rampachodavaram – 533288
    Andhra Pradesh
  3. Sree Ramamurthy Tubati
    Additional Project Coordinator
    Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
    Krishna District
    Andhra Pradesh
  4. Shri V. Narayana Rao
    Mandal Resource Person
    O/O Mandal Educational Officer
    ATMAKUR Mandal
    Nellore District
    Andhra Pradesh
  5. Shri P. Chenchu Reddy
    Community Mobilization Officer
    O/O Additional Project Coordinator
    Nellore District
    Andhra Pradesh
  6. Shri Parasuram P.
    State Council of Educational Research and Training
    Opposite L.B. Stadium
    Hyderabad – 500 001
    Andhra Pradesh.
  7. P. Sudarshan Reddy
    State Project Office Andhra Pradesh


  1. Shri Jatin Chandra Sarmah
    Deputy Director of School Education
    Directorate of School Education
    Government of Arunachal Pradesh
    District Papum Paree – 791111
    Arunachal Pradesh


  1. Shri Dipak Kumar Tiwary
    Assistant Computer Programmer
    Bihar Education Project Council
    Beltron Bhawan
    Shastri Nagar
    Patna – 800 023
  2. Shri Sunil Kumar Shrivastwa
    Assistant Computer Programmer
    Bihar Education Project
    DIET Campus
    W. Champaran
  3. Shri Ahasan
    Range Education Officer Chapra Sadar – cum Additional
    District Programme Coordinator
    SSA, Saran
  4. Shri Akhileshwar Kumar Pandeya
    Secondary Primary and Adult Education
    Vikash Bhawan


  1. Shri Alok K. Sharma
    Extension Service Department
    Govt. College of Education
    Shankar Nagar
    District Raipur – 492007
  2. Dr. Sudhir Shrivastava
    Sr. Lecturer
    Dharmjai Garh
    District Raigarh – 496 116


  1. Ms. Punya Salia Srivastava
    Collector Dadra & Nagar Haveli
    Administration of Dadara & Nagar Haveli
    Silwassa – 396230


  1. Ms. Joshi Darshana
    Asst. Director
    Directorate of Primary Education
    12 Dr. Jivraj Mehta Bhavan
  2. Shri Rameshchandra M. Amaliar
    District Primary Education Officer
    District Panchayat Nadiyad
  3. Shri Anjaria Arunkumar M.
    District Primary Education Programme
    District Panchayat Compound
    Kutch – Bhuj
  4. Shri Rakesh R. Mistry
    District Primary Education Programme Junagadh
    Near Darbar Hall Museum
    Janta Chowk
    Kanya Shalu No.2 (Ist Floor)
    Junagadh – 362 001


  1. Shri Chaman Lal Angirasa
    Assistant Director
    Directorate of Primary Education
    Himachal Pradesh
    Shimla – 171 001
  2. Shri Chaman Lal Thakur
    Directorate of Primary Education
    Himachal Pradesh
    Shimla – 171 001


  1. Smt. Ravinder Kaur
    Assistant Director
    Office of Director of Secondary Education


  1. Shri Ibrahim Kutty P.K.
    Programme Officer
    District Project Office
    Malappuram -676519
  2. Shri George Joseph
    Principal, DIET
    DIET Wayanad
    Sulthan Bathery – 673592


  1. Smt. Snehlata Srivastava
    Planning Officer
    District Education Office
    Shajapur -465 001
    Madhya Pradesh


  1. Shri Shinde Shivaji Ramarao
    District Institute of Education and Training
    Parabhani – 431401
  2. Shri Rathod Puniram Amarsingh
    Sr. Lecturer
    District Institute of Education and Training
    Nanded – 431602
  3. Shri Patare Kacharu Laxman
    Maharashtra State Council of Educational
    Research and Training (MSCERT)
    Pune – 411030


  1. Shri T. Ponnambalam
    State Training Centre
    Education Department
    District Pondicherry – 605008
  2. Shri S. Velu
    Deputy Inspector of Schools
    Education Department
    Government of Pondicherry
    Office of the Chief Educational Officer
    District Karaikal – 609605
  3. Shri Shenbagavalli Panneerselvam
    Deputy Inspector of Schools
    Office of the Deputy inspector of Schools
    Zone – I
    Pondicherry – 605 001
  4. Shri S. Gnanaraj
    District Institute of Education & Training
    District Pondicherry – 605008
  5. Shri R. Venkatachalapathy
    Deputy Inspector of Schools
    Zone II
    Office of the CEO Karaikal
    District Karaikal – 609 605
  6. Shri G. Sambasivam
    Vice Principal
    K.K. Govt. Higher Secondary School
    Madagadi Pet
    Pondicherry – 605107
  7. Shri Bakhshish Singh
    Lecturer (Planning & Management)
    District Institute of Education and Training
    District Patiala – 148001
  8. Shri S. Sham Sher Bahadur Singh
    Head Teacher
    Govt. Primary School Kot Bakktu
    Block Sangat
    District Bathinda, -151001
  9. Shri Jagjit Singh
    Lecturer in Commerce
    Govt. in-Service Training Centre
    15/5, Power House Road
    Bathinda – 151001
  10. Dr. (Mrs.) Shashi Trehan
    Lecturer Biology
    Government In-service Training Centre
    Near Bharat Nagar Chowk
    Ludhiana – 141002
  11. Shri Man Mohan Singh
    JBT Teacher
    District Education Officer (P)
    Opp. Nestle India Limited Ambadkar
    Bhawan Moga – 142 001
  12. Shri Raj Kumar Heera
    JBT Teacher
    DEO (P) Ludhiana


  1. Mr. P. Sivasubramanian
    District Elementary Educational Officer
    District Project Coordinator
    Tamil Nadu
  2. Shri P. Jagadeesan
    District Elementary Education Officer & District Programme Coordinator
  3. Dr. D. Ranjini Devi
    Deputy Director, DPEP
    District Elementary Education Programme
    State Project Office
    DPI Campus – 600 006
    Tamil Nadu
  4. Shri R. Palaniswamy
    Joint Director
    Directorate of Elementary Education
    College Road
    Chennai – 600 006
    Tamil Nadu


  1. Shri Rajendra Prasad Dandriyal
    Principal G.I.C Roorkee
    Uttaranchal Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
    Parade Ground Dehra Dun
    District Dehra Dun
  2. Shri Jagdish Singh Sajwan
    Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari
    Office of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
    Parade Ground
    District Dehra Dun
  3. Shri Ambika Nandan Joshi
    District Coordinator (Training)
    District Primary Education Programme
    Pithoragarh – 262501
  4. Shri Madan Ram Panchwal
    District Coordinator
    Office of the Expert Basic Siksha Adhikari
    Uttarkashi – 249193


  1. Ms. Bhawana Shiksharthi
    Reader IASE
    Institute of Advanced Study in Education
    53, M.G. Marg
    Allabhabad – 211 001
    Uttar Pradesh
  2. Shri Rajiv Mehra
    System Analyst
    U.P. DPEP
    Vidhya Bhawan
    Nishat Ganj Lucknow
  3. Shri K.K. Gupta
    Joint Director (DPEP)
    SCERT Nishat Ganj
  4. Dr. Puran Singh
    Senior Lecturer
    District Institute of Education and Training
    Sercular Road
    Muzaffar Nagar
    District Muzaffar Nagar


  1. Shri Nabendu Kumar Sur
    Assistant Inspector of Schools
    Directorate of School Education
    West Bengal Bikash Bhavan
    7th Floor, Salt Lake City
    Kolkata – 700 091
  2. Shri Subhajit Chattopadhyay
    Sub-Inspector of Schools
    Directorate of School Education
    West Bengal Bikash Bhavan
    7th Floor, Salt Lake City
    Kolkata – 700 091

Annexure III


  1. Decentralization of Educational Planning in India: The Case of District Primary Education Programme, N.V.Varghese
  2. Data Requirements for Educational Planning, Arun C. Mehta
  3. Educational Information System in India and its Limitations: Suggestions for Improvements, Arun C. Mehta
  4. Reliability of Educational Data in the Context of NCERT Sixth All India Educational Survey, Arun C. Mehta
  5. NSSO: Education Data by J. P. Mishra
  6. Management of Educational Information System in Indian Context, V. K. Jain
  7. Educational Management Information System: Planning, Management and Monitoring Strategies for DPEP, Yash Aggarwal
  8. District Information System for Education: A Brief Introduction, Yash Aggarwal
  9. Indicators of Educational Development: Concepts and Definitions, Arun C. Mehta
  10. Demographic Indicators. N. K. Mohanty
  11. International Consultative Forum on Education For All (1998), `Education For All: The Year 2000 Assessment (Technical Guidelines)’, UNESCO, Paris.
  12. Excerpts from Indicators of Educational Systems (Johnstone, James N)
  13. IIEP, Paris, `Information Systems and Educational Policies: A Framework for the Indicators’.
  14. IIEP, Paris, `Development of an Indicators System: Concepts and Definition’.
  15. IIEP, Paris, `Analysis and Communication of Information’.
  16. Measure of Inequalities by S. M. I. A Zaidi
  17. From Indicators of Enrolment to Attendance, Completion and Graduation Rates by Arun c. Mehta
  18. EFA Indicators: Report on the Meeting & Proposals for the Future Development of EFA Indicators, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal


  • Blaug; Mark (1981), `Planning Education For Reducing Inequalities’, Paris: UNESCO, Carron, Gabriel and Chau Tangoc (1981), `Reduction of Regional Disparities: The Role of the Educational Planning’, IIEP, Paris.
  • Coombs, Philip H (1970), What is Educational Planning?, UNESCO: IIEP, Paris.
  • Education for All in India
  • Education for All: Year 2000 Assessment, INDIA (2000), NIEPA & MHRD, New Delhi
  • IIEP (1982), `Inequalities in Educational Development’, papers presented at an IIEP Seminar, Paris.
  • IIEP (1992), Primary Education in Lesotho: Indicators 1992, Paris.
  • Johnstone, James N. (1981), Indicators of Educational Systems, Kogan Page (for IIEP‑UNESCO), London.
  • Mehta, Arun C. (1995), Education For All in India‑ Myth and Reality, Kanishka Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.
  • Mehta, Arun C. (1999), Preparation of Common UN Database for India: Indicators Definitions, NIEPA, New Delhi
  • Mukhopadhyay M. and Mohanty Alekha (2001). Information Management for Educational Planning, in governance of School Education in India by Marmar Mukhopadhyay and R. s. Tyagi, NIEPA, New Delhi
  • Oakes, J. (1986), Educational Indicators: A Guide for Policymakers, Rutgers University Centre for Policy Research in Education, New Brunswick, NJ, Santa Monica (California): Rand Corporation.
  • Psacharopoulos, George (1985), Planning of Education: Where Do We Stand, Discussion Paper No. EDT4, Education and Training Series, The World Bank.
  • Ross, Kenneth N. & T.N. Postlethwaite T.N. (1991), Indicators of the Quality of Education: A Summary of a National Study of Primary Schools in Zimbabwe, IIEP, Paris.
  • UNESCO (1982), Quantitative and Financial Aspects of Educational Planning (Book III), Basic Training Programme in Educational Planning and Management, UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
  • UNESCO (1986), `Estimating Future School Enrolment in Developing Countries: A Manual of Methodology’, By Bangee, A. Lin, Population Studies No. 40, New York: United Nations
  • Windham, D.M.(1988), Indicators of Educational Effectiveness and Efficiency, IEES, Learning Systems Institute, Florida Sate University, Tallahassee, (Fla.).
  • Willims, Douglas, J; Monitoring School Performance: A Guide to Educators.
  • Sauvageot, Claude, Indicators for Educational Planning: A Practical Guide, IIEP, Paris.

Annexure IV
Training Programme on Using Indicators in Planning of Elementary Education
(New Delhi, 18-22, February 2002)


With a view to evaluate the methodology and organization of course, participants are requested to give their comments. The views expressed by you are given due consideration while formulating the course next year.

It is not necessary to give your name. But in case you wish, you may give your identity:

I. The course had the following three objectives:

  1. to identify appropriate information for planning education at disaggregated level;
  2. to train the participants to develop and interpret a set of indicators; and
  3. to familiarize participants in the use of indicators in planning educational programmes.

Do you think that that the above‑mentioned objectives are achieved? Please mark as follows:

Totally Adequately Partly Not at all

Objective (i)



II. Course Evaluation

a) i) Which of the lectures/presentations you found most useful?




ii) Which of the Lectures/presentations you found least useful?




b) Would you like to include any other themes that are not covered in this Course and you feel that are relevant. Please specify.




III. Reading material

How would you rate the articles/papers given to you as a background material?

Very Good Good Satisfactory Not Satisfactory

IV. Were the practical exercises useful?

Very Useful Useful Not Very Useful

V. Duration of the Course.

Sufficient Just Right Rather Short

VI. Overall Rating of the Course

How would you rate the overall conduct and nature of the Course?

Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor

VII. Any other suggestions


Annexure V


B. P. Khandelwal
Phone 6515472/3384359
M. Mukhopadhyay
Joint Director
Phone 6518218

Educational Planning Unit
Biswal Kamalakanta, Associate Fellow
Snehi Neeru, Associate Fellow
Mohanty, N.K., Research & Training Associate

Educational Administration Unit
Josephine Y, Associate Fellow
Narula Manju, Research & Training Associate

Educational Finance Unit
Tilak J.B.G., Senior Fellow & Head
Rani Geetha, Associate Fellow
Reddy A.N., Research & Training Associate

Educational Policy Unit
Sudha Rao K, Senior Fellow & Head
Bandyopadhyay Madhumita, Associate Fellow

School & Non-Formal Education Unit
Govinda R, Senior Fellow & Head
Mukhopadhyay Sudesh, Senior Fellow
Juneja Nalini, Fellow
Sood Neelam, Fellow
Diwan Rashmi, Associate Fellow
Ph. 6510135

Higher Education Unit
Sharma G.D., Senior Fellow & Head
Wizarat Kausar, Research & Training Associate
Ph. 6862776

Sub-National Systems Unit
Menon Pramila, Fellow
Mehta Arun C., Fellow
Zaidi S.M.I.A., Fellow
Jalali J, Associate Fellow
Tyagi R.S., Associate Fellow

International Unit
Sujatha K, Senior Fellow & Head
Panda B.K., Associate Fellow

O.R.S.M. Unit
Aggarwal Y.P., Senior Fellow & Head
Ph. 6969245
Library & Documentation Centre
Makol Deepak, Professional Assistant
Joshi B.D., Professional Assistant

Nair P.R.R.

Publication Unit
Ajwani M.M., Deputy Publication Officer
Singhal Amit, Publication Assistant

Computer Centre
Srinivas K, Systems Analyst
Nahar Ekta, Programmer

Hindi Cell
Sharma S.C., Hindi Editor
Gaur Manoj, Hindi Translator

Cartography Cell
Tyagi P.N., O.S.D. and Cartographer (Computer Applications)

Training Cell
Prasad Y.P., Training Assistant

Bhardwaj G.S., Administrative Officer
Mani P, Section Officer
Sharma R.C., Section Officer
Asija Sushma, PS to Director

Accounts & Finance
Chaudhary S.R., Section Officer

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

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

Times of India, New Delhi, 21st September 2021

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