State of Municipal Education In Mumbai - Praja Foundation

WHITE PAPER

State of Municipal Education In Mumbai December 2016

1

State of Municipal Education in Mumbai

Table of Contents Sr. No.

Title

Page No.

I

I. Foreword

4

II

II. Acknowledgement

5

Section I. Summary of RTI Data A. Outcome Indicators B. Annual Municipal Budget for Education C. Monitoring and Evaluation a) Teacher Inspection Reports b) Enquiries conducted against Teaching staff (Teachers/HMs) and suspensions c) Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation D. Compliance with norms laid down under Right to Education Act Section II. Deliberation by Municipal Councillors and MLAs Section III. Data from Household Survey III. Ward-wise Data Annexure 1 – Survey Methodology Annexure 2 – Socio Economic Classification (SEC) Note Annexure 3 – Inspection Report Form Annexure 4 – Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation Form Annexure 5- RTI response for District Profile Annexure 6 - Scholarship Circular for 2015-16 Chart Chart 1: Reasons for not being happy with Municipal School (%)

6 6 14 17 20 21 21 24 29 35 38 44 45 46 48 49 50

III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVII XVIII 1

37

Tables

2

Table 1: Total No. of Students (Enrolments) in Mumbai’s Municipal Schools 2011 - 2016 Table 2: Total Dropouts in Mumbai’s Municipal Schools 2011- 2016

7

3

Table 3: Transition Rate of Students from Class 7 to Class 8 in 2015-16

8

4

Table 4: Change in Total Enrolments 2008 to 2016

8

5

Table 5: Retention Rate in Municipal Schools- Class 1 to Class 7

9

6

Table 6: Change in Class I Enrolments 2008 to 2016

9

7

Table 7: Medium-wise Class I Enrolments 2009 to 2016

10

8

Table 8: Total Enrolments in Semi-English schools

10

9

Table 9: Total Dropouts in Semi-English schools

11

10

Table 10: Standards-wise Enrolment and Dropout in Semi-English schools Table 11: Standards-wise Enrolments and Dropouts in Mumbai Public Schools (MPS)

12

1

11

2

6

12


12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 46

3

Table 12: Comparison between MCGM and Private Schools: SSC Results Table 13: Comparison between Private and MCGM Schools: Scholarships for 4th and 7th Standard Table 14: Annual Municipal Budget and Per-capita allocation for Students

13

Table 15: Per-child Allocation and Expenditure (In Rs. Crore) Table 16: Budgeted vs. Actual Expenditure Summary 2014-16 for Primary Education(In Rs. Crore) Table 17: Strength of the School Inspection Unit 2012-16 Table 18: Inspection norms for School Inspectors Table 19: Medium-wise Inspectors 2014-16 Table 20: D, M/East and P/South ward Teacher Inspection Data Table 21: CCE data for Wards D, M/E and P/S for 2015-16 Table 22: Percentage of Students graded ‘E2’ i.e. continuously absent in wards D, M/E and P/Sin 2015-16 Table 23: Compliance with Infrastructure and other norms under RTE (2014-15) Table 24: Infrastructure of MCGM schools Table 25: Student Classroom Ratio (SCR)/Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) and Teacher Classroom Ratio in Mumbai Table 26: Medium Wise Pupil (Student) Teacher Ratio in 2015-16 Table 27: Schools with School Management Committees in 2014-15 Table 28: Number of questions asked and Number of meetings by Councillors on Education in all Committees Table 29: Category wise number of Questions asked by Councillors on Education Table 30: Questions asked by Education Committee Members in 2012-13 to 2015-16 Table 31: Ward-wise questions asked by councillors on Education in the year April’15 to March’16 Table 32: Issues raised/Questions asked by Councillors in the year April’15 to March’16 Table 33: Questions asked by MLAs on Education Table 34: Issue-wise questions asked by MLAs on Education Table 35: Current Medium of Education (%) Table 36: Respondents from Table 35 whose current medium of education is other than English and would want to change to English medium (%) Table 37: Respondents taking private tuitions/coaching classes (%) Table 38: Details on source of Tuitions (%) Table 39: Percentage happy with the School Table 40: Ward-wise Total Number of Students in Municipal Schools in Mumbai Table 41: Ward-wise drop in Enrolments between 2011-12 and 2015-16 Table 42: Ward-wise Total Number of Dropout in Municipal Schools in Mumbai Table 43: Ward-wise Total Number of Teachers in Municipal Schools in Mumbai Table 44:Ward-wise Total Number of Pass outs in Municipal Schools in Mumbai Table 45: Population-wise Number of Student in Government, Pvt. Aided, Pvt. Unaided and Unrecognised Schools in 2015-16

15

13 14 16 18 18 19 20 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 36 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43


I.

Foreword

The writing is on the wall, if the Municipal Corporation is going to continue the same standard of imparting education to the children, we will soon see that the people will stop sending their children to Municipal schools. Praja has been consistently monitoring the state and the running of our Municipal schools, since the last few years. We use RTI (Right to Information) to collect data on various parameters, amongst them is the enrolment of children to the 1st standard, in 2008-09 we saw an enrolment of 63,392 children which has fallen to now 34,549 in 2015-16. Through a time series analysis in our last year report we had predicted that in 2015-16 the number of students in class 1 will be 38,329. However the RTI data reveals that only 34,549 enrolled in class 1 in 2015-16, it is ‘worse’ than what we had predicted. If this slide continues than in 2019-20 we may have only 5,558 students enrolling in class 1. This issue and others matters such as the quality of education and performance of the children in the scholarship exams of the state government does not seem to be an issue when our Municipal Councillors, Municipal Commissioner and Education Department make huge budget allocations. They have nearly tripled the municipal budget in the last eight years (since 2008-09 to 2016-17) from 911 crores to 2,567 crores. Mumbai Corporation plans to spend this year 49,835 rupees on every student. More and more parents are opting out of the municipal education system. Shouldn’t this be answered by our political leaders and the municipal commissioner? However, when we bring our report based on analysis of government data every year, the standard response that we get is DENIAL. Denial of the fact that class 1 enrolments have dropped by 45% in the last seven years (since 2008-09 to 2015-16). Denial of the fact that for every one student getting scholarship in standard 7th in municipal schools there are 134 students in private schools. Good Governance is based on the principles of Accountability, Transparency and Efficiency. It needs to be measured by its Outputs and Outcomes corresponding to the Inputs. If we keep this ostrich like attitude then in the next ten years we will see only a municipal education budget for teachers and establishment, but no students! Are we the people of Mumbai ready for this?

NITAI MEHTA Managing Trustee, Praja Foundation

4


II.

Acknowledgement

Praja has obtained the data used in compiling this report card through Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence it is very important to acknowledge the RTI Act and everyone involved, especially from the officials who have provided us this information diligently. We are also most grateful to – our Elected Representatives, the Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and journalists who utilise and publicise our data and, by doing so, ensure that awareness regarding various issues we discuss is distributed to a wide ranging population. We would also like to extend our gratitude to all government officials for their cooperation and support. This report has been made possible by the support provided to us by our friends, supporters, volunteers and interns. We would particularly like to appreciate the help provided by Prasad Baliga, who volunteered with us and helped us to analyse some of the key data points in this report. It’s important here to acknowledge Hansa Research for conducting the opinion poll. We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to all. Praja Foundation also appreciates the support given by our supporters and donors, namely European Union, Friedrich Naumann Foundation, Dasra, TATA Trusts, Narotam Sekhsaria Foundation and Madhu Mehta Foundation. We would like to thank our group of Advisors & Trustees and lastly but not the least, we would like to acknowledge the contributions of all members of Praja’s team, who worked to make this report a reality..

Madhu Mehta Foundation Tata Trusts have supported Praja Foundation in this project. The Trusts believe in a society of well-informed citizens and it is to this effect that Tata Trusts supports Praja’s efforts to communicate with and enable citizens to interact with their administration through innovative and effective methods.

5


Section I. Summary of RTI Data

A. Outcome Indicators Table 1: Total No. of Students (Enrolments) in Mumbai’s Municipal Schools 2011 - 2016 Year Total Students % Change in Enrolments Year on Year

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

439,153

434,523

404,251

397,085

383,485

0.3%

-1.1%

-7%

-2%

-3%

73992 -19.50% 116111 -7.20% 66467 14.77% 106918 -3.48% 5299 -6.81% 2549 -9.87% 6065 -15.31% 2062 -9.56%

71454 -3.43% 119384 2.82% 71260 7.21% 105307 -1.51% 4956 -6.47% 2526 -0.90% 5954 -1.83% 1870 -9.31%

Medium-wise 1 Change in Enrolments Year on Year (%) No. 116086 103048 91919 % -6.9% -11.2% -10.8% No. 136361 137315 125120 % 3% 0.7% -8.9% No. 48474 57235 57915 % 22.2% 18.1% 1.2% No. 113935 114521 110776 % 2.1% 0.5% -3.3% No. 8083 7037 5686 % -10.4% -12.9% -19.2% No. 3966 3601 2828 % -8.1% -9.2% -21.5% No. 8275 8011 7161 % -12.3% -3.2% -10.6% No. 3266 2978 2280 % 0.2% -8.8% -23.4% 0F

Marathi Hindi English Urdu Gujarati Kannada Tamil Telugu Inference:

•

Enrolment of students in Marathi medium schools has decreased 38% in last five years from academic year 2011-12 to academic year 2015-16.

•

Enrolments in schools run by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) have dropped by 55,668 students in the last five years.

1

In 2014-15, Data presented does not include enrolment from 49 secondary schools of 14 wards, as medium wise data was not provided by the respective Public Information Officers.

6


Table 2: Total Dropouts in Mumbai’s Municipal Schools 2011- 2016 Year

2011-2012 32,580

Dropouts 2 1F

7

Dropouts (per 100)

2012-2013

2013-14

40,011

47,218

9

12

3

2F

2014-15

2015-16

51,741

57,788

13

15

4

Medium-wise Dropouts Year on Year (%) 3F

Marathi Hindi English Urdu Gujarati Kannada Tamil Telugu

No.

6523

6859

6817

7724

9320

%

5.6%

6.7%

7.4%

10.4%

13.0%

No.

13178

19332

21283

21744

27343

%

9.7%

14.1%

17.0%

18.7%

22.9%

No.

2596

2750

3346

3543

3986

%

5.4%

4.8%

5.8%

5.3%

5.6%

No.

8918

9681

14496

15731

15834

%

7.8%

8.5%

13.1%

14.7%

15.0%

No.

370

377

257

320

303

%

4.6%

5.4%

4.5%

6.0%

6.1%

No.

247

291

297

273

261

%

6.2%

8.1%

10.5%

10.7%

10.3%

No. %

318 3.8%

354 4.4%

472 6.6%

396 6.5%

No.

394

335

221

239

440 7.4% 253

%

12.1%

11.2%

9.7%

11.6%

13.5%

Inference: • •

Drop out per 100 students has increased steadily over last five years. 15 students dropped out per 100 students in the academic year 2015-16. Drop out of students from Marathi medium schools has gone up by 7.4% over last 5 years.

2

From 2008, Praja Foundation has been collecting data on number of dropouts in MCGM schools, through RTI applications to the A.O. School’s Office. In 2011, in response to our RTI application on number of dropouts, we were given data on number of students ‘continuously absent’ (सततगैरहजर) /E2) and informed that the Department no longer maintains numbers of dropouts. As per the Right to Education Act, the Department maintains data on students continuously absent. Hence, since the 2011-12 academic year, we are using numbers of ‘continuously absent’ students as an indicator of dropouts. 3 In 2013-14 data presented does not include dropouts from secondary schools of 12 wards, as incomplete data was provided by the respective Public Information Officers. 4 In 2014-15 data presented does not include dropout from 49 secondary schools of 14 wards, as medium wise data was not provided by the respective Public Information Officers.

7


Table 3: Transition Rate of Students from Class 7 to Class 8 in 2015-16 Standard

Academic Year

Total Enrolment

7

2014-15

47245

8

2015-16

24869

Transition Rate 47%

Inference: The Transition Rate 5 of students studying in Class 7 in 2014-15 to Class 8 in 2015-16 in MCGM schools was only 47% in 2015-16. 4F

Table 4: Change in Total Students (Enrolment) 2008 to 2016 Year

Total Enrolments

% Change Year on Year

2008-09

451,810

-

2009-10

455,900

0.9

2010-11

437,863

-4.0

2011-12

439,153

0.3

2012-13

434,523

-1.1

2013-14

404,251

-7.0

2014-15

397,085

-1.8

2015-16

383,485

-3.4

2016-17*

368,500

-3.9

2017-18*

350,957

-4.8

2018-19* 2019-20* 2020-21*

330,856 308,198 282,982

-5.7 -6.8 -8.2

Inference: • •

Total number of enrolment in MCGM schools has declined from 2008-09 to 2015-16, with a difference of 68,325. The total enrolment in academic year 2015-16 has gone down by 3.4% compared to the 2014-15. (*) Using a time-series regression we have estimated the year on year trend in total student enrolment, extrapolating this to the next five academic years from 2016-17 to 2020-2021.

5

The number of students admitted to the first grade of a higher level of education in a given year, expressed as a percentage of the number of pupils (or students) enrolled in the final grade of the lower level of education in the previous year.

8


Table 5: Retention Rate in Municipal Schools- Class 1 to Class 7 Standard

Academic Year

Total Enrolments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17* 2017-18*

53729 58683 55923 55886 51411 46789 45559

Retention Rate (%) Year on Year 109.2 104.1 104.0 95.7 87.1 84.8

Inference: • •

Retention Rate of students at the primary level is only 95.7% i.e. 4% of the students who enrolled in class I in 2011-12, did not make it to class 5 in 2015-16. (*) Using a time-series regression we have tried to estimate the year on year trend in retention rates extrapolating this to the next two academic years 2016-17 and 2017-18. We find that at the current rate, only 84.8% of students who enrolled in Class I in 2011-12 will make it to class 7 in 2017-18.

Table 6: Change in Class I Enrolments 2008 to 2016 Year

No. of students enrolled in Class I

% Change Year on Year

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

63,392 67,477 62,587 53,729 46,913

6.4 -7.2 -14.2 -12.7

2013-14

39,663

-15.5

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17* 2017-18* 2018-19* 2019-20*

39,214 34,549 29,199 22,583 14,703 5,558

-1.1 -11.9 -15.5 -22.7 -34.9 -62.2

Inference: •

•

9

The number of students enrolling in Class I of MCGM schools has been steadily declining between 2008-09 and 2015-16. In the last eight years, enrolments have gone down by 45%. This implies that if 100 students enrolled in Class I in 2008-09, in comparison only 55 students enrolled in Class I in 2015-16. (*) Using a time-series regression we have estimated the year on year trend in Class I enrolments extrapolating this to the next four academic years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. We find that at the current rate, enrolments in Class I of MCGM schools are likely to dip to 5,558 students only.


Table 7: Medium-wise 6 Class I Enrolments 2010 to 2016 5F

20102011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

No. of Students

Marathi

13616

10776

-21

8697

-19

7365

-15

7131

-3

6104

-14

Hindi

19863

16756

-16

13858

-17

11232

-19

10844

-3

9141

-16

English

8642

9086

5

9278

2

8437

-9

9226

9

8726

-5

Urdu

17075

14346

-16

12990

-9

10851

-16

10377

-4

9069

-13

Gujarati

1202

880

-27

716

-19

580

-19

501

-14

420

-16

Kannada

532

444

-17

316

-29

241

-24

241

0

189

-22

Tamil Telugu

1003 442

821 353

-18 -20

619 256

-25 -27

609 212

-2 -17

543 188

-11 -11

539 174

-1 -7

6F

No. of Students

No. of Students

(%) Y1 to Y2

2015-2016

No. of Students

Medium

(%) Y1 to Y2

2014-2015

(%) Y1 7 to Y2

No. of Students

(%) Y1 to Y2

No. of Students

(%) Y1 to Y2

Inference: There has been a consistent drop in Class I enrolments across all mediums of instruction, except English, between 2010-11 and 2015-16.

Table 8: Total Enrolments in Semi-English schools 8 7F

No. of Schools Standards No. of Students

2012-2013 2013-2014 11 183 1st 1st to 2nd 576 7514 Medium-wise Enrolments 263 4464 28 313 2940

2014-2015 363 1st to 3rd 19427

2015-2016 575 1st to 4th 39409

Marathi 10774 16441 Hindi 1263 7715 Urdu 7169 14488 Gujarati 15 170 Kannada 14 77 Tamil 82 182 457 Telugu 10 61 Total enrolment of students in semi-English classes has seen an increase from 2012-13 to 2015-16 with only 576 students in 2012-13 while in 2015-16, the number has gone up to 39,409 across class 1 to class 4. Enrolment of students is highest in Marathi medium with 16,441 students being enrolled in the year 2015-16. 6

Data presented does not include enrolment from 49 secondary schools of 14 wards, as medium wise data was not provided by the respective Public Information Officers. 7 Y1 to Y2 is percentage change year-on-year for given academic years. 8 Semi-English Schools were started in 2012-13 with gradation in classes from class 1 to class 4.

10


Table 9: Total Dropouts in Semi-English schools No. of Schools Standards No. of Students Dropouts Dropouts per 100

Marathi Hindi Urdu Gujarati Kannada Tamil Telugu

In no. Dropouts per 100 In no. Dropouts per 100 In no. Dropouts per 100 In no. Dropouts per 100 In no. Dropouts per 100 In no. Dropouts per 100 In no. Dropouts per 100

2012-2013 2013-2014 11 183 1st 1st to 2nd 576 7514 74 216 13 3 Medium-wise Dropouts 31 124 12 3

43 14

92 3

2014-2015 363 1st to 3rd 19427 1149 6

2015-2016 575 1st to 4th 39409 3725 9

653 6 34 3 462 6

1930 12 756 10 1031 7 1 0.59 1 1 4 0.88 2 3

Inference: With increase in enrolment, dropout is also seen to be increasing across all the medium of instructions, with 9 students dropping out of semi-English schools out of 100 across. Drop out in Marathi medium is 12 out 100 students which is steadily increasing from 2012-13 to 2015-16.

11


Table 10: Standards-wise Enrolment and Dropout in Semi-English schools Year 2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

Standards Enrolments Dropouts Dropouts per 100 Enrolments Dropouts Dropouts per 100 Enrolments Dropouts Dropouts per 100 Enrolments Dropouts Dropouts per 100

1 576 74 13 6949 135 2 11205 267 2 18729 901 5

2

3

4

565 81 14 7653 779 10 12415 1680 14

569 103 18 7703 1033 13

562 111 20

Inference: Enrolment of students in class 1 is increasing since the inception from 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively, but in class 4 dropout is highest with 20 students dropping out of 100 although the class started in 201516.

Table 11: Standards-wise Enrolments and Dropouts in Mumbai Public Schools (MPS) Stand ard Jr. Kg Sr. Kg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Enrolm ents 2527 3092 3618 3156 2925 2415 1646 973 452 0 0 0 20804

2013-14 Drop Dropouts out per 100 35 1 68 2 31 1 200 6 243 8 172 7 125 8 54 6 26 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 954 5

Enrolm ents 2651 4317 4097 3906 3504 3171 2502 1783 1064 469 0 0 27464


Enrolm ents 3321 3724 4097 4156 3889 3475 3059 2501 1809 1370 402 0 31803


Inference: Enrolment of students is increasing in MPS schools across all classes with 20,804 students in 2013-14 to 31,803 in 2015-16; though the dropout has remained almost constant from 2013-14 to 2015-16.

12


Table 12: Comparison between MCGM and Private Schools: SSC Results Year Mar-11

No. of Candidates Appeared MCGM Private School School 11,515 159,572

Total Pass MCGM Private School School 6,806 131,230

Pass in (%) MCGM Private School School 82 59

Mar-12

12,466

164,526

7,623

136,187

61

83

Mar-13

12,856

164,010

7,658

131,785

60

80

Mar-14

12,379

159,621

8,267

132,626

67

83

Mar-15

10,779 10,824

159,913 153,754

7,809 7,824

136,686 131,738

72 72

85 86

Mar-16

Percentage of students passing SSC exams from MCGM schools in academic year 2015-16 has remained same as 2014-15; while the number of students appearing for SSC exams from MCGM schools has slightly increased and the number of students appearing for SSC exams from private schools has decreased considerable compared to 2014-15.

Table 13: Comparison between Private and MCGM Schools: Scholarships 9for 4th and 7th Standard 8F

Year 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Middle School Scholarship Examination (4th Standard) Candidates Appeared Scholarship Holders Scholarship Holders in % MCGM Private MCGM Private MCGM Private School School School School School School 9,637 21,998 43 2,044 0.4% 9.3% 5,426 21,223 23 1,954 0.4% 9.2% 2,621 20,660 33 1,944 1.3% 9.4% 5,634 19,351 1.6% 9.8% 88 1,889 4th std. Scholarship exam was not conducted in the year 2015-16* High School Scholarship Examination (7th Standard) 7,160 19,227 8 1,758 0.1% 9.1% 4,283 20,190 6 1,611 0.1% 8.0% 1,727 19,982 2 1,615 0.1% 8.1% 12 1,605 3,799 18,284 0.3% 8.8% th 7 std. Scholarship exam was not conducted in the year 2015-16*

Note: (*) The scholarship data given in the above table is from the academic year 2011-12 to 2014-15; the data does not represent scholarship for the academic year 2015-16. Scholarship exams were not conducted for standard 4th and 7th in the academic year 2015-16. As per the government GR for scholarship; academic year 2016-17 onwards, scholarship exams will be conducted for class 5th and 8th. Refer Annexure 6. The scholarship exams are conducted by the Maharashtra State Council of Examinations: 1.To undertake talent search at the end of Primary Schooling i.e. at the end of 4th or 7th Standard. 2. To nurture and encourage the talented and deserving students by recognising and provide them financial support. (Source: MAHARASHTRA STATE COUNCIL OF EXAMINATIONS - http://msce.mah.nic.in/home.htm)

9

13


B. Annual Municipal Budget for Education Table 14: Annual Municipal Budget and Per-capita allocation for Students Year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Total Annual Budget (Rs. in crores) 911 1,255 1,761 1,800 2,388 2,613 2,773 2,630 2,567

Total Students 451,810 449,179 437,863 439,153 434,523 404,251 397,085 383,485 383,485

Inference: • •

14

According to the 2015-16 budget estimates, the annual MCGM Budget for Education (primary and secondary) has remained somewhat same from last three years. The Budget Allocation has almost tripled between 2008-09 and 2015-16, while the no. of students has gone down by 15% (i.e. 68,325 students).


Table 15: Per-child Allocation and Expenditure (In Rs. Crore)

Account Head

Budget Estimate 2014-15

Actual Expenditure 2014-15

Primary Education 2,313 1,870 345 76 2,658 1,945 Secondary Education 111 81 Total Revenue Expenses Total Project works/Capital Expenses (B) 4 115 81 Total secondary education (ii) 2,773 2,027 Total Education Budget (C) (i + ii = C) 73% % Utilisation Less: Grants to Private Primary aided 415 360 School (D) 2,358 1,667 Total (C-D) 397,085 397,085 Total students Per Capita cost for every student (in 59,375 41,972 actual rupees) Less: Total Project works/Capital 764 436 Expenses and Grants(A+B+D=E) 2,009 1,591 Total (C-E) Per Capita cost for every student (in 50,586 40,066 actual rupees) Total Revenue Expenses Total Project works/Capital Expenses (A) Total Primary education (i)


Actual Expenditure 2015-16


2,144 357 2,501

1,578 110 1,688

2,070 325 2,394

119 10 129 2,630

88 3 91 1,779

142 31 173 2,567

256

254

300

2,374 383,485

1,524 383,485

2,267 383,485

61,894

39,744

59,115

623

367

656

2,007

1,411

1,911

52,326

36,807

49,835

68%

Inference: • Per child allocation for municipal school students has decreased to 59,115 as per the Budget Estimates of 2016-17. The estimate takes into account the revenues as well as the capital expenses. • Per child Actual expenditure was Rs. 41,972 in 2014-15 while it was Rs.39,744 in 2015-16. • Utilisation of budget in 2015-16 has decreased to 68% compared to 2014-15 when the Utilisation of budget was 73%.

15


Table 16: Budgeted vs. Actual Expenditure Summary 2014-16 for Primary Education (In Rs. Crore)

Sr. No 1 2 3 3a 3b 3c 3d

Account Head Establishment Expenses Administrative Expenses Operation and Maintenance 10

201314

Actual 201415

201516

% Utilisation 2013- 2014- 2015 14 15 -16

831

876

901

655

709

690

79%

81%

77%

62

86

85

53

67

57

84%

78%

67%

224

183

106

50

96

81

22%

53%

77%

Incentive to Girl Students Consumables

6 114

7 74

6 1

4 0

1 0

4 -

67% 0%

13% 0%

63% 0%

School Stores

82

84

84

41

89

69

50%

106%

82%

Other O&M

22

19

15

4

6

8

19%

33%

54%

0

0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

98%

98%

98%

21

24

18

6

10

3

30%

42%

14%

966

1,139

1,022

720

833

724

75%

73%

71%

-

-

-

16

19

23

10

4

11

-

134

-

0%

3359%

0%

2,115

2,313

2,144

(172) 1,501

137 1,870

117 1,578

71%

81%

74%

357

345

357

127

76

110

36%

22%

31%

2,472

2,658

2,501

1,748

1,628

1,945

66%

73%

67%

9F

Finance and Interest Charges Programme 5 Expenses Revenue Grants, Contribution & 6 Subsidies Depreciation & 7 Others Provision for doubtful receivables/refund 8 of tax 9 Prior Period Total Revenue Expenses Project Works/Capital Expenses Grand Total 4

Budget Estimates 20132014- 201514 15 16

Inference: Utilisation of revenue budget was 67% in 2015-16 while it was 73% in 2014-15. Utilisation of program expenses dropped to 14% in 2015-16. Operations and Maintenance utilisation was 77% in 2015-16 which has increased, compared to 2014-15 when it was 53%.

10

Break up of Operation and Maintenance for 2012-13 were under different heads therefore overall figure has been given.

16


C. Monitoring and Evaluation The MCGM Department of Education is broadly divided into two wings: the Administrative wing and the Academic Wing. The Municipal Commissioner is at the top of its hierarchy, followed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner (Education), the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Education) and the Education Officer, in that order. Below is the hierarchy 11 of the two wings: 10F

Education Officer

Administrative Setup Academic Setup

Deputy Education Officers

Administrative Officer (A.O. Schools)

Superintendent (Schools)

School Inspectors

Head Clerks and Clerks Schools, HM, Dy. HM, Teachers etc.

Out of the 50-odd functions 12 assigned to a School Inspector of the MCGM Education Department, some of the important functions are as follows: • Pay 40 surprise visits to all MPS/Primary/Secondary/Private Primary Schools in a month • Check monthly reports of schools, prepare a compiled report for the senior management • Compile all statistical information received from schools • Collect information related to the Right to Information Act • Act as the Representative of the Education Department in the School Management/Parent Teacher Committees of Secondary schools • Check all schools bills such as electricity, broadband, other accounts of schools etc. • Conduct 100% evaluation of all students with respect to the three R’s- reading, writing and basic arithmetic and ensure that all students meet basic learning outcomes with respect to them • Ensure that no student drops out of school and provide guidance to Headmasters/Principals to achieve the same • Ensure compliance of schools with the norms laid down under Section 19 and Section 25 of the Right to Education Act. 1F

Thus, Inspectors form a critical link between the Education Department and schools on the ground. They are entrusted with various important roles and responsibilities that are indispensable in the academic and administrative setup of the Department. However, we find that apart from the pivotal functions of keeping a check on the teaching-learning processes in classrooms, school inspectors are saddled with a wide range of administrative duties. 11

The chart has been simplified for representation purposes. Hence, some levels of hierarchy have not been shown separately. Source: http://portal.mcgm.gov.in/irj/go/km/docs/documents/MCGM%20Department%20List/Education%20Officer/RTI% 20Manuals/Education_Officer_RTI_E01.pdf 12 Source: Information received from Department of Education, MCGM under Right to Information Act (2005).

17


Table 17: Strength of the School Inspection Unit 2012-16 Year

Sanctioned

Working

Gap

Gap (In %)

2012-13

132

75

-57

-43%

2013-14

132

76

-56

-42%

2014-15

132

80

-52

-39%

2015-16

132

74

-58

-44%

Inference: In 2015-16 academic year, there was a 44% gap in the sanctioned and working posts of School Inspectors in the Department of Education.

Table 18: Inspection norms for School Inspectors Medium of Instruction Marathi Urdu/Hindi/Gujarati Tamil/English/Telugu/Kannada

18

City/Suburbs City Suburbs City/Suburbs City/Suburbs

Number of Teachers per Inspector 300 250 250 250

Maximum No. of schools per Inspector 25 25 25 25


Table 19: Medium-wise Inspectors 2014-16 Teacher 13

Available Inspectors

12F

Medium of Instruction

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

201514 16

201213

13F

201314

201415

Teachers per Inspector 201516

2012 -13

2013 -14

201415

201516

Marathi

4829

4,196

3900

2809

26

32

31

30

186

131

126

94

Hindi

3360

3,405

3351

2978

19

20

21

20

177

170

160

149

English

1196

1,227

1413

1320

10

12

15

15

120

102

94

88

Urdu

3087

2,986

2998

2727

9

11

11

343

271

273

341

Gujarati

398

363

349

274

1

1

2

8 1

398

363

175

274

Kannada

142

125

116

152

1

0

0

0

142

NA

NA

NA

Tamil

327

295

280

221

0

0

0

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Telugu

108

96

89

74

0

0

0

NA

NA

NA

82

0

0

0

0 0

NA NA

NA

NA

NA

9

0

0

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

75

76

80

74

179

167

156

144

M.R.* Other Departme nt 15 14F

Total

13447

12693

12496

10637

Inference: • • •

As per Department of Education norms 16, one school inspector is allocated up to 250 to 300 teachers and a maximum of 25 schools. The inspector is expected to carry out inspections for all teachers and schools allocated to him/her in a given academic year. In reality, on an average, a school inspector is in charge of 144 teachers. However, the numbers vary across different mediums of instruction. There are no inspectors for Kannada, Tamil and Telugu medium schools. For Gujarati medium schools, there is only 1 inspector for 274 teachers. 15F

Note (*): Between academic years 2012-13 and 2014-15, M.R. (Mentally Retard) data used to be given by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan having included it in other mediums of instruction, but in the academic year 2015-16 Sarva Shikha Abhiyan could not produce this data, hence Praja has taken it from the data that is received through RTIs from all 24 wards of MCGM.

13

Source: Information received from Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, MCGM Department of Education under Right to Information Act (2005) 14 We used to receive this data for last 3 years from Hindu Colony, but in the academic year 2015-16 we did not receive this data from Hindu colony, hence we have used RTI data obtained from all 24 wards of MCGM 15 In 2012-13, the inspectors were also give work of other department like Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, District tanning center, Virtual Class room and so on than the Medium inspections. 16 Source: Information received from MCGM Department of Education under Right to Information Act (2005).

19


a) Teacher Inspection Reports 17 16F

Table 20: D, M/East and P/South ward Teacher Inspection Data Particulars of Inspection Form Dropout (Per 100) Pass out (In %) No. of teachers

D Ward 20 71 100

M/E Ward 24 50 1161

P/S Ward 20 67 371

No. of teachers inspection reports provided

31

398

74

% Usage of examples, case study while teaching

Usage

31

34

20

Usage of Teaching/Aids (Equipment/material)

Yes

94

99

97

Student Involvement Formative 18 Evaluation Technique Used

Good Yes

94 94

64 92

85 92

Teacher Student Interaction Entries in the daily lesson plan and actual teaching

good Proper

97 87

99 92

96 81

Self-evaluation by the teacher Prepared test papered or question paper Teacher’s Portfolio Subject wise student’s response

Good Prepared Good Good

94 32 74 48 77

83 21 98 68 71

93 41 64 61 91

17F

Inference: • While every teacher is supposed to be evaluated in a given academic year, we received inspection forms for only 31% teachers in D ward, 34% teachers in M/E ward and 20% in P/S ward. • With regards to particulars of inspection, majority of the teachers were rated ‘Good’ on most parameters such as usage of examples/case studies and teaching aids, entries in the daily lesson plan and actual teaching. Teacher Inspection Reports are filled out by school inspectors after evaluation of teachers in Municipal Schools. Annexure 3 has the detailed questionnaire that the school inspector fills in his/her report. We studied a sample of Teacher Inspection reports filled out in the academic year 2015-16, to understand the inspection process followed in MCGM schools, and assess the rigor with which the inspections are carried out. For the purpose of our analysis, we selected one ward each from the eastern suburbs, western suburbs and the island city: D ward, M/E ward and P/S ward, based on the high dropout and low pass out rates of these wards in the 2015-16 academic year as compared to other wards in the region. 17

The Teacher Inspection Form used in the Academic Year 2015-16 is attached in Annexure 3. Evaluation is taken at varying intervals throughout a course to provide information and feedback that will help improve the quality of student learning and the quality of the course itself. Example: Asking students to submit 1 or 2 sentences identifying the main point of a lecture. 18

20


b) Enquiries conducted against Teaching staff (Teachers/HMs) and suspensions We filed an RTI application with the Education Department regarding enquiries conducted against teaching staff and the reasons for the same. We also asked for information on whether any staff member’s services were terminated and the reasons for the same. Our objective was to get a better understanding of the accountability mechanisms in place in the Education Department; whether teaching staff is held accountable for not performing their duties. We found that in the academic years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16: • •

Enquiries were conducted against 66 staff members (headmasters, Dy. Headmasters and teacher/trainers) 19 staff members were terminated from services for various reasons.

c) Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) refers to a system of school-based assessment of students that is designed to cover all aspects of students' development. The new evaluation system was introduced under the Right to Education Act (2009). It is a developmental process of assessment which emphasizes on two fold objectives, continuity in evaluation, and assessment of broad based learning and behavioural outcomes. The scheme is thus a curricular initiative, attempting to shift emphasis from memorizing to holistic learning. It aims at creating citizens possessing sound values, appropriate skills and desirable qualities besides academic excellence. It is hoped that this will equip the learners to meet the challenges of life with confidence and success. It is the task of school based co-scholastic assessment to focus on holistic development that will lead to lifelong learning. As per the guidelines for evaluation, teachers should aim at helping the child to obtain minimum C2 grade. It will be compulsory for a teacher and school to provide extra guidance and coaching to children who score grade D or below, and help them attain minimum C2 grade. Under any circumstances, no child should be detained in the same class. We studied CCE forms of students studying in the 4th and 7thStd of MCGM schools in the following three wards: D, M/E and P/S Following is the marking scheme used under CCE:

A1 and A2 as A (marks between 100% to 81%), B1and B2 as B (marks between 80% to 61%) C1 and C2 as C (marks between 60% to 40%), Less than C2 is below 40%. ‘Less than C2’ in turn includes three grades: D, E1 and E2 D: 33% to 40% E1: Students that have never been enrolled in a school. This is an indicator of out of school children. E2: As per RTE norms, students continuously absent for a month or more are graded as E2 under the CCE system. This is an indicator of students who are irregular in their attendance.

21


Table 21: CCE data for Wards D, M/E and P/S for 2015-16 Std.

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

Less than C2

12.6 12.5

3.4 3.9

34.5 26.3

1st Language 4th 7th

3.2 5.0

10.3 14.3

17.1 19.7

18.9 18.2 2nd Language

4th

3.6

9.9

19.5

21.6

9.3

1.2

34.9

7th

4.7

12.3

17.4

17.4

15.4

6.4

26.3

3rd Language 4th

3.2

11.0

16.3

19.1

11.4

3.5

35.4

7th

3.6

12.1

18.5

18.1

15.0

6.3

26.3

Maths 4th

4.0

12.1

19.2

18.3

9.7

2.2

34.5

7th

4.2

13.8

21.1

19.9

11.3

3.4

26.4

11.4

3.1

34.5

13.2

5.4

26.3

13.8

5.9

26.3

Science/Social Science 4th

3.5

11.0

17.4

19.0 Science

7th

5.3

14.3

18.6

16.9 Social Science

7th

5.8

13.0

17.6

17.6

Table 22: Percentage of Students graded ‘E2’ i.e. continuously absent in wards D, M/E and P/S in 2015-16 Std. 4th 7th

E2 31% 23%

Inference: • •

22

31% of students studying in Std. 4 in wards D, M/E and P/S remained continuously absent (E2) in the academic year 2015-16 23% of studying in Std. 7 in wards D, M/E and P/S remained continuously absent (E2) in the academic year 2015-16.


Notes on Data: The data presented in Tables 21 and 22 has been compiled from two applications to the Administrative Officer of Schools of wards D, M/E and P/S under the Right to Information Act: •

We had applied to the Administrative Officer (A.O.) of Schools for copies of the Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) reports of students of std. 4 and std. 7 of all schools in their wards. In our application, we had also specifically asked for number of students graded as ‘E2’ i.e. students continuously absent as per RTE norms. However, incomplete data was provided to us, as CCE reports for all schools were not furnished. Only the summary tables were provided for most schools (i.e. Grades A1 to Less than C2); the number of ‘E2’ students was not provided by all schools. The data presented in Table 20 for grades ‘A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 and Less than C2’ has been compiled from the above source.

•

The compiled data for all schools about the progress reports of children as per CCE was not available with the A.O. Schools office. Moreover, even in case of data collected from schools, 100% data has not been provided. Data on the number of students graded as ’E2’ in Table 20 was also collected from the A.O.s, under a separate application asking for continuously absent students.

This is a telling comment on the quality of monitoring and evaluation at the administrative level, as the data recording, collation and management systems are found to be weak.

23


D. Compliance with norms laid down under Right to Education Act 19* Table 23: Compliance with Infrastructure and other norms under RTE 20(2014-15) 18F

19F

Indicator : Schools with Infrastructure Facilities Available

Govt. and Local bodies

Private Aided

Private Unaided

Unrecognised

Total Schools

1252 3,91,772 12496 1252 100% 1180

436 1,53,058 3600 436 100% 428

665 3,15,877 6876 665 100% 640

80 14401 409 80 100% 78

94.25% 1002

98.17% 281

96.24% 288

97.50% 58

80.03% 1155 92.25%

64.45% 409 93.81%

43.31% 560 84.21%

72.50% 65 81.25%

1252 100%

419 96.10%

626 94.14%

78 97.50%

%

1252 100%

427 97.94%

647 97.29%

79 98.75%%

Number

1252

436

665

80

% Number

100% 296

100% 94

100% 178

100% 23

%

23.64% 1177 94.01%

21.56% 410 94.04%

26.77% 610 91.73%

28.75% 72 90%

No. of Student No. of Teacher Building Office cum store cum HM room One class room for every teacher Ramp Separate Toilet for Boys Separate Toilet for Girls Drinking Water Facility Kitchen Shed (Govt. &Aided Schools) Boundary Wall Playground

Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number

Number % Number

1113

379

588

70

%

88.90% MCGM

86.93%

88.42% Private

80%

Number

7,809

1,36,686

%

72%

85%

Number

88

1,889

Indicator: Outcomes SSC Middle School Scholarship (4th) High School Scholarship (7th)

%

1.6%

9.8%

Number

12

1,605

%

0.3%

8.8%

Note (*): Data in this section is received through district profile of Mumbai prepared by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) at the Education Department of MCGM (Hindu Colony). This year we could not receive the district profile data in spite of rigorous follow-up. We have attached the answer received through the PIO in Annexure-5. 19

Source:http://www.ncert.nic.in/html/pdf/educationalsurvey/Manual_on_Statistics_and_Indicators_of_School_Education/Ed ucational_Indicators___Final___2.pdf 20 Norms of Schools with Infrastructure facilities available , as specified under section 19 of "The right of children to free and compulsory education Act,2009"

24


Table 24: Infrastructure of MCGM schools Indicator : Schools with Infrastructure Facilities Available Total Schools No. of Student No. of Teacher Number Building % Number Office cum store cum HM room % Number One class room for every teacher % Number Ramp % Number Separate Toilet for Boys % Number Separate Toilet for Girls % Number Drinking Water Facility % Number Kitchen Shed (Govt. &Aided Schools) Boundary Wall Playground

SSC Middle School Scholarship (4th) High School Scholarship (7th)

25

% Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

2012-13 1291 4,27,785 13,447 1291 100 1291 100 1232 95.4 1291 100 1291 100 1284 99.5 1291 100 1291 100 1238 95.9 1291 100 Indicator: Outcomes 7,809 72 88 1.6 12 0.3

2013-14 1266 4,01,416 12,693 1266 100 1212 95.73 1006 79.46 1125 88.86 1261 99.61 1264 99.84 1266 100 1071

2014-15 1252 3,91,772 12,496 1252 100 1180 94.25 1002 80.03 1155 92.25 1252 100 1252 100 1252 100 296

84.6 1221 96.45 1183 93.44

23.64 1177 94.01 1113 88.90

1,36,686 85 1,889 9.8 1,605 8.8

7,809 72 88 1.6 12 0.3


Class Size Class size is defined as the number of pupils in a class with one teacher. This measurement is particularly useful in providing information on the size of class an average teacher will have to teach and therefore gives an insight into classroom processes. Smaller classes are often perceived as allowing teachers to focus more on the needs of individual students and reducing the amount of class time needed to deal with disruptions.

Table 25: Student Classroom Ratio (SCR)/Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) and Teacher Classroom Ratio in Mumbai 21 20F

Schools with single teacher

Number % Number % Number % Number %

Govt. and Local bodies 17570 744 21 131 71.20% 104 0.10% 1002 80.03% 35 2.8%

Pvt. Aided 3438 64 44 193 44.27% 113 0% 281 64.45% 7 1.61%

Pvt. Unaided 6100 109 51 316 47.59% 231 0% 288 43.31% 3 0.45%

Unrecognised 421 18 33 23 28.75% 21 0% 58 72.50% 1 1.25%

Primary schools having PTR more than 30

Number %

14 1.1%

98 22.5%

188 28.3%

12 15%

86 6.9%

0 0%

0 0%

0 0%

Indicator Number of classrooms (1 to 8) Number of classrooms (9 to 10) Student classroom ratio (SCR) Primary schools having SCR more than 30 Upper Primary /Sec./Higher Sec. schools having SCR more than 35 One class room for every teacher

Upper Primary /Sec./Higher Sec. schools having PTR more than 35

Number %

Inference: In 235 municipal schools, the Student Classroom Ratio is higher than that specified under the Right to Education Act i.e. 30 for primary schools and 35 for upper primary, secondary and higher secondary schools. 80.03% municipal schools are Complying to Teacher Class room Ratio as per RTE Act. In 100 municipal schools, the Pupil Teacher Ratio is higher than that specified under the Right to Education Act i.e. 30 for primary schools and 35 for upper primary, secondary and higher secondary schools.

21

Source: Educational Indicators: http://www.ncert.nic.in/html/pdf/educationalsurvey/Manual_on_Statistics_and_Indicators_of_School_Education/ Educational_Indicators___Final___2.pdf

26


Table 26: Medium Wise Pupil (Student) Teacher Ratio in 2015-16

Medium

No. of Schools

Students (Includes Primary, Upper Primary and Secondary)

Marathi Hindi Urdu Gujarati Tamil Telugu Kannada English MR Total

421 277 243 70 35 32 38 131 16 1,263 22

71,454 119,384 105,307 4,956 5,954 1,870 2,526 71,260 774 383,485

21F

Teachers (Includes HM, Viceprincipal/Dy. HM, Teachers, Special Teachers)

Students per Teacher

2,809 2,978 2,727 274 221 74 152 1,320 82 10,637

25 40 39 18 27 25 17 54 9 36

Inference: The student-teacher ratio for English schools is quite high i.e. on an average there is one teacher for 54 students. The overall students- teacher ratio for MCGM schools is 36 i.e. there is one teacher for 36 students. Average number of pupils (students) per teacher at a specific level of education in a given school-year.

22

Source: The total number of school is 1263 as per Praja’s report, while the total number of schools as per MCGM records is 1231. Some of MCGM secondary schools are run medium wise under the same name, hence the number that Praja has analysed is as per the medium wise segregation. Thus, MCGM and Praja number does not match as the number given by MCGM considers only 1 school even if it runs 2 mediums.

27


School Management Committees Section 21 of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 (RTE), mandates the formation of School Management Committees (SMCs) in all elementary government, government-aided schools and special category schools in the country. The SMC is the basic unit of a decentralised model of governance with active involvement of parents in the school’s functioning. SMCs are primarily composed of parents, teachers, head masters and local authorities.

Table 27: Schools with School Management Committees in 2014-15

Not Applicable 23 Yes Total 2F

MNC Number % 57 4.5 1209 95.5 1267

Private Aided Number % 4 0.9 439 99.1 443

Private Unaided Number % 476 72.9 177 27.1 653

Un- recognised Number % 100 90.9 10 9.1 110

23

SMC is not applicable to Secondary schools (in MCGM schools) as School Management and Development Committee is formed in these schools. SMC is also not applicable if there is a infrastructure issue which is with the Private schools.

28


Section II. Deliberation by Municipal Councillors and MLAs

Table 28: Number of questions asked and Number of meetings by Councillors on Education in all Committees

Name of Committee BMC General Body Meeting (GBM) Education Committee Ward Committee Raise of Other Committee Total

2012-13 No. of No. of total Questi Meetin ons gs

2013-14 No. of No. of total Questi Meeti ons ngs

2014-15 No. of Questi ons

No. of total Meetings

2015-16 No. of No. of total Questio Meeti ns ngs

32 62 23

66 19 241

45 45 29

65 15 255

49 44 20

79 30 301

47 86 27

74 33 280

17 134

243 569

14 133

276 611

36 149

407 817

33 193

337 724

Inference: 193 questions were asked by MCGM councillors on education in all meetings of corporation between April 2015 and March 2016. A rise of 30% is seen in the number of questions asked on Education.

Table 29: Category wise number of Questions asked by Councillors on Education No. of Questions Asked 0 1 2 to 4 Above 4 Total

No. of No. of Councillors Councillors 2012-13 2013-14 164 35 23 5 227

157 43 21 6 227

No. of Councillors 2014-15

No. of Councillors 2015-16

166 32 24 5 227

158 37 24 8 227

Inference: Only 8 councillors have asked more than 4 questions on education while 158 councillors did not ask a single question.

29


Table 30: Questions asked by Education Committee Members in 2012-13 to 2015-16 No. of ques. asked on education (2012-13)

No. of ques. asked on education (2013-14)



Bhomsingh Rathod

1

0

NA

NA

Faiyaz Khan

0

2

1

0

Hansaben Desai

4

0

0

4

Ishwar Tayade

NA

1

0

NA

Jyoti Alavani*

NA

NA

NA

3

Komal Jamsandekar

0

1

4

NA

Leena Shukla

1

2

0

2

Makarand Narvekar

2

1

4

0

NA

1

3

NA

2

NA

NA

NA

Nandakumar Vaity

NA

NA

NA

1

Noorjahan Shaikh

2

4

4

2

Prakash Darekar Prajakta (Sawant) Vishwasrao Priyatama Sawant

4 NA 8

2 NA 5

1 NA 4

3 4 5

Ratna Mahale

NA

2

4

1

Rakhee Jadhav Rajeshree Shirwadkar Samita Naik Sanjay Bhalerao Seema Shivalkar Shailaja Girkar Shivanand Shetty Shubhada Patkar

0 NA NA 0 3 6 NA 3

NA NA NA 0 NA NA 0 1

NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 2

NA 4 3 NA NA NA NA 0

Sheetal Mhatre

NA

NA

NA

5

Sunaina Potnis

3

1

2

NA

Suprada Phaterpekar

4

3

1

NA

Vanita Marucha

1

2

1

3

NA 1 6 66

9 7 6 55

5 4 3 58

NA NA 9 86

Councillors Name

Ajanta Yadav* Anil Trimbakkar

Manoj Kotak Mangesh Pawar

Vinod Shelar Vitthal Kharatmol Yamini Jadhav Total

8 7

NA 5

11 4

NA 37

Highest number (37) of questions were asked by Anil Trimbakkar while Faiyaz Khan, Makrand Narvekar, and Shubhada Patkar did not ask a single question on education. Note (*): Councillor Jyoti Alavani resigned from the Education Committee on 12th February, 2016 and Councillor Ajanta Yadav resigned from the Education Committee on 6th April, 2016 (she had attended only one meeting and did not ask a single question).

30


Table 31: Ward-wise questions asked by councillors on Education in the year April’15 to March’16

Ward A B C D E F/N F/S G/N G/S H/E H/W K/E K/W L M/E M/W N P/N P/S R/C R/N R/S S T Total

No. of students 7038 2402 432 3138 10580 27242 7829 20559 13676 21145 8366 17860 16583 34631 54147 15208 20000 33898 14419 9267 8921 12170 14694 9280 3,83,485

No. of councillors 4 3 4 7 8 10 7 11 9 11 6 15 13 15 13 8 12 16 8 10 7 11 13 6 227

No. of councilors who asked question on education 0 1 1 1 4 4 1 4 2 5 0 6 4 4 4 3 3 6 0 3 5 3 4 1 69

Total questions asked on education 0 1 1 1 20 8 1 5 5 47 0 15 6 14 10 4 6 9 0 3 22 6 7 2 193

Inference: Highest number of questions were asked from H/E ward (47). No questions were asked on education from A ward, H/W ward and P/S ward.

31


Table 32: Issues raised/Questions asked by Councillors in the year April’15 to March’16 Issues Closure of the schools Dropout rate Education Related Human Resources Related Higher/Technical Education Infrastructure Municipal School Related New schools Negligence in duty of MCGM officials/Staff related Naming/Renaming of School Primary education Private and Trust school related Providing and fixing educational materials School repairs and reconstruction Schemes/Policies in Education Related Secondary education Student issues related

Question asked 2 1 6 50 2 11 38 3 2 6 1 8 3 10 37 1 9

Upgradation/reduction of Standards and section of school Vocational training for Blind and differently abled (Handicapped) Total

2 1 193

Inference: Majority of questions were asked on issues related to Human resources (50) while only 1 question was asked on each of the issues such as dropout rate, primary education, secondary education and vocational training for differently abled.

32


Table 33: Questions asked by MLAs on Education

Name of MLA Abu Azmi Ajay Choudhari Ameet Satam Amin Patel Ashish Shelar Ashok Patil Aslam Shaikh Atul Bhatkhalkar Bharati Lavekar Kalidas Kolambkar Mangal Lodha Mangesh Kudalkar Manisha Chaudhary Md. Arif (Naseem) Khan Parag Alavani Prakash Surve Prakash Phaterpekar Raj Purohit Ramchandra Kadam Ramesh Latke Sadanand Sarvankar Sanjay Potnis Sardar Singh Selvan Tamil Sunil Shinde Sunil Raut Sunil Prabhu Trupti Sawant Tukaram Kate Varsha Gaikwad Waris Pathan Yogesh Sagar

Political Party SP SS BJP INC BJP SS INC BJP BJP INC BJP SS BJP INC BJP SS SS BJP BJP SS SS SS BJP BJP SS SS SS SS SS INC AIMEIM BJP

Total

Area Mankhurd Shivaji Nagar Shivadi Andheri (West) Mumbadevi Vandre (West) Bhandup (West) Malad West Kandivali (East) Varsova Wadala Malabar Hill Kurla (SC) Dahisar Chandivali Vile Parle Magathane Chembur Colaba Ghatkopar (West) Andheri (East) Mahim Kalina Mulund SionKoliwada Worli Vikroli Dindoshi Bandra (East) Anushakti Nagar 178 Dharavi (SC) Byculla Charkop

Mumbai related Education Questions 2 0 2 23 3 2 14 1 0 6 4 0 1 11 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 2 4 2 2 4 0 1

Total Question in Education 12 13 3 163 14 10 88 12 1 16 11 5 10 33 10 2 2 3 0 0 8 7 19 0 14 10 22 6 4 20 7 9

95

534

Highest number of questions on education were asked by Amin Patel (163); while Ramchandra Kadam, Ramesh Latke, and Selvan Tamil did not ask a single question on Education.

33


Table 34: Issue-wise questions asked by MLAs on Education Mumbai related Edu. Questions

Total Question in Education

0

11

1 1

48 4

0

50

0 9 0 0 15 8 4 14 2 8 0 8 8 14 0 3 0 95

1 34 4 3 55 82 4 17 2 8 29 24 36 116 1 3 2 534

Issues Anganwadi/Balwadi/Creche Related Ashram School Related Cast/Tribe education Central/State Government and Zilla Parishad school Dropout Rate Education Related Fees structure Government College Higher/Technical Education Human Resources Related Infrastructure Municipal School Related Providing and fixing education materials School repairs and reconstruction Primary/Secondary education Private College Related Private and Trust school related Schemes/Policies in Education Related Syllabus / Curriculum Student Issues Related SC/ST/OBC Education Total

34


Section III. Data from Household Survey Praja Foundation had commissioned a household survey to Hansa Research which was conducted in March-April 2016 across the city of Mumbai. The total sample size for the survey was 25,215 households. Out of the total sample size of 25,215 households, 3322 households had children in the age group of 3-15 years, out of which 2676 households had children going to school. Hence, the education questionnaire was administered further with those (2,676) households only. For details on the survey methodology and Socio Economic Classification (SEC) of households, refer to Annexure 1 and 2. Following are the key findings of the survey:

Table 35: Current Medium of Education (%) Language English

Marathi

Hindi

Gujarati

Urdu

Other Indian Language

Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private

All 8

SEC A 5

SEC B 3

SEC C 6

SEC D 8

SEC E 16

60

81

78

66

50

41

4

1

2

3

6

8

12

7

8

11

17

14

5

1

2

4

6

8

5

2

4

5

8

5

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

2

1

0

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Inference: Incidence of parents sending their children to English medium schools is the highest; 8 being in English medium Public schools and 60 being in English medium Private schools followed by Marathi medium schools; 4 being in Marathi medium Public schools and 12 being in Marathi medium Private schools.

35


Table 36: Respondents from Table 35 whose current medium of education is other than English and would want to change to English medium (%) Language English

All

SEC A

SEC B

SEC C

SEC D

SEC E

31

37

32

32

30

28

Inference: Amongst the households which are not sending their child to English medium schools, 31% of them want to send their children to English medium schools. No clear differences are observed across different Socio Economic Categories.

Table 37: Respondents taking private tuitions/coaching classes (%)

Yes

All 63

Private School 66

Municipal School 49

No

37

34

51

Inference: Two-third parents send their child for private tuitions. Of the households sending their children to municipal schools, 49% are also taking private tuitions/coaching classes.

Table 38: Details on source of Tuitions (%) All

Private School

Municipal School

School Class teacher

7

6

13

Private tuitions

86

88

71

Coaching classes

5

5

4

Others

2

0

12

Inference: • Amongst households who send their children for tuitions, majority of them send their children for private tuitions. • 71% Municipal school students are taking private tuitions while 13% students from Municipal Schools are going to private tuitions given by their school teachers.

36


Table 39: Percentage happy with the School

Yes

All 91

Private School 93

Municipal School 80

No

9

7

20

Inference: Although majority of the parents are happy with their child’s school (justifying their decision), satisfaction is much higher amongst parents sending their children to Private schools as compared to Municipal schools. Parents of 20% Municipal school students are not happy with their children’s school.

Chart 1: Reasons for not being happy with Municipal School (%)

3 18

9

Facilities provided to students are not very good Infrastructure facilities of the school are very poor Future scope is very limited

45

31

Quality of education is not very good

39

The teachers are not that good Fees of the school is very high

55 46

School is located pretty far away from my place Discrimination

Inference: Quality of education (55%), Future scope is very limited (46%), and Facilities provided to students (45%), form the three big reasons cited by parents for not being happy with municipal schools.

37


III. Ward-wise Data 24 23F

Table 40: Ward-wise Total Number of Students in Municipal Schools in Mumbai Ward

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

A B C D E F/N F/S G/N G/S H/E H/W K/E K/W L M/E M/W N P/N P/S R/C R/N R/S S T

7672 2779 764 3291 12392 34964 9510 21238 15942 26138 9922 20411 19948 34662 52049 21006 27949 35793 16754 13454 9695 13887 17071 11862

7685 2812 674 3269 11433 35033 9179 23747 15743 26373 9714 20139 19051 35655 53510 17028 25956 36706 16165 13410 9680 13903 16507 11151

7600 2542 547 2798 11432 32187 8486 22211 14729 22942 9493 15234 17725 35345 53394 16324 22875 35507 15003 10047 9420 12610 15719 10081

7548 2626 695 3116 11490 29713 8178 20851 13880 22043 8844 17729 17226 34584 54372 15564 21086 34917 14858 10632 9389 12757 15157 9830

7038 2402 432 3138 10580 27242 7829 20559 13676 21145 8366 17860 16583 34631 54147 15208 20000 33898 14419 9267 8921 12170 14694 9280

Total

4,39,153

4,34,523

4,04,251

3,97,085

3,83,485

24

Source: Data received from Administrative Officer (Schools) of 24 wards of Mumbai under Right to Information Act (2005).

38


Table 41: Ward-wise drop in Enrolments between 2011-12 and 2015-16 Ward

2011-12

2015-16

% Change in Enrolments


7672 2779 764 3291 12392 34964 9510 21238 15942 26138 9922 20411 19948 34662 52049 21006 27949 35793 16754 13454 9695 13887 17071 11862

7038 2402 432 3138 10580 27242 7829 20559 13676 21145 8366 17860 16583 34631 54147 15208 20000 33898 14419 9267 8921 12170 14694 9280

-8 -14 -43 -5 -15 -22 -18 -3 -14 -19 -16 -12 -17 0 4 -28 -28 -5 -14 -31 -8 -12 -14 -22

Total

4,39,153

3,83,485

-13

Inference: 13% decline is seen in the enrolment of students across all wards of MCGM while C ward has seen highest drop in the enrolment in 2015-16 which is 43% as compared to 2011-12. L ward on the contrary has not seen any drop in enrolment of students in MCGM schools in the year 2015-16.

39


Table 42: Ward-wise Total Number of Dropout in Municipal Schools in Mumbai 25 24F

Ward

201112

in %

201213

in %

201314

in %

201415


353 271 58 377 455 2769 804 1448 988 993 981 1796 1406 2630 4790 1081 1560 2934 1858 1255 966 1152 1002 653

4.6% 9.8% 7.6% 11.5% 3.7% 7.9% 8.5% 6.8% 6.2% 3.8% 9.9% 8.8% 7.0% 7.6% 9.2% 5.1% 5.6% 8.2% 11.1% 9.3% 10.0% 8.3% 5.9% 5.5%

615 255 0 449 678 4326 561 2214 1046 1568 608 1456 1445 5041 4681 1565 1964 4410 1976 1058 1949 687 877 582

8.0% 9.1% 0.0% 13.7% 5.9% 12.3% 6.1% 9.3% 6.6% 5.9% 6.3% 7.2% 7.6% 14.1% 8.7% 9.2% 7.6% 12.0% 12.2% 7.9% 20.1% 4.9% 5.3% 5.2%

Total

32,580

7.4%

40,011

9.2%

in %

201516

in %

1021 107 0 469 731 4346 693 2797 903 1697 922 894 98 5960 11510 1980 1403 4857 1912 762 2033 1074 671 378

13.4% 4.2% 0% 16.8% 6.4% 13.5% 8.2% 12.6% 6.1% 7.4% 9.7% 5.9% 0.6% 16.9% 21.6% 12.1% 6.1% 13.7% 12.7% 7.6% 21.6% 8.5% 4.3% 3.7%

1161 336 8 534 615 3167 626 2016 1126 2306 1239 1709 1891 6025 11732 2067 1795 5000 2411 713 2309 1863 697 395

15.4% 12.8% 1.2% 17.1% 5.4% 10.7% 7.7% 9.7% 8.1% 10.5% 14.0% 9.6% 11.0% 17.4% 21.6% 13.3% 8.5% 14.3% 16.2% 6.7% 24.6% 14.6% 4.6% 4.0%

1083 350 22 639 801 3792 458 2372 1062 2452 955 2063 2085 6042 12787 2339 2088 6140 2750 997 2537 2070 1394 510

15.4% 14.6% 5.1% 20.4% 7.6% 13.9% 5.9% 11.5% 7.8% 11.6% 11.4% 11.6% 12.6% 17.4% 23.6% 15.4% 10.4% 18.1% 19.1% 10.8% 28.4% 17.0% 9.5% 5.5%

47,218

11.7%

51741

13%

57788

15%

Inference: The overall dropout rate has increased by 15% for the academic year 2015-2016 compared to the previous academic year where the dropout rate was 13%. Wards with highest dropout rates are R/N (28.4%), M/E (23.6%), D (20.4%), and P/S (19.1%).

25

Source: Data received from Administrative Officer (Schools) of 24 wards of Mumbai under Right to Information Act (2005).

40


Table 43: Ward-wise Total Number of Teachers in Municipal Schools in Mumbai 26 25F

Ward

201112

Student teacher ratio

201213


201314


201415


201516


A B C D E F/N F/S G/N G/S H/E H/W K/E K/W L M/E M/W N P/N P/S R/C R/N R/S S T Total

175 83 32 109 354 806 286 573 503 570 253 545 531 873 1035 460 885 841 400 383 256 353 527 401 11,234

44 33 24 30 35 43 33 37 32 46 39 37 38 40 50 46 32 43 42 35 38 39 32 30 39

175 81 30 113 391 881 336 650 480 630 264 658 547 978 1147 463 837 875 422 379 250 420 558 432 11,997

44 35 22 29 29 40 27 37 33 42 37 31 35 36 47 37 31 42 38 35 39 33 30 26 36

130 83 27 113 390 807 315 623 480 634 257 495 479 896 1137 476 819 868 430 326 264 393 542 366 11,350

58 31 20 25 29 40 27 36 31 36 37 31 37 39 47 34 28 41 35 31 36 32 29 28 36

209 87 28 117 387 815 218 490 471 567 237 544 495 877 1194 428 703 826 396 370 232 327 486 349 10853

36 30 25 27 30 36 38 43 29 39 37 33 35 39 46 36 30 42 38 29 40 39 31 28 37

193 86 26 100 363 766 223 620 407 581 218 494 491 909 1161 509 645 804 371 320 231 321 471 327 10637

36 28 17 31 29 36 35 33 34 36 38 36 34 38 47 30 31 42 39 29 39 38 31 28 36

26

Source: Data received from Administrative Officer (Schools) of 24 wards of Mumbai under Right to Information Act (2005). We have not taken Headmasters into account for the calculation of student teacher ratio.

41


Table 44:Ward-wise Total Number of Pass outs 27 in Municipal Schools in Mumbai 26F

Ward

2011-12

In %

2012-13

In %

201314

In %

201415

In %

A B C D E F/N F/S G/N G/S H/E H/W K/E K/W L M/E M/W N P/N P/S R/C R/N R/S S T Total

191 115 NA 63 243 696 181 315 784 414 158 334 310 196 81 233 742 986 527 355 NA 317 132 250 7,623

90% 56% NA 51% 60% 74% 59% 63% 77% 53% 64% 52% 60% 47% 20% 52% 58% 68% 62% 67% NA 68% 57% 52% 61%

264 84 NA 69 227 678 253 269 637 457 184 398 314 216 175 275 736 935 487 271 NA 300 166 263 7,658

79% 55% NA 62% 58% 71% 63% 50% 66% 52% 71% 58% 56% 45% 38% 54% 60% 62% 58% 61% NA 59% 75% 62% 60%

362 97 NA 79 231 684 277 410 656 484 152 430 268 348 99 355 777 956 574 240 NA 332 201 255 8,431

81% 68% NA 68% 69% 74% 74% 81% 78% 59% 38% 67% 47% 79% 16% 72% 69% 74% 78% 55% NA 70% 79% 62% 67%

239 94 NA 109 217 585 246 324 692 552 157 483 385 326 216 267 654 874 389 182 NA 318 233 246 7788

86% 68% NA 78% 69% 70% 69% 64% 84% 67% 69% 74% 69% 76% 63% 57% 68% 73% 58% 55% NA 76% 80% 66% 70%

201516

In %

258 95 NA

93% 75% NA

71 221 681 253 380 648 481 168 455 363 331 193 328 662 793 432 236 NA

68% 74% 78% 78% 73% 81% 66% 69% 73% 71% 75% 48% 71% 70% 70% 67% 70% NA

299 243 233 7824

75% 83% 69% 72%

Inference: Following wards had the lowest pass out rates in 2015-16: M/E with 48%; H/E with 66%; P/S with 67%.

27

C and R/N ward do not have Secondary Schools. Secondary Schools in M/E ward school have started from academic year 2011-12; in M/W ward secondary schools were started from 2009-2010; in S ward from 2010-11. Source: Source: Data received from Administrative Officer (Schools) of 24 wards of Mumbai under Right to Information Act (2005).

42


Table 45: Population-wise Number of Student in Government, Pvt. Aided, Pvt. Unaided and Unrecognised Schools in 2015-16 Government No. No. School student

Pvt. Aid No. No. School student

Pvt. Unaid No. No. School student

Unrecognised No. No. School student

Ward

Population

A

185014

16

6984

1

651

14

7786

0

B

127290

15

2365

11

3331

6

1875

6

Total Schools

Total Students

0

31

15421

1245

38

8816

C

166161

9

434

6

701

8

3313

0

0

23

4448

D

346866

27

3114

12

2199

32

9552

1

61

72

14926

E

393286

52

10856

14

4306

20

10323

4

597

90

26082

F/N

529034

77

27219

23

13069

32

16218

9

1881

141

58387

F/S

360972

46

7825

17

7020

7

2932

3

557

73

18334

G/N

599039

63

20494

12

5131

28

17362

9

2598

112

45585

G/S

377749

67

13158

5

1546

6

3270

0

0

78

17974

H/E

557239

59

20978

13

4414

15

11732

2

714

89

37838

H/W

307581

40

8371

8

3052

29

14472

1

209

78

26104

K/E

823885

119

29940

37

14510

68

40681

2

267

226

85398

K/W

748688

18

3921

5

1129

18

8318

1

81

42

13449

L

902225

92

34480

37

15842

52

30531

5

1092

186

81945

M/E

807720

78

53944

13

8303

44

21275

8

1706

143

85228

M/W

411893

49

15215

12

8190

27

17011

4

762

92

41178

N

622853

72

19817

22

11512

35

18331

3

1506

132

51166

P/N

941366

75

33553

32

8130

57

29992

17

2850

181

74525

P/S

463507

39

14727

15

5157

21

15352

6

1050

81

36286

R/C

562162

42

9857

27

6493

30

16708

1

204

100

33262

R/N

431368

22

8727

20

6221

22

10126

1

169

65

25243

R/S

691229

39

12625

25

8444

38

19215

5

732

107

41016

S

743783

61

14693

47

19661

41

19759

4

494

153

54607

T

341463

54

9260

13

3716

22

9951

2

113

91

23040

Total

12442373

1231

382557

427

162728

672

356085

94

18888

2424

920258

43


Annexure 1 – Survey Methodology Praja Foundation had commissioned the household survey to Hansa Research and the survey methodology followed is as below: •

In order to meet the desired objectives of the study, we represented the city by covering a sample from each of its 227 wards. Target Group for the study was :  Both Males & Females  18 years and above  Belonging to that particular ward.

•

Sample quotas were set for representing gender and age groups on the basis of their split available through Indian Readership Study (Large scale baseline study conducted nationally by Media Research Users Council (MRUC) &Hansa Research group) for Mumbai Municipal Corporation Region.

•

The required information was collected through face to face interviews with the help of structured questionnaire.

•

In order to meet the respondent within a ward, following sampling process was followed:  5 prominent areas in the ward were identified as the starting point  In each starting point about 20 individuals were selected randomly and the questionnaire was administered with them.

•

Once the survey was completed, sample composition of age & gender was corrected to match the population profile using the baseline data from IRS. This helped us to make the survey findings more representatives in nature and ensured complete coverage.

•

44

The total study sample was 25,215.


Annexure 2 – Socio Economic Classification (SEC) Note SEC is used to measure the affluence level of the sample, and to differentiate people on this basis and study their behaviour / attitude on other variables. While income (either monthly household or personal income) appears to be an obvious choice for such a purpose, it comes with some limitations: • •

•

Respondents are not always comfortable revealing sensitive information such as income. The response to the income question can be either over-claimed (when posturing for an interview) or under-claimed (to avoid attention). Since there is no way to know which of these it is and the extent of over-claim or under-claim, income has a poor ability to discriminate people within a sample. Moreover, affluence may well be a function of the attitude a person has towards consumption rather than his (or his household’s) absolute income level.

Attitude to consumption is empirically proven to be well defined by the education level of the Chief Wage Earner (CWE*) of the household as well as his occupation. The more educated the CWE, the higher is the likely affluence level of the household. Similarly, depending on the occupation that the CWE is engaged in, the affluence level of the household is likely to differ – so a skilled worker will be lower down on the affluence hierarchy as compared to a CWE who is businessman. Socio Economic Classification or SEC is thus a way of classifying households into groups’ basis the education and occupation of the CWE. The classification runs from A1 on the uppermost end thru E2 at the lower most end of the affluence hierarchy. The SEC grid used for classification in market research studies is given below: EDUCATION

literate but no Illiterate formal schooling

OCCUPATION

/ School up to 4th

School

SSC/ Some College Grad/ Post-

Grad/ Post-

but not Grad Grad Gen.

Grad Prof.

th th 5 –9

HSC

Unskilled Workers

E2

E2

E1

D

D

D

D

Skilled Workers

E2

E1

D

C

C

B2

B2

Petty Traders

E2

D

D

C

C

B2

B2

Shop Owners

D

D

C

B2

B1

A2

A2

Businessmen/

None

D

C

B2

B1

A2

A2

A1

Industrialists with

1–9

C

B2

B2

B1

A2

A1

A1

no. of employees

10 +

B1

B1

A2

A2

A1

A1

A1

Self-employed Professional

D

D

D

B2

B1

A2

A1

Clerical / Salesman

D

D

D

C

B2

B1

B1

Supervisory level

D

D

C

C

B2

B1

A2

Officers/ Executives Junior

C

C

C

B2

B1

A2

A2

Officers/Executives Middle/ Senior

B1

B1

B1

B1

A2

A1

A1

*CWE is defined as the person who takes the main responsibility of the household expenses.

45


Annexure 3 – Inspection Report Form

46


47


Annexure 4 – Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation Form

48


Annexure 5- RTI response for District Profile

49


Annexure 6 - Scholarship Circular for 2015-16

50


51
