Annual Status of Education Report (Rural) 2011

Provisional

January 16, 2012

They reached the remotest villages of India
ANDHRA PRADESH
Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET DIET College, Adilabad College, Anantapur College, Chittor College, East Godavari College, Guntur College, Kadapa College, Karimnagar College, Khammam College, Krishna College, Kurnool College, Mahbubnagar College, Medak College, Nalgonda College, Nellore College, Nizamabad College, Prakasam College, Ranga Reddy College, Srikakulum College, Vishakhapatnam College, Vizianagaram College, Warangal College, West Godavari Wodiwichee

BIHAR
Aid India Akhil Bharatiya Gramin Vikas Parishad Akhil Bhartiya Shikshit Berojgar Yuva Kalyan Sansthan Akriti Samajik Sansthan All India Centre For Urban And Rural Development An Unit Of Research Chhatrachhaya Dalit Mukti Mission Disha Bihar Garima Samaj Vikas Sansthan Harijan Sewa Samiti Islahe Ummat Jan Kalyan Kendra Jawahar Jyoti Bal Vikas Kendra Nav Jeevan Ambedkar Mission Nav Jivan Manav Uthan Kendra Pandit Shree Ram Sharma Seva Sansthan Parivesh Purn Jagran Sansthan Popular Organization Women Empowerment & Research Sanhauli Pragati Bharti (Tulbul) Prerna Development Foundation Ram Kripal Sewa Sansthan R-Teach Commuication Sadbhavana Vikash Mandal Sahyoginee Samagra Manav Seva Samiti Samagra Vikas evam Shikshan Sansthan Sarv Shree Seva Sadan Sarvodaya Yuva Kalyan Sangh Shankar Human Advance Society for Initiative Mission Shanti Shilp Kala Kendra The Message Welfare Foundation Trishna Vidhyapati Jan Vikas Samiti Vikash Sarthi Local Volunteers of Madhepura

Govt. Govt. Govt. Govt. Govt.

HHS Golonda HHS Naroli HHS Rakholi HHS Silvassa HHS Dudhani

GOA D M C College, Mhapasa Khemrag Memorial New English School, Bandha Sridoracaculo college, Korli, Mhapasa, Goa GUJARAT
Anandi, Dahod Anandi, Panchmahal GLS College Gram Seva Trust Hina & Friends Group Innovative BSW college J.M. Patel Institute of Social Work K.R. Doshi MSW College KSKSV University Mahila Samakhya Manav Ekta Charitable Trust Memdabad Co-operative College Navbharti Vikas Trust Navratri Yuvak Mandal Nootanbharti Gramseva Mahavidhyalay Salal MSW College Samarpan Foundation Sarswati BSW College Sarvajanik MSW College Satkariya Seva Trust Shikshan & Samaj Kalyan Kendra Shree Kedareshvar Education & Charitable Trust (MSW College) Surbhi MSW College Yogeshvar Yuvak Mandal Local Volunteers of Valsad

ARUNACHAL PRADESH
NSS Unit of Government Higher Secondary School, Tawang Rupa Town Club, West Kameng Students of Lohit College Students of Tirap College Tarhuk Samaj Local Volunteers of Changlang, Dibang Valley, East Kameng, East Siang, West Siang, Upper Siang and Upper Subansiri

ASSAM
All India Student’s Federation (AISF), Golaghat All India Student’s Federation (AISF), Jorhat Assam Mahila Samata Society (AMSS), Nagaon Assam Valley Academy (AVA) Bhawanipur Cultural Society Bordaulguri Socio-Economic and Health Development Organisation (SEHDO) Daogaphu Youth Club Goalpara Cultural Society Integrated Community Development Society Kalang Kapili Integrated Development Society Klirdap Welfare Society Nabarun Shangha Community Centre North East Educational Social Forum North East Society for the Promotion of Youth and Masses Parijat Self Help Group Sankalpa Sishu Adhikar Suraksha Samiti Social Unity Keeper’s Association for All Society for Progressive Implementation and Development Udayan Uttaran

CHHATTISGARH
Adhar Svansevi Sansthan Chhattisgarh Janjati Vikas Parishad Government DIET College, Dhamtari Government DIET College, Durg Government DIET College, Janjgir Champa Government DIET College, Kawardha Government DIET College, Mahasamund Gramin Vikas Seva Sansthan Lalit Kala Manch Nav Jivan Jankalyan Sewa Samiti Nicchay Seva Samiti Pahela Kadam Sewa Sansthan Prakruti Sewa Sansthan SROTH Pratham Volunteers of Jashpur

DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI
Dadra Nagar Haveli Education Department Govt. HHS Khanvel

HARYANA All Indian Jat Heroes’ Memorial College, Rohtak Chandan Mal Karnani College Chaudhari Devi Lal College for Women, Murthal DN College, Hisar Dronacharya Govt. College Dyal Singh College, Karnal Government College, Barwala Government College, Kalka Government College, Narnaul Government PG College, Bhiwani Government PG College, Jind Maharaja Agrasen Girls College, Jhajjar MM College, Fatehabad Mukund Lal National College Nehru Yuva Kendra, Faridabad Nehru Yuva Kendra, Kurukshetra PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi Radha Krishan College RDS College (Girls), Rewari Sanathan Dharam College, Ambala SD College, Panipat Yasin Meo College, Mewat
ASER 2011

ii

HIMACHAL PRADESH
General Jorawar Singh College, Nadaun (Hamirpur) Govt. PG College, Kullu Govt. College, Balav, Mandi Govt. Degree College, Nahan Govt. Degree College, Una Govt. Degree Collage, Kinnaur Govt. PG College Seema (Rohru) Govt. Degree College, Theog Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Dharamshala Santosh Industrial Training Centre Ghumarawin Society For Human Interest and Rural Advancement Yuva Vikas Mandal, Jabli ZCA Academy, Chamba

JAMMU AND KASHMIR Govt. Degree College, Ramban Government Degree College, Udhampur Government DIET College, Kargil Government PG College, Bhaderwah Govt. Degree College, Kistwar Govt. Degree College, Pulwama Jehlum Education Trust College of Education, Baramulla Kamariya B Ed College, Srinagar Naushera Degree College,Rajouri Nehru Yuva Centre, Poonch The Student’s Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh Shah-i-Hamdan College of Education, Siligam Sheikh-ul-Alam College of Education, Kupwara Syed Ali Memorial Educational Trust, Beerwah Pratham Volunteers of Jammu and Kathua JHARKHAND Abhiyan Chetna Vikas Child Fund India Diya Seva Sansthan Gram Jyoti Kendra Jal Swaraj Jan Shabagi Kendra Jana Kalyan Parisad, Pattbari Lohardagga Gram Swaraj Sansthan Lok Hit Sansthan Lok Prerna Kendra Mahila Samagra Utthan Samiti Nav Bharat Jagriti Kendra Rural Outright Development Society Sahyogini Samaj Pragati Kendra Samajik Parivartan Sansthan Santhal Pargana Gram Rachna Sansthan Veer Jharkhand Vikas Seva Manch Vikash Bharti, Bishunpur Youth Welfare Committee KARNATAKA Akshara Foundation Basaveshwara Vidya Vardhaka Sangha Rural Development Foundation
ASER 2011

Center for Rural Development, Bellary Centre for Rural Studies, Manipal University Development Association Reconstruction for Institute DRC, Dharwad EMBARK Youth Association, Virajapet Institute of Social Studies And Research (ISSAR) Janaprayathna Malenadu Education And Rural Development Society Navachetana Rural Development Society Navodaya Educational and Environment Development Service (NEEDS) Nirantara Social Welfare Society PADI, Mangalore Parivarthan People’s Organisation for Waste Land and Environment Regeneration Pragathi Urban and Rural Development Priyadashini Grameen Abhivruddi Sanste Sajjalashree SKA & GAS Lingasgur Sarvodaya Integrated Rural Development Society SCOPE Dharwad Seva Society Gataprabha SPOORTHI Samsthe Sri Balaji Sarvodaya Central Rural & Urban Development Trust Sri Kantha Vidya Samsthe Vishwabharati Trust, Anavatti Yashaswi Swayam Seva Samsthe Yashaswini Vividhodhesha Samaja Seva Samsthe Pratham Volunteers of Mysore

Jan Abhiyan Parishad Jan Sansadhan Vikas Evam Jiv Kalyan Samiti Jan Vikas Sansthan Jati Yuva Mandal, Gwalior Khandwa Mahak Education Society Krushna Vikas evam Prakuti Prabhandhan Santhan Lok Rujhan evam Manav Vikas Soudh Sansthan M.P. Paryavaran Sudhar Sangathan Ma Pitambara Lok Hit Sewa Sansthan Matrubhumi Manav Vikas Sansthan Narmada Welfare Society Path Pragati Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Shahdol Prakash Yuva Mandal Itora Samiti Pritam Shiksha evam Samaj Kalyan Sewa Samiti Rang Welfare Society Reform Activities by Youth Society Sahara Manch Sankalp Samajik Vikas Sansthan, Shivpuri Saress Welfare Society, Seoni Sharda Shiksha Samiti, Shahjapur Sharda Yog evam Prakrutik Shodh Sansthan, Umaria Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee Govt. Art & Commerce College Smt Susheel Gayan Shiksha Prachar Prasar Samitee, Guna Swadesh Gramotthan Samiti, Datia Swami Prakashand Samajik Sanshthan Swar Bharti Devi Samaj Kalyan Yuva Mandal, Sagar Synergy Sansthan The Initiative Educational and Welfare Society

KERALA Government DIET Government DIET Government DIET Government DIET Government DIET Government DIET Government DIET Kudumbashree

College, College, College, College, College, College, College,

Kollam Kozhikode Palakkad Pathanamitta Thrissur Wayanad Kannur

MADHYA PRADESH Bahi Parshavnath Balkalyan Shikshan Samiti Bal Pragati evam Mahila Shikshan Sansthan, Datia Betul Upkar Gramin Vikas Sansthan, Betul Bhimrao Jagruk Vikas Samiti Bread For Tribal Village Darshna Mahila Kalyan Samiti Dhara Vikas Samiti Dharti Gramothan evam Shabhagi Gramin Vikas Samiti Diksha Shaikshanik Samajik Seva Sansthan Disha Samajik Vikas Sansthan Samiti, Shivpuri Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Seva Parishad GD Public Society, Sheopur Gram Seva Trust, Paraswada Gramin Swalamban Samiti Gramin Vikas Mandal, Chhindwara Gramm Vikash Prasfutan Samiti Pindrukhi Gramm Vikash Prasfutan Samiti Silua Human and culture Society (Hans), Sidhi

MAHARASHTRA Sanchar Infotech Foundation AVHAN Bahuudeshiya Santha Disha Foundation Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Smajkarya Mahavidyalaya Gulbnabi Azad Samjkarya Mahavidyalaya Jagat Art. Comm & IHP Science College, Goregaon Mahatma Foundation Model Arts & Commerce College Nirmik Samajik Sanshodhan Va Vikas Kendra NSS Unit, Ahmadnagar NSS Unit, Akola NSS Unit, Aurangabad NSS Unit, Beed NSS Unit, Bhandara NSS Unit, Buldhana NSS Unit, Dhule NSS Unit, Hingoli NSS Unit, Jalgaon NSS Unit, Jalna NSS Unit, Kolhapur NSS Unit, Latur NSS Unit, Nagpur NSS Unit, Nandurbar NSS Unit, Nashik NSS Unit, Osmanabad NSS Unit, Ratnagiri NSS Unit, Sangli NSS Unit, Satara
iii

NSS Unit, Sindhudurg NSS Unit, Solapur NSS Unit, Washim Prahar Samajik Kalyankari Sanstha R.C. Bidkar Mahavidyalaya Saibaba Mahavidyalaya Sankalp Bahuudeshiya Prakalp Uday Bahuudesiya Sanstha Vanchit Vikas Loksanstha Nanded Yash Bahuudeshiya Sanstha Pratham Volunteers of Amravati, Pune, Raigad and Thane

MANIPUR Action for Women and Child Development Chingri Society Community Development Society Komlathabi Development Club Kumbi Kangjeibung Mapal Fishermen Association Our Carrom Club People’s Development for Social Change The Youth Goodwill Association MEGHALAYA Khasi Student’s Union Local Volunteers of Jaintia Hills Martin Luther Christian University Ri-Bhoi Youth Federation Williamnagar College Student’s Union MIZORAM Hmarveng Football Club HS Adventure Club JF Sporting Club Kristian Thalai Pawl, Aizwal Branch Kristian Thalai Pawl, Dinthar Branch, Mamit Thalai Kristian Pawl, Kolasib Unit Thalai Kristian Pawl, Moria Unit, Lunglei Young Mizo Association, Kahrawt Branch, Champhai NAGALAND Confederation of Chang Student’s Union Govt Primary School Teachers of Mokukchung District Hills Club Lesiema Student’s Union Lotha Student’s Union Nagaland Society People’s Agency for Development Walo Organisation Working Brigade Zunheboto Range Student’s Union Pratham Volunteers of Dimapur ODISHA Abha Mahila Mandal AMCS College Anchalika Mahavidyala, Natha Sahi AOMA,Malkangiri Basudevpur ITI College Bhairav Mahavidyalaya, Dabugan Bhaskar Multi Action Seva Samity Biswa Vikas
iv

Dakhina Rourkela Unnayana Parisada Deogarh Govt City School Gatiswar College Gopabundhu ITC College Govt. Autonomous College, Bhabanipatna Jiral College Khaira College Khambeswripali Mahabidyala Khyama Meher Degree College Maa Bhagabati Mahavidyalaya, Konark, Puri Mahima College, Panchan Gan Panchayat college, Baragarh Parsuram Gurukula Mahavidyalay Patitapaban Degree College Phulmatin Hemram Mahavidyalay Rural Organisation for People’s Empowerment SADBHABANA,Keonjhar Sailandra Narayan College Science College, Polosara Sidheswar Baba Anchalika Vidyalaya Sri Ugratara College, J.K. Pur, Rayagada Swami Arupananda Mahavidyalaya.

Prashafvi B Ed College Pratap Sansthan Rajasthan T.T. College Ranthambhore PG College Sahaj Sansthan Shekhawati B.Ed. College Shiv Shiksha Samiti Society for Agriculture and Rural Dovelopmet (SARD) Society to Uplift Rural Economy Suratgarh Educational and Social Welfare Trust The Ankur B.Ed College Udaipur School of Social Work VAAGDHARA Veena Group Vidhya Bharti Sansthan Pratham Voulnteers of Ajmer, Hanumangarh and Jhalawar

SIKKIM Govt College, Namchi Govt College, Rhenock Govt College, Tadong TAMIL NADU Aid-et-action AVVAI Village Welfare Society Award Trust Council for Integrated Development (CID Trust) Gramodhaya Social Service Society GrassRoot Institute of Human Rights Education Jeeva Anbalayam Trust Leaf Society Manitham Charitable Trust Needs Trust New life for Differently Disabled Fedaration News Trust PRESS Trust Raise India Trust READ Rights Trust Rural Women Development Trust SODEWS Tamil Nadu Green Movement (TNGM Trust) Valarum Vandavasi VEPAGA WORLD Trust TRIPURA Agragati Social Organisation Chetna Social Organisation Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust, Tripura Pushparaj Club UTTAR PRADESH Akhil Bhartiya Shrawasti Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan Anuragini Bhartiya Gramotthan Seva Vikash Sansthan Devlopment of Human Enviroment and Study of Human Activities Disha Sewa Samiti Grameen Development Society
ASER 2011

PUNJAB
Akalia College of Education, Faridkot Bhramchari Club, Balachaour D. M College of Education, Moga Government DIET College, Sangrur Govt Senior Secondary School, Gurdaspur Govt Sr. Sec School, Kapurthala Innocent B.Ed College, Jalandhar J.D College of Education, Muktsar Jeevan Jyoti Polytechnical College, Ferozpur Malwa Central College of Education, Ludhiana Mata Sahib Kaur Girls College, Tarn Taran Nehru Yuva Kendra, Mansa Punjabi University Campus, Mour Regional Institute of Management and Technology, Mandi Gobindgarh Sahara Trust, Rajpura Sajri Saver Club, Ropar Shaheed Bhagat Singh Youth Club, Hoshiarpur Sidhana Institute of Education, Amritsar Winner Cultural and Sports Club, Mohali

RAJASTHAN Shiv Arogya Sansthan AIMT College CUTs Diamond Shikshan Prashikshan Avam Shodh Sansthan, Makarana Doosra Dashak Educate Girls, Globally Gramin Yuva Vikas Samiti IIRM, Jaipur LUPIN M. L. V. PG College Mahant Shri Ragunandan Das T.T. College Matashree Gomati Devi Jan Sewa Nidhi Modi Institute of Management and Technology Parivartan Sansthan

Gramin Mahila Kalyan Sansthan Gramin Manav Seva evam Paryavaran Sudhar Samiti Gramoday Seva Asharm Gyan Sewa Samiti Indian Gospel Charitable Society Indian Medical Practioner Welfare Association Jadaun Gramodhyog Seva Sansthan Jan Kalyan Samiti Jankalyan Shikshan Prasar Samiti Janta Sewa Samiti Lakshya Gramin Vikas Society Manav Sewa Kendra Nehru Yuva Sansthan Nehru Yuva Mandal New Public School Samiti Open Sky Welfare Society Paramlal Seva Samiti Parmarth Gramodyog Janseva Sansthan Saptrang Vikas Sansthan Sarvangeen Grameen Vikas Sansthan Sarvjan Sewa Sansthan Savera Sharaddha Jan Kalyan Sikshan Sewa Sansthan Social Welfare Organization The Help Jan Kalyan Samiti Yuva Vikash Evam Prasikshan Sansthan Local Volunteers of Jhansi, Devoria, Ghaziabad, Bijnore, Etah, Mirzapur, Lucknow, J.P. Nagar, Kannauj and Ramabai Nagar Pratham Volunteers of Etawah, Mainpuri, Aligarh, Agra, Mathura, Firozabad, Varanasi, Ambedkar Nagar, Azamgarh, Jaunpur, Basti, Gorakhpur, Bareilly, Moradabad, Meerut, Rampur, Gautam Budh Nagar, Gonda, Bahraich, Sitapur, Pratapgarh, Kaushambi, Rae Bareilly, Hardoi and Barabanki

Bankura Christian College, Department of Sociology Barddhaman Sanjog Human Social Welfare Society Chatrya Kalyan Samity Dakshin Dinajpur Foundation for Rural Integration Economic and Nature Development Gour Mahavidyalay, NSS in Charge Unit -3 Jaganath Kishore College, NSS Unit Kajla Jana Kalyan Samity Mainaguri College, NCC Unit Vivekananda College, NSS UNIT Mathabhanga College, NCC Unit Matri O Shishu Bikash Kendra Raiganj University College Ramnarayanpur Kalika Sangha St Joseph’s College Turku Halasda Lapsa Hembrom Mahavidyalaya University of Kalyani, Department Of Rural Development & Management.

UTTARAKHAND Association for Rural Planning & Action Dolphin (PG) Institute of Bio Medical and Natural Sciences Faculty of Management Studies Gurukul Kangri University Government Polytechnic, Kashipur, U.S. Nagar Gram Suraxa Samiti, Manjiyali Naugaon, Uttarkashi Gram Vikas Sansthan, Dhali Kumaun Seva Samiti, Sitarganj, U.S.Nagar Manav Kalyan Samiti, Ukhimath, Rudraprayag Nav Jyoti Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kandikhal, Tehri Omkarananda Institute of Management & Technology, Rishikesh P.G.College, Bageshwar Prakhar Yuva evam Grameen Jan Jagrati Samiti R.N.I Inter College, Bhagwanpur (Haridwar) Society For Agriculture and Administrative Research Swami Vivekanand Samaj Sevi Sanstha Yuvak Mangal Dal (Samiti) WEST BENGAL Baharampur Krishnath College, History Department, Baharampur, Murshidabad.

ASER 2011

v

Somoranjit Meitei Lalhlinpuii Madhusudhanan. S. Kashmir University Mr. Wangza Dilbag Singh Dimasahau Student’s Union Dipak Sharma Dr Jayaprakash Narayan Dr. Prof. O.M Mohammed Hanish Ankur Vaja Bendang Bommo Kamchi Bremil M. Himachal Pradesh University Dr.P. Malwa Central College of Education Tumpe Basar Vanlalrualfela Hlondo Wasim Raja Yaben Tapak Yambem Chingshang Singh Zakaria Choudhury Zhoto Tunyi All Pratham State Heads.S.Supporters of ASER 2011 Abhijit Banerjee Abhimanyu Banerji Accountability Initiative Akhilesh Richhariya Amit Kaushik Amita Chudgar Anant Prakash Vyas Arvind Amin Ganesh Tak Gita Rao & Bhaskar Chakravorti Iqbal Dhaliwal ITC Kabir Bogra Maya Mitra Michael Walton Pratham UK Rishi Rajvanshi Rohini Mukherjee Rukmini Banerji Salimah Samji Shantanu Banerji Shobhini Mukerji Siddharth Jain Uttarayan Trust V. Government of Kerala Smt Saumya Gupta. Journalist. UNICEF Ranchi Remdorness Sunn Reshmi Thapa Rijiedstar Marbaniang Robert C Paoboi Roluk Buii Roshan Rai Satish G. Secretary to Dean College Development Council. Subash Singh Padam Rai Pangarsenba Jamir Pangloi Konyak Pradip Tanti. DM. Cachar Priyadarsini Nair Prof. Adeno Nguillie Binay Pattanayak. Kashmir University Punuto Aye R Lalchhingpuii R. Education Officer. Baikuntha Pandey. Vasanthi Devi. Kaw. Kalvi Network Dr. Kelouzie Mr. Kumbha Panchayat. St. Chuba Chang Taba Anjum. Muzzamil Ahmed. Vanengmawei Chow Nakasang D. Kashmir University Professor Talat Ahmad. Nandeibam Mohendro Professor Mushtaq A. North District Suraj Sharma T.B Bewtra Viplow Shivhare Special thanks to A. Manipal University.R. NSS Coordinator. Sangma C. Manipal Shri M Shivshanker. College Development Council. Ejanthang Ngullie Mr. Rajagopalan. President. Director-ADRI MTs of Dreams Foundation MTs of Loksatta MTs of Pragati Marg Kendra MTs of Sankranti Foundation MTs of Vasavya Mahila Mandali Namkhinlung Pamei Ngorum Besterday Moyon Nongmeithem Shyamjoy Singh P. SCERT Manoranjan Mondal Manosh Kumar Mary Lalrunruati Mary Sada Mr. Setsacho P.P Verma. Xavier’s College Mr. Arunachal Times Takar Bagan Tamal Chakraborty Tatro Sawin Tenzing Lepcha Tobom Dai Tokyo Mida Trilok Bandhu. SSA Mr. C. Secretary General Education. Harishwar Dayal. Pashupati Nath Singh. Pauchen Phom H. MTs and Accountants vi ASER 2011 .W. Kalvi Network Dwidengra Brahma Grace Zamnu H. Dean. Lalrinfeh Haigam Kauring Hopeful Khongstia Japinder Singh. Yapangchang Mr. Subor Rangslang Mr. Variusmauii Kalaveni Srinivas Kelouzie Keisiezie Kerala Shasthra Sahithya Parishad Khrawboklang Tansong Khukheto Y Yepthomi Kripendra Das L. Vice Chancellor. State Pedagogy. Regional Institute of Management & Technology K. DRC Dharwad Shankar Singh Yadav Showrish Kudkuli.

.................................................................................................. How to test arithmetic?........ Suman Bhattacharjea ................................................................ 12..................................................... Nagaland .................................................................................................................................... 5...................................... Multigrade classrooms: Std II ............. Uttar Pradesh.................... About the survey ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ASER 2011 Training ................... Divisional estimates for states 2007-2011.......................................................... From 2005 to 2011: Evolution of ASER............................... Divisional estimates ■ ■ Divisional estimates of learning outcomes and schooling status: Precision of ASER estimates............. 9......................................... Sample design of rural ASER 2011........ ii vi 1 11 13 14 17 19 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 35 36 37 38 39 40 43 44 54 55 56 58 60 61 65 75 113 189 227 246 250 275 276 277 282 287 Notes on ASER 2011 ■ ■ ■ ■ ASER and learning profiles: The pace of learning is too slow............................................. ASER 2011 Monitoring & Recheck . 151 10.................. 6................................... Manipur............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ■ 2..................................................... ASER 2011: Arithmetic tasks.... Maharashtra............................................................................................................ Bihar............................................................... Note on Sampling: ASER 2011 Rural...................... Madhavan ......................................................................................................................................... 4................................................................................................................................................................................................................. School and home language information in ASER 2011 .......................... Rukmini Banerji .........902 ASER partners.... Lant Pritchett ........................................ Tripura.......................... Multan to Mombasa or Karachi.................................. Wilima Wadhwa....................... Kanyakumari to Kilimanjaro ............... What to do in a school?........................ Jharkhand......................................................... How to test reading?........... Arunachal Pradesh...................... Uttarakhand ................................................ West Bengal.......................................................... 3........... The unseen change. ■ ■ ■ Taking mothers along................................................ Mizoram......................................................... How to make a map and make sections................................................. From a Right to Schooling to a Right to Learning: Rethinking education finance .......................... Madhav Chavan ................................................................................. Math: Std III & V ................................................................................................................................................................ Assam............................... Andhra Pradesh........................ Maps ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Private schools 6-14 year olds ........ Age-class composition in sample 2011................................... Chhattisgarh.............................................................................. What to do in each household....... Haryana......................................................... Supporters of ASER 2011............................................... Punjab............................................................................................. Bringing hard evidence to the table........................................ Sample description . Class-wise distribution of children in sample 2007-2011............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8.... What to do in each section/ hamlet.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11.................................................................... 1................. Baela Raza Jamil ....... Odisha............................................................................................................................. Kerala .......... How to sample households in a hamlet in a village............................................................................. John Mugo................... ASER 2011: Reading tasks................................... Meghalaya................................ Tamil Nadu.............................................................................. Daman & Diu............................................................... Karnataka.............................................. Rajasthan................................................................................ Puducherry ......................................................................................................... Madhya Pradesh.................... Reading: Std III & V .................................................. From Mumbai.................. Himachal Pradesh...................................................................................................................................................... Wilima Wadhwa.......................... Annexures ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ASER 2011 vii .................. India .......... ■ ■ List of partners...................... Yamini Aiyar .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Sample survey formats ...................................................... Wilima Wadhwa ........... Attendance in Primary School ..................................... 7................. Village infrastructure and household characteristics . M............................................................................Contents Co 1.................................................................. ASER 2011 (Rural) Findings ..... Addressing inequalities: Breaking the cycles of illiteracy ........................R.......................................................... Gujarat .......................... Jammu and Kashmir.........................................................

Notes on ASER 2011 .

Make sure they do not drop out. and said it was not consistent with their experience. “Enroll all children. See http://www. Subsequently we also measured attendance. remained poor. a recent study by Education Initiatives concludes that scores on common questions in tests given five years apart have declined about 7-10% among Std 4 children of elite schools of India. In a centralized but ill-functioning system with huge gaps of knowledge and skill-sets. II When we started seven years ago. ASER covers rural districts. Many others including some eminent people did not. But in 2011. our focus has been on two simple key points. The urban numbers are probably changing more rapidly towards private education. Ever since we launched ASER. a complex message is lost in the game of Chinese whispers.The unseen change Madhav Chavan I The first news of 2012 based on ASER 2011 is that private school enrollment in most states is increasing although the Right to Education Act for free and compulsory education is in place. If these outcomes improve. Large centralized systems respond to simple and clear instructions or goals and not fine print. Later there were questions raised if there was a need to do this massive survey every year. At first glance the decline of reading levels by 10-20 percentage points can seem shockingly impossible but I think there is enough in the data gathered over the years that indicates that this has been gradually building up possibly due to multiple factors. Over 25% of rural India’s children go to private schools and the numbers will rise in coming years as education and wealth increase. Do not beat them. In fact. We have chosen to focus on some very basic outcomes of education. But once we had done the survey. When they decline. and the states of the South plus Gujarat and Maharashtra do not show a decline of reading levels as measured by ASER. it is a sure sign that inputs are not working. which showed that while enrollment was increasing in the Northern states. Once you have done all this. or over a whole Plan period of India.2 There is an urgent need to find out why learning levels are declining and to at least arrest the decline and improve the learning levels. Pratham Education Foundation. debated and perhaps even contested in some states. you will have achieved RTE”. are the children learning at least the very basics of reading and numeracy? While ASER has won many friends and admirers. The increase in enrollment was an intended clear goal of the system and the system responded to the signals coming from Delhi and state capitals. Worse. many doubted that we could do the first survey successfully and yet we called it the ANNUAL Status of Education Report from the very first year. A few months ago a senior government official was heard explaining to a gathering of head teachers the essence of the Right to Education Act. The second piece of news is that not only are India’s learning levels very poor on an international absolute scale. A government sponsored independent survey around the same time came up with practically the same proportion of enrolled children. First.pdf ASER 2011 1 . We will be more than happy if researchers feel inspired to use our data to explore this fascinating phase of gradual but big. Before we did the first survey. there is reason to believe that inputs are working. it was difficult for us to believe that over 90% rural children of this vast country were enrolled in schools. which should be the real measure of enrollment. But will learning happen simply if children stay in school? 1 1 2 Madhav Chavan is CEO and President. attendance of children in schools. Promote them to the next class. we have had our share of critics. are all children enrolled in school? What kind of school? Second.com/wp-content/uploads/Executive_Summary. whether all this annual business was worthwhile. This article attempts to explore the trends as seen from ASER measurements and observations over the last half a dozen years. measurable but unseen changes in elementary education. I am sure the issue is more complex and many factors can be studied. Every subsequent ASER threw up self-consistent numbers and trends at state and national level to further emphasize the validity and utility of the survey. and something like Census 2011 has caused a major dip in the less functional state systems. On another note.ei-india. it may lead to a dysfunctional system becoming worse. some states show steady improvement over the years. we believed it. the efforts in doing the annual survey seem to be even more justifiable at least for some time to come. It is noteworthy that private schools by and large everywhere. the levels in government schools in the North have steadily declined with the exception of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. Those who do this year after year also wondered when not much change was observed year after year. The decline is quite alarming and we expect that the results will be discussed.

if seriously implemented. The RTE act. But. The major enrollment story is in Tamil Nadu. In five years a Std 1 child will complete primary education and a Std 6 child will either drop out or go on to complete secondary schooling. Each story is different in these extremely diverse states. surveys. Rajasthan. The North-East shows mixed ratios with Assam and Arunachal being moderate.all this in spite of all the evidence pointing towards dismal learning by every measure.5 percentage points. Yet. Nagaland and Manipur on the high side of private enrollment.that is a 15-20% increase. Since 2006. if we let things go on the way they are. although some of our findings may be inconsistent with other studies. Unfortunately. NCERT studies have been published. print-rich ABL methodology was introduced across the state. The massive data gathered over the last years are showing some interesting trends that deserve the attention of policy-makers and researchers alike. demographic disaster awaits us at the end of the decade if not sooner. A few years ago a new child-centric. and Uttar Pradesh. and these have gone up by about 1-3 percentage points. of the rural private schools do not meet RTE norms. The tools and techniques have been replicated and found to work in other parts of the world. and Meghalaya. In this region Bihar has the unique distinction of actually decreasing the proportion enrolled in private school which is a likely reflection of the massive efforts to open schools. there is an overall increase of about 8 to 12 percentage points in private enrollment between Std 1 and 8 over five years. these enrollment numbers have gone up by 5-7 percentage points. and their limitations are not well-understood. and many state governments have been measuring learning levels using different methods. Often these results do not match thanks to different approaches. there are several strong reasons for attracting children to government schools . other higher level and more sophisticated studies have been undertaken by Education Initiatives. So. broadly all indicate that learning is poor in Indian schools. Tripura low.mid-day meal is said to be a major success over many years in bringing children to government schools. bring out of school children into school and appointing large numbers of teachers. their potential.The Government of India has not emphasized improvement in learning goals. Subsequent to ASER. methods. It is quite likely that many. But a look at the charts below makes it obvious that the major increase is in Std 1-5 amounting to about 16 percentage points or 2 ASER 2011 . Maharashtra and AP show under 10% increase over their previous level of about 29% private school enrollment. But. How are people reacting to it? How is it impacting schools? We cannot merely look at its impact every five years. Bihar’s immediate neighbors are also high tutor states. III Private school enrollment is increasing. So unless these children are all enrolled in RTE-compliant private schools. ASER has followed the same basic procedures and has made sure that basic testing tools and methods of sampling and testing are the same every year for the core tests. In the NorthWest. they are self consistent year after year indicating good precision of the method and the techniques used. the detractors have other views ranging from doubting the very integrity of the exercise to whether it is correct to measure outcomes at all and everything in between. some of which are close to the ASER approach. will make it impossible for ‘low cost’ or ‘affordable’ schools to operate. nearly 40 million rural children will have to be provided place in government schools. The right to free and compulsory education is now on the ground. will the parents want to put their children in government schools even if they are ‘good’? Can they be compelled to do so? What information do we have relevant to this question? As far as private school enrollment is concerned. what’s new? There is plenty new. if not most. states like Punjab. joyful. Our admirers like its simplicity and the fact that it has been tested and proven to be robust. Maharashtra. However. which translates into an increase of just over 25%. states have traditionally had low enrollment in private schools. But. As a result. In Tamil Nadu.also a 20% increase. In the East. and tools. the rest of the South is increasingly sending children to private schools. their meaning. But over the last six years private school enrollment in rural India has gone up by 5. The results framework of the ministry that goes with the annual plan guidelines gives learning outcomes a late and vague mention . But. The ASER survey of children’s reading and arithmetic levels has its critics and admirers. Haryana have had high enrollment in private schools. India can be divided into some broad regions. Kerala. Mizoram. But we also know that children’s attendance in Bihar is the lowest in the country and nearly 60% elementary school children in this state go to private tutors.

the increase is small but still substantial at 5 percentage points. Is this only because parents associate some kind of a status with private schools and are not concerned with what goes on in the classroom? If so. would it not make more sense to convert all government schools into ‘aided schools’ rather than keeping them under a centralized government control? Why not opt for a ‘government funded locally managed school’ model with either private groups or ASER 2011 3 . But Kerala seems to be breaking through any such saturation. In Kerala. In the North-Western states. there is still an eight percentage point increase in private enrollment.almost a doubling of private school enrollment. In Std 6-7-8 the increase is about 7 percentage points. In Kerala. Tamil Nadu. Std 1-8 In Uttar Pradesh. which had a high private enrollment. which are largely absent in the North-Western states. It is not clear if the existing private schools in Kerala are expanding. Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra: Trends in percentage of children enrolled in private schools. The data suggest that in earlier cohorts private school enrollment in the early grades was relatively low and it rose as we moved to higher grades. Kerala. Perhaps. which could be seen as the exact opposite of Tamil Nadu as far as government school functioning is concerned. It must be remembered that a very large proportion of private schools in Kerala are government aided. upper primary private schools are expanding to include primary segments and those who can afford it are sending their children to private schools. Now it looks like private school enrollment starts high from as early as Std 1. while in upper primary segments. What is common between UP and Tamil Nadu apart from this big move towards private education? Serious research is needed to understand why parents in these two very different states are behaving similarly in massive numbers. private school enrollment in Std 1-5 has jumped up almost 20 percentage points to double the original number. The RTE Act offers ‘per child cost’ to unaided schools to accept 25% children of weaker sections. where only 40% are now in government schools and the number is going down. indicating a saturation effect. where there was already more than 50% enrollment in private schools. or more unaided private schools are opening. It appears that the government schools in Tamil Nadu are not able to convince the parents that government schools are better. is there not a need to reach out to parents and convince them? Chart 1. private school enrollment seems to have remained steady around 35-40% or inched up slowly.

and % going to tutors in 2011 State and school type * Bihar (Govt) Bihar (Pvt) W Bengal (Govt) Rajasthan( Govt) Rajasthan( Pvt) UP (Govt) UP (Pvt) 2006 51. let us try to unravel the mystery of why Bihar children do better in reading. So.9 31.5 56.2 18.7 27.1 23. These give estimates upon processing.3 2011 29.4 1. Can government schools alone convince parents to do otherwise? Is there a need for greater social and political mobilization? Can it succeed? IV How effective are Bihar schools? What helps learning? When we published ASER2005 (the first one) many people were shocked (as were we).2 24. which is reflected in the chart. What they mean or might mean is another thing.7 46. how far? Based on previous ASERs and other studies.6 71.2 2008 49.6 53. which are perceptions of reality through the lenses of the survey tools.0 67. Percent children in different states and systems who can read at least a Std 1 text in Std 3. Is there one “Indian education system”? These questions present good research opportunities.3 2009 42.5 49.7 53. As gurus of surveys say. Its private enrollment in primary segments has hardly gone up and the enrollments in upper primary segment.2 50. But no one seemed to object that the ability to read in Bihar government schools was much higher than in UP or Rajasthan government schools.5 50. There is a dip in 2011 in all these government schools.7 2010 43. Why is the Maharashtra response to private schools like that of the Eastern states.2 67. and some actually angry that the proportion of government school children in Bihar who could read was higher than in many other economically better off states. “Bihar.3 25. Kerala. of all the places!” was an exclamation full of contempt often heard.3 26. Bihar private school data points are also small. show no major increase either.8 25. I will leave it to the economists to do detailed work and test a primary hypothesis that emerges from the table below.Panchayats running the schools? Or. it is almost predictable that unless regulation prevents it or unless suddenly a large population starts believing in neighborhood/common schools run by the government.4 47.5 51.0 50. For the moment let us work only 3 See http://images2. We shall deal with the decline in 2011 a bit later.9 4.9 23. people want to send their children to a private school if one is available nearby. However. Table 1. which are poorer economically and educationally and not like Kerala? These four states in some ways represent the variation among education systems in different states of India. the proportion of children going to private schools will go on increasing. Note that the estimated percentage of children who can at least read a Std 1 text in Std 3 in Bihar and West Bengal lies in between private schools and government schools of Rajasthan and UP. what surveys provide are measurements and observations.pdf 4 ASER 2011 . which are largely government aided schools. with a very high proportion of private schools.6 X 31.8 22. The secondary segment in Maharashtra is largely private and aided. The question is. may be ready for vouchers even though there will be political question marks. Maharashtra presents a different case in contrast.5 60.7 % going to tutors in 2011 42.org/ASER_survey_/ASER-Reliability-Validity-Evaluation.7 9.8 52.9 51.8 53.9 65.3 48.4 X 28. it is quite obvious that with increasing income and education of parents. It is up to individuals to decide what comparisons to draw and what interpretations and inferences to make.7 69. There are statistical methods available to measure how good these are (and ASER passes these tests quite well3).5 * W Bengal private school data not included due to small observation numbers. ASER methods and tools have been replicated successfully by different groups in African countries and in Pakistan.6 53.2 13.7 73.3 2007 52.asercentre.3 72.9 72. 2006-11.

But there are other factors changing as well. their contribution to the child’s learning level diminishes. Teacher attendance in Bihar and Rajasthan remains at around 85-90% but has declined in UP from 92% to 82%. In fact. School is an important factor but it is only one of the factors. In UP it has gone up from 43% to 52%. The ASER school data is based on these school observations. once the tutor effect is removed. It is noticeable that the impact of tutors is not the same in every state and in every class. The school observation data from ASER can be used to track trends.1 52. for those who wish to compare states. Maharashtra.with numbers up to 2010. does tutoring represent all these factors to equalize? Table 2. ASER 2011 5 . What is going on? One likely contributing factor for big a drop in 2011 is that there was Census in early 2011 and teachers were pulled out of classrooms right in the most productive part of the school year after the OctoberNovember festive season.3 with tutor 35. most states excepting Kerala. The drop between 2010 and 2011 is sharp. and Tamil Nadu. This should make sense. It is observed in states where learning levels are declining that while the same proportion of children go to tutors year after year. Wilima Wadhwa has shown in ASER 2009. Punjab. Karnataka. This may mean that the tutor is a complementary factor and if the school functioning declines. We know that there are many household factors that affect the learning levels of a child. With the exception of Maharashtra.8 without tutor 27. Rajasthan shows no such drop but W Bengal does so in 2011.0 with tutor 55. the contribution of the private schools to the child’s learning seems negligible in several states. the proportion of multigrade classrooms has gone up from 52% to 62%.9 without tutor 24. which remained unchanged in terms of children’s or teachers’ attendance.9 35.6 31.9 44. It is noteworthy at the same time that the private school learning levels remain more or less unchanged. as Dr. Note that all these are states with high proportions of children moving to private schools. we see an even worse picture. one government school with primary sections is also visited. However for every village that is sampled for the survey. If the effectiveness of a school system was measured by the proportion of children without tutors who can read texts of Std 1 and 2 respectively at Std 3 or Std 5. In fact.1 with tutor 38. It is as though tutoring is also a ‘system’. that functions well in some states and not in others.1 without tutor 32. 4 ASER is a household survey with sampling done to ensure a representative sample of children at the district level. and Bihar there is a continuous decline in learning levels over time until it drops sharply in 2011. In other words. In other states the corresponding data points are low. In the present case. in government schools in Rajasthan.5 53. the learning level of a child in a government school results from many factors. and Himachal Pradesh start looking very similar.8 without tutor 27.9 44.4 The school attendance observed in UP and Bihar over the last five years is down from 67% in 2007 to 57% in UP and from 59% to 50% in Bihar.0 33. In Kerala it has gone up from 2% to 9%. Whether this is a consequence of a consciously adopted pedagogy or whether this reflects rationalization of teachers is not clear. Let us come to the observation that in 2011 the learning levels of government schools drop substantially. Another important observation is that in Rajasthan. UP.1 In all of the above states large but varied proportions of children go to private tutors. The percentage of readers among government school children who go to tutors is unmistakably high in these high tutor and low private school states. Percent government school children who can read depending upon whether they go to tutor or not W Bengal Odisha Bihar Jharkhand Government school Government school Government school Government school Based on ASER2011 with tutor % Std 3 who can read at least a Std 1 text % Std 5 who can read at least a Std 2 text 53. the proportion of multigrade classes has increased in most states.9 52. the effectiveness of tutoring is lower too. Once these are controlled.

and 70% in Std 5.Just to be clear.5% by Std 3. V Learning levels declining? Where? Why? The declining levels of learning and other factors are not unique to Rajasthan. that can be done. as they today are. But to clearly identify these. In other words.9% in Std 1. and 67. Tamil Nadu and Karnataka: Percent government schools children able to read at least Std 1 text in respective Std and year A look at Std 4 in Karnataka and Std 5 in Tamil Nadu suggests that the effectiveness of the classroom as per the measure of “% children who can read at least a Std 1 text” is improving year after year. In Karnataka in 2011. The effectiveness of a system can be increased or decreased by changing a variety of factors. for example. a focused system can achieve this. the estimates of declining percentage of readers in every class may lead us to infer that the message being interpreted is that learning is not important. The exact opposite is also possible. If ASER school observations over the years are correct. This is only possible if the system defines the outcomes it wants and works towards achieving them. the levels appear to be rising slowly year after year. then the system will respond accordingly as long as there are no other conflicting factors such as lack of water. Chart 2. But for all this. we first need to have a measure of effectiveness of the system. This number grows to 41. given that some children do acquire the very basic skills measured by ASER with every additional year in school – although many do not. In Tamil Nadu in 2011. in getting there.5% in Std 5 can read a Std 1 level text.3% of children can read Std 1 level text in Std 1. more Karnataka children 6 ASER 2011 . 26. However. a higher proportion of children can read Std 1 level text or more. arithmetic. this should be reflected in an increase in the proportion of children in (say) Std 3 who could read from 2006 to 2011. about 5. If construction of toilets and ensuring that they function is the desired outcome that the system is aiming for. If the ability of the system to teach basic reading is improving.1 in Std 3. But the classroom management techniques and teacher preparation required in such situations is very high. A quick look at these charts makes it evident that as they move from one class to the next. we are witnessing a quiet disaster. If we further want the child to be free of fear. UP. 3. able to think and express. This is what one would expect. But there are exceptions as well. I am not at all opposed to multigrade classrooms. In fact. writing. If the idea is to ensure that children learn reading. At least they are not deteriorating for certain. In both states about 60-65% children can read at this level by the time they are in Std 5. we need to compare the proportion of children who could read Std 1 level text in 2006 with the same proportion in successive years at the same Std. I would prefer grouping children according to their current level rather than age alone. a multigrade classroom can prove to be a disaster. But to assess whether the system is becoming more effective at teaching children to read. and Bihar. the system must function and it should be capable of receiving messages and translating them effectively into appropriate action. Below are some charts of learning levels of government school systems as measured by ASER in different states over the years. Although the proportion of children able to read a Std 1 text remains low in absolute terms at every Std in Tamil Nadu. If these are weak.

show opposing trends. Odisha and Jharkhand: Percent children in government schools able to read at least a Std 1 text in respective Std and year. in Haryana. although more children learn to read as they go from say Std 2 to 3 or Std 3 to 4. the proportion of children who can read in Std 5 was around 85% in 2006 while it has steadily declined to 75% in 2011. In Kerala. Outwardly. Yet. While Punjab shows year after year improvement especially after Std 2. In Haryana. and Maharashtra there is no observed improvement nor loss of effectiveness of schools by the same measure.neighbours who share a common capital . teacher attendance. say ability to solve division sums. Haryana seems to show deterioration especially when children reach Std 5. Children’s attendance. one is getting better while the other is in decline. they should function with the same effectiveness.learn to read in Std 2 and 3. In contrast. The two states are almost identical with respect to private school enrollment.5 Gujarat should be mentioned as a state that has also started showing a steady although slow improvement in reading levels over the last three years. It could look different if we used another measure. Andhra. The increase in Punjab and the decline in Haryana are both obvious and statistically significant. Chart 3. the Punjab system has been converting non-readers into readers at Std 3 and 4 with increasing effectiveness year after year so far. each year fewer children are learning to read at each step and this shows up as a cumulative decline in the percentage of children reading at the same Std when compared across years. In other words. Chart 4. One major initiative in the state for the last three years is that government officers visit randomly chosen schools to assess performance of children around November and cross check teachers’ evaluations. and multigrade classrooms. 5 I have used only reading at Std 1 text level as a measure. and the proportion of multigrade classrooms in these states are largely unchanged or have improved and remain at high levels. ASER 2011 7 . student and teacher attendance. while more Tamil Nadu children become readers with a jump as they move from Std 3 and 4. Punjab and Haryana: Percent children in government schools able to read at least a Std 1 text in respective Std and year Here is an interesting case: Haryana and Punjab .

As a result we see that by 2011 the proportion of basic readers has fallen way below what it was in Std 3 and Std 5 in 2005-2006.7 70.0 2011 54. The Chhattisgarh decline looks relatively smaller than in MP today.3 61. MP and Chhattisgarh: Percent children in government school able to read at least a Std 1 text in respective Std and year. in subsequent years the Std 3 classes had lesser and lesser proportion of children who could read.5 13.6 62. In neighbouring Chhattisgarh. It should be reiterated that private schools systems in the North do not show a similar decline in these basic learning levels. However. How are the two states doing on other parameters observed by ASER? Table 3. and teacher attendance is also higher than the average among Northern and Eastern states.0 Chhattisgarh 2007 72. Particularly noteworthy is the sharp decline at every Std in 2011.8 69. The sharp decline in 2011 is common with other Northern states and might be due to the additional Census factor laid over already poorly functioning systems. Chart 5. the main common factor is that multigrade classrooms have gone up by 7 to 10 percentage points.1 77. and Bihar was already shown in a table above.1 84.6 9. By 2006 this had jumped to 65%.4 12. Rajasthan. according to ASER 2005 36% government school children in Std 3 could read at least a Std 1 text. it is comparable to what MP had seen in 2010. These examples provide sufficient evidence that ASER can capture positive changes. There was a further jump in 2008 to 81% after stability for one year. In other words. negative changes.The estimated decline in learning levels at Std 3 in UP. the decline is observed after academic year 2008. the Chhattisgarh chart of the next ASER in 2012 will look like the MP chart of 2011. 2007 and 2011 Data for primary schools (1-5) % Children’s attendance Teachers’ attendance Multigrade classrooms Water provision and functioning Private school enrollment Madhya Pradesh 2007 67. This brings us to a major negative change in two states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. MP and Chhattisgarh: School indicators.5 8 ASER 2011 . We are not aware of what else may have changed in the system. However.0 92.8 78. It may be noted that average attendance of children in these states is observed to be around 90%. However. and note status quo in school systems over years.0 91. In Madhya Pradesh.7 48.0 2011 73. The decline in Odisha and Jharkhand is sharper at all grade levels especially after 2008.1 19.5 73. Bengal. W. The conversion to readers after Std 3 also slowed down. it is more than likely that unless corrective action is taken.5 87.

It appears that there is a general decline. The increase in multigrade classrooms combined with increased teacher absenteeism and lower attendance of children (not in Chhattisgarh) from already low levels could cause a decline in reading levels like in other states. There is no documentation available for any other negative factors creeping into the MP and Chhattisgarh systems that could lead to additional negative effects. The drops in learning levels are very high compared to other states because the baseline of learning levels in 2007-2008 for these two states was very high. How can such huge drops in the learning levels be explained? The answer may lie in why the learning levels might have gone up in the first place. We have seen above that in Punjab and Tamil Nadu, although to varying extents, the proportion of children able to read has gone up steadily. In Punjab, the government took up a specific program to improve basic reading and numeracy for three years. The whole system was oriented towards achievement of goals that would be measured. The campaign had intended consequences as the State Project Director of SSA provided from-the-front leadership. The learning levels were quite high to begin with and they went up in small jumps over the years. In Tamil Nadu, the SSA provided similar leadership for about 4 years to establish the ABL methodology. The explicit and primary goal of ABL is not improvement of reading, which may be an outcome of an overall change in pedagogy that allows children to learn at their own pace rather than being encouraged to achieve reading skills as a priority. Hence, a slower pace of change may be expected. It is important to note that gains in reading levels due to both are captured by ASER over the years. In Madhya Pradesh in 2005-06, and then again in 2007-08, the SSA took up very strong focused campaigns to improve reading and basic literacy with the involvement of teachers and village volunteers. In both years the respective State Project Directors provided leadership. Goals were set, officers and teachers were involved to achieve specific learning goals. In Chhattisgarh, there was a similar campaign for just one year, 2007-08. Once again, an energetic State Project Director of SSA led from the front, the school system was geared towards achieving set goals of basic reading and numeracy and there was a massive mobilization of volunteers in practically each village. In MP too, there was a massive volunteer campaign with volunteers working with children in each village. The impact that a systemic momentum can have is easy to believe. What is missed is the impact that volunteers can have on such a large scale when working with the system. Some individuals question our integrity and say that ASER cooks up figures to show Pratham’s work in good light. There are others more kind in questioning our integrity. In our defence we can point out that similar campaigns taken up in UP or in Assam failed to show improvement although the government was involved and there were volunteers mobilized. In Uttarakhand, learning levels hardly moved. In Maharashtra and Gujarat the respective governments took certain steps without Pratham involvement and reading levels went up. It is our experience that when the government leadership took up something energetically and when volunteers also participated, learning levels showed improvements. With the momentum of the school system missing or weak, learning levels did not show improvement. In other words in the period 2007-2009, any large scale volunteer-based campaign without the government’s involvement yielded no noticeable improvement. This is noted in various Pratham reports. Fortunately, the world renowned MIT-based research group J-PAL has conducted rigorous randomized evaluations of Pratham’s work with volunteers.6 These large scale studies conducted in varied places such as Mumbai, Baroda, Jaunpur (UP) and West Champaran (Bihar) all point to the impact volunteers have on learning levels of children at the very basic level that ASER measures. There is also a large scale study involving school teachers in Bettiah in West Champaran in summer camps, where children were grouped according to their learning levels rather than by grade or age and taught basic reading and literacy with focus. This study showed that not only did children who attended camps make progress, but they retained their advantage over other children for at least two years.7 We have already seen the impact tutors have on learning levels of children in government schools although the school attendance in Bihar is recorded at about 60%. If the school system was more effective, learning levels would probably be higher (unless parents stop sending their children to tutors because schools are more effective, but this does not seem to happen in private schools and in advanced states such as Kerala).
6 7

http://www.povertyactionlab.org/search/apachesolr_search/pratham?filters=type:evaluation See Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo’s recent book Poor Economics, published in 2011.

ASER 2011

9

The volunteers who helped children in massive numbers can be thought of as tutors focusing on certain tasks of reading. With this it is entirely possible to see the kind of jumps at the basic level of learning that are noted by ASER. The effect of the campaigns in MP and Chhattisgarh is reflected in the measurement of their intended outcomes. The effect of campaigns of the previous year(s) is seen in ASER measurements which happen in OctoberNovember of the following academic year. The 2006 measurement in MP is a reflection of the campaign in 2005-2006 academic year and the 2008 measurement in Chhattisgarh is a reflection of the campaign of 20072008. The low learning levels jumped tremendously with the boost that came from the energetic campaigns. After 2008/2009, the campaigns were simply switched off by the new State Project Directors in the two states. The momentum was completely lost. Now, we see that not only are the focused learning improvement efforts off but other parameters are also going downhill. The impact of school summer vacations on children’s loss of learning has been studied in the United States and is said to impact socioeconomically disadvantaged children much more. Similar studies related to regular disruptions and vacations are badly needed in India. What happens if school and classroom functioning deteriorates? Is it possible that the fragile reading and numeracy skills acquired by a disadvantaged child in Std 2-3 will be forgotten or become rusty enough to once again classify the child as a non-reader? Our data suggests that this is what is happening in several states and needs to be studied further in depth. In short, the rise in learning levels is a combination of an energised school system which would enhance its effectiveness as compared to other neighbouring states and the volunteer/tutor effect would be added on to this. Once these effects are switched off, and other parameters also deteriorate, the consequences can be dramatically observed in falling of learning levels as seen above. VI In summary The ASER data over the years are self consistent and have thrown up trends in enrollment and changes in learning levels that require more research to be done but even as they are, they deserve close attention. There are two clear trends observable around the country. One is that private school enrollment is increasing in most states and where there are few private schools, private tutoring is a surrogate for private schooling that seems to have an equalizing impact to some extent in several backward states in the East. Should tutoring be seen as a harmful nuisance or a necessary support system in a society that is semi-literate with low skills and knowledge all around? At a time when the government has put in place an act for free and compulsory education with planned increase in spending on government schools and curbs on private schools, there is a need to understand why and how the private sector is expanding now that it caters to nearly half the rural children in several states, and a possibly larger share of urban children in many large states. The second is that while there are differences in the effectiveness of systems in different states in teaching children at different stages of schooling, the general level of effectiveness is scattered in a narrow band around a poor mean. Fortunately, everyone agrees with this! Trends over the last five-six years indicate that learning levels are gradually dropping in most large Northern and Eastern states while they are steady or improving slowly in the Southern and Western states. Private school effectiveness varies from state to state but ASER cannot detect a decline in private school effectiveness at the level of its measurement. These observations of learning level changes in government schools are correlated to other school observations that might affect the teachinglearning process. In addition, the special efforts undertaken by different state systems or the absence or reversal of these have to be taken into account to understand why the outcome measurements show changes. If this is done, a more practical strategy to improve learning levels in the more backward states can be evolved.

10

ASER 2011

ASER and learning profiles: The pace of learning is too slow
Lant Pritchett
1

One of the big advantages of the ASER approach of testing children out of school is that it can assess the performance of children at a wide variety of grade (and age) levels. Rather than seeing just a snapshot of how children at one grade do against some grade-based standard, the ASER approach shows the entire learning profile of what fraction of children in each grade are in which level of performance on literacy and numeracy. In the case of ASER this is easiest to interpret at the highest and lowest categories of performance, for instance what fraction of children can read a level 2 story and what fraction of children can do division of a one digit into a three digit number. The point I want to make about these learning profiles is that the differences across grades reveal important facts about the dynamics of learning, in particular the fact that progress is so slow that 4 out of 5 children who do not have mastery will fail to acquire mastery in an entire year of schooling. Let me explain using the overall rural results from 2010. Table 1 starts from the numbers from last year’s report on the fraction of children who can read at level 2 or do subtraction, both grade 2 curricular objectives. Many children finish grade 2 not having mastered these simple skills, which is not perhaps shocking. What is shocking is the bottom line for reading, which is that 75 percent of children (3 out of every 4) who do not acquire reading or arithmetic mastery at the “grade appropriate” level don’t acquire it in the following year either, and 3 out of 4 of those who still don’t master these skills won’t get it even after another entire year of schooling. This implies that only 1 in 4 students is making progress across these very low thresholds of literacy and numeracy per year of schooling. I’ll explain this simple calculation using reading from grade 4 to 5. The fraction of students that could read Level 2 text in grade 4 was 38.1 percent and in grade 5 was 53.4 percent, so the proportion that could read increased by 15.3 percentage points. But many children already could read, so if we want to see what fraction of those who could not read acquired this ability, let’s adjust this gain by the fraction who could not read in grade 4 which was 61.9 percent (100-38.1). So the gain from grade 5 over grade 4 as a percent of those who could not read Table 1. Children gain slowly in skills even as they progress through grades—three out of four children who enter grade 3 or higher without a grade 2 skill leave without gaining mastery Grade Can read level 2 text 1 3.4% 2 9.1% 3 20.0% 4 38.1% 5 53.4% 6 67.5% 7 76.2% 8 82.9% Total gain from Grade 3 to Grade 8 Average gain, Grades 3 to 8
a

Reading Gain from grade to grade 5.7% 10.9% 18.1% 15.3% 14.1% 8.7% 6.7% 62.9% 12.3% 75.9% (3 of 4 do not gain mastery in a year of instruction) Fraction of those who did not learn b 94.1% 88.0% 77.4% 75.3% 69.7% 73.2% 71.8% Can subtract (or above) a 5.5% 17.1% 36.4% 57.4% 70.3% 80.1% 84.3% 85.4%

Arithmetic Gain from grade to grade 11.6% 19.3% 21.0% 12.9% 9.8% 4.2% 1.1% 49.0% 11.4% 75.4% (3 of 4 do not gain mastery in a year of instruction) Fraction of those who did not learn b

87.7% 76.7% 67.0% 69.7% 67.0% 78.9% 93.0%

a. b.

Data from ASER 2010 (Rural) report tables 4 and 6. Formula is 100-((gain from previous grade)/(100-fraction that could do in previous grade))*100.

1

Lant Pritchett is Professor of the Practice of International Development, Harvard Kennedy School. He is a member of ASER Centre’s advisory board.

ASER 2011

11

in grade 4 was 24.7 percent (=15.3/61.9). This implies that one of each four children who entered grade 4 not able to read at Level 2 passed that threshold of literacy during that year. But it also means that three out of four children who came into grade 4 not reading at a Standard 2 level progressed on to grade 5 without having learned how to read. Overall this problem is exactly the same in arithmetic, with a slightly different pattern. More children pick up basic arithmetic quickly, so that by grade 3, 36.4 percent of children can do subtraction. But in the five additional years from grade 3 to grade 8 only 49 percent gain that level of arithmetic capability. This is because progress peters out and by grade 8, even though 15 percent still cannot do subtraction, there is almost no progress at all. This formulation of the learning problem in Indian rural basic education comes from seeing the entire learning profile and has been a contribution of the ASER approach. The flat learning profile which is the result of most students making no progress in answering particular questions has now been replicated in studies in Andhra Pradesh by the APRest study and in the work of Education Initiatives which have asked common questions across grades (see Beatty and Pritchett 2012). I also find this formulation of the learning problem—that three out of four don’t learn enough to pass a low threshold in a year—the most stark and striking. Imagine you are a child who came to school with the hope and promise that getting an education could transform your and your family’s future by opening up the opportunities that learning enables. You perhaps weren’t “school ready” and so in grade 3 you still cannot read a simple (level 2) paragraph but you still have hope. But the odds are 3 out of 4 against you learning in grade 3. So now you are passed along to grade 4 as one of the 62 percent still not reading. You come again hoping that someone will notice, someone will help. Again the odds are against your hope, 3 out of 4 that you don’t learn in grade 4 either. The result is that you could easily be one of the one in three children who complete lower primary schooling, passed through five entire years of schooling, having spent roughly 5,000 hours in school, still lacking the most fundamental of skills. And so, year after year, a dream deferred becomes a dream denied.

12

ASER 2011

Bringing hard evidence to the table
M R Madhavan
1

The ASER reports have performed a remarkable feat: bringing hard evidence to the table to measure outcomes of our elementary education system. To see the importance of this achievement, just look at the public discourse in various fields. Most government schemes and budgets track allocation and utilisation of funds. A department that has utilised a large proportion of its allocated funds in a year is judged to have performed well, and gets further funding for the next year. This frequently results in significant spending towards the end of the financial year, as departments want to show “performance”. In some cases, outputs are measured. For example, in a child immunisation programme, the measure may include (in addition to spending targets), the number of children who have been vaccinated. However, even this metric only measures the means to the end target of less disease or lower child mortality. Rarely is the desired outcome measured and even rarer is the link made with financial outlays. Another example can be used to illustrate the lack of outcome measures. The MNREGS is one of the key poverty alleviation schemes of the government. The central government publishes periodic data on the funds transferred to each state and the amount utilised. There is some further measurement – the number of persondays of employment generated. However, the idea that the scheme is designed to be a safety net has been lost. Low utilisation can be interpreted in two ways: the government is unable to provide sufficient jobs to the jobseekers (bad result), or that there is sufficient availability in the economy for alternate jobs leading to low demand for the scheme (good result). The way to answer this is by asking whether potential NREGS job seekers are able to get jobs in the scheme. This can be obtained only by surveying people on whether they needed to access the scheme and whether they obtained jobs. The answer to this question is not available. Indeed, data on many social and economic indicators are not even collected or reported at annual intervals. India must be one of the few large economies which have no idea of their employment levels – the only data comes from the National Sample Survey every five years; most countries provide such data on a quarterly basis. Most health statistics – such as child and maternal mortality, malnutrition, use of family planning methods – are collected in the NFHS surveys, at approximately five year intervals. Poverty levels are estimated every five years. It is in this context that the ASER reports have become invaluable. These reports measure the learning levels of children across the country at annual intervals. There are two main contributions. First, time-series and crosssectional (district-wise) data is available to researchers who can link this data to various inputs and see the effect of various policy interventions. More importantly, ASER has changed the discourse in the field of education from that of measuring outlays (money spent) and outputs (teachers hired, schools built) to that of outcomes (ability of children to read and do arithmetic). This change has not been reflected in some policies, though. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act was passed in 2009 and brought into effect in April 2010. The Act guarantees access to schools – yesterday’s problem that has been solved as evidenced by the 90% plus enrollment rates of children in first grade. The Act also requires all schools to have certain minimum norms – which are measured as physical infrastructure (building, library, kitchen, toilets), teacher-student ratio, teaching hours. What the Bill misses is a focus on whether the students are actually learning. Indeed, the Bill prohibits schools from holding back students in the same class if they do not perform adequately, but it does not provide for any special measures to be taken to ensure that no child is left behind. Hopefully, the data from the ASER reports will indicate the gaps and motivate policy implementers to deliver quality education to children. This means a shift of focus from inputs to outcomes such as ensuring that children in elementary schools are learning basic skills of the 3 R’s, and developing the ability to think and create. Such skills will be essential for them to prosper in tomorrow’s knowledge economy. ASER has done an impressive job of measuring education outcomes. The skills built by the team in collating, assessing and evaluating data can be used to measure outcomes in areas such as health, livelihoods, and the effect of various government schemes. Perhaps, it is time for ASER Centre to expand to other socio-economic sectors.

1

MR Madhavan co-founded and heads research at PRS Legislative Research. He is a member of ASER Centre’s advisory board.

ASER 2011

13

2011. the country faces an important choice: should elementary education be delivered through the current model that focuses on the expansion of schooling through a top-down. who were empowered only to hire contract teachers. Importantly.in 2 Ministry of Human Resource Development (2011) ‘Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education 2007-08 to 2009-10’. key decisions related to sanctions and procurement are taken by the district. 3 14 ASER 2011 . Substantial finances have been provided to meet this goal.710 to Rs. Table 1. PAISA analyzed the elementary education budgets of 7 states in the country for 2009-10 and 2010-11 (see Table 1 below for a state by state analysis). According to PAISA. Now.3 Following teachers. 77% of the education budget is invested in teachers and management costs. 7. Despite this bottom-up planning structure. At the heart of the law is a guarantee to ensure ‘age-appropriate mainstreaming’ for all children.nic. In other words. the next largest investment is on the creation of school infrastructure . However. for instance hiring or salary payment. For those interested. the centralized delivery system has disempowered these committees and in fact created disincentives for parental participation in a number of ways: 1 Director. account for just 7% of the total investment. the RTE mandates the creation of School Management Committees (SMCs) tasked with similar responsibilities. India’s elementary education budget increased from Rs. Accountability Initiative. while a school can demand infrastructure funds.accountabilityindia. To illustrate. centralized delivery system? Or should we use the RTE as an opportunity to fundamentally alter the current system and create a bottom-up delivery model that builds on an understanding of children’s learning needs and privileges accountability for learning rather than schooling? For decades. 97. lies with the state administration. the Indian Parliament passed the Right to Education (RTE) Act guaranteeing the provision of free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 to 14 years. Statement No.pdf Some states like Bihar and Madhya Pradesh experimented with decentralizing the hiring process to local governments. the primary goal of the Indian government’s elementary education policy has been to create a universal elementary education system by expanding schooling through inputs.in/planbudget/ABE-2007-10. it has no decision-making power over the timing of receipt of these funds and de-facto funds have to be spent based on priorities set by the state and district administration. This is a summary version of a longer introduction to the PAISA District Studies.From a Right to Schooling to a Right to Learning: Rethinking education finance Yamini Aiyar 1 India’s elementary education system is at a crossroads. These plans are then aggregated at the district and state levels. Breakdown of elementary education budgets in 7 states Andhra Pradesh Teachers School Children Quality Management Misc 72% 13% 4% 2% 9% 0% Bihar 59% 25% 10% 1% 4% 0% Himachal Pradesh 79% 9% 1% 1% 9% 1% Madhya Maharashtra Rajasthan Pradesh 64% 21% 8% 1% 5% 0% 86% 5% 5% 1% 4% 0% 83% 9% 1% 2% 4% 1% West Bengal 67% 19% 10% 1% 4% 0% Interwoven in this top-down system is an intent to involve parents in decision-making. now the programmatic vehicle for the delivery of the RTE) with a mandate that expenditure decisions be taken based on plans made at the school level through Village Education Committees (VEC).education. In 2009. Funds for infrastructure development are often channeled to schools. such as the provision of free textbooks and uniforms and addressing the problem of out of school children. Plan and NonPlan Budgeted Expenditure on Elementary Education (Revenue Account).15% of the budget. All critical teacher-related decision-making. Interventions aimed directly at children. Drawing on this model.255 crore in 2009-10. however. the study is available on the following link: www. the Act is a guarantee that every child in India acquires skills and knowledge appropriate to her age. the Government of India (GOI) launched the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan ((SSA). even here all critical decisions related to salaries and regularization remained with the administration. on average. Between 2007-08 and 2009-10. as efforts to deliver on this guarantee gain ground. 68. www. Centre for Policy Research. In 2001.2 Most of this money has been used to build school-level inputs through a large education bureaucracy controlled and managed by state and central governments.

Even these funds are expected to be spent based on norms set by GOI. as pointed out already. often monies are spent without adequate consideration to school needs. committees had spending powers over just about 5% of SSA funds. Third.’4 School Management Committees hold the key to implementing such a decentralized structure. PAISA found that in many districts. The first and most critical step therefore in the shift from schooling to learning will be to empower school management committees. purchasing teacher material or if a school wants to invest more in improving children’s reading capabilities by dipping in to its maintenance fund . More worryingly. So. ‘ Sarva ShIksha Abhiyan: Framework of Implementation’ ASER 2011 15 . The result is thus a de-facto centralized. These delays in fund flows mean that needs at the school often remain unmet owing to lack of money. say. Table 2. Three quotatiions from local suppliers Local purchase at PWD rates Approval of work and measurements. GOI has argued that implementing the RTE requires a system that recognizes ‘the need for the creation of capacity within the education system and the school for addressing the diversified learning needs of different groups of children who are now in the school system. Consequently. committees have spending powers over very little money. teachers. school grants rarely reach schools before October (the PAISA district studies found that on average school grants reach school bank accounts toward the end of September/early October).it can’t.First. top-down system. Activities for which SMCs in Hyderabad city can take decisions Activity Is SMC resolution sufficient? No Is any additional approval needed? Yes From whom? How long will Who can do What documents and it the procurement other things will be take? or appointment needed? 2 months SSA office Approval of design. governance inefficiencies further curtail SMC powers. Materials bought locally as per PWD rates. There are three immediate reform measures that could be implemented to achieve this goal: 4 Ministry of Human Resource Development (2011). In essence. As PAISA has repeatedly pointed out. Second. vouchers of payments maintained Interview Notice with Date and Time Desks and Chairs Sintex Water Tank Roof Repairs SSA Planning Yes No 2 weeks SMC No Yes SSA Civil / JE 1 month SMC + SSA Ayah Yes No 1 week SMC The shift towards enhancing learning requires that the system focus on the needs of individual schools and children. Table 2 below offers an illustrative example from Hyderabad of the different activities over which an SMC can actually take decisions. expenditures even for school grants are based on formal or informal orders received from district and block officials. if a school wants to spend more than the norm on. SSA has promoted a bottom-up delivery system with no bottom-up control or decision-making power. are not accountable to SMCs. In 2010-11.

Building structures to ensure real time tracking of finances is thus critical. such a system will serve to strengthen parent engagement and ownership with the school and encourage accountability to parents. This is a critical first step. accountable. Strengthening planning capacity through focused community level trainings. thus linking grant amounts with schoolspecific characteristics. decentralized system of delivery. The quantum of the grant could be determined on the basis of per-child enrollment in schools. Moving away from the current norm-based funding system for SMCs to an untied block grant structure that would enable the school to take spending decisions based on its own felt needs. However. A transparent tracking system holds the key to a strong. Will this lead to more learning for school children? At the very least. 3. With the launch of RTE. 16 ASER 2011 . Strengthening transparency and monitoring.1. budgets for community training have been significantly enhanced. 2. for the moment. Prioritizing training and developing innovative methods to build planning capacity at the SMC level is essential. much of this money remains unspent as training is not priority.

everyday words. Children were curious. I am illiterate. If in two or three days the fever does not go down. India’s Parliament passed the Right to Education Act in 2009. “That is a medical degree” I replied. “How do you know if your child is learning well?” I wanted to know. simple and familiar words that are easy to spell. The blue sari mother replied instantly. It was a good time for conversations. Children crowded around me. The rice fields were green and stretched in all directions.all in big black font. “because many children could do it. “Look at the paper. “What is that?” she asked suspiciously.. I ask the doctor for some medicine.letters.Taking mothers along Rukmini Banerji 1 Not far from the village primary school. words. “We are not literate. What I had were several sets of reading tasks . I started chatting with them. I can even take her to a private doctor. what seems easy and what seems difficult?” Now my blue sari mother became adamant.” she answered.. “That is very simple” she explained. Canals criss-cross the district. “How can we tell?” they said. It was afternoon. her eight year old daughter was enjoying the interaction. “Oh no no” she laughed.” I continued. So they must be learning. Women sat in the sun cleaning rice and talking to each other. left their books and bags and were playing outside. “How is the education in this school?” I asked. pointing to the letters. School was over. Children had come home. 1 Rukmini Banerji is Director. do you think?” I continued. After another few days if the fever does not go down then I will take her back to the same doctor and fight with him. He cannot come to my house to cook and feed and take care of my children. She began to persuade her mother to focus on the paper. only a few managed to read the paragraph and the story.. she said. ‘Why is that even though you are illiterate you know exactly what you need to do when a child has fever but when it comes to her schooling you don’t do anything when she cannot read?” Now the blue sari mother was ready with her answer.” “Which of these are the hardest to read.” On the sidelines. Nothing more than what is in the Std II textbook. simple paragraphs and a short 8-10 line story . words and sentences. Rohtas is known as the rice bowl of the state. Perhaps she was enjoying it because the tables were turned. “How am I supposed to know?” she argued back. thereby guaranteeing quality free and compulsory education to all children in the age group six to fourteen across the country. there are four key elements that have the potential to fundamentally transform the landscape of elementary education in India. While most of the provisions of the Act are concerned with ensuring adequate inputs to schools. “Why are you forcing me? I told you I cannot read. The women watched their children’s attempts. “I don’t know.” “So you have an MBBS degree” I said. all mothers know when their child is sick. pointing to the letters. Her daughter was in Std 4 and could not read. It felt good to sit in the afternoon sunshine. I feel her forehead. “Remember I told you that I am illiterate!” “I am very puzzled. look at these things. I persisted. But we send our children to school and we send them to tuition also.” It was a mild November day in Rohtas district in south-western Bihar. I do some simple things at home.. some looking over my shoulder. “I send my children to school” said one lady.. “I myself cannot read. Many could read the letters and some could read the words. But the teacher is with my child every day. “Do you know if your child can read this?” I asked the blue sari mother. printed on white paper.” “Okay”. “I even send my son and daughter to tuition and buy them books. I had been sitting on the edge of the women’s group. My job is to send my child to school and teacher-ji’s job is to teach my child. If it is hot then I know she has a fever. With some hesitation on her side and much encouragement from her daughter. “We go to the doctor only sometimes when there is problem. I take her to the doctor. Everyone tried to read. I had been asking children to come and read. the lady adjusted her pallu on her head and leaned over. I have to do it. “That’s simple. sentences and contexts that children could relate to.” Several women joined the conversation. That one (pointing to the story) is not easy because even bigger children could not do it.. ASER Centre ASER 2011 17 . “This one must be easy”. Our village was in the Dehri block. All of the texts contained basic. some from the side. There was a woman in a blue sari. “What do you do when your child has a fever?” I asked her. “Do you know when your child has a fever?” “Of course!!!” She looked at me in surprise. somewhat irritated. there was a group of women. I am doing my job and so she should do her job”.

The next journey must be that of ensuring learning for all. Simple tools like those used in ASER are a good starting point. and plan for where to take them next based on that understanding.governments and communities. almost all of India’s children are enrolled in school. Fourth. Without real participation of parents. Third. urgent and long overdue.First. ASER 2011 shows that 46% of mothers of children who are in school today have not been to school themselves. Taking parents along on this journey is critical. New methods and mechanisms need to be innovated on scale to allow mothers to meaningfully participate in discussions and actions related to how children’s learning can be improved. especially mothers. in spirit the goal of the RTE Act is to ensure that every child (whether currently out of school or presently enrolled in school) has the opportunity to reach grade level competencies/educational levels appropriate to his or her age all the way up to age fourteen. 18 ASER 2011 . every school has to develop a School Development Plan with the help of the local School Management Committee. By design. efforts have to be made to explain children’s progress to parents. Second. At a rough estimate. Today. there are probably 100 million mothers who are like our blue sari mother in Rohtas. many members of these committees will be parents. comprehensive evaluation of children’s progress through the elementary years means that teachers need to understand where the children are today. The journey to ensure schooling for all has needed efforts from both sides . the key objectives of RTE cannot be effectively translated from policy into practice. The credit goes to governments who provided schooling and to parents who send their children to school. continuous.

and I am xx ASERs old”. In Arunachal Pradesh. the ASER roll out in the field begins around September with state level training workshops for master trainers. I am [name] from [organization] in [district]. In 2007. Many organizations have participated in ASER more than once. In Kargil. who were pressed into service three years in a row. Karnataka Gram Jyoti Kendra. Tamil Nadu Jawahar Jyoti Bal Vikas Kendra. Some come from ASER partner organizations and others from Pratham. and ‘did’ ASER in the entire state single handedly for six consecutive years. and NGOs are sparse. from 2005 to 2011: Abhiyan. some fascinating patterns emerge in terms of the type of organizations that do ASER. from IIT Rourkee to Our Carrom Club in Manipur. More than a third of these are located in Jharkhand. Jharkhand Mahima College.000 master trainers and 25. 18 have been ASER partners every single year. Then there’s Nehru Yuva Kendra. and more than 10% . and this novel way of introducing themselves quickly separates the veterans from the ‘freshers’. Kerala Lohardaga Gram Swaraj Sansthan. Rajasthan EMBARK Youth Association. the network of youth clubs whose huge presence across rural India has facilitated ASER every year in multiple districts across ten states. where colleges and NGOs are few and far between. but since 2008. and extensive network in the state. Bihar Jiral College. Sankalp Bahuuddeshiya Prakalp. the ASER partner lists are heavily populated by colleges. Every year. Kudumbashree in Kerala has participated in ASER from its inception in 2005. But ASER has been fortunate to partner with organizations with a steady presence across multiple districts and even multiple states. testimony in part to the vibrant presence of colleges and non government organizations. Jharkhand other state. Year after year. Jharkhand Lok Prerna Kendra. the only people willing to travel extensively around the district were personnel from the Department of Sheep Husbandry. they have voluntarily chosen to do so – and have conducted the survey across the entire state for five years in a row now.Ed colleges have joined in.000 households and meet 700. they make ASER possible. So where do all these people – around 1.000 volunteers each year – actually come from? An incredible variety of partner organizations conduct ASER each year. or six “ASERs old” and those who are brand new. 1 Suman Bhattacharjea is Director (Research). There’s usually a mix of those who are four. ASER Centre ASER 2011 19 . and in Rajasthan.902 ASER partners Suman Bhattacharjea “Namaste. These are the institutions that visit 300. In Nagaland and Meghalaya. one might expect the total number of partners to date to be higher still. On the flip side. From the Department of Sheep Husbandry in Kargil to Google in Gurgaon. and state ASER teams have on occasion come up with creative Maharashtra solutions. 1 Veteran ASER partners Institutions that have participated in ASER every year. five.200 organizations –are veterans of four or more ASERs. Jharkhand Grassroot. one or two from each district in the state. Karnataka Nav Bharat Jagriti Kendra. but also due to Pratham’s long history Samajik Parivartan Sansthan. The increasing participation of DIETs across the country is a very welcome trend.1. Jharkhand ASER has found twice as many partners in Maharashtra than in any Sahyogini. whereas in Jharkhand. from 2005 to 2011 (see box). all DIETs in Andhra Pradesh were instructed by the State Project Director (SPD) to participate in ASER.000 children each year. there are states Jharkhand and districts where every year there’s a long struggle to find partners. Odisha Khaira College. from Deutsche Bank staff in Hyderabad to high school students all across Arunachal Pradesh. ASER is conducted mainly by students’ unions. Odisha Malenadu Education and Rural Development Society. Given the basic calculation of close to 600 districts x 7 years. Of these. the situation is exactly the reverse. Karnataka Consumer Unity and Trust Society. For example. students from government secondary schools have been regular ASER volunteers. from District Institutes for Education and Training (DIETs) in Chhattisgarh to the Tejas Mahila Mandal in Nagpur. large numbers of B. Odisha Kudumbashree. Across India. In Haryana. Jharkhand Akshara Foundation.

Table 1.Other states. we hope to engage in deeper collaborations with at least some of these institutions in the core areas of capacity building. not an easy task given their number and geographical spread. have seen increased participation by DIETs over time. a major challenge for ASER Centre will be to find ways to systematically build on these relationships with partners. with a total of 48 of them in 9 states taking part in ASER 2011. research and assessment. but a critical one if assessment is to lead to action. by state and type of institution State DIET Himachal Pradesh Haryana Punjab Uttarakhand Jammu&Kashmir Tamil Nadu Kerala Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Gujarat Rajasthan Odisha Chhattisgarh Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Uttar Pradesh Bihar Jharkhand West Bengal Assam Arunachal Pradesh Manipur Meghalaya Nagaland Tripura Sikkim ALL INDIA 4 0 1 0 1 0 7 22 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 3% Type of partners who participated TTC 1 0 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 42 2% Univ / College 23 38 13 20 14 12 0 0 5 22 17 82 0 2 83 13 0 0 24 7 6 6 7 2 1 0 397 21% School 2 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 13 4 0 0 0 0 42 2% NGO 14 10 15 33 2 64 1 2 58 116 51 23 40 153 281 148 117 43 21 39 14 12 6 11 9 0 1283 67% Other 5 3 15 0 3 0 0 1 1 3 14 2 0 3 3 2 0 0 2 5 0 6 2 19 1 0 90 5% 49 54 61 53 24 76 8 25 64 141 98 112 48 159 383 166 117 43 47 52 33 28 15 32 11 3 1902 100% ASER 2011 TOTAL 20 . too. Given that the ASER exercise is about engaging citizens in producing and thinking about evidence related to outcomes. In the coming years. ASER partners 2005-11. From 2012. getting current and future teachers to participate in an assessment of basic learning outcomes may contribute more towards improving ‘quality’ in elementary education than centrally mandated policy directives ever could.

the local. about citizens’ voices on learning and accountability. Multan to Mombasa or Karachi. we are deeply cognizant that ASER Pakistan is not about naming and shaming governments but really about calling citizens to action as the primary stakeholders – what is to be done for OUR children and what can we do NOW? On a popular note the India-Pakistan exchanges for ASER and Chalo Parho Barho (let’s read and grow) initiatives are affectionately termed as the learning caravans ‘from Mumbai to Multan’. As teams navigate the spectrum of emergent relationships from South Asia to Africa in 2012 these could be from Mumbai.From Mumbai. national and global community has come to expect that this survey will provide information about progress made and challenges remaining. It can only be captured through an extension of the personal and the public voice as one. 2012). whether consensus is possible on the theme of ‘quality’ exacerbating the inequality and transition gaps at all levels of the education spectrum. merging field. or UWEZO in East Africa. after all. we kicked off our week-long training of 35 ASER district and provincial associates from all 9 regions of the country to build capacity for disseminating the results of ASER 2011. the methodology for literacy and numeracy measurement in ASER is neither ‘quick nor dirty’ but very rigorous. and would be happy to support other South Asian countries in this much needed people’s enterprise of claiming their fundamental rights to quality education. We decided to begin with personal statements on ‘aser ne kya aser kiya’ (how did ASER impact me?) followed by names and backgrounds in that order. for defining ourselves in this unique program of citizen-led surveys. These confessional or declaratory identity markers are vital for the growing global ASER community. what assessments tell us about learning gaps across gender and geographies. The ever-widening relevance gap due to knowledge obsolescence in a world inhabited by 7 billion people compels us towards perennial renewal of ‘learning’ interfaced with local contexts and accessible technologies in classrooms and outside. practices and resources? Like ASER India. the collaborations for people-led research will generate new genres of monitoring and sharing of learning resources. Kanyakumari to Kilamanjaro! Either way. UWEZO in East Africa and ASER India are comrades in arms for informing and taking action for the EFA movement. Multan to Mombasa or from Karachi. We love them at ITA/SAFED and are proud of the emergent multiple and distributed centers of leadership triggered by ASER India in 2008. has now been mainstreamed as an annual ritual for the measuring of education systems in Pakistan for the third year running. truly hallmarked as the Pratham Way. While the centrality of the teacher as the universal provocateur and innovator cannot be minimized. Pakistan ASER 2011 21 . With almost one million children surveyed in 5 countries annually. As the countdown to 2015 gets underway. what does this mean for countries diverse in terrain. and we at ASER Pakistan are practicing that art of expression that commits to the challenges of learning and improvement .from parents and teacher union members to elected representatives. The spirit of ASER was buzzing with a unique chemistry of a youthful group. Rajasthan and Delhi through open source sharing. 1 Baela Raza Jamil is Director. Programs for Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aagahi (ITA) and Coordinator for the South Asian Forum for Education Development (SAFED). Kanyakumari to Kilamanjaro…! Baela Raza Jamil 1 In Lahore today (January 2. ASER is. theory and practice to address the crises in and opportunities for education. ASER truly bridges the public and private divide. Dialogues are intensifying on: whole system/whole school reforms. A journey that began perhaps as education tourism for the Pakistani civil society organizations in the summer of 2006-7 just outside Jaipur. how to bridge inequality gaps.

or even the breath-taking visit to the Taj Mahal.the contrast I experienced in one rural village. children with disability and girls as vulnerable children and children with special learning needs. girls whose mothers have no schooling are 7 times more likely to be out of school than their peers whose mothers have completed primary education. one memory lingers vivid . the poor and the wealthy in most parts of Kenya.ask this visitor to remain with us. after the rhythm of under-confident and non-literate parents. met a neatly-dressed father. or the night train ride to Lucknow. More often than not. In Kenya.you remain. In both Kenya and India. Yet. But my colleagues were quick to come to a decision . Adults and children looked curiously at me. to reveal that I came from Africa. The encounter with so many non-literate parents openly revealed the hard time their children had. But the most disturbing observation relates to the extent to which these inequalities are affecting learning. a certain cycle is definitely prevailing . 22 ASER 2011 . can we truly break the illiteracy cycles in our countries. we have established that children of educated mothers and fathers are by far more likely to remain in school and acquire basic learning competences. Tanzania and Uganda. As we rose to proceed to the next household. My thought is that just as we consider orphans. Grace and I visited ASER from Uwezo East Africa. as compared to their counterparts whose parents have not completed the primary school cycle.recycling illiteracy down the generations. by using an innovative approach to social change that is citizen driven and accountable to the public. Uwezo Kenya. I was confused. Hardly did I know the hospitality awaiting me. But thanks for the water and the sweets! 1 John Mugo is Country Coordinator. I volunteered. we always got our feet into the right households. nor could they read the list of names we attempted to present to them. the Uwezo Kenya findings reveal that 15% of fathers and 19% of mothers had never been to school. unsure whether the buffaloes would attack (the Kenyan buffalo is extremely wild). I would argue that children of non-literate parents need to be included in this category. and tell us more about Africa! This caught me off-guard. but her priority was also to get good grades in school. The contrast between these families was very familiar to me. not sure what our mission was. with no further discussion.Addressing inequalities: Breaking the cycles of illiteracy John Mugo 1 In August 2011. I learned that he was an advocate. But besides the walk through Safdarjung. as this is often the inequality between the urban and rural. Zippora. But a little bit later. and analyzing the various challenges related to poor quality of education. Only if we focus on breaking the illiteracy cycles within these households. around 30 kilometers from Delhi. trying to break the chains of illiteracy in households without role models. Before I could sit down. we will come back to collect you. the man disappeared behind the curtains and reappeared with a bowl of sweets and more water. I sat down again. Uwezo is a four year initiative that aims to improve competencies in literacy and numeracy among children aged 6-16 in Kenya. The experience in Delhi was refreshing. he requested his daughter to offer me a glass of water. a country called Kenya. On a number of occasions. providing a taste of what Pratham and ASER are doing to promote learning in the various states in India. since I wanted to experience a little bit more of households and children. some children and mothers disappeared behind doors. through a translator. Indeed. the man quickly called in Hindi . this was followed by plain nods of appreciation. This is truly the biggest challenge of literacy. But anyhow. wondering perhaps which state of India I was from. The confident and brilliant daughter informed me that she wanted to be a world badminton star. Getting them to direct us to a certain household took time as they could not understand well. We held discussions in English (with translations for the daughter) comparing learning in India and in Kenya. Adapted from the ASER model. As I cowardly walked behind my ASER friends to test children in this village. but lacking the confidence to ask. we walked into a well-built home.

vey About the sur ASER 2011 23 .

which generates more precise estimates of changes. The villages were randomly selected using the village directory of the 2001 Census. All rural districts are surveyed. the sample size is 600 households per district. household and village characteristics. The village list also specifies which villages are from 2009.children’s learning and enrollment data) The sampling strategy used helps to generate a representative picture of each district. ASER 2011 once again visited one government primary school in every sampled village. and (ii) to measure the change in these basic learning and school statistics from last year. Like last year. ASER 2011 brings together elements from various previous ASERs. The sampling was done using the PPS (Probability Proportional to Size) sampling technique. parents’ education. The sample is obtained by selecting 30 villages per district and 20 households per village. From 2009-10. Every year a core set of questions regarding schooling status and basic learning levels remains the same. For more information. from 2010 and which are new villages. This is to maintain randomness of the sample to obtain reliable estimates. we retained 10 villages from 2008 and 2009 and added 10 new villages. please email contact@asercentre. The core questions on school status and basic reading and arithmetic remain. The 10 new villages were also chosen using PPS. 24 ASER 2011 . The latter set of questions is different each year. the sampling units are the villages. Each district receives a village list with appropriate block information along with the data from the 2001 Census on total number of households and total population. However a set of new questions are added for exploring different dimensions of schooling and learning in the elementary stage. we retain questions on paid tuition. Since one of the objectives of ASER is to measure the change in learning. Sampling Strategy (Household sample .Note on sampling : ASER 2011 Rural Wilima Wadhwa What’s new in ASER 2011 The purpose of ASER 2011’s rapid assessment survey in rural areas is twofold: (i) to get reliable estimates of the status of children’s schooling and basic learning (reading and arithmetic level) at the district level. The 20 old villages and the 10 new villages will give us a “rotating panel” of villages.org. Like past ASERs. In ASER 2010. For further information The ASER team has consulted with national level sampling experts including those at NSSO and ISI. In ASER 2011 we dropped the 10 villages from ASER 2008. In our case. the village list is final and cannot be replaced. kept the 10 villages from 2009 and 2010 and added 10 more villages from the Census village directory. This method allows villages with larger populations to have a higher chance of being selected in the sample. The estimates obtained are then aggregated (using appropriate weights) to the state and all-India levels. creating a panel is a more appropriate sampling strategy. PPS is a widely used standard sampling technique and is the appropriate technique to use when the sampling units are of different sizes.

This is how we are able to reach close to 3.1 New features this year: ■ An important feature of the National Workshop this year was the emphasis given to mock trainings. For such an effort to sustain itself year after year. ASER is conducted by volunteers from a local organization in the district. In addition to leading all ASER related activities in their state. evaluation. youth groups. 1 ASER state team members are called ASER Associates or ASER Regional Team members. ASER is the largest annual effort to understand the status of schooling and learning of children in India. women’s organizations and others. state level trainings are organized for 4 days and have four main components: ■ Classroom sessions: To orient the participants on ASER process. participants and trainers go to nearby villages.000 children annually. They are “fellows” with ASER Centre for a period of 2 -3 years. Mock Training: These sessions are intended to improve the training capabilities of participants and thus prepare them to impart training at the district level. Training is one of the most important processes that help us to equip our volunteers with skills necessary for surveying a village and assessing children. This course has recently received certification from Indira Gandhi National Open University. research and communication. This helps to ensure that all participants have understood the ASER process and to identify participants who may not have obtained the minimal understanding required to conduct ASER.000 households and meet more than 7. Typically. Members were informed in advance about the topics they had to train on and thus had an opportunity to plan their content and delivery. field visits and the quiz was analyzed to identify weak Master Trainers. the time for training was increased for ASER 2011.000 young people volunteer to do ASER each year. they also participate in a course run by ASER Centre on assessment. Each ASER state team comprises anywhere between 2 to 5 full time people. National Workshop: During this workshop ASER state teams are oriented on ASER processes and survey material for the year is finalized. the key elements of district trainings included classroom sessions. NGOs. District level training workshops: In the past. field practice sessions. volunteers scoring low on the quiz were either eliminated or paired with strong volunteers to carry out the survey. survey.00. ASER 2011 25 . depending on the size and complexity of the state. these are colleges and universities. and a quiz. The National Workshop is followed by a state level training in every state. Close to 800 Master Trainers from partner organizations participated in ASER 2011. We estimate that close to 25. ■ ■ ■ Performance in mock trainings. in most districts. The formats were piloted in the National Workshop and subsequent discussions during the workshop helped to crystallize the process. ASER has been done in practically every rural district in the country. An elaborate recheck process was designed this year. who were either eliminated or provided with additional support during district trainings. it is critical to focus on strengthening and improving its internal processes. Typically. Trainings in most districts were organized for 3 days this year. During the workshop. Usually. The workshop is also used to plan for state level trainings and partner selection. Like state level trainings.ASER 2011 – Training Each year since 2005. these trainings were generally held for 2 days. However. Simple presentations and case studies help state teams carry out these sessions. Master Trainers are usually a combination of participants from the district local partners and Pratham team members. ASER follows a 3 tier training structure. Quiz: A quiz is administered towards the end of each state level training and immediate feedback is provided to participants. In every district.00. Field practice sessions: Every element of ASER is practised extensively in the field. ■ State level training workshops: These workshops prepare Master Trainers who will then take charge of rolling out ASER in their districts. This is followed by district level training where volunteers are trained to conduct the ASER survey. in order to improve the quality of training.

The detailed feedback received from ASER staff as well as from an external consultant will be instrumental in enabling us to make further improvements next year. ■ ■ Our effort each year is to improve our training processes. To deal with this problem. 26 ASER 2011 . However. we printed our survey formats on large flex banners that could be displayed easily while explaining how to fill survey formats to volunteers. Monitoring of trainings: A few processes were instated to ensure that the important aspects of trainings were implemented across all state and district trainings. a person was assigned to interact with the Master Trainers on a daily basis and ensure that they have taken care of the basic processes in trainings. survey and recheck District Compilation Sheet: Survey results for every village in a district were compiled in a district compilation sheet. Some of these were: ■ Call Centre: In most states. In addition. The sheet also had quiz marks and attendance records for volunteers.Some useful and effective innovations this year included the use of large flex banners. there is still scope to improve the training skills of our master trainers as well the quality of trainings at the district level. A lot of emphasis was given on this sheet for monitoring and recheck and it was ensured that quiz scores and daily attendance of volunteers are entered. These banners are quite portable. Another innovation implemented in most states for ASER 2011 was the establishment of a “call centre” to support master trainers and volunteers in the field. We have been able to substantially improve the quality of trainings this year. easy to use and an effective low cost substitute for projectors. most state trainings were attended by the respective Pratham State Head and a member of the Central ASER team. At the district level it is difficult to have a projector to show the survey formats to the whole group while training.

In 2011. If for any reason this was not possible. Monitoring and Recheck – This year’s process had several new elements and operated at different levels:1 ● ■ Master Trainers visited at least four villages per district during the weekends when the survey was in the field. attendance information and quiz performance of all 25. Master Trainers texted testing data to a designated phone number. A recheck was also done across 14 states and 43 districts by a central team of ASER staff. This ensured instant troubleshooting of problems and prompt support to remote or problematic districts. These numbers were then analyzed by members of the ASER Central team and recheck villages chosen. ASER 2011 27 . Over the past 6 years. the survey was conducted on two consecutive weekends instead of one. approximately 41% of all villages surveyed were either monitored or rechecked by Master Trainers. Master Trainers visited 4-8 villages out of the 30 villages in the district to recheck. SMS Recheck – In Rajasthan. In previous years. More importantly. villages to be rechecked were selected randomly Documentation – For the first time in ASER 2011. Some of the major changes were: ■ Training Duration – Training for volunteers was extended to 3 days in most districts instead of the usual 2 days as in past years. we recorded contact numbers. villages to be monitored and rechecked were selected on the basis of certain predefined criteria. These were cross-state visits by ASER team members from other states. ■ ■ ■ In ASER 2011. These villages were selected based on examining the survey formats that were handed back by the volunteers and a district summary sheet compiled by Master Trainers. we instituted some new processes with a view to provide more support to the survey in the field and to further strengthen the survey. the monitoring and recheck process was explained to and practiced by all master trainers in state trainings. the data for that village was dropped. An ASER team member was responsible for regularly telephoning Master Trainers in every district to monitor the progress of the survey. Purposive Monitoring & Recheck – Almost everywhere. an ASER call centre was set up at the state level. rechecked villages where problems were found were re-surveyed. These data will be used for further analyses and dissemination purposes. Close to 25% of the time at these trainings was devoted to understanding and practising these processes. we lay great emphasis on piloting all formats before they are finalized. Chhattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh. This allowed increased amount of monitoring and recheck of villages between the two weekends. and drawing on the extensive field experiences of our ASER team from past years. Gujarat. This also enabled us to get a sense of the quality of the survey in these states at a very early stage. we went one step further. 1 At ASER Centre. The extremely detailed recheck format which was used this year was extensively piloted by all ASER team members who have many years of experience in the field. Survey Duration – In most districts. many measures have been taken to ensure that the ASER survey is done as well as possible. Keeping in mind the cost and time constraints. ● ● ● In most cases.000 surveyors. This ensured that poorly surveyed villages could be identified and resurveyed immediately. Some new features in ASER 2011 for supporting ASER in the field: ■ Call Centre – In many states. All the SMSs could be viewed on and downloaded from a website.ASER 2011 – Monitoring & Recheck The credibility of any survey rests on the validity of its data.

The village has less than 20 households. west. We will survey a hamlet as long as there are households in it. road. east. If there are 4 or less hamlets. WE WILL SURVEY 5 HOUSEHOLDS IN EACH SECTION. indicate which hamlets were randomly picked for surveying. WHAT TO DO IF : ● The hamlet has less than 5 households . ● 3. It helps to first draw a map on the ground so that people around you can see what is being done. Talk to people: How many different hamlets/sections are there in the village? Where are they located? What is the estimated number of households in each hamlet/section? Ask the children to take you around the village. then make chits with numbers for each hamlet. school. mosques. CONTINUOUS VILLAGE If it is a village with continuous habitations: ● ● ● Divide the entire village into 4 sections geographically. It helps in re-check. Randomly pick 4 chits. If you can. 28 ASER 2011 . shop etc. Do not worry if there are more people in one hamlet than in another. If the village consists of more than 4 different hamlets. Mark the main roads/streets/paths through the village prominently on the map. Map: ■ ■ ONCE THE MAP IS MADE. Final map : Once everyone agrees that this map is a good representation of the village. ■ How to mark and number sections on the map you have made? 1. We will survey all 4 sections of the village.then survey all the households in the hamlet and survey the remaining households from other hamlets. Tell them about ASER.7 and 6 households from the 3 hamlets respectively. WE NEED TO PICK 4 SECTIONS OF IT. Rough map : It is often helpful to first draw all the roads or paths leading to the village. mark the directions – north.then survey all the households in the village. Use the help of local people to show the main landmarks – temples. copy it on to the map sheet that has been given to you. This initial process of walking and talking may take more than an hour. river. walk around the whole village first before you start mapping. and it matches with your experience of having walked around the whole village. VILLAGE WITH HAMLETS If the village is divided into hamlets: ● 2 3 4 ● Mark the hamlets on the map and indicate approximate number of households in each hamlet. note the estimated number of households. south. ● ● 1 5 ● 2. then go to all of these hamlets. VILLAGE WITH LESS THAN 4 HAMLETS ● ● 2 hamlets: Divide each hamlet in 2 parts and take 5 households from each section. Note: Marking selected hamlets on the map is very important. 3 hamlets: Take 7.How to make a map and make sections To start MAKING A MAP — walk & talk: ■ To get to know the village. bus-stop. For each section. panchayat bhavan. On the map.

Make sure that you go to households ONLY when children are likely to be at home. Use the following procedure: ■ Go to each selected hamlet/section. Stop after you have completed 5 households in the hamlet/section. Stand facing dwellings in the center of the habitation and start household selection from the left. The household has no children: If there are no children at all or no children in the age group 3 . you need to select 5 households from each of the 4 previously selected hamlets/sections. THIS HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT COUNT AS A SURVEYED HOUSEHOLD. NOT from the next 'Chulha'). The house is closed: If the selected house is closed or if there is nobody at home. If you have reached the end of the section before 5 households are sampled. If a surveyed household gets selected again then go to the next household. This means that it should be on a Sunday. However. Remember that you need to survey 5 households. Follow the same process using the 5th household rule. go around again using the same every 5th household rule. Now move to the next selected hamlet/section. ■ ■ WHAT TO DO IF : ● The household has multiple kitchens: In each house ask how many kitchens or 'chulhas' there are? If there is more than one kitchen in a household. Household in this case refers to every 'door or entrance to a house from the street'. To do this. Such a household WILL COUNT as one of the 5 surveyed households in each hamlet/section but NO information about mothers or fathers will be collected. While selecting households count only those dwellings that are residential. ● ● ● ■ Continue until you have 5 households in that hamlet/section in which the inhabitants were present. regardless of the total number of households in each hamlet or section.What to do in each section/hamlet In the entire village. INCLUDE THAT HOUSEHOLD. Try to find the central point in that hamlet/section. then randomly select any one of the kitchens in that household. Move to the next/adjacent open house. DO NOT INCLUDE THIS HOUSEHOLD IN THE SURVEY SHEET. There is no response: If a household refuses to participate. DO NOT INCLUDE THIS HOUSEHOLD IN THE SURVEY SHEET. information will be collected from a total of 20 randomly selected households. and they participated in the survey. You will survey only those individuals who eat from the selected kitchen. Take the information about the name of head of the household. ■ ■ ■ ASER 2011 29 . as above. Select households to survey using the every 5th household rule.16 in the selected household but there are inhabitants. THIS HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT COUNT AS A SURVEYED HOUSEHOLD. note that down on your compilation sheet as "house closed". Move on to the next adjacent house. total number of members of the household and household assets. Continue till you have 5 households in the section. record the house on your compilation sheet in the "No response" box. After completing survey in this house proceed to next 5th house (counting from the next house on the street. regardless of the number of children you find.

How to sample households in a hamlet in a village? 6 5 7 8 9 10 13 12 11 1 2 3 4 14 CENTRE 19 15 16 Locked/No response 21 22 23 24 25 20 18 17 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 What to do in a house with mutiple kitchens? 30 ASER 2011 .

■ Mother’s name: At the beginning of the entry for each child. But we will NOT take information about their parents because they do not live in this household. ■ Father’s background information: At the end of the entry for each child. but not at home. Be sensitive to this issue. 2. If she does not come immediately. we will write the name of the child’s mother. One row of the household format will be used for each child. age. ■ ■ ■ ■ Many children may come up to you and want to be included out of curiosity. 2 for the second household surveyed and so on till the 20th household. Often older children who cannot read are very shy and hesitant about being tested. If there are multiple kitchens/’chulhas’ in the household. like name. include only those household members who eat from the same kitchen. let us review what information to collect about each child. Children not at home: Sometimes children may not be at home during your visit to the house. Ask members of the household as well as neighbours to help you identify these children. Ask family members to call the child so that you can speak to her/him directly. Note down her name ONLY if she is alive and regularly living in the household. mark that household and revisit it once you are done surveying the other households. Probe about who all live in the household to make sure that nobody in this age group gets left out. take down information about the child. You can interact with them. leave the testing information blank. even if their parents live in another village or if they are the children of the domestic help in the household. Information about children aged 3-16 years We will collect information from the sample household about all children age 3-16 who regularly live in the household and eat from the same kitchen.What to do in each household 1. we ask for the age and schooling information of the child’s father. we will only write this information if the father is alive and regularly living in the household. Children not living in the household: If there are children in the family who do not regularly live in the household. Avoid saying “children”.g. fields or even visiting a nearby town/village. If the mother has died or has been divorced and the child’s stepmother (father’s present wife) is living in the household.If the child is somewhere nearby. children who are studying in another village or children who got married and are living elsewhere. WHAT TO DO IF: ■ There are older children: Often older girls and boys (in the age group 11 to 16) may not be thought of as children. we will include her as the child’s mother. As in the case of the mother. ALL such children should be included. because she/he may be outside the village. 31 ASER 2011 . Do not discourage children who want to be tested. There are relatives’ children who live in the sample household on regular basis: Sometime you will find children of relatives who live in the sample household. They do not regularly live in the sample household. Total number of members in the household who eat from the same kitchen: Ask the adults present and write down the total number. Now that we have identified which children to survey. General information Household Number: Write down the household number in every sheet. If the child’s mother is dead or not living in the household we will NOT write her name. Write 1 for the first household surveyed. But data must be noted down ONLY for children living in the 20 households that have been randomly selected. They may be in the market. and schooling status. We will include these children because they live in the same household on a regular basis. In case you are unable to meet with the child directly. If the father is dead or not living in the household we will not ask for this information. for e. we will not include them There are visiting children: Do not include children who have come to visit their relatives or friends in the sampled village or household.

(We know that younger children will not be able to read much or do sums but still follow the same process for all children so as to keep the process uniform). No other mothers will be included. Mother’s background information We will ask some additional questions about the mother of each child in the age group 3-16 years who has been surveyed. ● Children aged 5-16 years The remaining blocks of information “For age 5-16” are to be filled ONLY for children aged 5 to 16. Child’s name. Children aged 3-16 years The first block “For age 3-16” is to be asked for ALL children aged 3 to 16 in the household. age and sex should be filled for all children aged 3 to 16 from the sample household selected for the survey.. whether they go to government/ private school. Also ask children if they attend the specific school which you have/will be surveying and note it in the “Does child go to the surveyed school” section. Note the class in which the child was studying when she/he dropped out irrespective of the fact whether the child passed or failed in that class. etc. ● ■ ■ ■ Probe carefully to find out the class the child was in when she/he left/dropped out of school. note this information in the “Out of School (Drop out)” column. against individual children’s name. 32 ASER 2011 . meaning paid classes in addition to regular school and note the response in “Tuition” column. balwadi. Askthe child/ parent what the official ‘medium of instruction’ in the child’s school is. This information will be recorded in the first column “Anganwadi or Pre-School Status”. ask other adults/members in the family and note down the information . age. EGS/AIE or any other school. not necessarily the school where the child studies. After noting down these details. sex and schooling status: The child’s name. All children in this age group will be tested in basic reading and basic math. Similarly if the child dropped out in the last few months write ‘2011’.g. there are two main blocks of information about each child. ask if any school teacher takes the tuition class attended by the child. Record the actual year when the child left school. madarsa. E. or nursery/LKG/UKG. If the mother is not present in the household at the time of the survey. ■ Ask all children if they take any tuition. Note down their Std. we will include him as the child’s father. this information will be noted in the “Schooling Status” column. On the household sheet: ■ Note down if the child is attending anganwadi (ICDS). ■ ■ ■ 3. If the child goes to school. For children who have dropped out of/left school. record it in the “Out of School children (Never enrolled)” column. If the child does not take tuition. If yes. do not ask this question. We will ONLY ask this information about mothers whose names have been recorded earlier. The school teacher could be teaching in ANY school.If the father has died or has been divorced and the child’s stepfather (mother’s present husband) is living in the household. If the child has never been to any anganwadi/preschool or school etc. if the child dropped out in 2002 write ‘2002’..

we will ask her age. if for some reason you cannot observe it note down what is reported by household members only and not by others. If there is an electricity connection. magazines. such as un-burnt bricks. Children living outside the village (10-16 years) Ask the child/adult the names of all children of the sampled household in the age group of 10-16 who live outside the village. loosely packed stones. Cable TV: If there is a TV in the household. not necessarily when you are doing the survey. Living outside means ■ 1. This includes any cable facility which is paid for by the household (including Direct To Home (DTH) facility). religious books. However. she would have eaten from the same kitchen/chulha. reeds. ekra etc Roof Material: Tiles. whether she has attended school or not and if yes. Other reading material: This includes story books. RBC (Reinforced Brick Concrete). cement concrete. up to what class has she studied. GCI (Galvanised Corrugated Iron) sheets. stones (packed with lime or cement). Mobile phone: Mark yes if any member of the household owns a mobile phone. The child left home in the last 6 months and will be living away for more than 6 months a year in the future. ■ ● Kutcha House: A Kutcha house is one which has walls and/or roof which are made of material other than those mentioned above. ASK. The child has been living away from home for more than 6 months a year. timber etc. It does not matter if the television is in working condition or not. Note down the class that she has successfully completed/passed. etc. 4. completed’. 33 ● ASER 2011 . Reading material ● ■ ■ ■ ■ Newspaper: Mark yes if the household gets a newspaper every day.For each mother. timber. comics etc. RCC (Reinforced Cement Concrete). ■ Type of house the child lives in: Types of houses are defined as follows: ● Pucca House: A pucca house is one which has walls and roof made of the following material: ■ Wall material: Burnt bricks. (More than 6 months in a year) ■ The child from the sampled household means that if the child had been staying in the household. ask whether there is cable TV. mud. ● ■ Electricity in the household: ● Mark yes or no by observing if the household has wires/electric meters and fittings or not. Household indicators All information on household indicators is to be recorded based. thatch. Television: Mark yes or no by observing if the house has a television or not. If you don’t see one. asbestos cement sheet. on observation and evidence. enter 0 under ‘Std. if she has gone to school but says that she did not complete Std 1. grass. If you are not able to observe. For example. ask whether the household had electricity any time on the day of your visit. ● ■ Toilets: Mark yes or no by observing if there is a constructed toilet in the house. 5. as much as possible. bamboos. or 2. Semi-Pucca house: A house that has fixed walls made of pucca material but the roof is made of material other than those used for pucca house. then ASK whether there is a constructed toilet or not. but does not include calendars.

This question should be asked to the family members. If the language mentioned by the respondent is not in the Language Code List. For eg. 34 ASER 2011 . and ‘Avadhi’ is not in the Language Code List. then write 999. Write down the code of the language told by the respondent.6. Do not observe. then find out which is the main language spoken at home. Accordingly. then write 999. Language spoken in the household: Ask the child which language is spoken at home by the family members. If the family says they speak more than one language in the household. Please refer to the list of languages and put the appropriate code in the given box. record ONLY 1 LANGUAGE CODE in the household format. Other Questions for the household: Computer skills in the household: Mark yes if anyone in the household knows how to use a computer. regardless of what you may think the household speaks at home.. if the respondent says ‘Avadhi’ is the language spoken at home.

........From 2005 to 2011: Evolution of ASER ................................ .............................................................................................. ASER 2005 ASER 2006 ASER 2007 ASER 2011 Age group 3-16 Children were asked ■ Enrollment status ■ Type of school ■ Tuition status Children 5-16 also did: Reading tasks ■ Arithmetic tasks ■ Children were asked ■ Enrollment status ■ Type of school ■ Tuition status ■ Pre-school status (Age 5-16) Children 5-16 also did: ■ Reading tasks ■ Arithmetic tasks ■ Telling time Currency tasks English tasks Everyday math tasks Mother’s education Mother’s education Father’s education Mothers were also asked to read a simple text Household characteristics Village information School visits Sampling : Randomly selected 10 ASER 2007 villages 10 ASER 2008 villages 10 new ASER 2009 villages Mother’s education Father’s education Mothers were also asked to dial a mobile number Household characteristics Village information School visits Sampling : Randomly selected 10 ASER 2008 villages 10 ASER 2009 villages 10 new ASER 2010 villages Mother’s education Father’s education Household characteristics Village information Sampling : Randomly selected 10 ASER 2006 villages 10 ASER 2007 villages 10 new ASER 2008 villages ASER 2011 Household characteristics Village information School visits Sampling : Randomly selected 10 ASER 2009 villages 10 ASER 2010 villages 10 new ASER 2011 villages 35 ... ASER 2008 Age group 3-16 Children were asked ■ Enrollment status ■ Type of school Children 5-16 also did: ■ Reading tasks ■ Arithmetic tasks ■ ■ ASER 2009 Age group 3-16 ASER 2010 Age group 3-16 Children were asked ■ Enrollment status ■ Type of school ■ Tuition status Children 5-16 also did: ■ Reading tasks ■ Arithmetic tasks ■ ....................................................................................................................... Age group 6 – 14 Children were asked ■ Enrollment status ■ Type of school Children also did: ■ Reading tasks ■ Arithmetic tasks Age group 3 – 16 Children were asked ■ Enrollment status ■ Type of school Children 5-16 also did: ■ Reading tasks ■ Arithmetic tasks ■ ■ Age group 3 – 16 Children were asked ■ Enrollment status ■ Type of school ■ Tuition status Children 5-16 also did: ■ Reading tasks ■ Arithmetic tasks ■ ■ ■ Comprehension tasks Writing tasks Comprehension tasks Problem solving tasks English tasks School visits Mother’s education Mothers were also asked to read a simple text Sampling : Randomly selected 20 ASER 2005 villages 10 new ASER 2006 villages Mother’s education School visits Sampling : Randomly selected 20 ASER 2005 villages Sampling : Randomly selected 10 ASER 2005 villages 10 ASER 2006 villages 10 new ASER 2007 villages ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

These words or their equivalent are in the Std 2 textbook of the state. ■ ■ Sample: Hindi basic reading test Similar tests developed in all languages Child can choose the language in which she wants to read. These words or their equivalent are in the Std 1 textbook of the state. sentence count. type of word and conjoint letters in words Compatibility with the vocabulary and sentence construction used in Std 1 and Std 2 language textbooks of the state Familiarity with words and context through extensive field piloting ASER 2011 ■ ■ 36 . Words: Common familiar words with 2 letters and 1 or 2 matras.ASER 2011 : Reading tasks All children were assessed using a simple reading tool. Level 1 (Std 1) text: Set of 4 simple linked sentences. words are common and the context is familiar to children. The reading test has 4 categories: ■ ■ Letters : Set of commonly used letters. Level 2 (Std 2) text: “Short” story with 7-10 sentences. Sentence construction is straightforward. each having no more than 4-5 words. In developing these tools in each state language. care is taken to ENSURE ■ Comparability with the previous years’ tools with respect to word count.

even if she is reading slowly. then ask her to try reading the words again and then follow the instructions for word level testing.How to test reading? PARAGRAPH START HERE: Ask the child to read either of the 2 paragraphs. then ask the child to read the story. then mark the child at ‘Paragraph Level’. MARK THE CHILD AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL SHE CAN REACH. Let the child choose the letters herself. The child is at ‘Story Level’ if she: ■ Reads the text like she is reading a sentence. If the child is not at ‘Paragraph Level’ then ask the child to read words. ■ Reads the text with not more than 3 mistakes. ■ Reads the text with not more than 3 mistakes. ASER 2011 37 . The child is not at ‘Paragraph Level’ if she: ■ Reads the text like a string of words. if she: ■ Reads the text like she is reading a sentence. if she: ■ Correctly recognizes at least 4 out of 5 letters with ease. OR ■ Reads the text fluently but with more than 3 mistakes. If she does not choose. IN THE SURVEY SHEET. Ask her to read it. ■ Reads the text fluently and with ease. STORY Ask the child to read the story. If the child can read letters. If the child is at ‘Story Level’ then mark the child at story level. If she does not choose. ■ Reads the text fluently and with ease. If she can correctly and comfortably read words but is still struggling with the paragraph. if she: ■ Reads at least 4 out of the 5 words with ease. If the child does not choose give her any one paragraph to read. then mark the child at ‘Letter Level’. If the child is not at word level (cannot correctly read at least 4 out of the 5 words chosen). The child may read slowly. rather than a sentence. If the child is not at letter level (cannot recognize 4 out of 5 letters chosen). Let the child choose the paragraph herself. Listen carefully to how she reads. rather than a string of words. The child can read a paragraph. Let the child choose the words herself. If the child is not at ‘Story Level’. If the child can read a paragraph. then mark the child at ‘Nothing Level’. LETTERS Ask the child to read any 5 letters from the letters list. then mark the child at ‘Word Level’. then point out words to her. The child can read words. then point out letters to her. If the child is at ‘Word Level’. The child can read letters. then show her the list of letters. WORDS Ask the child to read any 5 words from the word list. ■ Reads the text haltingly and stops very often. rather than a string of words. If she can read 4 out of 5 letters but cannot comfortably read words . then ask her to try to read the paragraph again and then follow the instructions for paragraph level testing.

The arithmetic test has 4 categories: ■ Number recognition 1 to 9: randomly chosen numbers between 1 to 9 Number recognition 11 to 99: randomly chosen numbers between 11 to 99 Subtraction: 2 digit numerical problems with borrowing Division: 3 digit by 1 digit numerical problems. ■ ■ ■ Sample: Arithmetic test Similar tests developed in all languages 38 ASER 2011 .ASER 2011 : Arithmetic tasks All children were assessed using a simple arithmetic tool.

If she does both the subtraction problems correctly. If not. then give her another chance with the same question. Child can also choose. Even if the child can do one subtraction problem correctly. ASER 2011 39 . If she cannot recognize numbers from 11-99. If the child makes a careless mistake. Ask her to identify the numbers. ask her to write and solve the problem. If she can correctly identify at least 4 out of 5 numbers then mark her as a child who can “recognize numbers from 1-9. NUMBER RECOGNITION (1-9) Point one by one to 5 numbers. then give her another chance with the same question. Note: The quotient and the remainder both have to be correct. then give her the number recognition (1199) task. if not you can point. MARK THE CHILD AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL SHE CAN REACH. If the child is able to identify the numbers and the sign. IN THE SURVEY SHEET. If she cannot do both subtraction problems correctly. Ask the child what the numbers are and then ask her to identify the subtraction sign. Ask her to identify numbers. then you pick one. She can choose one to try. mark her as a child who can do “subtraction”.How to test arithmetic? SUBTRACTION: 2 DIGIT WITH BORROWING START HERE: Show the child the subtraction problems. still ask the child to solve the second question with the same method. Child can also choose. then give her the number recognition (1-9) task. Even if the first subtraction problem is answered wrong. NUMBER RECOGNITION (11-99) Point one by one to 5 numbers. ask her to do a division problem. then mark her as a child who can do ”division”. Observe to see if the answer is correct. If the child is unable to solve a division problem correctly. If she is able to correctly solve the problem. If she can correctly identify at least 4 out of 5 numbers then mark her as a child who can “recognize numbers from 11-99. She can choose a problem.” DIVISION 3 digit by 1 digit Show the child the division problems. Observe what she does. Ask her to write and solve the problem. If the child makes a careless mistake.” If not. give her the number recognition (11-99) task. mark her as a child who “cannot recognize numbers” or “nothing”.

See whether children of each class are sitting alone or with children of other classes. The number of regular government teachers does not include the Head Master. 4 only. In the top box of the School Observation Sheet. Please note that only children who are physically present in the class while you are counting should be included.) ■ ■ ■ ■ Section 5: Mid Day Meal (MDM) ■ Ask the HM/any other teacher whether the MDM was served in the school on the day of the visit today. put a tick according to the school type. then visit the government school with the highest enrollment in Std 1 to 4/ 5.What to do in a school? GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS ■ Visit any government school in the village with classes from Std 1 to 7/8. do not visit any school. Assure the HM and teachers that the name of the school will not be shared with anybody. ■ ■ Section 4: Classroom Observations. board games etc. then take total enrollment. In such a case. Meet the Head Master(HM). Attendance of class with many sections: Take headcount of the individual sections. Ask the HM for the enrollment registers or any official document on the enrollment in that school. You may need to seek help from the teachers to distinguish children class-wise as they are normally found seated in mixed groups. If the village does not have a government school with primary classes. 2 and Std. then randomly choose any one to observe. If a standard/class has many sections. ask children from each standard to raise their hands. add them up and then write down the total attendance. Observe whether there is a blackboard where they are sitting and what is the condition of the blackboard (write on the blackboard) and fill accordingly. Count the number of raised hands and accordingly fill the same in the observation sheet. Then move around to the classes/areas where children are seated and take down their attendance classwise by counting them yourself. Note the time of entry. Observe if there was any other teaching material available like charts on the wall. 40 ASER 2011 . In many states para-teachers are called by different names such as Shiksha Mitra. date and day of visit to the school. education volunteer etc. Observe where children are sitting (in classroom. class – wise. If the school has para-teachers. Acting HM will be counted as a regular teacher. ■ ■ Section 2: Note the official language used as the medium of instruction Section 3: Teachers ■ Ask the HM and note down the number of teachers appointed. Explain the purpose and history of ASER and give the ‘Letter to the HM’. mark them separately. then meet the senior most teacher of the school. If the HM is absent.ONLY FOR STD 2 and STD 4 ■ This section is for Std. Observe and count how many HMs/teachers are present and note the information. Be very polite. If there is no school in the village which has classes from 1 to 7/8. Observe the seating arrangement of children. where they are sitting. HM on deputation will be counted under the regular HM category. You may need to seek help from the teachers to distinguish children class-wise as they are normally found seated in mixed groups. If there is more than one section for a class. (Material painted on the walls of the classroom does not count as teaching material. ■ ■ ■ ■ Section 1: Children’s Enrollment & Attendance ■ Ask to see the registers of all the standards and fill in the enrollment. in the verandah or outside) and fill accordingly.

Observe if there are library books in the school (Even if kept in a cupboard). For each time period. If the HM/ respondent has no knowledge of whether or not the school has received the grant. 1-7/8 with 2 separate HMs. School grant or School Development Grant (SDG).■ ■ Observe if there is a kitchen/shed for cooking the MDM. If not. ask if the school got four grants viz. then put a tick under ‘Yes’ column Otherwise: ■ If the HM/ the respondent says that he/she has not received the grant or says that he/she is going to receive the grant in the future. The HM should be asked this section (In the absence of the Head Master. and with separate SSA bank accounts. (Look for the evidence of the MDM in the school like dirty utensils or meal bought from outside). Tick the type of school/standard and the designation of the person being asked (Head Master/ Regular teacher/ Para teacher). ■ For this section. Observe if there are computers in the school to be used by children and if yes. then mark under ‘No’ column. School Maintenance Grant (SMG). Mark accordingly. ■ If school has received the grant. then did you see children using computers. Section 7: School Grant Information (SSA) Assure the HM and others that the name of the school will not be shared with anybody. Ask the person answering this section about the grants very politely. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Observe if the school has a complete boundary wall or complete fencing. ■ ■ Section 8: SSA Annual Grants This section is divided into two parts – one for financial year 2010-11 (1st Apr 2010 – 31st Mar 2011) and one for financial year 2011-12 (1st Apr 2011 – until the date of the survey). In case of school with Std. Observe if library books are being used by children. If yes. please take the grants information for the primary section (Std. then mark under ‘Don’t know’ column. whether you could drink the water. Mark yes if you observe any one of these. Then count the number of rooms being used for teaching purposes. swings etc). Teachers Grant/ Teacher Learning Material (TLM) and new classroom grant. If the person refuses to answer or is hesitant to answer this section. then ask whether the entire amount was spent or not. then do not force the person and move on to the next section. Keep the following points in mind while marking this question: ASER 2011 41 . Observe whether the MDM was served in the school on the day of the visit. note down information separately for financial year 2010-11 (1st Apr 2010 – 31st March 2011) and financial year 2011-12 (1st Apr 2011 – until the date of the survey). 1-4/5) only. ask the senior most teacher present). Observe if there is a hand pump/tap which can be used for drinking water and if so. Observe if there is an office/store/office cum store. check whether any other drinking water facility is available. Observe if there is a play ground (Definition of Playground: it should be within the school premises with a level playing field and/or school playing equipment eg: slide. Section 6: Facilities in the school ■ Count the total number of pucca rooms in the school excluding toilets and kitchen shed.

Second we want to know which grant was used to undertake the activity. note whether it is locked or not. 42 ASER 2011 . a separate toilet for girls. please mark ‘2 times a month’. or once in 6 months. For each type of toilet facility that you find in the school. then note the grant information only for the primary section (Standard 1-4/5). If its neither of these 3 grants but some other grant/source. If TLM was used. If 2 common toilets or other type of toilets are there in the school then take information about the toilet which is in a better condition. Section 9: Activities carried out in the school (Since April 2010) This section has two parts. How often does the HM meet the officials at the Block. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ If the HM says once in 14-15 days or twice a month or fortnightly. note whether it was usable or not. please mark ‘Never’.■ Did you spend the full amount: Mark ‘Yes’ only if the full amount was spent. wall) etc. get the HM’s name and contact number. This is essential for recheck purposes. Mark ‘No’ if nothing has been spent or any amount less than full has been spent. Note: There can be 3 different answers to this question. floor. then skip this section. if the HM is not aware of whether the money has been spent or not. Ask the HM/ any teacher/ any child if you cannot tell who the toilets are for. building repairs (roof. Write this information in the relevant box given on the top right of pg 2 in the format. Section 11: Toilet facility in the school ■ Observe whether the school has a common toilet. please mark ‘Once in 2-3 months’. If the HM is not available. Please Note: If there is a school with standards 1-7/8. Ask if the school has done white wash /plastering. If either SDG or SMG was used. First we want to know whether the listed activities have taken place. a separate toilet for boys and a separate toilet for teachers. If the HM says once in 2-3 months or 4 times a year or quarterly. ■ ■ IMPORTANT: After filling out the School Observation sheet. then please tick on ‘Don’t know’. please mark under ‘monthly’. then please tick ‘SDG/SMG or both’. please mark ‘Once in 6 months’. Mark ‘Don’t know’. painting blackboard/ display board. If the HM does not meet the particular official at all. If it was not locked. Section 10: Meeting with officials Take information for this section only from the HM. and there are 2 HM’s and 2 SSA bank accounts for section 1-4/5 and 5/6 -7/8. If the HM says twice a year. Cluster and District level: Mark accordingly. Then tick the appropriate box and then mark the grant under which this activity was undertaken. then please tick on ‘Any other grant’ and if the respondent says that the activity has happened but he doesn’t remember the grant. If the HM says once in 29-30 days or once in a month. then please tick ‘TLM’. First option is SDG and/or SMG. since April 2010.

While this would have made the survey much more comprehensive. and ‘Avadhi’ is not coded in the ‘Language Code List’.2 We also consulted experts at the Central Institute of Indian Languages. ■ ■ 1 See for example: Mohanty et al (eds) 2009). ASER volunteers were given the following instructions: ■ Ask the child or any adult in the household which language is spoken at home. Several studies have indicated that children whose home language is different from the school language have lower attendance and learning levels. Study on Medium of Instruction in Primary Schools in Ethiopia. New Delhi: Orient Longman. New Delhi: ASER Centre. This enables us to see how many children have a home language background that is different from the medium of instruction in school. Refer to the list of languages and put in the appropriate code in the given box. regardless of what you may think the household speaks at home. then write 999. by the family members. All these languages would have to be coded and extreme care would have to be taken in the field to fill in the codes correctly. Bhattacharjea. A further list of 234 mother-tongue languages was also suggested.School and home language information in ASER 2011 The Right to Education Act recommends that the child’s “medium of instruction shall. then find out which is the main language spoken at home. finalising a list of languages that could be used for the survey was a mammoth task in itself.gov. we could also include a list of 100 non-scheduled languages. Given the multiplicity of Indian languages and dialects. which would have proved to be a cumbersome and complicated process in the field. in 2011 we recorded the child’s home language.gov.htm?q=mother+tongue&drpQuick=&drpQuickSelect= ASER 2011 43 . Kathleen et al (2007). For eg. If this language is not in the ‘Language Code List’.. we took into consideration the list of 22 scheduled languages mentioned in Census 2001. Inside Primary schools. it posed quite a few problems for our volunteers and for data analysis.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/parta. Just Multilingual Education. we decided to use the list of 22 scheduled and 100 non-scheduled languages from Census 2001. Mysore. Hindi is listed in 49 different ways!) Including all three lists would have given us a list with over 350 languages. Write down the code of the language mentioned by the respondent. given that this was our first attempt to engage with the question of language. Hence. Clause 2 (f)).htm 3 http://censusindia. be in the child’s mother tongue” (Chapter V.1 Given this background.3 (In the Mother tongue list. Wadhwa and Banerji (2011). then write 999. If the family says they speak more than one language in the household. Heugh. Their suggestion was that in addition to the list of scheduled languages list. For data collection. for the first time in ASER. 2 http://censusindia. write ONLY ONE LANGUAGE CODE in the household format. as far as practicable. Accordingly. Section 29. As a starting point.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1. if the respondent says ‘Avadhi’ is the language spoken at home.

English 44 ASER 2011 .Sample household survey sheet .

Hindi ASER 2011 45 .Sample household survey sheet .

Sample village information sheet .English 46 ASER 2011 .

Hindi ASER 2011 47 .Sample village information sheet .

Sample school observation sheet .English 48 ASER 2011 .

ASER 2011 49 .

Hindi 50 ASER 2011 .Sample school observation sheet .

ASER 2011 51 .

Village map 52 ASER 2011 .

ture ic P l a n io t a N The ASER 2011 53 .

54 ASER 2011 .

ASER 2011 55 .

56 ASER 2011 .

ASER 2011 57 .

58 ASER 2011 .

ASER 2011 59 .

60 ASER 2011 .

6% in 2011.2% in states like Bihar (4. In Uttar Pradesh. Rajasthan. ■ ASER 2011 61 . Among Std V children the ability to do the same task has dropped from 70. In Gujarat. According to ASER 2011 data.8% in Karnataka.9% in 2011. Two states in the country. Meghalaya. Rural India shows substantial progress on this front. down from 6.7% in 2006 to 25. ranging from 87. ■ ■ ■ Private school enrollment is rising in most states ■ Nationally. 11 to 14 year old girls are the hardest to keep in school. However.1% in Nagaland to 18.1% girls in this age group out of school in 2006 and 9.7% in 2011.6% in 2006. Punjab and Tamil Nadu the numbers for 2011 are better than for 2010. ■ ■ Reading levels showing decline in many states ■ Nationally.4% in 2011. reading levels have declined in many states across North India. Several states in the north-eastern region of India also show positive change. this proportion was lower than the All India average of 5.8% for 2011. only Andhra Pradesh. ■ Arithmetic levels also show a decline across most states ■ Basic arithmetic levels also show a decline. Substantial numbers of five year old children are enrolled in school. between 30 to 60% of children in rural areas of Haryana.3% in 2010 to 45. in a few states there is good news. private school enrollment has risen year after year for the 6-14 age group. The figure for out of school girls (11-14) was 10.2% in 2011. Punjab. Nagaland.3% in 2006.3% in 2010 to 29. West Bengal (4. Uttar Pradesh.9% in 2010 to 61.7% in 2010 to 48. Many of the states that had a high proportion (over 10%) of 11-14 year old girls out of school in 2006 have made significant progress.3%). This decline is visible in almost every state. The All India figure stands at 57. It has declined to 5. Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh numbers remain unchanged from last year. Kerala and Manipur. the proportion of Std III children able to solve a 2 digit subtraction problem with borrowing has dropped from 36. There is no change in arithmetic levels for Std III in Gujarat.0% in 2011. This proportion varies across states. Similar trends are observed in the proportion of Std III children able to read at least a Std I level text. The All India figure for the proportion of children in Std V able to read a Std 2 level text has dropped from 53. Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh are enrolled in private schools. Jammu & Kashmir.6 percentage points in private school enrollment between 2007 and 2011. increasing from 18.3%. Several states in the north-eastern region of India also show positive change. Tamil Nadu shows an increase of 11. Nationally.4%. In both these states the proportion of aided private schools is high. In 2010. private school enrollment has increased from 39. Uttar Pradesh has shown the least progress with 11.3%) and Chhattisgarh (4. In addition to the states mentioned above. Himachal Pradesh does not show any decline in Std III reading levels. the proportion of children in the 6-14 age group not currently enrolled in school is 3. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu show improvements from 2010 to 2011.5%). Uttarakhand.2% in 2011. In 2011.ASER 2011 (Rural) Findings The proportion of children currently not enrolled in school is declining ■ In ASER 2011. have more than 60% of children enrolled in private schools. this number was 3.

More than half of all Std 2 and Std 4 classes are multigrade ■ For Std 2 and Std 4.0% in 2007 and 50. Ten major states had teacher attendance figures that were 90% or higher.3% (2011) and in Manipur from 76. the proportion of schools where children were observed using computers was high – for example Kerala (78.2 Incidence of tuition is higher in Eastern states ■ In both government and private schools.3% of primary schools and 57. School observations The school information reported in ASER is collected during a visit to one government school with primary sections in each sampled village. This number varies considerably by state and by grade level. Children’s attendance of concern in some states ■ At the All India level.3% primary schools where children were observed using them.4% in 2007 to 70. Computers increasingly available in upper primary schools ■ Almost a third of upper primary schools visited had computers (30. with 78.4% (2007) to 57. only 7.0% in 2007 to 54. In contrast. For example Std 2 was sitting with one or more other classes in 58. Bihar and West Bengal. an average of about 87% of all appointed teachers were observed to be in school on the day of the visit. Teachers’ attendance is high ■ In ASER 2011. where private school enrollment is very low. 62 ASER 2011 .0%) and Maharashtra (30. ■ 1 2 The Right to Education Act states that “medium of instructions shall. Kerala is another state with a high incidence of tuition. The decline is slightly steeper in upper primary schools. in several states. The proportion of children going to paid tutors remains high in the Eastern states of Odisha. be in child’s mother tongue” (Chapter V:29:f).9% in 2011 in rural primary schools. more than half of all classes visited were multigrade. In some states.6% in 2007 to 71. In Madhya Pradesh this figure has fallen from 67.9% in 2011.9% of all government primary schools visited had computers. as far as practicable. where it decreased from 75. for rural primary schools.8%).6% teachers attending in primary schools. Gujarat stands out with 95. In addition. average attendance of children was 59.3% in 2011.0% in 2011. more than 80% of observed Std 2 and 4 classrooms in primary schools were multigrade.1%). This figure does not include most states of the North East or Jammu & Kashmir. Nationally. children’s attendance shows a decline from 73.6%).5% in 2011. Jharkhand and Meghalaya. Gujarat (31. The data indicates that children’s home language was different from the school’s medium of instruction for one out of four children surveyed.7% in 2007 to 52.5% of primary schools having computers and 52. Kerala is a noteworthy exception. between 20 to 25% of all children attend paid tuition classes outside school. in Uttar Pradesh from 64.7%). In Jammu and Kashmir. Tamil Nadu (51. children’s attendance shows a sharp decline over time: for example in primary schools of Bihar.6% of schools with upper primary sections.A quarter of all rural children attend primary schools where the medium of instruction is different from their home language1 ■ ASER 2011 recorded children’s home and school language for the first time. ASER observes whether children in these classes are sitting together with children from other classes. Please consult the respective state pages for the language tables in these states.

both in 2010 and in 2011.2% in 2010 to 49.8% schools that have a useable drinking water facility. Drinking water provision unchanged ■ Nationally. and in Jammu & Kashmir.9% in 2010 to 42. In the North East. and more children using them ■ The proportion of schools without libraries has declined from 37. Also. ■ No major changes in building. from 50. more than 80% schools are in compliance with these norms. This figure has risen from 32.3% in Manipur in 2011. ■ More libraries in schools. Children were seen using the library in more schools as well – up from 37.6% in 2011. there has been an increase in the proportion of all schools that have a boundary wall. but not on time ■ Between FY 2008-9 and FY 2010-11 the flow of SSA grants to schools improved significantly. there has been a marginal improvement in the proportion of schools complying with RTE norms on pupil-teacher ratio.8% in Assam to 87. ASER 2011 63 .0% in 2010 and 16. The proportion of schools with a useable drinking water facility has remained steady at about 73%. there has been a substantial improvement in the proportion of schools that have separate girls’ toilets that are useable. the proportion of schools with no provision for drinking water remained almost the same – 17.1% in 2011. There is a slight drop in the proportion of schools receiving grants in the first half of the fiscal year between 2010-11 and 2011-12.2% in 2010 to 22. from 38. about 62% of visited schools had a playground. ■ RTE Indicators Not much change in compliance on PTR and CTR ■ At the All India level. In Mizoram. However.6% in 2011.8% in 2011.Schools get their grants. 94.6% in 2011. from 76. In fact a marginal decrease in the proportion of schools receiving grants is observed between FY 2009-10 and 2010-11.7% in 2011.2% in 2010 to 74. Uttar Pradesh. Similarly.3% in 2011.9% in 2010 to 54. this improvement occurred largely between FY 2008-9 and 2009-10. Uttarakhand.1% of schools in compliance. playground and boundary wall provision ■ All India figures for 2011 show no significant improvement in the proportion of schools with an office cum store.9% in 2010 to 40. The data suggest that schools tend to get their grants during the second half of the fiscal year.9% in 2010 to 43. there has been a marginal decline in the proportion of schools with at least one classroom per teacher. Rajasthan. Gujarat and Maharashtra more than 80% of schools are in compliance. Nagaland and Manipur. However.1% in 2011. The proportion of schools where there was no separate girls’ toilet has declined from 31. Kerala has the best record with 93.5% in 2010 to 28.3% in 2011. This figure remains at 74%. for the country has a whole. In 2011.8% of schools comply with the teacher-classroom norms and in Punjab. At the All India level. the proportion of schools with no water provision ranged from 23. ■ Better provision of girls’ toilets ■ The All India proportion of schools with working toilets has increased marginally from 47. Kerala stands out with 94.

.

2 15.5 4.1 14.7 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.5 5.7 25. in Std III.3 9.3 5.1 68.0 12.7 30.1 1.1 28. 69. I II 5 6 7 8 7. 558 OUT OF 583 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.9 68. she should be age 8 in Std 3.8 28.5 35.0 23.8 Not in Total School 3.5 69.0 3. 2009 & 2011 19.5 3.8 34. 23.9 0.2% in 2008 to 6. 41.7 4.6% who are 9. This table shows the age distribution for each class.1 4.3 42.8 24.3% who are 10 years old.4 3.1 4. For example.8 57.6 38.8 23.9 Other 1.7% in 2010 to 5.0 71.5 3.6 11.9 25.3 1.0 33.9 100 100 100 100 100 100 4. 11.8 70.3 13.3 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.0 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 65 .3 1.8 9 10 11 12 5. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.8 39.3 5.4 5.3 4.0 17.4 0.5 43.6 16.9 0.0 2.0 41.9 0. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 10.8% in 2009 to 5.8 3.1 12.8 4. etc.3 27.7 0.6 28.0 6.2 Pvt.8 60.0% who are 7.9 4.8 22.9 8.6 9.2% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.3 1.6 25.India RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.7 66.1 5.5 25.7 7.8 6.3 14. How to read this chart: For example.9 10.5 27.2 10. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 25.1 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.3 13.8 0.9 1.5 3.1 27.3 74.5 6.9 5.0 1.3 4.8% children are 8 years old but there are also 12. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.3 1.5 13 14 15 16 Total 100 26.1 100 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 12. 25.5 42.3% in 2006 to 7.8 5.8 57.8 2.0 36.9 24.0 56.3% in 2007 to 7.2 1.0 27.5 8.3 5.

5 4.9 11.8 Word 15.7 25.7 18.4 34. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language* % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 74.3 28. Please consult the respective state pages for the language tables. Nagaland.7 24. For example.4 16. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 38.7 5.0 10.8 4. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.7 16. 66 % Children ASER 2011 .5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.9% can read letters but not more.9 14. 28. Manipur.4 9. 8. Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh.3 6.8 34.7 1.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. Meghalaya.5 25. For home languages. 22. 21.3 4.3 28.India Reading Std.6 22.2 12.6 17.6 9.4 21. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.8% can read Std 2 level text.2 1.5% children cannot even read letters.1 20. Tripura.4 38.4 79.3 16.0 8.6 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.5 1. and 18.0 2. for each class.5 16.2 48. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.9 3.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.6 8. * This table does not include data for Jammu and Kashmir. in Std III. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.4% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.4 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Letter 39. In sum.8 72.7 3. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.8 21.2 62. Assam.4 100.2 14.

2 25.4 Divide 1.6 22.1 19.6 29.8 2. 2009.1 20.3 23.8 12.5 21. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 20.8 30.8 17.9 23.3 26.6 29.2 23.5 32.1 21.1 20. In all 4 years. 23.4 15.4 27.0 23.5% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.0 24.0 3.4 12.4 25.8 Subtract 3.3 26.4 48.0 23.3 23.7 19.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.6 1.2 26.9 23.3 16.8 27.9 22. in Std III.0 26.3 23.7 28. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 36.5 28.5 22. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.9 26.2 12.3 23.2% can do subtraction but not division.8 35. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.1 23.3 21. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.3 33.5 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 42.0 18. for each class.5 24.7 16.7 23.3 23.2 32.0 26.9 1. For example.2 11.2 24. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.1 30.0 18. In sum.4 25.0 25.9 32.4 15. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.4 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.9 22.5 26.7 % can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.6 24. 7.2 2.2 20.9 17.4 25.5 23.8 22. ASER 2011 % Children 67 .4 27.5 15.4 18.6 39.0 7.1 26.6 28.2 22.9 21.0 25. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.7 6.1 18.9 26. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.2 26.9% can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.5 23.3 23.0 25.1 21.1 27.1 25.3 56. 2009.4 5.0 23.0 15.8 19.1 9.India Arithmetic Std.5 23. 35.0 7.7% can do division.7 30. and 6.2 24.7 24.7 22.3 22.4 20.8 15.2 38.5 3. 26.8 28.3 1.

8 47.8 82.0 85.1 57.1 52.8 72.India RURAL Performance of states Table 8: School enrollment and learning levels 2011 Out of school State % Children (Age: 6-14) out of school Private school % Children (Age: 6-14) in private school Std I-II : Learning levels % Children (Std I-II) who CAN READ letters.9 65.7 50.1 84.0 1.8 75.3 71.3 92.6 2.0 76.0 86.6 40.8 90.0 86.2 79.6 78.9 91.3 25.7 81.9 53.3 92.7 72.4 0.7 40.4 31.6 96.1 61.3 73.0 2.9 43.0 71.8 89.1 56.1 70.7 82.3 3.3 89.0 60.1 65.6 51.4 89.4 26.4 50.5 87.8 95.4 69.3 10.2 97.9 63.1 5.0 3.5 69.8 46.2 96.2 1.4 39.9 41.0 39.1 54.1 2.5 65.5 64.0 45.8 43.1 97.0 73.2 30.7 12.8 64.4 0.0 2.7 2.8 88.9 41.5 49.7 66.4 79.5 64.8 20.0 59.8 70.3 52.9 1.5 66.7 56.6 2.5 85.1 1.0 73.4 59.5 59.9 52.7 1.6 67.5 5.5 4.7 0.7 89.8 4.7 48.9 34.7 48.6 85.4 64.2 65.5 50.3 97.3 34.7 75.9 5.5 30.6 88.0 82.1 4.6 68 ASER 2011 .7 91.8 0.9 63.2 44.8 17.2 96.1 1.1 56.0 47.5 11.6 4.4 91.6 35. words or more 87.0 5.2 61.2 77.3 13.3 6.0 45.6 37.5 75.5 0.5 75.9 66.8 43.0 14.3 6.9 67.5 67.0 63.1 43.5 50.0 22.4 41.2 35.5 62.7 17.5 Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Daman & Diu Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Odisha Puducherry Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal All India 2.9 73.3 87.1 27.7 74.6 70.8 3.5 62.4 63.5 85.8 96.6 97.1 Std III-V : Learning levels % Children (Std I-II) % Children (Std III-V) % Children (Std III-V) who CAN who CAN READ who CAN DO RECOGNIZE numbers Level 1 (Std 1) SUBTRACTION (1-9) or more text or more or more 89.0 83.9 77.8 0.2 3.

5 55.0 15.2 13. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.1 3.1 14.3 100 4.2 0. 2009.0 Table 13: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 92.3 89.7 69.9 86.2 87.2 0.9 3. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 73.6 45.4 0.9 75.0 51.7 57.1 87.5 52.1 11.6 69 ASER 2011 .1 0.6 61.4 13.6 86.3 53.1 43.6 60.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 84.9 65. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 11: Teacher attendance 2007.4 42.8 53.7 100 100 2.1 52.1 69. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 54.9 70.6 16.9 % Teachers present 90.2 49.3 73.0 Std I-VII/VIII 53.India RURAL As part of ASER 2007. 2009. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 9230 4836 9389 8419 8473 5359 5821 5810 14066 14748 14240 14283 Student and teacher attendance Table 10: Student attendance 2007.8 51.0 47.0 73.0 58.2 9.8 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 8.2 9.9 12.2 53.7 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 12.5 Other school information Table 12: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 2.9 15.4 71.0 41.4 86.6 2.2 0.4 92.2 0.6 100 72. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.1 87.9 54.4 74.6 55. 2009.1 50. School observations Table 9: Total schools visited 2007.6 77.6 57. 2010 and 2011.3 88.2 53. in each sampled village.3 52.0 100 100 Table 14: Multigrade classes 2007.0 55.3 3.3 0.0 9.6 Headteacher appointed but not present at 12. 2009.3 11.2 17.9 89.7 of visit Total 100 100 88.8 49.3 72. 2009.1 0.2 63.2 4.

April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.4 8.2 6.4 3.4 71. and repair of toilets.0 37.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.9 30.7 20.7 11563 59.3 7.India RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .9 3.3 9.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.8 3.1 55.9 6. posters.6 12.5 14.0 12966 53.2 60.2 2.3 3.7 27. hand pump. For more information see www.5 41.4 10. % Schools No.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.0 3. beautification.0 35.2 89. including whitewashing. of Sch. duster.1 Maintenance 13169 77.2 Table 16: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .4 8.9 10879 60. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.7 10.5 3. such as charts. cleaning etc. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.7 8.5 8.5MONEY 27.) 26.8 grant Development 10941 53.5000 .3 Don't know 3.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.3 20.3MONEY 5.2 14.7 5.0 13. 2009-2010 % Schools No.3 3.4 47.2 9.7 3. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.9 26.3 11082 57. of Sch.7 2.0 46.2 58.Rs.1 49. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.5 59.5000 per year per primary school Rs.3 10. boundary wall. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.0 70.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.4 50.9 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.0 grant Development 12601 69.7 15.8 3. % Schools No.6 68. globes.5 2. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.5 68.5 Table 17: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.2 2.5 34. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.9 13764 83. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.5 grant GET THEIR ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 11330 64.3 28.5 76. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids. 2010-2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. duster. sitting mats etc.1 38.7 26.accountabilityinitiative.8 13649 85. New Classroom Repair of building (roof. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.8 38.4 26.2 28.7 9.2 50. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.in ASER 2011 70 .3 8.5 11658 87. register etc.2 13125 55.3 12277 84.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.4 11.4 47.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. Maintenance 11381 57.0 grant TLM grant DID SCHOOLS GET THEIR ON TIME? 13172 83.2 12. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.4 2.7 10. playground etc.3 26.9 5.8 13496 76.4 56.2 9. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. wall etc.7 9.7 38.1 36. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. registers and other office equipment.9 4.8 38.4 49. models etc.8 % schools No 70.8 46. floor. Rs 7500 .5 12856 50.0 11763 80. Also for buying chalk. water. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.

7 58.0 38.1 13.7 17.9 73.8 No.0 10.1 16.9 17. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper. of % of No.4 21.7 43.0 12628 100. including story-books.1 47.1 22.8 13.1 62.5 10.4 37.8 25.4 8.4 1561 2394 2111 1652 1269 937 2704 12.4 71 ASER 2011 .3 72.9 73.0 61.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 20: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 21: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 1.6 29. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.2 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 7.5 12.9 80.0 62.2 38.8 22. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 13973 100.0 50.1 10. magazines and books on all subjects.8 82.0 16.2 28.5 24. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.6 2790 1844 1841 1533 1853 4209 19.7 61.9 Table 19: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 43.4 74.8 11.2 31. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 1478 2198 2008 1678 1295 1005 2796 11.6 34. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. 2010 2011 74.8 49.9 41.8 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 49. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.2 43.0 Table 22: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.India RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.3 2.1 78.2 66.1 42.8 23.6 15. % No. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.6 37.7 87.2 18.6 54.4 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.2 29.4 12458 100.6 32.8 32.7 10.7 37. During this school visit.4 19.8 14.3 83.8 47.2 35.1 7.7 30.2 32.7 76. in each sampled village.1 13.4 19.9 13.1 10.7 59.7 13.6 9.6 68.2 71.1 10.5 58.6 12.0 14070 100.6 16.3 12.9 82.9 60. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.4 39.1 22.8 48.1 84.0 18.9 17. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 2412 1759 1689 1511 2045 4557 17.

1 35.7 70.3 81.0 49.5 95.5 36.3 48.0 43.7 94.0 44.3 66.8 All India 14240 14283 38.8 62.1 37.8 75.1 79.3 96.6 78.6 73.9 38.3 88.1 47.7 49.1 77.8 57.5 74.7 64.9 97.2 Karnataka 769 781 69.6 40.9 30.9 79.3 48.4 49.4 23.5 66.1 72.1 59.1 79.2 34.4 41.1 82.9 75.6 Manipur 125 133 74.2 31.1 80.1 81.3 31.9 80.9 82.6 43.5 44.3 87.4 25.0 58.8 65.8 26.9 46.8 58.4 89.5 88.8 69.3 22.7 24.3 51.3 35.7 83.5 13.4 74.2 22.2 71.4 48.8 40.1 6.7 84.1 71.7 46.7 16.6 33.3 88.1 50.3 91.2 642 61.6 98.9 94.3 42.9 62.9 83.8 Assam 519 510 33.6 66.3 85.1 67.2 59.4 35.4 37.0 78.3 74.9 9.0 51.8 84.7 93.6 41.4 27.6 15.0 84.4 72.1 72.8 71.6 45.7 89.4 14.8 77.2 86.6 59.1 71.3 64.6 43.1 78.4 52.8 62.6 94.0 82.3 71.1 87.9 42.8 83.3 92.0 60.2 80.8 46.4 82.2 39.0 87.7 11.1 66.4 78.3 79.9 64.3 9.8 92.2 33.1 47.0 78.0 68.3 96.Table 23: Performance of states on Right to Education indicators 2010 and 2011 School Facilities % Schools that have: Boundary wall Toilet available and useable Girls toilet available and useable Drinking water provision & available Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal Library Library TLM TLM books books in use observed in observed in available by children Std 2 Std 4 % Schools that have: Library & Teaching-Learning Materials Number of schools visited 2010 RURAL Andhra Pradesh 70.2 67.8 29.4 64.8 76.8 82.5 55.8 35.3 87.6 29.2 65.6 91.5 75.4 21.9 37.9 59.3 53.2 82.9 78.3 52.7 83.7 62.8 5.0 61.0 67.5 32.7 21.2 83.8 42.4 48.2 90.2 3.1 66.3 41.2 94.7 96.6 98.6 31.9 69.6 75.1 40.0 80.2 69.8 55.8 74.1 61.0 94.5 68.2 Haryana 528 389 40.7 58.3 35.6 26.5 48.1 98.4 83.7 85.4 24.2 89.5 Meghalaya 110 85 54.6 70.3 67.5 31.4 64.6 33.1 30.6 36.6 83.7 60.3 68.5 57.1 9.8 61.3 12.2 48.9 62.2 67.2 64.0 52.4 92.4 92.6 37.3 25.4 40.9 97.4 73.5 60.2 84.7 78.7 49.0 70.7 67.1 78.1 31.1 60.8 42.9 31.6 90.3 70.7 73.4 52.0 19.2 70.4 80.7 56.6 76.7 78.6 68.0 82.6 92.5 71.1 13.2 94.5 78.4 71.3 59.1 92.6 65.0 34.9 38.0 52.6 76.4 20.2 8.1 48.9 70.8 76.4 94.0 97.0 81.4 75.7 94.3 92.2 54.5 38.7 13.0 46.0 Punjab 449 489 34.5 64.4 5.0 48.0 70.0 30.9 47.4 71.8 68.6 41.8 9.9 69.2 Gujarat 623 650 62.2 72 .2 38.0 55.7 96.0 89.1 22.9 84.2 87.4 62.7 95.5 49.3 51.4 Maharashtra 902 829 58.7 93.4 84.4 38.0 64.8 37.8 42.9 22.0 77.3 81.1 88.1 53.2 87.0 62.8 76.1 30.1 74.8 34.4 63.1 86.0 63.1 74.4 67.9 Rajasthan 896 872 46.5 71.5 20.0 37.2 75.8 52.3 58.9 43.1 82.3 75.5 49.6 45.5 66.7 80.6 Uttarakhand 337 297 13.8 28.9 78.6 62.6 71.7 25.6 26.4 79.6 67.3 1.7 80.1 75.1 96.8 60.0 80.7 86.9 76.6 92.5 77.9 85.6 51.8 13.1 6.3 53.0 83.8 13.6 83.3 84.5 69.5 19.9 40.7 64.7 61.2 20.0 92.3 46.3 76.3 56.2 34.1 65.6 78.6 28.7 74.2 57.6 58.7 76.0 40.1 23.1 32.6 78.7 67.4 28.3 90.1 56.1 92.3 15.7 82.9 61.1 77.4 West Bengal 408 401 26.5 81.2 34.5 91.6 72.3 42.3 60.4 68.7 18.0 83.3 6.5 82.4 76.3 88.5 54.0 51.5 33.0 94.4 52.0 49.0 57.8 24.4 28.6 Nagaland 223 217 91.3 42.0 65.6 73.7 73.4 61.0 43.2 64.4 70.3 84.8 36.0 72.1 66.4 83.1 62.8 23.9 44.9 50.5 96.5 90.4 53.7 53.7 88.7 81.9 79.3 41.3 5.3 40.8 74.5 49.0 81.8 20.1 36.8 35.0 47.6 72.3 30.4 26.0 51.9 67.4 70.2 60.5 93.2 82.1 83.7 74.6 79.4 40.0 68.5 20.3 48.4 47.8 96.7 64.3 Madhya Pradesh 1219 1195 19.6 87.9 71.4 76.4 85.0 73.2 15.1 68.3 78.6 89.5 Jharkhand 547 537 11.6 42.0 44.7 57.5 47.9 33.2 Tripura 98 94 68.1 79.5 47.4 82.3 61.2 80.7 10.2 31.0 74.9 57.5 36.0 23.3 23.4 68.2 71.6 26.2 48.3 83.5 82.9 23.0 85.2 94.4 70.1 87.9 43.4 84.8 60.9 44.0 69.0 78.8 42.9 1.1 Himachal Pradesh 261 274 60.4 67.3 82.3 41.8 74.2 81.8 Bihar 967 1022 8.8 67.6 73.6 52.0 36.2 19.2 57.3 84.4 68.5 56.4 69.4 44.4 96.4 53.7 88.9 87.8 68.9 36.9 82.5 39.8 89.1 86.7 77.1 72.5 13.8 33.4 83.7 49.1 97.2 95.5 38.7 12.9 68.4 Arunachal Pradesh 259 207 78.6 74.3 81.0 46.8 81.5 89.1 82.2 61.3 9.0 20.9 70.2 31.1 82.1 72.6 50.4 44.8 56.5 25.9 94.0 70.5 92.2 78.6 53.8 80.2 64.9 41.6 43.7 86.0 48.4 71.0 37.7 77.3 44.6 73.2 84.7 40.4 33.7 46.2 Mizoram 174 148 89.0 Uttar Pradesh 1896 1900 16.9 88.8 Kerala 275 328 89.5 25.7 83.1 75.7 Jammu & Kashmir 357 87.0 77.3 53.9 69.1 76.2 24.9 81.3 83.7 80.3 29.5 83.9 37.1 95.0 69.9 64.9 77.0 74.7 27.6 55.7 78.9 28.5 33.8 71.3 59.0 79.4 89.0 64.3 98.8 98.6 51.8 82.9 54.2 63.6 Odisha 741 769 22.8 66.8 82.0 50.8 30.3 67.2 91.9 19.6 95.8 48.7 28.9 76.5 76.2 79.1 16.8 38.6 63.6 87.4 47.6 88.1 84.4 63.9 90.7 35.2 51.0 73.4 23.3 54.2 7.8 28.5 81.8 86.1 52.1 75.5 23.7 6.2 35.1 632 Number of schools visited 2011 ASER 2011 India State PTR & Classrooms % Schools complying with: Playground Norms for Norms for Office/ pupil teacher Store/ teacher classroom Office Cum ratio ratio Store 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 66.7 69.3 49.2 Chhattisgarh 425 392 39.1 88.6 66.0 Tamil Nadu 662 683 47.2 18.6 50.

sh Andhra Prade adesh Arunachal Pr Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat .

.

7 44.0 8.8 5.6 24.3 0.6% in 2010 to 6.0 3.2 0.4 31.6 13.9 13. I II 5 6 7 8 8.4 5.3 61.0% who are 10 years old.7 32.8 22.9 52.4 Pvt.8 48.3 32. 2009 & 2011 30.6% in 2006 to 8. 9.2 Other 0.5 2.2 11.0 9.7 54. 62.5 2. 34.7 1. 2009 & 2011 % Children 100 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.4 63.7 21.8% in 2009 to 6.6% children are 8 years old but there are also 13.8 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 75 .8 47. How to read this chart: For example.1 7.2 0.1 69.6 1.8 0.7 19.5 3.0 49.0 39.9 64.1 22.3 18.3 0.Andhra Pradesh Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.3 0.5 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 24.5 6.9 38.9 54.3 0.4 1.2 0.7 30.2 44. 24.6 2. etc. 22 OUT OF 22 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.2 28.1% in 2007 to 6.2 6. she should be age 8 in Std 3.2 1.2 100 100 RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.0 20.0 9 10 11 12 13 3.9 9.0% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.7 8.1 33.7 48.3 1.9 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.7 1.1 59. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.3 10. For example. in Std III.1 0.2 0.2 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 4.1 0. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 8.2 Not in Total School 2.8 2.4 14. This table shows the age distribution for each class.9 25. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 16.1 22.5 24.8 66.1 49.8 14.1 4.3 21.8 6.0% who are 9.5 50.6% in 2008 to 10.3 1.2 0.2 20.3 0.8 1.9 48.5 24.8% who are 7.6 33.9 55.5 28.1 0.7 1.1 2.8 9. 47.0 55.4 6.0 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.

3% can read Std 2 level text.3 43.2 18.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.2 30.3 0.9 1.5 0.7 11.8 4.0 86. for each class.1 23.4 10.4 Letter 48.8 13.4 2. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.1% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.3 0.9% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.5 29. In sum.8 24.9 0. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.9% can read letters but not more.9 31. 29.8 1.7 2.6 5.5 18.9 3. 2.4 10. For example.7 27.Andhra Pradesh Reading Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std.0 11.1 40. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 19.2 15. 76 % Children ASER 2011 .8 Word 25.8% children cannot even read letters. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 69.4 31.9 80. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.3 60.9 5.5 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 4.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.1 44.8 1. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. and 24.4 4. 11.1 70.7 1. in Std III.7 20. 31. For home languages.8 100.1 6.9 2.1 18.0 13.

9% can do subtraction but not division.9 1.5 37.8 26.5 29.6 20.3 25.9 22.4 Divide 0.2 18.4 29.9 44.2 52.2 29. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 17. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.5 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.4 35.7 13.8 16.9 9.5 24.5 10.4 6.4 10.4 37.5 21. 39. in Std III.6 18.9 22. 2009.4 3. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.6 40. and 6.4 24.6 0. 2009.3 39.9 0.3 24.0 23.8 30.9 24.0 1. For example. ASER 2011 % Children 77 . 44.6 0.9% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.4 17.3 13.8 31.0 25.2 13. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. for each class.8 2.0 31.5 37.4 12. In sum.6 31.3 14.1 35.7 36.8 65.1 27.9 44.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.0 0.7 22.2 12.0 33.2 28.8 29.6 9.4 0.8 20.6 14.5 4.9 38.0 16.0 1.6% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.8 11. In all 4 years.6 14.3 11.6 29.6 36.7 12.1 31.3 24.5 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 42.6 2.9 24. 1.7 28.8 26.7 14.Andhra Pradesh Arithmetic Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std.5 26.5% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.7 22.4 32.4 11.5 39.7 40.1 19.5 26. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 16.6 17.1 40.7 37.2 58.4 17.3 0. 7.7 2.1 21.6 29.5 27.7 14.7 16.1 23. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.4 28.0 24.0 29.0 18.3 54.2 22.8 17.9 36.9 26.6 13.1 7.0 13. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.1% can do division.0 Subtract 3.

2 2.5 4.9 49.5 55.5 37.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 92.6 3.8 44.Andhra Pradesh Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.1 83.2 82.4 50. 2009.9 72.4 76.7 1.7 50.4 24.4 30.0 0.8 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 83.6 48.3 89. RURAL As part of ASER 2007.9 53.2 77.0 0.1 0.4 % Teachers present (average) 86.0 59.5 84.8 2. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.6 100 85.1 0.3 95.0 81.0 of visit Total 100 100 13.5 100 2.7 77.9 43.1 72.7 48.4 90.5 9.4 80. 2009. 2010 and 2011.6 74.9 66. 2009.0 55. School observations Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.7 100 100 8.0 3. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 379 229 608 477 156 633 475 157 632 510 132 642 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.9 52.7 61.7 10.1 5.3 86.6 58.5 30.0 0.0 0.5 5.4 59.3 58.9 76.6 62.9 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.4 46.2 2.8 84.5 0.4 10.0 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 4. in each sampled village.3 Headteacher appointed but not present at 15. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 54. 2009.1 33.2 9.0 0.7 56.8 4.1 78 ASER 2011 .4 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.3 8.1 Std I-VII/VIII 59.0 0. 2009.0 0.0 85.9 63.6 49.5 5. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 75.3 50.4 75. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.5 62.0 58.

7 61.3 % schools No 73. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.5 4.9 3.4 4.accountabilityinitiative.6 3.0 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 454 18.5 2.4 41. know 6. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs. models etc.2 53.5 2. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.0 8.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.0 6.9 39.2 552 58.8 6.7 589 87.5000 per year per primary school Rs. 18. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.9 59. cleaning etc.9 81.4 2.8 77.7 600 58.7 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. For more information see www.2 7.8 15.0 4.3 3.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. duster. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.3 51.Andhra Pradesh School funds and activities (PAISA) RURAL Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.7 74.2 3.9 Don't know 2.6 8.1 37.2 26.8 5. water.8 36.6 606 64.4 24.2 3. of No Don’t Sch. register etc.6 598 62.8 73.1 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 600 89. of Sch.7 5.7 74. floor.2 57.8 3.7 28.4 76. such as charts.3 33.3 15. sitting mats etc.3MONEY 31.2 72.9 44.3 15.) 23.3 2. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.Rs. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.7 4.8 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.2 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. Also for buying chalk. playground etc.5 15.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.6 631 623 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 604 grant Development 586 grant TLM grant 86.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. wall etc.3 5.9 26.9 Maintenance 466 grant Development 455 grant 576 62.5 6. posters.6 37.8 3.7 88.2 623 91.0 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.0 56.3 87.3 601 91.8 43. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.0 55.0 THEIR 595 92. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . duster. New Classroom Repair of building (roof. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.2 21.5000 .in ASER 2011 79 .4 7.8 58. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.7 4.0 7.7 24. globes.3 9. hand pump.5 69.0 14.1MONEY 3. know 2009-2010 % Schools No.0 3. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants % Schools No. % Schools No.0 5.6 92.0 72.7 16. of No Don’t Sch.4 2. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts. boundary wall.1 2.8 THEIR 545 54. beautification.3 3.4 26.7 7.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. including whitewashing. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.8 40. Rs 7500 . of Don’t Yes No know Sch.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.0 3. registers and other office equipment.4 10.3 93. of Sch.2 2.0 23.5 6. and repair of toilets.

0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.8 15.3 87.6 53.5 8.2 59.3 48.8 12.4 10.4 64.4 77.7 63.2 73.3 14.8 35.2 14.0 32.5 32.2 87.9 10. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.0 43.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.1 80 ASER 2011 . % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.4 38.8 24.3 25.2 23. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 161 122 115 97 77 56 25.4 20.9 99.5 12. During this school visit.3 15.4 15. including story-books.8 99.6 19.4 16.4 90.6 49.5 No.6 13.7 22.1 69.7 11.1 38.7 16.7 70. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.7 8.5 14. % No. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.8 23.2 60. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.1 38.2 15.1 40.6 42.6 66.8 73.0 76.3 10.0 14.2 21.1 33.0 41.1 88.8 28.Andhra Pradesh Right to Education indicators Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.9 68.2 RURAL Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 53. magazines and books on all subjects.6 49.4 18.9 186 131 106 91 68 52 29.2 46.0 33.4 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 18.3 20.7 36.6 8.2 5. in each sampled village.6 As part of ASER 2010 and 2011. 2010 2011 64.2 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 43. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 82 88 65 89 88 63 102 14.3 15.9 24.1 42.0 34.3 11.1 9.0 577 100.1 16.7 97 97 88 83 84 49 81 16.3 66.3 68.9 62.0 64.7 14.9 17.3 52. of % of No.4 39.3 8.0 579 100.0 634 100.0 1.8 16. 628 100.2 12.

How to read this chart: For example.2 16.7 13.0 Other 0.6 23.5 22.2 10.2 76.8 9.0 10.4 15.5 2.4 Pvt.3% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.7 0.1 2.0 18.6 Not in Total School 3.3 3.2 27.4 12.3 78.7 6.4 0.9 9.7% in 2009 to 4% in 2010 to 5.1 100 100 RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.2 22.9 5. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 8.3 11.5 14.3 3.1 32.0 15.3 0. This table shows the age distribution for each class.1 16.9 17.5 15.2 0.8 12.2 5. 11 OUT OF 13 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.0 81.9 79.9 81.4 4.6 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 81 .5 13.8 16.2 78.9 5.3 11.3 9.9 6.3 0.0 32. 26.3 12.4 0.6 18.8 0.2 2.Arunachal Pradesh Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.7% in 2006 to 6. 78.5 9. in Std III. she should be age 8 in Std 3.2 10.1 10.0 5.6 100 100 100 100 5.1 66.2 0.5 5.9 79.1 100 9. 16. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.4 23.7 13.4 16. 20.3 16.1 8.0 0.6 77.1 4.0 3.2 10.6 14.1 100 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 9.8 20.9% in 2007 to 5.2 19.4 11.3 22.8 26. 2009 & 2011 21.2 % who are 9. For example.3 82.0 34.7 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.8 5. I II 5 6 7 8 8.6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total 100 34.2 8.0 4.2 4.4 0.3 9.3 0.8 8.3 18.0 8.7 6.9 0.1 100 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.8 52.3 77.6 12.8 11.6% in 2008 to 5.6 4.2 14.8% who are 7.8 8. etc.9% who are 10 years old.4 20.5 17. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 7.4 6. 2009 & 2011 % Children 100 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.4% children are 8 years old but there are also 14. 17.4 26.

7 4.8 1.0 % Children whose home language was: Mishmi 13.2 5.8 Total 100 English Hindi Total 95.9 Word 32. Note: In ASER 2011 for every state. Even though English is the primary language of instruction in government schools.8 3. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 17. For home languages.4 Other * 50.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.6 4.4 100. 13% can read letters but not more. and 20.6 3. 27% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.0 55.4 0.8% children cannot even read letters.1 1. in Std III.8 2. 35.0 Miri/Mishing 4. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.4 14. This included 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. for each class.7 74.6% can read Std 2 level text.0 English * 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above.3 35.8 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 6. children were given the choice of reading either in English or Hindi.8 79.5 6.8 20.4 26. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language %Children who took the reading test in: % % Children Of the % Children who tested in: Adi 25.9 22.4 0.6 6. For example.7 8.3 3.7 13.Arunachal Pradesh Reading Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std.0 8.9 26.8 11.4 13.2 15.3 20. In sum.0 15.7 37.2 69. 82 ASER 2011 .6% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.6 38.2 42.6 1.1 3.8 Letter 41. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language. 3.0 19. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.0 31.0 2.7 27. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.7 Monpa 6.7 5.6 20. Data for home language of children tested in Hindi has not been reported here due to small cell sizes.

1 10.3 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.0 24.5 50. For example.7 10.1 38.Arunachal Pradesh Arithmetic Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std.7 6.8 43. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 14.4 65.3 12.2 III IV V VI VII VIII Total 10.5 8.8 9.9 28.2 1. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.9 21.9 Divide 2.4% can do subtraction but not division.6 37.5 45. 4. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.6 54.7 51.3 9.7 45.4 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 35.4 8. 12.6 7.4 1.6 8.4 49.1 11.6 50. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.9 3.5 2.3 9. In sum.9 13.3 40.0 12.8 5. 2009.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.0 73.7 4.8 1.5 11.9 37.1 16. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.0 8.3 20.5 48. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.8 8.6 10.0 12.7 2.9 28.0 8. 2009.4 0.0 8.3 30.0 10.5 27.1 39.3 43. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.7 4.1 1.8 9.2 57. for each class.9 12.1 37.4 34.2 Subtract 4.3 10.1 40.3 35.0 10. and 10% can do division.3 1.1 27.5 52. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 7.5 36.8 17.4 10.1 55.7 18.9 7.1 25.1 26.3 34.2% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.7 6.0 4.7% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more. 35.5 12.1 43.1 10. 37. in Std III.9 6.8 9.8 27.9 24.5 26. In all 4 years.7 21.3 51.1 35. ASER 2011 % Children 83 .4 49.4 16.5 10.9 11.5 11.0 26.6 50.8 II 8.8 15.4 7.9 48.0 27.9 28.7% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.4 42.1 8.8 28.3 48.7 30.9 25. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.

7 Std I-VII/VIII 44.0 82.3 77.5 100 100 2.3 96.0 0.5 6.0 44.6 27.7 32.0 0.0 2.0 0.9 86.4 17.3 of visit Total 100 100 1. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 135 105 240 138 138 276 152 107 259 136 71 207 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.1 57.0 1.5 0.9 84.7 9.5 % Teachers present (average) 91.0 0.3 80.0 30.1 82.7 38.7 15.3 83.7 18.0 39.5 94.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 99.3 14.6 82. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.3 82. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 40.7 73.7 23.1 24. 2009.1 76. School observations Table 8: Total schools visited 2007. in each sampled village.5 54.9 79.1 1.3 16.0 0.0 0.0 78.1 35.1 86.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 6.8 32.0 100 66.3 97.4 1.Arunachal Pradesh Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.4 28.4 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 7.8 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 1.2 1.4 67. 2010 and 2011.7 100 3.0 54.9 18.7 5.7 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.5 13. 2009.5 0.6 86. 2009. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.3 65. 2009. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 80.3 36.3 0.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 91.1 89. 2009.5 5.7 88.0 23.7 0.5 21.7 86.1 46.5 0.8 74.6 71.2 82. RURAL As part of ASER 2007.8 77.5 23.2 79.0 41.9 84 ASER 2011 .

34.0 THEIR 223 82.5 199 63.2 225 80. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.0 14.3 30.6 194 60. including whitewashing.0 11.0 Maintenance 226 grant Development 222 grant 185 30.1 32.5 49.2 24. know 2009-2010 % Schools No.2 6.8 36. 1 For more information see www.1 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.5 184 29.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.3 44.6 21.Arunachal Pradesh School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. of Sch. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. Also for buying chalk. posters.1 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 255 69.4 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 218 46. of No Don’t Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants % Schools No.in ASER 2011 85 .6 23.6 18.0 42. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .0 20.0 12.0 20.2 42.6 20.9 50. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. such as charts.9 185 30. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.5 The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school. Rs 7500 .Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.1 188 34. hand pump.0MONEY 50.5 41. boundary wall. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.7 21. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012. duster.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. sitting mats etc.3 194 65. of No Don’t Sch. globes. of Sch.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.5MONEY 11.0 183 27. playground etc.3 18.4 12.3 25.5000 per year per primary school Rs. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs. beautification.5000 . % Schools No.9 48.5 18. know 2010-2011 RURAL Yes Yes Yes % Schools No Don’t know Maintenance 256 grant Development 253 grant TLM grant 55.0 23. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.8 49.0 11.6 215 67. Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. models etc.5 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. and repair of toilets.0 19.4 8.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.7 19.8 31. registers and other office equipment.8 17.0 16.6 THEIR 184 31.8 27.Rs.accountabilityinitiative.

0 6.7 30.2 13.9 13.4 34.9 11 34 27 22 12 4 61 6.1 14. During this school visit. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 15 29 24 29 24 18 78 6.9 7.9 9. % No.0 8.9 19.8 53.3 10.9 22.0 52.0 0.3 35.4 11.9 25.7 217 100.3 67.8 8.9 15.3 35.0 30.6 11.8 23.3 No.0 2.4 87.5 13.1 8. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.0 71.0 0.0 0.0 50.3 16.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.7 30.4 19.3 51.4 20.0 37.8 39.9 22.0 59.1 36.1 48. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.7 9.8 80.7 6.4 33.0 171 100. including story-books.1 25.0 0. 2010 2011 77.3 11.1 63. in each sampled village.7 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 23.4 9.9 8.0 0.7 47.1 17.3 64.1 20.5 50. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.3 23. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.2 17.6 9.0 11.5 52.1 13.9 53.8 RURAL Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 18.0 56. of % of No.Arunachal Pradesh Right to Education indicators Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 83 48 27 20 32 35 33.2 12.6 29.3 9.5 86 ASER 2011 .4 11.5 42.0 60.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 33.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0. magazines and books on all subjects.2 20.8 12.3 60.2 25.0 47.2 39.3 29.2 78.0 204 100.4 11. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.3 66 41 36 20 17 24 32.3 36. 245 100.3 20.6 As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.

1 40.2 76.5 19. etc. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.9 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 26.9% in 2007 to 8.5 7. How to read this chart: For example.0 60.4 14.2 3.1 3.3 11.8 37.0 2.1 3.7 7.2% who are 9.5 45.8 14.5 14.6 9.8 14.0 73.6 2.9 3.6 1.1 8.6 75. 22 OUT OF 23 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.3 13.6 5. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 35.2 36.0 39.2% children are 8 years old but there are also 14.2 29.1% who are 7.6 3.8 39.2 13.6 6.4 4.8 15. 14. 77.9 Not in Total School 4.7 6.3% in 2008 to 6.7 28.4 3.4 5.1 12.4 3.8 30.5 2.5 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 5.9 13. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.7 2.0 11.5 3.8 75.7 39.5 Other 3.7 13. I II 5 6 7 8 7.2 3. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 5% in 2006 to 9. This table shows the age distribution for each class.5% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.4 14.1 70.4 31.9 7.8 6.3 13.1 3.5 3.3 5.1 36.6 14.6 21.0 100 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.2 2. 9.5 32.9 4. 28.6 9 10 11 12 13 4.1 15. 39.3 63.2 9.6 23.0 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 87 .9 62.5 14.1 39.7 13.1 4.4 7.4% in 2010 to 5. 2009 & 2011 12.7 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. For example. in Std III.4 100 100 7.1 6.7 81. she should be age 8 in Std 3.4 3.2 28.4 80.9 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.2 6.8 1.8 14.4 2.6 7.9 Pvt.5 16.9% who are 10 years old.Assam RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.6 27.9 2.3 3.1 78.9 4.4% in 2009 to 7.

0 Assamese Bengali 44. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.9 25. In Assam.8 3. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.3 100.6 26. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language %Children who took the reading test in:** % Of the % Children who tested in:** Assamese % Children % Children whose home language was: Bengali 17.0 28.1 * 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above.5% children cannot even read letters. Darrang.0 12.8 19.6 7.0 8. ** Data in this table does not include the following districts . 8.6% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.4 36. Data for home language of children tested in Hindi and English has not been reported here due to small cell sizes.Bongaigaon.7 8.0 34.9 12. 33.7 Karbi/Mikir 3.4 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 17.2 Total 100 100 Assamese Bengali Hindi English Total 82. For example. Figures for Bodo have not been included as they are currently being processed.7 Bodo 2.2 16. English and Hindi.6 1. for each class.2 Other * 32. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction of government schools.2 15.9% can read Std 2 level text.0 21.0 18. 20.8 22.6 20. 22. For home languages.0 4. Kokrajhar and Nalbari.Assam Reading Std.7 2. Bengali.0 Letter 40.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. In sum.2 13.1 0.3 30.5 1. children were given the choice of reading in Assamese.5 5.5 4. Note: This tool was also available in Bodo.7% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.7 25.7 26.3 5.2 19.2 20.4 23. Note: In ASER 2011 for every state. in Std III. This included 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.2 2.2 89.9 2.2% can read letters but not more.6 1.7 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 4.8 14.3 3. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 36. Bangla. The data for these four districts is being processed.3 33.2 58.9 14. and 14. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. Hindi.8 15.2 49. English or Bodo.1 69.7 28.2 1.1 2. 88 ASER 2011 .0 11.

6 36.7 18.2 28.3 30.6 22.3 27.6 29.5 22.8 35.5 22.2 27.2 27.8 12.4 25.0 4.6% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.0 20.6 30. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.0 24.7 28.7 21. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.4 14.9 32.7 11.3 32.5 30.0 31.0 23.7 16.2 29.5 30.8 24.0 30.8 18.6 15.4 24.0 32.4 15.6 15.9 33.7 28. for each class.3 18.0 3.4% can do subtraction but not division.5 12.4 36.6% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.3 2.4 29.0 29.8 17.1% can do division.7 24.7 30.9 8.2 33.4 29.2 12.6 17.7 33.2 23. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007. In all 4 years.Assam Arithmetic Std.6 4.9 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 48. 32. and 3.1 28.2 14.0 28.7 1.4 28.0 12. 2009.3 24. For example.9 8.0 20.5 17.8 12.6 7.0 24.0 28.5 37.9 14.9 13.1 33.3 3.0 38.2 40.7 31. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.8 11.9 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.9 9.3% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.2 31.8 19.5 34. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.7 27.3 18. 2009.7 14.2 26.1 8.2 20. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 18.6 37. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. 37.6 26.3 21. 20.6 7.9 42.6 14. 6.7 23.8 30.4 Subtract 2.3 27.4 Divide 0. in Std III.0 21.7 2.2 31.2 1.6 37. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 32. ASER 2011 % Children 89 .3 36.2 15. In sum.4 6.4 8.5 6.3 38.0 9.

Assam

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

School observations
Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 513 35 548 527 26 553 503 16 519 483 27 510

Student and teacher attendance
Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII

71.2 70.8 69.0 71.1 72.6 65.3 69.6 69.4

% Teachers present (average) 88.3 88.1 90.8 92.8 85.4 81.6 67.7 84.6 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

% Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 13.8 12.4 15.3 11.8 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average)

8.8 16.0 12.5

7.4

0.6

1.1

0.2

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.2

48.1 49.3 45.6 48.1 47.1 36.0 31.3 33.3

70.5 70.6 74.4 79.0 53.9 36.4 20.0 58.3

Other school information
Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.0 0.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 99.0 98.5 1.0 0.0 100 0.4 1.1 100 75.0 80.8 18.8 7.7

0.0 0.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 5.9 3.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 94.1 96.3 of visit Total 100 100

12.5 14.3 87.5 85.7 100 100

6.3 11.5 100 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 39.0 33.3 55.9 49.0 44.1 41.5 53.4 50.6 36.7 37.5

Std I-VII/VIII 52.0 43.5 33.3 26.7 41.7 38.1

90

ASER 2011

Assam

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)
Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Don’t Sch. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Don’t Sch. know 6.6 7.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 489 grant Development 469 grant TLM grant

82.0 14.1 3.9 68.4 27.1 4.5

487 87.7 5.8 442 81.9 10.6

484 78.7 14.1 7.2 474 70.9 21.3 7.8

DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 504 89.3 8.1 2.6 THEIR 466 90.3MONEY 4.5 5.2 484 87.0 8.5 4.6
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. 74.4 21.5 4.2 63.1 31.9 5.0

Maintenance 429 grant Development 404 grant

413 46.0 40.0 14.0 367 43.9 42.8 13.4

452 42.0 46.5 11.5 440 40.0 47.3 12.7

GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 438 82.2 15.3 2.5 THEIR 379 50.1MONEY 39.3 10.6 449 55.0 36.3 8.7
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 19.0 38.4 39.0 18.5 32.8 27.5 36.2 41.6 32.1 45.1 15.0 82.6 30.3 61.7 39.2 16.2 % schools No 74.9 58.1 56.4 77.4 63.7 68.6 59.1 54.3 64.2 50.2 80.1 14.4 65.6 35.1 55.9 79.3 Don't know 6.1 3.6 4.6 4.1 3.5 4.0 4.7 4.1 3.7 4.6 4.9 3.0 4.1 3.2 5.0 4.5
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see www.accountabilityinitiative.in

ASER 2011

91

Assam
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011

RURAL

Right to Education indicators
Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 44.4 38.2 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 68.1 84.0 82.5 90.9 90.9 66.4 70.2 90.9 90.6 85.3 90.5 71.0 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 210 91 66 50 52 45 40.9 17.7 12.8 9.7 10.1 8.8 160 94 79 45 49 75 31.9 18.7 15.7 9.0 9.8 14.9

514 100.0

502 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 19.1 42.9 75.0 91.7 100.0 83.3 32.3 25.9 53.7 83.3 60.0 66.7 88.2 35.2

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 137 98 64 33 15 3 32 35.9 25.7 16.8 8.6 3.9 0.8 8.4 119 99 63 30 10 7 23 33.9 28.2 18.0 8.6 2.9 2.0 6.6

382 100.0

351 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 57.3 61.5 19.3 23.2 16.0 60.9 19.1 47.8 33.1 52.2 18.5 15.6 13.7 71.4 67.1 79.2 10.3 10.5 80.0 66.6 54.1 56.5 23.3 23.8 11.7 64.6 13.1 49.2 37.8 34.3 19.3 19.0 27.4 71.1 72.2 71.9 14.5 13.6 81.5 59.6

92

ASER 2011

Bihar

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 37 OUT OF 37 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children
Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 90.1 89.4 90.4 89.1 92.0 90.3 89.6 91.2 83.1 82.8 83.7 Pvt. 5.5 5.1 5.9 7.4 4.1 4.7 5.9 3.3 3.4 3.7 2.9 Other 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.5 Not in Total School 3.0 4.1 2.1 2.0 2.3 3.9 3.4 4.5 12.2 12.2 11.9 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 17.6% in 2006 to 9.7% in 2007 to 8.8% in 2008 to 6% in 2009 to 4.6% in 2010 to 4.5% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
7.0 8.9 3.4 8.3 11.7 5.8 8.3 4.9 8.3 6.4 7.9 5.2 8.0

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100

23.4 42.0 17.1 10.4 5.1 15.3 25.2 33.8 7.0 4.8 5.2 7.4 4.4 1.6 6.5

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

9.6 33.7 20.2 20.1 14.4 16.5 37.7

6.8 31.5 19.6 21.0

14.8 16.5 37.7 13.2 6.3

7.2 31.1 25.5 16.4

4.0 100 7.7 100

15.4 23.2 31.5 15.6

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 33.7% children are 8 years old but there are also 9.6% who are 7, 20.2% who are 9, 20.1% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school
Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 46.3 12.1 2.9 2.0 40.5 75.5
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

4.8 5.7

1.4 2.0

4.2 2.7

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

93

Bihar
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 53.9 25.9 12.9 7.1 4.7 2.1 1.6 1.6 16.4

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Letter 30.6 35.1 26.2 17.0 10.3 5.9 3.2 1.8 18.7 Word 9.4 23.1 29.1 21.1 13.9 8.3 4.8 3.2 15.5 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.1 8.5 16.5 24.2 21.6 16.6 12.4 9.3 14.0 3.1 7.5 15.4 30.7 49.5 67.0 78.0 84.2 35.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 12.9% children cannot even read letters, 26.2% can read letters but not more, 29.1% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 16.5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 15.4% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language
Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 47.0 53.0 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

94

% Children

ASER 2011

6 46. For example.6 30.3 65.5 66.9 55.9 42.8 63.0 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.9 53. In sum.5 11.3 56.5 29.3 46.9 55. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007. 2009.7 65.4 31.0 53.1 66.2 62.5 55.6 61.6 17.9% can do division. 29.1 65.6 16.8 42.7 26.7 65. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.5 37.5 18.7 2.9 63.8 68.5 63.8 53. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 37.2 56. 29. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.2 11.9 31.7% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.5 73.7 66. 2009.3 27.5 38. for each class.9 66.0 40.9 39.5 64.4 47.8 23.5% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.9 61.4 51.2 26.2 5.9 38.3 8. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.6 41.9 67.5 55.5 64. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.0 53.3 9.1 21.7 17.Bihar Arithmetic Std.5 3. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 51.0 31.2 51.9 64.0 23.4 58.3 66.7% can do subtraction but not division.4 73.3 20.7 5.9 68.7 29.4 1.6 67.7 6.1 11. and 8.5 2.8 38.2 70.7 61.7 30.7 14. 20.8 21.0 60. ASER 2011 % Children 95 .3 44.3 Divide 1.5 63.6 54.4 8.8 46.0 47. In all 4 years. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.2% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.7 60. in Std III.2 50.9 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 35.7 60.1 64.7 66.9 59.2 3.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.6 62.1 36.7 54.6 4.9 19.6 Subtract 3.8 48.0 9.3 41.8 32.5 37.1 22.2 1.5 43. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment. 11.8 74.2 19.

Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.8 10.9 Headteacher appointed but not present at 9.4 0.8 55.5 3.7 0.7 81. 2009. 2010 and 2011.3 39.1 83.5 49.4 57.5 16.1 % Teachers present (average) 85.6 63.8 66.6 4.1 1.4 3.7 67.9 49.8 82.0 0.2 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 31. School observations Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.7 84.5 88.3 50.0 65.4 51.0 100 1.7 100 5.7 53. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 59.1 85.6 49.4 of visit Total 100 100 10.1 44.0 18.0 34.7 72.4 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007. 2009.9 52.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 75. 2009.7 93.5 100 14. 2009.9 8.0 56.4 0. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 70.9 55.7 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 0.0 67.5 96 ASER 2011 .2 13.2 2.3 67.6 0.1 34.4 0.0 57.5 0.7 29. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 481 491 972 353 607 960 265 702 252 770 967 1022 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.5 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 96.Bihar RURAL As part of ASER 2007.7 1.6 85.3 21.0 56. 2009.5 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 5.4 100 91.1 57.8 34.6 87.6 85.9 14.3 55.0 55. in each sampled village.0 1.2 Std I-VII/VIII 55.9 0.1 41.8 8.8 80.1 50.9 8.8 47. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.8 98.6 57.4 33.4 49.4 15.0 43.

0 19. floor.5 7. hand pump.4 37.0 44.0 1.0MONEY 29. register etc.5 14.in ASER 2011 97 .5 58.9 18.0 2.2 2.9 58. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.9 6.8 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 863 75.2 14. such as charts.4 23.accountabilityinitiative.3 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. New Classroom Repair of building (roof. beautification. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1 Maintenance 710 grant Development 692 grant 634 59. wall etc. of Sch. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.7 8.7 53. Also for buying chalk. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs. water.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.4 63. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids. Rs 7500 .0 35. of Sch.6 5. globes. duster.1 690 85.3 39.5 1.9 686 86.2 7.5000 . This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.3 38.4 14.0 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs. For more information see www.2 13.7 2.4 61.1 11.4 31. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.2 34.9 56.6 10.1 72.4 79. playground etc.7 2.2 13. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.Rs. 43.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 857 grant Development 842 grant TLM grant 71.) 32.4 3. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.1 11.1 40. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts.9 2.1 72. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants % Schools No. % Schools No. including whitewashing.2 6. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.9 63. boundary wall.2 10.8 1.1 966 29.8 963 28.0 Don't know 3.7MONEY 5.1 81.7 66. of No Don’t Sch.9 90.1 86.2 3.Bihar RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.5 19.7 % schools No 63.7 THEIR 698 88. models etc.4 25.8 17.6 41. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.5000 per year per primary school Rs. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . sitting mats etc.6 8. of No Don’t Sch. registers and other office equipment.0 631 59.8 2. and repair of toilets.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.7 64.3 THEIR 638 61.1 59.6 29.6 12.8 6.2 54.7 11.7 988 85.7 33.2 9.4 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.2 990 79. know 8.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.7 5.0 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 695 46. know 2009-2010 % Schools No.8 74.9 38.8 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. posters.3 2.1 986 82. duster.2 46. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.5 28.6 2.3 62.6 15.9 966 32.6 5.7 2.8 4. cleaning etc.2 3.9 35.9 13.

0 50.8 9.2 84.1 66.6 48. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.0 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 0.6 8.7 9.4 Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 2 0.3 45.2 33.2 12.8 64.9 82.4 83.4 94. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.5 10. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 2 4 21 27 77 800 0.5 13.4 66.Bihar RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.0 65.6 49.3 46.4 43 81 95 124 98 96 412 4.6 8.3 47.0 47.2 34.0 73.1 10.3 10.6 56.0 35.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.6 11.0 85.2 63. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.9 15. During this school visit.9 35.7 37.0 1010 100. in each sampled village. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper. including story-books.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 5.9 18. % No.6 88.4 2. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.1 67. 2010 2011 68.2 0. magazines and books on all subjects.5 8.2 18.9 55.5 52.2 7.1 24. of % of No. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 931 100.3 51.7 93.4 91.4 832 100.7 28.4 68.3 85.6 52.8 No.9 29.1 43.2 80.1 70.6 2.0 13.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.9 47.3 45.8 71.3 31.6 4.0 949 100.8 19.3 2.0 6.0 82.3 38.5 9.4 54. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.4 72.5 98 ASER 2011 .1 16.7 8.2 42.1 6. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.9 3 6 26 42 71 862 0.7 78.3 0.1 48.3 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 10.8 17.3 35.1 47.0 65.7 19.7 55.9 8. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 26 56 71 110 106 77 386 3.1 96.

3 12. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3.6 8.6 7.3 13.3 Other 0.1 87.2 0.9 75.9 3.4 86.5 30.8 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 34.1 8.8 Pvt.2 6. For example.1 76. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 13. she should be age 8 in Std 3.1 43.7 87.1 12.0 10.7 2.6 8.6 33.9 75.6 15.6 6.7% in 2008 to 4.8 9. 40.1 0.3 5.8 86.8 7.7 10. in Std III.4 8.2 0.1 43.7 8.1 0.9 13 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 4.9 0.2 Not in Total School 2.4 86.2% in 2010 to 4.1 3.6 9.7 0.1 4.1 5.0 44. etc.4 4.Chhattisgarh RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.7 13.3 0.9 4.5 29.8 1.3 0.4 9.6 1.6 25.6 36. This table shows the age distribution for each class.3 14.5% in 2007 to 8.4 1.2 8.1 0.7 44. 40.8 11.6 2.7 8.9 1.0 41.4 84.7 0.8 4.2 86.2% who are 9 years old.9 76.3% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.2 10. 2009 & 2011 10.8 14.8 40.7 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.8% children are 8 years old but there are also 7.8 40. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 45.7 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 99 .2 30.4 10.4 4. How to read this chart: For example.8% who are 7.8 6. 11.2 16.9 3.1 0. 15 OUT OF 16 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.6% in 2006 to 8. 86.9% in 2009 to 3.2 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.2 100 17.7 4. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.7 3.2 0.2 0.3 12.0 3.2 10. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.9 45.0 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.1 0.4 62.

5 10. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.8 25.7 7.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state. and 9.0 61.2 79.Chhattisgarh Reading Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.6 1.0 0.5 28. 20.2 44.5% can read letters but not more.1 5. In sum.1 How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. 5. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.6 2.5 9.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 0.7 36.1 16.4 100.9 15.4 20.6 Word 11. For example.1 28.9 27.2 29.2 36. 100 % Children ASER 2011 .8% can read Std 2 level text.8 5.5 14.7 17.5 3.3 1. 36.0 11.2% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.9 Letter 49.5 5.6 1.0 12.9 RURAL Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 2. for each class. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. in Std III.6 27.4 8. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.6 99.4 17. For home languages.5 7.0 20.0 46.9 2. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.6% children cannot even read letters. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 36.5 4. 27.4 4.5 9.2 22.3 70.

2 V VI VII 2.8 9.4 20.4 7.7 23.5 17.3 6.1 1.0 Note: In 2007.2 7.8 IV 1.5 7.6 34.8 How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.6 1.1 1.8 1.4 20.9 1.9 15. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 36.9 8.5 2.5 Total 1.9 Subtract 2.8 25.1 4.7 31.6 2.7 18.4 III 0. 2009.6 1.1 38.3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.9 34.4 16.2 8.6% can do subtraction but not division. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.3 0.0 3.7 9.7 4. for each class.2 4.1 12.3 11.2 12.5 7.4 11.9 1. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.8 7.3 2.8 8.2 8.9 13.4 17.4 1.1 2.2 5.6 3.7 II 1. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 1.6 19.6 3.9 1.8 3.8% can do division.1 2. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.1 2009 2010 2011 9. In sum.1 53.7 1.5 4.9 10.9 9. In all 4 years.9% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.9 12.8 9.1 7.3 38. in Std III. 4. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment. 2009.4 0. 38.1 35.7 27.0 10.5 31. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.0 2.3 0.2 2.4 18.5 13. 16. and 2.0 3.9 34.8 9. ASER 2011 % Children 101 .1 27.3 38.1 9.5 2.5 1.1 2.0 24.8 0. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.7 8.6 16.4 2.6 37.Chhattisgarh Arithmetic Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std.1 12.8 8. 37.4 12.5 VIII 3.3 RURAL Math Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Divide 1.4 19.9 0.0 3.8 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 52.8 50.2 1.9 1.1 18.7 8.4% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.5 2.3 5.0 5.4 0. For example.3 0.2 9. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.

3 38. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 65.3 60.7 100 2.2 7.0 5. in each sampled village.9 65.4 56.5 54.5 69. 2009.0 45.0 72. 2009.9 1.0 80. Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.1 65.4 0.6 48.Chhattisgarh School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 72.9 82.3 62.3 55.9 2.1 72.2 75. 2010 and 2011.0 8.7 17.1 % Teachers present (average) 92.1 4. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.9 87.0 0.3 Headteacher appointed but not present at 9.9 48.3 0.0 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 1. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 344 76 420 336 25 361 301 124 425 351 41 392 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.4 8.5 83.3 66.5 82.5 78.6 47.4 86.7 0.6 65.7 51.0 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.6 Std I-VII/VIII 60.8 102 ASER 2011 . 2009.4 42.6 53.4 1.3 88.4 60.3 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 84.8 100 93.0 76. 2009.0 49.0 100 6.6 5. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.1 7.5 of visit Total 100 100 11.5 86.6 84.0 94.1 75.5 4.8 12.3 0.0 52.5 0.6 66.8 64.7 73.9 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 9.1 62.7 100 3.3 1.7 0.1 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 97.5 77.4 63.6 56.0 0.4 10.1 57. 2009.3 8.3 70.7 82. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.0 1.3 97.8 56.

) 22.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 315 grant Development 309 grant TLM grant 76. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. duster.3 4.7 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.2 5.4 13.6 380 90.7 22. of Sch.in ASER 2011 103 .0 51.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. wall etc.4 70.6 50.4 91.3 4. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts. boundary wall. of Sch.6 14.2 5. cleaning etc. including whitewashing. % Schools No.8 11.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7 9.3 69.8 18. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.9 74. globes. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.8 24.7 13.5 8.9 56.7 3.5 3. water. New Classroom Repair of building (roof.3 313 29. 62. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.0 4. models etc.7 24.9 59.1 7. posters.7 58. of No Don’t Sch.4 364 34.1 379 85.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.9 24.8 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 287 69.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.5 78.9 8. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.7 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 317 85.9 72.2 3.6 11.6 7.5 6. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids. and repair of toilets.7 360 83.8 8.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.5 7.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.2 67.4 379 81.accountabilityinitiative.0 3.6 364 39.6 15.4 49.2 13.3 10.0 69.0 17.3 73.2 Don't know 7.0 16.4 57.6 THEIR 311 32. registers and other office equipment.3 Maintenance 285 grant Development 283 grant 323 31.2MONEY 6. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.1 11.7 85. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.4 3. register etc.Rs. know 7.6 22.5 4.2 % schools No 70.7 4.1 THEIR 355 88. sitting mats etc.3 27. For more information see www.2 37.Chhattisgarh RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .3 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.7 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. playground etc.1 4.5 5.0 364 40.3 373 85.3 20. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard. of No Don’t Sch.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk. know 2009-2010 % Schools No.5 4. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.5 4.9 54.0 17.6 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.3 25.1 45. beautification.8MONEY 55.2 76.8 10.1 13.1 20.1 45. such as charts. Rs 7500 .4 3.9 38.2 5.4 10. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants % Schools No. floor. hand pump.0 55.6 12. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. duster. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .3 8. Also for buying chalk.5000 .2 5.4 47. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.2 80.

3 69.8 27.3 88.3 46.0 49.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.5 29.9 33.9 21.8 11.2 69.2 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 23.1 70.4 3.9 21.5 16.8 73.6 44.0 0.4 11.0 20.5 83.4 87.Chhattisgarh Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.0 93.0 88.4 No.3 52.7 70.5 86.5 20.2 27.5 12.6 387 100.3 40.1 36.9 15.6 82.7 38.0 13.0 13.7 79. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.4 35.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.5 14.8 28.1 70.4 24 100 107 44 40 13 23 6.1 40.3 38.9 9.2 35.2 16.7 64.0 85.0 351 100. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 422 100.3 34.0 376 100.3 17. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.9 41.5 11.8 18. of % of No. including story-books.0 7.4 7.9 55.2 94.8 104 ASER 2011 .1 78.3 65.7 6.5 30.6 28. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 68 71 61 63 67 92 16.4 35. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.8 16. in each sampled village.5 36.3 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 56.6 20.6 46.5 64. magazines and books on all subjects. During this school visit. 2010 2011 78.2 19. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.8 14.7 76.0 60. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.5 26.1 13.7 48.5 12.8 51.7 86.2 10. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.4 12.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 4.1 16.5 12.5 61. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 34 108 91 48 27 27 52 8. % No.9 23.5 48.8 100 76 73 42 39 46 26.6 77.9 94.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 4.

5 9.7 85.1 19.6 71.6 63. 2009 & 2011 7.4 0. etc.7 10.4 24.8 12.4 0.4 4.2 82.8 100 100 7.5 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.9 14.1 9.3 88.9 49.4 2.3 66.3 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 2.6 90.1 1.0 6.Gujarat RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. I II 5 6 7 7.7 1.0 21.0 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 105 .1 82. 10.4 55.1 1. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.2% in 2009 to 8% in 2010 to 6. she should be age 8 in Std 3.5 23.2 13 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 26.5 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007. 12.6 3.8% children are 8 years old but there are also 7.0 3.8 8.8 0.3 19.5 0.4 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.8 82.4 6.7 13.3 5.5 21.4 0.6% in 2007 to 10.5 2. For example.1 7.8 Pvt.4 9.2 75.6 4.9 0.5 67. This table shows the age distribution for each class.3% who are 9 years old.9% in 2008 to 10.1 9.7% in 2006 to 7. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 34.2 4.3 0.6 3.0 1.5 18.1 2.5 7. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. 86.7 11.2 17.0 5.4 1.2 2.8 8 9 10 11 12 4. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 11.1% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.7 5.5 0.4 15.4 60.4 5. 73.0 7.6 6. How to read this chart: For example.2 Other 0.3 0.8 12.7 0.3 1. in Std III.3 0.0 62.9 6.3 8.5 82.4 Not in Total School 2.4 0.1 89.2 12.7 73.7% who are 7.5 0.1 1.1 58.3 69. 25 OUT OF 26 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.4 14.

2 3. 106 % Children ASER 2011 .8 14. 4. 16.4 4.0 28.6 5.8 100.6 8.2 29. in Std III. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 29. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For example.7 16.5 49.Gujarat Reading Std.2 25.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.3 10. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.1 0.2 71.3% can read letters but not more.1 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 16.9 5.9 12.2 33.1 12.3 14.1 36. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 99.2 17. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.2% children cannot even read letters.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.3 0.0 2.8 20. In sum.8 42.4 6. and 20.2 2.1 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 2.7 2.5 20.4 79.5 11.3 25. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.8 Letter 47.5% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher. 25% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%. For home languages.2 64.1% can read Std 2 level text. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.2 1. 34.8 4.5 22.5 0.2 1.9 20.3 6. for each class.8 34.3 2.9 33.

3 31.6 45.8 9. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 3.2 9.6 26.1 11. in Std III.3 10.1 35.1 40.5 47. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore. In all 4 years.9 1.9 9.4 5.7 9.1 IV 5.9 36.3 10.2 13. 26.4 44.0 9.3 10.1 14.8 8.9 9.3 54.1 6.0 7.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.4% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.7 9.1 53.1 35.2 26.8 1.9 5.2 Divide 1.7 31.3 26.9 25.8 23. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.2 9. 43.9 8.5 10. for each class.8 19.Gujarat Arithmetic Std.5 10.3 6. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 30.0 29.8 19.0 9.6 36.1 22.8 28. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.9 6.4 1.6% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.7 56.3 14.8 11.0 4.4 30.4% can do subtraction but not division.0 43.8 7.3% can do division.4 29.7 3.9 40. 2009. 2009.4 19. In sum.0 40.4 36.9 40. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.6 15.6 11.5 6.7 10.8 39.7 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.4 5.8 39.4 36.5 5.8 II 5.6 7.5 20.5 12.8 33.4 7.3 33.4 33. For example.0 22. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.8 9.7 52.8 46.6 15.8 31.0 38.2 40.4 21.1 8. 19.9 44.0 23.4 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 53.3 42.7 12.8 26.1 1.5 III 6.4 49.4 39.3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.0 12. 5.4 45.0 V VI VII VIII Total 6.3 39.3 2.5 10.8 29.3 2. ASER 2011 % Children 107 . By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.3 35.9 27. and 5.8 Subtract 2.5 26.

7 95. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 81.1 31.0 0.2 62.6 93.1 51.0 87.1 78.8 69.0 85.8 81.2 1.9 94.4 3.1 69.9 85.9 76.2 4.6 0.7 17.6 30. School observations Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.0 0. 2009. 2009.0 0.4 0.4 100 1. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 76 558 634 73 591 664 66 557 623 67 583 650 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.1 26.0 0.9 76.9 3.3 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 85.1 77.0 5.7 95.5 2.0 100 100 0.2 36.7 84.6 0.4 27. 2009.7 88.0 1.2 9.8 95.4 39.2 8. 2009.1 84. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.8 92.9 81.0 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 81.4 95.4 85.5 83.8 85.0 0. 2010 and 2011. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.0 of visit Total 100 100 94.6 29. in each sampled village.6 Std I-VII/VIII 38.0 0.7 28.0 83.6 33.7 32.6 76.2 71.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 18.4 94.6 108 ASER 2011 .7 64.0 94.9 87. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 59.9 30.0 56.3 86.6 100 43.2 58.5 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007. 2009.3 4.0 0.0 0.9 % Teachers present (average) 94.4 85.3 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.4 84. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.5 77.Gujarat RURAL As part of ASER 2007.0 0.0 68.4 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 5.8 28.

7 443 87.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.Rs.1MONEY 5.3 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.2 2. posters.7 2.5 47.6 8.0 613 91.1 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants % Schools No.0 48.5000 .9 542 70.9 1. of No Don’t Sch.6 75.7 Maintenance 498 grant Development 495 grant 415 81. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. duster.3 9. of No Don’t Sch.6 23.5MONEY 1.9 4.8 1.4 24.3 17.7 51.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.1 5.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.8 1.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.8 7. boundary wall.Gujarat RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .6 % schools No 57.9 7. playground etc.5 57.1 3. cleaning etc.6 3.0 0.6 604 82.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.2 83. such as charts.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.4 11.2 1.0 88.0 1. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.6 2.5 7.5000 per year per primary school Rs. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school. models etc.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.6 5. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.3 30. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.9 61.0 0. globes.7 1.8 1.5 42.6 540 67.8 34.) 40.3 63.5 32. of Sch. 8. beautification.0 50.7 3. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .1 THEIR 423 89. water.8 THEIR 453 94.in ASER 2011 109 . 74.8 0.7 20.8 1.1 26.6 4. duster.0 609 79.6 49.9 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 518 88.5 66. % Schools No. know 6. For more information see www. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.3 1. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.2 421 85.0 29. wall etc. including whitewashing.6 14. New Classroom Repair of building (roof.2 4.8 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 541 grant Development 545 grant TLM grant 82.4 14.4 49.2 8. Rs 7500 .1 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.8 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 567 96.5 5.3 63.5 1.1 39.7 54.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.0 5.1 Don't know 1.3 3.1 3.8 54.1 440 87. floor. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.6 41. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.9 89.4 73.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.8 46.3 36. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs. sitting mats etc. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.6 43.8 3. hand pump.9 1.6 3. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts.accountabilityinitiative.9 9.4 544 65. registers and other office equipment. register etc.3 8.9 34. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.9 59. Also for buying chalk.9 48.9 1. and repair of toilets. of Sch.

5 62.7 20.2 48. During this school visit.2 5. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper. % No.5 53.0 19.0 40.0 0.0 38.4 2.3 60.3 65.8 44.9 10.1 28.8 12. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. magazines and books on all subjects. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.3 26.9 17.3 30.9 5.5 88.2 5.4 96.9 95.8 7.6 94.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.2 25.2 8.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.1 16.4 No. including story-books.4 10.0 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.8 7.5 5.9 5. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.0 96.6 64.2 39.4 6. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 2010 2011 School No.7 49.1 5.1 38.Gujarat Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 69.0 535 100.8 16.6 4.5 13.9 2.1 590 100.0 5.6 14.1 62.6 553 100.3 5.3 32.9 83.6 4.5 79. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 20 31 25 32 39 46 360 3.2 7.3 37.4 12.7 31.8 110 ASER 2011 .1 37 37 33 47 85 391 5.6 32. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.6 5.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.4 69.4 82.0 21.0 15.2 6.5 5. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.0 97.2 91.1 67.8 12.2 35.8 83.4 84. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 27 25 34 46 74 384 4.2 17.2 92.5 10.7 97.6 37. in each sampled village.2 75.1 22 33 27 29 35 54 335 4.7 16. 2010 2011 80.8 35. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. of % of No.0 630 100.1 10.1 8.5 65.5 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 70.1 6.7 43.5 14.0 18.2 22.

Haryana desh Himachal Pra mir h s a K d n a u Jamm Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala .

.

7 5.8 0. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.1 20.5 22.9 28.9 28.0 19.4 10.9% who are 7.8 6.2 39.2 7.4 0. she should be age 8 in Std 3.1% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.2 28.4 32.0 7.6 7.1 11.6 7.2 0.4 18.8 1.2 34.7 43.8 4. For example.5 0.5 % children are 8 years old but there are also 17.6 27.9 5.7 35.2% who are 9.3 0.5 5.5 52.1 6.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 3. 11.8 17. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 8.1 0.0 40. I II 5 6 7 8 7.3 41.0 60.1 6.2 62.3 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.3 0. This table shows the age distribution for each class. 38.0 1.0 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6. etc.6 100 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 14.4 9.6 21.3 58.1% who are 10 years old. 22.1 5.1 33.4 41.2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total 100 29.7 39.8 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 113 .3% in 2009 to 1. 43.9 5.1 0.9 56.0 49.4 2.2 11.9 38.5 2.8 24.7 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.9 33.0 11. How to read this chart: For example.1 40.9 49.8 1.4 31.7 26.5 16.1 58.2 39.2 4.0 46.5 20.5 0.7 Other 0.8 57.9 Pvt.9 1. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.6 6.4 0. 54.1% in 2008 to 4.1 22.2 17.3 0.3 0.9 27.Haryana RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.8 Not in Total School 1.5 3. 2009 & 2011 32.2 7. in Std III.2 63.8% in 2010 to 2.3 0. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 8. 16 OUT OF 20 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.3 6.2 33.8 0.7 11.6 6.7 55.7 1.4% in 2006 to 7% in 2007 to 5.0 6.2 43.

In sum.8% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.7 52.4 0. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. 16. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.1 4.1 8. 22.3 5.4 16. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language. 114 % Children ASER 2011 .5 21.7 1.1 14.2 6.5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.0 77.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.5 9. For home languages.1 0. 5.5% can read letters but not more.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state. in Std III.8 14. for each class.9 66.5 Letter 39.5 2.9 22.1 87. and 31% can read Std 2 level text. 24.0 0.4 14.9 1.Haryana Reading Std. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.0 Word 21.5 15. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.4 6.1 27.9 6.4 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 6.3 2. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.9 31.4 16.0 30.7 13.0 49.1 5. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 27.1% children cannot even read letters. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 78.5 100.0 2.8 13.7 9.5 24.5 23.7 85.4 10. For example.6 10.6 12.0 3.

0 0.3 22. 32.6 20.2 14.9 17.0 20.4 23. In sum.8% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.1 16. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.9 8.1 9. 18.2 38.4 8. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.3 10.3 1.3 14. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 24.0 22.0 11.5 1.2 III 7.7 32.4 5.6 17.2 IV 7.0 21. for each class. in Std III.9 13.3 68.7 19. ASER 2011 % Children 115 .9 7.6 12.1 30.7 13.8 10.5 8. 3.2 19.6 27.5 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 38.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.9 3.5 20.5 32.5 11. and 17.9 17.1 17.2 3.3 19.0 21. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.5 17.3 12. 27.8 16.6 11. 2009.3 29.8 7.3 7.8 1.0 Subtract 6. For example.6 25. In all 4 years. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.8 29.7 24.2 18.5 10.8 2.6 6.6 11.7% can do division.1 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.4 15.2 11.1 12. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 5.0 14.7 8.6 8.5 14.7 9.7 13.8 33.6 27.6% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.3 19.3 V VI VII VIII Total 7.9 25.Haryana Arithmetic Std. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.1 16.2 6.3 11.8% can do subtraction but not division.3 73.5 15.8 12.1 25.1 9.4 22.4 7.2 61.3 50.9 7.1 23.3 21.0 6. 2009.4 28.0 18.7 21.9 9.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.0 26.7 Divide 2.0 4.7 8.0 34.8 20. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.6 23.1 32.7 12.1 13.7 2.1 II 5.4 19.3 19.3 22.0 17.1 1. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.6 7.6 23.

7 Headteacher appointed but not present at 5.1 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 89.6 72.4 79.7 26.6 89.0 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007. 2009.1 35.1 1.4 0.0 80.0 1.7 87.9 100 7.4 89.2 31.9 45. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.7 33.1 66.1 100 7. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 82.2 0.0 15.5 80.9 35.3 1.4 0.4 100 73.0 30. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 37.0 0.6 1.6 56.8 0.9 90.3 44.3 28.3 7.8 86.0 36.2 0.7 0.8 30. in each sampled village. 2009.0 0. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 335 95 430 361 167 528 302 226 528 244 145 389 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.0 0.6 84.7 10.7 65.8 % Teachers present (average) 91.0 81.4 85.9 3.1 25.9 76. 2009.8 22.7 100 4.1 46. 2009.8 84. 2010 and 2011.9 11.8 83.8 85.2 of visit Total 100 100 12. 2009.3 77.5 0.8 84.Haryana School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007.9 87.7 62.1 83.4 0.7 25. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.2 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 89. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.6 67.3 6.0 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 4.7 81.4 4.4 15.9 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 2.4 84.6 25.9 116 ASER 2011 .9 92.5 50.8 63.6 82.7 32. Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.6 0.4 25.2 Std I-VII/VIII 29.7 78.

9 26.2 12.6 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 443 88.9 Maintenance 403 79.9 48. duster. of No Don’t Sch. duster. beautification.7 47.6 0.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 449 82. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.0 377 91.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.0 32.0 8.6 0. registers and other office equipment.0 59.2 THEIR 409 92.0 5. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. sitting mats etc. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. cleaning etc.1 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 2.8 grant Development 421 74. and repair of toilets. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.8 53. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.7 41.3 56.9 38.8 6.3 0.9 2. of Sch. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard. 5.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. including whitewashing.5 51.5 % schools No 66.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.6 MONEY 30. of Sch.0 13. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.2 1.6 12. New Classroom Repair of building (roof.8 43.2 15.6 0.5 21.8 66.4 18. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.3 334 48.3 1.3 37.4 381 62.2 grant 418 65.5 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know 4.9 7. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. Also for buying chalk. wall etc.7 Don't know 1.4 3.6 52.3 0.0 375 92.4 365 83.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .0 6.accountabilityinitiative.0 0.3 342 61.4 42.7 34.1 THEIR 392 65. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.9 61.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.6 0.1 61.4 36.) 31.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. water. playground etc.6 46.9 grant Development 371 67.5 32.4 4.8 415 87. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.0 3.8 3. % Schools No. know 4.5 SSA school grants % Schools No.2 50. hand pump.4 77. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity. For more information see www.9 0.3 63.6 29.3 6.0 5.9 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.5000 per year per primary school Rs.3 15. register etc.5000 .4 52.7 1.9 grant TLM grant 456 92.3 49.0 5. posters.8 3.Haryana RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . of Don’t Yes No know Sch.7 40.8 8.Rs.3 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.4 2. such as charts.4 0.9 16. models etc.0 347 62.8 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.4 47.7 MONEY 5. Rs 7500 .3 0. boundary wall. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.0 0.3 0.5 85.3 83.6 0.3 58.5 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.1 4.in ASER 2011 117 . of No Don’t Sch.8 32. 5.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.7 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 387 80. floor. globes.

0 22.8 35.9 29.2 67.8 72.3 59.7 52.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.8 70.7 48.1 11.0 0. including story-books.9 65.9 16. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.4 56.4 33.3 79.4 23. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.8 29.9 10.0 14.5 10.3 11.8 42. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.8 28.7 488 100.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.0 385 100.1 67.2 524 100. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.3 63.6 51.9 8.6 9.7 25 31 49 42 60 178 6.0 60.7 10. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 2010 2011 School No.0 14.5 10.5 8.1 6.5 6.9 52.0 93.5 7.3 3. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.7 67.3 39.2 10.1 12. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 34 56 50 54 56 35 203 7. magazines and books on all subjects.5 42.0 73.6 61.1 78. During this school visit.6 68.0 31.6 2.7 11.3 63.1 30.2 60.1 30.9 37. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.5 80.7 23.6 7.Haryana Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 51.7 7.9 82.4 17. 2010 2011 85.2 26.1 84.7 74. % No.4 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 69.1 6.9 22. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 34 36 45 52 86 271 6.1 4.9 15.8 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.4 51.0 11.9 79. in each sampled village.1 No.0 30.6 35.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 8.0 41.2 26. of % of No.7 44.6 58.1 21.6 46.0 118 ASER 2011 .0 94.0 354 100.0 13.2 41.6 15 37 38 39 50 24 151 4.6 24.7 68.3 21.

8 32.2 78.1% in 2009 to 0.7 24.4% in 2010 to 1.6 2.7 1.1 0.1 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 100 100 100 100 100 100 15. 26.1 0.8 2.7 54.8 4. I II 5 6 7 6. 2009 & 2011 % Children 100 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.2% in 2007 to 1% in 2008 to 1. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.0 52.Himachal Pradesh Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.5% children are 8 years old but there are also 21.4 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 119 .3 53.0 11. 2009 & 2011 36.4 2.3 20. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 14.5 14. For example.7% in 2006 to 2.5 25. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 2.0 0.3 3.5 34. 72.0 0.0% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.8 0.6 23.4 38.7 19.7 Pvt.1 24. 12 OUT OF 12 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.4 19.7 15.4 4.7 1.7 2.0 0. This table shows the age distribution for each class.0 1.3 0.9 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.7 85.6 56.8 76.3 0.2 13 14 15 16 Total 100 100 39.8 0.3 4.8 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007. she should be age 8 in Std 3.7 58.7 2.0 21.6 0.7 74.8 59.2% who are 9 years old.0 0. 59.2 30.2 64.1 0. in Std III.0 0. How to read this chart: For example.1 0.4 0.8 3.0 Not in Total School 0. etc.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 23.9 20.4 0.9 24.3 54.8% who are 7.1 4.5 13.6 7.1 19.7 88.6 15.0 86.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 8.2 8 9 10 11 12 2.4 15.8 1.2 81.1 18.1 45.9 1.0 69.8 Other 0.1 21.2 2.7 15.5 100 100 RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.7 79. 14.5 54.

0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.6% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 11.5 4.8 6.5 0.1% children cannot even read letters.5 1.4 0. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.4 10.6 2. For example. in Std III.2 0.2 31. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.2 13. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.4 88.3 91. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.0 5.8 57.0 19.7 100. For home languages.4 8.0 1.5 Word 27.2 10.5% can read letters but not more.4 35. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.4 16. for each class.9 86.4 Letter 51.5 4.6 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 5.5 3. 120 % Children ASER 2011 .5 30. and 31.0 0.3 56. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 12. 35. 2.1 3.6 20.1 0.4 0.6 8.3% can read Std 2 level text.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.0 73.4 13. 8. 22.1 1.2 18.5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text. In sum. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.7 2.5 95.1 43.2 0.5 22.7 1.Himachal Pradesh Reading Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std.1 2.

0 5.6 20.6 21. In all 4 years.7 12.4 10.2 23.5 1.7 22.2 17. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.0 28.4 20.4 10.0 4.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.3 III 3.3 0.4 16.3 8.4 43. 32.0 9.2 7.9 1.Himachal Pradesh Arithmetic Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std.1 8.3 20.5 6.3 12.9 22. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.2 32.8 4.4 9.6 V VI VII 6.2 2.2 1.8 59.4 13.4% can do division.8 20.4 20.3 0.2 24.6 16.0 20. 0. 2009.9 7.4 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 46.0 1. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.5 II 2.2 35.5% can do subtraction but not division.3 27.1 10.4 5.3 18.8 22.5 14.3% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment. and 13.5 8. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.9 78. ASER 2011 % Children 121 .5 17.3 VIII 8.1 3.4 35.6 0.1 49.7 Subtract 6.0 Total 4.9 12.6 20.7 24.3 19.4 80. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.4 13.8 30.7 2.6 5.4 6.1 3.3 3. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 1. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.7 16.8 4.5 44.7 0.3 14.3 10.9 22.6 4. For example.8 71.3 38.8 23.2 19.1 43.5 10. for each class.8 5.4 19.3 4.9 15.1 7.9 18.8 IV 3. In sum.5 2.9 3.6 0. 43.0 0.6 23.9 Divide 1.1 22.6 0. in Std III.5 15.4 15.0 3.5 7.5 6.7% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 7.5 0.9 5.1 2. 10% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.1 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.7 3.6 6.4 0.3 19.2 8. 2009.

9 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.1 49.0 0.9 100 6.8 91.6 90.0 58.4 90.0 0.0 70. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 224 26 250 310 22 332 195 66 261 224 50 274 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.9 1. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 60.0 83.5 Std I-VII/VIII 54. 2009.3 97.7 90.0 0.1 1. in each sampled village.0 % Teachers present (average) 88.9 89. 2009.4 95.5 93.4 100 84.9 70.0 of visit Total 100 100 80.6 100 0.6 85.0 0.6 89. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.Himachal Pradesh Information about schools in this report is based on these visits. 2009. 2009.7 91.4 86.0 50. RURAL As part of ASER 2007. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 88. School observations Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.6 40.2 74.2 87.0 0.7 2.7 58.0 1.6 89.7 81.3 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.1 Headteacher appointed but not present at 3.8 80.0 61.9 90.8 68.4 0.1 47.0 0.2 61.4 89. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.8 68. 2010 and 2011.7 44.5 44.6 92.7 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 96.8 9.0 100 0.4 1.0 19.0 9.3 73.2 122 ASER 2011 .1 88.4 53.4 0.0 91.4 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 2.9 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 96.0 1.9 7.6 57.5 90.6 1. 2009.8 88.8 89.6 0.5 0.7 54.0 6.0 1.0 3.2 0.5 65.1 90.8 54.0 7.3 91.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school. sitting mats etc.0 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 3.6 263 94.0 72.2 1. posters.3 259 92. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.6 225 85.4 grant TLM grant 245 93. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building. playground etc. register etc.0 Don't know 1.9 0. boundary wall.9 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 310 90.8 3.8 79. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.5000 . hand pump.7 7.2 1. know 2.1 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. of Sch.in ASER 2011 123 . For more information see www.3 2.3 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.4 3.7 2.2 1. cleaning etc.0 38.9 63.8 2. of No Don’t Sch.1 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 317 95.3 10.4 44.9 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. 5. know 2009-2010 % Schools No.9 235 93.1 26.6 SSA school grants % Schools No.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.8 9.1 15. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.4 1.1 34.6 24.Rs.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 .3 THEIR 231 97.4 61.2 51. duster.1 249 87.1 2.5 15.5 2. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.1 % schools No 80.5 11.9 59.2 1.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.8 252 84.4 72.2 grant Development 268 82.5 65.4 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know 3.7 3.6 11. such as charts.3 38. wall etc.4 MONEY 0. of No Don’t Sch. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs. and repair of toilets.0 17.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.4 31. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.2 0.5000 per year per primary school Rs.3 56. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.0 2.0 3.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.3 49.3 grant Development 296 83.2 3.5 6.5 THEIR 228 88.6 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 281 91. models etc. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs. registers and other office equipment.1 2. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.6 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.7 1. duster.6 1.7 263 98.3 42.6 1.5 50.9 39. Also for buying chalk.3 47. beautification.Himachal Pradesh School funds and activities (PAISA) RURAL Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .2 60. % Schools No. floor.8 14. New Classroom Repair of building (roof.6 3. water.5 1.0 60.9 2.6 1.8 1.0 1.2 11.5 1.9 53.6 34.2 2.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.6 grant 236 84.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc. globes.2 MONEY 8. including whitewashing.8 32.2 64.3 3.9 247 81.0 66. of Sch. Maintenance 278 85.) 18.accountabilityinitiative. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . of Don’t Yes No know Sch.0 37.1 4.7 3.5 3.9 1.

7 39.4 15.0 6.6 21.0 42.3 3. 257 100 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.5 6.0 62.5 87.4 20. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.7 91.1 42.6 68.0 23.0 71.3 12.0 17.9 55.7 19.4 32.5 19. including story-books. in each sampled village.0 100.4 50.3 7.3 45 98 46 20 18 5 9 241 18.7 100 222 100 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets. During this school visit.0 41. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.7 81.7 5. % No.5 2.0 57.5 20.4 89.3 124 ASER 2011 . of % of No. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.0 11.6 47.2 64.6 10.9 23.3 82.0 31.7 36.4 46.9 29.5 53.6 No.6 7.0 30.0 0.2 10.5 4.9 100 RURAL Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 32.3 83.4 30.7 40.1 8.5 12. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.8 7.0 22.0 40.2 56.8 33.5 76.5 4. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 125 54 45 14 11 8 48.3 99.4 11.0 98.6 61.9 70. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper. magazines and books on all subjects.6 38. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 37 80 39 24 17 11 14 16. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.2 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 42.0 76.8 89.1 10.8 2.1 39. 2010 2011 75.1 3.2 1.5 2.7 As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.5 5.0 37.6 19.4 22.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 11.5 50.8 7.0 17.9 89.0 34.5 6.3 100.Himachal Pradesh Right to Education indicators Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.1 38.0 23.1 160 61 18 21 6 5 271 59.3 37.

8% in 2007 to 5% in 2008 to 3.5 4.1% in 2009 to 3.0 45. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.4 8.2 Other 0.7 45.8 14.2 0.3% in 2006 to 5.8% who are 9. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 8.4 68.5 10.5 0.7 28. 37.2 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 10.7 2.4 0.1 0.5 44.3 11.4 8.8 36.2 45.0 1.4 0.9 30. 37.7 13.5 68. etc.5 0.3 Not in Total School 2. For example.7 12.3 37.0 4.7 8.8 38.1 7.9 27.3 2.6 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.3 11. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.0 2.1 26.5 38.3 2.7% who are 10 years old.3 3.4 34.9 23.7 100 100 Note: Jammu and Kashmir data for 2010 not available.4 5.7% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.6 25.4 0.3 29.4 9.9 63.0 3.9 Pvt.4 32.6 52.1 67.7 60.4 3.9 37.2 4.9% children are 8 years old but there are also 9.0 2. ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 125 .8 30.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 3.7 34.2 27. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 14.8 24.7 58.7 100 19.5 100 100 % Children RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.3 4.9 5. 2009 & 2011 24.2 10. 14.4 0.5 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.4 61.7 3. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total 100 7.0 28.4 6.1 3.4 0.1 10. 14 OUT OF 14 DISTRICTS Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.7 0. This table shows the age distribution for each class.8 1.7 68.0 14.9 7. 28.7 10.4 3.2 42.9 37.0 12. in Std III.7% who are 7.7 42.5 18. she should be age 8 in Std 3.4 5.4 0.4 20. 59.1 42.7 9.5 0.Jammu and Kashmir School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. How to read this chart: For example.6 55.5 11.9 10.1 24.

8 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 8.4 Ladakhi 1. Urdu or Hindi.3% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher. 28.5% can read letters but not more.8% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.7 scheduled languages except those specified above.9 0.3 7.8 Word 23.4 9.0 28.9 18.7 23.9 33.9% children cannot even read letters.3 0.3 25.4 3.8 25.6 3.5 25.4 20.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. where the medium of instruction in government schools is English. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.5 24.6 Total 100 100 1. Hindi tools were used in only in Jammu division.1 3. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.Jammu and Kashmir Reading Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std.7 5. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 14. For home languages. For example.0 27.7 10. children were given the choice of reading in English. 2.4 1.9 1.2 32.8 31. 126 % Children ASER 2011 .6 6.7 6.2 17.6 5. for each class.7 Of the % Children tested in: English Urdu % Children whose home language was: Kashmiri Dogri 52. In Jammu and Kashmir.2 19. * 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and nonlanguage of children tested in Hindi has not been reported here due Note: In ASER 2011 for every state.1 36. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language %Children % who took the reading test in: English Urdu Hindi Total 91. and 17.0 2.0 Other* 21.8 56.2 6. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.3 33.2 32. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. Data for home 100 to small cell sizes.6 1.8 17.5% can read Std 2 level text.8 32.2 46. 23.2 0.7 Letter 49.6 9.7 62. In sum.0 63. 27.2 28.5 16.6 32.0 24. in Std III.0 13.

5 22. 40.2 22.5 30.7 0.8 35.1 37.1 18.5 28.0 0.4 1.0 Subtract 8.0 3.0 4.0 0. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.9 V VI VII VIII Total 9.8 1. 17.3 40.0 6.4 21.6 0.2 19.4 25.7 19.9 6.2 32.5% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.0 6.6 5.8 23.9 13.0 4. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 12.9 0. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.0 0. 2009.7% can do division.9 22.6 Divide 0.5 23.5 40.1 0.0 42.2 14.0 1. ASER 2011 % Children 127 .3 20.7 2.9 20. 33.0 0.8 33.0 0.9 8.0 1.7% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.4 III 6. for each class.8 31.0 0. For example.8 41.3 36.5 19.7 19.8 27.7 21.0 0. in Std III.7 12.8 0. 3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.0 3.4 8.7 3.2 0.Jammu and Kashmir Arithmetic Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std.1 33. In all 4 years.0 9.5 9.9 17.2 23.7 18.0 0.0 0.8 12.0 17.0 11.0 7.9 2009 2010 2011 19.8 Note: In 2007.8 3. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.5 0. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.5 IV 5.1 40.1 0.7 38. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.3 28.6 29. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.0 32. 2009 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 6.2 28.9 27.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.3 32.0 0.1 18.1 45.2 40.7 33.1% can do subtraction but not division.5 3.5 13.2 5.4 7.0 19.5 11.4 14.1 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 42.0 7. and 5. In sum.6 17.0 0.7 14.1 II 5.3 20.0 22.8 25.6 12.0 6.3 14.8 22.0 0.

4 73.4 0.7 88.5 % Teachers present (average) 92.0 38.8 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed Headteacher appointed but not present at time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 1.5 2.0 68.0 77.9 42.5 89.5 85.7 79.0 7.2 84.3 90.0 0.0 83.0 100 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 96.8 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.7 5. 2009.0 80. 2010 and 2011.2 53.4 37.4 3.Jammu and Kashmir Information about schools in this report is based on these visits. 2009.0 5.7 0.3 61.7 0.0 0.0 76.3 80.2 63.2 0.5 72.1 4.3 10.2 84.4 0. 2009. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 81.0 0.0 0. RURAL As part of ASER 2007. School observations Table 8: Total schools visited 2007. 2009.0 74.8 0.2 72.0 0.8 0. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 60.8 7.0 71.0 91.5 9.0 90. in each sampled village.8 55.3 83. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.1 0. 2009.6 128 ASER 2011 .0 0.8 0.7 49.9 100 1.0 100 84.4 86.0 Std I-VII/VIII 46.4 0.3 0.1 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 0.0 62. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.0 51. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 115 176 291 81 276 357 0 0 0 76 281 357 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.0 0.6 92.1 87.0 0.0 0.

9 7.7 2. of Schools % Schools Yes 77. New Classroom Repair of building (roof.0 0.7 83.1 45.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. posters.3 12.0 0.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.5000 .0 Don't know 0.3 Don’t know 1.8 GET 9.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. register etc.3 14.8 24.Jammu and Kashmir School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.4 42.4 87. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.2 90. Maintenance 329 grant Development 329 grant ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 329 81.2 85.5 No 12.1 56.8 11.9 Don’t know 12. For more information see www.1 No 8.8 74. globes. duster. wall etc.1 74.0 SSA school grants EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.3 0.5000 per year per primary school Rs. Rs 7500 .10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.9 % schools No 81.4 85. duster.0 0. floor.6 54.in ASER 2011 129 .4 48.1 RURAL Maintenance 351 grant Development 348 grant TLM grant 350 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.5 Don’t know 3. and repair of toilets.Rs.9 56. models etc. water.6 15.2 91.9 No. of Schools % Schools Yes 75. of Schools 351 346 354 2010-2011 % Schools Yes 86. including whitewashing.0 0.9 1.7 THEIR 8.3 0.1 Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .1 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.0 0.0 39. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.0 Don’t know 13.5 8. of Schools 334 329 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes 61.7 39. cleaning etc.8 69. hand pump.8 8. Also for buying chalk. boundary wall.5 9.4 No.0 27. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.0 0.6 51. sitting mats etc.0 0. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts.8 11.3 19.3 49.accountabilityinitiative.0 0. playground etc. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.5 MONEY 336 67.2 75.0 0. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.8 No 12.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.2 30.6 57. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.9 13.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. such as charts.9 4. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.5 No 35.1 43.2 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.0 0.9 1. registers and other office equipment. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.4 13.8 82.7 85.3 17.7 49.0 77.0 2.3 0. beautification.0 72.) 18.0 0.2 13. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.4 60.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.0 31. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.

4 18.0 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2011 RTE norm: At least one classroom per teacher Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 % Schools that do not meet classroom to teacher norms 0.6 6.9 76. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.8 49.4 130 ASER 2011 . of schools 17 5 17 47 61 43 107 327 % of schools 5.2 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.6 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 4.9 26.3 61.7 51.0 48.7 100.0 52. magazines and books on all subjects.4 71. including story-books. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.1 12.3 23.2 32.2 6.2 14.3 18.7 68.3 50. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.4 30.0 61.7 47.Jammu and Kashmir Right to Education indicators Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2011 2011 School No.0 20.2 10.8 22.0 100.3 36.7 35.0 6.0 6.0 20. Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2011 2011 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL No.7 28.5 As part of ASER 2010 and 2011. 2011 82.5 9.3 10.9 9.2 16. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.8 40.8 70.6 33.0 Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2011 RURAL RTE 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 12. During this school visit. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.2 46.0 75. of schools % of schools enrollment 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 157 70 43 35 23 21 349 45.3 12. in each sampled village. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.7 13.7 5.

5 79.2 14.8 6.5% in 2009 to 4.1 80. How to read this chart: For example.2 35.6 26. she should be age 8 in Std 3.3 5.7 4.5 17.0 67.8 5. 17.6 8.3 3.8 6.9 16.0 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.5 4.5 10.4 1.4 15.2 80.7 16.6 6.0 0.8 1.Jharkhand RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.7 1.6 7.8 19.5 82.8% who are 7. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 27.0 17. 12.4% who are 9.5 6.9 5.2 9.3 1.5 6.8 0. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.7 6.0 27.6 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 12.3 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.5 7.0 5. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7.5 32.6 68. 19.8 12.4% in 2008 to 7. 2009 & 2011 8.0% who are 10 years old.2% children are 8 years old but there are also 12.2 29.1 48.2 7.9 34.6 1.8 13.9% in 2010 to 6.5 12.0 14.8 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.4 15.8 1.3 10.0 7.9 83.1 12.3 4.6 14.6 5.4 30.4 16.8 33.8 5.1 3. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.3 13.3 7. 81.5 Other 1.2 19.9 Not in Total School 4.8 7. 32.9 5. etc.9 79.0 79. in Std III.7 14.6 20.9 6.3 8.0 5. 20 OUT OF 22 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.4 17.4% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.4 3.2 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.3 11.4 100 30.8 0.4 15.1 10. This table shows the age distribution for each class.7 1.5 69.5 100 7. For example.8 14.9 23.2 Pvt.9 2.3 71. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 13% in 2006 to 8% in 2007 to 9.3 6.2 21.2 1.0 7.5 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 131 .2 13.6 14.0 13.8 10.8 32.1 32.5 1.

29.3 29.6 29.Jharkhand Reading Std.2 17. and 12.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.8% can read Std 2 level text.1 10.4 6.0 16. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.1 5.6 4.7 23.9 8. 10. For home languages. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 38.9 21.4 15.3% children cannot even read letters.6 4. for each class.8 25.5 Letter 34.0 57.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.7 23. 29.5 72.3 19.2 22.8 15.9 24.4 2. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. 17.8 61. In sum.0 7.5 14.9 24.0 1.6 7.5 12.1 41. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.7% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.7 39.2 12. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 49.9 Word 10. For example.0 2.9 80. in Std III.3% can read letters but not more.3 7.9 20. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.0 1.8 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 2.0 10.1 11.3 2. 132 % Children ASER 2011 .7 17.3 32.2 100.

9 38.4 42.7 1.3 29.6 35.2 30. 17.8 12. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.5 25.2 22.0 36.7 32.3 38.Jharkhand Arithmetic Std. For example.7 38.7 15.5 32.6 5.3 39.3% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.9 19.5 40.3 33.6 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 37.8 35.1 20.8 16.8 24.0 9.0 24.6 42.0 37.7 45.0 13. 32.7 27.4 27.6 13.1% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9. in Std III.0 34.1 22.3 32.1 20.7 22.8 27.1 37.9 23.4 23. and 5.4 19.2 38.9 39.3 20. In sum.1 25.5 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 2.3 37.6 36.5 9. 9. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.9 4.6 9.6 21. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 18.1 38. 2009.1 8.7 17. 2009.6 23.8 24.1 36.0 31.1 5.4 22. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007. ASER 2011 % Children 133 .0 28.0 23.8 31.7 39.9 40.3 29.7 39.0 39.8 50.4 30. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents. for each class.7 42.8 Divide 1.1 16.8% can do division.5 1.1 32.4% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.7 42.9 46. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.5% can do subtraction but not division.1 2.5 17.8 37.6 19.4 14.4 44.7 58.9 36.1 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.3 33.8 38. In all 4 years.8 24. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 49.9 45.5 49.0 30.5 41.1 25.9 42.7 20.3 1.1 2.5 30.4 11.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.7 20.6 51.3 13.3 26.4 14.3 19.5 45.0 51.1 32.0 4.4 37.2 33. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. 35.

1 76.2 100 91.4 65.8 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 0.8 89.3 59.0 0.9 78.1 62. Table 8: Total schools visited 2007. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 82.4 79.1 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 24.5 3.3 58. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.0 13.0 28.3 6. in each sampled village.8 55. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.1 22.1 44.0 0.6 24.5 62.7 79.1 85.4 19.7 26.4 91.3 24.0 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 2. 2009.1 93.8 85.5 Headteacher appointed but not present at 12. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 246 300 546 190 336 526 188 359 547 164 373 537 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.8 of visit Total 100 100 3.8 82.3 74. 2009.4 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.0 0.3 62.0 0.2 0.6 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 96.0 86.9 77.5 74.1 18.7 62.0 94. 2009.6 97.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 87.7 13.6 1.0 0.6 58.3 18.5 22.0 1.3 90.0 61.3 76.9 75.7 1.8 134 ASER 2011 .3 84.5 26.1 28. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 62. 2009.7 51.0 12.9 79.6 5.Jharkhand School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007.7 52.6 19.3 59.3 28.2 56.5 100 0. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits. 2009.4 0.5 34.7 100 1.2 1. 2010 and 2011.8 51.3 100 6.1 85.7 55.0 63.1 % Teachers present (average) 92.7 Std I-VII/VIII 65.3 81.3 1.

1 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.6 12. boundary wall.9 495 29.6 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 6.3 % schools No 67.4 5.1 8. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs. know 2009-2010 % Schools No.Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.6 10. and repair of toilets. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. posters.9 54. floor.0 393 89.7 43.3 1.4 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.9 35.6 Don't know 3.4 59.3 12.8 3.4 grant 369 72.7 71.9 39.2 3.2 25.4 55.5 SSA school grants % Schools No.6 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 310 56. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.6 354 70.5 4.4 82. Rs 7500 .7 70.5 10.7 2.5 6.5 9.6 grant Development 425 75. of Sch. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts. register etc.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.9 grant Development 306 52.3 MONEY 3.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.7 41.1 14.1 56. including whitewashing.8 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know 9.1 62. playground etc.7 1.8 63.3 3.3 12.6 38. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.accountabilityinitiative.0 1. of No Don’t Sch.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 423 70.7 MONEY 19.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.0 12.7 THEIR 355 74.6 25. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.6 17.5 2.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.8 10.2 57.9 60.7 58. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. duster. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. of No Don’t Sch. registers and other office equipment.5 11.Jharkhand RURA L RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .5 2.5 9. cleaning etc.0 1.3 501 28.5 3.6 27. % Schools No.3 2.8 8.0 34. models etc. Also for buying chalk.6 72.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. of Sch. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. sitting mats etc.4 85.0 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. For more information see www.9 72. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . Maintenance 311 48. such as charts.4 40. wall etc.9 20. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.9 17.9 497 32.1 5.0 9.7 grant TLM grant 400 90.9 90.4 25.5 503 86.2 1.6 8.3 86.5000 per year per primary school Rs. know 6.4 THEIR 401 93.4 7.2 9. 9.1 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 441 82.4 2. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. duster.9 40. water.6 512 83.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc. beautification. New Classroom Repair of building (roof.5 39.5000 .2 504 84.5 2. globes. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.) 29.7 3.1 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.6 13.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.1 2.8 57.in ASER 2011 135 .1 34. hand pump. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.9 2.

2 84.1 38.3 26. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 69 74 60 62 44 25 81 16.8 50.2 26.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.8 14.3 80.3 86. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 41 55 51 48 68 270 7.7 7.7 89.6 84.4 33.8 95.3 8. in each sampled village.8 15.8 36.1 80. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.8 20. 2010 2011 84.4 73.9 13.9 81.5 51 110 66 61 61 38 93 10.7 12.7 24.3 26. During this school visit.5 37.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.7 No.8 10.Jharkhand Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.8 25. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.3 13.0 0.5 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 72.9 76.1 8.6 19.5 62.4 415 100.3 22.5 10.7 10.5 18.1 38. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 3.9 18.8 24.9 19.2 33.4 30.1 87.6 42.3 96.5 14.5 26.0 136 ASER 2011 . As part of ASER 2010 and 2011. % No.8 29.4 18.6 74.0 55.6 9. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.7 9.2 75.4 38.9 82.1 29.6 6.6 17. including story-books.9 10.1 43.4 11.8 10.6 24.7 55 62 49 45 57 262 10.8 81.3 9.2 88.3 21.9 19.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 533 100.8 12.8 18.4 92.5 35.2 28. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.0 12.0 480 100.5 23.6 78. magazines and books on all subjects.8 49.2 30. of % of No.6 22.0 19.8 74.7 11.4 35.4 73.0 530 100.9 83.4 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 55.

6 61.3 60.8 52.8 0. 76.7 0.0 53. 2009 & 2011 4.1 15.8 5.6 22.6 57.5 0.7% children are 8 years old but there are also 4.3 7.7 0.0 0.6 1.2 6.0 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 137 .6 6.1 0. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.4 23.1% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.8 1.2 1.6% who are 9 years old.2 75.1 4. 20.1 18.9 6.3 19.3 49.8 22.6 6.0 7.2% in 2007 to 5.8 21.9% who are 7 years old or younger.5 35. How to read this chart: For example.1 16.3 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 38.9% in 2008 to 6.1 1.8 76.7 51.0 48.2 0.5 74.1 4. This table shows the age distribution for each class.6 2.2 4.9 10.4 0.1 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.7 76.5 13.2 41.2 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.2 1.6 16.4 33.5 19. she should be age 8 in Std 3.8 78.4 1.4 Not in Total School 2.3 27. 27 OUT OF 27 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.2 48.7 9.8 Pvt.5 22.1 1.6 0.3 58. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 52.8 5.9 22.1 6.2 4.0 20.1 33. 51.9 61.7 Other 0.9% in 2010 to 5.9 1.2 77. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.7 5. in Std III.5 48.5 100 10. 37.7 34.1% in 2009 to 5. etc.2 0.9 0.5 3. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 8% in 2006 to 6.6 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.8 5.5 8.Karnataka RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.5 1.0 20.4 1.0 37. For example.3 77.9 5.0 13 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.7 18.5 0.

1 18. 138 % Children ASER 2011 .3 3.7% can read Std 2 level text. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.7 19. 19.8 3.9 33.3 57. 24.3 20.0 23. For home languages.3 8.4 16.6 30.9 5.0 28. and 18.9% can read letters but not more. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.Karnataka Reading Std.8 8. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 80. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.3 2.4 37.1 6.8 72.4 65.1 6.1 9. 33% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.8% children cannot even read letters.0 23.3 Word 20.6% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 21. In sum. For example.0 37.7 32. for each class.9 19. 3.0 4.9 20.6 0.1 100.0 24.4 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.1 10.4 Letter 52.1 3. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.7 19.9 12.9 0.4 31. in Std III.5 17.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.8 2.2 44.0 8.5 15.6 2.9 14. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.

3 17.0 28.0 4.7 6.1 6.8 22.1 7.4 24.2 1.2 5.7 16.5 7.1 9.2 12.5 31.7 2009 2010 2011 20.8 3. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 21.4 15.7 9.7 IV 8.8% can do subtraction but not division.7 17.7 13.2 14.3 17.7% can do division.5 15. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.0 17.9 9.6 6.5 7.3 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 4.8 3.4 21.5 22.7 21.7 18.5 17.4 9.5 5. for each class.3 46.7 8.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction. 3.1 5. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.2 40.7 18.8 29.5 20.2 19.6 VIII 6.4 0.5 23. 46.7 26.5 13.8 6.1 7. In all 4 years.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.2 7.4 10. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.3 15.9 9.9 22.3 39.3 46.9 6. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.4 7.6 41.8 2.2 16.3 20.6 1.8 38.2 40.1 2.3 2.9 2.6 II 7.5 27.2 17.0 8.7 18. and 2.0 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 47. 17.9 17.6 16.6 10. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment. In sum.4 32.6 Total 8.0 7.7 V VI VII 8.3 9.6 31. 2009.0 47.4% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.2 16.8 32.9 12.9 14.6 26.4 21.0 1.0 17. For example. 2009.5 7.0 21. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 7. ASER 2011 % Children 139 .7 7.1 32.2 18.6 29. 29.6 14.9% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.8 III 9.4 8.2 7.1 Divide 1.5 7.0 5. in Std III.Karnataka Arithmetic Std.8 4.6 20.9 5.6 6.7 25. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.6 Note: In 2007.8 6.

1 42.6 2.0 79.6 100 2.5 31.0 0. 2009.0 81.9 92.5 78.5 85.1 15.1 84.7 89.6 97.2 81.5 5.7 43.0 0.4 43.8 98.8 3.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 94. 2009.0 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.1 84.5 1.1 67.3 49.4 66.6 94.2 19.0 16.5 64.0 4.7 88.0 91.3 1. Table 8: Total schools visited 2007. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.4 75.5 62.7 0.9 100 66.5 100 100 3.2 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 93.8 81. in each sampled village.5 22.1 Std I-VII/VIII 69.8 of visit Total 100 100 95.0 66.9 0.2 51.4 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 78.7 0.4 18.6 82. 2009.0 0.6 85.4 73.3 62.0 0. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 84.3 82.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 2.3 88. 140 ASER 2011 .8 52.5 1.6 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 10.3 70.3 90. 2009. the official government school policy is to have mixed groups in Std.9 Note: In Karnataka. 2010 and 2011.4 0. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.2 % Teachers present (average) 91.8 76.5 92.9 71.4 81.1 52.Karnataka School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007.0 0.6 0.7 90.6 70. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.7 8.6 94.2 1.1 15.4 29.9 85.9 2. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 168 582 750 133 625 758 113 656 769 106 675 781 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.9 88.1 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 1. 2009.1 87. I-III.

7 94.1 764 89. including whitewashing.0 13.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.2 81.1 22.7 3. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.) 30. and repair of toilets.7 4. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .0 26.6 16. New Classroom Repair of building (roof.4 1.6 753 74. of No Don’t Sch.0 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.3 60.5 35. wall etc. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.5 2.0 2. floor. 6.6 9.6 21.2 22.1 Don't know 2. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity. registers and other office equipment. of Sch.1 80.1 7. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.3 64.Rs. 4.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 728 92.3 1. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.0 2.6 2009-2010 % Schools No.5 7.8 71.4 637 83.4 Maintenance 658 85.9 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 723 94.3 10. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.6 1. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts.7 3.3 MONEY 1.7 5.7 33.4 4. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building. duster.9 1.1 10.7 1.0 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.3 62. Rs 7500 . cleaning etc.4 765 95. globes. Also for buying chalk.2 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.3 grant Development 700 83.5 1.2 grant 654 84.2 13. models etc.9 62.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.6 51. hand pump. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.3 27.0 6.6 46.2 654 89.2 THEIR 648 87.0 75.3 % schools No 67. such as charts.6 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.8 65.7 4. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.2 THEIR 664 94.1 1.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. sitting mats etc. playground etc.6 3.0 45.4 3. duster. of Sch.Karnataka RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .4 grant TLM grant 669 91. posters.4 47. For more information see www. register etc.0 3.7 761 75.1 7.in ASER 2011 141 .) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.7 1. % Schools No.5 44.2 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 651 82.3 18.1 2.0 1.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.9 1. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.2 2.4 MONEY 5.9 50.2 33.4 36.0 3.9 SSA school grants % Schools No. water.0 2.5000 per year per primary school Rs. of No Don’t Sch.3 2.1 35.9 771 95.3 37.2 54.2 7.7 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 2.accountabilityinitiative. boundary wall. beautification. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.0 53.6 4.4 19.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.0 752 70. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.3 62.5000 .8 1. know 1.1 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know 3.8 2.2 grant Development 631 75. know 3.

1 11.5 8. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.6 6.9 39.2 10.6 19.3 4.4 7.5 56 46 80 93 91 84 291 7.4 17.5 17.1 69.6 10. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.3 14.0 38.6 27.9 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 46.6 7.8 20.8 8.9 14.1 37.2 41. of % of No.0 741 100.0 0.5 15. % No.2 31.0 97.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.2 15.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only. During this school visit.2 10.1 11.8 66. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.3 11.1 22. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 746 100.9 142 ASER 2011 .9 6.Karnataka Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.9 25.2 59.0 14.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 9.9 44.1 18.0 774 100.8 13.6 7.8 97.3 92.4 27.0 75.1 95.8 5.0 49. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.8 28.8 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.0 35.2 74.3 11.8 57.8 18.3 689 100. magazines and books on all subjects.7 6.8 15. including story-books.8 136 81 91 64 109 293 17.6 64.7 8.5 23.0 17.0 30. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 133 86 64 55 111 297 17.6 56.9 32.8 90.8 95.5 11.2 41.7 19.1 9.0 No.6 12.6 11.8 11.0 21. 2010 2011 71.9 31.4 41.6 10.3 7.4 34.8 12.4 14. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.3 71.8 92.2 2.4 18.3 39. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 52 35 66 78 81 91 286 7.3 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 8.6 5.5 81. in each sampled village.8 94.5 41.

38.5 63.4 52.8 1.5% who are 9 years old.9 38.4 Not in Total School 0.4 2.7 2.1 45.1 1.7 45.8 1.4 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.1 61.6 13.1 61. For example.8 15.1 0.3 63.0 37.4 19. 63.1 0. 60.8 3.1 0.5 19.3 0.3 1.4 12.3% who are 7.5 0. she should be age 8 in Std 3.3 63. etc.7 40.1 52.2% in 2009 to 0.0 58.5 1.7 68.9 0.4 62.3 Pvt.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.1 61.4 1.2 17.8 0. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 15.4 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 13.1 12.4 26.8 59.1 0.3 1.5 1.4 11. 2009 & 2011 26. 18.6 19.4 3.7 0.0 61.Kerala RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.7 67.6 0. in Std III.1 0.7 53.1 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.1 2.0 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.1% in 2010 to 0.4 14.4 62.0 17.9 11. This table shows the age distribution for each class.2 59.2 59.9 13 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 18.1 0.5 0.9% in 2006 to 0.1 46.3 Other 0.5 12.3 17.1 40.2% in 2008 to 0. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.7 45.4 1.8 0. 14 OUT OF 14 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.1% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.2 1.3 0.4 40. How to read this chart: For example.8 0.1% children are 8 years old but there are also 14.0 37.0 59.8 2.7 1.8 2. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.1 18.0 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 143 .4 17.1 40.3 0.4% in 2007 to 0. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 3.

4 17.7 3.9 23. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.4 1.5 65. For home languages. and 45.4 0.3 33.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. In sum.1 0.6% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text. 21.4 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 45.3 14. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 98.0 23. 0. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.3 15. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.6 19.7% can read letters but not more.5 100. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.0 23.8 90.3 9.0 13. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 3.1 17. in Std III.8 5.5 1.3 1.1 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 7.1 45.5 11.8 6.7% children cannot even read letters. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.7 0.5 0. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.4 1. For example.5% can read Std 2 level text. for each class.7 2.9 8.2 1.3 0.4 0.9 3.2 0.8 1.Kerala Reading Std. 8.9 80.1 73. 23.9 21.9 4.0 85.3 7.5% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.9 8.1 60. 144 % Children ASER 2011 .0 Letter 38.

9 24.4 37.6 Subtract 6.7 32.8 33.2 40.9% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.4 33. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.2 46. 44.1 28.6 58. In all 4 years.7 44.2 49.0 39.1 0. 2009.3 23.6 33.6 23.1 7.4 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 33.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.8 0.9 2.2 35.2 35.7 32.1 40. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.8 41.0 42.4 24.0 1.2 73.3 48.2 35.6 44.5 43.1 41.8 1.4 32.3 62. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.9 0.8 26.6 35. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 4.6 1.8 35.8 30. ASER 2011 % Children 145 .6 42.8 34.7 45.3 39. 40.4 35. In sum.4 41.9 21.7% can do division.2 34.7 1.6 31.7% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.9 39.7 33.3 3.4 14.5 0.5 25.3 29.8 39.5 0.1 42.7 17.9 33. 1.1 36.0 44.9 18.6 33.5% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.7 2.7 11.6 39.1 28.1 29.9 31.3 33.8 54.2 6.9 27.8 Divide 1. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.3% can do subtraction but not division.5 28.3 43.8 5.9 40.2 40.9 6.8 1.2 38.5 33.1 44.Kerala Arithmetic Std. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 36.3 39.7 30. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.3 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007. and 7.6 36. 2009. 5. for each class.3 40. in Std III.6 43.7 21.4 20.9 19.4 35.1 31.6 47.5 24. For example.8 42.7 36.0 39.1 11.0 36.3 41.2 32.6 44. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.7 32.6 26.6 1. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.0 43.

one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.0 0.1 100 100 24.7 96.3 6. 2009.5 2.9 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.6 1. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.6 0.9 97.0 1.6 7.6 95.9 2.7 6.4 54.2 90. in each sampled village.2 68.0 47.0 3.0 50.0 1.8 91.3 of visit Total 100 100 11.7 146 ASER 2011 . 2009. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.8 % Teachers present (average) 90.3 3. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 4.1 91.8 39.5 Computers but no children using them on 18.2 9.6 0.5 52.3 58.9 93. 2010 and 2011.7 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.0 0.3 1.2 day of visit Computers & children using them on day 56.0 2.0 0.Kerala RURAL As part of ASER 2007.7 21.7 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 3.5 78.8 0. 2009.1 94.5 91.7 92.9 4. 2009. 2009.7 92.1 94.6 90.3 84.0 0.1 6.1 6.4 8.0 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 94.9 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 4.2 98.0 0.0 0. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 90.0 93.8 26.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 5.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 46.0 92.6 3.5 97.9 91.9 7.3 2.9 96.0 0.6 71.3 15.0 of visit Total 100 100 97. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 127 64 191 178 78 256 176 99 275 177 151 328 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.8 87.2 87.0 91.9 1.1 Std I-VII/VIII 3.4 5.6 97. School observations Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.0 0.2 92.

New Classroom Repair of building (roof.) 20. wall etc.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.1MONEY 0.9 16. know 7.0 55.3 5.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 4.6 2. duster. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.7 2. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.in ASER 2011 147 .9 86.3 43.7 71. playground etc.0 0.3 grant 303 79.5 299 89.7 3.5 3.6 1.1 301 82. cleaning etc. such as charts.3 2.2 15. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5 92. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.1 91.5 43. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs. of No Don’t Sch.3 12.7 2.7 82.9 0.4 91. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.6 42.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 226 89. 89. Rs 7500 .6 2. globes.0 2.0 3. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.6 2.1 6.8 0. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.4 54.1 THEIR 222 99.3 32.3 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.7 3. Also for buying chalk.9 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 183 90.2 2.7 grant TLM grant 94.1 6.7 40.Rs. boundary wall.5 0. posters.9 2.2 275 72.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. registers and other office equipment.8 grant Development 213 88. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.4 1. % Schools No.0 56. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.0 2.2 30.1 4.1 8.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.9 202 188 Maintenance 175 82.7 % schools No 79.1 67.6MONEY 2.6 grant Development 160 76.0 65. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.7 5.3 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 234 97.0 30.5 4.0 66.9 7. 5. models etc.7 323 95. hand pump. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.1 8.6 25. of No Don’t Sch. of Sch.7 1. know 1.8 6. of Sch.1 SSA school grants % Schools No.7 2.6 3. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.7 73. including whitewashing.4 15.4 53.7 25.3 0.9 55.8 THEIR 204 96.1 74.accountabilityinitiative.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.2 11.0 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.5000 per year per primary school Rs.6 6. water.7 1.6 53.3 44. duster.6 24.7 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. floor.7 218 195 2009-2010 % Schools No.Kerala RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .6 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. and repair of toilets. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .6 0. beautification. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.3 41.0 22.3 1. For more information see www.3 2.3 Don't know 0. register etc.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.5000 .5 323 96.5 16. sitting mats etc.1 2.1 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know 4.

7 15.4 70.2 61.5 10.0 18. 2010 2011 88. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.5 20.6 98.8 86.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.7 13.3 62.0 0.6 0. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.6 11.3 22.2 13.4 42.7 15.1 43.3 12.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.4 58.0 18. magazines and books on all subjects.9 20.9 1.7 0. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.4 78.1 16.0 4.1 239 100.1 71.6 94.0 62. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.7 10.4 No.3 15.8 0.3 12.8 0.7 85. including story-books. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.8 35.7 6.2 36.1 90.7 23.5 98.3 76.9 3 2 40 36 24 18 178 1.6 12.2 13.7 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 0.1 2.9 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.6 15. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 53 31 34 15 40 94 19. in each sampled village.0 301 100. During this school visit.2 19.9 4.2 11.7 0.0 0.Kerala RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.0 10. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 0 2 34 31 18 18 136 0.7 Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 0.5 7.8 96.8 98.3 28.1 97.5 24.8 14.8 22.0 6.0 322 100. % No.0 1.0 12.8 100.4 41.0 1.2 5.7 27.0 7.0 16.0 8.4 93.0 100.2 68 36 44 20 36 118 21.0 148 ASER 2011 .9 8.8 0.0 35.6 5.9 68.5 56.5 19. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 267 100. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.7 82.1 11.0 0. of % of No. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.7 5.9 11.0 59.

esh Madhya Prad Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland .

ASER 2011 .

6 15.4 15.3 73.1 25.3 0. she should be age 8 in Std 3.0 5.7 11.4 16.5% children are 8 years old but there are also 14.4 14.3 6.1 85.0 79.1 18.2 1.3% in 2006 to 5% in 2007 to 3.2 13.5 1.5% in 2008 to 3.6 8.5 38.9 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.6 11.3 71.1 41.4 Pvt.5 1.4 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 151 .5 78.7 100 32. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 29. 79.5 8.Madhya Pradesh Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.1 14. in Std III.1 1.0 8.8 5.2 7.3 12.9% in 2009 to 3.6 5.9 100 100 RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.4 4.0 81.1 3.2 72.7 11.0 0.1 6.9 31.2 4.7 30.3 0.2 31. This table shows the age distribution for each class.3% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.5 10.1 Not in Total School 2. For example. 20.5 20.3 1. 9.1 20.2 8.0 1.7 1.3% in 2010 to 3.2 14.1 2.6 40. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 7.3 18.2 22. How to read this chart: For example. 17.2 16.3 2.9 5.4 0. 43.3 2.6 6.4 13.7 45.8% who are 7.2 4. etc.8 33.8 13.6 13 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 6. 43 OUT OF 45 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.2 18.8 68.1 0.5 3.5 31.3 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 18.7 79.0 9.9 0.5 39.1 77.5 81.2 0.8 10.2 20. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.6 Other 0.8 43. 2009 & 2011 % Children 100 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.9 1.0 5.3 6.7 10.3% who are 9.7 11.3 13.0 31.9 5.2 3. 2009 & 2011 19.7% who are 10 years old.7 6. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8.9 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.9 26.

Madhya Pradesh Reading Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std.8 19.7 2.4% can read Std 2 level text.4 11.3 24.7% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.7 3.0 53. for each class. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 45.7 21. 33.6 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 2.3 15.7 17.3 100.4 9.7% children cannot even read letters. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.6 12.3 23.5 5.6 26.6 12.3 41.5 13.3 1.3 32.0 8. For home languages.7 33. 152 % Children ASER 2011 .8 Letter 39. and 11.9 7.5 15. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.4 5. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language. For example. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.8 24. 12. 15.4 16.7 7.8 2.1 2.3% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.4 24.9 6. In sum.0 5. in Std III.2 61. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.3 17.1 Word 10.4 38. 26.8 71. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 96.3 23.1 21.7 15.7 19.0 11. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.6 17.8% can read letters but not more.

2 10.4 12.6% can do subtraction but not division.7 8.9 31.9 11.8 11.4 4. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.2 16.2 25.0 40.7 6.3 14.8 8.3 25. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.4 16.9 29.1 5.9 16.7 13.5 15.0 14.6 IV 5.7 27.9 29.5 7. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.3 26. In all 4 years. for each class. and 3.4 10.0 25. 2009.3 16.8 11.7 23.0 26.7 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.6 33. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 3.9 19.0 19.1 29.6 V VI VII VIII Total 6.6 15. 13. In sum.1 6.9 III 5.2 10.1 II 4.6 7.8 4. 11.8 3. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.6 5.8 13.8 24.7 11.4 8.0 21.1 17.5 19.5% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.9% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.1 Subtract 1.3 28.9 8.0 7. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.6 9.1 8.2 6.8 23.Madhya Pradesh Arithmetic Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std.4 3.6 9.3 35. For example.0 2.3 47.8 17.5 32.6 30.3 45.6 21.7 7. ASER 2011 % Children 153 .5 20.7 12.6 26.6% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.5 5.8 13. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.9 19.2 8.8 2.0 4.7 27.1 1.8 4. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 47.7 21.5 21.9 10.5 17.8 6.0 20.1 4.0 12. 2009.8 21.4 27.1 16.5% can do division.1 27.3 11.1 24.1 13.0 7. 40.0 21.1 19.1 6.9 34.5 33.0 Divide 1.8 23.7 30. in Std III.0 6.9 17. 30.9 16.2 12.5 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 41.8 2.6 3.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.

3 61.4 154 ASER 2011 .5 10. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. 2009.7 19.7 61.6 30.0 68.2 68.0 68.5 15.1 33.6 63.8 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 91. School observations Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.5 64.9 % Teachers present 91.3 34.9 11.7 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 14.4 6.9 51.3 71.5 36. 2009. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 72.4 3.4 48.7 1. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 67.9 71.Madhya Pradesh Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.5 85.5 62.7 of visit Total 100 100 11.7 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 95.6 14. 2009.8 5.5 1.6 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 0. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 921 334 1255 936 293 709 510 843 352 1229 1219 1195 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.5 89.7 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.8 53.8 8.7 4.5 Headteacher appointed but not present at 7.9 88.4 67.0 10.1 76.3 92.9 66.3 59.2 100 0.4 49.0 0.8 66.9 76.7 88.3 80.2 0.5 87.2 95.8 72.1 100 89.0 0.0 76.9 59.0 65.9 80. in each sampled village.6 50.6 100 3.1 82.5 87.7 Std I-VII/VIII 63.0 86.9 13.9 54.9 37.4 52.5 87.0 0.3 38.3 0. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.5 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0. RURAL As part of ASER 2007.9 15.5 0. 2009. 2010 and 2011.8 30.0 2. 2009.9 69.6 50.1 100 3.0 0.2 19.

9 % schools No 76. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. of Sch.4 1044 grant Development 862 30. duster. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. of No Don’t Sch.5 17.1 46.8 4. playground etc.1 48.1 56. of Sch.2 THEIR 1071 87.8 44.6 1118 grant Development 1031 50.7 16.0 3.4 13.8 61.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.1 5.5000 .7 14.1 1016 38. Rs 7500 . posters. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.7 26.6 50. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.3 11.7 10. sitting mats etc.accountabilityinitiative.9 MONEY 24. of No Don’t Sch.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.3 4.7 9. Maintenance 919 39.3 77. New Classroom Repair of building (roof. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.9 29. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.9 2.7 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.5 12.5 69.0 79.1 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 1126 82.3 4. For more information see www. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.3 51.1 35.9 1049 77.8 3. floor.Rs.6 44.1 10. duster. hand pump. and repair of toilets.5 10.6 2.9MONEY 5.2 22.7 7.1 4.9 51.0 8.4 21.0 13. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.0 1040 56.0 15.5 SSA school grants % Schools No. % Schools No.2 10. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.6 41.3 24. know 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 1111 67.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. globes. beautification.2 10.2 65.2 18. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts.1 15. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.8 60.in ASER 2011 155 .3 4.4 74.3 6.9 3. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.3 37.0 22. cleaning etc.8 68.5 89.5 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.6 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.6 10.5000 per year per primary school Rs. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . water.5 31. models etc. such as charts.7 11.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.1 26.6 998 51.0 74.1 THEIR 1012 60. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.7 65.0 19. Also for buying chalk.3 21.7 5.0 1077 grant TLM grant 77.2 30.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.1 16.7 37.9 1001 grant GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 925 52.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.5 28.7 1101 84. register etc.2 2.0 3. wall etc.Madhya Pradesh School funds and activities (PAISA) RURAL Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .6 1104 77.7 75.) 18. boundary wall.7 3. including whitewashing.5 6. registers and other office equipment.7 41. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know 46.0 82.8 65.7 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.1 32.4 Don't know 4.5 12.3 8.1 3.

1 68. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.9 84.Madhya Pradesh Right to Education indicators Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.9 83.0 37.5 5.5 As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.0 18.2 26.1 46.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.2 11.8 RURAL Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 59.2 41.2 9.2 16.7 23.3 12.1 156 ASER 2011 .3 87. of % of No.3 24.7 64.2 31. in each sampled village.3 29.1 89.6 176 190 192 155 168 291 15.9 13. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. including story-books.8 20.3 50. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 126 144 161 154 218 406 10.0 1.9 31.8 8.8 8.1 11.0 1107 100. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.1 78.0 33.5 78.2 28. % No.4 13.9 81.7 10.7 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 83.8 6.6 25.0 1172 100.6 23.4 8.4 82.3 12.7 35.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. During this school visit.4 61.7 220 261 210 134 89 53 84 20.9 54.6 71.3 55.1 60.8 73.0 1051 100.6 15. magazines and books on all subjects.7 27.4 11. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 185 258 190 130 113 101 130 16.4 82.1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 5.8 28.6 24.0 86.6 37.9 24.2 28. 1209 100.8 50.1 19.0 12.5 86.3 77.4 18.2 80.2 46.9 84.0 29.8 94.7 18.8 78.9 43.0 87. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.0 8.9 30.4 13.3 29.0 43.5 20. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.7 92.3 43.5 11.0 16.2 14.0 No.3 17. 2010 2011 69.3 27.0 48.

6 1. 31 OUT OF 33 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.3 0.8 5.6 2.2 59.4 13.3 38.5 0.4 0.4 54.5 0.2 32.6 4.5 0.1 13.5 1.0 7.9% children are 8 years old but there are also 4.1 37. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 59. This table shows the age distribution for each class.3 70.0 33.2 7.7 1.3 31.2 0.8 0. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.3 35.8 8.9 30.4 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.7% in 2010 to 1.5 10. 30.2 48. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 6.6 11.1 48.4 Pvt.9 54.0 69.7 4.6 84.5 49.2 14. 68. etc.3 0.7 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.7 49.7 13 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1. How to read this chart: For example.0 4.4 0.1 54.7 19.1 26. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4.Maharashtra RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.0 25.2% who are 10 years old.6 68.6 5.9 6. 2009 & 2011 8.6 4. 54.3 1.0 12.5 0. 6. in Std III.7 0.7% who are 7 years old or younger.2 2.3 7.1 51.9 23. For example.9 30. 32.8 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 157 .4 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 31.8 48.6 56.8 2.1% in 2006 to 3% in 2007 to 2.0 48.7 100 7.7 86.0 0.8% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.7 Other 0.0 70.4 50.6 Not in Total School 1.0 2.3 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.6 5.4% who are 9. she should be age 8 in Std 3.7 8.4 1.6% in 2008 to 2% in 2009 to 1.7 0. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.7 49.5 85.7 5.7 4.3 0.9 54.6 0.7 2.3 3.1 6.6 6.3 0.1 1.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 86.4% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.7 0.6 63. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.9 13.9 11.9 0. For home languages.Maharashtra Reading Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.9 48.5 0. For example.4 8.5 RURAL Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 6. 2. 158 % Children ASER 2011 .0 2.6 85.2 2. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.2 47.4 2.8 26.5 2.8% can read letters but not more.4 33.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.8 81.1 15.7 42. 37.4 3. 22.3 22.9 100.1 10. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 13.8 0.0 7. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.0 3.1 13.1 0.6 21.5 Word 29.2% can read Std 2 level text.5 24.2 5. in Std III.9 10.1 4.9 How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.0 3.6 37. 10.9 1. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.3 1.8 21.2 22. and 26.1 13. for each class.7% children cannot even read letters.5 73.0 Letter 48.8 18.8 5. In sum.

0 15.7 15.3 6.2 37.6 32. 2009.2 7.2% can do subtraction but not division.3 1.8 25.3 30.0 4.7 5.0 9.2 8.0 3.6 23.7 11.2 13.3 3.3 28.5 15.8 30.1 4.7 15.3 5. for each class. In sum.9 11.0 7.9 44.6 V VI VII VIII Total 5.6 16.4% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.4 12. 43.1 6.4 9.7 17.0% can do division.5 45.7 6.3 2.6 43.7 Subtract 2.8 11.9 II 4.9 0.2 11.7 18.3 13.2 11.3 26.1 10. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.2 43.2 18.9 24.7 16.7 17. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment. For example.5 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Divide 1.6 2. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.9 23.9 10.5 13.8 7.9 14.2 24.2 6.1 4.4 21.0 0.3 61. 18. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.7 9.0 7. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 12.7 15.1 23.5 4.4 5.3 20.5 8.2 0.5 3.6 17. In all 4 years.4 19. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 3.6 27.9 15.8 13.7 14.2 12.9 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 65.3 III 4. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.2% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.Maharashtra Arithmetic Std. in Std III.7 7.1 9. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.9 11.2 26.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.2 24.1 32.4 2.0 17. and 4.6 24. ASER 2011 % Children 159 . 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.2 31.2 35.0 15.0 52.1 22.8 12.6 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.3 22.0 10.9 1. 2.3 7.9 IV 5.1 1.5 12.3 7.2 12.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction. 2009.3 7.8 7. 32.4 28.5 32.9 13.6 5.2 39.

5 0. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 91. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 49.8 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 1.6 27.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 2.7 93.6 45.7 22.9 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 92.0 0.4 27.6 92.0 1.8 89.Maharashtra School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007.7 91.1 of visit Total 100 100 91.2 1.8 90.7 day of visit Computers & children using them on day 11.3 96.9 93.7 94. 2009.1 84.7 91.7 66.3 92.0 0. 2009. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.8 92.8 80. in each sampled village.0 0.7 22.8 6.0 % Teachers present 94.5 5.2 0.6 100 100 81.0 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 0.7 89. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 488 411 899 485 450 935 435 467 902 408 421 829 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.3 97.5 46.3 26. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.6 71.8 0.8 91.9 41.0 160 ASER 2011 .3 61.0 of visit Total 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.7 80.7 34.0 1.8 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 52.9 63.2 1.2 0.6 5.3 93.9 20.0 0.3 36.8 Std I-VII/VIII 26.1 30. 2009.0 0.5 41.9 1.8 89.1 94.7 42.8 89.5 83.5 46.7 90.6 73.0 0. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.7 5. 2009. Table 8: Total schools visited 2007. 2010 and 2011.5 27.4 90.9 9.6 92.8 47.7 94.3 Computers but no children using them on 6.2 46.6 100 100 4.3 10.5 89.4 90.4 1. 2009.9 47.

Maharashtra

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)
Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Don’t Sch. know 3.0 3.0 772 747 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Don’t Sch. know 5.4 6.2 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 3.2 4.4 6.2 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 868 93.9 3.1 grant Development 778 80.3 16.7 grant TLM grant

92.1 2.5 89.6 4.3

777 92.4

753 76.1 17.7

DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 896 97.9 0.8 1.3 THEIR 770 95.2MONEY 1.2 3.6 765 93.5 2.9 3.7
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. 7.5 7.4 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know

SSA school grants

% Schools No. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. 82.0 14.3 3.7 73.5 23.0 3.5

Maintenance 789 grant Development 712 grant

733 65.4 27.2 715 64.1 28.5

734 65.7 29.3 5.0 707 57.6 37.1 5.4

GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 806 88.1 9.6 2.4 THEIR 735 69.4MONEY 24.8 5.9 719 66.3 29.4 4.3
Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const. New Classroom Repair of building (roof, floor, wall etc.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk, duster, register etc. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts, globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity, water, cleaning etc.) 21.7 50.3 54.0 23.6 53.2 52.2 66.1 75.6 58.4 35.7 43.0 92.9 54.8 78.6 69.3 39.7 % schools No 76.1 47.4 44.3 74.1 44.5 45.9 31.9 22.7 39.5 62.4 54.1 5.7 42.5 19.5 26.7 54.8 Don't know 2.2 2.2 1.7 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.1 2.0 2.9 1.4 2.8 2.0 4.0 5.5
1

Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

For more information see www.accountabilityinitiative.in

ASER 2011

161

Maharashtra
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 148 91 83 99 146 319 16.7 10.3 9.4 11.2 16.5 36.0 170 86 78 91 145 241 21.0 10.6 9.6 11.2 17.9 29.7

RURAL

Right to Education indicators
Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 41.4 39.3 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 45.8 44.9 47.7 41.8 36.4 41.2 36.5 41.3 50.6 22.3 36.9 37.1 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

886 100.0

811 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 6.2 14.1 4.9 10.3 26.8 14.9 12.4 10.0 12.3 15.0 30.0 29.4 22.2 18.2

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 65 111 74 93 72 110 273 8.2 13.9 9.3 11.7 9.0 13.8 34.2 72 118 69 68 74 110 221 9.8 16.1 9.4 9.3 10.1 15.0 30.2

798 100.0

732 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 34.2 85.0 57.6 18.7 12.3 69.0 2.9 44.1 53.0 13.7 32.3 10.8 43.2 97.2 94.7 14.0 19.6 66.5 78.3 90.7 33.4 82.5 58.2 16.7 10.2 73.1 3.1 52.1 44.9 9.0 34.4 14.1 42.6 96.4 95.9 16.2 29.5 54.3 74.9 95.8

162

ASER 2011

Manipur

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 8 OUT OF 9 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children
Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 27.7 26.9 29.5 29.4 29.6 24.8 25.3 24.2 23.3 21.0 25.6 Pvt. 71.1 71.0 69.7 69.8 69.7 73.5 73.1 74.0 67.6 67.1 68.0 Other 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.2 Not in Total School 1.1 2.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.6 1.4 1.7 8.7 11.3 6.2 100 100
% Children

Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 5.9% in 2006 to 7.1% in 2007 to 4.6% in 2008 to 2.3% in 2009 to 3.3% in 2010 to 1.7% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total
100 5.4 5.8 6.3 3.4 7.1 7.4 8.1 2.2 6.2 8.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 6.4 100

17.0 38.5 21.8 14.4 3.3 11.3 25.9 31.3 13.9 4.2 5.4 5.6 4.1 8.7 3.4 8.9

8.3

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

11.0 31.1 19.0 19.3

8.6 25.5 30.1 11.9 11.4 6.7 34.3 19.2 14.4 10.3 11.8 20.4 31.2 18.3

37.5 29.8 16.0

11.4 31.4 31.1 16.3

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 31.1% children are 8 years old but there are also 11.0% who are 7, 19.0 % who are 9, 19.3% who are 10 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school
Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 7.0 1.6 52.0 26.5 12.3 22.8
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

27.8 48.4

0.0 0.0

0.9 0.9

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

163

Manipur
Reading
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 4.0 1.8 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.2 1.3 Letter 46.7 16.8 8.1 7.8 4.9 3.1 2.0 0.4 13.1 Word 33.2 43.3 24.1 14.1 8.4 4.8 3.6 1.1 18.7

RURAL

Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 8.6 21.3 31.4 26.2 15.2 13.4 7.8 8.1 17.3 7.4 16.8 35.6 51.1 71.3 78.1 85.9 90.1 49.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Reading Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 0.8% children cannot even read letters, 8.1% can read letters but not more, 24.1% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 31.4% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 35.6% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Note: This tool was also available in Metei Mayek and Manipuri.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language
Table 5: School language and home language

%Children who took the reading test in:

%

% Children

Of the % Children who tested in: Manipuri Tangkhul 53.8 15.0

% Children whose home language was: Kuki 7.0 Hmar 4.3 Kabui 2.9 Paite 2.9 Anal 1.9 Other * 12.2 Total 100

English Manipuri Total

98.0 2.0 100.0

English

* 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above. Data for home language of children tested in Manipuri has not been reported here due to small cell sizes.

Note: In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. In Manipur, where the medium of instruction in government schools is English or Manipuri, children were given the choice of reading in English, Manipuri or Meitei Mayek. Figures of Meitei Mayek have not been included due to insufficient data. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

164

ASER 2011

Manipur
Arithmetic
Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 5.2 2.0 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.2 1.5

RURAL

Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 33.1 10.3 4.6 3.4 2.3 1.2 0.5 0.6 8.3 53.3 57.8 38.8 20.8 9.7 6.9 6.1 3.2 27.7 Subtract 7.1 24.7 39.5 45.5 38.2 28.5 17.0 14.1 27.5 Divide 1.4 5.2 16.4 29.3 49.6 62.9 75.7 81.9 35.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Math Tool

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 0.8% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9, 4.6% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more, 38.8% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction, 39.5% can do subtraction but not division, and 16.4% can do division. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011

Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Tuition
Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 22.3 54.0 18.2 48.5 15.0 49.9 15.1 48.8

17.2 18.0 19.5 26.0 24.1 26.6 28.9 35.3 43.6 52.4 53.1 53.7 58.6 53.5 59.2 59.9 12.0 18.8 16.0 17.1 17.6 21.6 15.2 29.7 42.4 46.0 49.5 50.7 45.7 49.9 51.8 55.2 9.9 13.2 11.3 14.7 16.9 16.4 15.4 27.6 38.9 41.3 49.2 51.9 48.6 52.9 59.3 61.7 11.0 15.3 13.2 12.5 13.6 23.2 20.8 19.8 43.0 43.3 43.7 51.3 52.4 50.4 52.6 57.2

2009 2010 2011

Note: In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. In all 4 years, the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore, these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents, siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.

ASER 2011

% Children

165

3 0.8 75.7 74.3 42.0 27. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 76.1 27.9 44.8 78.7 166 ASER 2011 .2 42. 2009.1 38.5 0.7 0.0 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 13.2 100 2.9 28. 2009.3 80.0 14.0 36.2 63.6 21.0 15.7 35.1 17.2 82.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 97.8 20. Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.1 72.0 100 70.9 14.2 26. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 111 36 147 107 35 142 97 28 125 99 34 133 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.3 56.0 of visit Total 100 100 31.6 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.2 47.0 5.0 62. 2009.3 85.0 3.7 50.9 0.6 11.7 11.0 20.0 0.1 17.0 68.6 37. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 22.1 3.1 100 2.0 0.9 70.1 3.8 73.6 28.8 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 7.4 71. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.2 30.0 66.7 26.4 81. 2010 and 2011.7 100 6. 2009.9 12.6 16.1 0.Manipur School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007.0 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.4 84.0 0.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 28.8 Std I-VII/VIII 22.1 52.5 80.5 40. in each sampled village.8 97.0 64.0 1. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.5 76.8 % Teachers present 90.7 28. 2009.7 13.7 71.0 0.0 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 69.8 25.0 2. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.4 15.0 79.7 8.

2 96.6 18. of Sch. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti 96.7 10.5 117 55.0 0.9 123 68.0 0.1 96 9. hand pump.0 0. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.0 0.0 100.0 25. Rs 7500 .Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.0 1.8 96.7 51.6 19.Manipur RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .Rs.7 22.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.3 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.4 25. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.0 49.9 107 66. cleaning etc.5 50.4 57.0 0.6 34.0 0.0 1. duster. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.3 4.9 1.3 33.4 2. register etc.accountabilityinitiative.8 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 125 74.5 98.8 97.) 100. globes. such as charts. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.6 0.5 97 21.0 % schools No 1.6 2.6 14. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.6 26.0 0.0 0.0 94 9.0 1. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.0 0.6 55.8 22.1 1. 34. boundary wall. registers and other office equipment.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.in ASER 2011 167 .9 98.8 22.3 THEIR 95 24. % Schools No.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 123 grant Development 112 grant TLM grant 65.0 0. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.2 Maintenance 106 grant Development 99 grant 98 24. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.0 100.6 21. floor.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.5000 .6MONEY 7.4 107 56.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.6 1.0 120 66.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. New Classroom Repair of building (roof. Purchase of charts. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. playground etc. posters.3 9. of No Don’t Sch.2 55. water.1 0.3 97.0 0. of Sch.1 17.7 94.1 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 105 37.4 10. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012. Also for buying chalk.0 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. including whitewashing.0 100.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.0 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. models etc.4 98.8 97 11. wall etc.6 0.0 0.3 35.7 24.7 2.2 0.5000 per year per primary school Rs. globes & other teaching material 100.0 23.3 23. of No Don’t Sch.0 34.6 0.0 0. sitting mats etc.0 0.6 1. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.8 49. and repair of toilets. know 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants % Schools No.1 48.0 98. duster.3 54.6 1. know 2009-2010 % Schools No.0 0.0 Don't know 1.2MONEY 53.6 2.0 For more information see www.9 98. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .1 15.9 28.1 50. beautification.0 Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.0 THEIR 106 73.

0 7.4 8.7 33. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 2010 2011 School No.8 16.8 10.4 5.6 10.0 18.0 83.3 16.5 44. of % of No.0 128 100.1 84.8 66.0 11.3 11.8 3.3 37. magazines and books on all subjects.4 90. During this school visit.0 37.7 5.7 7.5 20.7 38.6 No.7 9.0 122 100.3 75.5 20.0 0.3 5.6 43.9 5.3 81.0 120 100.0 40.0 5.0 25. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.1 21.0 42.7 5.0 58.5 40.3 23.4 48.4 6. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 43 22 22 15 11 9 35.9 10.0 110 100.2 47.9 30.3 6.4 38.2 33.2 78.9 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.1 64.1 72.9 59.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.4 56 21 23 13 6 9 43.1 15.5 1.1 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 20. 2010 2011 68.3 33.3 9. in each sampled village. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.2 4.9 10.0 9.0 20.7 6. % No.6 92.9 29.4 31.6 35.4 18. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.2 64.4 41.8 7.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 22.3 16.0 6 7 13 9 25 12 48 5.0 10. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.7 68.0 12.1 0.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.9 21.8 168 ASER 2011 .7 10.3 18. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 3 12 12 15 23 12 33 2. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. including story-books.6 20.4 25.9 14.0 50.0 75.8 10.9 13.5 4.4 87.Manipur Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 0.7 8.

7 11.1 29.4 7.8% in 2010 to 4.7 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 13.9 7.3 1.9 17.9 16.5 5.6 8.2 4.2 21.5 21. etc.9 7.3 1.8 16.7 19. 38.6 38.7 16.0 59. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 5.7 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 169 . she should be age 8 in Std 3.1% who are 9.2 53.7 35.7 19. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.9 31.9 10.8 4.8 11.0 17.1 17.5 20.0 5.3 38.7 39.3 11. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 9.5 15 16 Total 100 100 8.7 17.0 38.1 6.4 7.7 Pvt.6 7.5 27.4% in 2007 to 2.4 25.2 100 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.6 12 13 14 8.9% who are 7 years old or younger.7 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.3 1.5 51.7% in 2008 to 4.4 1.1 100 19.3 4.1 4.1 1.4 0.0 9.5 15.3 18.1 10.1 10.3 12.7 0.0 51. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.7 35.9 12.0 31. 2009 & 2011 44.8 12. This table shows the age distribution for each class.2 1.0% who are 10 years old.0 100 7. For example.0 4.0 13.8 42.1 30.4% in 2006 to 6.4 13. 54. 6 OUT OF 7 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.1 7.3 52.0 Not in Total School 5.8 9.7% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.8 20.0 58. 13.6 Other 1.4% in 2009 to 6.1 45.6 37.7 1. 19.8 8.4 1.7 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.4 4.0 22.6 19.9 21. in Std III.9 8.3 1.2 100 7.4 100 4.4 21.7 24.1 2.2 15.Meghalaya RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.1 20.0 14.8 17.5 0.5 5.6% children are 8 years old but there are also 5.4 4.9 4.8 36.3 100 11. How to read this chart: For example.1 39.6 48. 18.1 7.1 18.4 55. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.1 48.7 10.

5 26.5 16.2 8.4 Total 100 100 Of Children whose school language was Garo or Khasi: % Children whose : % % Children who took the reading test in: % Children % Of the % Children who tested in: Home language is the same as school language 51.2 27.4 Maram 9.9 83.3% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher. In sum.3 100 Garo / Khasi English 31.4 2. For home languages.3 24.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.3 100 Garo / Khasi English Total * 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 17.0 71.4 53.5 56. and 27. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language. Note: In ASER 2011 for every state.Meghalaya Reading Std.2 4.8 39. 7. where the medium of instruction in government schools is Garo.3 Word 36.7 47.8 4.2 33.5 9.2 4.2 38.7 4.2% can read letters but not more. 38. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.5 24. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. 6.2 5.7% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose home language was: Garo 52. for each class. 20. Figures for Garo and Khasi have been combined.2 17.2 23.5 18.7 7. in Std III.1 27.2 13.8 4.2 13.4 5.1 Letter 33.9 Other * 37.7 Home language is different from school language Total 48. children were given the choice of reading in any one of these languages.5% can read Std 2 level text.2% children cannot even read letters.6 20.5 36.6 51.7 29. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. Note: This tool was also available in Garo and English.2 4.2 6.9 14.9 10.4 3.7 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 8. In Meghalaya.5 2. Khasi or English.1 4.3 Khasi 21.2 2.2 6.4 6.0 19. 170 ASER 2011 . For example. This included 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.0 18.

8 14.8 21.9 15.6 V VI VII VIII Total 5. 20.5% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.0 21.5 38. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.8 23.3 IV 3.2 7.3 20.6% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.2 26.7 28.5 5.8 39. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.6 14.4 1. 6.5% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.5 6. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 2.1 4.6 19.7 26.4 32.5 10.8 22. For example.9 24.5 18.9 11.7 4.0 16.0 23.6 27.8 22.4 13.7 6.6 27.7 III 4.7 42.1 64.2 22.3 10.4 23.3 35.1 9.7 47.5 19.1 28.7 19.9 5. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.3 28.7 7.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.5 7.9 37.9 31.0 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 43.2 9. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.7 11.2 14.8 4.3 20.1 20.9 7.6 7. 2009. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 13.8 28.4 32.5 36.8 18.8 29. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.1 4. 41.6 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007. 28. 2009.2 13.4 6.8 Divide 0.7 21. in Std III.3 34.4 20.8 14. ASER 2011 % Children 171 .6 3.7 41.6 10. and 3.0 II 5.Meghalaya Arithmetic Std.4% can do subtraction but not division.7 18.0 23.9 10.4 33.7 8.1 22. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.3 22. In all 4 years.0 25.0 25.8 22.3 19.7 4.3 9.2 16.9 10. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.8 11.0 9. In sum.1% can do division.9 20.1 21.9 13.4 20.4 14.0 47.7 29.7 7.9 12.4 2.4 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 3.8 17.6 21. for each class.6 20.4 22.8 4.7 8.4 22.3 8.0 14.

5 84. 2010 and 2011 2007 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 2009 2010 2011 Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.5 71. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. 2009.9 62.0 3.0 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.4 68.7 81.5 88.0 1.2 172 ASER 2011 .2 47. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-IV/V 85. 2009.6 100 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 100. 2010 and 2011.0 0.9 94.7 1.1 6.0 76. 2009. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 56.2 1.8 66.5 % Teachers present (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 92.3 0.4 94.4 0. in each sampled village.5 83. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 107 9 116 135 9 144 101 9 110 76 9 85 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.7 87.2 59.0 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed Headteacher appointed but not present at time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 0.9 81. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits. 2009.9 74.2 7.1 12.6 1. Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.2 67.9 96.0 100 98.Meghalaya School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007. 2009.5 96.7 75.7 60.0 0.0 3.4 63.8 0.7 82.2 100 0.

beautification. 98 45.1 77 62.0 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 98 65.3 14.Rs.3 19.1 8.5 21.3 THEIR 93 37. Rs 7500 .5 76 46. playground etc.8 15.6 2009-2010 % Schools No.3 13.8 69. of Sch. such as charts.2 53. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.4 15. of No Don’t Sch. and repair of toilets.5000 per year per primary school Rs.accountabilityinitiative. hand pump.7 4.4 50. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.1 MONEY 17.6 MONEY 58.Meghalaya RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .0 73 38.1 46. Also for buying chalk.6 9.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.1 4.in ASER 2011 173 .7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.3 72 47.1 92 37. of No Don’t Sch.4 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.2 8.9 26. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. 9.7 11. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.3 6.9 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.9 39. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.3 32. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 5.6 8.2 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 122 83. sitting mats etc.0 38. know 9. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. registers and other office equipment. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.2 43.1 9. know 8. % Schools No.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.8 52. of Sch. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.2 7.3 95 20.2 THEIR 96 78.0 69 24.5000 . boundary wall. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.2 87 21.8 14.0 65. including whitewashing. posters.2 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants Maintenance grant Development grant % Schools No.0 47.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 123 grant Development 116 grant TLM grant 65.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. 1 For more information see www. Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. models etc. globes.7 94 37. duster.6 62. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .6 95 69.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.7 The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.3 10.2 78 83.

Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.8 42.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.4 6.4 50.4 44.9 34.9 1.1 19. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 107 100.6 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 52.0 50.6 59.Meghalaya Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.6 6.0 83 100.6 5.9 40.4 29 14 12 7 5 1 5 39.0 48.1 No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 76 18 6 2 3 2 71.0 50.8 12.6 24. in each sampled village.0 33. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. magazines and books on all subjects.5 63.3 50.9 2.6 39.0 16.9 2.1 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 33.8 5. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only. During this school visit. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.1 33.0 26.7 19.8 78.1 11.9 95 100.3 69.4 174 ASER 2011 .6 51.6 1.5 7.3 22.4 2.6 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.1 52. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.2 7.2 16.8 40.8 5.6 45.3 0.8 1. including story-books.0 0.6 24.0 25.9 3.9 55 19 2 2 2 3 66.5 23.0 73 100.0 50.4 9.6 9.4 14.3 46.4 3. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.7 35.8 70.8 9.0 0.0 31. 2010 2011 33.4 2.0 0.0 0.9 77.0 100.0 14.0 12. of % of No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 39 18 12 9 7 3 7 41.9 52.4 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 25.0 100.9 41.5 64.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.9 23.4 9.0 100.3 0.4 15. % No.0 45.9 20.4 3.3 33.0 36.3 37.6 35.4 18. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.0 15.0 6.5 13.5 13.

1 11.2 0.0 Not in Total School 0.2 84.4 17.4 6. For example.2 0.9 45.0 1.6 14.2 6.5 11.6 11.3 86.2 39.6 13.9 % who are 9.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 25.7 15. ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 175 .3 29.4 5.8 100 22.5 34.3 6. 13.4% in 2010 to 1.9 7.6 85.0 38.6 2.4 87. 8 OUT OF 8 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.4 12. in Std III.2 7.8 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.4 18.3 26.7 34.2 10.3 13.0 2.1 0.5 12.2 0.5 13.4% in 2008 to1.0 23.5 26.5 3.7 12. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 4.2 1.5 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2009 & 2011 11.1 12.3 Other 0.4 9.1 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 9.2 0.3 37.0 0. This table shows the age distribution for each class. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5.3 10.7 1.1 0.0 79.0 8.0 100 5. 39. 85.1 0.6 6.2% children are 8 years old but there are also 10.7 43.0 9.2 85.1 0.5 6.Mizoram RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.2 87.2 87.4 10.0 6. How to read this chart: For example.6 8.4 3.0 2.2 28.9 9. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 36.2 0.9 71.1% who are 10 years old.5 20.4 23.0 22. etc.9 16.6 8.2% who are 7.7 6.8% in 2009 to 4.7 13 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 4.6 100 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.6 31.8 2.8 78.5 11.0 0. 13.9 9.9 10.9 13.9 80.0 0.3 100 100 Note: Mizoram data for 2007 not available.4% in 2006 to 5.3 1.9 Pvt. she should be age 8 in Std 3.0 34.1 0. 28.1% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.0 0.2 1.

2 53. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.3 1.4% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text. in Std III. Note: This tool was also available in English and Mara.6 Letter 46.4 18.4 78. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language %Children who took the reading test in: % % Children Of the % Children who tested in: Lushai/Mizo 87.7 % Children whose home language was: Bengali 1.4 1. This includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.0 0.7 2.2 18.3 89.0 Lakher 6.6% can read Std 2 level text.8 Word 39.Mizoram Reading Std.1 Total 100 100 Mizo or Mara English Total 69.7 2.6 30. In Mizoram.4 100.2 3.6 66. Figures for Mizo and Mara have been combined.4 87. 14.1 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 5.9 14. 176 ASER 2011 . reading tools were provided in the main medium in instruction in government schools.9 2.6 14.2 0.1 Other * 3. 3. In sum.4 11.8 2. for each class.9 52.1 0. where the medium of instruction in government schools is Mizo.9% can read letters but not more.7 11.8 1.0 0.4 10. For example.7 1.8 0. 1.6 2.1 7. Mara (only in Saiha district) or English.0 45.0 Mizo or Mara English * 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above. For home languages.0 1.0 0.9 93. 40.8 12.3 3.9 35.1 17. children were given the choice of reading in any one of these languages.1 Pawi 2.0 40.9 1.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.8 1. and 39.7% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.3 6.8 39. Note: In ASER 2011 for every state.4% children cannot even read letters. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.6 38.0 4.4 1.3 2. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 5.

0 30. 2009.2 2.7 1.3% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.0 50.2 2.3 67.5 45.7 5.2 4.6 35. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 4.8 6. In all 4 years. 18.9 17. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.7 1.7 1. in Std III.2 0.3 11.3 0. ASER 2011 % Children 177 .7 38.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.6 15.9 1.2 12.6 1.4 3.4 88.3 25.7 14.7 I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 2009 2010 2011 17.7 56.3 45.5 2.8% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.8 18.7 4.1 0.6 4.7 0. and 26.4 Note: In 2007.8 2.6 1.0 4. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.2 17.3 5.5 3.3 10.1 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 44.5 6.3 7.6 8.5 23.0 0.1 0.9 12.1 10.9 3.4 0. 0.7 2. In sum. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.4 28.2 0. 4.8 14.5 2. for each class.6 6.0 8.1 13.8 Divide 2.3 0.1 18. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt 5.3 33.3 2.3 1.0 37.3 21.4 7.7 6.Mizoram Arithmetic Std.1 0.8 2.9 6.4 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 3.0 26. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2009.0 22.0 20.9 29.9 1.3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.5 0.8 28. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore. 50% can do subtraction but not division.4 9.5 10.0 24. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.9 9.7 80.2 17.6 12.0 21.3 7. For example.3 6.3 4.8 50.7% can do division.5 89.5 5.7 0.

2 83.5 91. in each sampled village.2 67.4 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2009. 2010 and 2011.1 15.2 2.0 3.8 94. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2009 135 17 152 2010 166 8 174 2011 135 13 148 Student Student and and teacher teacher attendance attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2009. Table 8: Total schools visited 2009.3 88. 2010 and 2011 2009 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 2010 Std I-IV/V 2011 Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2009.5 100 94.5 85.3 2011 178 ASER 2011 .2 14.Mizoram School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007.4 92. 2009.8 5.5 3.0 0.8 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed Headteacher appointed but not present at time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 0.9 19.0 3.0 86.4 100 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 92.0 82.2 5.1 30.8 2.1 32.6 1.8 0.6 % Teachers present (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 93. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2009 2010 Std I-IV/V 20.5 100 2. 2010 and 2011 2009 2010 Std I-IV/V 2011 86.7 78.5 96.0 0. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.7 78.0 0.

including whitewashing.9 2.7 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.5 Don't know 0.0 1.6 31. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.9 1. boundary wall.0MONEY 5.2 18.2 20.2 63.0 0.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 143 grant Development 122 grant TLM grant 85. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts. Also for buying chalk.0 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.2 0. know 3.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.accountabilityinitiative.8 0.9 141 96.6 126 78.0 0.4 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.0 3.Rs.7 Maintenance 126 grant Development 114 grant 156 79.9 29.4 75.4 7.0 73.0 0. water.7 9. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.8 47.1 1. floor. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. % Schools No.7 48. posters. globes.3 11. of No Don’t Sch. For more information see www.5 42. 61. sitting mats etc. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.0 47.7 76.1 80.) 24.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.9 2.4 30. New Classroom Repair of building (roof. playground etc.3 32. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know 2.3 21.8 20.9 21. hand pump.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.2 51.0 26. duster.4 2.6 58.6 152 62.0 1.5000 per year per primary school Rs. of Sch. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.9 1. and repair of toilets. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.6 71.5 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 125 62.8 2.2 31. beautification.4 THEIR 158 93.1 2009-2010 % Schools No.8 159 93.8 133 78.4 41.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 4. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. models etc.5 18.4 26.0 0.Mizoram RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . duster.7 3. register etc.4 1. of Sch.9 17.6 56.5MONEY 18.5 51.0 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.0 2.9 0.6 23.8 0.1 117 63.2 80. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1 142 95.4 43.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.5 % schools No 75.0 2.0 0.6 19.1 32.8 67.5 2.9 37.3 17. of No Don’t Sch.4 68.1 145 79. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.2 52.0 47.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.4 8.5000 .0 0.4 4. registers and other office equipment. know 4.2 61. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5 4. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc. such as charts.in ASER 2011 179 . cleaning etc.9 19.6 125 76.0 0.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. Rs 7500 .8 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 142 78.5 34.3 SSA school grants % Schools No.2 THEIR 156 79. wall etc. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.2 78.9 1.

5 10.6 43.2 42.2 No.9 161 100.7 8.7 7.1 98.9 100.2 13 29 38 19 7 7 9 10.3 51.1 40.7 1.0 13.9 33. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.2 15.0 88. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 4 13 40 37 20 7 27 2.1 23.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.1 53.0 0.0 55. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 2010 2011 School No.2 83 34 18 10 3 0 56.0 16.8 40.0 0.0 0.6 99.6 4.0 0.8 52. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 64 70 17 6 2 2 39.8 27.3 55.0 12.6 9.6 71. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.2 6.0 148 100. in each sampled village.4 3.0 72.9 15.4 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 4.1 12. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.7 5.0 100.8 25. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.0 122 100.6 50.7 35.0 10. During this school visit.1 70. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.8 2.5 47.0 0.4 0.0 7.3 30.6 0.5 4.4 92.0 0.Mizoram Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 5. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.0 12.7 23.2 36.3 5.7 47. % No.0 93.0 33.6 5.0 25.7 1. 2010 2011 80.1 48.0 0.4 14.4 148 100.6 3.8 31.3 180 ASER 2011 .0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 24.7 60.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.5 50.7 96.7 18.8 43. magazines and books on all subjects. of % of No.4 44.8 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.0 5 + HM see note 100.2 1.1 45.5 94. including story-books.1 16.7 5.5 11.1 37.3 4.0 12.5 7.0 2.

0 0.9 6.5 12.1 40.3 23.6 36.3 40.8 39.1 48.2 39.1 25.2 1.0 0.8 16.6 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.7 50.0 4.4 40. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.5% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007. This table shows the age distribution for each class. in Std III. etc.0% children are 8 years old but there are also 9.0 1.4 3.2 24.3 17.6 58.1 0.3 1.2 7.7 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 181 .5 11.1 56.0 0. 2009 & 2011 40.8% in 2008 to 3.3 49.9 Pvt.1 0. 29.7% in 2009 to 3. 11 OUT OF 11 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.1 22.1 0.1 0.3 21.3 3.6 24.9 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.9 29.2% in 2010 to 2.2 6. 40.1 15.2 1.1 0.8 57.5% in 2007 to 5.3% who are 7 years old or younger. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 6.9 40.9 8.2 7.2 3.2 3.9 100 8.0 29. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.3 34.0 0.5% who are 9.5 32.9 7.0 46.1 0.9 5.0 0.3 7.1 56.3 10.5 8.9 13.2 39.4% in 2006 to 4.4 49.1 21.5 21.4 21.2 8.8 7.6 12.5 9.5 Other 0.1 1. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total 100 7. 16. For example.3 30.5 16.0 7.6 40.9 2. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 2. 26.2 40.5 55.5 5.4 39.9 10.4 44.7 7.4 100 100 100 100 100 5. 57.0 Not in Total School 2.8 11.4 10.2 20.3 2.3 0.0 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 26. she should be age 8 in Std 3.6 36.6 58.8 40.2 11.Nagaland RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. How to read this chart: For example.0 3.0 3.9% who are 10 years old.8 100 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.0 0.1 59.6 5.

7% can read letters but not more. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%. In sum.9 3. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.7 5.8 5.5 Letter 42. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 5. 182 % Children ASER 2011 . Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % children who tested in English: % children whose home % children whose home % % language was: language was: 16.1 Khiemungan Total * 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above.5 Khezha Angami 6.0 4.7 19.4 27.8 5.5 1. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.9 Word 42. for each class.4 3.5 25. 11. 0.4 49. and 19.9 10. in Std III.8 29.0 20.1 1.1 2.6% can read Std 2 level text.4 14.8 22.1% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.9% children cannot even read letters. In Nagaland.0 71. where the medium of instruction is English.0 2.6 1.3 Lotha Chang 10. For example.7 7.1 36.8 17.1 2. 29.9 Yimchungrey Chakru/Chokri 5.6 11.3 90. children were given the reading tool only in English.7 0.3 1. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.3 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 6.7 3.1 2.7 59. Note: In ASER 2011 for every state.6 83.2 0. For home languages.8% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.5 2.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.3 5.6 22.4 Sangatam Other * 100.4 0.6 37. This included 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.5 2.9 20.0 35.5 38.9 0.9 1.0 0. 38.3 11.4 2.Nagaland Reading Std.3 0.5 Kuki Phom 16.4 Konyak Regma 11.8 Zeliang AO 8.

8 5.1 12.7 11. ASER 2011 % Children 183 .4 39.2 40.5 32.4 0.7 11.5 69.Nagaland Arithmetic Std.3 5.6 28.1 0.8 21.6 14.8 41.7 0.0 13.8 10.7 2.5 55. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.1 38.0 39.9% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.8 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.3 40.2 32.4 33.7% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9. In sum.1 7.3 0.8 7. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 18.4 36. For example.3 7.7 7.5 31.8 6.9 52.5 57.1 36.2 43.8 45.5 26. 34.0 40.8 45.3 43.2 9.4 6.4 1.0 52.4 0.5 34.6 13.1 45.6 7. in Std III.5 49.1 Divide 1.9 4.7 16.2 36.8 1.7 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 8. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.7 12.0 15.3 25.3 12.6 20.7 10.3 40. 6.0 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 32.4 1. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.9 10.9% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.4 13.7 54.5 1.5 42.9 53.0 40.4 34. 0.7 33.4 12. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.8 24.9 7.4 14.1 15. 2009.6 27.0 2.9 48. 2009.9 20.0 0.2 2. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007. for each class.6 40. In all 4 years.0 11.9 4.7 8.0 12.4 14.9% can do subtraction but not division. and 7.1 8.3 36.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.7 28.2 30.8 11.0 42.0 0.3 23.9 83.6% can do division.3 29.1 54.3 49. 49.6 19. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.9 34.5 13.1 19.7 32.1 40.8 40.3 54. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 3.2 14.4 15.

8 0.2 90.0 0.0 100. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits. 2009.8 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 3.2 87.0 27.4 81.3 4.6 28.6 0. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.3 83.1 49. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 3.0 of visit Total 100 100 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.3 85.6 18. 2009.0 0. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 85.1 3.0 83.0 81.0 0.0 1.9 82.6 100 35.2 74.0 13. 2010 and 2011.4 72.0 Headteacher appointed but not present at 10. 2009.7 63.0 84.9 87.7 56.0 0.3 30.Nagaland School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007. Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.0 16.0 0.9 16.3 2.0 13. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 213 23 236 215 27 242 202 21 223 173 44 217 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007. 2009.0 86.6 Std I-VII/VIII 11.4 78.0 0.6 % Teachers present 91.8 47.8 85.9 27.6 15.7 97.2 3.5 0.5 80.0 43.2 68.0 0.4 2. 2009.5 0.1 12.2 45.0 0.3 8.5 100.0 80.6 89.3 79.6 1.8 4.0 29.6 100 100 0.5 51.8 93.0 0.7 17.5 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 90.0 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 89. in each sampled village.0 100 4.0 4.4 92.7 184 ASER 2011 .9 3.8 81.0 13.5 13.2 35.0 28.6 64.0 0.0 0.

5000 .5 21. sitting mats etc.8 9. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.2 18.7 2.7 SSA school grants % Schools No. % Schools No.2 8.4 0. posters. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.Nagaland RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .9 Maintenance 221 grant Development 208 grant 197 83. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.6 200 92. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs. such as charts.9 The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school. of Sch. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.4 10.3 1.6 1.Rs. duster. playground etc. Rs 7500 .8 213 89.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.accountabilityinitiative.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.8 181 70.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. of Sch.6 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 214 84.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. globes.6 204 94. boundary wall.3 193 82. of No Don’t Sch. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.0 7. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.5 THEIR 194 85.7 21.9 3. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.6 2. including whitewashing.0 2009-2010 % Schools No.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 217 grant Development 207 grant TLM grant 98.5000 per year per primary school Rs. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.9 5.6 75. hand pump.4 0. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs. models etc. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.0 3. of No Don’t Sch.0 5.5 214 94.1MONEY 6. Also for buying chalk.1 8.0 THEIR 201 93. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.in ASER 2011 185 .9 181 76.1 15. know 0. 78.2 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 217 98.5 4.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.1 18.6 2.3 5. and repair of toilets.8 89.6 7.3 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know 5. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.9 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.0MONEY 2.2 1. registers and other office equipment.7 18.8 178 78.5 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 1.9 2.2 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. 1 For more information see www.5 4. beautification.0 0. 8.5 214 95. know 0.

2 5. magazines and books on all subjects.2 30. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.1 4.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 22. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 2 13 11 42 54 30 46 1.9 70.2 8 11 19 22 30 26 73 4.6 12.1 43. 2010 2011 83.0 0.8 60. in each sampled village.8 186 ASER 2011 .4 6.2 30.9 6.7 5.0 7.4 0.0 38.2 33. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.6 65.9 No.0 0. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.3 6.9 91.4 12.9 20. % No.0 18.8 11. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 98 51 25 9 15 16 45. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.3 21.7 15.6 5.2 50.4 9.4 42.7 51. of % of No.0 189 100.0 14.7 92.3 15.7 4.Nagaland Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.5 86. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 214 100.9 47.7 3.3 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.3 43.6 198 100.2 16. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.2 23.9 30.8 23.8 32.6 21.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.1 5.2 8.6 35.5 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1.0 13.2 81.9 65.9 49.3 92.3 56.7 48. including story-books.8 38. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.1 37.2 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 6.6 15.0 19.0 18.8 10.2 23.3 9.5 87 51 34 10 11 18 41.8 43.6 63.7 4.5 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.8 28. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.0 7.2 27.2 7.1 22.3 53.2 24.0 211 100.6 48.1 9. During this school visit.0 37.9 13.0 14.0 5.1 11.8 9.1 18.5 42.0 6.6 8.

Odisha Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttarakhand .

.

1 22.0 0.3 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 189 .7 8 9 10 11 12 5.3 57.0 26.1 0.1 0.6 1.2 60. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled. 65.8 5.6 4.4 24.8% who are 9 years old.3 7.4 6.1 0.1 13 14 15 16 Total 100 100 40.8 68.8 61.8 Other 0. For example.2 66.5 16.3 9.8 89.1 6. she should be age 8 in Std 3.1 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 100 100 100 100 100 100 11.5 14.5 4.6 2.1 9.6 2. How to read this chart: For example.1 89.2 86.7 Pvt.0 11.8 3. 5.4 3.3 6. 91.4 6.2 0.0 5.8 93.1 1.6 1.4% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.5 4. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 28.0 7.6 21.4% in 2007 to 12% in 2008 to 9.6% children are 8 years old but there are also 11.1 7.3 93.2 89.0 69.5 16. etc.4 4. This table shows the age distribution for each class.8 13.2 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.6 0. 30 OUT OF 30 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.0 0.9% in 2009 to 7.3 1.1 0.7 3.7 13.5 4.0 Not in Total School 3.5 46.5 5.7 64.2 66.6 5.5 4. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.1 0.7 65. 2009 & 2011 6.4 8.1 0. 12.7% in 2006 to 12.9 61.5 4.4 2.1 0.6 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.5 2.1 84. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 13.8 92.2 59.0 12.4 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.4 4. I II 5 6 7 7.7 8.1 15.6 8.1 0.9 7.3 14.6 12.Odisha RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.9 5. in Std III.7 7.7 2.7% who are 7.2% in 2010 to 6.

Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. and 16.6 30. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.9 2.8 3.9 34.2 29.0 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language 190 % Children ASER 2011 .1 16.3 0.5 3. 23.1 75.1 16.5 34. For example.3 12.6 13. For home languages.6% can read letters but not more.0 29.8 9. In sum.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.9 16. 8% children cannot even read letters.07 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.1 100. 29.9 8.1 0.8 8. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.9 3. 22.2 5.6 18.4 29.1% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.3 26.9 11.Odisha Reading Std. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.8 22. for each class.5 39.9 28.4% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.1 24. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.2 19.2 23.1 55.9% can read Std 2 level text.3 21. in Std III.5 11.5 15.5 19.1 Letter 34.3 4. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 44. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 91.2 64.3 8.3 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 13.9 1.9 8.0 4.

2 49.5 51.4 1. 34.6 Divide 1.9 18.0 55.5 63.4 51.1 52.9% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.9 45.6 45. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.2 35.3 50.9 67.9 67.5 43.2 32.8 15.1 60.9 18.6 39.2 10.7 78.8 49.1 8.6 50.3 42.4 65.8 5.1 64.2 66. 2009. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 47.3 23.5 33. and 6. 8.7 1.5 51.9 43.3 2.9 36. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.0 60.6 48.1 68.2 75.6 62.9 54.9 32.4 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.1 57.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. ASER 2011 % Children 191 . 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 46.9 81.3 20.7 50. 21.8% can do division.0 64.3 3.7 69.2 4.5 26.2 54. For example.7 50.1 34.7 20.2% can do subtraction but not division.7 14.7 81.8 21.1 52.1 42.7 81.1 68.3 23.3 Subtract 3.8 50.0 69. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.9 44.8 62.2 75.3 72.2 55.0 55.9 21.3 55.4 29.5 28.8 40.5 55.1 22. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.7 52.8 29. in Std III.8 63.5 48.7 61.1 48.4 29.0 52.4 8.8 35.5 49.3 55.9 50.7 31.4 12. In sum.4 6.8 51.6 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 35.2 52. In all 4 years.2 29. 28.3 36.0 11.9 68.0 1.2 41.8 56.6 44.9 6.3 11.9% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.Odisha Arithmetic Std.2% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.0 18. for each class.7 33.8 39. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. 2009.1 48. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

4 0.5 1.9 77.7 0.2 90.0 0.8 3.2 85.7 192 ASER 2011 .3 77. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 406 306 712 403 344 747 383 358 741 390 379 769 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.8 8. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 72.3 0.0 66.2 8.9 44.9 62.4 100 88.1 48.0 1.4 58.7 70.1 9. 2009.4 0.1 74.1 10.2 9.5 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 88.2 100 5.Odisha RURAL As part of ASER 2007.3 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 97.1 73.1 71.8 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.3 11.8 Std I-VII/VIII 71.9 80.6 54. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.7 62. 2009.5 6.7 13.4 74.0 72.9 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 12.3 72.5 61.6 of visit Total 100 100 81.4 83.1 92.9 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 8.0 77.8 100 3. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.8 3.3 71. 2010 and 2011.1 87.1 56.7 100 5.7 51.8 4.1 70.9 9. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 72.4 69.0 87.5 51.1 59. School observations Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.8 51.5 95.7 50. 2009.1 0.9 65.9 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 8.8 % Teachers present 91.8 64.5 87.6 8.0 61.1 73. 2009.4 47.9 77.9 4.1 91.3 89. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.8 87.1 1.9 Headteacher appointed but not present at 6. in each sampled village.8 80.5 61.3 0.7 0.0 69. 2009.

Rs 7500 .6 9.7 540 86. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants % Schools No.2 13.3 693 60. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.2 72.2 THEIR 555 92.in ASER 2011 193 . beautification.5 65.9 15.7 36.8 4.7 4. hand pump.5 29. New Classroom Repair of building (roof.6 5.3 4.1 5.6 14.0 5. of Sch. know 4.6 33.3 3.7 14.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.3 9.5 67.7 730 82.6 5.2 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 610 86.5000 . globes.Odisha RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.5 6.5000 per year per primary school Rs. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building. including whitewashing. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.3 85. of No Don’t Sch.5 13.0 40. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.3 5.8 % schools No 59.7 20. Also for buying chalk.7 69.2 20.) 35. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.7 17.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.1 720 76. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.4 495 72.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. 52.9 58. register etc.9 13.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.accountabilityinitiative.4 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 523 76.6MONEY 13.4 25.Rs.7 26.2 4.4 4.6 4.5 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.2 29.5 13.3 9.2 31. duster.5 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. registers and other office equipment.3 49.6 10.3 THEIR 505 76.9 17. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.0 76.1 3.8 54. water.1 9. of No Don’t Sch. duster.3 24.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 606 grant Development 598 grant TLM grant 65.8 62.9 78.0 5.7 Don't know 5. For more information see www.8 11. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.3 710 76. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.8 59.9 15.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.1 10.8 47.3 3. playground etc.6 30.1 14.9 572 85.0 12.8 6.2 10. cleaning etc.2 76.3 8. models etc. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.0 16. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts.1 13.4 10.3 4. of Sch.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.1 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.3MONEY 2.4 718 84.5 6.2 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.5 79. % Schools No. floor.3 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 5. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . posters.8 4.2 10.3 11. and repair of toilets.7 67.7 16.6 61.3 44. boundary wall. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.8 Maintenance 529 grant Development 518 grant 530 71.9 32. sitting mats etc.5 719 82.7 47. such as charts. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. wall etc.

9 33.0 5.5 14.4 38.0 17. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 121 131 93 75 45 37 34 22.2 84.9 No. including story-books.3 51. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.8 187 113 91 94 110 156 24.1 12.1 44.3 19.6 77. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.0 74.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 9.3 8.8 74.4 58.9 24. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.4 30. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 155 120 111 78 103 158 21.9 26.3 10.9 40.8 46.2 10.8 84.8 25.4 11.0 536 100.9 15.2 14.2 14.3 76.7 18.5 46.7 38.0 577 100.3 35. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 2010 2011 School No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.5 78.6 15.7 78.2 8.9 34.7 15.3 88.6 24.5 194 ASER 2011 . During this school visit.4 15.5 40. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.3 15.8 31.7 20.0 8.6 8.8 725 100.5 73.5 14.5 34.4 14.8 46.7 81.0 751 100.3 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.Odisha Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 60.2 66. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.6 44.4 17.5 40. magazines and books on all subjects.9 20.2 81.3 18.7 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 25.2 21.2 17. % No. of % of No.3 79.0 38.5 15.5 93.0 29.4 6.7 20.3 132 141 92 88 46 32 46 22.8 15.0 35.6 79.8 14.3 74. 2010 2011 74.0 36.8 84.9 15.1 12.9 6.8 91.0 32. in each sampled village. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.6 83.4 16.5 78.5 70.0 74.0 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 73.

7% who are 9.7% in 2010 to 2.6 62.4 60.5 Not in Total School 1. in Std III.6 10.0 10.7 1.4 46.Punjab RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS 19 OUT OF 19 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. For example.9% who are 10 years old.7 12.8 5.6 12.4 0.2 Pvt.6 11.2 Other 0.5 1.6 2.5 34. 25.9% in 2008 to 6.4 0.2 45.4 11.1 44.0 2.5 4.0 28.6 3.9 9.7 30.6 0.6% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.9% children are 8 years old but there are also 15. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 5% in 2006 to 4.9% in 2007 to 4.9 5. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.8 0. 35. 39.8 35.8 9 10 11 12 13 4.3 36.8 14.6 28.7 64.4 5.0 33.5 0. 12.1 13.4 100 100 4.4 0.8 0.9 0.7 56.8 34.9 3. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.3 2.4 2.9 61.4 31.6 60.5 31.0 37.3 100 11. 2009 & 2011 47.0 42.2% in 2009 to 2.8 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.9 2.8 30.9 28.7 61. she should be age 8 in Std 3.8 52.5 29.2 0.4 0.2 10.3 0.6 20.9 36.0 16.2 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.2 13.1 32.6 15.0 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 29.8 2. This table shows the age distribution for each class.3 9.9 25.2 4.1 60.9 27. 58.7 6.4 3.6 34.3 38. etc.4 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.0 2. How to read this chart: For example. I II 5 6 7 8 8.6 30.9 5.2 0.1 37.8% who are 7.4 12. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 10.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 37.2 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 195 .4 59.1 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 5.3 34.9 13.0 5.6 15.

3 85.8 0. for each class.1 15. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.8 4. 1.8 14.7 2.7 50.0 1. 12.6 5.7 54.6 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 19. In sum. For home languages.9 79.1 11.5 11.8 6.7 1.7 88.0 0.5% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 81.2 Letter 50.8 0. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%. For example.8 15. in Std III.6 29.7% can read Std 2 level text.Punjab Reading Std.8 27. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 21. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.9 28.4 71.8 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.7% children cannot even read letters.3% can read letters but not more.2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.9 26.1 12. 196 % Children ASER 2011 .4 18.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.9 4. and 28.5 8.4 29.6 15.8 7. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.9 10.7 2.8 1.7 4.9 39.6 100. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.1 15.4 2. 27.9 2.3 6.2 3. 30.9 0.0% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.

4% can do division.0 32.5 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.1 29.6 25. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.8 1.7 13.6 13.4 26.5 25.3 5. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 14.4 32.1 22. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 17.6 43.1 69.9 8.4 22.4 25.8 13.5 35. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.2 1.4 37.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.2 9.6 21.4 16.4 23.7 15.0 11.3 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 41.2 14.6 0.8 25.1 17.8% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.5 8.6 30.5 61.3 16.0 31. 2009.1 28.5 23.5 10.4 9.7 20.9 28. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore. for each class.7 23.3 30.0 10.5 29.2 12.4 10.1 0.6 20.7 26.7 9.0 41.3 19.6 12.0 25.1% can do subtraction but not division.0 30. For example.0 Subtract 7. In all 4 years. and 16. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.5 6.9 8. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.4 28. In sum.0 31.6 73.7 0.6 16. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.4 22.4 43.3% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.1 2.2 11.9 23. ASER 2011 % Children 197 .1 Divide 3.1 23.8 9.9 5.8 41.1 11.2 29.6 7.Punjab Arithmetic Std.3 66.4 22.4 10.5 31.6 0.0 25.5 20. 45.7 8.9 10. in Std III.7 26.8 19.3 19.0 9.4 8.5 39.9 29. 11.2 2.4 10. 2009.6 1.4% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.8 1.9 3.9 45.1 3.7 9.3 15.1 33.5 23. 1.7 23.3 30.8 20.1 20. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.5 8.3 7. 25.8 20.8 35.8 24.1 11.

2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.0 93.5 35.3 82.0 33.3 82.2 84.9 95.9 54.0 0.8 92.6 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 92. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.2 0.0 48.5 87.0 2.1 87. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 383 61 444 431 38 469 391 58 449 457 32 489 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.4 82.0 72. School observations Table 8: Total schools visited 2007. 2009.8 89.9 75.1 11.7 2.3 17.5 53.2 46. 2009.8 1.5 81.9 100 100 3.3 0.0 57.0 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 94.0 100 57.4 79.7 0.3 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 80. 2009. 2010 and 2011.4 26. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 47.5 1.9 56.4 100 4.8 0.6 84.2 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.3 0.2 of visit Total 100 100 7.7 64.7 36.0 0.Punjab RURAL As part of ASER 2007.9 24.0 0.5 78.6 85.6 46.1 44.6 47.1 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 3.2 41. 2009.7 40.9 88.6 84.0 0.0 0.5 3.9 Std I-VII/VIII 41.4 37.9 2.5 36.0 0. in each sampled village.1 86.6 84.6 84.7 82.2 41.7 82.6 % Teachers present (average) 85.0 0.7 198 ASER 2011 .2 1.5 21.4 45.9 54.0 0.1 87.6 21.2 Headteacher appointed but not present at 3.3 39.1 3.1 77. 2009.2 60.

) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.3 31.2 7.0 32.9 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. For more information see www. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.1 1.7 THEIR 363 94.2 29.8 21.9 39. cleaning etc.6 13.9 46.7 9. Rs 7500 .5 369 93.9 6.0 42.7 10. wall etc.7 7.8 4. 63.8 11. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.9 10.0 9.0 478 28.8 10.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.5 2.8 79.7 476 41. floor.2 7.2 2009-2010 % Schools No.5 14.2 3.6 6.3 3.5000 per year per primary school Rs.3 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 373 94. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.4 50.5 4. New Classroom Repair of building (roof.5 71.3 8.1 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.7 478 24. of Sch. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.4 44. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . of No Don’t Sch.9 54.6 10.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.7 22.8 400 95.7 6.5 45.6 87.5000 .9 45.5 58.8 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants % Schools No. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.2MONEY 4. including whitewashing.3MONEY 2. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.9 4.0 6.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard. Also for buying chalk.6 66. hand pump.2 35.5 50.7 2.1 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts.2 26. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.2 10.4 % schools No 64.5 356 90.9 38.) 21.8 16. duster.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.2 1. globes. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.1 55.0 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 5.1 THEIR 378 96.7 42. playground etc. duster. and repair of toilets. models etc. such as charts.8 48.6 17. registers and other office equipment. of Sch.5 4.0 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 422 96.1 3.1 481 92.0 8.5 480 84.0 47. % Schools No.1 14. 7.Rs.accountabilityinitiative. sitting mats etc.2 2.2 6.in ASER 2011 199 .5 32. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.7 49.3 50.Punjab RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .8 56.5 66.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 383 grant Development 377 grant TLM grant 83.3 3. beautification. register etc.3 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. boundary wall.9 3. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.4 15.5 Don't know 14.5 41. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.1 13.8 Maintenance 286 grant Development 310 grant 374 88.5 46.2 480 78. posters.7 1. know 1.5 3. water. know 2.2 58. of No Don’t Sch.9 63.6 40.

one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.9 10.2 19.6 10.1 10. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.2 70. magazines and books on all subjects.0 90.0 419 100.8 No.2 20. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 2010 2011 School No.6 24. During this school visit. in each sampled village.3 16.9 37.4 93.9 96.5 45.6 26.0 70. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.3 17.6 98.0 66.0 33.8 10.1 64. of % of No.1 82.9 69.5 71.2 4.4 442 100.5 14.9 1. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 42 94 65 66 38 25 60 10.6 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.2 0.0 25.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 5.5 33.6 14.1 16.0 390 100.4 91.9 39.4 200 ASER 2011 .9 46.1 1-60 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 66. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.6 61.4 51 96 70 65 60 31 46 12.2 26.5 13.0 68.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 4.9 26.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.9 4.0 34.4 84.8 82.7 16.0 8. % No.2 23.5 14.7 4.8 74.0 83.1 71.1 0.0 76.9 8. including story-books.9 61.Punjab Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 41.4 8.9 9.1 30.2 57.2 19. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 76 86 61 45 62 112 17.3 95 71 71 51 69 128 19.6 14. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.9 16.4 11.7 15.2 14.7 6.6 5.2 95.8 89.6 65.8 8.0 485 100. 2010 2011 78.4 75.0 94.7 69.0 85.8 56.8 24.5 35.3 7.0 79.5 58.3 29.2 7.2 22.5 49.4 15.

the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 19. 35.1 6.1 7.8 56. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. 2009 & 2011 34. 31 OUT OF 32 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.9 41.3 4.2 8.7 13.Rajasthan RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.4 54.7 7.5 52.2 7.2 3.3 2.2 24.2 29.7 3.4 37.9 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.2% who are 7.3 22.1 2.5 Other 0.6 2.4 22.9 0. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 12.6 30.7 59.1 0.1 Not in Total School 4.8 15.2 0.5 6. etc.7 27.7 23.2% in 2009 to 12.3 0. For example.6 4.4 9.0 11.9 61.5 16.1 6.2 11.6 59.2 26.7 30.1 33.0 9.0 4.0 3.7 100 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 2.4 56.1 0.0 36.2 6.4% in 2007 to 14.4 12.2 59.6 % who are 9.2 10.1 0.1% in 2010 to 8. How to read this chart: For example.3 2. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.0 9.8% in 2008 to 12.4 22.8 13.4 36.4 10.2 22.5 32.9% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.3 0.9 22. in Std III.3 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.6 34.2 0.9 16.8 17.0 31.6 100 100 100 100 100 100 5.1 22.2 36.3 0.5% children are 8 years old but there are also 18.5 37.1 4.3 55.2 8.6% in 2006 to 14.0 24.9 7.7 63.1 Pvt.7 27.6 64. 60.0 2. This table shows the age distribution for each class.9 26.9 38.7 3.4 6. she should be age 8 in Std 3. I II 5 6 7 8 6.0 8.3 23. 36.3 6.9 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.8 9.2 22. 16. 11.1 0.5 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 201 .1 0.3 0.8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total 100 38.2 5.2 % who are 10 years old.8 6.8 42.6 11.7 18.

18% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text. 8. For example. in Std III.7 63.7 18. and 13.9 75.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.9 16.9 1.9 100.7 4.7% can read letters but not more.7 6.3 Word 9. 31.3 19.7 15.2 8.1% children cannot even read letters.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. 28.6 28.1 31.0 0. In sum.9 18. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 51. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.8% can read Std 2 level text.3 16.1 76. for each class.0 11. 202 % Children ASER 2011 .8 4.0 13.7 3.5 9.5 2.8 11.1 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 2. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.1 3. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 23.1 2.9 82.2 8.Rajasthan Reading Std.4 18.0 22.8 30.1 42.8 41.4 1.5% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.3 27.1 16. For home languages.3 37.6 8.8 2. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.5 24.1 24.5 0. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.0 26.3 Letter 34.

5 12.6 34.9 6.7 24.7 3.3 27.8 10.7 18.5 7.7 21.9% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.2 52.0 1.9 35. 34.1 9. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.2 5.2 6.9 15.7 9.5 16.0 2.0 4.8 3. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.5 8. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.Rajasthan Arithmetic Std.5 12. For example.8 3. 2009. In all 4 years.5 4.8 1.3 18.3 25.8 4.5% can do division.3 18. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.4 12.2 6.0 2.2 21.6 1.1 9. 2009.3 1.7 4.7 7. 35.1 8.9 8.8 VIII 8.2 23.6 1.8 7.9 9.3 8.7 42. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 1.6 7.2 11.8 7.5 12.9 3. in Std III. for each class.7% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.6 4.0 0.2 31.6 V VI VII 5. ASER 2011 % Children 203 .0 11.3 10.9 Note: In 2007. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.1 11.6 0.7 2.4 6.8 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Subtract 1.4 13. and 5.0 13.9 8. 7.1 13.9 5.3 1.2 11.5 4.7 3.5 9.1 28.5 0.3 2.1 14.8 21.7 21.1 19.0 25.8 26. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 50.5 3.9 Total 3.3 62.3 12.1 2.3 13.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child. In sum.9 33.1% can do subtraction but not division.4 Divide 1.4 8.1 II 2.6 2.6 3. 16.9 III 2.1 14.9 15.5 6.9 31.6 13.8 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 37.0 5.8% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.9 7.9 9.1 IV 3.6 16.4 4.5 14. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.3 46.3 1.7 2009 2010 2011 12.8 11.3 33.

4 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 14. 2009.1 89.9 87.7 58. 2009.3 88.9 3.9 75. 2009. 2009.6 8.0 0.2 69.5 50.3 92.3 74.3 11.1 11.6 70.1 90.2 0.5 73.8 100 1.0 63.9 46.Rajasthan School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007.1 51. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 393 488 881 276 594 870 290 606 896 273 599 872 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.0 48.0 86.5 66.4 56. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.7 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 96.9 88.5 0.5 16.0 71.0 53.6 50.2 63.5 97.4 0.2 73.2 41. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.8 % Teachers present 91.4 46.5 14.6 77.3 88. 2010 and 2011.8 90. 2009.8 1.7 65. Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.6 53.3 Std I-VII/VIII 65.9 52.7 53.6 74.5 52.8 9.5 66. in each sampled village.5 0.9 79.9 85. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 67.0 16.0 7.3 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 2.2 41.9 50.4 0.8 6. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 67.6 100 100 0.9 5.4 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 9.9 7.3 0.6 60.8 1.3 45.0 of visit Total 100 100 8.1 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.7 100 78.6 204 ASER 2011 .8 8.3 67.8 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 91.4 1.2 53.8 72.2 Headteacher appointed but not present at 8.9 0.0 52.8 72.0 0.

3 47. registers and other office equipment.0 3.0 THEIR 809 88.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.4 843 81.7 49.1 2.5 43.Rajasthan RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.9 20.9 53.9 55. sitting mats etc.9 20. duster.7 7.4 46.9 8.2 8.5 8.5 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.5 88. and repair of toilets.8 59. wall etc.7 37.1 35. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. 39.7 809 79.7 2.4 18.9 47.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. duster.6 36.0 75.7 50. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.3 34.9 3.0 7.8 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.5000 per year per primary school Rs. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.7 2009-2010 % Schools No.4 39.1 10.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.8 46. of Sch.5 76. playground etc.5 3.8 49.8 10. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.9 3.9 755 41.4 2.1 58. of Sch.9 11.7 40.1 Don't know 3.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.9 2.1 13. water.7 57.4 53.6 Maintenance 645 grant Development 619 grant 761 47.accountabilityinitiative. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.8 4. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know 9. models etc.) 16. boundary wall. of No Don’t Sch.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc. New Classroom Repair of building (roof.5 7.1 3.7 23.6 2.2 5.9 67. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids. Rs 7500 .4 714 47.3 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 650 55. of No Don’t Sch.8MONEY 6.5 847 86. For more information see www. register etc. cleaning etc.9 54.9MONEY 34. hand pump. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.in ASER 2011 205 . Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .5 53.1 28. beautification.1 42.3 803 62. such as charts. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.6 39.3 12.6 3.6 5.3 52.5 30.6 9. globes.3 3.8 41.6 4.6 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 781 87.9 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.0 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.5 63.2 782 50.0 6. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5 3.9 33.7 38.0 791 57. posters. know 5.7 44.1 5.1 3.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 771 grant Development 720 grant TLM grant 70.2 759 73.5000 .5 THEIR 744 55. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. % Schools No. including whitewashing.Rs. know 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 6. Also for buying chalk.3 6. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.6 SSA school grants % Schools No. floor.0 3.5 39.4 % schools No 79.0 62.5 40.4 12.

2 15.9 13.0 74. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 887 100.7 18.0 4.1 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 44.9 70.5 3.0 206 ASER 2011 .0 14.3 63.3 16. including story-books.7 18.9 12.4 19.1 68.6 17.5 97.6 20.2 49.8 9. of % of No. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper. magazines and books on all subjects.2 57. 2010 2011 91.0 66.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. % No.5 31.4 23.4 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 3.3 11. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 81 97 101 114 163 94 130 10.0 866 100.7 113 109 148 115 168 213 13. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.8 32.7 11.1 13.6 18.0 48.4 12.2 72.9 69.7 105 89 90 116 147 92 149 13.1 42.7 45.3 26.3 5.8 94.5 32.9 53.0 3.9 12.9 780 100.4 18.4 24.3 80.8 89.6 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 46.8 50.3 58.0 12. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.3 76.1 16.1 72.Rajasthan Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.4 31. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 115 110 150 112 163 237 13.9 64.1 20. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.6 21.7 84.3 40.3 19.5 22.5 19.3 11. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.4 14.4 32.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.3 83.5 52.7 33.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 3.1 12.2 59.1 18.1 36.9 No.9 8.7 18.9 11.5 69.4 26.0 24.6 13.0 788 100.8 44.6 55. in each sampled village. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.3 16.0 35. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. During this school visit.4 13.9 9.2 51.4 16.0 2.1 65.

9 0. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.2 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.4 68.8 16.9 1.6 0.6 0. in Std III.7 9.7 6.6 1.8 73.3 18.5 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.6 36.8 78.0 1.9 14.8 3.7 1.6 32.1 8.0 24.Tamil Nadu RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.1 73.6 0.4 6.8 2.6 0. How to read this chart: For example. 71.3 5.0 74.9% in 2006 to 2.7 10.2% in 2008 to 1.8% in 2010 to 1.5 72. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 8.6 0.7 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.9 Other 0.9 28. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 3. 27.8% who are 7.0 0.9 3.7 69.5 18.0 2.3 73.2 67.0 14.5 2. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.0 42.0 10.2 67.8 71. 71.9 2.2 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class.2 21.6 67.4 Not in Total School 0.8 19. 2009 & 2011 34.9 11.0 1.1% in 2009 to 1.6 0.9 2.3 14. 8.3% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.0 78.0 1.2 2.5 Pvt.8 23. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total 100 2.3 8.5 0.6 0.1 59.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 44. 29 OUT OF 29 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.1 0.9 19.7 0.2 0.3 71.2 19. For example.0 8.3% in 2007 to 1.6 0. she should be age 8 in Std 3.3 6.4 49.0% children are 8 years old but there are also 17.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 66.3 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 207 .4 10.0 76.4 1.8 30. etc.2 1.2 0.3% who are 9 years old.7 68.1 21.9 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 17.3 2.

8 14. 9.3 7.3 26.6 11.8 66.2 20. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.1 4.6 Word 10.9 32.9 7.5 8. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.5 1.7 5.0 9. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 92.2 7.6 21. 20.7 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.0 22.7% children cannot even read letters. 21.3 1.7 3.8 60.8 31.5 35.8 2.3 35. 208 % Children ASER 2011 .0 32.2 20.3 3. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.4 40.7 31.5 20.1% can read Std 2 level text.5 13.Tamil Nadu Reading Std. 40.8 9.5 30.4 20.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.5 31.1 19. For home languages. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.7 23. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.0 Letter 31. and 7.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.9 11. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 54. for each class.9% can read letters but not more. For example.5 1. in Std III.3 48.2 0.4 1.3 9.8 100. In sum.

51.5 19. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%. ASER 2011 % Children 209 .4 29. In sum.9 15.2% can do subtraction but not division.5 9.6 24.2 51. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 15. 18. In all 4 years.2 34.2 24.9 46.8 0.4 26. 7. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.6 16.4 25.5 19.7 1.8% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9. 2009.3 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Divide 0.9 37.5 39.3 29.7 7.1 22.7 13.9 1.4 36.3 20.1 22.1 29.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.5 24.8 16.7 45.1 17.7 18. and 1.1 24.8 34.9 28. for each class.7 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.4 45.3 30.8 28.6 18.1 26.8% can do division.2 41.9 13.8 16. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.2 16.4 14.3 17.Tamil Nadu Arithmetic Std.1 46.9 19. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 45. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.3 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 33.6 16.8 19.5 3.8 4.8 6. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.8 31.7 17.0 28.2 44.6 31.6 20.6 30.7 1.1 35. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.9 29. in Std III.0 31.5 7.0 14.5 15.6 16.5 33.6 20.5 29.5 37.5 9.8 12. For example.8 14.4 38.8 14.3 17.4 33. 20. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.8 17.8 17.1 20.7 24.4 24.7% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.4 25.5 17.9 10.5% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.0 16.4 14.9 30.9 33.6 5.1 1.6 30.8 15.9 11.5 20.9 31.7 32.3 24.3 29.9 3.8 1.2 12.9 45.5 Subtract 2.0 16. 2009.4 27.1 0.5 22.5 30.9 16.0 11.6 12.

6 51.5 34.0 0.9 14. in each sampled village.5 5.8 74.2 94. 2009. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 388 213 601 385 260 645 395 267 662 448 235 683 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.3 97.6 5.4 61.3 87.9 Computers but no children using them on 11.2 69.6 Headteacher appointed but not present at 10.3 71. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.0 94.2 91.0 0.3 0.7 92.1 100 100 0.2 77.Tamil Nadu School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007.5 91. 2009. 210 ASER 2011 .1 81.7 88.0 0.0 54.9 of visit Total 100 100 86.4 0.8 78.0 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 0.9 of visit Total 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.0 61.8 70.0 13.3 66.3 0.2 93.5 93.6 75.6 93.0 48.6 93.3 day of visit Computers & children using them on day 17. I-IV. 2009.2 68.7 89.6 91. the official government school policy is to have mixed groups in Std.3 76.6 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 89. 2009.2 90. 2009. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 76.4 79.5 0.4 0.9 100 100 70.2 % Teachers present 96. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 91.7 90. 2010 and 2011. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.5 0.9 89.9 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 0.9 89. Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.6 86.1 Std I-VII/VIII 71.0 1.3 0.8 18.0 27.5 21.0 0.3 90.4 93.3 77.0 0.5 67.0 1.9 91.0 0.1 46.1 69.7 89.8 70.0 0.1 90.5 63. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.8 26.6 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 27.9 Note: In Tamil Nadu.1 74.0 0.

) 19.0 29.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.8 THEIR 180 16.8 37.5 546 94.7 30.0 57.6 4.7 43. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs. registers and other office equipment. % Schools No.6 4.1 60. playground etc.5 5.8 13.0 92.1 7. duster.6 657 91.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 555 grant Development 499 grant TLM grant 82.1 1. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.6 1. boundary wall.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.1 4. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.0 68.8 4.3 1.8 601 53. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. posters. of Sch.8 83. cleaning etc. water.1 50. and repair of toilets. floor. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.9 58.6 42.3 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 394 12.7 SSA school grants % Schools No. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts.5000 .Rs.8 7. sitting mats etc. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.6 46. globes. hand pump.7 34.5 51. New Classroom Repair of building (roof. 80.4 5. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.0 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 350 10.2 16.8 47.1 8.3 53.9 2. For more information see www.1 14.9 586 72.5 6. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .1 1.6 Don't know 1.0 4.1 1. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.5 12. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.8 2009-2010 % Schools No.Tamil Nadu RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .7 62.5 % schools No 79.1 1.0 82.9 11.1 498 90. of No Don’t Sch.1 10.3 1.2 23.7 2. duster.4 38.4 63.1 491 91. know 5.3 51.0 Maintenance 504 grant Development 450 grant 551 91. know 1.0 4.1 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.in ASER 2011 211 .8 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 4.4 6.2 83.0 631 82. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.0 52.1MONEY 76.6 2.0MONEY 72.4 16. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.4 601 78. beautification. 3.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.1 2.3 5.9 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.accountabilityinitiative. including whitewashing.1 April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know 4.1 1.7 4.4 1.6 5.9 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.3 44.7 53.8 48.9 2. Also for buying chalk.6 7.5000 per year per primary school Rs. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.2 29. of No Don’t Sch.3 3.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.1 9.9 40.8 85. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.2 12.4 THEIR 161 18.7 623 85.7 45.9 2. wall etc. of Sch. Rs 7500 . register etc.7 82.3 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. models etc.1 62. such as charts.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.

7 60.7 92.8 33.1 14.6 10. of % of No. During this school visit.1 15.5 22.8 14.9 12.6 8.2 15.0 9.6 23.4 49.2 21.6 47.6 9.8 96.2 42.9 13.0 676 100.1 14.7 99. magazines and books on all subjects.0 55.3 31.5 14.3 20.0 39.1 15.4 93. in each sampled village. % No.1 No.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.6 9.1 52.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.6 55.8 92.0 1.0 48.0 31.7 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 69.1 576 100.7 44.9 30. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.0 21.4 23.2 10.1 95.6 36.5 11.7 12.9 21.3 11.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 8.4 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 58. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.9 12.8 25. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 656 100.3 57.1 39.5 23.5 44.0 213 97 90 75 95 106 31.5 10.6 20. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.5 7.6 14.7 80.9 37. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 107 86 72 61 61 55 134 18.6 11.4 25.9 32.5 99.0 67.0 19.6 42.Tamil Nadu Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.4 13.6 58. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 160 95 76 73 101 151 24.2 96. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.8 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.9 35.1 53. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.4 14.0 598 100.0 68.4 67.9 24.0 21.8 23.3 126 88 77 78 55 60 114 21.4 212 ASER 2011 .7 13.6 63.0 48.6 42.3 47. including story-books. 2010 2011 55.8 6. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.9 77.0 35.4 21.6 33.

1 92.3 21.0 21.7 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6. 15. 4 OUT OF 4 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.0 92.4 4.3 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 213 . 5. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 7.9 6.0 Pvt.1 3.0 4.8% in 2007 to 3.4% children are 8 years old but there are also 7.9 94.8 21.1 8.8 9.6 26. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 56.3% who are 7.8 1.8% in 2008 to 3.9 0.3 15.1% who are 10 years old.2 22. 54.7 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.4% in 2009 to 3.4 54.5 0.7 Other 0.3 1.8 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.4 5.6 92.8 7.3 3.9 0.9 8.5 93.0 64.7 Not in Total School 1.9 1. For example.2% who are 9.9 0.9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total 100 8.9 0.2 21.3 1.1 0. How to read this chart: For example.2 14. etc.5 12.9 14. I II 5 6 7 8 7. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.1 2.7 4.0 6.9 93.4% in 2010 to 2.8 3.9 55.0 45. 92.8 6.7 94.6 2. This table shows the age distribution for each class.8 100 100 100 100 100 100 6.7 100 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 4. 14.0 58.1 43.3 1.3 0.2 8.4 17.7 0.2 3.3 55.9 8.9 48.1 12. in Std III.4 7.4 15.0 2.0 4.0 7.4 0.0% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.3 22.0 93.4 6.3 1.3 0.Tripura RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.0 6.6 0.8 9.6 3. 2009 & 2011 5.7 0.7 92.5 14.1 91. she should be age 8 in Std 3.0 0.5 47.1 7.3% in 2006 to 5.3 34.1 6.0 3.4 1.0 2.7 4.8 5.

9 10. In sum.0 Letter 39.9 100.1 33. 35. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language. In Tripura.6% can read Std 2 level text.3 72.6 0. and 21.2 2.2 1.8 7. for each class. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%. 3.1 6.0 7.8 83. 12.2 27.3% can read letters but not more.2 5.9 8. 214 % Children ASER 2011 .9 0.9 20.9 4.0 3. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 16.0 10.5% children cannot even read letters.5 55.3 27.5 36.3 4. 27% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher. children were given the choice of reading in Bengali. Figures for Kok Borok and English have not been included due to insufficient data.3 18. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.6 37.8 45. For example.3 5. Note: In ASER 2011 for every state.8 12.5 1.4 11.6% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.0 18. in Std III.2 35. For home languages.4 1. where the medium of instruction in government schools is Bengali or Kok Borok. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. This included 22 Scheduled languages and 100 NonScheduled languages. Kok Borok or English. Note: This tool was also available in Kok Borok and English.8 21.8 2.6 38.7 84.Tripura Reading Std.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.4 26.9 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Word 25.9 17.5 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 11.6 9.0 * 'Other' includes all languages from the list of scheduled and non-scheduled languages except those specified above.3 4.2 13. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language Of children who tested in Bengali % Children whose home language was: Bengali Other * Total % 66.0 4.

4 66.7 69. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.0 5.9 80.5 89.7 82.2 85. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.0100.4 48.0 61.1 78.2% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.6 96.0 79.0 62.7 83.0100.8 73.9 72.2 71.3 13.2 73. ASER 2011 % Children 215 .0 74.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.5 2.5 72. and 13.7 40.1 Divide 2.1100.7 93.8 58.7 75.7 33.9 5.3 45.5 30.6 54.3100.5 25.5 39.8 64.7 10.0 75.0 56.1 25.0100.4 24.1 0.0100. for each class.6 65.0 0.8 67.6 72.0100.0 45. In all 4 years.0100.9% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.0 65.2 33.0 73.0 42.2 7.8 3. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.0 88.9% can do subtraction but not division.9 13.8 31.5100. 10.8 26. in Std III.2 75.7 70.1 65. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.0 72.0 Total 69.9 67.5 77.9 33.7 33.Tripura Arithmetic Std.2 74.8 33.2100.3 Subtract 16. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.6 72.0 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 39.3 17. 3.4 62.2 0.5 79. For example.4 77.0 4.2 21. 2009.7100. 40.3 45.5 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.3 64. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.2 4.2 3.0 8.0 13.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.3100. In sum.9 47.2 84.4 66.0 73.7 46. 2009. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII 0. 31.2 19.9 6.2 73.4 2.0 31.3 1.1 37.3 37.8% can do division. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.0100. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 9.2 69.7 3.0100.2 80.6 57.8 11.

1 17.7 100 6.5 29.6 77.0 0.5 24.4 2.8 62.5 79.6 41.0 0.8 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 2.4 63. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.2 52.5 73.5 35.1 88.3 2.1 30.2 28.0 216 ASER 2011 .3 30. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 75.1 17. 2009.1 44.4 0.4 51.4 0. in each sampled village.0 0.0 52.2 23.6 48.Tripura RURAL As part of ASER 2007.1 of visit Total 100 100 12. School observations Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.0 0. 2010 and 2011.5 25.4 80.3 86.9 27.1 53.8 36. 2009.0 4.0 100 88.9 79. 2009.7 47.2 100 3.6 50.8 47.8 28.6 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 92.7 85.5 35.8 67.6 3.1 0.8 88.4 57.7 0.2 93.4 100 6. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 33.0 21.3 54.6 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.3 67.1 27.3 % Teachers present (average) 85.0 7.3 4.8 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 95. 2009.9 75. 2009.7 33.2 84.4 2.3 32.3 86.3 Headteacher appointed but not present at 3.2 16.0 % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 4.6 Std I-VII/VIII 62.8 41.7 14.5 84.6 34.7 8.8 7.0 0. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 36 26 62 58 44 102 44 54 98 46 48 94 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.9 25. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.5 89.3 81.9 7.

models etc.0 20.6 88 56.9 The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.8 91 61. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .0 11.5 13. 1 For more information see www.5 23. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012. including whitewashing. of No Don’t Sch.7 6. of Sch. know 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 9.8 31. 57 52 April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.Tripura RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . 79 78 % Schools No. registers and other office equipment.7 24. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants Maintenance grant Development grant % Schools No.1 9. hand pump.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.6 37. sitting mats etc.2 68 36. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. Rs 7500 .1 45. Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.8 67.7MONEY 41. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs. 35. Also for buying chalk.4 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 79 69. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.1 11. of No Don’t Sch.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.in ASER 2011 217 .2 10.5 15.4MONEY 8.8 51. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. beautification. of Sch. boundary wall.accountabilityinitiative.5000 .1 66.5 38.5 8.8 80 18.7 34. globes.0 12. playground etc. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.8 50.9 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.9 THEIR 74 82.5 79 29. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.4 9.5 11.1 Yes Yes Yes 55.8 78 23.5000 per year per primary school Rs.1 61.Rs. duster.9 9.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants Maintenance grant Development grant TLM grant No.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.5 91 79. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.2 25.0 72 76. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.0 9. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.6 21.9 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.4 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 54 42. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.1 74 37.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.5 28.6 19.9 68 63. and repair of toilets.3 38. such as charts.8 11.4 16. posters.4 THEIR 74 48.0 13.1 57.

of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.6 16.8 31.8 25.1 30.4 7.4 40.8 218 ASER 2011 .9 7.0 32.0 8.8 11.3 41.0 0.0 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 36.4 75. of % of No.3 20.7 4.9 90.4 23.9 42. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.3 64.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0. % No.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.9 16.9 3.0 30.1 10.3 18.3 0.3 64. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.0 40.0 90 100.Tripura Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 14.0 50.1 18. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.0 25.2 15.6 19. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.3 76.6 78.1 12.9 30.1 21.4 96.7 1 9 13 7 10 9 41 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 0.6 35.5 40. including story-books.0 94 100.9 71.5 40.6 89 100.7 19.5 8.6 15. 2010 2011 88.8 16.0 0.7 31. in each sampled village.0 21.0 25.4 16.0 20.1 14.9 35.7 25.0 48.5 7.0 24.0 45.3 52.5 96 100.0 50.7 37.9 No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 4 7 7 3 15 15 38 4.5 25.3 17 17 12 10 15 23 18.6 48.0 14.5 15.1 10.8 10.7 32.4 42.6 27.9 15.0 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.3 66.4 11.4 46.5 83.5 53.8 88.9 28.4 43.2 6.4 53.8 35. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 9 11 8 20 16 32 9.7 33.0 56. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 2010 2011 School No. magazines and books on all subjects.8 89.0 33.

2 39.3% who are 7.8 0.2 5. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 17.5 35.9 0.9 71.4 25.3 5.9 3.3 8.4 6.3 28.3 4.8 5. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.6 9 10 11 12 13 3.3 6.5 67.8 100 100 100 100 100 6.1 7.7 6.8 14 15 16 Total 100 100 31.5 1.6 1.0 25. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 3.9 1.1 1.7 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 7.0 34. 37.3 66.6 33. 12 OUT OF 13 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.7% in 2008 to 3% in 2009 to 4% in 2010 to 1. 10.9 12.0 76.6 62.2 8.2 23.4 8.5 12.6 19.0 1.2 0. in Std III.4 30.1 77.7 0.7 11.7 26.8 19.7 16.2 79.6 1.2 Not in Total School 1. This table shows the age distribution for each class. 31.Uttarakhand RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.2 7.1 1. she should be age 8 in Std 3.3 36.5 68.9 13.5 7.2 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.2% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.9 Other 1. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.1 31.1% in 2007 to 2.7 12.0 14.1 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 219 .2 31.2 26.1 1.9 100 9.8 0.0 1.8 1.6 6.5 30.1 0.4 15. 2009 & 2011 29.3 1.7 5.4% in 2006 to 4.0 37.2 36.3 37.5 5. 23.9 74.6 % who are 10 years old.6 36.8 20.2 1. 66.0 10.1 27.0 % who are 9.6 18. etc.8 Pvt.8 24.9 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.2 37. I II 5 6 7 8 7.2 8.3 1.4 4.6 12.1 1.5 37.9 58. For example.6 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.2 13.9 5.2 20.2% children are 8 years old but there are also 15. How to read this chart: For example.0 55.7 2.

220 % Children ASER 2011 .5 4.7 15.2 0. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.7 58.9 2.8 34.6 28. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. In sum.6 26.7 Word 19.1 87. and 26.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.3 7.1 22.3 15.2 0.6 2.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.1 42.4 RURAL Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 4. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.4% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text. 21.9 10.4 1.9 46.3 83.8 11.7 10. 18% can read letters but not more. For home languages. for each class.6 100.7 12.0 28. For example.1% can read Std 2 level text. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 29.4 Letter 40.0 12.9 18.0 0.7 3. 28. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.5 66.8 15. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.0 73.1 5.6 13.4 23. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 33.4 How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.4 3.0 5. 5. in Std III.2 17.7% children cannot even read letters.9 3.5 18.6 8.7 21.Uttarakhand Reading Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std.5 5.5 2.

5 5.2 VIII 8.5 5.2 6.8 3.5 6.4 7.8 2.5 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 40.4 35. 21. for each class.7 7.6 18.6 4.0 21.8 II 4.6 32.4 31.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.9 V VI VII 3.7 5.7 15.3 IV 4.5 22.3 37. ASER 2011 % Children 221 .5 22.5 22.1 24.5 25.2 60.6 20.3 2.5 13.6 16. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.7 28.7 23.4 0. 5.6 12.7% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.9 5.4 28.0 36.7 65.3 18.0 28.3 7.8 Total 4.3 5.6 32.4 24.7 14.5 30. 2009. in Std III.7 23.4 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.2 17.7 17.0 41.2 6.1 4.5 35.6 17.5 8.1 9. 2009. In sum. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.4 42.4 33.0 3.8 8.1 36. For example.7 19. In all 4 years.7 8.8 22.9 10. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.9 6.9 21.0 1.9 31.8 12.4 20.1 35.4 21.6 26.5 7.6 33.5 19.3 20.0 3.3 1.8 5.7 38.3 4.0 44.8 III 3.6 5.3 37.7 5. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.5 7.7 26.6 2. 40% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.7 26.0 26. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 31.1 0.9 Subtract 4.1 6. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 3.3 6.9 6. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.9 45.8 6.0 27.5 28.Uttarakhand Arithmetic Std.7 9.3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.9 4.6% can do subtraction but not division.4% can do division.2 5.5 22.7 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Divide 1.8 40. 23. and 9.4 8.4 32.8 26.0 29.

5 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.5 % Teachers present (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) 91. 2009.0 89.4 64.2 4.9 82.2 222 ASER 2011 . Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.3 84.6 94.1 100 0.3 89.3 12.4 1.8 79. 2010 and 2011 2007 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 2009 2010 2011 Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007.6 85.Uttarakhand School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007.5 55. 2010 and 2011.9 1.5 100 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 93. 2009.2 92. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.4 89. 2009. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-IV/V 85.5 10.6 5.5 91. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 67.3 76.4 0.0 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed Headteacher appointed but not present at time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 2.5 82.6 71.0 81. 2009. in each sampled village. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.0 4.8 77.7 60.3 0.8 60.0 78.0 0. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 316 16 332 347 7 354 321 16 337 285 12 297 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.9 55. 2009.9 60.6 84.6 5.1 1.4 0.3 100 94.8 0.

4 2. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.1 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.1 315 85. boundary wall.6 5.6 42. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. beautification.in ASER 2011 223 . wall etc.6 37.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.2 2. globes.9 55. posters.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms.4 36. % Schools No.2 3.6 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 294 86.9 72.2 11.2 2.1 THEIR 278 50. of No Don’t Sch.2 2.7 46.7 7. registers and other office equipment.1 63.4 8.2 14.8 12.2 55. New Classroom Repair of building (roof. floor. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc.1 4.1 52. duster.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII.6 3.5 50.5 24.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.6 9. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.) 17.4 73.7 20.6 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.5 41. Also for buying chalk.5 11.3 21.5 260 60. including whitewashing.5 6.6 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 8. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts. cleaning etc.1 291 82.0 54. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. Rs 7500 .7 278 67. models etc. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school. sitting mats etc.8 30. playground etc. of No Don’t Sch.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.2 1. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants % Schools No.7 8.3 2.accountabilityinitiative.5000 per year per primary school Rs.3 8.5 61.Uttarakhand RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .3 14.9 28.4 55.Rs.4 267 59.2 28.6 Maintenance 275 grant Development 275 grant 287 33.1 24.5 10.1 68.1MONEY 6.5 287 76.3 6.7 Don't know 3. know 6. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.8 284 86. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.0 58.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.0MONEY 38.6 13.5000 .1 2. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs. such as charts.5 5.8 29. of Sch. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.8 73.5 49. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids. register etc. and repair of toilets.9 8.7 3.2 60.3 33. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.5 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 333 94.1 % schools No 79.8 22. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .2 2.0 258 55.6 82.8 4.5 24.1 6.6 277 31. of Sch.9 3.6 14.7 3. 69.4 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. know 5. duster.1 12.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.0 15. hand pump.0 THEIR 294 87.6 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.8 3.4 83. For more information see www.0 69.9 42. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.3 36. water.4 54.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 316 grant Development 314 grant TLM grant 84.8 46.6 8.7 3.1 2009-2010 % Schools No.6 41.

% of of of of schools schools schools schools 155 47 18 9 5 5 9 62.3 332 100.3 5.3 12.2 224 ASER 2011 .5 4.0 50.0 7.6 6.6 248 100.1 6. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.0 291 100.5 16.0 2.3 No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.1 28.3 87.5 68.8 6.2 20.5 94.0 100.8 40.3 82.5 4.6 120 42 10 12 2 3 9 60.0 67.6 12.3 202 28 15 13 14 19 69.6 5. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.9 67.5 100. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper.1 52.0 15.1 83.6 92.0 100.1 1.0 3.5 19. % No.7 68.0 198 100.9 35.2 86.0 see note 84.9 83.7 11.9 84.1 19.7 12.6 37.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.Uttarakhand Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.9 3.6 2.4 67.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 2. During this school visit.2 19.3 100.4 59.0 1.0 83. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.4 96. including story-books.9 53.4 53.8 40.6 0.7 100. 2010 2011 87. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 229 41 15 14 12 21 69.1 13.0 12.2 5. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.2 4.3 27.0 66.7 14.3 78.0 55.4 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 9.4 4.9 24.5 RURAL Right to Education indicators Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 84. in each sampled village.2 93.0 82.2 4. magazines and books on all subjects.3 3.6 21.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No.4 9.7 41.1 9. of % of No.0 22.0 0.3 95.4 47.1 17.8 61.0 88.5 4.3 94.8 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 90.4 79. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) 5 + HM 100.2 3.

Uttar Pradesh West Bengal iu Daman and D Puducherry .

.

4 10.0 15.2 9.5 22.4 17.7 11.7 16.2% in 2008 to 9.7 2. 16.7 31.3 13.3 25.8 53.4 45.1 19.6 3.4 6.7 27.7% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007. 35% children are 8 years old but there are also 11.9 5.5 7.9 2. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 9.8 100 4.4 9. 45.9 20. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.3 38.0 2.4 14 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.1 37.0% who are 10 years old. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. etc.1 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 11.2 1.9 1.9 47.5 9.2 48.4 8.3 6.0 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.1 8.0 17. How to read this chart: For example.7 % who are 9. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 11.4 Not in Total School 6.4 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.9 30.4 3.3 3. she should be age 8 in Std 3.3 33.7 8.6 5.7 49.9 100 27.0 26.0 1.5 6.0 35.7% in 2010 to 9.5 10.8 42.9 44.9 44.7 47.7 2.1 3.4 9.4% in 2007 to 10.9 33.5 2. 2009 & 2011 31.7 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. in Std III.4 45.8 6.0 2. This table shows the age distribution for each class.2 2.4 31.7 5.2 Pvt.7 27.4 43.3 6.7 Other 2.6 15.1 0.1 39.3 35.9 26.9 1.6 1.3 31. 18.8 16.2 5.7 30. 68 OUT OF 69 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.6 1.7 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 227 . For example.9 42.1% in 2006 to 8.5 3.4 6.2 7.9 2.5 13.9 5.2 13.0 5.6% who are 7.7 5.5% in 2009 to 9.0 45. 46.7 16.7 21. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 7.2 9.Uttar Pradesh RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.5 38.0 18.0 43.5 51.8 9.1 4.6 35.9 44.3 6.2 5.3 23.

4 22.1 17.5 13.2 11. 228 % Children ASER 2011 . and 18.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.7 15.6 22.4% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.1 11. 22.4 32.6 How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.1 Word 9.8 16.3% can read Std 2 level text.9 6.9 15.3 8.3 2.2 5. 30.0 22.8 2.3 58.7 2. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 47.7% children cannot even read letters.2 5.4 19.5 67.1 RURAL Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 3.7 8.5 Letter 37. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.3 12.5 15.2 17.3 6.1 8.Uttar Pradesh Reading Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. For example.3 39. 13. for each class.2 43.7 16.1 7. For home languages.6% can read letters but not more.7 9. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 93.1 18.0 14.3 31. In sum.1 100.1% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.3 1. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.9 19.1 76. 15. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.6 24. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.4 20. in Std III.2 10.7 30.

0 5.0 20.5 15.8 3.6 19.6 15.4 13.5 14.2 21.6 III 4.2 19.2 20. and 6.5 4.4 14.1 21.8 28.9 4.4 9.8 15. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.2 10.3 6.8% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.4 7.9 5.5 6.9 RURAL Math Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Divide 0.8 IV 5.0 18.3 7.5 16.7 2.4% can do division.8 45.3 8.0 11.0 17. for each class.3 29.0 6. 29.5 12.1 24.6 19.5 4.5 21. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I 3.8% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.2 29.1 27.8 16.9 18.6 5.5% can do subtraction but not division.1 4. 11.7 II 4.0 11.8 30. For example.7 27. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.1 9.3 1.1 5.4 11.1 17.8 Subtract 2.9 45.2 16. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.5 20.4 18.1 14.8 18. 15.8 8.5 9.8 5.1 12.5 6.0 24.2 8.3 19.9 24.1 14.2 36.8 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 40. in Std III.5 21.9 15.2 10. 2009.2 3.4 14.4 5. ASER 2011 % Children 229 .8 36.6 7.6 29.4 15.1 28. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.0 6.5 13.8 26.0 22. 36.6 21. In sum.4 11. In all 4 years.4 29.1 15.1 11.3 8.4 7. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.0 7.0 19.3 2.8 10.4 17.7 24. 2009.9 9.5% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 45.3 7.0 16.5 5.1 How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.8 16.8 6.2 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.8 V VI VII VIII Total 5.1 11.0 13. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.5 17.1 21.Uttar Pradesh Arithmetic Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std.9 1.

8 27.4 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 98.6 73.0 82.8 83.2 11. 2010 and 2011.6 28.0 48. 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 42.0 31.7 of visit Total 100 100 24. Table 8: Total schools visited 2007.0 51.Uttar Pradesh School observations RURAL As part of ASER 2007.7 time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time 68.4 16.0 97.7 100 5.4 17.9 54.1 0.4 59.7 57.6 Headteacher appointed but not present at 26.6 Std I-VII/VIII 43. 2009.6 57. in each sampled village. 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 1885 99 1984 1799 1633 1601 90 263 299 1889 1896 1900 Student and teacher attendance Table 9: Student attendance 2007.4 42.1 55.1 0.7 35.5 46. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.0 0.5 61.7 57.8 7.4 42.4 46.0 100 2.0 20.7 230 ASER 2011 .0 55.8 79. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007. 2009.0 70.0 0.8 (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present 19.0 0.5 53.7 20.1 100 97.2 % Teachers present 92.7 70.2 26.6 0.0 0.3 81. 2009.1 90.8 69.1 (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 0.8 44.6 75.1 20.9 49.5 33.6 57.0 89.4 75.2 40.7 17.7 43.1 0.0 30.8 51.8 98.2 22.4 100 1.4 7.6 100 100 Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007.3 64.4 0. 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 64. 2009. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.8 13.9 53.8 85.1 50.7 60.8 0.0 18.0 Other school information Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed 2010 2011 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V Std I-VII/VIII 4.0 3.1 50.8 0. 2009.1 0.

7 The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level.4 19.6 4.9 9.2 79. duster.8 14.7 27.1 1736 32.2 1 Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises.1 18.7 78.in ASER 2011 231 . Rs 7500 .1 16.2 73.3 45.4 5.Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No.7 1763 62.3 43. Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants . This information is collected from schools visited during the survey.0 15.5000 per year per primary school Rs. register etc.0 10.8 37.4 1799 68.2 24. beautification.8 5. registers and other office equipment.0 83. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. of No Don’t Sch.8 28. and repair of toilets.7 65.1 Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 1750 grant Development 1715 grant TLM grant 66.6 29.0 27.1 1861 46.6 31.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.9 5. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building.0 21.Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No.8 34.6 EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR.Uttar Pradesh RURAL School funds and activities (PAISA) Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants .2 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know 6.7 GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 1608 51. duster.1 28.3 1884 80.4 6. Purchase of sitting Mats/Tat Patti Purchase of charts. know 5.0 26.Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms.2 5.) 15. playground etc.5 11.2 1880 72.7 66.1 28.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools.8 16.8 32. Also for buying chalk. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard.9 51. hand pump.5 4.5 4. wall etc.5 9.7 44.7 53. such as charts.7 1870 54.1 34. of Sch. of Sch.1 67.3 72. For more information see www.5 34. posters.0 Table 16: % Schools carrying out different activities since April 2011 Type of Activity Yes Const.6MONEY 7. Maintenance 1592 grant Development 1567 grant 42.4 41.8 5.9 DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 1759 75. know 2009-2010 % Schools No. including whitewashing.) Purchase of electrical fittings Purchase Purchase of chalk.0 30.8 4.2 35. globes.2 55.9 10. New Classroom Repair of building (roof.9 Don't know 6.Rs. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools.7 7. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room) TLM GRANT Rs.8 48. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.0 59.8 17.5 38.) Repair of doors & windows Repairs Repair of boundary wall Repair of drinking water facility Repair of toilet Painting & White Wash White wash/plastering Painting Blackboard/Display Board/Painting on wall Painting of doors & walls Purchase of furniture (cupboard etc. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids.5 88.0 15.2 13.5 28. of No Don’t Sch. models etc. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.9 % schools No 78.8 17. cleaning etc. sitting mats etc.5 6.2 15.1 26.0 18. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building.accountabilityinitiative.4 1883 80.6 4.8 59. globes & other teaching material Expenditure on school events Other Payment of bills (electricity.2 32.3 5. % Schools No. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know SSA school grants % Schools No.2 26.0 THEIR 1733 74. of Don’t Yes No know Sch.4 80.1MONEY 34.8 5. The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.4 1759 37. floor.5000 .2 1862 39.8 15. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.6 22.3 12.8 9. boundary wall.0 THEIR 1705 38.0 11. water.

9 33.4 95.4 6.1 35.3 71. During this school visit.5 RURAL Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 19.3 17.2 6.4 25.0 1859 100.8 22.4 79. of % of No.7 45.1 29.0 37.9 16.9 16.0 2.4 24.9 33. one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey.9 15.9 10.2 19.0 Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets.6 51.0 74.4 7. RTE indicators were observed and are reported here.9 47. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 132 556 620 345 112 50 44 7.Uttar Pradesh Right to Education indicators Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No.9 72.6 60.7 No.1 16. including story-books.4 38.9 51. magazines and books on all subjects. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required.2 30.8 53.6 18.4 130 625 603 324 93 44 40 7. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing.9 5.0 2.5 65. in each sampled village.7 83.6 19.6 60.0 2.9 25.6 32.9 47. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25) Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. 1891 100.1 71.2 21.4 32.7 18.8 44.4 33.9 39.4 5.9 89.9 73.1 108 215 334 316 346 580 5.5 69.4 37.9 81.7 95.0 232 ASER 2011 .6 16.6 93.7 83.6 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 50.2 1859 100.0 1899 100.0 33. % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.8 19.9 97.4 2.4 6.0 Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011 Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.2 22.1 57.4 10. 2010 2011 88.6 9.5 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 5.3 15.4 18. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 87 188 300 306 404 606 4.9 82. % No.2 88.8 89.5 96.9 37.5 As part of ASER 2010 and 2011.0 15.3 77.7 11.5 91.4 17.7 2.2 76.9 18.6 6.2 84.2 94.

3 5.3% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.7 27.1 3.5 14.7% in 2008 to 8.1 3.3% children are 8 years old but there are also 15.8 11.4 19.5 1.5% in 2009 to 5.6 6.6 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 12.5 1.0 Other 1.6 Pvt.6 1.4 76.3 7.7 31.2 8.0 37.8 4.3 6.1 11.6 10.4 1.6 87.2 6.4 4.7 1. This table shows the age distribution for each class. 2009 & 2011 7.9 9.6 11.0 6.5 24.3 91.6% who are 7.3% in 2007 to 7.6 1. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.2 4.9 1. in Std III.2 40.6 39.3 2.5 9.7 11.4 10.4 32.7 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 233 .West Bengal RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS.4 2. 87.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 5.2 17.1 1.4 27. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.9 13.3 7.0 19.8 8.3 88.3 15.7 8.0 2.1 2.8 14. For example.7 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.9 3.5% in 2010 to 4.2 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.8 33.3 89.3 6. 39. How to read this chart: For example.5 41.8 2.8 5.4 2.0 31. 10.3 17. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 30.9 13.8 86.4 2.8 32.7 13.0 6.4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total 100 30.3 8. 17 OUT OF 17 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. I II 5 6 7 8 7.1 6.8 87.7 14.1% in 2006 to 8.2 2.6 2.6 32.3 24.6 29.6% who are 9.9% who are 10 years old.6 1.5 82.6 1.9 79. 6.3 86.6 66.6 2.3 Not in Total School 4.1 100 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 35.2 3.9 5. 24. she should be age 8 in Std 3.8 1.0 9.0 9.6 15. etc.0 2.4 2.

1 14.4 5.3 40.9 0.2 3.6 12. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.9 8.5 3.9 22. 19. 234 % Children ASER 2011 .2 80. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.4 2.5 4.1 16.9 13. in Std III.9 73.7 5.4 17.0 RURAL Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 8. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 91.1 33.5 17.3 33.6 25.9 0. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.3 9. 5.8 19.West Bengal Reading Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std.8 29.2 9.9% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.7 Letter 45. For example.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.9 48.6 19.5 26.9% can read letters but not more.2 15.2 25.8 57. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams.9 8. For home languages.2% children cannot even read letters.9 How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 20. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.4 24.1 100. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. In sum. for each class.4 5. and 24.9% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.3 3.4 1.8 Word 21. 23.8 23.1 14. 26.4 5.3 1.1% can read Std 2 level text.9 26.

6 6.7 13.9 1.5 82.0 69.8 68.7 86.6 87.4 73.5 0.0 62.2 50.7 35.4 39.6 75.7 76.5 40.1 72.7 16.9 55. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.0 83.1% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9.6 89.9 30.4 61. For example.9 69. In sum.8 20.1 2.9 63. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.6 63.3 67.9 56.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.5 1.9 69. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.4 4. 22% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.2 24. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.4 45.9 59.6 63. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 15.0 18.6 75.2 35.2 6.0 25.2 78.4 27.9 77.4 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.3 84.4 83. In all 4 years. 27% can do subtraction but not division. for each class.0 13.9 15.6 76.4 32.9 7. 2009.4 60.9 71.7 54.4 72.9 83.1 32.2 31. ASER 2011 % Children 235 . 4.0 74.1 26.3 1.7 20.7 79. 2009.0 36.3 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 48.5 67.8 66.3 3.4 24.4 72. in Std III.0 53.9 79.7 73.9 25.4 81.6 45.6 Subtract 5.West Bengal Arithmetic Std.1 65.8 59.7% can do division.7 74.0 4.9 68.6 65.6 65.2 73.9 71.1 80.7 0.0 65.2 75.6 10.1 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Divide 2.4 27. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 66.6 80.3 75.7 24.2 27.7 68.1 65.5 63. 33. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.6 63.0 16.8 85.3 33.1 83.8 52.5 54.7 51.2 70.4 74.1 60.3 22. and 13.7 88.

West Bengal
School observations

RURAL

As part of ASER 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. Information about schools in this report is based on these visits.

Table 8: Total schools visited 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Type of school Std I-IV/V: Primary Std I-VII/VIII: Primary + Upper primary Total schools visited 2007 2009 2010 2011 395 9 404 417 7 424 406 2 408 400 1 401

Student and teacher attendance
Table 9: Student attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 Type of school % Enrolled children present (average) % Schools with less than 50% enrolled children present (average) % Schools with 75% or more enrolled children present (average) 2009 2010 2011 Type of school Table 10: Teacher attendance 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V

Std I-IV/V

69.7

65.9

68.5

60.7

% Teachers present (average) % Schools with no teachers present (average) % Schools with all teachers present (average)

90.6

87.7

85.6

86.3

14.7

20.9

15.8

27.9

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

50.7

39.8

45.7

26.9

71.4

68.4

58.4

59.6

Other school information
Table 11: Headteachers 2010 & 2011 % Schools with: No Headteacher appointed Headteacher appointed but not present at time of visit Headteacher appointed & present at time of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 1.1 4.7 94.2 100 0.8 4.5 94.8 100 Table 12: Computers 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: No computer Computers but no children using them on day of visit Computers & children using them on day of visit Total 2010 2011 Std I-IV/V 99.0 0.5 0.5 100 96.4 2.3 1.3 100

Table 13: Multigrade classes 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 % Schools with: Std II children sitting with one or more other classes Std IV children sitting with one or more other classes 2007 2009 2010 2011

Std I-IV/V 36.7 24.6 46.6 38.7 42.6 33.8 38.7 30.9

236

ASER 2011

West Bengal

RURAL

School funds and activities (PAISA)
Table 14: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Full financial year 2008-2009 SSA school grants No. of Sch. % Schools No. of No Don’t Sch. know 5.9 5.9 2009-2010 % Schools No. of No Don’t Sch. know 2010-2011 % Schools No Don’t know The PAISA section of ASER tracks receipt and spending of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) grants at the school level. This information is collected from schools visited during the survey. This page reports proportion of schools receiving the grants and carrying out specified activities in the schools. More detailed analysis of the PAISA data will be available in the PAISA 2011 report which will be released in March 2012.1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance 390 grant Development 371 grant TLM grant

70.5 23.6 59.6 34.5

377 80.4 10.6 9.0 363 73.6 17.4 9.1

380 72.1 17.9 10.0 375 62.4 28.0 9.6

DID SCHOOLS GET ON TIME? 381 74.8 21.0 4.2 THEIR 374 85.3MONEY 8.6 6.2 379 77.8 14.0 8.2
EVERY RURAL GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO EACH OF THESE SSA GRANTS EVERY YEAR. How much goes to For what purposes each school SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANT / SCHOOL GRANT Rs.5000 per year per primary school Rs.7000 per year per upper primary school Rs 5000 + Rs 7000 = Rs 12000 if the school is Std I-VII/VIII. Note: Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same premises. This grant can be used for buying school equipment such as blackboard, sitting mats etc. Also for buying chalk, duster, registers and other office equipment.

Table 15: % Schools who report receiving SSA grants - Half financial year April 2009 to October 2009 No. of Sch. April 2010 to October 2010 % Schools No. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. April 2011 to October 2011 % Schools Yes No Don’t know 9.3

SSA school grants

% Schools No. of Don’t Yes No know Sch. 39.3 54.1 30.4 62.3 6.7 7.3

Maintenance 331 grant Development 329 grant

346 31.2 59.5 9.3 320 28.1 62.2 9.7

364 39.6 51.1

353 33.7 56.1 10.2

GET ON TIME? TLM DID grant SCHOOLS 327 45.0 50.5 4.6 THEIR 322 32.3MONEY 59.0 8.7 363 42.2 48.8 9.1

The grant amount varies by type of school: whether it is a primary or upper primary school.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE GRANT Rs.5000 - Rs 7500 per school per year if the school has upto 3 classrooms. Rs 7500 - Rs.10000 per year if the school has more than 3 classrooms. Primary and Upper Primary schools are treated as separate schools even if they are in the same building. This grant can be used for maintenance of school building, including whitewashing; beautification; and repair of toilets, hand pump, boundary wall, playground etc. The grant amount depends on number of classrooms (excluding Headmaster room and office room)

TLM GRANT Rs.500 per teacher per year in primary and upper primary schools. This grant can be used by teachers to buy teaching aids, such as charts, globes, posters, models etc.

1

For more information see www.accountabilityinitiative.in

ASER 2011

237

West Bengal
Table 17: Schools by total enrollment 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 School No. of % of No. of % of enrollment schools schools schools schools 1-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 40 68 74 65 76 72 10.1 17.2 18.7 16.5 19.2 18.2 51 61 81 55 69 71 13.1 15.7 20.9 14.2 17.8 18.3

RURAL

Right to Education indicators
Table 18: RTE norms: Pupil-teacher ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE 2010 2011 School Teacher enrollment % Schools that do Norms not meet PTR norms 1-60 25.8 25.0 2 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-200 > 200 TOTAL 3 4 5 5 + HM see note 69.6 77.5 87.7 66.7 90.0 73.9 57.1 66.7 73.6 74.6 85.5 65.7 Number of teachers in Std 1-5: Admitted children No. of teachers <= 60 2 61-90 3 91-120 4 121-200 5 > 150 5 + 1 Headteacher > 200 Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Headteacher) shall not exceed 40 School facilities: All weather building with: At least one classroom for every teacher Office cum store cum headteacher’s room Separate toilets for boys and girls Safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children A kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school Playground Arrangements for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as required. Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story-books. As part of ASER 2010 and 2011, in each sampled village, one government school with primary sections was visited on the day of the survey. During this school visit, RTE indicators were observed and are reported here. Extracts from the Schedule of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Norms and standards for a School (Sections 19 and 25)

395 100.0

388 100.0

Note : For schools with enrollment above 200 children the PTR shall not exceed 40 excluding the Head Teacher

Table 19: Schools by number of teachers 2010 and 2011 2010 Number of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 2011

Table 20: RTE norms: Teacher classroom ratio 2010 and 2011 RTE norm: 2011 2010 At least one classroom per % Schools that do not teacher meet classroom to teacher Number of norms teachers 1 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 >=7 TOTAL 6.9 25.6 37.1 86.7 95.0 75.0 35.2 19.7 22.5 35.1 75.9 94.1 93.8 35.5

No. % No. % of of of of schools schools schools schools 20 83 92 79 36 25 15 5.7 23.7 26.3 22.6 10.3 7.1 4.3 41 84 91 70 37 20 21 11.3 23.1 25.0 19.2 10.2 5.5 5.8

350 100.0

364 100.0

Table 21: % Schools meeting selected RTE norms on facilities 2010 & 2011 % of schools with Office/Store/Office cum store Building Playground Boundary Wall No facility for drinking water Drinking Facility but no drinking water available Water Drinking water available No toilet facility Toilet Facility but toilet not useable Toilet useable % Schools with no separate provisions for girls toilets Of schools with separate girls toilets, % schools where Girls Toilet Toilet locked Toilet not useable Toilet useable Teaching learning material in Std 2 TLM Teaching learning material in Std 4 No library Library Library but no books being used by children on day of visit Library being used by children on day of visit Kitchen shed for cooking midday meal MDM Midday meal served in school on the day of visit
Note: School observations for ASER 2011 looked at TLM for Std II and Std IV only.

2010 2011 79.3 42.0 34.1 19.3 13.5 67.2 7.6 40.3 52.1 44.5 14.5 17.4 23.7 71.7 65.3 50.5 17.8 31.8 86.0 63.0 81.3 50.6 42.3 21.1 15.5 63.4 8.6 42.0 49.5 26.1 19.2 13.4 41.2 78.0 71.6 39.2 18.8 42.0 87.0 55.6

238

ASER 2011

Daman and Diu
Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt. 77.2 79.4 77.2 73.4 81.9 78.9 74.8 83.4 85.3 86.4 84.2 Pvt. 22.3 19.6 22.5 26.0 18.2 20.3 23.8 16.6 11.9 11.9 11.8 Other 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.1

RURAL

ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 2 OUT OF 2 DISTRICTS

School enrollment and out of school children
Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011

Not in Total School 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.7 2.9 100 100
% Children

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.

How to read this chart: For example, the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 1.7% in 2006 to 1.6% in 2007 to 0.9% in 2008 to 1% in 2009 to 0.4% in 2010 to 0.0% in 2011

Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007, 2009 & 2011

Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std. I II 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.2 6.8 6.3 6.9 1.1 1.6 7.7 7.8 3.2 5.6

13

14

15

16 Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

32.6 53.8 13.5 1.3 8.1 72.7 11.1 11.9 58.9 22.7 11.0 46.4 32.0

% Children

III IV V VI VII VIII

0.2 2.7

4.5 1.2 2.1 4.3

5.8 51.6 28.7 7.7 7.3 55.9 28.1 8.3 52.3 26.4

13.8 53.9 22.4

How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6, she should be age 8 in Std 3. This table shows the age distribution for each class. For example, in Std III, 58.9% children are 8 years old but there are also 11.9% who are 7, 22.7% who are 9 years old, etc.

Young children in pre-school and school
Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 16.3 0.3 18.0 10.0 47.5 60.7
Not enrolled anywhere

Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007, 2009 & 2011

18.2 29.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

100 100

ASER 2011

% Children

Pvt

Other

Total

239

Daman and Diu
Reading
Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Std. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 15.6 6.8 1.5 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 2.9 Letter 54.6 36.3 18.0 4.6 7.1 3.8 2.6 1.8 14.8 Word 20.6 41.4 41.1 30.0 20.7 10.6 8.7 4.5 21.8 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 6.1 8.9 34.7 39.3 26.9 36.2 32.6 20.7 26.4 3.1 6.6 4.8 25.1 45.1 49.0 55.8 73.0 34.1

RURAL

Reading Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child. For example, in Std III, 1.5% children cannot even read letters, 18% can read letters but not more, 41.1% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher, 34.7% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text, and 4.8% can read Std 2 level text. In sum, for each class, the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.

Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011

% Children

Home language and school language
Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 100.0 0.0 100.0

Note : In ASER 2011 for every state, reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home. For home languages, a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language.

240

% Children

ASER 2011

6 59.6 78.3 79.5 80.7 35.9 22.7 61. 4.1 28. ASER 2011 % Children 241 .1 21.0 75.0 75.6 65.8 RURAL Math Tool Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.8 90.8 34. 2009.Daman and Diu Arithmetic Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Std. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition.3 85.2 81.3 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 56.3 31.5 7.5 70.1 41.3 26.2 20.7 21. 43.4 25.3% can do subtraction but not division. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents.0 26.8 87.3 89.9 41.7 35.0 2.5 4.8 28.5 1.2 30.8 35.4 30.7 27. in Std III.8 26. In all 4 years.1 34.6 Divide 1.9 0.6 12.1 15.7 62.6 86. In sum.7 75.2 61.3 2.1 37.9 30.2 85.6 78. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 16.9 79.5 40.4 71.2 39. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.4 86.8 35.0 41. and 2.4 57.2 1.9 34.3 26.8 28.5 41.4 36.2 20.6 27.1 8.8 24.1 4.0 79. 2009. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100.0 76. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 30.9 21.6 21.6 1. For example.0 77.0 21.5 29.4 32.8 79. for each class.4 Subtract 4.9 82.7 43.9 44. 28.2 81.0 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.2 87. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore.9 20.7 30.6 29.0% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.1 21.7 80.3 18.6% can do division.8 52.6 4.4 82.3 84.4 35.0% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.9 28.7 38.2 10.9 71.0 34.1 28.6 68.7 2.0 22. 22.2% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.6 33.8 20.8 25.6 35.9 15.0 4.9 10.

9 0. For example.3 1.4 2.0% children are 8 years old but there are also 23.2 48.9 2.2% in 2010 to 0. 67.0 % Children III IV V VI VII VIII 23.2 18.9 59.3 2.8% who are 9 years old.9 100 100 % Children Chart 1: Trends over time % Children out of school by age group and gender 2006-2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: 'OTHER' includes children going to madarssa and EGS.1 0.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 14.6 14. 54.6 69.8 Pvt.0 77.8 10.6 8. How to read this chart: For example.0 0.0 0.4 22.0 32.0 15.7 55.0 39.3% in 2006 to 0.8 11. in Std III.0 10.2 67.8 1.0 2.6 0.0% in 2011 Chart 2: Trends over time % Children enrolled in private school by class 2007.0 0.6 73.7 14. etc. 2009 & 2011 Table 2: Sample description % Children in each class by age 2011 Std.1 0.9 66.1 0.6 7.0 0.6 0. she should be age 8 in Std 3.2 0.2 How to read this table: If a child started school in Std I at age 6.3 13 14 15 16 Total 100 100 54.9 Not in Total School 0. ‘NOT IN SCHOOL’ = dropped out + never enrolled.9 36.9 63. 2 OUT OF 2 DISTRICTS School enrollment and out of school children Table 1: % Children in different types of schools 2011 Age group Age: 6-14 ALL Age: 7-16 ALL Age: 7-10 ALL Age: 7-10 BOYS Age: 7-10 GIRLS Age: 11-14 ALL Age: 11-14 BOYS Age: 11-14 GIRLS Age: 15-16 ALL Age: 15-16 BOYS Age: 15-16 GIRLS Govt.0 2.1 72.7 5. the proportion of girls (age 11-14) not in school has changed from 2.0 Not enrolled anywhere Chart 3: Trends over time Five year olds in pre-school & school 2007.0 0.4 1.3 33.4 0.8 8 9 10 11 12 2.7 66.1 7.0 0. This table shows the age distribution for each class.9 60.6 27.0 0.5 68.7 65.5 73.5 0.0 0.4 68.1 31. Young children in pre-school and school Table 3: % Children age 5-6 who are enrolled in different types of pre-school & school 2011 In School In balwadi In LKG/ or UKG Govt anganwadi Age 5 Age 6 0.1 39.2% in 2008 to 0.1 3.0 0.2 44. 2009 & 2011 43. I II 5 6 7 6.0 67. 8.5 Other 0.0% who are 7.Puducherry RURAL ALL ANALYSIS BASED ON DATA FROM HOUSEHOLDS. 45.8 51.1 2.4 0.3 0.0 27.5 1.0 0.0 100 100 ASER 2011 % Children Pvt Other Total 242 .0 1.7 62.0 6.0 28.0 0.0 0.1 27.7% in 2009 to 0.6 37.0% in 2007 to 1.0 0.0 22.2 10.5 0.

7% children cannot even read letters.Puducherry Reading Std.5% can read Std 1 text but not Std 2 level text.6 13. This list includes 22 Scheduled languages and 100 Non-Scheduled languages.0 28. 11.8 30. The data in this table is for children for whom we have information for both school language and home language. Children and their families were also asked about the language they speak at home.5 11. In sum.2 34.1 % can read Std 2 level text.4 29.0 Note : In ASER 2011 for every state.0 8. a list of 122 languages was provided to all survey teams. For example. 29.0 19.0 8.8 28.7 6.2 11. reading tools were provided in the main medium of instruction in government schools.6 21.8% can read words but not Std 1 text or higher.7 Word 23.2 16.1 30.9 RURAL Table 4: % Children by class and READING level All schools 2011 Level 1 Level 2 (Std 1 Text) (Std 2 Text) 4. For home languages.3 1.0 16. for each class.5 33.3 40.6 27. 243 % Children ASER 2011 .7 19.2 0.9% can read letters but not more.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reading Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of reading achieved by a child.5 6.5 30.0 59. 27.9 7.8 36.5 27. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 35.0 0. in Std III.2 19.3 35.8 11.9 4. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.3 25.4 Letter 37.0 100.7 1.0 0.5 8. Chart 4: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT READ Std I LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 Chart 5: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT READ Std II LEVEL TEXT By school type 2008-2011 % Children Home language and school language Table 5: School language and home language % Children whose : Home language is the same as school language Home language is different from school language Total % 100. 19.1 24.1 4.5 4.7 49. and 11.5 5.

6 43.6 44.4 33.7 24.1 38.7 37.5 33.2 18.1 42.5 55.9 28.6 1.0 36.2 45.6 56.1 20.6 4.7 18.0 12.6% can do subtraction but not division.1 31.1 46.4 75.0 4.5 31.9 51. and 4. 2009.4 45.8 8.6 41.5 0.5 13.9 60. siblings or from anyone else who did not require payment.2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Math Tool How to read this table: Each cell shows the highest level of arithmetic achieved by a child.6% can recognize numbers to 99 but cannot do subtraction.3% children cannot even recognize numbers 1-9. ASER 2011 % Children 244 .2 25.6 45. 2010 and 2011 the ASER survey recorded information about tuition. 2010 and 2011 Year 2007 School Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt Govt Pvt I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total 52.5 50.5 38.5 29.5 6. 52.4 49.9 4.3 35.9 25.0 45.1 21. In all 4 years. 8.8 RURAL Table 6: % Children by class and ARITHMETIC level All schools 2011 Divide 0.0 32. By school type 2008-2011 Chart 7: Trends over time % Children in Std V who CANNOT DO DIVISION By school type 2008-2011 % Children Tuition Table 7: Class-wise % children attending PAID TUITION CLASSES By school type 2007.7 42. 3.0 35. In sum.6 50.2 40.1 41.7 27.8 31.5 1.8 50.4 43.3 0.2 32.1 8.7 52.6 26. For example.5 47.2 37.5 Recognize Numbers 1-9 11-99 27.5 27.7 62.6 29.2 28.8 39. the total of all these exclusive categories is 100%.7 55.6 55.5 30.5% children can recognize numbers up to 9 but not more.9 49.6 36. the question asked was the following: “Does the child take any paid additional class currently?” Therefore. Chart 6: Trends over time % Children in Std III who CANNOT RECOGNISE NUMBERS upto 100. these numbers do not include any supplemental help in learning that children may have received from parents. 31.4 22.3 69.4 33. 2009.0 22.0 52.8 Subtract 8. for each class.7 10. in Std III.8 38.9 55.5 32.8 4.1 41.0 3.0 48.7 59.3 50.3 46.4 32.9 58.2 54.3 45.5 3.6 33.8 21.5 59.6 44.6 35.2 28.9 56.4 36.0% can do division.Puducherry Arithmetic Std.7 58.4 41.0 13.4 2.2 28.5 49.2 28.3 2009 2010 2011 Note: In 2007.4 43.4 31. I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Nothing 23.8 71.5 7.1 0.

ates im t s E l a n io is Div .

if x is the margin of error then the population proportion lies within + x% of the sample proportion with 95% probability. 30 villages are randomly chosen2 and in each village 20 households are randomly selected. for a total of 600 households per district. As a result. The first stage clustering happens when villages are randomly picked. Insofar as outcomes within a district are more homogenous than across districts. 4 United Nations (2005).e.. However. ASER Centre Villages are chosen from the 2001 Census Directory using PPS (Probability Proportional to Size) sampling. This translates into around 900 – 1200 children per district. The statistical precision of district level estimates is an issue because of the ASER sample design – namely clustering and absence of stratification at the village level. but it is also difficult to have a reliable population frame that could be used for sampling. However. at the district level. children in the relevant age group would be directly sampled. which is expensive in terms of both time and resources. learning outcomes of children in class 3-5 are relatively less precisely estimated. Series F No. Not only is this expensive (in terms of survey time). ASER is a household survey. The margin of error expresses the confidence interval in terms of the sample estimate. The second stage clustering is when households within a village are randomly picked and the children belonging to that household are tested. Within each district. mimeo. Ramaswami and Wadhwa (2009)3 studied the precision of ASER state and district level estimates for a selection of states and variables for the year 2008. They find that state level averages are estimated precisely – with a margin of error of 5% or less. Wilima (2009). it is well known that clustering increases the variability of estimates. In a design without clustering. ASER has presented estimates of learning and of schooling status at the state and district level. it is known that the interval [ ] contains the population proportion with 95% probability – 95% confidence interval. Suppose ˆ is the estimated sample proportion and p is the associated standard error. In both cases. Statistics Division. The survey design of ASER is based on the premise of generating estimates at the district level. One way of increasing precision at the district level would have been to stratify the village sample according to age of children or school type. Two commonly used measures of precision are the margin of error and the 95% confidence interval. Designing Household Survey Samples: Practical Guidelines. Bharat and Wadhwa. Director (Statistics). For instance. Studies in Methods. Instead ASER employs a two-stage clustering design. however. 2 1 246 ASER 2011 . The margin of error is the % interval around the point estimate that almost certainly contains the population estimate (i.000 children in the age group of 3 – 16 years. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. While this is an inexpensive and practical way of sampling children. “Survey Design and Precision of ASER Estimates”. district-level estimates are less precisely estimated. The precision varies both across states and districts and according to the learning outcome. It is thus defined as ˆ me = 2σ ˆ p A margin of error of 10% is regarded as an acceptable degree of precision in many studies. The ASER sample is stratified. stratification within the district leads to more precise estimates at the state level. with 95% probability). ASER is one of the largest surveys undertaken by a non-government organization with a sample size of approximately 700. this would require a prior household listing. 3 Ramaswami. undertaken in all rural districts of India.4 Estimates with a margin of error in excess of 20% are regarded as estimates with low precision.Divisional estimates of learning outcomes and schooling status: Precision of ASER estimates Wilima Wadhwa 1 Every year since 2005. From statistical theory. Having estimates of learning levels at this level is desirable since education plans are made at the district level. 98.

6 We decided to go with the state administrative divisions. for a given sample size. On the other hand. Also. Jammu & Kashmir. therefore. especially for variables whose estimated proportions were in the vicinity of 0. Gujarat. Rajasthan.5. Kerala. In the past. For a given sample size. a lower precision will be associated with a variable which has a lower incidence in the population and/or a higher standard error.6 These are Bihar.5. Chhattisgarh.5 Many states have administrative divisions. 7 The composition of each division was obtained from the state websites. most of these are below 5%. Himachal Pradesh. As is clear from the figure. At the division level too. the standard error is the largest for a population proportion close to 0. precision is not an issue at the state level. ASER 2011 247 . ASER has clubbed classes while presenting district level estimates. Punjab. note that learning outcomes in class 3-5 are less precisely estimated as compared to those in class 1-2. in an attempt to increase the sample size. The point estimate p as well as the confidence interval is presented for each division and also for the state as a whole. rather than the NSS regions. we provide divisional estimates from 2007 to 2011 for those states that have administrative divisions. however. one way to reduce the standard error and therefore increase precision is to increase the sample size. Further. As a result. as shown by Ramaswami and Wadhwa (2009). and is reported alongside the divisional estimates presented in this report. the margin of error is the highest for these variables. Haryana. divisions were created using geographical regions commonly used in the states. NSS surveys are not representative at the district level. However.Note that the margin of error depends on the standard error and the estimated proportion. Karnataka. and the standard error itself depends on the estimated proportion. since these are more commonly used within the state. This year. words or more % children in class 1-2 who can recognize numbers (1-9) or more % children in class 3-5 who can read level 1 (Std 1) text or more % children in class 3-5 who can do subtraction or more. Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. among the four learning outcomes the variability is highest for learning levels in class 3-5. for a given incidence. is extremely costly. comprised of two or more districts that can be used as units of analysis. which are formed using agroclimatic criteria. Jharkhand. In the case of ASER. Figure 1 presents the margin of error for the four learning outcomes in selected states in 2011. Madhya Pradesh. in the case of proportions. Similar numbers are obtained for previous years. These divisions are at a level of aggregation between the state and district level. 8 See the section on Divisional Estimates in this report for the exact composition. Maharashtra. precision gains from this strategy were limited.8 Divisional estimates are provided for the following 6 variables: % children in the age group 6-14 years who are out of school % children in the age group 6-14 years who are in private school % children in class 1-2 who can read letters. Odisha and Tamil Nadu. In addition to the point estimates for 2007 – 2011. However. At the district level. In discussing the division level estimates we will concentrate on these variables since they give us the worst case scenario. for a national survey.7 In addition. 5 For instance. since sample sizes in sub-populations of interest are often much smaller than the total sample size. however. in Andhra Pradesh. One way to provide sub-state estimates with acceptable levels of precision is to club districts within a state. the 95% confidence interval [ ˆ ± 2σ ˆ ] is also presented. Increasing the sample size at the district level. they are representative for NSS regions. precision can be an issue.

Intuitively this makes sense because if something is not observed very frequently.We can look at division level estimates in two ways. 248 ASER 2011 . for a particular state and division. one would need a much larger sample size to measure it accurately. Language learning outcomes at division level in most states are estimated with margins of under or close to 10%. Figures 2. Why are margins of error consistently higher for math in class 3-5? Similarly. we can look at the margin of error across years. Figures 3.1 and 3. To see why. for language and math in class 3-5. this is not that much of a problem if the standard error is small. the margin of error is inversely proportional to the incidence of the variable concerned. precision levels are lower for math learning outcomes. from 2007 to 2011. However. across the board precision levels are lower for math learning outcomes.2 present the margins of error for language and math in class 3-5 in 2011 across divisions of selected states. one can examine the precision of estimates across divisions. Again. The exceptions are Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. First. What this implies is that any variable that has a low incidence in the population will be estimated with a high margin of error. Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu have margins of error that are closer to 15% and those for Madhya Pradesh are close to 20-25%. and second. for one division in the selected states. compared to learning outcomes in class 1-2. except in MP when they spike in 2011. why are learning outcomes in class 3-5 less precisely estimated? First. Across the board. for a given sample size.1 and 2. Margins of error are fairly robust over time.2 present the margins of error. for a particular year and state.

5. class 1-2 learning outcomes (i. implying imprecise estimation. 9 10 Often sample sizes are also larger for class 1-2. the margin of error is directly proportional to the standard error. resulting in lower margins of error.e. One of the problems associated with large standard errors and therefore with wide confidence intervals is that it is difficult to identify significant changes across districts and time. the % of children in Class 1-2 who can read letters or more/ recognize numbers 1-9 or more) are higher as compared to class 3-5 outcomes (i.04 (i. the standard error itself depends on the value of the proportion.consider the case of out of school children– say the point estimate is 0. language outcomes are better than math outcomes and often math outcomes are close to 0. In the case of proportions. which would result in lower margins of error.e. i.1% and confidence bounds of +2 percentage points. This also explains the large margins of error for Madhya Pradesh in both language and math learning outcomes in 2011.01)/0.. If out of school children are 0. ASER 2011 249 .5. Both these learning levels fell in 2011 and the point estimates are close to 0. the divisional estimates are more precisely estimated as compared to district level estimates.e. with 95% probability the true proportion of out of school children lie between 2% and 6%. a high margin of error may still translate into tight confidence bands. The margin of error would be 50% (=((2 * 0. note that this translates into confidence bounds of +2 percentage points. and is larger the closer the value is to 0. By and large. will not surprisingly result in a high margin of error. 4%) with a standard error of 0.9 Similarly. Another way of looking at this is by focusing on in-school children instead of out of school children. It also smoothes the jumpiness in point estimates often observed at the district level. given a low incidence.5 resulting in higher margins of error for math. For a given sample size. Intuitively. the reason behind this is that the greatest uncertainty is associated with a proportion of 0. % of children in class 3-5 who can read Std 1 level text or more/do subtraction or more).04)*100) which is very high.96 or 96% with the same standard error of 0. In other words. Second. a large standard error.01 (i.5.e.01 giving a margin of error of only 2. requiring larger sample sizes to measure it accurately..10 Overall. in class 3-5.04 then in-school children will be 0.e. The use of divisional estimates resolves this problem to a large extent. However. 1% point). Clubbing districts increases the sample size and lowers the standard errors.

22 2008 88.e.81 ±2.72 81.S. between 85.79 7.14 Rayalaseema ±1.18 4.67 2011 2. In Coastal Andhra division of Andhra Pradesh.90 Cuddapah (Y. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.29 57.38 55.26 68.85 ±3.95 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Coastal Andhra 2008 2009 86. i.15 63.10 Chittoor % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 67.71 ±3.26 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 87.56 31.12 6.46 ±2.29 ±4.11 ±0.Divisional Estimates Andhra Pradesh School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 4.55 78.55 30.98 90.69 ±1.73 ±3.95 ±3.15 ±0.04 34. in 2007.49 2.25 State ±0.38 ±0.04 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 26. the true population proportion lies within ±2.42 ±1.92 ±3.68 ±1.31 81. in the second row.30 ±0.61 ±3.37 ±1.27 66.16 ±2.25 86.18 87.00 4.66 72.99 3.58 ±1.75 ±3.68 ±1.28 Rayalaseema ±4.21 ±2.03 ±2.78 68.12 ±3.92 ±0.68 ±3.49 70.57 ±1.12 70.71 66.52 ±3.96 State ±1.82 ±0.68 ±3. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 82.36 ±1.12 2009 87.25 ±2.21 64.59 85.30 ±1.06 38.64 Telangana ±0.62 59.01 ±4.87 2010 66.54 Coastal Andhra Srikakulam 2010 85.81 84.R.12 ±2.14 ±3.87 ±4.80 ±2.11 ±3.88 ±3.00 64.89 89.31 85.39 2011 89.28 ±1.14 27. The numbers below the estimate.20 % and 79.68 ±2.14 85.10 ±2.87 ±1.77 85.24 3.86 ±2.41 ±4.72 89.29 37.31 ±3.36 %.56 3.08 ±2.01 5.10 2011 33.29 83.12 ±3.64 2.50 ±2.18 ±1.10 63.15 250 ASER 2011 .05 State ±1.12 ±1.80 ±0.24 57.23 ±2.67 87.71 ±1.42 86.13 78.37 82.10 84.79 ±2.79 ±5.94 ±2.60 3.05 ±2.94 2009 67.18 ±2.40 ±4.99 27.59 88.32 ±2.52 74.47 ±2.34 2011 78.57 ±2.05 69.70 31.58 ±3.64 89.) Kurnool Anantapur Telangana Adilabad Nizamabad Karimnagar Medak Rangareddy Mahbubnagar Nalgonda Warangal Khammam 2010 73.12 ±5.40 ±2.67 ±0.77 ±4.84 78.69 3.98 33.72 ±2.75 Telangana ±3.91 ±3.93 2011 91.59 ±2.85 ±3.09 ±3.58 ±2.11 Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore Rayalaseema 82.81 ±1.27 86.35 2010 35.75 ±0.73 ±3. For instance.42 ±2.12 23.54 ±2.30 2010 3.43 75.66 ±2.52 %.16 ±3.39 71.81 75.71 36.72 ±5.69 ±3.41 85.59 31.20 88.84 % points of the estimate.72 ±3.74 2008 65.04 2010 88.67 34.16 68.39 Coastal Andhra ±1.02 ±4.33 Telangana ±3.63 2008 22.27 ±1.10 ±2.93 ±1.37 2011 70.88 65.07 63.83 ±2.43 86.53 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.44 6.98 ±5.47 ±4.98 87. With 95% probability.61 ±0.66 ±2.51 ±2.34 ±4.84 ±3.40 ±3.87 ±1. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.47 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Coastal Andhra 2008 2009 68.43 67.43 ±3.81 ±1.07 ±2.19 ±3.22 74.38 67.03 ±3.51 ±2.64 69.10 Rayalaseema ±3.96 61.98 82.50 82.64 ±3.84 ±2.36 88..58 2009 5.93 2.68 3.43 29.47 ±1.80 ±2. List of districts under each division 2008 2.05 57.80 29.82 68.31 2009 28.93 63.67 86.07 88.76 ±2.

04 71.47 68.73 %.54 ±8.58 56.15 68.43 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 3.12 5.69 ±4.26 4.91 ±3.62 ±1.82 ±4.65 3.99 ±4.48 76.72 ±0.35 ±5.79 8.39 4.97 ±4.71 3.96 ±0.91 1.10 2008 68.54 3.62 5.43 ±4.34 3.29 70.65 ±4.73 8.26 80.04 ±4.23 ±4.19 6.50 ±0.63 ±1.61 ±4.05 2.46 ±4.91 ±6. With 95% probability.25 ±5.82 2010 5.17 ±2.13 ±4.84 12.96 77.45 ±3.45 ±4.99 7.15 ±1.26 ±1.42 ±1.90 9.78 73.39 ±1.69 2011 2. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.01 66.82 2010 4.69 ±1.80 ±8.85 ±2.60 1.33 11. The numbers below the estimate. For instance. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.79 7.23 ±1.69 74.56 75.96 7.77 ±1. in the second row.15 ±6.66 ±1.81 2.34 ±1.41 ±4.98 3.91 54.20 2009 64.10 8.80 6.98 ±6.90 2011 55.30 75.00 ±0.65 ±0.48 ±1.88 ±3.64 ±2.98 62.72 72.21 71.17 65.62 6.65 ±4.79 ±2.89 66.01 66.29 64.71 ±1.90 1.37 75.05 ±4.74 ±6.61 ±3.54 2.50 4.37 5.88 ±4.86 5.70 ±3.25 72.22 3.47 % and 58.53 55.33 70.49 ±1.35 5.47 ±1.97 5.36 65.60 75.08 ±1. In Bhagalpur division of Bihar.32 5.69 ±2.47 ±1.95 ±5.69 ±7.55 59.05 ±1.30 ±4.28 ±4.45 4.61 ±7.25 68.70 61.75 ±1.69 8.79 67.73 2.17 ±1.52 69.66 ±4.61 ±5.70 4.13 70.09 3.61 5.50 ±1.32 ±5.18 ±8.84 4. List of districts under each division Bhagalpur Bhagalpur Banka Darbhanga Madhubani Darbhanga 2008 6.44 79.22 73.73 69.12 2.92 9.42 67.58 4.14 70.84 ASER 2011 251 .87 ±0.05 4.49 79.78 ±1.13 ±1.22 1.25 2.21 5.64 ±1.65 ±1.90 ±5.27 5.14 ±1.84 79.45 ±1.96 59.19 ±1.38 53.60 76.74 ±0.63 ±0.57 2011 56.03 58.67 68.78 2.00 ±1.45 ±0.95 4.82 5.32 ±2.18 ±4.48 ±4.78 ±7.23 ±4.03 ±1.83 ±2.85 ±5.62 58.60 3.37 7.34 ±1.71 2011 5.12 66.90 4.98 ±1.76 3.13 ±4.58 62.90 ±2.78 ±5.51 71.22 10.97 ±1.44 5.13 11.85 4.37 56.54 ±7.68 ±0.85 73.58 6.18 ±1.90 62.45 2.90 ±5.70 ±7.48 ±0.47 68.06 52.40 ±0.19 ±1. between 76.39 ±3.87 72.75 61.98 ±1.82 ±0.86 68.11 ±5.54 3.47 ±0.43 80.25 71.79 ±1.85 ±2. i.00 ±8.55 3.53 ±1.46 ±1.21 ±1.79 6.76 67.47 75.34 2.06 ±1.45 ±4.59 ±3.50 ±6.49 9.36 ±0.59 6.23 2008 5.80 ±4.25 ±1.17 67.80 ±2.89 ±3.20 ±3.46 70.63 7.21 ±4.93 ±6.26 ±0.12 ±5.72 6.00 3.19 ±1.00 Samastipur % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 64.e.37 ±4.56 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Bhagalpur Darbhanga Kosi Magadh Munger Patna Purnia Saran Tirhut State 2008 2009 67.38 ±6.25 ±1.90 ±5.09 81.60 ±6.14 ±4.71 ±4.33 67.74 % points of the estimate.46 ±0.35 69.23 78.83 2009 3.22 71.55 ±4.16 ±0.11 69. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 67.03 ±3.86 ±1.76 55.46 ±0.75 ±1.74 5.41 77.04 ±2.03 ±0.10 ±6.94 ±7.39 79.28 ±1.31 7.37 ±1.43 2010 76.35 74.68 ±3.65 3.08 2.82 ±1. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.07 6.82 70.44 ±2.41 ±4.20 77.92 ±1.35 ±2.21 ±1.61 7.58 ±1.84 74.48 ±4.94 ±3.63 ±2. the true population proportion lies within ±8.99 %.36 ±0.35 9.47 5.95 ±0.22 ±1.06 11.90 ±5.50 73.49 ±5.69 ±6.27 ±4.94 ±4.47 70.96 2009 4.47 76.49 1.04 ±4.71 67.34 66..01 15.62 6.39 72.28 ±4.77 5.06 ±4.22 4.46 ±2.28 ±6.93 3.01 ±5.28 ±5.26 ±2.38 ±8.94 68.01 ±1.90 59.39 Kosi Supaul Madhepura Saharsa Magadh Jehanabad Aurangabad Gaya Nawada Munger Begusarai Khagaria Munger Lakhisarai Sheikhpura Jamui 2010 75.87 4.Divisional Estimates Bihar School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 4.43 ±0.61 ±3.04 ±6. in 2007.81 65.92 ±1.01 ±9.05 ±1.68 75.95 ±0.40 ±0.74 Bhagalpur Darbhanga Kosi Magadh Munger Patna Purnia Saran Tirhut State ±2.15 ±2.80 7.88 ±6.55 1.97 ±0.84 ±5.69 74.28 58.82 ±1.47 74.39 ±5.34 ±6.87 55.96 69.81 ±7.72 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.87 4.43 ±4.85 68.96 ±1.49 ±1.94 ±6.

64 ±3.45 ±3.42 63.20 46.75 70.01 ±5.46 55.81 ±4.79 67.01 ±4.45 ±4.79 73.30 ±4.37 ±1.56 ±4.02 ±8.31 ±4.74 ±3.56 ±5.80 63.98 ±4.54 ±6.95 ±3.23 54.74 63.75 66.54 2011 52.71 57.13 ±4.88 ±6.58 ±6.05 ±5.29 64.27 ±4.53 ±4.44 70.84 65.46 ±3.24 ±8.36 ±8.09 ±4.03 ±4.79 46.34 63.55 56.68 ±4.84 68.27 65.14 ±4.86 ±3.90 60.76 67.73 ±1.88 ±5.99 53.29 ±4.57 70.74 68.32 76.02 ±4.27 69.93 63.41 ±6.81 ±1.88 62.55 ±4.41 67.24 ±4.96 ±6.52 ±3.43 ±5.67 69.73 252 ASER 2011 .33 ±5.81 ±5.36 ±4.09 ±6.63 ±5.56 ±4.35 68.74 52.36 67.08 62.00 ±4.16 57.30 72.70 ±5.42 58.81 ±1.78 ±6.60 ±3.54 ±4.72 ±5.49 ±4.13 59.33 77.11 67.42 68.59 ±1.88 72.51 57.32 2011 Patna 47.23 ±6.28 ±5.11 ±1.06 ±1.36 ±6.90 58.00 67.50 72.49 41.41 ±6.19 55.00 60.14 ±1.82 ±5.75 List of districts under each division % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 68.11 71.82 71.54 67.57 ±5.47 ±4.50 69.44 68.81 ±6.43 59.83 ±6.16 62.12 ±4.41 75.38 ±1.96 ±5.83 50.26 ±4.10 66.39 ±5.90 ±3.02 72.90 62.08 62.06 70.31 52.42 50.29 ±6.14 ±4.87 ±3.80 51.60 39.22 64.32 ±4.73 ±4.21 ±1.14 70.89 43.25 ±4.56 47.09 57.14 ±5.69 64.63 ±3.04 62.78 48.79 67.46 ±5.62 ±5.80 ±4.19 59.12 ±5.34 Patna Nalanda 2010 60.77 67.80 63.90 ±6.26 ±6.99 ±4.70 66.72 2010 66.31 ±5.57 ±4.21 ±4.03 69.06 56.22 63.94 65.84 74.90 ±4.03 ±5.64 Bhojpur Buxar Kaimur (Bhabua) Rohtas Purnia Araria Kishanganj Purnia Katihar Saran Gopalganj Siwan Saran Tirhut Pashchim Champaran Purba Champaran Sheohar Sitamarhi Muzaffarpur Vaishali 69.98 ±4.77 54.85 2008 62.73 ±6.Divisional Estimates Bihar Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Bhagalpur Darbhanga Kosi Magadh Munger Patna Purnia Saran Tirhut State 2008 2009 53.72 75.97 ±3.91 ±6.17 64.24 59.74 79.11 ±6.30 2009 57.15 57.

15 ±4. With 95% probability.53 ±5.08 ±1.99 81.74 78. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.45 ±3.54 ±1.67 77.56 ±4.30 44.08 73.14 10.40 ±2.63 10.20 90.63 ±8.09 ±1.56 2011 75.66 2009 5.36 78.74 ±2.40 ±2.66 ±4. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.26 ±4.06 2011 1.17 ±6.11 ±4.87 72.27 ±3.38 76.00 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Bastar Bilaspur Raipur Surguja State 2008 2009 82.89 73.98 ±2.89 83.97 94.32 78.00 70.65 85.90 52.04 88.93 93.00 89.95 ±4.52 11.96 ±3.91 75.01 67.73 ±0.48 ±2.60 ±3.28 77.08 70..62 81.72 4.27 ±1.47 ±7.85 11.61 83.51 10.65 ±1.33 ±5.45 8.94 ±5.14 ±5.94 ±2.84 ±3.77 2009 2.07 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 70.59 ±4.89 8.12 2010 83.12 42.00 ±10.56 ±1.69 Dhamtari Surguja 2010 74.37 ±2.96 ±2.94 3.72 ±5.37%.01 ±1.72 89.61 ±7.21 48.73 4.95 2011 49.98 79.52 5.46 59.97 ±1.43 ±1.79 ±2.21 ±6.03 ±1.53 % points of the estimate.15 71.28 ±4.52 69.18 2009 72.12 ±4.86 74.72 2.81 ±9.17 39.07 3.31 94.53 89.70 89.34 ±0.69 ±3.47 ±5.25 ±7.56 89.68 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Bastar Bilaspur Raipur Surguja State 2008 2009 92.12 9.67 ±3.90 ±4.95 ±0.59 ±4.37 ±2.64 1.72 ±3.61 ±0.54 ±1.91 71.02 ±4.43 % and 68. between 81.58 ±2.96 2011 70.95 13.79 ±2.00 ±3.85 2009 93.33 ±3.91 2008 81.01 2.76 7.65 3.74 76.52 ±2.52 79.48 92.40 53.68 59.89 ±3.30 58.20 92.23 ±5.64 1.62 ±6. List of districts under each division 2008 4. in 2007.59 ±1.76 33.11 2010 58.96 ±8.78 ±2.97 83.34 1.35 ±2.14 ±4.80 ±6.66 Raipur Mahasamund % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 56.20 ±4.56 ±1.23 ±2.30 39.64 ±0.57 ±5.01 Bastar Uttar Bastar Kanker Bastar Dakshin Bastar Dantewada Bilaspur Raigarh Korba Janjgir-Champa Bilaspur Raipur Kawardha (Kabeerdham) Rajnandgaon Durg 2010 83.78 54.76 42.70 ±5.21 93.12 ±2.40 10.91 ±5. the true population proportion lies within ±6.79 4.98 ±4.26 2008 94.97 95.70 ±1.97 ±3.09 ±6.60 ±0.62 78. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.71 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.61 57.83 ±1. For instance.73 ±1.26 8.62 ±3.23 ±5.58 ±2.70 ±4.44 ±5.33 ±1.27 12.79 ±2.41 62.36 ±1. i.01 ±10.41 ±1.72 ±1.19 ASER 2011 253 . in the second row.99 14.66 75.65 87.82 ±2.86 ±0.66 85.97 ±2.92 ±2.61 ±2.21 10.64 4.86 ±0.04 84.63 ±2.68 94.91 66.14 ±3.73 ±4.56 ±3.64 52.41 4.68 ±6.45 ±2.81 ±5.Divisional Estimates Chhattisgarh School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 7.90 94.80 53.18 ±8.46 2.16 ±6.40 90.81 ±2.39 ±0.21 2008 6.08 2.35 15.e.46 ±3.17 75.25 2010 1.59 88.35 74.50 45.03 ±3.61 74.65 55.17 ±1.45 ±3.97 ±1.01 2.01 ±0.90 %.75 ±4.63 ±0.63 ±2.32 ±2.75 ±5.65 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 3.39 80.97 82.39 ±6.01 ±1.82 ±6.03 10.51 ±3.36 ±3.30 2010 3.98 ±1.11 9.51 50.16 2011 63.26 90.12 89.11 ±1.19 ±4. The numbers below the estimate.90 ±7.02 11.59 ±1.56 ±2.03 2011 4.46 ±3.54 ±3.06 ±3.30 ±3.40 ±0.56 9.74 3.06 1.70 87.88 4.02 ±2.89 Bastar Bilaspur Raipur Surguja State ±2.15 69.91 64.26 66. In Bastar division of Chhattisgarh.31 ±1.82 90.53 ±4.62 ±4.04 90.44 ±4.47 ±6. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 74.78 Koriya Surguja Jashpur 60.

00 ±2.07 ±3.16 86.19 ±2.60 ±1.49 ±1.51 71.65 ±2.43 41.75 ±5.51 8.71 ±0.16 81.86 3. With 95% probability.45 2011 80.91 ±2.91 2.64 ±1.71 ±2.05 ±2.36 ±2.Divisional Estimates Gujarat School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 3.56 58. List of districts under each division Central 2008 5.20 2008 69. In Central division of Gujarat.90 68.49 ±5.76 ±5.30 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Central North Saurashtra South State 2008 2009 52.23 43.99 7.34 ±2.54 2009 4.36 ±2.98 ±4.24 65.08 ±3.29 ±5.90 ±2.12 3.90 59.74 2010 3.06 ±4.09 ±5.03 83.71 ±4.07 % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 44.93 60.24 75.26 63.17 3.71 Ahmadabad Anand Kheda Panch Mahals Dohad Vadodara Narmada North Banas Kantha Patan Mahesana Sabar Kantha Gandhinagar Saurashtra Kachchh 2010 78.06 64.46 2009 34.67 ±4.61 ±2.39 ±4.24 55.60 60. in 2007.12 3.61 42.15 2011 11.59 ±2.48 254 ASER 2011 .41 10.76 ±0.06 % points of the estimate.01 ±4.39 ±2.23 ±1.81 ±1.05 45.49 2011 78.91 63.45 79.96 65.52 58.51 ±1.52 ±2.07 44.04 ±3.15 81.66 ±0.25 ±2.81 ±2.44 81.75 85.83 60.50 52.58 82.65 62.51 69.11 ±5.94 3.26 ±4.25 ±4.20 56.87 ±0.44 8.42 ±0.80 ±4.05 63.40 ±5.44 11.16 38.93 71.65 4.11 ±3.77 2009 72.15 2.73 ±4.40 ±2.83 ±5.56 45.54 4.45 2010 43.80 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 5.26 ±4.50 4.96 3.32 56.23 ±1. i.28 ±1.19 10.62 15.40 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Central North Saurashtra South State 2008 2009 73.92 ±2.93 81.07 2010 9.84 2011 2.73 73.19 ±3.94 ±3.23 43.94 ±0.45 3.09 10.45 46.78 ±3.52 ±2.00 ±1.57 7.19 69.74 76.18 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 79.91 ±0.22 10.88 ±0.22 ±3.84 ±1. the true population proportion lies within ±4.21 ±1.41 12.05 4.02 76.97 ±4.56 75.77 ±2.41 5.22 ±2.04 2011 35.50 ±3.70 ±2.96 ±5. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.98 8.63 ±0.98 72.95 83.96 78.52 ±3.93 4.90 77.29 ±2.60 50. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.87 ±5.02 ±2.35 ±1. The numbers below the estimate.52 2.89 79.58 ±4.20 ±2.70 ±1.91 84.71 ±1.17 ±0. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 77.06 ±4.48 ±3.36 40.44 72.44 ±1. For instance.74 ±3..35 68.20 5.06 78.74 ±2.03 ±4.07 ±4.79 75.37 12.69 59.14 ±4.37 ±2.93 ±2.84 ±4.93 ±5.05 64.67 ±4.25 77.92 ±4.09 ±2.93 4.11 3.13 ±4.58 58.15 ±4.17 82.32 79.70 ±4.26 ±0.85 83.13 5.35 8.16 8.51 %. between 81.58 ±6.26 ±4.06 ±4.61 ±4.03 ±5. in the second row.55 ±4.76 85.43 ±3.62 ±2.11 Central North Saurashtra South State ±0.22 ±0.15 ±4.78 52.78 2011 59.56 ±4.54 83.51 2008 37.45 ±5.73 ±4.35 ±1. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.81 2.41 ±1.74 ±0.75 67.94 ±3.55 ±3.33 ±4.80 ±4.26 5.82 ±4.60 43.91 ±3.54 2010 77.31 ±4.78 ±1.81 5.14 ±4.82 ±4.45 %.10 ±2.48 56.17 ±1.73 ±5.01 85.21 83.88 68.73 ±0.55 81.99 Surendranagar Rajkot Jamnagar Porbandar Junagadh Amreli Bhavnagar South Bharuch The Dangs Navsari Valsad Tapi Surat 2010 57.42 57.53 ±0.60 ±3.26 83.35 ±1.59 ±3.79 ±5.76 2009 9.97 71.87 48.22 ±2.57 % and 73.94 ±4.53 ±4.00 75.22 ±1.52 ±3.26 ±4.47 4.97 ±5.66 ±5.37 71.46 ±5.38 81.29 72.95 ±5.67 49.00 ±0.73 2008 10.33 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.95 ±2.79 ±2.53 72.13 1.e.

37 ±3.34 ±3.68 ±4. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.81 38.39 ±5.83 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Ambala Gurgaon Hisar Rohtak State 2008 2009 63.72 69.90 ±0.91 88.00 ±4.59 ±4.22 2.66 ±5.95 ±4.56 3.82 70.45 ±1.38 83.24 ±2.17 ±0.28 ±5.38 40.86 ±2.62 58.44 ±2.70 79.07 ±0.74 77.26 3.54 ±4.37 ±2.59 ±4.32 ±3.74 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 36.10 ±0.00 88.14 2009 86.45 88.20 2.04 ±5.15 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.61 3.16 38.01 ±3.98 73.24 ±0.39 ±4.08 52.64 72.58 ±3.49 ±0.95 ±1.00 37.20 46.70 1.98 78.81 ±5.74 ±4.85 ±2.75 74.37 ±0.82 84.90 ±4.86 ±3.90 ±5.32 ±4.70 70.68 ±4.51 2009 1.22 Sirsa Rohtak Jhajjar Karnal Panipat Rohtak Sonipat 68.31 41.Divisional Estimates Haryana School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 2.30 ±5.71 67.45 ±6.99 71.39 34.94 77.79 73.31 67.30 ±4.44 Ambala Gurgaon Hisar Rohtak State ±0. The numbers below the estimate.26 ±2.69 1.73 77.97 2011 37.10 ±4.96 ±5.99 ±3.79 84.69 ±2.19 69.30 76.33 ±2.05 %.87 89.66 70.70 ±2.35 Bhiwani % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 70. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.71 71.67 84.01 73.41 ±5.06 ±1.98 ±4.92 2011 62.34 ±2.06 79.39 87.08 40.95 38.24 ±3.73 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 82.30 1.79 ±2.65 3.72 2008 35.19 ±3.49 78. List of districts under each division 2008 1.28 34.33 ±5.26 87.00 ±0.79 ±3.41 Fatehabad Hisar Jind 2010 61.e.57 ±4.08 ±3.61 ±4.64 ±4.18 ±3.41 36.78 ±4.61 ±0.02 43.24 68.54 69. the true population proportion lies within ±4.31 67.14 ±5.68 90.90 ±4.81 ±1.67 ±4.92 ±3.03 ±4.30 64.20 2011 83.57 2011 53.30 ±5.50 ±3.95 75.71 75. between 83.58 71.34 ±4.03 ±3.48 ±3.05 ±4.18 ±5.46 ±2.65 0.99 85.14 ±0.69 ±5.24 0.06 84. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 79.05 65.91 88.88 78.75 71.71 ±0.77 ±0.09 ±4.37 75.79 ±4.69 77.85 2.07 ±4.10 ±2.15 2010 56.84 73.17 ±2.18 75.63 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Ambala Gurgaon Hisar Rohtak State 2008 2009 86.81 ±1.90 81. i.02 71.48 2010 0.44 ±2.31 ±5.84 ±2.90 84.03 32.62 81.51 72.21 ±3.03 ±2. With 95% probability.13 ±4.77 ±2.02 70.23 73.10 89.62 ±0.39 ±4.60 2.89 ±5.78 2.53 ±2.59 ±5.36 2010 30.78 ±2.19 ±4.06 ±3.25 ±4.31 71.90 6.73 ±1.46 ±2.74 %.33 70.79 84.85 2.00 ±4.39 ±2.05 ±0.81 ±4.00 69.62 75. In Ambala division of Haryana.11 ±5.72 ±0.11 ±4.72 ±6.33 ±4.97 Ambala Ambala Kaithal Kurukshetra Panchkula Yamunanagar Gurgaon Mahendragarh Rewari Mewat Faridabad Gurgaon Hisar 2010 83. in 2007.16 40.09 67. For instance.53 ±3.79 ±4.99 ±3.06 ±4.35 ±4.29 ±2.54 ±5.42 ±4.35 2010 84.05 5.35 43.85 83.01 87.87 ±5.75 2008 58.28 73.32 65.00 85.02 0.31 % points of the estimate.31 ±3.78 ±3.53 ±2.72 ±4.84 70.00 73.33 ±4.55 76.55 ±3.46 ±1.83 ±5.36 ±4.55 ±2.60 83.91 ±3.20 ±2.29 ±4.26 2011 77.69 ±5.05 60.27 ±2.11 85.72 69.56 2008 80.16 6.29 2011 1.23 ±4.97 2009 38. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.04 69.05 77. in the second row.21 ±5.94 43.91 1.44 ±0.67 ASER 2011 255 .43 72.03 49.36 % and 74.38 ±4.53 2009 60.40 ±4..21 ±4.24 83.11 89.04 70.05 89.11 42.48 ±4.24 ±0.80 ±2.09 ±0.

77 ±5.52 ±2.02 85.24 ±4.61 ±0.26 ±4.68 ±2. List of districts under each division 2008 0.41 82.48 2009 79.95 ±3.02 ±6.78 ±3.29 90.40 96.08 ±3.06 ±5.24 ±2.97 ±2.27 ±4.63 ±3. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.30 0.51 ±3.44 ±3.10 ±2. the true population proportion lies within ±3.33 2009 87.33 State ±2.38 ±0.73 94.12 90.80 0.56 ±2.26 ±7.62 ±5.49 Solan 2010 83.29 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.77 2011 76.73 84.37 ±4.30 ±0.04 95.60 ±2.91 ±2.37 ±3.69 26.87 81.45 0.32 91.32 20.06 90.47 22.22 2008 28.86 22.79 2009 23.10 ±2.09 ±4.15 ±3.78 89.68 ±1.38 90.19 ±6.51 83.23 ±4.97 28.14 Mandi ±2.28 0.02 Sirmaur % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 71.86 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 26.81 ±4. In Kangra division of Himachal Pradesh.36 2008 75.27 0.79 77.95 81.36 ±2.91 18.96 Mandi ±2.79 ±3.e. between 93.96 State ±0.75 85.25 ±5.18 ±3.43 0.62 ±6.55 82.65 2010 0.86 2011 26.97 89.85 73.59 Shimla ±2.96 83.31 93.49 0.33 0.83 ±0.90 84. in 2007.67 ±4.10 2011 95.22 17.59 ±4.62 ±0.30 94.81 87.99 76.63 ±2.64 0.42 0.67 ±0.93 73.08 ±3.78%.25 ±3.55 ±3.67 ±3.22 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Kangra 2008 2009 87.18 ±4.70 ±5.85 ±3.76 84.38 % and 86.38 ±1.42 93.95 92. For instance.60 94.44 92.50 ±2.17 ±3.06 75.12 Kangra ±0.25 91.02 ±4.75 Mandi ±0.53 ±6.28 82.26 ±3.70 2011 80.27 2011 0.55 ±0.37 ±5.65 ±5.28 81.09 90.40 ±0.80 ±2.45 91.51 ±3.45 84..97 ±5.64 ±2.34 ±5.97 24.43 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Kangra 2008 2009 78.30 ±4.83 ±2.24 19.05 89. The numbers below the estimate.09 ±0.87 97.30 ±4.72 2011 91.29 2008 89.83 92.16 0.26 0.83 71. in the second row.45 ±5.21 77.30 ±3.78 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 92.08 86.33 ±4.72 ±3.13 ±3.88 ±3. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 90.27 22.19 84.71 State ±1.72 Kangra Chamba Kangra Una Mandi Bilaspur Hamirpur Kullu Lahul & Spiti Mandi Shimla Kinnaur Shimla 2010 92.98 84.64 ±0.73 80.53 2009 0.83 92.02 Shimla ±3.40 ±4.39 ±3. i.54 ±4.23 ±3.15 ±4.19 ±2.68 ±3.13 26.36 21.33 ±4.65 2010 79.57 ±2.22 ±3.29 24.48 256 ASER 2011 .63 ±2.03 79.24 ±4.24 82.67 ±2.35 94.80 93.59 ±5.61 ±1.75 92.42 ±0.83 ±0.05 ±1.16 77.54 2010 93.31 ±3.75 23.33 ±0.34 84.01 Shimla ±0.43 92.33 ±2.96 85.85 ±1.08 92.98 ±2.33 92.10 0.33 ±0.95 ±3.03 95.Divisional Estimates Himachal Pradesh School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 1.08 %.80 ±3.81 ±0.41 1.42 ±2.61 ±1.37 ±5. With 95% probability.29 2010 27.88 25.44 ±4. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.87 92.76 94. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.50 82.30 % points of the estimate.80 ±3.24 0.

06 ±5.79 76.52 2010 44.22 58.96 2009 52.73 ±1.17 ±5.20 ±3.64 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Kolhan North Chotanagpur Palamu Santhal Pargana South Chotanagpur State ±2.10 70.98 ±1.40 ±2.98 ±4.74 3.35 3.70 ±4.81 ±7.83 ±1.82 3.28 ±6.86 ±1.88 50.22 ±5.72 ±2.14 ±5.24 60.13 ±4.00 4.04 4.67 58.08 ±2.15 ±1.16 ±6.12 50.79 ±4.12 ±6.66 44.17 ±5.11 ±5.25 5.18 ±4.13 5.01 ±1.66 ±1.63 94.46 ±8.36 51.90 ±7.10 62.50 2010 45.57 51.25 65.64 53.21 2.05 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 6.44 ±1.61 ±7.95 ±7.48 15.57 9.31 77.67 41.35 64.99 75.28 47.48 76.61 ±1.87 ±6.64 ±2.82 ±6.54 67.60 10.65 ±0.20 1.14 ±4.77 52.79 ±7.48 ±6.13 ±2.61 4.48 1.02 ±3.91 2009 7.12 45. between 97.78 63.08 % and 92.60 67.13 ±1.24 ±4.49 57.85 77.80 ±1.00 ±5.46 63.31 ±2.34 8.93 ±2.66 ±3.51 66.80 56.78 14.08 17.50 ±4.89 ±7.98 66.61 %.75 ±5.03 ±4.59 Godda Sahibganj Pakur Dumka Jamtara South Chotanagpur Ranchi Lohardaga Gumla Simdega 55.Divisional Estimates Jharkhand School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 Kolhan North Chotanagpur Palamu Santhal Pargana South Chotanagpur State 9.56 40.44 2.69 ±1.18 2008 3.84 5.00 82.12 ±4.34 50.30 2009 55.54 81.19 67.94 ±7.08 ±5.40 2009 6. List of districts under each division 2008 12.02 71.06 ±4.e.05 72.05 65.36 3.78 6.57 7.96 ±4.68 ±4.58 ±6. the true population proportion lies within ±2.03 ±2.28 ±2.56 82. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.21 ±2.06 ±2.59 ±4.29 2011 9.64 69.75 61.02 65.22 ±4.25 72.29 48.50 13.10 ±3.89 4. In Kolhan division of Jharkhand.81 ±2.06 64.66 ±4.20 73.15 ±0.77 63.46 72. i.61 4.20 7.44 59.87 58.77 ±0.55 ±4.98 ±3.05 ±3.13 ±7.78 ±5.63 5.74 ASER 2011 257 .42 ±2.97 ±3.89 ±1.86 ±1.03 ±4.09 45.83 2008 82.79 50.14 2010 7.45 ±4.58 ±2.30 ±1.03 71.04 71.99 ±3. The numbers below the estimate.81 ±0.09 ±2.48 68.18 12.40 77.45 ±5.72 63.17 ±2.68 58.55 ±7.84 8.15 2.94 ±1.68 3.45 ±2.25 ±5.45 7.74 Santhal Pargana Deoghar 2008 ±7.28 ±0.85 58.17 70.64 ±4.66 ±4.19 13.86 68.22 17.11 ±2.73 55.33 ±1.68 ±6.44 ±2.41 2009 78.51 11.71 69. in the second row.71 ±6..56 57.48 ±3.44 Kolhan Pashchimi Singhbhum Purbi Singhbhum Saraikela-Kharswan North Chotanagpur Chatra Hazaribagh Kodarma Giridih Dhanbad Bokaro Palamu Garhwa 2008 ±4.76 ±6.05 2011 41.48 ±4.83 ±2. With 95% probability.52 2011 64.75 55.80 78.92 58.91 ±0.46 ±5.73 3. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.43 ±2.13 ±2.24 ±6.74 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Kolhan North Chotanagpur Palamu Santhal Pargana South Chotanagpur State ±6.40 2009 72.14 68.81 ±5.83 68.33 ±8.28 2011 8.01 6.62 ±2.68 45.75 ±4.54 ±1.99 59.42 ±6.76 ±8.43 2008 51.62 ±6.01 5.99 ±5.46 29.33 Palamu Latehar % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 48.54 36.41 74.05 ±2. For instance.89 79. % of Std III children who could read letters or more is 94.99 ±4.50 ±2.97 ±4.14 %.60 60.13 ±5.32 ±1.99 21.38 64.87 58.55 ±0.31 4.39 9.44 ±5.69 ±6.53 ±3.82 47.29 ±5.63 ±4.80 3.97 ±0.47 ±5.46 ±3.17 ±5.75 41.18 ±2.88 56.61 ±2.21 ±5.94 ±2.22 2010 6.47 % points of the estimate.69 6.87 ±3.61 ±0.25 63.30 71.59 ±5.11 77.86 ±5.90 68. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.67 2010 69.51 48.77 64.98 3.54 5.60 ±5.41 ±2.98 ±1.99 ±4.62 ±2.71 ±6.77 56.23 81.13 ±6.11 ±2.67 ±2.19 ±7.96 44.51 ±4.30 ±8.85 ±2.58 ±7.64 ±3.34 55.91 ±6.97 ±2.88 ±4.20 ±1.05 ±3.04 ±6.38 ±4.30 ±10.61 ±1.74 75.54 3.86 47.96 ±1.61 84.53 ±2.10 2011 68.52 3.15 76.03 ±7.84 ±2.30 72.42 45.72 2011 30.77 2010 65.23 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.56 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 88.20 ±8.40 ±0.60 ±4.29 ±1.67 48.08 17.75 3.67 58.29 69.44 ±2.68 58.73 58. in 2007.70 14.

51 11.60 ±3.82 ±2.36 ±4.66 ±2.48 ±3.75 ±1.09 ±4.30 ±3.54 2.03 ±2.19 18.13 75.40 ±0.42 ±4.69 ±3.79 ±3.49 ±2.46 47.87 10.20 60.83 73.58 ±1.38 ±2. between 89.44 ±4.46 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 13.27 88.95 57.05 2009 87.14 41.70 82.69 ±0.43 9.11 21.36 2010 54.50 48.78 2.21 ±0.12 ±1.55 3.16 ±0.45 16.92 ±2.89 7.08 ±3.88 93.46 ±0.76 91.15 ±3.33 ±5.57 Bangalore Belgaum Gulbarga Mysore State ±0.51 13.19 ±3.98 2.11 15.Divisional Estimates Karnataka School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 1.76 ±4.03 ±3.50 75.74 57.83 46.96 ±3.37 45.40 26.78 ±2.99 83.33 3.68 ±2.34 ±1.51 ±2.59 66.56 ±2.09 ±2. % of Std III children who could read letters or more is 87.90 83.39 44.15 ±3.95 1.21 ±2.37 2009 54.41 19.64 58.40 90.93 ±3.77 ±1.74 ±2.93 ±3.09 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 84.01 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.50 ±3.23 2011 65.56 ±2.20 57.11 47.87 ±3.58 ±3.78 93.70 16.75 14.42 81.86 57.81 2010 88.46 ±2.87 ±4.51 ±3.62 % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 49.54 42.47 1.17 ±3.70 ±0.10 ±1.99 ±1.41 65.19 93.07 2010 89.21 ±2.35 ±1.22 2011 91.83 85.32 25.41 2008 20. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.68 90.99 40.57 ±0. The numbers below the estimate.19 63.02 ±2.62 ±2.48 258 ASER 2011 .87 91.58 73.96 ±1.95 39.29 ±4.40 1.60 ±4.36 2011 53.38 72. For instance.30 ±1.86 ±2.39 85.95 26.08 59.08 26.57 2.69 ±4.64 44.65 ±2.71 60.23 ±3.78 ±2.03 ±0.61 2.53 ±2.58 ±4.39 11.86 33.35 1.99 ±2.52 ±4.64 55.50 ±2.78 43. With 95% probability. i.26 83.37 68.51 ±0.59 ±1.46 89.09 ±3.69 ±0.53 ±2.74 8.52 3.28 ±3.68 83.57 ±4.58 2008 87.12 ±4.26 ±4.84 30.e.11 ±0.72 ±3.35 ±3.04 ±1.07 ±1.27 %.12 ±3.00 ±4.59 54.49 ±2.67 ±3.74 ±1.57 ±0.60 %.20 22.70 ±1. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.08 ±2.16 2008 49.16 ±3.67 % points of the estimate.34 ±2.55 1. in the second row.53 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Bangalore Belgaum Gulbarga Mysore State 2008 2009 91.73 3.03 ±1.32 ±3.94 % and 84.33 ±0. the true population proportion lies within ±2.92 85.20 ±0.84 82.82 ±3.79 ±0.84 ±4.78 ±2.14 ±2.66 87.43 71.48 58.98 ±1.40 ±4.29 ±1.47 2.39 ±3.86 ±3.69 13.26 75.53 ±2.70 ±3.52 6.98 ±3.62 80.73 12.63 69.43 2011 1.57 2010 21. In Bangalore division of Karnataka.87 ±3.82 85.08 ±2.51 ±3.17 ±0.70 ±4.72 89.46 ±2.24 ±4.35 2009 1.61 13.32 81.37 ±3.60 85.93 2011 24.76 10.99 64.94 45.51 82.91 ±3.99 ±2.50 76.72 ±3.45 ±4.35 59.17 ±1.52 ±1.09 13.57 ±4.00 73.13 ±0.91 2011 91.25 ±0.41 2010 1.00 75. List of districts under each division Bangalore Chitradurga Davanagere Shimoga Tumkur Kolar Bangalore Bangalore Rural Belgaum Belgaum Bagalkot Bijapur Gadag Dharwad Uttara Kannada Haveri 2008 1.30 ±2.61 ±4..66 85.19 ±4.62 ±2.92 84.24 ±2.17 ±1.49 ±2.46 83.39 ±4.48 ±3. in 2007.25 ±4.29 ±4.81 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Bangalore Belgaum Gulbarga Mysore State 2008 2009 66.30 Gulbarga Gulbarga Bidar Raichur Koppal Bellary Mysore Udupi Chikmagalur Mandya Hassan Dakshina Kannada Kodagu Mysore Chamarajanagar 2010 59.73 82.73 ±0.79 85.94 ±2.20 ±1.66 2009 17. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.39 ±4.67 10.93 ±3.17 77.72 77.82 ±2.19 47.40 ±3.52 20.42 43.17 46.34 44.01 24.43 80.

45 82.65 ±1. With 95% probability.65 ±2.97 0.67 0.43 75.20 97.00 56.73 ±1.45 96. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.67 68.79 ±3.23 86.41 ±3.82 98.60 North Kerala ±1.71 81.03 ±0.67 North Kerala ±0. the true population proportion lies within ±1.92 97.80 ±2.66 97. in 2007.93 71.00 2008 55.23 ±2.06 0.20 ±5.50 ±1.48 ±3.65 96.03 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Central Kerala 2008 2009 78.75 82.Divisional Estimates Kerala School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 0.33%.76 ±4.04 South Kerala ±1.78 99.04 ±3.69 ±6.86 ±1.42 88.82 96.53 ±1.92 96.19 ±7.54 ±2.15 ±0.69 ±4.54 51.90 46.23 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 58.13 2011 94.22 83.19 ±6.10 ±0.54 96.20 ±0.05 85.19 62.15 85. i.26 ±5.83 83.85 ±3.36 0.05 ±0.69 ±1.18 ±3.58 73.06 0.08 98.78 98.49 State ±0. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.92 ±1.15 ±0.27 ±1.24 75.28 98.95 ±0.22 North Kerala ±4.24 96.70 ±4.72 2011 82.09 0.37 ±1.51 ±4.47 2011 93.13 97.97 79.17 ±0.39 81.08 ±0.46 ±2.40 ±1. List of districts under each division 2008 0.22 ±2.56 79.54 96.19 98.77 ±0.39 ±4. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 96.54 Pathanamthitta Kollam Thiruvananthapuram 2010 83.09 ±0.02 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.14 0.11 0.73 96.39 95.88 ±1.00 98.23 84.20 0.10 ±0.06 0.74 ±4.28 ±2.46 ±3.68 ±4.17 71.13 ±1.99 ±3.93 ±1.36 2010 61.11 0.67 ±1.02 57.11 ±0. between 98.12 ±0.96 ±3.88 2011 68.59 2008 77.89 ±3.48 ±3.34 60.15 0.20 2009 0.63 ASER 2011 259 .00 ±2.99 96.11 ±0.50 State ±2.29 ±2.14 ±2.00 ±0.62 2009 93.83 62.97 97.01 ±1.46 ±4.15 ±1.70 91.62 ±1.22 South Kerala ±0.18 98.80 2009 74.28 ±5.98 ±2.41 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 96.87 98.09 ±0.53 South Kerala ±3.44 ±2.97 ±5. The numbers below the estimate.72 82.95 96.85 ±1.70 ±5.70 ±4.11 80.12 ±0.58 97.00 ±0.04 0.14 2010 0. For instance.80 2008 97.31 ±2.36 97.45 79.78 2009 51.07 ±3.30 Central Kerala ±0.07 98.54 44.13 0.96 ±2.41 ±1.72 ±0.26 2011 67.94 57.e.02 96.41 % and 95.39 State ±0.71 Central Kerala Palakkad Thrissur Ernakulam Idukki North Kerala Kasaragod Kannur Wayanad Kozhikode Malappuram South Kerala Kottayam 2010 97.06 55.33 ±4.18 97.88 ±3.67 ±7.54 ±1.15 85.10 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Central Kerala 2008 2009 94.99 ±4.53 ±6.87 %.65 ±3.50 ±6.54 % points of the estimate. In Central Kerala division of Kerala.59 65.66 98.23 49.91 ±0.67 ±0.72 50.30 2010 79.99 ±2.89 79.05 2011 0.48 ±5.49 54.27 ±0.00 ±0.29 ±3.00 51.06 ±6.48 ±5.65 ±3.21 ±3.80 82.40 2010 98.88 69..54 96.92 ±2.67 ±5.88 ±1.64 ±2.85 44.55 ±1.14 52.83 Alappuzha % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 69.48 ±5.42 ±3.27 67. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.21 ±1.30 83.06 ±1.42 84. in the second row.12 0.

69 ±1.16 ±1.48 ±1.01 96.25 ±2.14 ±0.97 ±0.75 0.47 ±1.64 ±2.83 ±1.72 ±2.45 ±0. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.32 13.13 ±0.29 ±3.97 8.07 ±3.02 ±0.86 12.26 2.84 2011 2.71 85.56 82.22 1.60 97.55 ±0.39 2011 22.48 ±3.24 ±1.55 2.05 Sheopur % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 95.27 94.71 ±1.09 93.44 ±0.76 12.88 1.31 85. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.32 2.45 ±0. In Bhopal division of Madhya Pradesh.33 ±0.07 17.36 ±1.38 ±3.23 ±0.84 65.28 ±1.49 87.87 ±2.19 23.07 ±0.79 ±3.51 ±3.50 1.66 ±1.60 72.65 ±4.10 15.87 ±0.01 ±1.02 93.68 21.85 95.00 16.72 6.53 ±6.50 ±0.99 ±3.49 ±2.67 ±3.51 ±2.27 2.20 1.43 ±1.01 ±3.77 ±2.08 1.81 86.44 80.89 ±2.57 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 16.82 94.73 ±0.49 94.46 1.14 4.43 19.25 ±4.18 ±1. List of districts under each division Bhopal Rajgarh Vidisha Bhopal Sehore Raisen Chambal 2008 1.31 ±0.03 ±0.81 ±1.77 6.91 ±5.05 93.67 ±1.87 ±9.10 ±1.08 16.90 ±1.52 96.14 ±4.88 97.94 ±3.91 16.19 93.94 92.36 95.42 ±2.90 ±0.32 ±1.38 93.60 97.83 17.02 ±0.e.45 2.94 92.54 82.16 ±0.98 ±2.49 ±2.54 ±0.70 Morena Bhind Gwalior Gwalior Datia Shivpuri Guna Hoshangabad Betul Harda Hoshangabad Indore Jhabua Dhar Indore West Nimar Barwani East Nimar Jabalpur Katni 2010 79.27 12.74 16.64 ±3.96 ±0.75 85.74 ±2.08 93. in 2007.24 ±1.23 ±2.18 68.73 ±2.76 60.47 14.55 96.51 1.46 3..87 ±2.79 84.39 91.12 ±6.56 96.57 17.44 1.96 ±2.86 ±1.65 61.03 97.26 2.27 1.11 ±4.50 ±4.79 ±2.27 ±7.78 2009 1.96 ±6.22 ±0.38 ±3.43 ±2.15 ±0.04 ±4.80 ±6.00 ±2.65 ±2.95 1.Divisional Estimates Madhya Pradesh School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 Bhopal Chambal Gwalior Hoshangabad Indore Jabalpur Rewa Sagar Shahdol Ujjain State 2.56 ±3.20 14.96 ±3.57 ±3.19 ±2.20 95.42 94.92 94.28 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.55 95.52 4.24 ±3.27 16.23 ±3. With 95% probability.51 ±4.71 92.84 84.53 0.44 20.47 56.60 ±1.48 95.57 ±2.57 ±0.77 ±1.41 91.10 0.00 58.67 1.57 98.61 ±0.47 1.08 ±1.30 ±5.54 ±0.69 ±7.56 ±7.97 ±7.98 ±0.23 ±0.17 16.26 6.69 ±2.48 ±5.55 ±3.23 ±9.93 ±1.05 ±3.72 ±3.77 ±0.72 80.56 ±0.18 ±1.12 97.21 3.55 95.98 12.13 ±2.97 1.85 96.56 1.21 ±1.51 ±3.38 11.36 ±0.46 50.61 2009 17.40 ±1.63 ±1.47 13.67 ±0.70 60.72 ±2.95 12.66 2010 2.05 ±4.40 ±0.63 ±0.14 31.50 64.84 ±2.44 ±7. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.57 1.61 12.61 ±4.36 ±0.58 ±0.18 ±2. For instance.48 1.97 ±3.17 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Bhopal Chambal Gwalior Hoshangabad Indore Jabalpur Rewa Sagar Shahdol Ujjain State 2008 2009 97.68 93.56 ±1.60 ±2.42 98.93 93.92 94.73 80.73 12.27 2010 78.28 ±1.20 ±1.65 4.35 ±6.70 74.10 ±1.03 90.02 1.01 ±0.81 2.01 ±6.44 ±2.27 ±0.87 75.46 63.13 ±0.44 %.00 ±2.74 ±6.07 97.31 ±2.72 96.47 95.72 10. in the second row.11 ±1.36 ±4.00 47.01 88.74 93.05 2008 17.91 93.95 ±5.46 ±0.15 ±1.62 14.87 ±0.16 ±1.64 2.92 2011 62.44 30.93 260 ASER 2011 .73 ±1.56 10.39 ±4.05 68.12 1.10 ±1.57 97.80 9.57 1.81 ±1.54 2010 19.94 12.51 93.26 ±2.06 96.76 ±3.81 ±3.60 0.81 ±0.06 30.90 8. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 95.54 ±1.05 ±2. the true population proportion lies within ±1.51 8.44 ±1.58 64.10 2009 96.57 94.70 ±2.80 ±1.50 1.51 66.61%.06 61.79 ±1.97 82.83 % points of the estimate.57 ±1.49 97.62 1.99 96.31 75.25 ±0.21 ±0.74 ±3. i.65 95.57 1.11 ±0.64 ±4.58 ±3.76 ±3.74 ±0.20 ±3.84 2011 60.35 65.30 6.45 87. The numbers below the estimate.88 ±4.07 ±3.53 10.88 ±0.95 ±3.11 96.99 95.78 ±3.88 ±6.88 ±0.25 ±0.37 ±2.04 7.35 ±3.62 10.17 ±1.31 ±1.41 81.27 ±1.22 ±3.91 ±1.75 1.27 ±3.22 4.58 94.56 0.00 ±4.04 26.11 13.35 ±1.08 ±2.27 % and 93.69 96.13 85.31 90.11 ±3.99 2.48 96.64 2.61 96.44 97.47 91.77 12.48 73.61 ±1.52 14.38 17.53 96.25 ±2.36 ±0.33 69.42 2.87 1.36 86.41 ±4.83 95.71 ±2.73 ±2.64 93.46 ±5.34 ±0.18 ±2.27 ±3.10 ±1.01 ±1.46 ±0.66 2.88 ±0.37 2008 97. between 97.68 2.92 ±1.76 ±1.82 2.79 ±0.04 ±4.54 ±4.49 1.14 2.

79 95.38 ±4.16 ±4.86 89.74 ±1.52 65.08 ±4.29 ±4.42 57.37 85.43 ±7.34 94.04 97.12 ±1.43 ±2.57 77.38 71.29 35.68 83.72 ±4.45 88.16 ±3.05 2009 88.51 ±6.40 ±4.16 ±3.11 2011 22.62 75.28 36.94 ±4.84 83.40 91.00 ±5.64 91.67 55.60 68.76 23.16 ±2.99 2008 88.73 44.36 ±4.91 54.60 ±4.14 ±1.80 ±2.93 ±1.88 85.93 95.05 ±2.38 ±8.96 ±5.62 ±3.21 ±1.65 ±6.58 64.48 78.97 2011 35.06 ±2.60 84.08 ±3.66 ±1.Divisional Estimates Madhya Pradesh Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Bhopal Chambal Gwalior Hoshangabad Indore Jabalpur Rewa Sagar Shahdol Ujjain State ±2.99 ±2.38 ±3.42 ±4.20 ±1.39 47.28 Jabalpur Narsimhapur 2008 ±2.31 31.35 73.36 ±3.81 77.10 ±1.47 90.63 2010 55.92 83.72 ±4.86 68.78 ±3.79 ±4.08 51.21 ±3.35 79.96 ±5.13 94.27 75.54 ±4.93 52.38 73.66 ±3.03 ±4.58 74.02 90.18 30.88 30.94 ±3.32 25.67 55.00 68.47 ±4.83 2009 93.51 50.66 ±5.51 2010 44.23 ±3.73 ±4.38 82.10 94.95 48.71 ±5.39 ±2.51 54.26 ±4.39 74.94 86.36 ±1.10 81.98 ±4.09 ±4.32 ±4.89 ±2.63 ±1.34 ±4.38 ±4.19 35.07 ±5.00 77.61 89.90 31.49 82.85 ±3.45 ±1.06 ±3.63 ±1.30 ±3.13 ±5.13 67.96 ±5.57 72.59 83.00 69.63 78.36 90.60 ±4.76 73.48 ±3.69 94.68 92.99 91.10 85.93 ±1.82 83.49 ±1.71 ±2.10 ±5.23 81.83 ±6.30 94.41 95.94 91.34 ±2.51 58.16 ±3.20 68.36 86.73 ±4.96 ±4.43 30.88 ±1.39 92.91 ±1.26 87.08 93.70 ±4.97 ±4.71 ±1.71 ±4.57 ±4.51 ±4.54 66.36 29.48 75.65 82.03 ±6.84 ±2.75 ±3.75 ±0.84 ±5.51 80.13 45.20 35.70 ±4.19 ±4.72 26.90 ±3.95 ±4.88 ±3.80 76.14 List of districts under each division % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 87.55 66.63 83.49 ±4.79 ±1.75 ±3.52 ±8.20 ±3.59 41.46 ±2.94 85.72 Mandla Chhindwara Seoni Balaghat Rewa Satna Rewa Sidhi Sagar Tikamgarh Chhatarpur Panna Sagar Damoh Shahdol Umaria Shahdol Dindori Ujjain Neemuch Mandsaur Ratlam Ujjain Shajapur Dewas 88.47 21.73 64.81 87.88 ±5.56 ±3.88 ±2.58 ±3.85 ±5.63 ASER 2011 261 .28 49.69 89.

19 ±1.57 ±6.99 ±2.16 91.69 ±2.08 ±3.05 91.Divisional Estimates Maharashtra School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 1.92 ±4.86 91.27 96.99 1.04 84.53 96.66 ±0.28 Amravati ±3. in the second row.05 96.25 93.13 92.28 List of districts under each division Amravati Buldana Akola Washim 1.35 ±0.28 94.44 94.31 ±3.47 ±4.60 30.34 0.83 ±0.77 1. 2008 1.03 94.52 ±0.17 93.30 1.99 30.00%.59 25.04 %.65 2009 1.25 Pune ±1.71 ±0.40 1.09 90.39 2.28 ±3.12 ±0.60 ±4.45 ±2.38 21.60 26.79 ±1.34 94.28 ±3.07 ±1.02 Aurangabad ±0.29 93.14 ±0.98 ±0.03 ±4.93 ±2.63 94.15 Konkan ±1. With 95% probability.08 ±0.39 0.04 93.57 28.95 ±1.94 2009 34.92 27.13 2.09 ±3.03 ±0.56 30.70 28.36 ±3.28 1.04 % points of the estimate.56 ±0.98 ±3.78 ±3.40 ±3.20 0.35 ±1.65 1.79 90.09 ±2.36 28.33 0.62 ±1.57 ±2. between 92.75 2.78 ±1.03 86.78 92.03 87.43 ±0.88 29.10 97.55 2009 95.04 90.71 ±0.56 ±3.85 ±2.71 ±3.e.02 ±1.65 31.48 ±2.25 0.21 ±3.09 ±2.71 Aurangabad Nanded Hingoli 2010 95.21 Konkan ±1.75 ±0.13 32.38 ±1.25 Aurangabad ±2.14 91.88 ±0.27 ±1.40 2008 30.63 ±2.27 ±2.04 93. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 89.50 ±3.62 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 26.53 ±3.39 ±3.54 ±0.98 90.96 ±3.98 ±4.07 ±3.74 2011 87.32 Amravati Yavatmal % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 89.04 97.46 28.54 Nagpur ±2.08 % and 86.73 ±0.18 ±1.04 ±4.81 28.43 ±1.53 Nagpur ±0.92 95.33 ±2.51 0.24 25.21 262 ASER 2011 . in 2007.89 Amravati ±0.99 35.44 2010 0.00 94. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate. The numbers below the estimate.30 87.58 ±1. In Amravati division of Maharashtra.31 ±1.50 88.77 ±0.76 ±3.52 1.22 95.53 ±0. i.78 ±1.65 ±3.03 95.89 92.41 28.09 ±1.63 ±0.54 ±0.41 ±4.80 95.99 14.10 ±2.51 ±3.36 Nashik ±0.44 19. For instance.69 1.89 95.86 ±2.05 ±4.31 20.10 ±3.51 ±0.08 2010 94.74 ±4.30 1.63 23.92 2011 86.77 2.26 ±1.10 ±2.78 State ±0.46 2011 0.31 93.30 0.83 91.35 0.85 ±3.07 2011 33.00 ±2.76 1.98 90.67 ±3.77 94.77 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 94.07 ±1.21 1.14 94.92 ±1.12 97.08 ±0.98 2.58 ±1.22 0.08 ±3.90 2010 26.71 1.16 ±4.46 ±2.86 21.21 12.07 ±3.30 ±1.37 ±1.80 ±2.80 ±0.66 ±0.95 ±1.71 88.19 ±0.18 ±1.98 91. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.85 ±3.22 1.81 Nashik ±2.87 ±3.60 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.37 34.62 30.98 ±2.39 96.87 ±1.03 ±1.56 97. the true population proportion lies within ±3.58 28.14 89.01 ±4.07 24.96 90.53 1.53 ±2.27 ±3.92 ±0.07 91.99 87.25 ±4.92 Pune ±0.21 ±2.06 2008 83.88 ±3.31 ±3.41 ±2.25 29.11 92.51 93.13 93.82 88.12 ±4..80 89.79 ±4.01 ±2.53 92. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.23 ±0.26 23.42 92.61 ±3.85 ±0.09 State ±1.05 Parbhani Jalna Aurangabad Bid Latur Osmanabad Konkan Thane Raigarh Ratnagiri Sindhudurg 90.09 91.56 ±4.16 91.29 ±1.50 91.79 0.

46 2011 40.96 ±5.16 77.59 88.42 ±3.44 73.40 ±4.93 ±6.09 70.97 85.35 84.88 2009 69.63 89.31 State ±1.11 79.14 81.35 ±5.46 86.39 ±2.77 67.03 ±2.37 80.54 85.43 2008 58.66 67.39 89.48 ±1.94 57.34 Aurangabad ±2.44 ±3.75 70.81 79.82 ±3.54 Pune ±3.37 ±2.66 ±3.Divisional Estimates Maharashtra Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 86.70 Konkan ±2.93 67.79 ±4.28 ±5.49 90.60 67.31 82.12 84.09 Amravati ±3.93 68.90 74.96 56.86 77.27 Nagpur ±2.84 73.34 77.48 56.88 89.37 85.35 Kolhapur Sangli ASER 2011 263 .57 82.30 90.06 Nagpur Wardha Nagpur Bhandara Gondiya Gadchiroli Chandrapur Nashik Nandurbar Dhule Jalgaon Nashik Ahmadnagar Pune Pune Solapur Satara 2010 80.96 ±5.30 84.19 ±3.51 78.80 ±3.28 ±2.11 69.89 ±4.09 ±4.55 84.31 ±5.33 64.55 76.36 ±3.94 ±5.01 66.10 74.13 ±4.76 83.31 ±3.30 53.29 86.66 ±5.65 ±4.27 62.90 ±3.16 ±4.81 ±4.16 47.65 ±2.12 ±3.02 ±2.90 ±3.43 ±3.94 ±4.85 83.32 ±5.39 ±3.03 ±3.94 56.99 2010 60.76 79.48 ±2.73 ±5.92 67.09 ±3.75 ±1.91 ±3.72 86.33 79.36 ±1.30 85.94 ±3.05 82.01 ±4.70 ±5.21 Nashik ±3.54 ±4.58 List of districts under each division % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 65.37 90.55 ±3.15 ±2.70 ±4.49 ±3.56 ±1.89 ±4.50 ±2.84 ±1.04 73.42 ±2.19 ±4.82 52.70 ±1.01 84.75 67.80 2011 65.51 91.79 ±5.11 45.51 ±5.11 ±4.

30 ±4.19 73.96 6.13 ±4.56 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Central 2008 2009 76.49 ±0.62 5.18 %.34 66.95 7.32 70.26 67.76 ±4.80 2008 82. the true population proportion lies within ±2.28 ±3.60 ±3.62 ±3.11 ±2.96 86.61 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Central 2008 2009 92.76 ±3.50 71.33 ±2.27 ±0. With 95% probability.20 ±2.36 ±0.59 70.22 ±4.90 3.83 ±3.23 ±3.75 ±3.14 ±0.26 ±3. In Central division of Odisha.38 ±2.75 39.27 ±3.15 61.61 76.58 69. in the second row.11 91.56 10.00 ±1.58 3.45 ±3.39 ±2.16 ±1.35 2011 6.60 ±0.87 % and 83.29 ±3.04 66.48 57.67 53.43 ±1..21 ±0.68 ±2.13 ±3.55 ±0.52 57.58 ±4.55 ±2.54 2010 64.23 ±3.35 ±0.96 ±3.50 ±3.03 6.95 90.53 South ±2.53 4.71 ±0.29 ±3.52 62.53 3.40 ±2.97 87.04 ±0.17 2009 5.59 ±2.23 ±1.16 60.88 6.99 State ±1.45 2009 3.78 42.75 71.16 ±0.80 ±2.46 72.75 ±3.10 North ±3.86 ±3.69 ±0.00 42.29 55.64 ±2.73 84.33 ±3.04 5.78 4.19 ±1.22 ±2.53 54. The numbers below the estimate.36 52.70 9.98 32.74 61.69 ±2.02 ±1.59 2009 90.13 ±0.49 2011 69.72 81. in 2007.01 3.80 3.81 2011 75.94 ±2.88 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.22 Central ±1.95 88.98 50.80 5.38 42.80 ±3.43 69. i.97 69.70 ±1.78 7.52 ±2.47 ±4.37 43.45 ±0.67 47.56 2011 77.42 77.07 ±2.29 70.64 ±2.17 ±3.63 2010 80.09 2010 2.34 ±1.07 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 3.14 ±3.80 3.65 ±3.e.48 10.54 ±1.87 ±1.16 ±4.38 ±4.43 52.66 ±1.92 4.83 South ±4.08 ±1.75 5.62 ±4.47 55.95 ±3.54 72.37 ±2.73 2011 2.64 ±1.58 63. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.41 Debagarh Sundargarh % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 67.86 51.39 ±2.07 4.72 2008 4.22 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 82.04 ±0.92 38.04 South ±4.48 ±0.70 ±4.13 State ±2.49 %. For instance.16 2.26 57.92 73.53 ±3.08 ±2.64 North ±3.Divisional Estimates Odisha School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 4.31 ±1.18 2010 5.95 76.10 ±4.42 North ±0.20 ±4.02 7.28 5.01 63.45 ±0.70 ±1.38 76.02 ±2.74 44.53 ±2.13 56. List of districts under each division Central Mayurbhanj Baleshwar Bhadrak Kendrapara Jagatsinghapur Cuttack Jajapur Nayagarh Khordha Puri North Bargarh Jharsuguda Sambalpur 2008 4.08 ±3. between 88.11 ±0.05 ±2.85 ±1.89 69.72 ±1.18 85.31 ±0.67 ±3.98 72.60 57.70 ±3.08 ±3.27 68.59 78.87 ±3. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 86.69 % points of the estimate.66 4. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.97 ±3.72 2008 67. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.27 ±3.43 State ±2.54 71.59 ±3.08 ±2.78 ±1.45 264 ASER 2011 .49 ±1.19 64.17 Kendujhar Dhenkanal Anugul Subarnapur Balangir South Ganjam Gajapati Kandhamal Baudh Nuapada Kalahandi Rayagada Nabarangapur Koraput Malkangiri 2010 71.24 2.29 ±1.67 2011 56.13 63.12 ±4.86 51.10 2009 73.49 5.52 61.30 14.86 2010 85.93 3.27 ±1.

17 ±3.39 ±1. In Doaba division of Punjab. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year. With 95% probability.89 ±4.26 ±2.14 74. List of districts under each division 2008 2.16 88.91 82.73 ±3.70 90.81 87.08 90.39 71.41 1.83 ±2.80 73.73 90.23 ±7.51 ±3.78 ±4.16 87.63 Majha ±6.99 87.86 ±5.35 ±2.86 %.02 ±2.50 ±2.40 ±2.48 ±1.14 ±6.07 Malwa ±3.71 27.45 ±1.97 ±4.85 2.65 ±2.19 ±4.53 2009 28.01 90.61 ±2.57 84.55 1.36 31.42 ±2.45 78.03 ±2.25 ±5. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.24 ±2.69 2010 83.76 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 87.23 86.91 ±3.39 73.83 40.66 ±0.37 ±5.22 91.Divisional Estimates Punjab School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 2.74 ±3.84 73.55 ±1.69 ±0.96 ±6.79 ±2.06 ±1.58 ±6.06 68.47 ±2.18 2011 37.74 40.84 ±2.05 ±2.44 5.34 80.67 39.56 ±0.34 30.45 1.19 2008 82.42 ±2.91 ±2.63 2.38 1.26 71.79 ±3.58 ±3.75 ±0. i.12 ±2. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.12 88.87 87.95 68.52 Doaba ±1.83 2011 80.87 ±3.82 ±2.19 ±3.24 State ±2.36 40.52 84.23 85.05 2.92 2009 85.64 38.83 ±4.69 2011 80.77 ±4.01 2011 86.00 2009 4.69 ±2.81 ±5.64 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Doaba 2008 2009 75.80 ±6.94 ±2.37 ±1.49 ±3.48 70.23 ±1.75 ±1. between 95.51 ±2.40 ±3.19 ±3.25 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Doaba 2008 2009 88.54 6.86 38.39 41. The numbers below the estimate.47 83.86 81.88 65.98 2011 89.93 ±3.50 ±2.83 2.71 2009 77.85 ±4.76 70.10 3.14 ±2.96 ±4.31 38.74 ±2. For instance.92 92.35 87.69 63.05 49.02 72.04 ±0.74 ±4.45 ±5.05 % and 88.94 1.31 ±4.88 ±0.33 71.33 61.19 % points of the estimate.36 1.11 Majha ±9.40 91.93 ±1.26 ±3.34 ±3.71 2010 92.69 ±1.71 Majha ±0.04 92.35 ±1.41 ASER 2011 265 .53 Ludhiana Mansa Moga Muktsar Sangrur SAS Nagar Patiala Rupnagar 2010 77.30 ±4.85 ±5.75 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 22.51 70.23 86.58 ±5.13 ±2.80 ±2.65 78.83 ±4.38 ±6.73 84.83 Malwa ±2.98 83.73 ±5.94 State ±0. the true population proportion lies within ±3.15 2010 32.22 73.18 85.09 ±6.04 ±2.76 ±4.59 Malwa ±0.37 59.52 75.65 ±3.11 ±4. in the second row.06 ±2.11 39.75 ±9.33 39.20 ±2.00 ±6.59 90.70 71.31 ±4.64 ±2.23 ±3.38 71.50 32.27 ±3.56 Doaba Hoshiarpur Jalandhar Kapurthala SBS Nagar (Nawanshahr) Majha Gurdaspur Amritsar Tarn Taran Malwa Bathinda Faridkot Fatehgarh Sahib 2010 90.82 70.77 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.90 ±0.85 66.11 75.70 State ±3.00 73.53 87.89 2.22 ±1.35 69.22 64. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 91.77 Firozpur % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 66.83 ±2.97 ±3.75 2008 66.42 2010 0.48 68.76 ±0.38 2011 0.35 2008 38.41 ±2.50 ±0.67 ±2.67 %.17 87.48 ±2.04 72.95 3.49 ±4.67 87.e.97 ±6.84 ±4.58 91.. in 2007.48 69.

20 ±4.10 7.52 ±2.04 ±4.81 2.95 66.60 ±4.88 69.62 ±2.31 ±4.35 71.50 71.79 65.87 35.51 ±2.12 65.26 ±5.83 ±5.48 ±5.43 ±2.17 67.54 ±1.19 ±4.12 54.58 7.30 ±4.82 ±6. the true population proportion lies within ±5.35 30.42 ±1.01 7.69 ±4.23 2009 31.01 74.46 ±5.23 ±4.49 ±0.02 ±4.67 68.26 2011 33.00 71.00 9.79 34.58 73.03 71.75 Dhaulpur Karauli 2010 71.02 ±4.38 77.72 67.64 5.18 41.87 ±3.79 76.54 2011 6.86 33.62 ±5.05 30.69 61.16 11.45 40.33 ±5.81 ±6.24 68.81 ±0.Divisional Estimates Rajasthan School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 6.06 ±5.14 ±0.48 ±2.75 19.45 ±3.57 2010 70.53 Bikaner ±1.57 ±4.34 40.52 Ajmer ±5.85 ±3.74 64.46 67.06 70.07 ±4.37 ±3.89 ±1.98 6.26 ±2.79 71.25 ±5.67 ±5.29 ±4.77 ±4.e.45 Jodhpur ±5.79 3.47 ±5.24 ±4.92 64.98 6.47 ±0.66 ±4.64 ±4.58 5.67 Bharatpur ±5. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 71.29 42.26 68.03 ±4.16 ±5.66 ±3.66 ±5.32 ±5.49 Jodhpur ±1.95 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 74.04 2.02 42.29 ±2.91 Bharatpur ±1.08 ±6.95 12. With 95% probability.27 8.61 2010 7.91 73.43 5.68 ±2.98 State ±1.51 Bikaner ±5.70 7.65 ±4.26 72.29 ±4.80 ±5.77 ±1.54 ±4.28 2011 61.81 ±1.73 71.56 ±0.39 ±2.06 ±5.20 ±4. between 76.94 75.76 72.38 ±1.59 ±3.19 70.53 State ±0.57 73.76 2.78 ±1.98 ±1.75 69.40 ±0. List of districts under each division Ajmer Ajmer Bhilwara Nagaur Tonk Bharatpur 2008 5.20 70.50 2.83 ±3.62 34.21 70.43 76.26 ±4.32 44.54 ±0.57 ±5.30 69.24 ±5.74 ±5.06 59.33 77.94 ±2.50 ±5.5 %.18 25.99 49.61 2009 5. In Ajmer division of Rajasthan.66 2009 74.81 74.42 63.20 ±4.94 71.10 5.29 9.64 ±1.98 ±4.27 ±4.31 %.60 ±4.22 266 ASER 2011 .12 ±1.67 ±1.51 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 25.39 ±5.98 16.14 6.56 ±5.85 31.23 ±3.10 Sawai Madhopur Bikaner Bikaner Churu Ganganagar Hanumangarh Jaipur Alwar Dausa Jaipur Jhunjhunun Sikar 71.98 54.52 50.87 35.42 ±4.95 1.86 Kota ±4.50 ±2.17 74.59 4.59 24.75 6.41 65.76 67.58 26.81 Bharatpur % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 72.83 ±5.52 40.77 67.95 ±1.61 4.15 17.39 ±2.18 70.22 ±5.19 Udaipur ±2.52 ±2.27 75.00 ±1.21 33.21 ±5.10 2011 63.56 75.24 ±0.33 ±1.75 36.67 6.63 2010 36.03 ±1.78 ±0.81 ±1.63 ±1.22 ±5.96 66.16 ±5.58 ±5.04 64.46 ±6.58 10.06 9..56 ±5.93 ±4.16 2.70 ±1.49 ±5.68 ±4.69 % and 66. i.31 Ajmer ±1.58 1.67 77.09 ±4.71 5.15 68.83 14.40 ±5.82 67.72 ±1.84 21.29 ±5.75 ±4. For instance.56 5.69 ±4.73 12.98 ±4.94 65.31 74.14 69.14 ±2.61 Kota ±1.48 ±3.51 Jaipur ±4.75 ±4.37 ±6.76 ±2.78 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.00 ±4.66 65.99 Jaipur ±0.91 ±5.83 2008 71.52 20.01 ±5.14 ±5.81 ±0.29 78.22 70.04 70.94 70.74 ±1.88 ±5.83 45.77 11.47 ±5. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.53 8. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.78 40. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.60 70.09 ±1.00 ±3.07 ±5.91 ±1.64 ±5.27 ±5.15 ±4.33 47.80 67.36 68.19 % points of the estimate.99 ±1.60 65.35 ±2. in the second row.49 60.71 71.91 57.87 ±5.77 ±4.59 ±4.77 68.17 Udaipur ±4.62 7.28 ±4.65 72.50 6. in 2007.82 32.54 6.77 2008 35. The numbers below the estimate.

44 ±6.76 ±5.29 62.74 ±4.88 62.14 53.05 58.23 ±5.23 ±4.05 ±6.71 ±5.34 ±5.40 ±5.25 ±4.40 ±1.03 ±5.68 63.53 ±4.41 ±5.20 49.66 ±2.91 Kota ±4.19 ±4.47 63.42 Ajmer ±5.26 41.96 ±5.35 2009 47.81 54.11 ±6.22 62.66 ±5.58 34.70 48.49 ±5.17 65.08 47.95 55.92 Jodhpur ±4.27 ±4.75 65.48 ±5.Divisional Estimates Rajasthan Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 58.03 ±5.06 47.76 Bikaner ±4.60 60.13 ±5.63 ±4.12 57.08 36.65 58.50 ±5.45 ±5.48 ±2.37 ±4.93 31.91 ±1.45 Udaipur ±4.50 ±5.25 28.47 ±5.45 ±2.54 ±5.14 54.17 55.69 55.77 42.20 ±4.22 64.48 63.09 ASER 2011 267 .90 ±4.21 ±5.11 40.19 ±5.59 ±5.49 63.98 52.56 56.14 ±4.14 ±4.09 54.72 53.52 ±5.66 ±5.39 ±2.36 2011 36.33 56.92 55.00 State ±1.33 ±5.11 57.51 75.83 ±5.36 59.20 ±4.85 Jaipur ±4.29 ±4.99 32.96 ±5.45 ±4.87 ±5.72 ±4.24 2008 43.94 List of districts under each division % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 48.18 ±4.10 ±4.68 Bharatpur ±4.81 46.50 52.92 49.41 45.97 52.15 44.27 35.27 55.00 68.91 45.63 ±2.35 66.04 60.95 ±4.56 2011 48.24 52.12 56.83 ±4.80 ±5.67 ±4.63 ±5.06 51.27 50.99 57.83 49.39 50.91 59.72 ±5.77 ±4.23 48.46 49.95 ±5.29 ±4.20 49.74 2010 41.61 67.13 58.13 46.13 ±2.44 ±5.49 Jodhpur Barmer Jaisalmer Jalor Jodhpur Pali Sirohi Kota Baran Bundi Jhalawar Kota Udaipur Banswara Chittaurgarh Dungarpur Rajsamand Udaipur 2010 52.67 55.81 ±4.38 47.80 42.14 ±4.20 ±4.32 ±5.88 ±2.45 52.70 ±6.78 46.

90 ±5.38 ±3.49 ±5.07 ±2.95 ±2.30 ±4.97 60.75 34.67 ±3.94 ±0.79 ±0.60 ±5.61 64.38 ±0.02 ±3.64 ±2.44 ±5.12 ±5.34 ±5.73 26.98 ±4.55 ±5.88 ±3.27 62.74 53.66 ±2.39 54.03 2011 55.49 0.23 15.44 ±3.97 ±6.43 49.85 ±7. With 95% probability.25 54.57 %.16 ±4.56 ±4.74 55.04 ±5.24 45.46 2009 19.18 ±4.84 ±5.20 ±7.18 ±2.73 69.88 ±5.72 2011 25.61 70.64 29.47 ±4.53 ±5.72 2008 ±5.81 ±0.84 38.75 ±4.04 ±5.14 ±0.25 ±2.38 2009 59.19 64.33 268 ASER 2011 .19 67.88 62.93 ±4.51 75.89 ±5.31 36.21 0.16 49.67 ±0.37 ±6.15 ±4.26 60.39 44.86 ±0.44 2010 0.40 ±4.46 2009 0.59 17.66 ±4.20 41.68 13.40 ±4.93 ±0.53 ±4.31 ±4..51 65.33 41.90 2011 39.19 ±5.67 ±4.e. List of districts under each division Central Salem Namakkal Karur Tiruchirappalli Pudukkottai East Viluppuram Perambalur Ariyalur Cuddalore Nagapattinam Thiruvarur Thanjavur North Thiruvallur Kancheepuram Vellore Dharmapuri Tiruvannamalai South Sivaganga Madurai Virudhunagar Ramanathapuram Thoothukkudi Tirunelveli Kanniyakumari West Erode The Nilgiris Coimbatore Dindigul Theni 2008 0.56 ±6.60 25.08 ±6.62 60.86 ±0. in the second row.48 68.09 69.47 34.88 ±0.06 2010 19.28 15.30 26.15 62.17 ±3.10 52.56 35.13 56.55 ±1.46 18.63 ±0.27 60.11 ±3.19 ±5.56 ±3.24 ±4.27 ±2.47 25.17 0.96 22.33 42.99 ±4.05 66. For instance.95 ±4.79 ±5.85 68.86 2010 51.28 75.02 ±6.16 34.33 1.80 ±0.69 ±2.Divisional Estimates Tamil Nadu School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 Central East North South West State 1.57 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 55.30 ±5.85 ±0.12 74.31 2011 31.18 67.23 ±5.47 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Central East North South West State ±5.21 0.70 ±5.33 ±4.22 2009 54. the true population proportion lies within ±6.38 23.52 17.29 2010 44.36 1.61 ±4.90 ±5.56 48.40 2008 ±6.92 ±2.09 ±5.00 ±0.63 ±0.04 ±2.11 ±4.09 ±2.09 51.34 ±4.62 ±4.09 ±6.95 ±2.06 ±0.10 2008 45.01 60.63 ±4.00 ±2.44 41.67 ±4.94 55.89 ±3.88 ±2.86 ±3.50 ±4.78 ±4.62 62.41 66.74 34.15 73.51 2008 63.56 ±2.18 ±7.94 ±2.09 46.29 2011 59.36 2011 0.24 72.42 ±3.69 ±1.50 41.89 40.30 50.29 ±6.20 ±5.90 ±0.34 %.76 51.08 21.63 ±6.68 0.18 ±0.52 ±4.71 ±6.36 0.07 ±5.42 ±5. i.29 2008 22.00 ±4.17 ±4.30 52.31 1. in 2007.45 ±5.65 19.39 46.60 0.21 2009 65.51 69.14 0.08 ±5.94 ±0.89 ±0.59 0.11 ±4.55 65.82 76.74 18.97 ±0.75 ±2.33 0.25 ±0.79 ±4.16 ±5.60 62.03 ±2.28 0.08 ±0.74 ±5.37 ±3.97 60.68 42.38 ±3.37 0.44 0.22 0.74 19.36 67.97 ±5.21 0.01 26.64 26.55 ±5.14 ±4.54 2009 38.96 63.73 ±5.54 ±3.57 60.74 ±4.93 34.06 ±4.49 63.42 ±2.15 50.38 0.56 ±4.79 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Central East North South West State ±6. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.81 ±7.13 14.80 2010 54.53 ±5.43 71.47 ±2.14 57.92 63. % of Std III children who could read letters or more is 49.59 ±7.92 ±5.60 ±5.59 34.76 ±4.43 53.30 ±5.03 60.21 52.34 % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 39.49 ±1.91 ±2.29 ±4.92 1.35 ±3.06 73.33 ±0.45 20.59 ±4.32 0.42 59.98 ±0. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.04 72.53 67.63 ±2.63 43.02 ±3.89 ±0.85 26.06 70.23 % points of the estimate. The numbers below the estimate.18 ±3.04 ±1.06 27.65 48.82 55.62 69. between 55.10 ±5.07 58.87 55.74 32.04 44.25 ±4.95 0.41 15.25 44.56 52.57 55.82 ±0.15 39.48 59.81 50.42 56.92 61.68 ±6.71 ±0.11 ±6.44 ±5.43 ±2.59 ±3.54 ±4.63 ±2.47 62.45 50.21 48.81 ±5.52 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 14. In Central division of Tamil Nadu.42 1.13 1.62 ±4.50 ±2.46 1.89 72.52 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.69 ±0.23 43.48 48.37 20. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.48 ±0.67 2010 37.80 % and 43.70 ±7.50 ±2.76 49.03 ±5.

In Agra division of Uttar Pradesh.36 4.84 ±4.12 ±4.94 2.61 ±1.89 4.86 ±0.93 3.87 6.03 ±0.63 ±0.09 ±4.61 5.92 ±0.85 ±4.65 40. between 69.76 ±0.79 5.12 ±4.70 1.76 6.26 4.52 ±1.70 ±4.12 39.39 6.36 ±1.00 2009 40.67 ±4.73 37.55 ±3.65 Agra ±0.71 ±4.07 46.24 ±3.40 46.99 3.72 33.87 30.36 18.34 33.04 ±6.56 ±3.77 ±4.68 ±3.14 7.54 ±4.83 ±1.29 ±1.78 ±1.42 47.51 6.85 28.53 Bareilly ±2.62 ±3.85 ±0.70 ±4.52 ±4.13 4.58 38.63 24.98 ±3.86 ±1.66 39.57 ±4.34 ±3.56 ±5.00 42.96 Gorakhpur ±0.31 5.03 ±1.86 8.14 35.27 ±1.13 ASER 2011 269 .13 ±6.91 2.22 ±1.22 ±0.80 ±1.29 3.68 ±0. List of districts under each division Agra Mathura Agra Firozabad Mainpuri Aligarh Aligarh Mahamaya Nagar (Hathras) Etah Allahabad Fatehpur Pratapgarh Kaushambi Allahabad Azamgarh Azamgarh Mau Ballia Bareilly Budaun Bareilly Pilibhit Shahjahanpur Basti Siddharthnagar Basti Sant Kabir Nagar 2008 5.25 ±1.49 41.03 3.05 15.33 ±1.39 6.76 46.62 ±1.11 35.31 ±2.94 ±3.23 6.86 ±1.76 ±5.55 ±5.31 ±1.16 32. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 64.17 Faizabad ±1.61 ±3.19 7.13 2.36 ±4.05 Kanpur ±0.23 35.80 3.49 ±4.59 36.95 ±0.75 ±4.27 33.89 ±4.83 1.12 ±4.79 33. i.89 4.95 9.54 23.61 3.16 ±0.67 %.20 6.54 ±0.71 ±0.81 ±3.05 38.91 ±6.17 ±6.01 3.16 ±4.88 Lucknow ±1.10 2011 57.85 ±0.78 ±4.56 ±0.88 ±0.09 51.08 25.02 35.75 9.95 54.58 ±5.42 ±0.15 27.76 ±4.99 ±1.48 2.03 ±2.09 3.88 ±4.95 5.50 ±4.53 7.57 2.47 ±1.84 ±4.98 Moradabad ±1.29 ±1.42 43.13 2.96 Varanasi ±0.91 42.94 19. in 2007.60 1.10 39.Divisional Estimates Uttar Pradesh School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 2.13 ±0.85 ±0. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.85 30.08 22.71 ±1.56 % points of the estimate.50 34.34 43.06 ±0.12 2009 3.36 ±4.61 53.51 ±2.64 ±4.78 46.82 Aligarh ±0.14 22.63 26.33 38.67 4.70 1.53 ±5.02 5.47 ±1.72 Devipatan ±1.91 ±2.31 8.18 ±2.67 ±4.92 13.36 5.95 27.04 20.22 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.73 ±5.70 1.96 3.69 ±4.67 ±4.13 3.39 Azamgarh ±1.28 25.56 36.19 ±1.69 36.19 5. With 95% probability.15 ±1.16 ±1.99 ±1.32 ±3.77 55.14 7.06 37.70 ±4.05 ±3.11 %.02 5.06 35.09 14.21 ±3.91 2008 45.32 ±4.70 35.60 4.68 19.78 2.76 23.12 ±3.03 ±3.79 ±1.62 28.80 ±5.96 ±1.88 2010 3.14 45.11 ±2.20 ±1.26 ±4.86 ±1. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.47 ±1.36 ±4.86 ±3. the true population proportion lies within ±4.59 6.54 1.22 57. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.71 4.90 7.52 52.83 2.99 ±2.05 ±1.41 3.23 % and 60.27 14.84 ±0.99 ±5.90 4.55 ±3.87 ±4.85 5.96 ±1.75 ±4.72 ±3.13 39.47 ±4.40 29.05 ±1.79 3.74 7.60 3.97 20.79 ±0.21 3.15 2.32 53.e.00 42. The numbers below the estimate.11 ±3.56 15.74 ±4.58 ±1.40 ±0.16 ±1.09 3.16 ±0.43 Saharanpur ±3.80 ±1.42 24.65 ±1.22 ±1.84 5.63 ±0.97 2011 5.96 2010 51.53 2.62 20.93 ±1.23 38.83 ±3.50 ±3.77 1.94 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 37.45 ±3.36 ±3.93 State ±0.28 18.93 Basti ±1.73 32.40 42.46 40.04 ±1.26 ±0.79 ±4.09 35.99 39.19 3.66 ±4.62 ±3.87 ±0.26 42.83 4.64 26.13 ±4.03 6.82 ±3.16 10.20 ±5.01 52.29 ±0.01 6.02 9.87 39.67 1.09 ±4.35 3.31 6.22 ±3.58 ±3.90 Allahabad ±1. in the second row.04 39.33 42.17 Meerut ±0.45 26.66 2.90 Jhansi ±0.21 ±3.48 45.86 Chitrakoot ±0.53 8.61 39.38 ±3.22 ±3.57 ±1..58 ±1.36 50.37 44.05 2.36 ±5.00 ±1.34 7. For instance.89 4.60 ±1.03 ±4.55 26.01 ±0.80 3.22 34.88 3.34 ±2.30 ±4.22 2.76 ±1.77 ±4.65 23.60 Mirzapur ±1.14 3.18 ±1.84 10.09 ±3.

54 59.10 83.77 2011 67.44 66.22 62.66 64.Divisional Estimates Uttar Pradesh Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Agra 2008 2009 68.35 ±5.74 58.23 69.68 ±5.55 76.84 ±5.25 66.44 ±5.21 62.88 59.35 71.07 ±5.64 ±6.79 64.65 73.98 64.58 ±7.42 ±4.30 61.49 66.27 56.60 ±3.56 ±4.81 ±5.39 56.50 ±3.90 ±5.08 ±6.14 ±5.60 65.10 ±6.17 74.02 59.59 ±1.68 ±4.38 77.93 ±5.68 71.74 ±5.00 ±1.66 57.63 ±3.25 69.47 67.90 ±4.93 ±4.57 63.65 ±3.85 67.93 62.55 ±4.38 Bareilly ±6.81 ±4.80 62.00 66.95 Aligarh ±7.31 Gorakhpur ±4.35 ±5.14 ±5.43 ±4.08 82.72 Mirzapur ±5.06 Chitrakoot Hamirpur Mahoba Banda Chitrakoot Devipatan Bahraich Shrawasti Balrampur Gonda Faizabad Bara Banki Faizabad Ambedkar Nagar Sultanpur Gorakhpur Mahrajganj Gorakhpur Kushinagar Deoria Jhansi Jalaun Jhansi Lalitpur Kanpur Farrukhabad Kannauj Etawah Auraiya Kanpur Dehat 2010 67.52 67.85 ±4.42 64.99 ±4.39 54.71 69.06 72.20 ±4.85 56.43 61.69 61.77 62.86 82.33 71.79 70.62 ±3.57 51.89 68.69 75.88 59.00 ±4.32 ±3.30 65.81 66.18 68.20 72.49 67.12 ±6.03 77.22 ±5.85 68.57 ±4.14 60.04 67.83 ±3.10 59.32 ±4.45 ±6.55 79.02 69.27 ±5.35 63.48 62.29 68.27 2009 66.87 ±7.24 75.20 List of districts under each division % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 66.99 ±5.90 ±5.92 ±3.93 57.69 66.54 ±5.63 ±4.58 ±5.04 ±4.11 ±5.47 ±6.18 62.28 ±4.37 ±4.90 75.20 ±3.30 ±3.13 Moradabad ±6.89 61.69 ±4.90 66.90 ±4.37 72.57 ±4.06 ±4.50 64.99 ±1.79 Allahabad ±3.18 ±4.25 66.15 66.23 63.07 ±5.51 ±5.78 71.09 61.12 ±4.35 77.31 ±1.60 ±5.47 ±4.86 ±4.25 67.50 ±4.96 Faizabad ±4.97 ±4.95 ±4.09 ±5.81 64.19 74.82 ±4.30 72.23 2010 68.68 ±6.08 State ±1.01 ±4.72 ±4.29 71.50 ±5.73 ±4.60 ±6.12 ±5.26 69.51 75.41 64.21 65.69 58.95 53.49 ±5.95 57.05 71.61 69.26 70.59 68.87 ±3.69 65.42 52.43 64.13 61.73 ±4.86 54.51 ±5.90 78.23 ±4.70 ±1.37 67.17 ±5.59 ±5.41 67.18 68.79 ±4.47 ±5.67 ±4.05 Devipatan ±5.30 Varanasi ±4.94 2011 65.48 ±5.29 62.56 56.61 70.68 55.74 54.95 ±4.58 72.58 Lucknow ±4.48 ±5.55 71.33 59.56 ±1.28 65.74 57.00 ±5.04 56.38 67.77 ±5.69 ±4.96 72.20 ±3.59 ±5.15 Kanpur ±5.85 ±4.98 77.07 ±5.66 ±4.36 67.88 69.12 Azamgarh ±6.72 ±3.49 70.24 ±4.40 ±4.63 71.39 64.82 75.56 63.74 55.68 ±6.67 61.96 ±4.47 ±4.61 Meerut ±4.70 ±4.98 57.40 ±4.56 60.19 ±5.31 71.01 62.07 ±3.86 ±4.31 ±4.65 70.29 ±3.86 ±5.46 55.68 ±4.07 ±1.32 51.88 ±5.99 70.26 59.66 65.84 63.65 ±4.25 ±4.09 66.99 ±5.62 72.30 60.20 ±5.41 ±3.28 ±4.34 ±4.96 73.58 77.35 64.47 ±4.83 ±5.52 77.41 ±4.88 ±3.12 57.65 Jhansi ±5.35 ±5.06 ±4.68 ±6.69 77.65 Chitrakoot ±5.34 65.81 64.66 57.13 64.46 ±3.55 ±4.52 61.20 ±4.21 ±5.04 ±4.18 65.40 ±4.60 60.87 ±5.87 ±4.05 67.66 Saharanpur ±6.93 61.40 ±4.23 60.04 ±3.18 70.92 ±4.24 65.72 76.20 73.48 ±5.78 ±3.43 66.86 67.09 58.58 ±5.45 ±4.11 50.33 ±4.39 65.74 ±5.18 270 ASER 2011 .57 ±4.26 71.17 ±3.63 54.43 69.73 57.89 76.29 ±1.97 68.21 ±5.38 62.30 ±1.82 ±5.60 ±4.67 ±4.08 ±4.02 ±5.81 67.93 2008 60.74 ±4.47 ±4.66 ±5.34 45.23 56.64 66.23 72.69 ±4.08 Basti ±4.71 71.01 60.37 ±4.63 ±6.11 ±4.63 66.76 ±3.48 ±6.35 62.

16 ±5.15 45.21 ±4.70 ±4.85 ±5.21 ±5.64 57.21 ±4.20 ±4.31 35.69 49.18 ±4.55 ±1.76 34.50 ±4.06 ±5.94 46.66 71.16 50.75 ±5.68 68.03 ±4.22 Gorakhpur ±5.73 ±4.42 52.26 48.15 ±4.46 21.35 ±4.79 ±5.60 ±4.40 39.04 67.02 ±3.86 ±4.03 38.94 Moradabad ±6.36 48.66 ±4.86 ±4.60 38.96 42.57 ±4.12 30.02 ±8.84 47.50 ±5.47 Mirzapur ±7.39 57.25 ±6.39 ±5.78 ±5.09 38.87 53.99 ±5.97 39.42 30.90 47.12 51.52 ±4.27 38.00 25.79 ±4.56 Aligarh ±6.98 51.17 37.15 ±6.77 ±4.00 40.06 ±5.43 51.11 ±5.04 ±5.87 ±3.41 45.49 Jhansi ±4.21 2009 35.32 ±4.82 ±4.46 ±5.12 33.63 ±4.22 39.38 57.84 45.77 58.62 ±4.49 ±5.99 ±5.02 ±7.37 37.39 45.81 ±4.52 47.64 41.00 Unnao Lucknow Rae Bareli Meerut Meerut Baghpat Ghaziabad Gautam Buddha Nagar Bulandshahar Mirzapur Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) Mirzapur Sonbhadra Moradabad Bijnor Moradabad Rampur Jyotiba Phule Nagar Saharanpur Saharanpur Muzaffarnagar Varanasi Jaunpur Ghazipur Chandauli Varanasi 46.09 ±4.87 52.10 ±5.40 47.38 55.86 ±5.21 42.95 56.40 38.38 ±6.00 44.04 50.60 33.37 ±3.08 42.46 ±6.80 ±4.66 State ±1.44 26.79 ±4.52 30.86 ±5.67 ±1.06 ±5.46 53.24 ±5.39 49.22 ±1.40 ±4.27 40.79 56.63 ±5.64 ±6.07 48.07 ±5.80 22.07 49.78 ±5.62 ±4.16 ±5.66 30.78 ±4.41 43.79 ±6.08 ±6.37 34.76 42.77 38.74 ±3.85 35.08 53.00 Bareilly ±5.66 26.44 24.33 46.54 29.96 2011 46.10 29.10 ±5.62 ±4.86 ±6.37 ±6.30 ±4.01 49.23 ±4.12 Saharanpur ±8.61 34.30 ±6.21 33.00 45.01 ±4.19 61.93 31.56 ±7.13 59.26 40.06 ±4.52 50.10 ±4.28 ±4.85 41.62 32.73 37.55 42.70 36.01 29.84 ±5.85 40.81 ±6.47 32.59 Kanpur ±4.96 ±5.13 33.17 ±8.77 2008 35.41 ±4.13 ±5.85 31.04 52.33 34.70 51.47 29.08 ±4.75 43.40 ±4.35 ±1.71 Chitrakoot ±6.89 Devipatan ±6.80 ±4.03 ±4.18 71.81 73.20 ±4.20 64.74 55.44 54.28 48.41 38.01 Lucknow ±3.28 32.04 58.92 ±5.31 ±4.26 49.17 Meerut ±5.14 45.26 37.13 ±6.83 22.85 ±4.21 ±4.85 55.45 ±1.07 ±4.91 51.55 29.97 59.29 50.38 ±4.29 ±4.83 ±1.92 Basti ±5.39 ±4.36 58.50 40.74 54.27 ±6.43 32.83 ±6.27 ±6.76 ±4.83 60.74 ±5.20 ±5.03 66.55 ±6.42 ±5.06 ±3.47 48.23 ±5.54 43.27 ±5.14 46.74 67.00 28.67 59.81 ±5.34 37.41 ±4.66 32.80 45.51 ±5.72 43.46 37.95 ±5.99 2011 38.08 45.51 ±7.32 ±5.49 35.70 ±5.85 ±4.99 54.77 ±5.28 42.25 ±5.25 ±7.61 26.69 ±1.04 ±6.03 ±4.16 ±4.01 ±6.90 Faizabad ±4.07 61.06 ±5.20 ±3.28 41.85 ±3.68 47.58 39.60 29.37 ±5.07 52.47 Azamgarh ±5.56 ±3.45 48.23 ±5.17 ±1.80 42.48 ±4.39 38.02 ±3.76 ±4.75 51.94 54.60 38.84 52.90 50.03 71.13 2010 42.37 ±4.28 ±5.68 ±3.87 ±5.57 48.21 46.37 41.74 59.35 36.96 ±4.67 ±5.40 35.98 45.46 ±3.99 69.66 ±6.78 42.16 ±5.32 Varanasi ±4.43 ±4.08 ±4.95 ±4.27 52.28 ±4.67 ±6.24 Lucknow Kheri Sitapur Hardoi 2010 51.32 28.43 44.18 45.85 ±1.75 ±4.58 55.39 ±4.13 48.55 ±7.79 ±4.77 ±5.98 ±4.00 56.20 46.93 36.42 40.02 39.01 ±4.55 List of districts under each division % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 46.11 44.47 ±5.08 ±6.60 55.25 Allahabad ±4.58 37.10 ±3.19 47.29 ±4.94 31.14 ASER 2011 271 .79 ±5.76 ±3.11 35.06 49.Divisional Estimates Uttar Pradesh Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Agra 2008 2009 48.03 ±5.21 46.32 ±4.

83 ±3.47 70.75 ±4.37 79.34 31.86 ±3. With 95% probability.78 62.74 % points of the estimate.01 ±3.10 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more 2007 78.64 Almora Champawat Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 70.42 ±0.90 79.85 Garhwal ±3.08 71.11 ±0.03 2010 61.19 ±5.75 ±4.07 27.38 ±4.76 Kumaon ±3.64 31.13 79.58 ±4.82 ±6. List of districts under each division 2008 0. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.80 ±0.97 21. in the second row.55 ±5.79 1.09 % and 74.36 ±3.47 ±3.21 State ±2.76 75.88 ±2.82 2.64 ±0.30 83. between 82.35 79.12 ±3.98 80.73 78.00 68.83 ±4.88 2009 57.47 2008 30.43 2010 1.89 ±5.98 2010 78.22 86.63 ±3.58 ±0.74 ±4. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 78.47 50.87 2009 79.36 ±4.39 1.07 2.66 ±4.73 ±0. For instance.97 ±4.42 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.20 2011 74.90 70. In Garhwal division of Uttarakhand.07 ±4.64 55. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.24 ±3..70 ±2.82 State ±2.31 73.61 ±4.24 State ±0.53 ±4.32 59.65 1.47 25. i.17 ±3.69 2010 28.04 64. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.08 Garhwal Uttarkashi Chamoli Rudraprayag 2010 80.18 80.06 78.20 29.35 ±0.32 ±5.58 2011 0.81 ±4.91 62.03 ±3.79 ±5. the true population proportion lies within ±3.35 %.20 65.68 ±4.34 2009 1.59 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 2008 2009 80.Divisional Estimates Uttarakhand School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 1.51 ±4.42 ±2.44 1.01 2011 76.12 82.72 ±3.49 ±4.94 ±4.97 77.31 60.23 78.54 Garhwal ±3.33 ±3.12 ±4.74 Hardwar Kumaon Pithoragarh Bageshwar 79.63 87.86 2.65 ±3.22 2010 69.46 ±3.e.87 72.02 Tehri Garhwal Dehradun Garhwal 80.06 ±4.01 ±4.26 ±4.85 78.36 ±1.14 ±4.37 79.00 ±3.52 ±4.53 23.88 ±3.95 ±3.43 272 ASER 2011 .04 76.70 73.86 ±3.23 79.82 ±5.98 ±0.31 1.95 2011 31.69 ±4.29 ±4.27 77.68 65.21 29.23 2008 79.65 ±0.61%.97 2011 48.30 ±3.62 Kumaon ±4.50 67.20 ±3.28 1.67 ±3.91 Kumaon ±1. in 2007.79 24.91 ±3.75 Garhwal ±0.87 ±3.69 ±5.50 ±2.77 79.42 2011 61.75 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 27.22 ±6.78 80.78 2009 25.27 73.69 ±3.09 ±0.00 Nainital Udham Singh Nagar % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more 2007 63.71 0.42 ±4.36 24.85 ±3.55 ±4.25 ±0.54 ±4.80 80.80 2008 59.09 ±3. The numbers below the estimate.61 71.69 ±4.79 ±3.

49 55. The numbers below the estimate.86 6.89 ±5.40 10.26 73.79 75.15 ±4.20 ±4.81 68.88 5.31 Presidency ±2.58 Jalpaiguri ±0.47 ±1. The grouping of districts is based on administrative divisions used in the state or by geographical regions.13 2011 4.30 84.28 2009 4.19 ±3.39 Burdwan ±1.24 89. in the second row.02 92.95 ±3.38 ±4.59 ±6.44 ±1.33 82.75 79.39 4.18 ±3.62 ±4.58 ±0. In Burdwan division of West Bengal.50 5.37 ±3.68 ±0.36 57.67 ±4.56 80.07 92.90 4.52 60.39 76.96 ±2.38 ±3.86 51.74 %.69 4.40 66.06 ±4.39 ±4..54 ±5.01 ±1.61 ±1.01 2007 87.03 ±6.42 4.46 ±2.70 ±3.82 2011 65.80 Jalpaiguri ±5.53 ±5.86 2008 63.37 ±5.86 ±0.39 % Children in Std I-II who CAN RECOGNIZE numbers 1 to 9 or more Burdwan Birbhum Barddhaman Hugli Bankura Puruliya Medinipur Jalpaiguri Darjiling Jalpaiguri Koch Bihar Uttar Dinajpur Dakshin Dinajpur ±2.70 ±0.13 ±1.88 5.64 2009 65.31 78.62 84.28 ±5.04 ±2.04 90.97 ±4.42 ±2.79 ±1.66 79.69 67.10 11.66 65.56 3.91 87.14 ±3.04 ±1.76 88. List of districts under each division 2008 6.39 5.54 Presidency ±5. the true population proportion lies within ±2.17 5.09 2010 90.02 68.96 ±1.71 ±1.38 ±1.18 2007 91.69 ±5.27 4.03 6.29 ±0.21 90.68 ±0.31 ±1.46 88.50 ±4.36 86.92 2011 3.41 64.57 ±3.18 ±4.77 ±3.50 ±2.09 ±5.13 ±1.37 ±3.94 6.00 ±5.40 ±2.68 78.31 % points of the estimate.19 ±2.74 84.12 5.83 87.70 2011 92.89 ±4.89 ±2.31 ±4.19 ±4.01 76.05 % and 90.93 ±1. i.94 10.07 % Children enrolled in private school (age: 6-14) 2007 1. between 95.70 66.27 89.68 ±1.96 84.83 State ±2.05 52.97 88.04 % Children in Std III-V who CAN DO subtraction or more Maldah Presidency Murshidabad Nadia North Twenty Four Parganas Haora South Twenty Four Parganas ±2. in 2007.55 2009 5.85 ±3.16 45.02 ±3.31 ±0.58 5.13 2010 90.03 76.06 2011 89.92 Presidency ±1.87 ±2.95 67.93 55.44 2010 3.53 2010 3.37 ±2.53 87.08 Learning levels: Std III-V % Children in Std III-V who CAN READ Level 1 (Std I) text or more Division/Region 2007 Burdwan 2008 2009 70.45 ±1.80 ±1. For instance.18 87.09 2010 71.58 55.90 ±5.54 ±0.19 Jalpaiguri ±4.51 49.47 87.02 2010 76.11 4.26 9. are twice the standard error of the corresponding estimate and represent the 95% confidence interval for the estimate.81 ±3.05 ±2.74 2009 88.32 ±0. % of Std I-II children who could read letters or more is 92.74 ±2.62 5.17 ±4.29 52. How to read these tables: The first row for each division gives the estimate of the relevant variable/year.17 ±1.12 ±1.29 ±1.31 ±2.88 10.91 60.12 88.90 5.92 ±4.46 ±4.11 5.69 2008 84.85 83.72 4.92 ±2.84 ±2.60 ±2.36 67.59 ±0.53 55.09 ±3.86 ±3.44 ±3.60 ±1.06 ±3.98 5.49 74.24 3.24 ±5.53 66.90 86.20 2011 60.43%.94 ±5.25 ±2.12 ASER 2011 273 .51 4.65 67.47 ±2.13 47.46 ±2.65 ±2.38 ±2.66 Note: Districts have been clubbed into divisions to produce these estimates.44 61.06 ±4.86 ±4. With 95% probability.38 ±4.33 State ±2.e.81 State ±0.65 ±3.18 90.30 ±2.30 ±1.01 Learning levels: Std I-II % Children in Std I-II who CAN READ letters or more Division/Region 2007 Burdwan 2008 2009 86.51 ±5.40 53.31 ±3.08 62.33 ±1.02 2008 3.79 ±3.29 4.57 ±4.28 80.44 61.Divisional Estimates West Bengal School enrollment and out of school children % Children out of school (age: 6-14) Division/Region 2007 5.

Annexures 274 ASER 2011 .

Surveyed Age3-16 veyed veyed houseAll districts villages holds Age 6-14 Age 15-16 22 11 22 37 15 1 2 1 25 16 12 14 22 27 14 45 33 8 7 8 11 30 2 19 32 4 29 4 69 13 17 68 12 17 567 558** 4 29 840 109 2019 346 496 16017 31 925 19 550 11291 18547 2 51 1121 30 893 17781 28724 11 260 6305 13001 8 175 4384 10375 6 155 3066 7070 8 214 4674 8843 31 925 18504 30438 43 1266 25368 51952 14 389 8400 11564 27 805 16165 24566 20 583 11742 27030 375 8088 16909 348 6933 10584 424 8687 18513 723 14747 27578 26 540 807 24 1191 2287 18 361 614 446 8871 16261 1068 21775 57504 630 12731 23251 285 5586 10242 649 13179 21317 Sample description ASER 2011 22 13 23 37 15 1 2 2 25* 20 12 14 22 27 14 45 33 9 6 8 11 30 2 19 32 1 29 3 69 13 17 568 551 580 17 17 13 13 69 69 4 4 29 29 4 4 32 32 19 19 2 2 30 30 11 11 8 7 7 9 9 33 33 45 45 14 14 27 27 22 21 14 14 12 12 12 20 20 20 25* 26 26 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 15 15 15 35 37 37 23 22 23 10 13 13 22 22 22 Sikkim was surveyed late and data could not be incorporated in the Provisional Report 17320 2308 40740 6966 10001 26350 3474 96215 13223 14506 4116 650 17988 2526 2796 327372 633465 115705 2110 345 9674 1319 1438 61036 2000 305 8224 1207 1358 18318 2307 66100 9053 9749 9144 1245 35515 4795 5038 9170 1062 30389 4258 4711 54003 441427 233809 205757 3916 517 12127 1644 1961 76333 1965 295 6486 873 991 1950 222 5613 771 970 40623 35421 Andhra Pradesh Actual cistricts State 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 22 22 Arunachal Pradesh 13 8 Assam 23 16 Bihar 37 37 Chhattisgarh 16 16 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1 1 Daman & Diu 2 2 Goa 2 2 Gujarat 26 25* Haryana 20 20 Himachal Pradesh 12 12 Jammu & Kashmir 14 13 Jharkhand 22 22 Karnataka 27 27 Kerala 14 14 Madhya Pradesh 45 45 Maharashtra 33 33 Manipur 9 8 Meghalaya 7 5 Mizoram 8 7 Nagaland 11 10 Odisha 30 30 Puducherry 2 2 Punjab 19 18* Rajasthan 32 31 Sikkim 4 Tamil Nadu 29 29 Tripura 4 2 Uttar Pradesh 69 69 Uttarakhand 13 13 West Bengal 17 16 Total 583 555 Note: Girls and boys may not add to all children since gender has not been recorded for 2683 children. ** Data for 6 districts is incomplete.Surveyed districts 2011 Age 3-5 All 3630 2488 4658 11425 3008 99 320 202 4136 3318 1977 2849 5458 4432 1756 9469 4939 1643 1526 2030 2510 5444 1383 16626 42258 235 2948 7129 2589 845 770 1063 1296 2922 118 1627 3855 5112 894 862 4256 2315 798 756 967 1214 2522 117 1321 3209 2253 2179 2777 2556 18757 17204 8457 36433 21381 6421 4665 7257 9284 19440 913 11753 29435 1521 1283 11468 1057 889 7409 3842 5996 9782 8727 4222 19200 11415 3340 2339 3864 4849 10356 456 6482 16442 1871 1413 12931 7261 2221 1915 20409 11232 89 113 530 290 240 9177 5566 3473 5326 8681 8477 4235 16916 9842 3081 2326 3393 4435 9084 457 5271 12705 156 164 1650 897 753 47 52 423 249 173 92 317 75 3033 2264 1198 2592 2815 2930 1351 6050 4118 779 879 1088 1207 3840 235 1925 5694 1536 1461 11076 5610 5456 2177 5955 5347 40718 21650 18785 5361 2974 1115 60 165 35 1692 1243 583 1280 1532 1476 675 3262 2106 396 443 598 651 2023 107 1033 3355 2380 2278 16012 8362 7650 2581 1374 1326 1162 6662 3706 2956 1092 638 454 1207 2359 1057 32 152 40 1341 999 593 1288 1246 1454 676 2740 1986 383 436 490 556 1817 128 892 2291 1870 1760 15212 7503 7709 2475 1197 1278 Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls SurSur. * These states are complete. 275 . Some districts were split in subsequent years.

6 9.8 73.4 80.1 81.5 37.6 29.7 38.5 47.5 55.6 99.3 14.8 58.0 16.0 29.4 92.2 12.4 60.5 32.8 4.8 81.1 25.5 17.7 10.9 26.7 92.1 94.4 97.8 1.8 10.6 48.9 93.9 15.1 61.5 33.6 17.1 11.2 59.4 59.1 95.8 71.8 Govt Prim School Andhra Pradesh 24.8 49.9 83.0 77.1 97.8 71.3 16.2 98.7 38.7 11.6 10.8 27.0 27.0 99.7 79.7 13.7 22.0 84.1 64.4 63.7 89.3 35.8 70.4 23.7 53.2 38.5 82.5 27.6 17.1 8.5 88.1 34.7 8.2 18.5 90.4 93.2 10.9 42.8 8.2 16.8 17.7 27.4 34.4 20.0 49.9 56.4 21.4 29.6 25.0 12.6 84.7 9.8 51.3 30.6 30.4 20.9 Puducherry 85.5 96.7 76.2 61.7 95.4 56.6 14.7 10.5 Assam 47.8 80.7 98.6 35.1 78.4 62.4 84.0 89.0 17.8 75.3 23.8 6.1 100.9 16.9 64.2 52.9 28.3 15.5 76.4 73.0 93.5 80.3 23.0 77.0 77.8 48.7 29.4 98.7 77.0 Jammu & Kashmir 60.6 35.4 5.2 76.4 32.4 16. School Aanganwadi/Pre School Electricity today Other reading material 7.9 4.2 52.5 97.5 8.4 85.9 47.0 49.9 7.1 98.5 24.4 100.9 16.0 6.8 77.5 36.0 81.5 62.9 17.1 55.9 12.0 51.5 49.6 73.2 26.6 28.1 13.2 25.2 27.2 22.3 22.2 31.5 71.0 48.6 20.0 20.8 22.2 65.2 98.7 58.0 23.6 82.0 100.3 48.2 98.1 40.1 40.5 35.2 15.7 Chhatisgarh 79.6 74.1 25.0 93.4 15.4 20.4 98.8 20.4 14.0 72.4 7.3 7.6 17.0 11.5 71.2 36.9 36.7 45.5 67.1 7.6 79.2 12.7 42.3 19.7 55.4 17.2 24.6 38.9 32.3 98.1 15.7 35.9 22.9 99.9 57.1 5.3 55.4 53.7 99.0 16.0 41.8 66.7 36.8 77.3 27.0 49.9 83.2 46.7 Jharkhand 55.7 24.4 80.2 88.5 69.7 37.7 6.9 62.5 28.3 14.2 51.3 13.5 66.9 44.7 81.V.8 32.8 6.2 8.9 95.7 4.2 10.3 97.9 89.9 63.8 61.9 45.0 98.0 92.3 12.5 95.2 98.7 10.4 13.9 Computer Usage 12.3 27.8 50.7 21.0 52.7 33.S Pukka Toilet T.0 68.5 17.3 8.7 30.5 94.3 58.0 84.7 23.7 78.3 87.2 50.4 59.3 Punjab 95.7 18.2 42.3 Meghalaya 52.0 61.8 14.7 39.3 65.7 52.8 55.1 36.5 99.9 95.1 35.6 33.7 16.9 92.5 68.9 14.0 56.4 100.0 55.0 100.9 56.1 Uttar Pradesh 85.2 31.1 43.4 22.7 31.0 17.7 2.7 46.4 Madhya Pradesh 69.6 91.3 98.0 100.4 21.4 31.8 60.0 60.5 94.0 23.5 67.5 68.5 63.0 51.6 80.8 66.1 9.0 54.1 96.1 47.9 68.5 53.0 23.5 67.4 Uttarakhand 52.2 92.6 26.8 31.2 0.0 82.7 8.5 89.7 19.0 23.1 16.1 30.3 64.8 7.2 29.7 77.2 Arunachal Pradesh 60.6 52.4 74.0 58.2 57.3 93.3 21.4 100.4 93.6 34.4 51.2 41.7 38.2 12.5 100.8 37.6 36.3 33.7 22.7 Haryana 92.3 27.7 72.2 98.2 Village infrastructure and household characteristics West Bengal 54.6 44.7 20.2 99.5 83.3 16.7 4.3 24.2 37.1 34.0 Gujarat 88.7 52.2 26.3 Karnataka 90.5 48.8 64.0 8.6 25.8 96.8 19.5 35.8 28.5 Himachal Pradesh 53.5 8.5 26.2 41.2 73.3 15.2 26.7 63.2 18.9 46.8 66.7 25.3 13.8 18.4 53.2 27.0 79.7 41.2 74.5 87.7 69.9 95.0 63.0 97.2 47.3 9.4 7.5 23.3 29.6 6.7 93.6 29.5 79.1 85.8 51.6 16.2 90.1 16.4 58.6 15.1 99.4 27.9 57.1 41.8 6.8 27.8 99.4 55.9 12.3 79.0 86.8 65.8 72.6 63.7 25.3 11.2 45.9 99.4 40.0 43.3 76.3 92.5 17.4 38.D.3 66.2 84.0 65.5 Maharashtra 85.1 97.6 91.9 50.9 43.2 80.9 46.9 50.2 3.9 28.5 77.8 35.4 24.4 33.2 9.2 92.2 88.7 94.0 10.1 31.0 93.3 54.5 7.6 88.8 49.2 89.8 Goa 96.4 67.8 33.0 38.4 17.3 54.1 82.7 35.8 39.2 42.8 37.6 61.2 82.1 Rajasthan 85.4 11.5 95.6 276 % of villages with the following characteristics % of households with the following characteristics STATES .2 54.0 98.3 87.0 96.3 18.7 Tamil Nadu 85.9 14.9 84.5 97.9 83.3 12.9 33.1 30.7 81.7 18.7 63.0 Bihar 63.2 88.7 13.6 93.4 13.6 39.1 31.0 84.2 94.9 17.6 83.9 53.4 13.8 96.3 25.0 18.9 98.5 15.4 13.5 80.6 14.6 30.3 35.2 91.0 45.6 10.2 19.0 75.1 25.6 17.6 97.1 98.0 24.4 94.5 29.7 93.3 9.6 24.1 32.5 12.3 37.Bank P.2 17.4 88.9 7.0 36.8 27.6 8.7 24.0 46.7 41.6 74.6 34.2 4.7 91.1 68.8 8.9 5.0 30.8 52.1 11.4 95.0 96.4 91.6 62.5 Kerala 92.8 10.4 48.0 28.1 99.1 12.9 6.7 65.0 ASER 2011 All India 75.2 11.8 33.0 61.4 43.7 61.8 53.6 87.0 40.2 20.8 67.6 91.3 95.6 44.7 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 94.6 80.1 26.3 10.8 98.9 58.9 8.1 65.3 66.9 54.0 62.9 82. Kutcha Electricity Post Office STD Booth Electricity Cable TV Mobile Pukka Road Internet cafe Solar Energy Private School Semi Pukka Newspaper Primary Health Centre Private Health Clinic Govt Sec.3 97.2 26.1 23.0 24.4 14.5 13.9 11.2 12.7 72.2 14.1 34.5 87.7 9.0 51.0 15.7 45.3 70.2 15.2 92.0 32.5 29.0 49.2 90.1 44.6 17.2 27.8 66.7 90.8 59.0 64.8 14.2 21.1 97.7 35.2 22.6 17.5 8.0 15.4 80.3 88.7 46.7 99.5 84.6 51.4 13.9 21.7 38.8 46.4 59.6 15.0 70.6 16.4 1.9 100.5 57.0 78.6 48.6 18.4 36.2 94.8 24.2 44.8 90.1 83.9 44.8 81.3 Tripura 82.6 99.8 62.4 68.6 53.3 99.9 77.9 99.4 Odisha 73.2 16.0 54.8 64.9 82.8 90.4 60.4 46.0 99.2 78.7 78.0 25.3 40.9 55.7 40.6 99.1 15.9 13.8 98.1 55.5 50.0 49.3 26.5 100.6 90.6 63.2 85.4 49.0 42.4 95.8 6.3 21.3 93.6 31.9 88.8 97.7 63.7 17.7 64.4 68.1 43.9 20.5 13.0 36.7 66.0 9.4 30.7 18.1 48.6 25.0 33.1 91.9 35.8 13.9 42.9 61.3 85.3 100.0 88.8 5.2 61.9 6.4 16.5 39.1 94.9 23.4 27.4 27.3 64.5 5.5 95.7 23.9 54.0 11.5 Govt Middle School 68.1 98.0 20.5 98.8 82.7 14.1 82.8 55.0 52.7 46.6 56.1 84.6 26.8 83.8 8.9 33.0 55.2 92.8 20.2 31.1 42.2 20.8 100.0 Manipur 59.7 45.0 76.0 93.5 99.5 58.0 51.7 41.8 95.9 15.5 7.9 12.1 10.8 Mizoram 77.3 94.8 57.8 11.2 31.4 49.3 66.5 20.5 Nagaland 43.4 18.7 42.6 Daman & Diu 100.3 46.6 71.3 61.8 16.4 10.0 12.9 69.2 17.8 97.9 33.5 32.5 99.2 70.0 14.

Class-wise distribution of children in sample 2007-2011 All India Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh ASER 2011 277 .

Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka 278 ASER 2011 .

Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram ASER 2011 279 .

Nagaland Odisha Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Tripura 280 ASER 2011 .

Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh West Bengal ASER 2011 281 .

Age .Class composition in sample 2011 282 ASER 2011 .

ASER 2011 283 .

284 ASER 2011 .

ASER 2011 285 .

286 ASER 2011 .

the sample size would increase to 1600. Beginning in 2010. The precision can also be specified in relative terms — a relative precision of 5% means that the estimates will be within 5% of the true value. These questions were repeated in 2009 and in addition father’s education was also recorded. ASER 2011 continues the process of strengthening and streamlining started in 2008. whether it had a bank. kept the 10 villages from 2009 and 2010 and added 10 more villages from the census village directory. Since one of the goals of ASER is to generate estimates of change in learning. 4 The sample size with relative precision is given by zq rp 2 2 where z is the standard normal deviate corresponding to 95% probability (=1. parents’ education. The latter set of questions is different each year. 2009 and 2010 and are also reported in ASER 2011. The estimates obtained are then aggregated to the state and all-India levels. Sample size calculations can be done in various ways. we adopted a rotating panel of villages rather than children.96). All rural districts are surveyed. school information is also collected on RTE indicators. q = (1-p) and d is the degree of precision required (0. special attention was focused on improving training. Finally. This process was further strengthened in 2009. ASER 2010.5). The standard used is 95%. ■ Precision required on either side of the true value. 2 d 2 p is the incidence in the population (0.5). In ASER 2010. 95% confidence level and 5% absolute precision. Questions on critical thinking were introduced – these were based on simple mathematical operations that appear in Standard 5 textbooks. phone. we can get an estimate 1 2 3 For the rural sector we can use the estimates from ASER 2010 to get an idea of the incidence in the population. q = (1-p) and r is the degree of relative precision required (0.Sample design of rural ASER 2011 Wilima Wadhwa The purpose of rural ASER 2011 is twofold: (i) to get reliable estimates of the status of children’s schooling and basic learning (reading.4 Note that all the sample size calculations require estimating the incidence in the population. Since estimates were to be generated at the district level. writing and math ability) at the district level. In ASER 2010. The school information is recorded either based on observations (such as attendance or usability of the facilities) or with information provided by the school (such as grants information). 2007. However a set of new questions are added for exploring different dimensions of schooling and learning in the elementary stage. The standard degree of accuracy most surveys employ is between 5 and 10 per cent. With a 50% incidence. a panel survey design would provide more efficient estimates of the change. The sample size with absolute precision is given by z pq where z is the standard normal deviate corresponding to 95% probability (=1. In ASER 2011 we dropped the 10 villages from ASER 2008. ASER 2006 and 2007 tested reading comprehension for different kinds of readers. The sampling strategy used generates a representative picture of each district. Relative precision requires higher sample sizes. ASER surveyors visit a government primary or upper primary school in each sampled village. If we were to require a 5% relative precision. ASER 2008 incorporated questions on village infrastructure and household assets. the minimum sample size calculations had to start at the district level. In addition. In ASER 2011. and (ii) to measure the change in these basic learning and school statistics from last year. School observations have been reported in 2005. which were repeated in 2009. ASER 2008 for the first time had questions on telling time and oral math problems using currency.96). the incidence of what we are trying to measure is unknown in the population. a sample size of 384 would imply a relative precision of 10%. given the large sample size of the ASER surveys and cost considerations. An absolute precision of 5% along with a 95% confidence level implies that the estimates generated by the survey will be within 5 percentage points of the true values with a 95% probability. In our case. Stratification is discussed below.1). On the other hand.3 This derivation assumes that the population proportion is normally distributed. the minimum sample size required in each strata2 is 384. ration shop. ASER 2011 287 . The core questions on school status and basic reading and arithmetic remain. Since a survey of learning has never been done in India. The sample size is determined by the following considerations: ■ Incidence of what is being measured in the population. However.05). In addition. etc. in addition to the above. In the sampled households information on assets like type of house. Re-check of 4 or more villages in each district was introduced in 2008. Investigators were asked to record whether the village visited had a pukka road leading to it. master trainers monitored the survey process in the field. we retained the 10 villages from 2008 and 2009 and added 10 new villages. household and village characteristics introduced for the first time higher level testing tools. Every year a core set of questions regarding schooling status and basic learning levels remains the same. etc was recorded. ASER 2007 introduced testing in English and asked questions on paid tuition. household and village characteristics continue to be surveyed. Every alternate year. television. ASER 2011 brings together elements from various previous ASERs.1 ■ Confidence level of estimates. p is the incidence in the population (0. depending on what assumptions are made about the underlying population. while retaining the core questions and questions on parents’ education.

8 Most large household surveys in India. No stratification was done at the second stage. 10 from ASER 2010 and 10 are newly selected in 2011. In order to aggregate estimates up from the district level households had to assigned weights — also called inflation factors. Third. The 10 new villages are picked as an independent sample. Second. RS+SI. The ASER survey stratifies the sample by population in the first stage. state and national levels.of the incidence from previous ASER surveys. For instance. therefore. investigators were asked to start at a central location and pick every 5th household in a circular fashion till 5 households were selected. Villages are selected using the probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling method. each part in the village would have roughly 500 households. 288 ASER 2011 . the cumulative population by village calculated.5 Note that at the state level and at the all-India level the survey has many more observations lending estimates at those levels much higher levels of precision. allowing all children to be tested rather than just those in school. the weights associated with households in the same district are the same. ASER has a two-stage sample design. This was done because villages often consist of hamlets and a procedure that randomly selects households from some central location may miss out households on the periphery of the village. often a “design effect” is added to the sample size. 8 In the selected villages. giving us a design effect of approximately three. all children in the age group of 5-16 were tested. However. 6 7 9 In larger villages. we often want to measure things that are not binary for which we need more observations. Since PPS sampling ensures that all households have an equal chance of being selected at the district level. The inflation factor corresponding to particular household denotes the number of households that the sampled household represents in the population. RS+2SI. like the National Sample Survey and the National Family Health Survey also use this two stage design and use PPS to select villages in the first stage. weighted estimates are exactly the same as the unweighted estimates at the district level. The method works as follows: First. In each selected household. In addition. a household sample makes calculation of the inflation factors easier since the population of children is no longer needed. Third. A design effect of 2 would double the sample size. incidence varies across different indicators — so incidence of reading ability is different from incidence of dropouts. have a larger weight associated with it than one in a sparsely populated district. if we were to stratify on households with children in the 3-16 age group. the total household population of the district is divided by the number of sampling units (villages) to get the sampling interval (SI). Probability proportional to size (PPS) is a sampling technique in which the probability of selecting a sampling unit (village. This is because the inflation factor associated with a household is simply the inverse of the probability of it being selected into the sample times the number of households in the sample. a complete houselist of the selected village should have been made and 20 households selected randomly from it. First. 5 Sample size calculations assume simple random sampling. The RS denotes the site of the first village to be selected from the cumulated population. a random number between 1 and the SI is chosen. Ideally. the investigators increased the interval according to a rough estimate of the number of households in each part. to get estimates at the state and national levels. Finally. a household sample will generate an age distribution of children which can be cross-checked with other data sources. in our case) is proportional to the size of its population. At the district level a 7% precision along with a 95% confidence level would imply a sample size of 196. However. children are tested at home rather than in school. if a village had 2000 households. Further. Therefore. It is most useful when the sampling units vary considerably in size because it assures that those in larger sites have the same probability of getting into the sample as those in smaller sites. 10 are from ASER 2009. which is not possible without a complete houselist of the village. Second. Of these 30 villages. Even though the purpose of the survey is to estimate learning levels among children. Given that 600 households are sampled in each district regardless of the size of the district. Selecting every 5th household would leave out a large chunk of the village un-surveyed. In other words. like the census and the NSS. investigators were asked to increase the interval between selected households. note that a sample size of 600 households gives us approximately 1000 – 1200 children per district. The reason for stratification is to get enough observations on entities that have the characteristic that is being studied. The field investigators were asked to divide the village into four parts. weighted estimates are needed since states have a different number of districts and districts vary by population.6 In the second stage 20 households were randomly selected in each of the 30 selected villages in the first stage. In such situations. However. and vice verse. The villages selected are those for which the cumulative population contains the numbers in the series. …. the following series of numbers is formed: RS. testing children in school might create bias a since teachers may encourage testing the brighter children in class. Given these considerations. Often household surveys are stratified on various parameters of interest. a household in a larger district will represent many more households and. However. The advantage of using PPS sampling is that the sample is self weighting at the district level. given time and resource constraints a procedure for selecting households was adopted that preserved randomness as much as possible. In each of the four parts. 20 households are surveyed. simple random sampling is unlikely to be the method of choice in an actual field survey. 30 villages are randomly selected using the village directory of the 2001 census as the sample frame. we would need the population of such households in the village. However. In the first stage. Therefore. This method allows villages with larger populations to have a higher chance of being selected in the sample. This has a number of advantages. the sample size was decided to be 600 households in each district. Fourth. the household was chosen as the second stage sampling unit. in each district the weight assigned to each of the sampled household turns out to be the same. They were selected randomly from the same sample frame. RS+3SI.7.9 The survey provides estimates at the district. This is referred to as the random start (RS).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful