Paper On Physcial Facilities (Draft Prepared For CABE) - Report

Draft
Present Status of Infrastructure Facilities

in Schools in India:
From National and State Level
Perspective
Dr. Madhumita Bandhopadhyay
National University of Educational Planning and Administration

17-B, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi –110016 (INDIA)
CONTENTS
Page No.
Introduction 1
Earlier Researches 1
Availability of Schools and Enrolment 3
Student-Classroom Ratio 6
Availability of Physical Facilities 7-17

 All weather roads 7
 School Building 8
 Water Facility 8
 Functional drinking water facility 9
 Girls’ Toilet 10
 Boys’ Toilet 11
 Condition of Classroom 11
 Boundary Wall 12
 Playground 13
 Ramp facility 13
 Electricity facility 14
 Library Facility 15
 Computer Facility 16
 CAL Facility 17
Enrolment in schools lacking different infrastructure facilities 17
Conclusion 19
Reference 20
Draft prepared for Sub-Committee of the CABE on Improving Conditions of Government of Schools
Present Status of Infrastructure Facilities in Schools in India:

From national and state level perspective
Dr. Madhumita Bandyopadhyay1

NUEPA
Introduction
It is widely known that availability of infrastructure facilities in school has considerable impact
on school environment and it is one of the important indicators for assessing whether the schools
are providing a conducive learning environment for children. During last two decades, a major
emphasis has been given on improving school environment by different educational programmes
like Operation Blackboard, DPEP, SSA, RMSA and so on, as it is a major factor for regular
participation of students and finally resulting in improvement in their learning levels. An attempt
has also been made to provide adequate physical facilities as per the needs of schools, as
recommended by education policy in India, NPE 1986. The policy has recognized that,
‘unattractive school environment, unsatisfactory condition of buildings and insufficiency of
instructional material function as de-motivating factors for children and their parents. The Policy,
therefore, calls for a drive for a substantial improvement of primary schools and provision of
support services’ (NPE, 1986, 15). According to this policy, primary schools have to be provided
with at least two rooms for conducting teaching learning process. Further, RTE Act 2009 has
recommended that each school should be equipped with ‘All weather building consisting of at
least one classroom for every teacher and an office-cum-store-cum-Head teacher’s room; barrier-
free access; 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’. In view of above recommendations,
using DISE data and recent research reviews, an attempt has been made in this paper to assess
the present status of availability of physical facilities in schools run by different managements,
especially government, private aided and private unaided schools.
Earlier Researches
Several researches (Ajayi, 2002; Hallack, 1990; Kuuskorpi & Gonzalez, 2011) conducted in
different international contexts specifically link availability of infrastructure facilities of school
and school effectiveness. According to Asiabaka (2008, 10) “management of facilities is an
integral part of the overall management of schools. The actualization of the goals and objectives
of education require the provision, maximum utilization and appropriate management of the
facilities.” According to her “the physical environment of a school is a major determining factor
in the attainment of its objectives (Asiabaka 2008, 10).” Importance of availability of physical
facilities in schools and its optimum use have been a matter of concern across the globe. Several
studies have already been conducted in context of India to find out different determining factors
of school effectiveness and efficiency and lack of physical facilities has been identified as one of
the major problems across the states. An overview of some of these studies is being given in
1
The author acknowledges the contribution of Ms. Meenakshi Khandari and Ms. Aparna Mookerjee from NUEPA.
We are grateful to Prof. A. C Mehta, Head of EMIS Department for providing DISE and UDISE data some of which
have not been published yet.
1
following paragraphs.
Despite considerable improvement in enrolment, many researches (Govinda & Bandyopadhyay,

2011a, 2011b, 2011c; De et.al. 2011; Pratham, 2012 etc) have constantly raised concerns that
India will have to travel a long way to achieve the goal of Universialisation of Elementary
Education and implement the Right to Education Act, 2009. The Act has not only stressed on
providing access to free and compulsory education for 6-14 years old children, but has also
emphasised on regular and active participation of children in government schools and
improvement in their learning levels.
The active presence of children and their imbibing of knowledge and skills in the classroom
become important issues once they get enrolled in a school. The central characteristic of
meaningful access (Lewin, 2007; Govinda & Bandyopadhyay, 2009; Little, 2008) to school
education is the sustained and active participation of children in teaching learning processes and
classroom activities. It has been found that students who attend school regularly score higher in
their achievement tests than their peers, who remain frequently absent. Although the low
attendance and low learning level of children is rampant across the country, many studies found
these problems are more prominent in case of disadvantaged groups (Govinda &
Bandyopadhyay, 2008; Pratham, 2012; Dreze & Kingdon, 1999). Many researches have also
indicated that effective management of system as well as schools can improve the quality of
educational services that in turn, influences the access and participation of children (Govinda &
Bandyopadhyay, 2011c, Bandyopadhyay & Dey, 2011 Dayaram, 2011, Dayaram, 2013). These
studies have also emphasized on availability of adequate infrastructure facilities and its optimum
use for improving the learning environment of the school which motivates teachers as well as
students for regular participation and getting engaged in teaching learning process of good
quality.
As mentioned in a CREATE policy brief (Bandypadhyay, Das & Zeitlyn, 2011), "absenteeism is
multi- causal phenomenon" involving home -related and school- related factors. While children’s
engagement in paid or unpaid work, sibling care etc. reduces their chance of attending school
fully and perform better in classroom, the quality of services provided in the schools, the
infrastructure and the level of teacher’s qualification and training may also act as determining
factors for these. The study further discusses the vicious cycle of absenteeism and repetition.
These characteristics of exclusion are known as ‘silent exclusion’ in the CREATE conceptual
model and eventually lead to drop- out (Lewin, 2007). The policy brief also suggests "there is
an urgent need for improving the physical and academic infrastructure, incentives, TLM
(teaching learning material), availability of teachers and their presence in the school and
classroom."
Gender and caste-based stereotyping was visible in the allocation of different tasks to children in
schools covered by the CREATE study as well. Such gender and caste based discrimination
increases in the schools which are resource poor and are grappling with different problems of
managing scarce physical as well as academic resources for example often it is found that girls
are engaged in collecting water in case schools are not provided with a safe drinking water
facility on regular basis. Similarly, absence of boundary wall and playground hamper regular
activities of school as well as can comprise children safety and security.
2
It is mention worthy that the socially disadvantaged children living in remote areas also remain
deprived from various public services, including elementary education. For example, the schools
located in tribal villages in Dindori district of Madhya Pradesh hardly had essential physical and
academic facilities. Let alone other academic facilities, only four out of twenty-four sample
schools had access to drinking water while not a single school had a toilet in it (Govinda &
Bandyopadhyay, 2011b). An earlier study conducted by Jha & Jhingran, (2005, 66) has found
that the condition of physical infrastructure in rural areas was far from satisfactory. In their study
villages as mentioned by authors, “only 6.7% of the primary schools and 12.5% of the upper
primary schools have a fully pucca building. About 73% have partially pucca building and rest
have either a kuchcha structure, a dilapidated one or no building at all.” They also found that
many schools did not have basic drinking water and toilet facilities. According to this study,
“only 4% of schools, the infrastructure could be considered average to good, these schools were
located mainly in MP, Karnataka, Gujarat and Maharashtra. School infrastructure was rated as
inadequate in case of 38% schools and the remaining 22 percent was considered to be very
inadequate (Jha & Jhingran, 2005, 67).” Based on an extensive survey carried out in eight states
Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Assam and
Tamil Nadu (Mehrotra, 2006) has found that private unaided schools had better facilities than
government and private aided schools in most of the states. As author has mentioned that “in the
states where the private-unaided schools account for a significant share of enrolled children –
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan – the proportion of urban unaided schools which are pucca
(in brick buildings) is higher than the proportion of government schools that are pucca. The
problem of one-classroom schools is also largely confined to the government schools. Private-
aided schools do not have this problem. Similarly, most of the private-unaided schools do not
seem to have a space constraint in terms of classrooms (Mehrotra, 2006, 265).” In addition he
has also mentioned that the larger share of government schools were found without drinking
water facility and toilets whereas many private-unaided schools (and private-aided ones) in urban
areas had separate toilets for girls than do government schools.
Another study conducted by Srivastava (2006, 63) has pointed out that in Uttar Pradesh “a
greater proportion of government schools had pucca buildings compared to private schools,
though the difference was lower in urban areas. Approach roads to rural schools were mostly
kuchcha or semi-pucca for both private and government schools, although the proportion of
semi-pucca roads for private schools was higher at the primary level (Srivastava, 2006, 64).”
In context of findings of above research studies, an attempt has been made in the following
section to find out the extent to which the schools managed by government as well as private
agencies are equipped with different physical facilities and what are the future challenges that
remain to meet for its further improvement. This status paper not only assess the situation not
only with respect to elementary education but also post elementary school education i.e.
secondary and higher secondary education.
Availability of Schools and Enrolment
Any discussion on school education has to look into the aspect of availability of schooling
facilities to children of eligible age group. According to the DISE data (Table 1), the percentage
3
share of government schools is much higher as compared to private aided and unaided schools at
each level but an increasing trend is found in proportion of private schools as the level of
education increases. While, 19% primary schools across the country is run by private
management and not aided by government, the proportion of such schools is 28% at the upper
primary level. The proportion further increases to 39% for secondary and 42% for higher
secondary level. The proportion of private aided schools is also much higher in case of secondary
and higher secondary levels. It is also noticeable from Figure 1 that the number of government as
well as private schools has shown a gradual increasing trend over the years.
Table 1: Percentage Share of Management wise Schools at different levels of School Education
School Private Private Madrasa Total

Govt. Unrecognized
Category Aided Unaided Recognized Schools
Primary 75.41 2.88 18.81 2.14 0.76 1207427
Upper Primary 61.45 7.67 28.34 1.80 0.73 598662
Elementary 74.69 4.61 18.13 1.89 0.68 1445807
Secondary 42.78 16.68 38.84 1.26 0.43 233517
Hr. Secondary 39.87 16.72 42.07 0.81 0.53 109318
Source: DISE: 2014-15, NUEPA
Figure 1: Trend in number of Government and Private Elementary Schools in India: 2007-08 to
2014-15
1200000
1035178 1048046 1064604 1078407 1086720 1093969 1080757
1002915
1000000
800000
600000
400000 319990 328845

243895 249920 254178 264607 299357 307978
200000
0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Government Schools Private Schools
Source: Elementary Education in India: Trends 2005-06 to 2014-15, DISE, New Delhi
The state wise distribution of schools run by different management shows that more than 80%
primary schools are run by government in states like Odisha, Bihar, Tripura, Jharkhand,
Arunachal Pradesh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, A & N Islands, J&K,
Himachal Pradesh, Assam. Lakshadweep has 100% schools run by government. According to
the DISE data, it has been found that Kerala (30.44%) has the lowest proportion of government
primary schools but this state also has the highest proportion of private aided primary schools. In
case of private unaided primary schools, Delhi ranks first with 52% of schools under private
management and only 2% schools in Jharkhand are managed by private providers.
4
In case of upper primary schools, again Kerala has the lowest proportion of government upper
primary schools and Delhi has the highest proportion of private unaided upper primary schools.
However, for private aided schools, Goa ranks first with 67% of upper primary schools. Apart
from Delhi, states like Pondicherry, Telangana, Haryana, Rajasthan, Punjab, Manipur, Andhra
Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh has more than 40% private unaided upper primary schools. Like
primary, in Lakshadweep 100% upper primary, secondary and higher schools are also managed
by government. It is also noticeable that the states like Tripura, West Bengal, Andaman &
Nicobar Islands, Bihar, Dadra & Nagar Haveli have more than 80% upper primary schools run
by government.
While in case of secondary and higher secondary, only four states such as West Bengal, A & N
Islands, Tripura, Sikkim have more than 80% schools managed by government. It is noticeable
that around 70% schools in Uttar Pradesh have reportedly been private unaided while Goa has
74% private aided schools at the secondary level. At the same time, there are 17 states such as
Manipur, Delhi, Pondicherry, Arunachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Chandigarh, Andhra
Pradesh, Punjab, Tripura, Haryana, Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, A & N Islands, Chhattisgarh,
Sikkim and West Bengal have less than 10% private aided secondary schools.
Similarly, 18 states such as Delhi, Jharkhand, Pondicherry, Tripura, Chandigarh, Arunachal

Pradesh, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Sikkim, Haryana, A & N Islands,
Chhattisgarh, Manipur, Goa, Telangana and West Bengal have less than 10% schools as private
aided and five states such as A & N Islands, Bihar, West Bengal, Tripura and Goa have less than
10% schools as private unaided at the higher secondary level. On contrary, it is also noticeable
that Maharashtra is the state which has the highest proportion (68%) of secondary schools under
the private aided category followed by Meghalaya and Gujarat. Similarly, Mizoram with 67%
private unaided higher secondary schools rank first followed by Uttar Pradesh, Nagaland,
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh which fall within the category of 60-70% of schools that are
under private management but not receiving any aid from government.
The expansion of private schools has also impacted on trends in enrolment at each level of
school education which is highlighted in the Table 2. It is noticeable that although the proportion
of enrolment in government schools at each level is much higher than the proportion of
enrolment in private aided and unaided schools, but as the level of education increases, a
decreasing trend has been found in the proportion of enrolment in government run schools. It is
noticeable that at the higher secondary level, the percentage share of enrolment is only 39.3% in
government schools while in private unaided schools it becomes more than 48%.
Table 2: Percentage share of Management-wise Enrolment at different levels of School Education
School Pvt. Private Recognized

Govt. Unrecognized Total
levels Aided Unaided Madrasa
Primary 76.3 2.0 6.1 13.1 2.5 2303937
Upper
66.0 13.6 12.6 5.0 2.9 190936
Primary
Secondary 68.2 17.5 13.6 0.8 0.0 31652
Hr.
39.3 10.1 48.3 2.3 0.0 6222
Secondary
5
From above analysis, one can understand that a sizeable proportion of schools are still run by
government though the proportion of such schools varies from one state to other. As it has been
mentioned that there are some states which have very high proportion of private aided and
private unaided schools, however it has been found that despite high proportion of private
schools, the role of government schools still remains important to cater to the needs of children
from socially and economically disadvantaged groups. In the following section, an attempt has
been made to examine how schools run by different management systems such as government,
private aided and private unaided are provided with different infrastructure facilities at different
educational level.
Student-Classroom Ratio
Table 3: Management wise Student Classroom Ratio at different School level
School Category Private Private Madrasa Total

Govt. Aided Unaided Unrecognized Recognized Schools
Elementary 27 36 27 23 36 27
Secondary 54 53 38 33 69 47
Hr. Secondary 49 61 43 45 64 49
Student classroom ratio is another important factor covered under DISE to analyze the average
number of students per classroom in a school. In the Table 3, data indicate that the secondary and
higher secondary government as well as private aided schools have adverse SCR indicating
overcrowded classrooms but for elementary education, the situation seems to be much better for
government and private unaided schools. It may be because of prevalence of small size
elementary schools which are results of recent initiatives taken by government for covering all
habitations by primary and upper primary schools in case those habitations qualify the norm for
opening school.
The state wise data suggests that eight states and UTs have higher proportion of government
schools at elementary level with SCR higher than the national average (27). These are Assam,
Bihar, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Delhi, Haryana and West Bengal. Out
of these, Bihar has the highest SCR not only for government schools but also for private aided
schools. As far as private unaided is concerned Jharkhand has the highest proportion of schools
with highest SCR (41) followed by Uttar Pradesh.
Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal are also the states which have very high SCR at secondary
and higher secondary level particularly in the government and private aided schools. Manipur is
another state which shows highest SCR in case of private aided schools at the higher secondary
level. There are some states which need further attention for reducing SCR in the government
secondary and higher secondary schools are Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Odisha,
Tripura, etc.
6
Availability of Physical Facilities
All weather roads
Accessibility of schools can be measured by examining whether the schools are approachable by
all weather roads or not. It has been found that although above 90% private aided and unaided
primary and elementary schools are approachable by all weather road, there are at least around
13% primary and elementary government schools are yet to be connected by such road. It is also
noticeable that barring a few most of the secondary and higher secondary schools irrespective of
their management are connected by roads. However, many unrecognized and Madrasas are also
not approachable by all weather roads, as highlighted in the following Table 4.
Table 4: Percentage share of Schools Approachable by all weather Roads

Govt. Unrecognized
Primary 86.48 93.98 95.30 82.74 89.91 88.30
Upper Primary 91.05 96.23 95.77 88.83 90.99 92.74
Elementary 87.50 94.76 95.33 82.67 89.79 89.18
Secondary 93.64 97.95 95.43 89.92 89.44 94.99
Higher Secondary 95.39 98.09 95.70 91.79 89.79 95.91
The state wise variation is also found in availability of primary schools that are approachable by
all weather roads. It is found that Jharkhand is the state which has the lowest proportion of
government as well as private schools which are not accessible by all weather roads. Similarly,
there are other states such as Sikkim, Lakshadweep, Nagaland, Himachal Pradesh, Tripura, J&K,
Uttaranchal, Rajasthan, Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya where large number of government
schools yet to be linked by all weather roads.
In case of upper primary schools, although Jharkhand has more than 60% government schools
with all weather roads but it has more than 70% of private aided and unaided upper primary
schools with such facility. The states which require immediate attention are Meghalaya,
Lakshadweep, Arunachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, West Bengal, Bihar, Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh,
Tripura, Rajasthan, Nagaland, J&K that have less than 90% upper primary schools which are not
approachable by all weather roads.
In case of secondary schools, it is found that majority of government, private aided and private
unaided schools are approachable by all weather roads but Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and
Lakshadweep fall within 70-80% as far as availability of government secondary schools which
are approachable by all weather roads. Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Jharkhand are found in
most critical condition with much less proportion of such schools. In Meghalaya, less than 60%
private unaided schools are also not approachable by all weather roads.
In case of higher secondary schools, the most critical situation is found in Lakshadweep where
around 69% government schools have all weather roads but situation is not that satisfactory in
the states like Jharkhand, Nagaland and Uttaranchal. As far as private unaided schools are
7
concerned, Telangana and Assam need more attention whereas for private aided schools the state
like Daman & Diu is at the lowest category with 67%.
School Building
It is heartening to see that around 98-99% government as well private schools have building at
all levels (Table 5). It is also found that the state level variation with respect to school building is
also not wide and majority of states fall in the category of above 90% and even some of the
states have building for all schools. However, attention needs to be paid especially in Bihar and
Uttaranchal where more than 10% schools are still not having building for primary schools
whereas in case of secondary schools attention needs to be paid on state like Madhya Pradesh
which is falling at the lowest category.
Table 5: Percentage Share of Schools with Building

Govt. Unrecognized
Primary 98.70 99.68 99.82 99.18 99.13 98.95
Upper Primary 99.71 99.73 99.86 98.80 99.64 99.74
Elementary 98.82 99.69 99.83 99.16 99.15 99.05
Secondary 98.69 99.78 99.85 99.08 99.90 99.34
Higher
99.12 99.79 99.88 98.99 99.83 99.55
Secondary
Water Facility
It is known to all that the essential facility like water needs to be made available in the school for
making school environment hygienic and clean. The data has been provided by DISE to assess
the availability of water facility in every school which can be utilized in different purpose other
than drinking. It has been found that the water facility has been provided in majority of
government as well as private schools. But there is slight variation if we compare the
government schools with private schools for example, while 95.6% primary government schools
have water facility, around 99% private unaided schools have this facility. Similar variation can
be found in case of upper primary level though, the gap has declined at the secondary and higher
secondary level (Table 6).
Table 6: Percentage share of Schools with Water Facility

Govt. Unrecognized
Primary 95.68 96.91 98.83 81.27 96.79 96.00
Upper Primary 97.13 97.31 99.40 93.83 98.95 97.74
Elementary 95.72 96.63 98.89 80.91 96.99 96.06
Secondary 97.71 99.20 99.43 91.55 100.00 98.56
Hr. Secondary 98.50 99.76 99.72 96.40 100.00 99.21
8
As far as water facility is concerned, 23 states have more than 95% government primary schools
with water facility in it. But, as data revealed, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Nagaland have
less than 80% schools with this facility. According to DISE data, mainly the north-eastern states
are falling into the lower categories as far as availability of upper primary schools with water
facility in it. Only 57% government schools and 66% private unaided schools in Meghalaya have
such facility. Even in Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Tripura, Mizoram J & K,
Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland have many government schools which are yet to be
provided with water facility.
The situation in Nagaland is also a matter of concern in terms of availability of water facility in
secondary and higher secondary government schools. However, in other states more than 90%
schools are equipped with water facility. It is heartening to see that many states have already
achieved universal availability of water facility with 100% schools that are having such facility.
Functional drinking water facility
With the help of DISE data (Table 7), an attempt can be made to see whether the school has been
provided with functional drinking water facility or not. It has been found that as compared to
government schools having functional drinking water facility, the situation is much better in
private unaided schools at each level. It is also noticeable that almost all private schools are
provided with functional drinking water facility whereas more than 15% elementary and around
10%-12% secondary and higher secondary schools run by government are still devoid of such
facility. Since drinking water facility is one of the essential facilities, urgent action is required in
this regard.
Table 7: Percentage Share of Schools having Functional Drinking Water Facility

Govt. Unrecognized
Primary 83.58 89.86 91.45 64.30 84.57 84.84
Upper Primary 87.49 89.55 92.41 83.17 88.87 88.97
Elementary 83.60 88.13 90.99 63.79 84.95 84.78
Secondary 88.39 93.98 92.73 77.33 90.03 90.87
Higher
90.32 95.83 92.54 82.90 89.97 92.11
Secondary
In case of state level disparity, it has been found that at least 40% of government primary schools
in north-eastern such as Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Meghalaya are yet to have
drinking water facilities. There are 10 states which are falling in the categories of 60-80%of
schools where drinking water facility is available. On contrary, the number of states with higher
proportion of private aided and unaided primary schools without drinking water facility is much
less and these are again mainly from north-eastern states such as Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Assam and Nagaland.
9
As far as availability of drinking water facility at the upper primary level is concerned, the trend
is almost similar to primary level putting north-eastern states such as Nagaland, Meghalaya,
Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Assam in the lower category for government as well as private
schools. In addition, there are certain states like Telangana, Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, J
& K, Uttaranchal, Assam, Manipur, Mizoram also have around 30 and more percentage of
government schools without any drinking water facility.
The situation is not very different from that of below level as far as availability of drinking water
facility at the secondary and higher secondary run by government as well as private agencies. In
addition to north-eastern states, other states like Uttar Pradesh, Telangana, Bihar, Odisha,
Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand are also falling within the lower category of 60-80%.
Girls’ Toilet
According to the DISE data (Table 8), it has been found that more than 90% government and
private unaided schools at primary, upper primary, secondary and higher secondary levels are
providing girls’ toilet facility. However, the situation is slightly better in private unaided schools
as compared to government run schools. While in case of private aided schools at the primary
and upper primary levels, the proportion of schools with girls’ toilet facility is around 88% but at
the secondary and higher secondary levels, the proportions of such schools are 97% and 99%
respectively.
Table 8: Percentage Share of Schools with Girls’ Toilet Facility

Govt. Unrecognized
Primary 95.26 88.81 95.21 64.53 91.43 86.76
Upper Primary 90.96 88.10 96.48 84.95 92.58 92.23
Elementary 85.70 86.60 95.07 63.71 91.91 87.08
Secondary 94.50 97.09 98.81 84.85 95.19 96.53
Hr. Secondary 95.82 98.89 98.53 86.45 95.40 97.43
It is heartening to see that more than half of the states and UTs have more than 90% government
schools with girls’ toilet facility and it is true for all levels. The situation is also satisfactory in
case of private aided and private unaided schools as majority of such schools are equipped with
girls’ toilet facility. However, further attention needs to be given for the government schools in
the states like Bihar, Meghalaya, Assam, J&K, etc. where a large number of schools at each level
are yet to be provided with girls’ toilet. It is also noticeable that in some of the states a
substantial proportion of private aided and private unaided schools are functioning without girls’
toilet in it. For example while Andhra Pradesh has around 55% private aided schools and
Meghalaya has 56% private unaided schools that are functioning without any girls’ toilet.
Similarly, Assam has only 24% private aided schools that have a girls’ toilet in it. In case of
secondary and higher secondary levels, not a single state could be found in the category of below
60% schools without a girls’ toilet.
10
Boys’ Toilet
Provisioning for boys’ toilet facility has been much better as compared to girls’ toilet at every
level and irrespective of the management of schools. It is also noticeable that the proportion is
much better in case of private aided schools (Table 9). Despite this, some of the states require
further attention such as Bihar, Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh and Assam which fall in the
category of below 80% of government schools with boys’ toilet facility. It has been found that 22
states at primary level, 21 states at upper primary level and 17 states each at secondary and
higher secondary level have more than 90% government schools with boys’ toilet facility in it.
Table 9: Percentage Share of Schools with Boys’ Toilet Facility

Govt. Unrecognized
Primary 95.24 95.26 98.20 72.30 95.17 95.31
Upper Primary 97.49 93.11 99.01 90.48 95.36 97.46
Elementary 95.48 93.02 98.26 71.77 95.47 95.43
Secondary 90.32 95.57 96.59 80.28 95.69 93.63
Higher
94.09 98.78 98.09 83.01 95.89 96.55
Secondary
In case of primary level, Jharkhand and Meghalaya have the lowest proportion of private aided
schools with boys’ toilet facility whereas Meghalaya (47.22%) is the only state which has been
found with the lowest proportion of private unaided schools with such facility. As far as the
availability of toilet facility for boys is concerned, Assam is the state which ranks lowest for
privately managed upper primary, secondary and higher secondary with the lowest percentage
share of schools with this facility. While only 39% private aided upper primary schools in Assam
have toilet facility for boys, 50% private aided schools at secondary and 66% at higher secondary
are having such facility. The state ranks lowest for government secondary (58%) and higher
secondary (73%) schools as well.
Condition of Classroom
DISE has also provided data on physical condition of classrooms at the elementary, secondary
and higher secondary levels. It has been found that classrooms in private aided and unaided
schools are in much better condition than government schools at all levels. It is also noticeable
that higher proportion of government schools require major repair than minor repair. Despite
receiving school grant for last many years, around 14% of government elementary schools
require major repair and 11% elementary schools require minor repair (Table 10).
11
Table 10: Percentage share of Classrooms as per their Condition at different education levels
Madrasa
Govt. Pvt. Aided Pvt. Unaided Unrecognized
Recognized
School
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
levels
Elementary 75.20 13.93 10.86 86.60 8.67 4.73 95.33 3.62 1.04 85.60 7.12 7.28 87.65 8.40 3.95
Secondary 76.98 12.67 10.35 86.18 8.90 4.92 89.15 6.01 4.84 79.37 10.62 10.01 83.65 11.86 4.48
Hr.
81.63 11.85 6.52 94.28 4.05 1.67 95.22 3.61 1.17 85.46 8.22 6.32 84.33 9.79 5.89
Secondary
*Data on primary and upper primary are not available separately
Boundary Wall
It is also noteworthy that although most of the schools are running functioning in a building but
many of these schools are found without any boundary wall. It is disheartening that around 43%
primary schools, 32% upper primary schools, 25% secondary schools and 18% higher secondary
schools which are run by government do not have any boundary wall as per the estimation of
DISE (Table 11). The situation is much better in the private schools though around 10-15%
schools at the different levels still require boundary wall.
Table 11: Percentage Share of School with Boundary Walls

Govt. Unrecognized
Primary 56.67 72.90 86.48 54.48 77.78 62.86
Upper Primary 68.22 77.36 89.77 74.18 76.33 75.19
Elementary 57.10 73.62 86.64 53.39 77.19 63.29
Secondary 75.81 84.37 92.88 69.05 75.22 83.78
Hr. Secondary 81.59 92.84 95.53 83.35 76.30 89.32
The state level analysis shows that in Manipur, Tripura and Meghalaya less than 20%
government primary schools have the facility of boundary wall in it whereas in case of upper
primary level only Meghalaya with 18% government schools have boundary wall. In comparison
to government schools, private aided and unaided schools are in better situation except only in
Assam where 15% private aided upper primary schools found with boundary wall.
The situation is slightly better in government secondary and higher secondary schools. The states
which are in the lowest category are Manipur, Sikkim and Mizoram and out of these three states
Mizoram (25%) has the lowest proportion of schools with boundary wall. All other states are
having more than 40% schools which have boundary wall. For higher secondary schools except
Uttaranchal, Sikkim all other states are having more than 60% schools which have boundary
wall. There are certain states which have achieved 100% schools with boundary wall and it is
12
noteworthy that Chandigarh is the state which has all primary, upper primary, secondary and
higher secondary schools which have boundary wall.
Playground
The situation regarding availability of playground in the school is far from satisfactory
particularly in government schools (Table 12). It is to be noted that only 52% government
primary schools have playground within it whereas 78% private aided and 79% private unaided
primary schools are equipped with playground. It is understandable that lack of availability of
playground hampers engagement of children in different games and physical activities making
schooling monotonous and unattractive. The situation has slightly improved in case of upper
primary, secondary and higher secondary level.
Table 12: Percentage Share of Schools with playground

Category Govt. Aided Unaided Unrecognized Recognized Schools
Primary 51.64 78.50 79.36 52.25 43.43 57.58
Upper Primary 60.68 85.18 82.77 63.40 49.69 68.79
Elementary 54.08 81.33 79.21 52.18 43.80 59.79
Secondary 68.35 88.72 83.12 67.36 48.96 77.39
Hr. Secondary 73.06 88.11 83.04 69.97 50.17 79.63
The state level data show that in Lakshadweep less than 20% government primary schools are
yet to be provided with playground facility whereas 11 states such as Andhra Pradesh, Daman &
Diu, West Bengal, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Bihar,
Goa, Jharkhand, Jammu And Kashmir have less than 40% schools with playground. In case of
upper primary level, six states such as Lakshadweep, Nagaland, J&K, Meghalaya, Odisha and
Jharkhand fall in the category of 20-40% government schools that have playground facility.
Around 70% schools in Jharkhand do not have such facilities.
The situation is little better in government secondary and higher secondary schools in most of the
states except Mizoram where 30% secondary and 37% higher secondary schools are found with
playground. The private schools are found in much better situation because as compared to the
government schools, higher proportions of private schools whether aided or unaided are having
playground facility.
Ramp facility
One of the major objectives of all education programmes that have been implemented at present
is to develop an inclusive education system by providing access to children with disabilities.
Provisioning of ramp facility is one of the indicators in this regard. It has been found in DISE
2014-15 (Table 13) that around 20% schools are not providing any ramp facility at the primary
and upper primary level. The proportion of schools without ramp facility is much higher in case
of secondary and higher secondary level though there has been considerable decline of such
schools during last two years of all levels.
13
Table 13: Percentage share of Schools with Ramp Facility
School Category 2013-14 2014-15

Primary 84.09 78.53
Upper Primary 82.60 81.01
Elementary 82.33 77.40
Secondary 75.42 69.44
Hr. Secondary 79.10 70.36
Source: Flash Statistics: 2014-15, DISE, NUEPA
State level analysis indicates that seven states fall in the category where above 90% elementary
schools have ramp facility. Delhi has been found with 100% schools with the facility of ramp
while Sikkim (26.4%) has been found with lowest proportion of schools with ramp facility and
J&K has only 32.5% schools with such facility. It is also found that Mizoram, Telangana, A& N
Islands and Andhra Pradesh have around 50-55% schools without any ramp facility. Further
attention is needed for these states.
At the secondary level, Dadra & Nagar Haveli (22.2%) has the lowest proportion of schools with
ramp facility and it is also found that states like Assam, Goa, Meghalaya and Sikkim have below
40% schools with such facility. While at the higher secondary level, Mizoram has been found
with only 8% schools with ramp facility, the data also indicate that states such as Andhra
Pradesh, Goa, Sikkim and Telangana have around 20-30% higher secondary schools with such
facility.
Electricity facility
Electricity facility is one of the important initiatives that require collective decision of at least
two departments such as electricity and school department in the state. It has been found that
despite having electricity in the village many schools are still devoid of electricity facility.
However, it is heartening to see that very high proportion of government secondary and higher
secondary schools are equipped with electricity facilities but only 50% primary and 65% upper
primary government schools could have electricity facility. However, much higher proportion of
private aided and unaided schools have received the electricity connection (Table 14).
Table 14: Percentage Share of Schools with Electricity Facility

Govt. Unrecognized
Primary 50.84 81.30 82.62 50.96 60.77 57.77
Upper Primary 65.03 77.23 86.29 71.73 62.87 72.10
Elementary 52.59 76.16 81.51 49.63 62.51 58.93
Secondary 84.52 89.58 91.21 66.92 75.72 87.70

Hr. Secondary 91.07 94.87 93.38 85.60 77.16 92.56
14
State wise distribution of primary schools with electricity connection shows that 12 states still
have less than 40% government schools that have electricity connection. Two states like
Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh have only less than 10% government schools with electricity
connection. The situation is far better in case of private aided and unaided schools for example
Madhya Pradesh which has only 8.5% government schools with electricity facility, it has more
than 80% private unaided schools that have been provided with electricity facility. The lowest
proportion of private aided schools with electricity facility has been recorded in Manipur (13%)
and for private unaided schools it is Meghalaya which has the lowest proportion of schools
(26%) with electricity connection.
In case of upper primary schools, five states have been identified which have less than 40%
government schools with electricity facility. Out of these, the state like Jharkhand has the lowest
proportion of government schools (18%) with electricity facility. On contrary only two states
have less than 40% private aided schools with electricity facility and there is no such state could
be found in this category where less than 40% private unaided schools without electricity
facility.
In case of secondary schools, only Bihar has been found with less than 40% government schools
with electricity connection but for private unaided schools, Bihar has around 48% schools
without electricity connection. Assam has the lowest proportion of aided private schools (31%)
with electricity connection. In case of higher secondary schools, except Bihar all other states
have more than 70% government as well as private schools that have electricity connection. It
has been found that around half of the government and 44% private aided schools have not been
provided with electricity facility. In case of private unaided schools Assam has recorded the
lowest proportion of schools with electricity facility and around 30% schools in Assam are yet to
be provided with this facility.
Library Facility
It is heartening to see that the proportion of government as well as private schools with library
facility is quite high at each level of education (Table 15). It is noteworthy that in case of
government schools, around 84% primary, 89% upper primary, 91% secondary and 94% higher
secondary schools have library. The situation is slightly poor in case of private unaided schools,
where only 77% primary, 83% upper primary, 89% secondary and 91% higher secondary
schools have library. Thus, indicating availability of better library facility in the government
schools, the proportion of schools with library facility is also higher in private aided schools as
compared to private unaided at each level of education.
Table 15: Percentage Share of Schools with Library

Govt. Unrecognized
Primary 84.33 85.90 76.85 43.61 43.83 81.79
Upper Primary 88.83 87.17 83.09 68.07 59.46 86.48
Elementary 84.36 85.20 77.15 43.26 46.69 82.06
Secondary 91.14 92.24 89.58 67.53 77.10 90.36
Hr. Secondary 93.80 93.27 91.05 79.08 82.18 92.37
15
It is the north-eastern states like Manipur and Meghalaya are placed at the lowest rank with
around 7 – 8% primary schools, whether private or government, that have been provided with
library. Similarly Meghalaya also has the lowest proportion of upper primary government,
private aided and unaided schools with library facility and the situation is not that satisfactory in
other north-eastern states as well. Although, the proportion of schools with library facility is
much higher in case of secondary and higher secondary level but north-eastern states such as
Mizoram in case of higher secondary and Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya in case of
secondary need more attention for making schools equipped with library facility. It is
understandable that even primary schools need library facility for providing conducive learning
environment to its students and also for improving teaching learning process.
Computer Facility
It has been found that only 13% government primary and 37% government upper primary
schools have computer facility in it whereas more than 60% secondary and around 70% higher
secondary schools run by government are having computer facility (Table 16). However, much
higher proportion of private aided and unaided schools are found equipped with computers and
even 32% unrecognized schools are provided with computer facility. It is to be noted that
substantial proportion of recognized Madrasa are having computer facility. Thus, it is
understandable that a long way has to be covered to make computer aided learning a reality in
government schools particularly at the primary and upper primary level to deal with the problem
of digital divide in India.
Table 16: Percentage Share of Schools with Computer facility

Primary 13.13 45.80 54.73 31.84 18.56 22.34
Upper Primary 37.43 60.15 62.00 51.90 28.91 46.33
Elementary 16.63 52.08 53.44 30.88 20.71 25.23
Secondary 60.26 76.85 70.50 50.73 44.72 66.82
Hr. Secondary 68.99 84.84 68.76 62.32 49.65 71.39
As many as 17 states were recorded where not even 10% government primary schools could be
provided with computer facility. Bihar has only around 2% of government primary schools with
computer facility. For private aided schools, four states could be found with below 10% schools
with computer facility and out of these four states, Manipur with 3% schools with computer
secured the lowest position. Meghalaya is the only state where the lowest proportions of private
unaided schools (11%) were found with computer facility.
In case of upper primary, two states such as Jharkhand and Bihar (lowest with 3.8% schools)
were found with lowest proportion of government schools with computer facility and only
Assam is the state where only 2.5% private aided schools could be provided with computer
facility. The situation is much better in case of private unaided schools and Uttar Pradesh ranks
lowest with 27% schools that have been provided with computer facility.
16
In case of secondary and higher secondary schools, Madhya Pradesh has been identified as the
most deprived state in terms of computer facility in government schools. While around 18%
government secondary schools in the state have computer facility, this percentage is 28% in case
of higher secondary schools. In case of private aided secondary schools, the proportion of
schools with computer facility has been recorded merely less than 20% in Assam and Odisha but
in case of private unaided schools, further improvement has been found in availability of
computer facility in schools and the lowest proportion of schools with computer facility could be
found in Mizoram only, where the proportion of such school is 22%. The proportion of private
aided and unaided higher secondary schools with computer facility is nearly 20% in two states
such as Assam and Mizoram.
CAL Facility
It is noticeable that, despite having computers, the percentage share of schools with CAL facility
is very low at different levels including secondary and higher secondary levels and except
primary, much difference could not be found between government and private schools at other
levels (Table 17).
Table 17: Percentage Share of Schools with CAL

Primary 7.72 13.63 22.08 20.39 10.34 10.88
Upper Primary 22.51 19.04 25.22 36.15 16.57 23.21
Elementary 9.42 15.88 21.25 19.58 11.54 12.07
Secondary 27.56 27.01 30.60 27.99 21.92 28.63
Hr. Secondary 34.00 38.74 36.03 36.22 27.68 35.63
The state wise variation indicates that the majority of states (25) have less than 10% government
primary schools with CAL facility. The number of states gradually decreases along with increase
in the level of education such as 7 states at the upper primary level, 4 at the secondary and 2 at
the higher secondary level were found with less than 10% government schools with CAL
facility. The situation is not that satisfactory in case of private aided and unaided schools as 14
states have been recorded with less than 10% primary aided schools with CAL whereas in case
of unaided the number of such states is 8. The number of states with 10% schools having CAL
facility becomes 10 each for aided upper primary and secondary schools; 7 for higher secondary
schools whereas 5 each for unaided upper primary, secondary and higher secondary schools.
Enrolment in schools lacking different infrastructure facilities
In the above section it has been discussed how different schools are equipped with different
facilities. In this present section, an attempt has been made to look into the enrolment pattern in
government schools which lack some of the important physical facilities as given in the
following Table 18. It is found that around 2% of total enrolment has been recorded in the
government primary schools which have only one classroom. This proportion has declined to
17
0.03% at higher secondary level. It is disheartening to see that around 45-46% of enrolment has
been recorded in primary schools without electricity and playground facilities in it whereas more
than 80% enrolment in primary schools without computer (81%) and CAL (88%) facilities
despite having an ongoing program on computer aided learning at this stage. The proportion of
enrolment is also high in the schools without electricity, playground, computer etc. at the upper
primary, secondary and higher secondary level though it has shown a declining trend as the level
of education increases.
Table 18: Percentage share of enrolment in government schools according to different facilities at
different school levels
Upper Higher
Primary Secondary
Facilities Primary Secondary
One Classroom 2.20 0.32 0.13 0.03
Without Building 1.41 0.13 1.09 0.56
Without Boundary 37.9 27.72 21.39 13.30
Wall
Without Water 3.18 1.73 1.50 1.21
Without Toilet 4.66 1.85 4.08 2.60
Without Electricity 46.42 30.25 15.71 7.21
Without Playground 45.76 35.74 26.67 22.31
Without Computer 81.33 53.82 35.90 26.74
Without CAL 87.97 71.91 67.58 58.39
The EDI for infrastructure at primary and upper primary levels indicate that Karnataka is the state which
has improved its infrastructure facilities substantially as it rank first for both levels (Table 19). It is
noticeable that Madhya Pradesh and Meghalaya have also same rank at both levels but the situation is
quite alarming in both states particularly Meghalaya which holds lowest rank. There are few states which
have ranked higher in case of primary but hold lower rank in case of upper primary whereas some states
have shown reverse trend as well for example while Himachal Pradesh rank 2 for primary with 0.90
index, it has gone down to 3 rank in case of upper primary with 0.85 index. Similarly Gujarat ranking 5
for primary has improved to rank 2 in case of upper primary with a higher index (0.93).
Table 19: Educational Development Index for ‘Infrastructure’ at Primary and Upper Primary
Level in 2013-14
Primary level Upper Primary

State/UT State/UT
Rank Index Index Rank
Karnataka 1 0.91 0.932 1 Karnataka
Himachal Pradesh 2 0.903 0.929 2 Gujarat
Puducherry 3 0.889 0.851 3 Himachal Pradesh
Maharashtra 4 0.88 0.849 4 Daman & Diu
Gujarat 5 0.878 0.841 5 Punjab
Tamil Nadu 6 0.87 0.834 6 Puducherry
18
Kerala 7 0.869 0.829 7 Maharashtra

Punjab 8 0.863 0.823 8 Kerala
Lakshadweep 9 0.86 0.82 9 Tamil Nadu
Uttarakhand 10 0.858 0.818 10 Uttar Pradesh
Sikkim 11 0.849 0.815 11 Uttarakhand
Daman & Diu 12 0.832 0.81 12 Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh 13 0.82 0.802 13 Haryana
Haryana 14 0.813 0.784 14 Lakshadweep
Rajasthan 15 0.801 0.759 15 Chhattisgarh
Madhya Pradesh 16 0.779 0.75 16 Madhya Pradesh
Chhattisgarh 17 0.763 0.745 17 Sikkim
A & N Islands 18 0.738 0.736 18 D & N Haveli
D & N Haveli 19 0.729 0.715 19 Odisha
Goa 20 0.723 0.686 20 Manipur
Delhi 21 0.722 0.685 21 Mizoram
West Bengal 22 0.717 0.682 22 A & N Islands
Manipur 23 0.712 0.677 23 Jammu & Kashmir
Odisha 24 0.701 0.672 24 Jharkhand
Chandigarh 25 0.69 0.667 25 Delhi
Nagaland 26 0.686 0.66 26 Arunachal Pradesh
Mizoram 27 0.665 0.66 27 West Bengal
Jharkhand 28 0.653 0.657 28 Nagaland
Tripura 29 0.623 0.656 29 Chandigarh
Jammu & Kashmir 30 0.581 0.646 30 Bihar
Andhra Pradesh 31 0.567 0.616 31 Tripura
Assam 32 0.523 0.595 32 Andhra Pradesh
Bihar 33 0.516 0.546 33 Goa
Arunachal Pradesh 34 0.5 0.41 34 Assam
Meghalaya 35 0.317 0.358 35 Meghalaya
Total 25.8 25.315 Total
Source: Flash Statistics: 2013-14, DISE, NUEPA
Conclusion
The above discussion reveals that there has been gradual increase in number of private schools
resulting in an increasing trend in enrolment in these schools as well. This indicates that
increasingly parents are willing to spend money to send their children to private schools as it is
believed that private schools function much better as compared to government schools. However,
the above data analysis indicate that due to many initiatives taken by government at the national
and state level, some improvement has taken place in the government schools as well. It has been
found that most of the government schools across the country are now accessible by all weather
roads and these have its own building. Similarly improvement has also been made in terms of
availability of drinking water facility, toilets, classrooms, etc. However the situation is not that
19
satisfactory if we look at availability of some other facilities such as boundary wall, playground,
electricity and it is more challenging in case of availability of computer facility and CAL. It is
heartening to see that majority of schools government as well as private have library facility in it.
However, it is difficult to understand to what extent this library facility is being utilized by
learners and their teachers. It is also a matter of concern that schools without electricity,
playground, boundary wall, computer and CAL constitute a large proportion of enrolment at the
primary as well as other levels indicating that a substantial proportion of learners are not
accessing these facilities and that may have impact on their learning level. It is in this context
further challenge still remains to provide a conducive learning environment to all students by
equipping all government schools with essential infrastructure facilities and to reduce the
dichotomy between public and private education system.
Reference
Ajayi, I. A. (2002). Resource factors as correlates of secondary schools effectiveness in Ekiti

State, Nigerian Journal of Counseling and Applied Psychology, 1(1): 109-115.
Asiabaka, Ihumoa P. (2008). The Need for Effective Facility Management in Schools in Nigeria,
New York Science Journal, 2008; 1 (2): 10-21.
Bandyopadhyay, M. (2012a). Social Disparity in Elementary Education. Seminar, October, pp.

21–25.
Bandyopadhyay, M. (2012b). Gender equity in educational access in India. Southern African

Review of Education (SARE), Volume 18, Number 2: 9-24.
Bandyopadhyay, M. & Dey, M. (2010). Hierarchy in Access to Elementary School in Rajasthan

and Haryana: A Report, NUEPA, New Delhi (Memo).
Bandyopadhyay, M. & Dey, M. (2011). Effective School Management Committees, CREATE

India Policy Brief No. 4, NUEPA, New Delhi.
Bandyopadhyay, M., Das, D. & Zeitlyn, B. (2011). Absenteeism, Repetition and Silent Exclusion
in India, CREATE India Policy Brief No. 3, NUEPA, New Delhi.
Dayaram (2011). School Management Commitee and the Right to Education Act 2009 Resource
Material for SMC Training. America India Foundation, New Delhi.
Dayaram (2013). School Development Plan Under RTE Act 2009: School Mapping and Micro-
planning - Participatory Tool for School Development Plan. America India Foundation, New
Delhi.
De, A., Khera, R., Samson, M. & Kumar, A. K. Shiva (2011). Probe Revisited, A Report on
Elementary Education in India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Dreze & Kingdon (1999). School Participation in Rural India, The Development Economics
Discussion Paper Series, The Suntory Centre The Suntory and Toyota International Centres for
Economics and Related Disciplines London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London.
20
Govinda, R. & Bandyopadhyay, M., (2009). Educational Access in India, Country Policy Brief,
2008, Delhi/Brighton: NUEPA/University of Sussex.
Govinda, R. & Bandyopadhyay, M. (2011a). Access to Elementary Education: Analytical

Overview. In Govinda, R (ed.). Who Goes to School? Exploring Exclusion in Indian Education.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1–86.
Govinda, R. & Bandyopadhyay, M. (2011b). Overcoming Exclusion Through Quality Schooling.

CREATE, University of Sussex, U.K. Available at www.create-rpc.org [accessed 6 June 2013].
Govinda, R. & Bandyopadhyay, M. (2011c). Changing Framework of Local governance and

Community Participation in Elementary Education in India in Govinda, R (ed.). Who Goes to
School? Exploring Exclusion in Indian Education. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, P: 248-
285.
Hallack, J. (1990). Investing in the future: setting educational priorities in the developing world,
Paris: IIEP and Pergamon Press.
Jha, Jyotsna & Jhingran, Dhir (2005). Elementary Education for the poorest and other deprived
groups: The real challenge of universalization, Manohar Publishers, New Delhi
Kuuskropi, Marko & Gonzalez, Nuria Cabellos (2011). The future of the physical learning
environment: school facilities that support the user, CELE Exchange, OECD 2011
Lewin, K. M., (2007). Reconceptualising Access to Education, CREATE, Brighton, University

of Sussex. www.create-rpc.org.
Lewin, K. M., (2011). Making Rights Realities: Researching Educational Access, Transitions
and Equity, CREATE, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. www.create-rpc.org
Little, A. (2008). EFA Politics, policies and Progress, CREATE, Research Monograph, 13, Path
ways to Access. www.create-rpc.org
Mehrotra, Santosh (2006). Reforming elementary education in India: A menu of options,
International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 261-277.
NUEPA (2013). Elementary Education in India: Progress Towards UEE, Flash Statistics, DISE,
2011–12, Provisional; NUEPA, New Delhi.
NUEPA (2015) Elementary Education in India: Trends 2005-06 to 2014-15, DISE, New Delhi
NUEPA, DISE and U-DISE Data, 2014-15, unpublished, New Delhi
Pratham (2013). Annual Status of Education Report, Rural, 2012 ASER Centre, New Delhi.
Accesed in http://www.pratham.org/file/ASER-2012report.pdf on 28June, 2013.
Srivastava, Ravi S. (2006). The Impase Broken: Mapping Change in Elementary Education in
Uttar Pradesh in Santosh Mehrotra (ed.), The Economics of Elementary Education in India: The
Challenge of Public Finance, Private Provision and Household Costs, SAGE Publications, New
Delhi.
21

Paper On Physcial Facilities (Draft Prepared For CABE) - Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Paper On Physcial Facilities (Draft Prepared For CABE) - Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Draft

Present Status of Infrastructure Facilities

Dr. Madhumita Bandhopadhyay

National University of Educational Planning and Administration

Availability of Schools and Enrolment 3

Availability of Physical Facilities 7-17

Present Status of Infrastructure Facilities in Schools in India:

Dr. Madhumita Bandyopadhyay1

Despite considerable improvement in enrolment, many researches (Govinda & Bandyopadhyay,

Availability of Schools and Enrolment

School Private Private Madrasa Total

400000 319990 328845

Government Schools Private Schools

Similarly, 18 states such as Delhi, Jharkhand, Pondicherry, Tripura, Chandigarh, Arunachal

Table 2: Percentage share of Management-wise Enrolment at different levels of School Education

School Pvt. Private Recognized

Source: DISE: 2014-15, NUEPA

Table 3: Management wise Student Classroom Ratio at different School level

School Category Private Private Madrasa Total

Availability of Physical Facilities

All weather roads

Table 4: Percentage share of Schools Approachable by all weather Roads

School Private Private Madrasa Total

Table 5: Percentage Share of Schools with Building

School Private Private Madrasa Total

Table 6: Percentage share of Schools with Water Facility

School Private Private Madrasa Total

Functional drinking water facility

Table 7: Percentage Share of Schools having Functional Drinking Water Facility

School Private Private Madrasa Total

Table 8: Percentage Share of Schools with Girls’ Toilet Facility

School Private Private Madrasa Total

Table 9: Percentage Share of Schools with Boys’ Toilet Facility

School Private Private Madrasa Total

Table 11: Percentage Share of School with Boundary Walls

School Private Private Madrasa Total

School Private Private Madrasa Total

Table 13: Percentage share of Schools with Ramp Facility

School Category 2013-14 2014-15

Table 14: Percentage Share of Schools with Electricity Facility

School Private Private Madrasa Total

Secondary 84.52 89.58 91.21 66.92 75.72 87.70

School Private Private Madrasa Total

Table 16: Percentage Share of Schools with Computer facility

School Private Private Madrasa Total

Table 17: Percentage Share of Schools with CAL

School Private Private Madrasa Total

Enrolment in schools lacking different infrastructure facilities

Primary level Upper Primary

Kerala 7 0.869 0.829 7 Maharashtra

Ajayi, I. A. (2002). Resource factors as correlates of secondary schools effectiveness in Ekiti

Bandyopadhyay, M. (2012a). Social Disparity in Elementary Education. Seminar, October, pp.

Bandyopadhyay, M. (2012b). Gender equity in educational access in India. Southern African

Bandyopadhyay, M. & Dey, M. (2010). Hierarchy in Access to Elementary School in Rajasthan

Bandyopadhyay, M. & Dey, M. (2011). Effective School Management Committees, CREATE

Govinda, R. & Bandyopadhyay, M. (2011a). Access to Elementary Education: Analytical

Govinda, R. & Bandyopadhyay, M. (2011b). Overcoming Exclusion Through Quality Schooling.

Govinda, R. & Bandyopadhyay, M. (2011c). Changing Framework of Local governance and

Lewin, K. M., (2007). Reconceptualising Access to Education, CREATE, Brighton, University

NUEPA, DISE and U-DISE Data, 2014-15, unpublished, New Delhi

Você também pode gostar