Content uploaded by Anugula N Reddy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anugula N Reddy on May 30, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Consortium for Educational Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE) is a Research Programme
Consortium supported by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). Its purpose is to
undertake
research designed to improve access to basic education in developing countries. It seeks to achieve this through
generating new knowledge and encouraging its application through effective communication and dissemination
to national and internatio
nal development agencies, national governments, education and development
professionals, non
-
government organisations and other interested stakeholders.
Access to basic education lies at the heart of development. Lack of educational access, and securely
acquired
knowledge and skill, is both a part of the definition of poverty, and a means for its diminution. Sustained access
to meaningful learning that has value is critical to long term improvements in productivity, the reduction of
inter
-
generational cyc
les of poverty, demographic transition, preventive health care, the empowerment of
women, and reductions in inequality.
The CREATE partners
CREATE is developing its research collaboratively with partners in Sub
-
Saharan Africa and South Asia. The
lead pa
rtner of CREATE is the Centre for International Education at the University of Sussex. The partners are:
The Centre for International Education, University of Sussex: Professor Keith M Lewin (Director)
The Institute of Education and Development, BRAC Univ
ersity, Dhaka, Bangladesh: Dr Manzoor Ahmed
The National University of Educational Planning and Administration, Delhi, India: Professor R Govinda
The Education Policy Unit, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa: Dr Shireen Motala
The Universities o
f Education at Winneba and Cape Coast, Ghana: Professor Jerome Djangmah
Professor Joseph Ghartey Ampiah
The Institute of Education, University of London: Professor Angela W Little
Disclaimer
The research on which this paper is based was commissioned by t
he
Consortium for Research on Educational
Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE http://www.create
-
rpc.org)
. CREATE is funded by the UK
Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries and is coordinated
from the Cent
re for International Education, University of Sussex. The views expressed are those of the
author(s) and not necessarily those of DFID, the University of Sussex, or the CREATE Team. Authors are
responsible for ensuring that any content cited is appropriate
ly referenced and acknowledged, and that copyright
laws are respected. CREATE papers are peer reviewed and approved according to academic conventions.
Permission will be granted to reproduce research monographs on request to the Director of CREATE providin
g
there is no commercial benefit. Responsibility for the content of the final publication remains with authors and
the relevant Partner Institutions.
Copyright © CREATE 2010
ISBN: 0
-
901881
-
47
-
3
Address for correspondence:
CREATE,
Centre for Internationa
l Education,
Department of Education, School of Education & Social Work,
Essex House, University of Sussex, Falmer
BN1 9QQ
,
UK
Tel:
+ 44 (0) 1273
877984
Fax:
+ 44 (0) 1273 877534
Author email:
anreddy@nuepa.org / anugula.reddy@gmail.com
/
shanthasinha@gmail.com
Website:
http://www.create
-
rpc.org
Email
create@sussex.ac.uk
Please contact CREATE using the details above if you require a hard copy of this publication.
School Dropouts
o
r Pushouts
?
Overcoming Barriers
for
the Right to
Education
Anugula N. Reddy
Shantha Sinha
CREATE PATHWAYS TO ACCESS
Research Monograph No
40
July 2010
ii
iii
Contents
Preface
................................
................................
................................
................................
.......
vi
Summary
................................
................................
................................
................................
..
vii
1. Introduction
................................
................................
................................
............................
1
2. Examining
the Data on ‘Dropouts’
................................
................................
........................
3
2.1 Estimates of Dropouts
................................
................................
................................
......
3
2.2 Problems with Data on Children Attending Schools
................................
.....................
12
3. Barriers to School Enrolment and Attendance and reasons for Dropping Out
....................
14
3.1 Poverty and Child Labour
................................
................................
..............................
14
3.2 Household Decisions, School Quality and Village Factors
................................
...........
15
3.3 Quality and Curricula
................................
................................
................................
.....
16
3.4 ‘A l
ack of interest in studies’
................................
................................
.........................
17
3.5 Examination Systems
................................
................................
................................
.....
18
3.6 Lack of Systemic Support for First Generation Learners
................................
..............
18
4. The Shankarpalle Experiment
................................
................................
..............................
20
5. Conclusions: School Dropouts or ‘Push Outs’?
................................
................................
...
26
References
................................
................................
................................
................................
28
List of Tables
Table 1: Enrolment (in Millions) in School Education by Stages
................................
.............
2
Table 2: Sixth and Seventh All India Education Survey
–
State Enrolment Figures (1993 and
2002)
................................
................................
................................
................................
..........
4
Table 3: Educational Status of Children
–
Compiled over various years
................................
..
5
Table 4: Class Dropout Rates
................................
................................
................................
....
6
Table 5: Census 1991
–
Children Attending and Not Attending Educational Institutions by
State and Gender (age 5
-
1
4 years)
................................
................................
.............................
7
Table 6: Census 2001
–
Children Attending and Not Attending Educational Institutions by
State and Gender
................................
................................
................................
........................
9
Table 7: S
tates with Larger than Average Percentage Increases in School Attendance, 1991
-
2001
................................
................................
................................
................................
..........
10
Table 8: Increase in the Number of Classrooms, Teachers and Schools in Shankarapalle
between 1997
-
1998 an
d 2005
-
2006
................................
................................
.........................
21
Table 9: Enrolment Data by class in Andhra Pradesh, 1996
-
1997 to 2005
-
2006
....................
24
Table 10: Drop Out Rates (%) by Cla
ss, Andhra Pradesh 1996 to 2005 (as compiled from
DISE data)
................................
................................
................................
................................
25
List of Figures
Figure 1: Distribution of Children by class in 1995
-
1996 and 2005
-
2006, Shankarapall
e
Mandal
................................
................................
................................
................................
.....
21
Figure 2
: Enrolment Data by Class in Andhra Pradesh, 1996
-
1997 to 2005
-
2006
.................
24
Figure 3
: Drop Out Rates (%) by Class
, Andhra Pradesh 1996
-
2005
................................
.....
25
iv
List of Acronyms
DISE
District Information System for Education
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GER
Gross
Enrolment
Ratio
G
.
O
.
Government Order
MEO
Mandal Education Officer
MVF
MV
Foundatio
n
NER
Net
Enrolment
Ratio
NFHS
National Family Health Survey
NSSO
National Sample Survey Organisation
PROBE
Public Report on Basic Education in India
SC
Scheduled Castes
ST
Scheduled Tribes
UEE
Universal Elementary Education
VEC
Village Education Co
mmittee
v
Acknowledgement
s
The paper has benefited from the comments made at a series of CREATE workshops and the
National Seminar on Access to Elementary Education held
at the National University of
Educational Planning and Administration
on
17
-
18
Decembe
r 2007.
In addition to
the
participants of these workshops and seminars, many researchers have also made helpful
comments to improve the paper. In particular, we wish
to
mention Prof
essor
K
eith
Lewin,
Prof
essor R.
Govinda
, Dr. Nicole Blum
and
the
anonymous
referees. Ms. Reeta Rajasekher
has very patiently edited the paper and deserves our
sincere thanks. The staff of MV
Foundation and NUEPA have
also been quite helpful in various ways. Needless to
say
, we
alone are responsible for any
shortcomings of the pa
per.
vi
Preface
India has made significant strides in enhancing initial access to schooling and even enrolment
of all children in primary schools. This has happened mainly during the recent years due to
unprecedented expansion of schooling infrastructure ac
ross the country, even ignoring the
traditional framework of population size and distance norms. However, even as the
enrolments have surged survival and completion rates have remained quite unimpressive.
Official figures indicate that around 30% children
leave the school drop out before
completing even five years of schooling and over all around 50% children leave schools
without completing the 8 year compulsory schooling period. The present paper by Shantha
Sinha and A.N. Reddy explores data and research
literature related to this issue. The authors
examine in this phenomenon in greater depth analysing the multiple factors that cause
children to leave school. They particularly illustrate how situations within the schools tend to
compel the children to with
draw from school participation. The paper also highlight the need
for transforming school management and involving the community in order to increase
children’s participation, with the help of different initiatives taken by an NGO in Andhra
Pradesh in Indi
a.
Professor R. Govinda
CREATE Partner Institute Convener
National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi
vii
Summary
Persist
e
ntly
high dropout rates
are
one of the biggest challenge
s
to
fulfilling the right to
education
in India
. Th
is
paper attempts to assess the magnitude of
the problem of
dropout
.
The paper critically reviews the evidence on some of the commonly
cited
reasons
for
dropout, including
poverty, limited to access to credit, child labour,
and children’s and
parents’
lack of interest in education
. The paper argues that th
e
literature rarely
looks at the
role of procedures
and
rules
in schools and the wider education system
in
terms of
pushing
children
out of
school. It is the contention of this paper that the reason
a
persist
ently high
dropout rate
should
be located in the absence of
a
social norm
in terms of c
hildren’s right to
education
;
and that this is
reflected in the lack
of
systemic support
available for
children at
risk
of
dropping out. The paper
also
document
s
an experiment initiated by
MV
Foundation in
Shankarpalle
Mandal
,
Ranga Reddy
d
istrict, Andhra Pradesh
,
where procedures, rules and
practices relating to various aspects of school were changed to ensure
that
every child
stayed
in school and
completed
eleme
ntary level.
viii
1
School
D
ropouts or
P
ushouts
?
Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
1. I
ntroduction
Demand for education has been growing
explosively
in India.
From about 3
m
illion
children
being enrolled each year in the
19
80s, there
was
a spect
acular increase during the early
2000s
, and
particularly in 2002
-
20
03 and 2003
-
20
04. In 2002
-
20
03 alone
,
more than
10
m
illion
additional children were enrolled
in school in India
and
another 7
.
77
m
illion
children
add
ed to this
in 2003
-
20
04
(
see
Table 1)
.
There are a number of options available to children.
Poor parents are willing to make
enormous sacrifices to send their children to school. In fact
,
many
spend more than they can
afford
to get what they consider a proper education in English medium privat
e schools
.
Several
studies report that poor children attend fee charging private schools because of
dissatisfaction with the quality and functioning of government schools
(
De et al., 2002,
Härmä
, 2010
)
.
T
hose who cannot
afford private schooling
often
send
their c
hildren to
government schools.
India has let down large numbers of
its
children by pushing them out of the system.
We argue
that t
hese children do not
drop out
of school voluntarily, but are
pushed out
of schools. A
variety of social, economic, an
d cultural factors, as well as pedagogical practices, routines
and administrative procedures are responsible for this.
There is a mismatch between the
expectations of parents and the system’s capacity to respond with equal seriousness, resulting
in the chi
ldren losing the battle to gain a formal education. These children then return to a
routine of drudgery, exploitation and suffering, leaving their parents’ desire for freedom
for
their children unfulfilled.
This paper looks at the data on school
‘
dropout
s
’
in India to understand the factors
responsible for children being pushed out of schools. The paper
unpicks
some of the
frequently advanced explanations for dropouts such as poverty, quality of education, lack
of
interest in education
and
examination
fai
lure
.
It
locates the explanation in
terms of an
absence
of
the
social norm
which promotes a
child’s right
to education
,
as well as the often hostile
administrative practices and procedures adopted by schools.
In section two we examine the data on dropout
s in India, describing the scale of the problem
and disaggregating the data by state and socio economic groups in society. We also examine
some of the problems with data and data collection on dropouts in India. In section three we
unpick some of the commo
n reasons why children drop out of school and show the structural
reasons for them. Section four outlines a case study which demonstrates ways that some of
these problems can be addressed and the lessons we can learn from an experiment in
facilitating acce
ss. This is followed by a concluding section which argues
that in the light of
the systemic failures of access to education, the responsibility for children dropping out of
school lies with the state and education system rather than with the children and f
amilies of
the poorest sections of society.
School Dropou
ts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
2
Table
1
:
Enrolment (in Millions) in School Education by Stages
Enrolment
In
crease
by year
Year
Primary
Upper Primary
Elementary
1
Primary
Up
per Primary
Elementary
Percentage
Increase
P
er
Year
,
Elementary
1980
-
19
81
72.7
19.8
92.5
1981
-
19
82
73.6
21.1
94.6
0.88
1.21
2.09
2.25
1982
-
19
83
77.0
22.2
99.3
3.48
1.16
4.63
4.90
1983
-
19
84
81.1
25.0
106.1
4.06
2.78
6.84
6.89
1984
-
19
85
83.9
26.2
110.1
2.84
1.16
3.99
3.76
1985
-
1
9
86
86.5
28.1
114.6
2.53
1.97
4.50
4.09
1986
-
19
87
90.0
28.8
118.8
3.53
0.66
4.18
3.65
1987
-
19
88
92.9
29.9
122.9
2.95
1.13
4.08
3.44
1988
-
19
89
95.7
30.9
126.7
2.80
1.03
3.82
3.11
1989
-
19
90
97.3
32.2
129.5
1.58
1.25
2.83
2.23
1990
-
19
91
99.1
33.3
132.4
1
.80
1.10
2.90
2.24
1991
-
19
92
101.6
34.4
136.0
2.46
1.16
3.62
2.74
1992
-
19
93
105.4
38.7
144.1
3.79
4.26
8.06
5.92
1993
-
19
94
108.2
39.9
148.1
2.83
1.21
4.04
2.80
1994
-
19
95
109.0
40.3
149.3
0.84
0.37
1.22
0.82
1995
-
19
96
109.7
41.0
150.7
0.69
0.73
1.42
0.
95
1996
-
19
97
110.4
41.1
151.5
0.66
0.05
0.71
0.47
1997
-
19
98
108.8
39.5
148.3
-
1.61
-
1.58
-
3.19
-
2.11
1998
-
19
99
111.0
40.4
151.3
2.20
0.87
3.07
2.07
1999
-
2000
113.6
42.1
155.7
2.63
1.71
4.34
2.87
2000
-
20
01
113.8
42.8
156.6
0.21
0.74
0.96
0.62
2001
-
20
0
2
113.9
44.8
158.7
0.06
2.02
2.07
1.32
2002
-
20
03
122.4
46.8
169.2
8.51
2.02
10.53
6.64
2003
-
20
04
128.3
48.7
177.0
5.87
1.90
7.77
4.59
2004
-
20
05
130.8
51.2
182.0
2.50
2.50
5.00
2.82
2005
-
20
06
132.0
52.3
184.4
1.29
1.08
2.37
1.30
Source:
Authors’ calcul
ations based on
the Ministry of Human Resource Development’s annual report,
Selected
Educational Statistics
,
for the relevant years.
1
Elementary education in India is the combination of primary and upper primary education.
School Dropou
ts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
3
2. E
xamining the Data on ‘
Dropouts
’
In this section we examine Indian data on ‘dropouts’ in order to describe the scale o
f the
problem and regional and social variations that exist. We also describe some of the
limitations of the data presented and show how problems with data and research on dropouts
misrepresent
both the number and nature of dropouts.
2.1 Estimates of Drop
outs
Of
the
more than
27 million children in India who joined in Class
I
in
1993
,
only
10 million
of the
m
reached
C
lass
X
.
T
his
is about 37
%
of those who
entered
the school system. In more
than half the states
,
only 30
%
of children reached
C
lass
X
(
see
Tab
le 2)
.
As many as
17
million children in just one
cohort
were pushed out and
many
of
the remaining 10 million
children
would have
completed the cycle but would be called
‘10
th
class failed’
,
which is a
euphemism for all scho
ol dropouts after middle school
.
In almost all the states, girls fared
worse than
boys.
School Dropou
ts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
4
Table
2
:
Six
th and
Seven
th All
India Education Survey
–
State
Enrolment
F
igures
(1993
and 2002)
Enrolment in Class I (1993)
Enrolment in Class X (2002)
Percentage
of
children who have not
reached Class X from
cohort that entered
Class I in 1993
State/U.T.
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
Bihar
1
,
836
,
181
1
,
092
,
002
2
,
928
,
183
244
,
069
108
,
320
352
,
389
87
90
88
Assam
614
,
986
523
,
751
1
,
138
,
737
109
,
647
9
,
92
51
208
,
898
82
81
82
Meghalaya
50
,
640
50
,
297
100
,
937
9
,
419
9
,
833
19
,
252
81
80
81
Nagaland
20
,
322
18
,
281
38
,
603
4
,
657
4
,
040
8
,
697
77
78
77
West Bengal
1
,
337
,
910
1
,
187
,
240
2
,
525
,
150
306
,
672
230
,
251
536
,
923
77
81
79
Mizoram
20
,
039
18
,
238
38
,
277
4
,
607
4
,
732
9
,
339
77
74
76
Sikkim
9
,
658
8
,
162
17
,
820
2
,
236
2
,
198
4
,
434
77
73
75
Tripura
65
,
783
56
,
099
121
,
882
16
,
943
14
,
421
31
,
364
74
74
74
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
3
,
226
2
,
363
5
,
589
881
665
1
,
546
73
72
72
Rajasthan
1
,
211
,
450
700
,
935
1
,
912
,
385
331
,
227
132
,
079
463
,
306
73
81
76
Orissa
594
,
892
499
,
282
1
,
094
,
174
172
,
266
136
,
982
309
,
248
71
73
72
Arunachal Pradesh
21
,
869
17
,
036
38
,
905
6
,
524
4
,
500
11
,
024
70
74
72
Madhya Pradesh
1
,
169
,
663
907
,
333
2
,
076
,
996
372
,
700
196
,
601
569
,
301
68
78
73
Andhra Pradesh
1
,
172
,
340
1
,
022
,
62
2
2
,
194
,
962
382
,
660
298
,
852
681
,
512
67
71
69
Manipur
39
,
442
35
,
435
74
,
877
15
,
019
14
,
525
29
,
544
62
59
61
Karnataka
800
,
917
746
,
712
1
,
547
,
629
315
,
040
270
,
883
585
,
923
61
64
62
Gujarat
739
,
643
619
,
005
1
,
358
,
648
301
,
691
203
,
473
505
,
164
59
67
63
Andaman & Ni
cobar
Islands
5
,
342
4
,
754
10
,
096
2
,
594
2
,
318
4
,
912
51
51
51
Jammu & Kashmir
104
,
541
80
,
327
184
,
868
51
,
969
38
,
491
90
,
460
50
52
51
Maharashtra
1341
,
772
1
,
223
,
558
2
,
565
,
330
684
,
621
545
,
418
1
,
230
,
039
49
55
52
Punjab
264
,
021
229
,
313
493
,
334
135
,
157
121
,
314
2
56
,
471
49
47
48
Tamil
N
adu
716
,
970
674
,
183
1
,
391
,
153
377
,
802
362
,
317
740
,
119
47
46
47
Uttar Pradesh
2
,
345
,
274
1
,
482
,
422
3
,
827
,
696
12
,
44
,
315
652
,
610
1
,
896
,
925
47
56
50
Delhi
143
,
242
137
,
438
280
,
680
78
,
960
69
,
278
148
,
238
45
50
47
Daman & Diu
1
,
486
1
,
255
2
,
741
835
666
1
,
501
44
47
45
Goa
14
,
598
13
,
592
28
,
190
8
,
732
8
,
272
17
,
004
40
39
40
Himachal Pradesh
85
,
874
80
,
617
166
,
491
61
,
189
55
,
442
116
,
631
29
31
30
Lakshadweep
882
813
1
,
695
657
629
1
,
286
26
23
24
Chandigarh
7
,
865
6
,
776
14
,
641
6
,
034
5
,
401
11
,
435
23
20
22
Pondicher
r
y
10
,
393
9
,
612
20
,
005
8
,
006
7
,
667
15
,
673
23
20
22
Haryana
212
,
470
183
,
281
395
,
751
165
,
061
115
,
372
280
,
433
22
37
29
Kerala
273
,
908
264
,
476
538
,
384
228
,
118
240
,
797
468
,
915
17
9
13
Uttaranchal
0
0
0
91
,
331
66
,
864
158
,
195
0
0
0
Chhattisga
rh
0
0
0
114
,
341
68
,
513
182
,
854
0
0
0
Jharkhand
0
0
0
81
,
488
46
,
402
127
,
890
0
0
0
TOTAL
15
,
237
,
599
11
,
897
,
210
27
,
134
,
809
5
,
937
,
468
4
,
139
,
377
10
,
076
,
845
61
65
63
Source:
NCERT (1998) and NCERT (2005
)
School Dropou
ts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
5
Table
3
:
Educational Status o
f Children
–
Compiled
over v
arious
years
Year and Survey
Age Group
Indicator
Male
Female
Total
%
%
%
5
-
14 /
6
-
14Years
1992
-
19
93 (NFHS
-
1
)
6
-
14 (Total)
Attending School
75.5
58.9
67.5
1998
-
19
99 (NFHS
-
2
)
6
-
14 (Total)
Attending School
83.1
73.7
78.6
1
999
-
2000 (NSSO 55th)
5
-
14
(Total)
Attending Educational Institution
76.3
67.7
72.3
2004 (NSSO 60th)
5
-
14 (Total)
Attending Educational Institution
82.0
76.0
79.1
2006 (NFHS
-
3
)
6
-
14 (Total)
Attending School
82.6
76.4
79.6
5
-
9
/
6
-
10 Years and Classes I
-
V
1992
-
19
93 (NFHS
-
1
)
6
-
10 (Total)
Attending School
75.0
61.3
68.4
1995
-
19
96 (NSSO 52nd)
I
-
V (Total)
Gross Attendance Ratio
92.0
77.0
85.0
1995
-
19
96 (NSSO 52nd)
6
-
10 (Total)
Age
-
specific Attendance Ratio
73.0
63.0
72.0
1995
-
199
6 (NSSO 52nd)
I
-
V (Total)
N
et Attendance Ratio
71.0
61.0
66.0
1998
-
19
99 (NFHS
-
2
)
6
-
10 (Total)
Attending School
85.2
78.3
81.9
1999
-
2000 (NSSO 55th)
5
-
9
(Total)
Attending Educational Institution
72.7
66.5
69.8
2004 (NSSO 60th)
5
-
9
(Total)
Attending Educational Institution
78.6
74.
8
76.7
2006 (NFHS
-
3
)
6
-
10 (Total)
Attending School
84.6
81.0
82.9
10
-
14
/
11
-
14 Years and Classes VI
-
VIII
1992
-
19
93 (NFHS
-
1
)
11
-
14 (Total)
Attending School
76.3
55.3
66.2
1995
-
19
96 (NSSO 52nd)
VI
-
VIII (Total)
Gross Attendance Ratio
74.0
56.0
65.0
1995
-
19
96 (NSSO 52nd)
11
-
13 (Total)
Age
-
specific Attendance Ratio
78.0
64.0
72.0
1995
-
19
96 (NSSO 52nd)
VI
-
VIII (Total)
Net Attendance Ratio
48.0
38.0
43.0
1998
-
19
99 (NFHS
-
2
)
11
-
14 (Total)
Attending School
80.2
67.0
73.9
1999
-
2000 (NSSO 55th)
10
-
14
(Total)
A
ttending Educational Institution
80.1
69.1
74.9
2004 (NSSO 60th)
10
-
14 (Total)
Attending Educational Institution
85.6
77.2
81.6
2006 (NFHS
-
3
)
11
-
14 (Total)
Attending School
79.9
81.9
75.3
Source: NSSO (2005
, 2001
&
1998),
IIPS (200
7, 2000 & 1
995)
A
vail
able data suggests that m
ost
children
drop
out
of
school
between C
lasses
I
and
II
. Over
one
-
fifth of children enrolled in
C
lass
I
in 2005
did not proceed to
C
lass
II
2
. However, data
for 2002
-
20
03 and 2003
-
20
04 report a substan
tial reduction in dropout rate
s
between
C
lass
I
and
C
lass
II
.
The dropout rates from
C
lasses
II
to
III
and
from
III
to
IV
are found to be lower
than 10
%
and
have
further declined during the last
few
years
(
see
Table 4
)
.
Interestingly
,
the
dropout rates between C
lasses
IV
and
V
ha
ve
bee
n
be negative
over
the last
few
years.
This
may be
because
of the re
-
entry of dropout children into these classes through bridge courses.
D
ropout rates remain very high between
C
lass
es
V
and
VI
,
indicating difficulties in transition
from primary
(Classes I
-
V)
to upper primary
(Classes VI
-
X)
level. There is a variation in the
dropout rates in
C
lasses
VI
and above.
Significantly,
there is a critical bottleneck between
C
lasses
IX
and
X
(
see
Table 4
)
.
2
This dropout rate is estimated by apparent cohort
method using grade data reported in the Ministry of Human
Resource Development’s annual report,
Selected Educational Statistics
.
School Dropou
ts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
6
Table
4
:
Class
D
ropout
R
ates
Year
Class I
3
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Class V
Class VI
Class VII
Class VIII
Class IX
Class X
Boys
1998
-
19
99
21
.7
8.6
10.0
3.9
7.3
2.4
4.9
13.7
12.6
1999
-
2000
22.0
7.7
10.0
2.5
4.4
7.8
3.0
16.9
14.9
2000
-
20
01
23.0
9.2
10.4
4.8
7.4
10.9
6.9
18.3
11.4
2001
-
20
02
22.6
10.3
10.7
2.8
4.6
8.9
6.5
14.7
8.7
2002
-
20
03
19.4
6.0
6.4
0.1
10.5
11.1
6.7
12.0
8.0
2003
-
20
04
15.5
2.9
4.1
-
2.5
7.9
6.9
4.3
9.3
5.8
2004
-
20
05
16.3
6.4
6.7
2.3
9.4
6.2
3.6
9.0
8.0
2005
-
06
17.2
7.4
8.4
2.4
9.4
9.4
6.5
11.7
8.9
Girls
1998
-
19
99
22.8
10.0
11.3
8.6
10.9
21.2
9.3
17.4
9.3
1999
-
2000
22.2
9.0
10.4
5.4
9.7
9.0
8.7
17.3
10.8
2000
-
20
01
23.6
9.2
9.6
5.8
11.3
8.4
11.5
19.0
13.6
2001
-
20
02
20.7
7.7
8.6
4.5
8.6
6.3
7.8
15.5
7.7
2002
-
20
03
7
.7
-
2.8
-
1.4
-
5.4
6.7
3.4
2.8
9.6
2.0
2003
-
20
04
16.3
4.5
5.3
0.0
14.0
6.4
7.5
14.4
9.9
2004
-
20
05
15.6
6.8
6.9
3.4
13.4
4.0
7.2
14.7
9.4
2005
-
06
15.4
8.5
9.3
4.8
13.6
8.5
8.9
16.1
9.3
Total
1998
-
19
99
22.2
9.2
10.6
5.9
8.8
11.0
6.7
15.1
11.4
1999
-
2000
22.1
8.3
10.1
3.7
6.6
8.3
5.3
17.0
13.3
2000
-
20
01
23.3
9.2
10.0
5.2
9.1
9.9
8.8
18.6
12.3
2001
-
20
02
21.
7
9.2
9.8
3.5
6.3
7.9
7.1
15.1
8.3
2002
-
20
03
14.2
2.1
2.9
-
2.3
8.9
7.9
5.0
11.0
5.6
2003
-
20
04
15.9
3.6
4.7
-
1.3
10.7
6.7
5.7
11.5
7.5
2004
-
20
05
16.0
6.6
6.8
2.8
11.2
5.2
5.2
11.5
8.6
2005
-
06
16.4
7.9
8.9
3.5
11.3
9.0
7.6
13.6
9.0
Source: Authors’
calculations using
data from
the Ministry of Human Development’s annual report,
Selected
Educational Statistics
, for the relevant years.
The
1991
Census data show
s
that out of 209 million children
in the 5
-
14 age group
, about
104 million attended schools
and
the remaining
105 million children (50%
) did not. In the
2001
C
ensus, the total population of children in the 5
-
14 year
group had risen
to 253 million
,
of whom 166 million attended schools and 87 million (34.
4
%
)
did not. This is an
improvement from the
1991
Census data, yet a very large number
of children
remain out of
school
(
see
Table
s
5
and
6
)
.
3
Drop outs are calculated by year hence the figures for Class II indicate those from Class I who fail to reach
Class II
School Dropou
ts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
7
Table
5
:
Census 1991
–
Children Attending and Not Attending Educational Institutions
by State and Gender
(
age 5
-
14 years
)
Po
pulation 5
-
14 years
Population Attending School
(5
-
14 years)
Population Not Attending School (5
-
14 years)
% Population Not
Attending School
States
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
%
%
%
Bihar
12
,
546
,
869
11
,
038
,
940
23
,
585
,
809
5
,
369
,
232
2
,
862
,
694
8
,
231
,
926
7
,
177
,
637
8
,
176
,
246
15
,
353
,
883
57
74
65
Uttar Pradesh
19
,
838
,
075
17
,
182
,
973
37
,
021
,
048
8
,
856
,
600
4
,
811
,
808
13
,
668
,
408
10
,
981
,
475
12
,
371
,
165
23
,
352
,
640
55
72
63
Meghalaya
235
,
875
232
,
685
468
,
560
89
,
894
89
,
911
179
,
8
05
145
,
981
142
,
774
288
,
755
62
61
62
Rajasthan
6
,
345
,
134
5
,
647
,
187
11
,
992
,
321
3
,
304
,
626
1
,
427
,
450
4
,
732
,
076
3
,
040
,
508
4
,
219
,
737
7
,
260
,
245
48
75
61
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
17
,
072
16
,
342
33
,
414
8
,
219
5
,
048
13
,
267
8
,
853
11
,
294
20
,
147
52
69
60
Arunachal
Pradesh
113
,
855
105
,
625
219
,
480
52
,
302
38
,
039
90
,
341
61
,
553
67
,
586
129
,
139
54
64
59
Madhya
Pradesh
8
,
692
,
120
8
,
048
,
527
16
,
740
,
647
4
,
613
,
163
3
,
044
,
212
7
,
657
,
375
4
,
078
,
957
5
,
004
,
315
9
,
083
,
272
47
62
54
West Bengal
8
,
735
,
186
8
,
370
,
337
17
,
105
,
523
4
,
357
,
404
3
,
541
,
676
7
,
899
,
080
4
,
377
,
782
4
,
828
,
661
9
,
206
,
443
50
58
54
Assam
3
,
056
,
460
2
,
946
,
014
6
,
002
,
474
1
,
524
,
565
1
,
280
,
307
2
,
804
,
872
1
,
531
,
895
1
,
665
,
707
3
,
197
,
602
50
57
53
Andhra
Pradesh
8
,
536
,
934
8
,
118
,
722
16
,
655
,
656
4
,
780
,
263
3
,
411
,
831
8
,
192
,
094
3
,
756
,
671
4
,
706
,
891
8
,
4
63
,
562
44
58
51
Orissa
3
,
890
,
521
3
,
814
,
240
7
,
704
,
761
2
,
215
,
566
1
,
644
,
985
3
,
860
,
551
1
,
674
,
955
2
,
169
,
255
3
,
844
,
210
43
57
50
Nagaland
159
,
365
151
,
942
311
,
307
84
,
101
75
,
290
159
,
391
75
,
264
76
,
652
151
,
916
47
50
49
Manipur
223
,
973
219
,
239
443
,
212
121
,
291
108
,
2
04
229
,
495
102
,
682
111
,
035
213
,
717
46
51
48
Tripura
366
,
620
352
,
732
719
,
352
207
,
940
177
,
865
385
,
805
158
,
680
174
,
867
333
,
547
43
50
46
Karnataka
5
,
602
,
033
5
,
481
,
798
11
,
083
,
831
3
,
470
,
163
2
,
795
,
077
6
,
265
,
240
2
,
131
,
870
2
,
686
,
721
4
,
818
,
591
38
49
43
Gujarat
5
,
175
,
888
4
,
776
,
906
9
,
952
,
794
3
,
266
,
418
2
,
488
,
046
5
,
754
,
464
1
,
909
,
470
2
,
288
,
860
4
,
198
,
330
37
48
42
Sikkim
54
,
650
53
,
325
107
,
975
33
,
982
30
,
067
64
,
049
20
,
668
23
,
258
43
,
926
38
44
41
Haryana
2
,
312
,
596
1
,
995
,
627
4
,
308
,
223
1
,
523
,
677
1054
,
093
2
,
577
,
770
788
,
919
94
1
,
534
1
,
730
,
453
34
47
40
Punjab
2
,
494
,
166
2
,
208
,
710
4
,
702
,
876
1
,
623
,
062
1
,
306
,
846
2
,
929
,
908
871
,
104
901
,
864
1
,
772
,
968
35
41
38
Mizoram
87
,
622
87
,
002
174
,
624
56
,
397
54
,
227
110
,
624
31
,
225
32
,
775
64
,
000
36
38
37
Maharashtra
9
,
637
,
599
9
,
012
,
466
18
,
650
,
065
6
,
646
,
616
5400
,
442
12
,
047
,
058
2
,
990
,
983
3
,
612
,
024
6
,
603
,
007
31
40
35
Daman &
Diu
12
,
337
11
,
827
24
,
164
8
,
611
7
,
427
16
,
038
3
,
726
4
,
400
8
,
126
30
37
34
Tamil N
adu
6
,
112
,
308
5
,
867
,
075
11
,
979
,
383
4
,
484
,
593
3
,
880
,
232
8
,
364
,
825
1
,
627
,
715
1
,
986
,
843
361
,
4558
27
34
30
Delhi
1
,
138
,
784
1
,
006
,
497
2
,
145
,
281
817
,
846
695
,
214
1
,
513
,
060
320
,
938
31
,
1283
632
,
221
28
31
29
Himachal
Pradesh
633
,
234
608
,
449
1
,
241
,
683
485
,
055
413
,
832
898
,
887
148
,
179
194
,
617
342
,
796
23
32
28
School Dropou
ts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
8
Andaman &
Nicobar
Islands
35
,
627
33
,
983
69
,
610
26
,
755
2
4
,
246
51
,
001
8
,
872
9
,
737
18
,
609
25
29
27
Chandigarh
71
,
421
62
,
184
133
,
605
55
,
520
46
,
929
102
,
449
15
,
901
15
,
255
31
,
156
22
25
23
Pondiche
r
ry
88
,
024
85
,
586
173
,
610
71
,
725
66
,
899
138
,
624
16
,
299
18
,
687
34
,
986
19
22
20
Goa
121
,
623
117
,
106
238
,
729
100
,
775
92
,
55
2
193
,
327
20
,
848
24
,
554
45
,
402
17
21
19
Lakshadweep
6
,
598
6
,
089
12
,
687
5
,
450
4
,
900
10
,
350
1
,
148
1
,
189
2
,
337
17
20
18
Kerala
3
,
024
,
225
2
,
959
,
701
5
,
983
,
926
2
,
585
,
830
2
,
531
,
803
511
,
7633
438
,
395
427
,
898
866
,
293
14
14
14
T
OTAL
109
,
366
,
794
100
,
619
,
836
209
,
986
,
630
60
,
847
,
641
43
,
412
,
152
104
,
259
,
793
48
,
519
,
153
57
,
207
,
684
105
,
726
,
837
44
57
50
Source: Census of India (1991)
Note
:
Jammu & Kashmir is excluded from the listas according to Census 1991
School Dropou
ts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
9
Table
6
:
Census 2001
–
Children
A
ttendi
ng and
N
ot
A
ttending
Educational I
nstitutions
by
State and Gender
P
opulation
5
-
14 Years
Population
(5
-
14 Years)
attending
educational institutions
Population
(5
-
14 Years)
not
attending educational
institutions
States
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
To
tal
Boys
Girls
Bihar
23
,
868
,
079
12
,
675
,
464
11
,
192
,
615
10
,
213
,
038
6
,
098
,
225
4
,
114
,
813
13
,
655
,
041
6
,
577
,
239
7
,
077
,
802
Jharkhand
7
,
439
,
049
3
,
853
,
573
3
,
585
,
476
3
,
942
,
296
2
,
249
,
831
1
,
692
,
465
3
,
496
,
753
1
,
603
,
742
1
,
893
,
011
Meghalaya
656
,
311
332
,
354
323
,
957
364
,
812
180
,
988
183
,
824
291
,
499
151
,
366
140
,
133
Arunachal
Pradesh
304
,
982
156
,
007
148
,
975
171
,
653
93
,
021
78
,
632
133
,
329
62
,
986
70
,
343
Uttar Pradesh
47
,
201
,
660
25
,
130
,
545
22
,
071
,
115
27
,
289
,
515
15
,
624
,
597
11
,
664
,
918
19
,
912
,
145
9
,
505
,
948
1
,
0406
,
197
Assam
6
,
93
6
,
344
3
,
556
,
202
3
,
380
,
142
4
,
118
,
764
2
,
160
,
468
1
,
958
,
296
2
,
817
,
580
1
,
395
,
734
1
,
421
,
846
Jammu &
Kashmir
2
,
653
,
422
1
,
367
,
317
1
,
286
,
105
1
,
633
,
207
907
,
513
725
,
694
1
,
020
,
215
459
,
804
560
,
411
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
48
,
337
24
,
839
23
,
498
30
,
226
17
,
252
12
,
974
18
,
111
7
,
587
10
,
524
Orissa
8
,
634
,
215
4
,
411
,
995
4
,
222
,
220
5
,
551
,
554
3
,
008
,
193
2
,
543
,
361
3
,
082
,
661
1
,
403
,
802
1
,
678
,
859
Madhya
Pradesh
15
,
883
,
680
8
,
322
,
224
7
,
561
,
456
10
,
275
,
094
5
,
738
,
462
4
,
536
,
632
5
,
608
,
586
2
,
583
,
762
3
,
024
,
824
West Bengal
19
,
029
,
144
9
,
765
,
877
9
,
2
63
,
267
12
,
416
,
847
6
,
490
,
981
5
,
925
,
866
6
,
612
,
297
3
,
274
,
896
3
,
337
,
401
Rajasthan
15
,
310
,
011
8
,
089
,
925
7
,
220
,
086
9
,
997
,
421
5
,
928
,
978
4
,
068
,
443
5
,
312
,
590
2
,
160
,
947
3
,
151
,
643
Chhattisgarh
5
,
239
,
700
2
,
663
,
945
2
,
575
,
755
3
,
540
,
829
1
,
902
,
805
1
,
638
,
024
1
,
698
,
871
76
1
,
140
937
,
731
Nagaland
540
,
749
281
,
301
259
,
448
366
,
711
193
,
313
173
,
398
174
,
038
87
,
988
86
,
050
Gujarat
11
,
355
,
498
6
,
024
,
700
5
,
330
,
798
7
,
922
,
570
4
,
423
,
452
3
,
499
,
118
3
,
432
,
928
1
,
601
,
248
1
,
831
,
680
Karnataka
11
,
903
,
007
6
,
082
,
710
5
,
820
,
297
8
,
365
,
944
4
,
399
,
572
3
,
966
,
372
3
,
537
,
063
1
,
683
,
138
1
,
853
,
925
Tripura
781
,
092
399
,
057
382
,
035
554
,
874
290
,
323
264
,
551
226
,
218
108
,
734
117
,
484
Haryana
5
,
306
,
241
2
,
866
,
083
2
,
440
,
158
3
,
858
,
762
2
,
155
,
739
1
,
703
,
023
1
,
447
,
479
710
,
344
737
,
135
Andhra
Pradesh
17
,
713
,
764
9
,
078
,
873
8
,
6
34
,
891
13
,
078
,
287
6
,
985
,
076
6
,
093
,
211
4
,
635
,
477
2
,
093
,
797
2
,
541
,
680
Punjab
5
,
489
,
138
2
,
981
,
863
2
,
507
,
275
4
,
130
,
976
2
,
271
,
241
1
,
859
,
735
135
,
162
710
,
622
647
,
540
Manipur
501
,
425
256
,
004
245
,
421
380
,
546
197
,
830
182
,
716
120
,
879
58
,
174
62
,
705
Mizoram
212
,
924
108
,
443
104
,
481
162
,
443
83
,
304
79
,
139
50
,
481
25
,
139
25
,
342
Uttaranchal
2
,
164
,
891
1
,
123
,
713
1041
,
178
165
,
8963
882
,
949
776
,
014
505
,
928
240
,
764
265
,
164
Sikkim
136
,
638
69
,
171
67
,
467
106
,
081
54
,
061
52
,
020
30
,
557
15
,
110
15
,
447
Delhi
3
,
115
,
078
1
,
665
,
719
1
,
449
,
359
2
,
439
,
713
1
,
311
,
550
1
,
128
,
163
675
,
365
354
,
169
321
,
196
Maharashtra
21
,
567
,
532
11
,
248
,
450
10
,
319
,
082
17
,
072
,
099
9
,
020
,
718
8
,
051
,
381
4
,
495
,
433
2
,
227
,
732
2
,
267
,
701
Daman &
Diu
28
,
237
14
,
717
13
,
520
22
,
758
12
,
037
10
,
721
5
,
479
2
,
680
2
,
799
Chandigarh
181
,
96
3
98
,
843
83
,
120
147
,
506
80
,
878
66
,
628
34
,
457
17
,
965
16
,
492
Andaman &
Nicobar
Islands
72
,
803
37
,
234
35
,
569
59
,
515
30
,
644
28
,
871
13
,
288
6
,
590
6
,
698
Tamil
N
adu
11
,
612
,
412
5
,
962
,
197
5
,
650
,
215
9
,
737
,
027
5
,
039
,
255
4
,
697
,
772
1
,
875
,
385
922
,
942
952
,
443
Goa
227
,
4
03
116
,
300
111
,
103
193
,
097
99
,
484
93
,
613
34
,
306
16
,
816
17
,
490
Himachal
Pradesh
1
,
324
,
203
684
,
315
639
,
888
1
,
125
,
602
587
,
477
538
,
125
198
,
601
96
,
838
101
,
763
Lakshadweep
14
,
266
7
,
398
6
,
868
12
,
708
6
,
633
6
,
075
1
,
558
765
793
Kerala
5
,
531
,
381
2
,
819
,
521
2
,
711
,
86
0
4
,
936
,
611
2
,
511
,
983
2
,
424
,
628
594
,
770
307
,
538
287
,
232
Pondiche
r
ry
178
,
069
90
,
831
87
,
238
159
,
524
81
,
638
77
,
886
18
,
545
9
,
193
9
,
352
TOTAL
253
,
163
,
648
132
,
367
,
710
120
,
795
,
938
166
,
037
,
573
91
,
120
,
471
74
,
917
,
102
87
,
126
,
075
41
,
247
,
239
45
,
878
,
836
Source: Censu
s of India (2001)
School Dropou
ts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
10
The states of Bihar,
Jharkhand
, Uttar Pradesh, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh
are
amongst the states
with
the largest percentage of children not attending schools
both
in 1991
and
2001. Some states
, including those of significant concer
n in the past,
have improve
d
their
ranking
(
see
Table 7)
. Rajasthan,
for example, was
ranked the fourth worst performing state
in 1991
,
but
improved its position to
twelfth
in 2001
.
Similarly,
Madhya Pradesh
has moved
from seventh worst to tenth,
Andhra Pr
adesh
from tenth to nineteenth, and
Maharashtra from
twenty
-
second worst to twenty
-
sixth.
Some states
, such as
Karnataka, Gujarat, Haryana, and
Mizoram maintained approximately the same
position relative to other states
. Significantly
,
Pondicherry became t
he best performing state in the year 2001
(fourth
in 1991
), displacing
Kerala
, which moved to second best
.
T
he two states which have seen the highest jump in educational
attendance r
atio
s
are
Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh
,
followed by Manipur, Dadra and Na
gar Haveli, Uttar
Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura, Meghalaya and Nagaland.
W
ith
regard to the increase in attendance
of girls
, Rajasthan has fared the best with
a
31
%
increase
,
followed
by Andhra Pradesh
(
29
%
increase
)
and then Manipu
r, Uttar Pradesh, Dadra and
Nagar Haveli, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Sikkim and Tripura
(
see
Table 7)
.
Table
7
:
States
with Larger than Average P
ercentage
Increases
in School
Attendance
,
1991
-
2001
State
Increase in School Attend
ance (%)
1991 to 2001
Rajasthan
26
Andhra Pradesh
25
Manipur
24
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
23
Uttar Pradesh
21
West Bengal
19
Madhya Pradesh
19
Sikkim
18
Tripura
17
Meghalaya
17
Nagaland
17
All India
16
State
Increase in Girls’ School Attendance (%
)
1991 to 2001
Rajasthan
31
Andhra Pradesh
29
Manipur
25
Uttar Pradesh
25
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
24
Madhya Pradesh
22
West Bengal
22
Sikkim
21
Tripura
19
All India
19
Source: Authors’ c
alculations b
ased on
data in
Table
s
5
and
6
The issue of
over
estimation or over
-
reporting
of data on
the
number
of children
‘
attending
’
schools in recent times by
D
epartment
s
of
E
ducation
, however,
is
cause
for serious concern.
As a result
,
school dropout has
become a non
-
issue. Several states in the country are
School Dropou
ts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
11
rep
orting Gross Enrolment Ratios of around 90
%
to 95
%
in various districts.
The
Government of India too has shown only 8
-
10 million children in the entire country are not
attending schools
4
.
Even assuming that there are some children of lower age groups inclu
ded
in this figure
,
this implies that
very large
number
s
of children are in schools. But is this really
correct?
The census figures above, therefore, while they claim to report attendance, might
actually more accurately reflect enrolment.
Using Andhra Pra
desh as an example, DISE data
shows that
of
the
2
,
487
,
910 children who
joined
C
lass
I
in 1996
-
19
97
,
only 1
,
455
,
607 reached
C
lass
V
and
only
1
,
153
,
899
reached
C
lass
VII
.
T
he figures
for Class
VII
are generally considered to be more reliable because
examinat
ions are held, hall tickets
are
issued and marks memos are sent to every child. This
figure
,
cannot be disputed
but does include uncertain numbers of repeaters.
In
Andhra
Pradesh,
there
should
be
twice as many children
taking
Class VII exams as there
are t
oday
(
Vinayak
, 2006)
.
A
reliable
estimation of the
total
number of children
of
school
-
going age is difficult to arrive
at in the present context. There are many contradictory
figures
from different
sources.
However, a
n attempt
has been
made
here
using
DI
SE data
for Andhra Pradesh
for the period
1996
-
19
97 to 2005
-
20
06
to illustrate the magnitude of
the problem of
dropout
.
Tracing
the
p
rogress of
the
cohort that joined school in
C
lass I in
the 1996
-
1997
school year
reveal
s
the
extent and pattern of dropout.
A total of 2
.
49
m
illion
children joined Cl
ass I
in 1996
-
19
97
.
Out of this
group
,
only
1
.
78
m
illion
children
reached
Class
II
with
the remaining
0.
7
1
m
illion
dropping
out of school
.
O
nly 1
.
45
m
illion
children
reached
C
lass
V
in 2000
-
20
01
,
and by the
time t
hey reached
Class
X
only
0.
9
m
illion
children remained.
In short, the data from DISE
relating to Andhra Pradesh confirms the widely acknowledged fact that
the
largest numbers
of children dropout before they reach Class
II.
T
his figure swells as one moves u
p the school
ladder
,
with nearly 50
%
of
children leaving the s
ystem without completing Class V
and over
60
%
dropping out
before
entering C
lass
X
.
The data further confirms that
the crucial
grades
in which children are pushed out are
C
lass
V
and
C
lass
VII
–
i.e.
when
children
move
from
one
school to the next
. Thus, while governments produce reports indicating enrolment rates
above 90%, the reality is that dropout rates are so high that it impossible for this to be the
case. The irony is that it is
DISE
data
collected to monitor the progress of
S
arva
S
hiksha
A
bhiyan
(
the national EFA programme
)
that
corroborates
this point
(
Vinayak
, 2006)
.
It is difficult to draw any conclusions of a similar kind
at
the national
level because the
transition classes
between pr
imary and upper primary schools as well as high schools are not
uniform
across the country
. Further
more
,
the examinations
held by State Boards
are also
conducted at different levels. For example, while in Andhra Pradesh the first
b
oard
examination the chil
d takes is in
C
lass
VII,
in Madhya Pradesh it is
C
lass
V
. At the same
time
,
evidence suggests that
the most crucial year for children to dropout all over the country
is
C
lass
I,
which
accounts
for more
than 20
%
between
1998 and 2002
(
see
Table 4)
.
It
appea
rs that some improvement
has taken
place
over
the
last few years
(
with dropout
declining
to
16
%
in 200
4
-
20
0
5
compared
to
over 20
%
in
earlier years)
,
but
the
sustainability
of
this
remains uncertain in the
context
of
initiatives
such as
para
-
teachers
and
al
ternative
4
Base
d on notes distributed by the Government of India in its meeting of the National Resource Group for the
Education Guarantee Scheme / Alternative & Innovative Education Scheme held on 25 February
2005. The
following is the number out
-
of
-
school children in e
ach state as of 31 December 2004 as submitted by the
respective State Project Directors: Andhra Pradesh
–
0.21 million; Chhattisgarh
–
0.11 million; Gujarat
–
0.22
million; Haryana
–
0.12 million; Jharkhand
–
0.40 million; Karnataka
–
0.04 million; Madhya
Pradesh
–
0.32
million; Maharashtra
–
0.05 million.
School Dropou
ts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education
12
schools that
may result in p
rogressive deteriorat
ion of
the infrastructure of public schooling
.
The comparable figures for S
chedu
led
C
aste
and S
cheduled
T
ribe children
are much higher.
These
children
face far more formidable challenges
to stay in
school
when compared to
children in the
g
eneral category
5
.
2.2 Problems with Data on Children Attending Schools
In India the standardisation of data on the retention of children in schools is difficult because
of the size, complexity and lack of uniformit
y of the state education systems.
School records
are not satisfactorily maintained. Names of children have been included and excluded from
school attendance records in India. In some cases the names of children who are not in school
and are actually attend
ing private schools are included in attendance registers of government
schools (Aggarwal, 2000). In some circumstances schools have the names of children
enrolled who have migrated away from the area or have moved onto different classes. In
addition some s
tudents are not on the register, even though they attend school. For example,
in some cases girls who are over 12 and have reached puberty, do not appear on the
attendance register or on the out of school children’s list. When pursued on this subject, the
teachers have promptly responded that such girls are ‘over aged’ and that it would be ‘a waste
to include their names because they would not come to school in any case’. Young girls who
are married and below 14 years of age are also seldom mentioned on the
lists as if they do not
exist
6
.
There is also a dynamic movement of children in and out of school (MVF
7
). At times
children are absent from school for 2
-
3 months or more when they migrate with their parents
for work. In many instances children who are sh
own as being in school have not in fact been
attending school regularly. Therefore, calculations of children in school and out of school
should be done in a nuanced manner.
Studies have often relied on responses given by parents to queries on the efficacy
of the
education system
8
. However, few conclusions can be drawn from these responses
–
that
parents talk of the need to supplement family income or the irrelevance of education may
have much more to do with the manner in which these claims have been elici
ted, the
circumstances of the parent, rather than their actual preferences. Even parents who send their
children to school find it easier to explain why children should be sent to work rather than to
school. The inability on their part to articulate their
desire to send their children to school is
more a reflection of their incapacity to grapple with what has been fed to them as
conventional ‘logic’ often propounded by those who would not think twice about sending
5
Class wise data on enrolment of SCs and STs is beginning to be given only recently making it difficult to trace
the movement of a cohort of children. MHRD provides data on dropout by stages (i.e. betwee
n classes I
-
V and
I
-
VIII) SCs and STs along with general population in its annual publication ‘Selected Educational Statistics’.
The figures for SCs and STs are much higher than general population.
6
For example, many such instances were reported in a dr
ive undertaken by MVF volunteers, school children’s
committee and others to verify school registers to assess the number of out
-
of
-
school children objectively. See
annual reports for years 2003
-
04 of MVF, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh (pp. 2
0) and 2004
-
05 (pp.8)
7
See MVF Annual Reports for the years 2001
-
2002 to 2004
-
2005 on monitoring of regularity of attendance of
children in schools.
8
The large scale surveys conducted by NSSO, NFHS that provide data on reasons for dropout and also neve
r
enrolment best represent these kinds of studies/surveys. In these surveys parents are usually asked questions
with multiple responses on why their children dropout. The parents unable to articulate reasons in a more
nuanced way may simply nod to reasons
like not interested in studies, not able to cope academics, costs too
much, etc. Even several individual researchers also deploy almost similar methodologies. See Kumar (1988)
for a general critique of these studies.