1. education
2. school

REPORT
ON
5% SAMPLE CHECKING OF U-DISE
DATA, 2012-13
Human Resource Development Department
Government of Sikkim
Conducted by :
TTWS
BermiokTokal, South Sikkim
Pin: 737134
E-mail : [email protected]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We, the members of the TeestaTendong Welfare Society
(NGO) take this opportunity toexpress our deepest sense of
Gratitude and our heartfelt thanks to all the members of
institutions and personnel who have assisted and contributed in
the smooth conduct of this relevant and meaningful exercise. We,
at the outset are extremely grateful to, State Project Director,
SSA and RMSA Sikkim, for his Co-operation and support in
the project.We also acknowledge the co-operation of Schools
that we have visited. We placed onrecord of our most sincere
thanks to all the coordinator of BRCs and CRCs for their
unstinted efforts and cooperation during the fieldwork by the
Field investigators.We also thankful to invaluable co-operation
extended by the Head Teachers and Teachers of the schools in
collection of relevant data are appreciated by the Project Team.
We thank all the concerns for their services throughout
theProject Work without which the timely completion of the
Project would not have beenpossible.
Project Team
TTWS NGO
Agency conducted Survey:
TeestaTendong Welfare Society, South
Sikkim
Name of Investigators:
MrMahendraPradhan
MrMadhavPsd. Sharma
MsManishaGurung
Mr. Ganesh Subba
Mr. Sanjay Pradhan
Year for which the PES is conducted:
2012-13
Survey Month:
April - May 2013
No. of District taken as 5% Sample Survey: Four District
Name of Districts selected in the sample:
North, South, East and West
Executive Summary
The District Information System for Education (DISE) for SSA is the
backbone of integrated educational management information system operating at
the District, State and National level since 1995. Similarly, for RMSA Secondary
Education Management Information System (SEMIS) is the backbone of Secondary
& Senior Secondary School data. The system collects detailed data through Data
Capturing Format (DCF) from schools. This format includes information on
various parameters like location of the Schools, School Management, Teachers in
the Schools, School infrastructure and equipment, enrolment by gender, caste and
age, incentives, the number of disabled children in various grades, children of
minority classes, etc. There is flexibility for additional state specific variables at all
levels as per the local need.
Free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of fourteen years is our
constitutional commitment. The Government of India has initiated a number of
programmes to achieve the goal of Universalization of Elementary Education
(UEE). Among the several programmes launched, SarvaShikshaAbhiyan (SSA) is
the most recent one in this regard. The SarvaShikshaAbhiyan (SSA) is a historic
stride towards achieving the long cherished goal of Universalization of Elementary
Education (UEE) through a time bound integrated approach, in partnership with
States. SSA, which promises to change the face of the elementary education sector
of the country, aims to provide useful and quality elementary education to all
children in the 6-14 age groups by 2010. Unlike the previous programmes of this
nature, SSA is quite distinct in terms of implementation through mission as well as
partnership mode.
In the context of implementation of SarvaShikshaAbhiyan (SSA), a massive
programme undertaken in the realm of education sector, what assumes greater
significance is proper implementation of the programme itself to derive appropriate
results. For effective implementation of such large-scale programme, collecting
information, analyzing the results, identifying the corrective course, deriving
instructions based on the actual situation, the SarvaShikshaAbhiyan (SSA) is
implemented throughout the country with the help of project authorities of state
government concerned. An elaborate MIS mechanism has been laid to monitor the
implementation of the programme, gauge the results and identify course of action
from time to time. At the project authority level i.e. State level, the District
Information System for Education (DISE) collects data pertaining to various
aspects of education system through a structured schedule consisting of information
on school education. At district level regular monitoring reports are being prepared
and submitted to Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India at periodical intervals. In
addition, with a view to establishing the veracity of information provided by the
project authorities concerned, an external institution conducts similar survey i.e.
DISE, based on a 5% sample survey. Thus, appropriate MIS in essence properly
guards the SSA.
The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) has felt that there is lot of
inconsistency while collecting data by more than one agency and more than one
source, in the country. The need to evolve a single mechanism to collect school
education statistics has long been felt. The Expert Group recommended integration
of DISE and SEMIS system of data collection into a Unified System for Collection
of School Education Statistics as “Unified District Information System for
Education (U-DISE)”. The so developed U-DCF has been introduced to collect
data for all the schools at the stages from class I to class XII.
Sample checking of U-DISE Data:
To ensure the consistency and accuracy of U-DISE data, it has been decided to
conduct 5% sample checking of U-DISE data in order to check/avoid discrepancies
and to generate recommendations for modification of its mechanism in future. It has
been made mandatory for all the states to get the U-DISE data sample checked
every year by involving independent agencies or Institutes promoting research
facilities. Accordingly, 5% of the sample checking of U-DISE data (2012‐13) has
been entrusted to TTWS (NGO) in Sikkim.
In a study of qualitative check and sample analysis of U-DISE data and
confirming the results there of, the methodology of the study needs to be precision
oriented. Hence, carefully drawn sampling method and appropriate care for other
related aspects with regard to methodology were emphasized in this study.
Objectives
The main objectives of the study are:
i.
Evaluate the quality check of the U-DISE data
ii.
Measure the precision levels as well as deviation of U-DISE data
iii.
Suggest measures for strengthening data base on information
pertaining to SSA and RMSA in Sikkim.
Sampling
The universe of the study is all the schools covered under SSA and RMSA
programme in Sikkim. As the U-DISE data consists of information on all the
schools covered under SSA and RMSA in Sikkim, five per cent of the schools
appropriately representing schools across the state were selected for deriving
sample for the study. While confining to the five percent sampling and even care
has been taken to emphasis on type of schools as well as management by ensuring
the representation of both rural and urban were, different types of management of
schools namely Government, Private, Aided and recognized etc. Due representation
was also given to the schools located in SC/ST area.
The sample selected for the present study was 40 schools and the below table
furnishes the information:
DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY SCHOOL CATEGORY AND DISTRICT
Categories of Schools
District
Primary with
Primary
Upper Primary
Primary with Up.
Pr. & Sec. /
H.Secondary
Total
East
5
3
4
12
West
5
2
3
10
North
3
3
2
8
South
5
2
3
10
Total
18
10
12
40
Study Area
A sample of four districts were randomly selected for the present study. In each
district, the schools were randomly selected from all the regions representing
urban, rural, SC and tribal and areas. Thus, a total of 40 schools were covered in
the present.
Instruments for Data Collection
A prescribed ‘schedule’ designed by National University of Educational
Planning and Administration (NUEPA), New Delhi consisting of information on
various aspects of school information was administered for the purpose of the
study. It covers the aspects like school enrolment, dropouts, stagnation, physical
and teaching facilities and so on.
Collection of Data
For the purpose of data collection, the study team made physical visit to all
the schools for preliminary interaction with teaching staff and appraising
themselves with the physical and academic conditions prevailing there of. Since the
data collection is to be covered in a span of less time and the task is of gigantic
proportion, required number of research investigators were identified and trained
thoroughly in terms of appropriate data collection methods. Specific care has been
taken to identify the research investigators keeping in view the requirement of
exposure to school education. They were in turn given a one-day orientation on
data collection and then placed for actual data collection. The school management
concerned was informed in advance to keep the records ready for secondary data
collection as well. On the day of visit to the schools, the structured schedule was
administered for primary data collection under the supervision of research team.
Reference period
The U-DISE data pertains to the year 2012 with 30th September as reference
date. The post enumeration survey was also of the same period. The survey was
launched in March 2013 and completed in May 2013.
Data Analysis and Presentation
Collected data, after scrutiny of both the sets of formats, already filled up
DISE formats and 5% Sample DCF, were subjected to comparison by using simple
deviation method. The school-wise and category-wise data was analyzed by using
the simple deviation analysis tools in reference to all the comparable items of the
survey.
The present report is deal with the general introduction pertaining to the
importance of education, role of MIS for effective discharge of programme
activities and the mandate of the report etc. The methodology adopted for the
present study, depicts the limitations the study experienced and the reasons there of.
The comparative data between the outcome of PES and U-DISE data in reference
to various variables where commonality exists. The interpretation of data analyzed
pertaining to additional data collected through PES survey format and information
on which data is not available through U-DISE format. The summary of report and
suggestive measures/recommendations derived through the survey for effective
course of action in future for improvement of U-DISE under SSA.
Limitations of the Study:
The study has drawn carefully keeping in view of all the parameters and
confronted the following limitations.
 Difference in Formats for post enumeration survey and U-DISE Data.
 Coverage of all types of School Managements
 Unfilled columns in prescribed formats of U-DISE data.
National University of Educational Planning and Administration, Government of
India designed the format of DCF and is used for collecting the U-DISE data. The
format is too lengthy and most of the items were self-explanatory. It is noticed that
there is no point of collecting data on certain items again and again which were
already available with concerned department. Some of the information is not
available in the school instantly, for which they have to search the old records.
Difference in formats for post enumeration survey with additions and with
expanded items was made difficult as a result comparison could be under taken.
Some of the U-DISE formats were not filled properly, particularly important items
like type of management, number of blocks, class rooms, computer facility etc.
Consequently, these aspects were kept outside the purview of this survey report
presentation.
Since the prime objective of Post Enumeration Survey (PES) is to evaluate
the quality check of the U-DISE data and it is an important database for planning
and strategy development, improvement of education on the whole, the construction
of items in the format should be appropriate and should seek the information on
what actually intended for. However, in several aspects, there is no similarity of the
items on which PES and U-DISE formats were designed and as a result these
aspects were not comparable. A few of the examples are detailed below:
 The details of the Head Master i.e. Name and educational Qualifications.
 Experience of Principal
 Number of years of working as HM in the present school
 Children enrollment in the last Academic Year
 Enrollment and Attendance details of children on the date of survey
 Grade wise Examination details for which Annual Examinations conducted
in Last Academic Year.
 Investigators feedback on certain items like Attributes pertaining to the
principal
 Filling up of attendance registers etc.
Apart from these, quite a good number of items on which information usually
collected on regular basis under U-DISE data were missing in the DCF i.e. PES
format. Such items are indicated below:
 Particulars of pre primary classes
 Teacher training activities
 Academic inspections
 Visits by the coordinators of different levels

School development
 Maintenance grants
 Infrastructure availability in the class rooms
 Library facilities
 Arrangements for disable students
 Enrolment details
 School information on the whole. etc.
In some cases, after scrutiny of U-DISE formats it has been noticed that some
of the sample schools have not provided the information on certain items, which
otherwise could be, compared with the Post Enumerations survey formats.
Consequently, some more items could not be compared and the details are as
follows:
 Year of establishment of the school
 Number of teacher posts sanctioned.
 Number of Blocks and classrooms in the schools
To sum up, the study was confined to 40 schools drawn from four districts
across different regions of Sikkim. However, as the U-DISE data did not have the
component of private and un-aided schools information, thus data of 40 common
schools were used for comparative analysis. The schools selected for the study
consists of various category of school education and also different managements.
The data were collected for the study through a structured schedule prescribed for
the purpose. As the study findings were devoted to establish the comparison with
DISE data already collected, a specific prescribed formula was adopted for
comparable items of data. The study encountered certain limitations due to
differential formats prescribed for DISE and PES survey. However, as most of the
items were comparable, a genuine attempt has been made to arrive at confirmation
and deviation of survey results.
Major Findings:
The comparative analysis of DISE data reveals that some of the schools have not
properly filled the DISE format. Our findings of 40 schools of four districts are as
under
The overall deviation of U-DISE data
 Overall deviation is below 3% exclude fields like year of establishment, No.
of Class rooms, Head Teacher and category wise student enrolment.
 Variation in total enrollment of student is only 0.2% .
 10% schools differ in ‘number of class room’. It was observed that in some
school the rooms used for store or staff room are also taken as class room.
 Approx. 5% variation was recorded in data regarding to provide free text
books to student.
 Approx. 5% variation was recorded in data regarding to provide free
uniform to student.
 0% deviation recorded in ‘Year of establishment’
 In 70% schools, no grant information was displayed on board.
 1% schools had not received the school report card.
 In 5% Schools Pupil cumulative record of CCE were not maintained
 In 100% schools were visited by CRCat least two to three times in year.
 In 5% schools no SMC meeting was conducted in last three months.
 5% teachers were absent on the day of survey.
 90% students were present on the day of survey.
List of Abbreviation
BRC:
Block Resource Centre
BRCC
Block Resource Centre Coordinator
CRC
Cluster Resource Centre
CRCC
Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator
U-DISE
Unified District Information System for Education
DSE
District Superintendent of Education
DOE
Department of Education
DPEP
District Primary Education Programme
DCF
Data Collection Format
DLO
District Level Office
EMIS
Educational Management Information System
GOI
Government of India
HM/HT
Head Master / Head Teacher
MIS
Management Information System
MHRD
Ministry Of Human Resource Development
NUEPA
National University
Administration
NPE
National Policy on Education
PES
Post Enumeration Survey
SSA
SarvaShikshaAbhiyan
RMSA
RashtriyaMadhyamikShikshaAbhiyan
of
Educational
Planning
and
Glossary of Terms
Class Size:
Average number of students together in a class enrolled.
Completion rate:
The percentage of pupils/students enrolled at the
beginning grade/year of the level of education that
finished or graduated from the final grade/year at the end
of the required number of years of that level of education.
Data:
Refers to the smallest unit or item, which represents a fact
e.g. name, standard, age etc.\
Database:
Refers to all related filed compiled or put together as one
group.
Drop-out rate:
Refers to the percentage of pupils/students who for any
reason leave educational institutions during the school
years (in any given grade or level) and did not come back
to finish the grade or level during that school year to the
total number of pupils/students enrolled during the
previous school year.
Education Management
Information system:
Refers to an organized group of information and
documentation services that collects stores, processes,
and
analyses
and
disseminates
information
for
educational planning and management. It is a collection
of component parts that include inputs, process, outputs
and feedback that are integrated to achieve a specific
objective. Its main purpose is to integrate information
related to the management of educational activities, and
to make it available in comprehensive yet succinct ways to
a variety of uses.
Education system:
Refers to the entirely organized and sustained process of
providing education to groups of people regardless of age
according to their learning needs. The activities, structure
and hierarchy may differ from one setting to another. The
process of delivery to the learners comes in such basic
forms as formal and non-formal by
either a
public/government entity or a private organization.
Educational Management:
A process of creating conditions or situations
necessary for maintaining quality of education.
Gross enrollment Ratio:
Refers to the total enrolment of students in a grade or
level of education, regardless of age, expressed as
percentage of the corresponding eligible official agegroup population in a given school year.
Net enrollment Ratio:
Refers to the number of students enrolled in the
official specific age group expressed as a percentage
of the total population in that age group.
Repetition Rate:
Percentage of pupil/Students /who enroll in the same
grade/year more than once to the number of pupils/
students enrolled in that grade/year during the
previous year.
Rural Area:
Refers to areas outside of the municipal and city
corporation areas.
Transition Rate:
Percentage of students who graduated from one level
of education e.g. primary, secondary, etc. and moved
on or enroll to the next higher level.
Urban Area:
Refers to the area covered by municipalities and city
corporations in the country irrespective of locality.
METHODOLOGY
Main objectives
The two key objectives of the sample checking exercise were:
1. To verify the accuracy of U-DISE data being collected in the state.
2. To identify the gaps/weaknesses and suggest appropriate remedial measures
for strengthening the system.
Sample selection
We have been allotted 5% sample checking survey of four districtsi.e. East,
West,North, and South in Sikkim.The sample checking survey was carried out for all
the district of Sikkim. The method for selection of the number of schools
forparticular districts was 5% of the total schools in particular districts,whichever
is more. Further, for selection of particular schools in a district,method/formula is
given below = total number of school in a district÷ 5 or 5% of the schools (out of
total schools in a district) whichever is more.
Data Collection
Personal visit were made by the field investigators to each of the selected schools.
The information collected in the school information schedule was authenticatedand
certified by school principal/HT/Acting HT in the form of their signature and the
datacollection process was closely supervise, monitored and coordinated by project
team.
Method of Analysis
For analysis purpose, we have computerized all the data collected through
surveyformat as well the U-DISE data format given by SSA (HRDD) in SikkimFor
reporting purpose we made the comparative analysis of survey fields with onlythose
fields which are also given in U-DISE format and the fields which are notgiven in
U-DISE format are used for our own analysis .
The lists of school are prepared below for the Survey of the four districts:
EAST DISTRICT
SL
NO
SL.NO
U-DISE CODE
BLOCK
SCHOOL NAME
1
11040900301
RANKA
SAJON THIMPEN PS
2
11040800501
DUGA
KUMREK PS
3
11040700101
RAKDONG TINTEK
KAMBAL PS
4
11040603202
KHANDONG
ANSHU ACADEMY
5
11040500103
RHENOCK
TARPIN SAALGHARI
6
11040801103
DUGA
PADMA KUMARI PUBLIC
7
11040700201
RAKDONG TINTEK
PHALAICHADARA JHS
8
11040500105
RHENOCK
RHENOCK JHS
9
11040900801
RANKA
LUING SS
10
11041000901
MARTAM
SANG SSS
11
11041100101
PARAKHA
MACHONG SSS
12
11040301501
GANGTOK
NANDOK SS
NAME OF SCHO
OLS
(S
WEST DISTRICT
SL.NO
U-DISE CODE
BLOCK
SCHOOL NAME
1
11020302101
KALUK
TAPHEL PS
2
11020701101
BERMIOK MARTAM
PECHREAK PS
3
11020604201
YOKSAM
DUBDI MONASTIC SCHOOL
4
11020204701
SORENG
JAMBUDARA PS
5
11020201402
SORENG
SIKKIM HOMES ACADEMY
6
11020202201
SORENG
CHOTA SAMDONG JHS
7
11020100703
GYALSHING
VISION ACADEMY DARAP
8
11020400801
DETAM
MUKRUNG SS
9
11020700101
BERMIOK MARTAM
BERMIOK MARTAM SS
10
11020200702
SORENG
SPRINGDALE ACADEMY
CHOOLS FOR WHICH
NORTH DISTRICT
SL.NO
BLOCK
SCHOOL NAME
1
11010200103
CHUNGTHANG
CHATTEN PS
2
11010102009
MANGAN
MANGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
3
11010100101
MANGAN
NADAY PS
4
11010300202
KABI
GREENVALE ACADEMY
5
11010200207
CHUNGTHANG
SARCHOCK JHS
6
11010102003
MANGAN
RANGRANG UPS
7
11010301501
KABI
PHENSONG SS
8
11010200301
CHUNGTHANG
TASA TENGAY SEC. SCHOOL
DATA
FOU
U-DISE CODE
ND
SOUTH DISTRICT
SL.NO
U-DISE CODE
BLOCK
SCHOOL NAME
1
11030701901
YANGANG
UPPER NIYA PS
2
11030801101
SUMBUK
BILLING PS
3
11030302001
TIMI
UPPER TANAK PS
4
11030204101
RAVANGLA
LINGDING PS
5
11030104004
NAMCHI
MODEL ENGLISH SCHOOL
6
11030701801
YANGANG
MANGZING JHS
7
11030103101
NAMCHI
TINGRITHANG JHS
8
11030801401
SUMBUK
MELLI BAZAAR SS
9
11030702001
YANGANG
LINGEE SS
10
11030501201
SIKKIP
SANGANATH SS
AVA
ILABLE)
BLOC
DETAILS OF REPORTING:
1. School Location:
95% of the Schools are located at ruralarea and almost all the schools in north
districts are situated in tribal cluster and in other districts of Sikkim the Majority of
schools were in Tribal and OBC area.
Major findings/Analysis:
Method of Analysis
A comparative analysis of the U-DISE and sample checking data pertaining to
variousaspects (variables) has been done and presented under three heads-
1) Proportion of schools where in the U-DISE data, the concerned
informationis either not at all filled (the field is left blank or zero) or not
available.
2) Proportion of schools where although the concerned information is filledin
the U-DISE data, it does not match with the information provided to usduring
the sample checking survey.
3) Proportion of schools where the concerned information is filled in theUDISE data and it matches with the information provided to us during
theSample checking survey.
The team has decided to make a 5% SampleSurvey Project by selecting 40 schools
out of 1279 schools of four districts. The selected schools of different categories
and levels covered for East,South, North and Westdistricts and which includes
schools like Primary, Elementary Level, Secondary Level and SeniorSecondary
Level. During the visit of all the 40 Schools we collected information on thefilled
prescribed format. We collected information related to School Building and
itsStructure, Infrastructure facilities provided to the schools, Staff of the
schools,Enrollment of the students their attendance, and Grade wise examination.
The detailsof the information collected above are mentioned tabular form below:
The information filed in the U-DISE data about various school location and its
particularsfurnished were matched with our information found in the period of
survey. Thedetails of the schools have been mentioned below on the table
accordingly District, Block,Ward, and Rural categories for all four District.
Availability of Records
As concerned with availability of records for survey checking we found that
in 99% of schools, the records was readily available to us. During survey we found
that overall physical condition of school records was found satisfactory in 98%
school while in 2% schools it was not. We also noticed that in 4% school, record
was not up-to- date..
Staff Analysis
As per the table below generated from the data collected by TTWS
we can come to the conclusion on the following points:
EAST DISTRICT
SL.NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SCHOOL NAME
SAJON THIMPEN PS
KUMREK PS
POST SANCTIONED
9
5
KAMBAL PS
8
5
PADMA KUMARI PUBLIC
PHALAICHADARA JHS
RHENOCK JHS
LUING SS
SANG SSS
MACHONG SSS
NANDOK SS
SL
NO
NAME OF SCHO
6
9
ANSHU ACADEMY
TARPIN SAALGHARI
NO. IN POSITION
8
11
10
10
10
14
25
45
38
18
OLS
(S
WEST DISTRICT
SL.NO
1
SCHOOL NAME
TAPHEL PS
2
PECHREAK PS
3
DUBDI MONASTIC SCHOOL
4
JAMBUDARA PS
5
SIKKIM HOMES ACADEMY
6
CHOTA SAMDONG JHS
7
VISION ACADEMY DARAP
8
MUKRUNG SS
9
BERMIOK MARTAM SS
10
SPRINGDALE ACADEMY
POST SANCTIONED
NO. IN POSITION
5
5
5
6
2
5
8
2
8
13
7
19
25
14
CHOOLS FOR WHICH
NORTH DISTRICT
SL.NO
1
CHATTEN PS
2
MANGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
3
NADAY PS
4
GREENVALE ACADEMY
5
SARCHOCK JHS
6
RANGRANG UPS
7
PHENSONG SS
8
TASA TENGAY SEC. SCHOOL
DATA
FOU
SCHOOL NAME
POST SANCTIONED
NO. IN POSITION
5
4
7
5
6
9
8
9
12
20
12
SOUTH DISTRICT
SL.NO
1
SCHOOL NAME
UPPER NIYA PS
2
BILLING PS
3
UPPER TANAK PS
4
LINGDING PS
5
MODEL ENGLISH SCHOOL
6
MANGZING JHS
7
TINGRITHANG JHS
8
MELLI BAZAAR SS
9
LINGEE SS
10
SANGANATH SS
POST SANCTIONED
NO. IN POSITION
5
8
5
6
5
7
5
5
4
14
8
7
26
23
18
Comparison of data: Looking at the data collected through U-DISE and
the PES survey there is not much deviation in data.
Facilities in School
There are various facilities provided to the schools which are listed below for
thereference and comparison for the current academic session.
1. School Management
2. Status of School Building
3. School Category
4. Type of School
5. Condition of Class Room
6. Availability of Drinking water facility
7. Availability of Electricity in the School
8. Availability of Boys Toilet in the School
9. Availability of Girls Toilet in the School
10. Computer Room facilities
11. Library facilities
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
10
1
3
3
6
3
3
3
20
11
12
1
1
3
3
3
6
3
3
5
10
SANG SSS
MACHONG SSS
NANDOK SS
Availability of Library
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
1
5
1
1
1
Computer Room
3
1
3
1
3
3
ANSHU ACADEMY
TARPIN SAALGHARI
PADMA KRI PUBLIC
PHALAICHADARA JHS
RHENOCK JHS
LUING SS
Availability of Girls Toilet
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
Availability of Toilet
3
3
SAJON THIMPEN PS
KUMREK PS
KAMBAL PS
Availability of Electricity
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
7
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
MJ
Mi
G
1
2
Drinking Water
Type of School
3
3
Condition of Class Room
School Category
Name of School
School Management
Sl.no
Status of School Building
EAST DISTRICT (U-DISE Data)
7
8
7
7
5
8
8
7
1
2
3
3
4
5
KAMBAL PS
1
5
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
6
1
3
2
2
3
3
8
8
8
ANSHU ACADEMY
TARPIN SAALGHARI
PADMA KRI PUBLIC
PHALAICHADARA JHS
RHENOCK JHS
3
1
3
3
2
3
7
9
LUING SS
1
3
6
3
10
SANG SSS
1
3
3
3
20
11
MACHONG SSS
1
3
3
3
5
12
NANDOK SS
1
3
6
3
10
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
5
3
4
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
MJ
Mi
G
6
7
Availability of Library
3
3
Computer Room
1
1
Availability of Girls Toilet
3
3
Availability of Toilet
Type of School
1
1
Availability of Electricity
School Category
SAJON THIMPEN PS
KUMREK PS
Name of School
Drinking Water
Status of School Building
1
2
Sl.no
Condition of Class Room
School Management
EAST DISTRICT (PES Data)
7
8
7
1
3
7
5
Drinking Water
Availability of Electricity
Availability of Toilet
Availability of Girls Toilet
Computer Room
Availability of Library
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
6
3
2
1
1
2
1
3
5
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
6
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
6
3
6
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
6
3
6
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
5
1
6
3
12
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
2
PECHREAK PS
1
3
1
3
3
DUBDI MONASTIC SCHOOL
2
3
1
3
4
JAMBUDARA PS
1
3
1
3
5
SIKKIM HOMES ACADEMY
5
1
1
6
CHOTA SAMDONG JHS
1
3
7
VISION ACADEMY DARAP
5
2
8
MUKRUNG SS
1
9
BERMIOK MARTAM SS
10
SPRINGDALE ACADEMY
G
MJ
2
TAPHEL PS
Name of School
Mi
2
Type of School
1
School Category
1
Status of School Building
2
School Management
3
1
Sl.no
Condition of Class Room
WEST DISTRICT (U-DISE data)
6
6
2
4
1
2
Availability of Electricity
Availability of Toilet
Availability of Girls Toilet
Computer Room
Availability of Library
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
6
3
2
1
1
2
1
3
5
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
6
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
6
3
6
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
6
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
6
3
12
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
2
PECHREAK PS
1
3
1
3
3
DUBDI MONASTIC SCHOOL
2
3
1
3
4
JAMBUDARA PS
1
3
1
3
5
SIKKIM HOMES ACADEMY
5
1
1
6
CHOTA SAMDONG JHS
1
3
7
VISION ACADEMY DARAP
5
8
MUKRUNG SS
1
9
BERMIOK MARTAM SS
1
10
SPRINGDALE ACADEMY
5
G
MJ
TAPHEL PS
Name of School
Mi
1
Sl.no
Condition of Class Room
1
Type of School
1
School Category
2
Status of School Building
3
School Management
Drinking Water
WEST DISTRICT (PES data)
6
6
2
4
1
2
G
5
SARCHOCK JHS
1
RANGRANG UPS
PHENSONG SS
TASA TENGAY SEC.
8 SCHOOL
Availability of Library
3
GREENVALE ACADEMY
Availability of Computer
Room
6
1
Availability of Girls Toilet
3
NADAY PS
Availability of Toilet
1
5
Availability of Electricity
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
MANGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
Availability of Drinking
Water
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
CHATTEN PS
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
10
3
2
1
1
1
2
MJ
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
Condition of Class Room
Type of School
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mi
School Category
Name of School
School Management
Sl.no
Status of School Building
NORTH DISTRICT (U-DISE data)
1
3
1
3
3
9
3
6
7
5
5
6
3
5
GREENVALE ACADEMY
5
SARCHOCK JHS
1
RANGRANG UPS
PHENSONG SS
TASA TENGAY SEC.
8 SCHOOL
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
10
2
2
1
1
1
2
MJ
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mi
NADAY PS
Availability of Library
3
5
Availability of Computer
Room
1
MANGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
Availability of Girls Toilet
3
1
Availability of Toilet
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CHATTEN PS
Availability of Electricity
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Availability of Drinking
Water
Type of School
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
Condition of Class Room
School Category
Name of School
School Management
Sl.no
Status of School Building
NORTH DISTRICT (PES data)
1
3
3
6
7
4
5
1
2
3
7
3
1
Availability of Electricity
Availability of Toilet
Availability of Girls Toilet
Computer Room
Availability of Library
2
2
6
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
5
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
7
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
6
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
6
3
5
5
5
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
6
3
6
1
7
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
6
3
7
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
3
2
BILLING PS
1
3
1
3
3
UPPER TANAK PS
1
3
1
3
4
LINGDING PS
1
3
1
5
MODEL ENGLISH SCHOOL
5
1
6
MANGZING JHS
1
7
TINGRITHANG JHS
8
MELLI BAZAAR SS
9
LINGEE SS
SANGANATH SS
G
10
MJ
UPPER NIYA PS
Name of School
Mi
1
Sl.no
Condition of Class Room
1
Type of School
1
School Category
1
Status of School Building
3
School Management
Drinking Water
SOUTH DISTRICT (U-DISE data)
3
5
Availability of Electricity
Availability of Toilet
Availability of Girls Toilet
Computer Room
Availability of Library
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
1
3
3
2
5
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
7
3
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
5
5
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
7
2
6
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
6
3
7
1
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
2
BILLING PS
1
3
1
3
3
UPPER TANAK PS
1
3
1
3
4
LINGDING PS
1
3
1
5
MODEL ENGLISH SCHOOL
5
1
6
MANGZING JHS
1
7
TINGRITHANG JHS
8
MELLI BAZAAR SS
9
LINGEE SS
SANGANATH SS
G
10
MJ
UPPER NIYA PS
Name of School
Mi
1
Sl.no
Condition of Class Room
1
1
Type of School
1
1
School Category
1
3
Status of School Building
3
6
School Management
Drinking Water
SOUTH DISTRICT (PES data)
3
5
Managed by (School Management): [Department of Education = 1, Tribal/Social Welfare Department = 2,
Local body = 3, Pvt. Aided = 4, Pvt. Unaided = 5]
Status of School Building :[Private =1, Rented=2, Government=3]
School category
: [Primary=1, Primary with Upper Primary=2, Primary with upper primary and
secondary/higher secondary =3, Upper Primary only =4, Upper Primary with secondary/higher secondary
=5,Primary with upper primary and secondary =6]
Type of school[Boys = 1, Girls = 2, Co-educational = 3]
Condition of Class Room: [G=Good condition, Mi=Minor repair, Mj=major repair]
Drinking water facility: [Hand pumps =1, Well =2, Tap water =3, others =4, none =5]
Electricity connection in school:[Yes = 1, No = 2, Yes but not functional =3]
Availability of Toilet: [Yes = 1, No = 2]
Availability of Girls Toilet: [ Yes = 1, No = 2,]
Computer Room: [ Yes = 1, No = 2]
Availability of Library:[Yes = 1, No = 2,]
a)
Quantitative Value of items as per DISE Data
-
40
b)
Quantitative Value of items as per PES Data
-
40
c)
Quantitative Value of deviations ignoring + signs
-
05
d)
Percentage deviation of DISE Data with PES Data
-
3%
e)
Precision level of DISE data with relation to PES Data
-
97%
1) School Management: 100% of School Managementarecorrect as compared
to the U-DISE data.
2) Status of School Building: Status of Building also found correct as
compared to the U-DISE data. 100% of school building arePucca, and some
ofthebuildings are Semi-Pucca and non of the school are kuccha in
Secondary and Sr. Sec schools in Sikkim.
3) School Category:100% of School Category are correct as compared to the
U-DISE data.
4) Type of School: All the School as the team visited wereCo-educational and
that has matched with the U-DISE data also.
5) Condition of Class Room: All the school buildings are Pucca building
almost 70% of the Classroom is in good condition as we found in the data
and 30% of the school classroom is in need of minor repair and 5% percent
needs major repairs.
6) Availability of Drinking water facility: Source of drinking water Facility in
school on the selected school for 5% sample survey, we found data of 99% of
the schools have tap water as the source but 10% school have not been
sufficient water supply and proper connection of water supply.
7) Availability of Electricity in the School: When we visited in 40 schools
andquery for the electrification we found 90% of schools have been fully
electrified and 10% of the school is yet to be electrified. Simultaneously,
comparison ofthe rural and urban schools of the four districts we found that
some of the rural schools are leftout for electrification especially in West
District.
8) Availability of Boys Toilet in the School : During the survey we found
thatalmost all the Schools have Boys toilet and 15% of the school have still
common toilet in all the districts. Theconditions of the toilet are not good due
to a shortage of water facilities. We have also observed during survey, 70%
of schools have their separate toilet for Teachers
9) Separate Toilet available for Girls: 99% of the school have separate toiletfor girls.
10)
Computer Room Facilities: We collected the data that the most of the
Schools do not have a proper computer lab. They are using some room on
make or shift basis for computer classes. Only Secondary has exclusive
Computer room. 90% of the schoolshave computer facilities from 1 set of
computer to 18 sets of computer but 60% of the computers are not in working
condition.
11)
Library Facilities: When we visited in 45 schools andquery regarding
library we found 60 % of schools have library and others do not have library
facility due to school lake of space in school.Simultaneously, comparison of
the rural and urban schools of the state we found rural schools are left out
for Library.
Enrolment of student by social categories:
Given table below provide us the details of total enrolment and category enrollment
of the school. The enrolment is categorized into Scheduled Tribe, Schedule Caste
and Other Backward Class of the four districts in Sikkim
Student Enrollment
\EAST District
KAMBAL PS
89
ANSHU ACADEMY
37
TARPIN SAALGHARI
44
PADMA KUMARI PUBLIC
64
PHALAICHADARA JHS
112
RHENOCK JHS
256
LUING SS
278
SANG SSS
526
MACHONG SSS
397
NANDOK SS
201
69
70
89
37
46
64
112
250
278
526
397
201
2 43 23
5 28 29
9 37 43
7 16
9
1
3 43
6
8 42
11 31 70
43 25 98
10 60 211
55 215 220
23 154 215
16 76 51
0
1
0
1
0
0
4
2
1
1
5
8
ST
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
2
1
1
6
12
SC
23
29
43
9
43
42
70
98
211
225
215
51
Total Enrolment
43
28
37
16
0
8
31
25
58
221
154
76
CWSN
73
2
5
9
7
1
6
11
43
8
55
23
16
OBC
KUMREK PS
CWSN
68
OBC
SAJON THIMPEN PS
ST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Name of School
PES Data
SC
Sl.no
Total Enrolment
U-DISE Data
WEST District
DUBDI MONASTIC SCHOOL
21
JAMBUDARA PS
38
SIKKIM HOMES ACADEMY
32
CHOTA SAMDONG JHS
VISION ACADEMY DARAP
218
83
MUKRUNG SS
271
BERMIOK MARTAM SS
453
SPRINGDALE ACADEMY
228
40
25
21
37
32
216
83
271
460
228
38
2
18
5
21
0
26 11
0 32
146 67
60 19
143 134
190 225
85 111
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
ST
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
SC
2
5
0
11
32
67
19
134
225
111
Total Enrolment
38
18
21
26
0
148
60
143
185
85
CWSN
25
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
43
0
OBC
PECHREAK PS
CWSN
40
OBC
TAPHEL PS
ST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Name of School
PES Data
SC
Sl.no
Total Enrolment
U-DISE Data
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
43
0
NORTH District
2
72
GREENVALE ACADEMY
52
SARCHOCK JHS
78
83
CWSN
123
NADAY PS
OBC
29
79
275
153
0
7
4
2
2
22
6
11
4
23 18
53
5
48
2
30
0
150 105
126 20
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
249
29
123
2
79
72
52
78
ST
249
MANGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
15
SC
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
Total Enrolment
CWSN
11
4
23 18
53
5
48
2
30
0
150 100
126 20
15
ST
279
153
0
7
4
2
2
22
6
CHATTEN PS
RANGRANG UPS
PHENSONG SS
TASA TENGAY SEC.
8 SCHOOL
PES Data
OBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Name of School
SC
Sl.no
Total Enrolment
U-DISE Data
83
SOUTH District
24
UPPER TANAK PS
44
LINGDING PS
MODEL ENGLISH SCHOOL
MANGZING JHS
TINGRITHANG JHS
MELLI BAZAAR SS
LINGEE SS
SANGANATH SS
33
19
228
54
634
361
258
82
24
44
33
19
228
54
635
361
255
1
0
2
0
0
11
0
2
6
2
ST
2 50 30
0
4 19
6 15 21
0 10 23
1
0 17
9 48 171
0 13 41
88 102 312
5 172 88
11 101 120
SC
Total Enrolment
1
0
2
0
0
11
0
2
6
2
ST
50 30
4 19
15 21
10 23
0 17
48 171
13 41
100 312
172 88
101 123
CWSN
BILLING PS
2
0
6
0
1
9
0
88
5
11
OBC
82
CWSN
UPPER NIYA PS
PES Data
OBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Name of School
SC
Sl.no
Total Enrolment
U-DISE Data
As it is evident from the above table that overall variations are negligible, however
it is noted that in some cases enrolment in DCFs are not clear( i.eoverwrited or
rubbed and enrolment data mismatched same DCF) .As concerned the school wise
comparative analysis of data in primary level enrolment deviation was ranging
between 0% to 1.5%. It was found during survey that in some schools the DCF were
not properly filled by the teachers. However deviation in total enrollment is
negligible.
Disabled Students
We began by examining the internal consistency of the U-DISE data regarding
disable students. In 100% school data regarding disabled student matches with
survey data as a result no variation was reported in disabled student data.
a)
Quantitative Value of items as per DISE Data
-
40
b)
Quantitative Value of items as per PES Data
-
40
c)
Quantitative Value of deviations ignoring + signs
-
02
d)
Percentage deviation of DISE Data with PES Data
-
2%
e)
Precision level of DISE data with relation to PES Data
-
98%
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Like previous year, this year too visiting the schools under 5% sample survey has
been a learning experience for all of us (involved in this survey project). It’s been
like adventurous trip with full of learning and practical experiences. We went every
school with open mind and did share all of the concerns, problems and obviously
required data of the school. Frankly we went beyond our schedule documentation to
observe the ground reality. This trip did provide us a broad picture about the whole
system, implementation of different schemes, teacher’s training and its impact on
daily school schedule and other aspects concerning with the schools administration.
This visit also provided us the opportunity to watch the whole proceeding and
documentation of the school. So certainly we have something to share with the
funding agency about the average observations and problems to the SSA officials.
The U-DISE format for collecting the data is well structured fulfilling all the
features of good schedule. It consists of simple and straight forward points using
verySimple language. The objectives of the survey/enquiry, the questions/items are
put and arranged in logical order.However, there are some methodological
confusion still exists with teachers. Therefore, training on U-DISE Data Collection
Format should be long enough to discuss all the issues..
It is found that there is no significant deviation except in few cases, between UDISE& Sample Survey Data relating to almost all the indicators of education for
the 4 sampleDistricts. The overall deviation of U-DISE data from sample data
taking into consideration all the items and sub items for all the 4 districts is very
much acceptable except in fewexceptional cases where the deviation is possible.
This indicates that the collection & maintenance of data in U-DISE. There is no
manipulation of data anywhere for any of the indicators as there is no significant
difference in data between the two surveys.
The major objective of the study was to assess the degree of deviation and get
the precision level of U-DISE data vis‐à‐vis Post Enumeration Survey (PES) data,
so as to suggest appropriate remedial measure for strengthening the U-DISEsystem
in Sikkim. As such the number of total schools were covered under sample checking
are 40 schools of four districts namely, North and South, East and West Sikkim.
While observing whole process of data collection under U-DISE, particularly on
the basis of scrutiny of U-DISE formats of sample schools the following suggestions
are offered to make the data collection process more effective, reliable and error
free. Some of our findings/suggestions are as under
1. The purpose and object of the data collection should always be precise and
clear not only in the minds of those who plan for these surveys and studies
but must be disseminated to the respondent data collectors well before the
launch of the study. The Principals/Head-teachers of the school must be
given orientations on the purpose of U-DISE data collection.
2. During survey it was observed that major deviation are due to conceptual error
made during filling up few needed information in U-DISE format by the
concerned school head master/ teacher. It is suggested that proper training
should be given for conceptual clarity.
3. In most of the schools we observed that Head Teachers/Principals were not
aware about the purpose and importance of the information for which that was
provided. So it is strongly recommended again that they should be informed
about the need, importance and utility of the U-DISE data which would
definitely motivate them to respond precisely and reliably. It would certainly be
more appropriate to outsource the entire U-DISE training to any wellexperienced professional agency, rather than present system.
4. During survey we found that in most of schools SMC playing a good role in
school management. Schools conditions and status had improved after the
formation of SMC. But in few cases people in SMC are not aware. They should
be motivated about their duties.
5. Financial aspect like School Grant & TLM grant should be covered in 5%
sample checking format. It was observed that in some schools even the aid
received from SSA not utilized.
6. U-DISE format filled by the teacher in schools further should be properly
checked by concerned CRC/BRC so that inconsistency of data can be reduced.
We have analyzed that in U-DISE DCF some aspects have been left blank and
the format has been counter signed by concerned authority we also analyzed
that many DCF were not signed by Teacher (in-charge) and BRCC. So DCF
should be properly checked by higher authority also and care should be taken
future.
7. It was found that overall enrolment of school does not vary too much, but some
variation was found in enrolment of boys and girls separately.
8. It was found that in some schools record was not up-to date. We also observed
that there is not proper monitoring in some schools. During the survey we found in
some schools BRCC/CRCC had not visited the school from last long time. So
proper monitoring of school should be conducted time to time for quality work and
quality education.
9. We have observed that no teaching learning aid material (TLM) available in
many schools . There is no column in PES format for TLM.
10. Specified time for 5% sample checking of U-DISE particularly for Data analysis
is not sufficient. So it should be increased to get best results.
11. Social Aspects of this survey: - It’s general concept that the quality of primary
education have improved a lot under the implementation of SSA. It has a greater
impact on infrastructure but now it’s time to focus more on quality of education on
ground level. We did talk to some of the parents and some of the members of school
management committee (SMC) in almost all the schools. What we found that people
are not happy with grading system and at some extent with continuous
comprehensive evaluation (CCE). We found enough voices against these two
aspects. We also found that teachers are not sure about the parameters as far as
CCE is concerned. So certainly its matter of great concern that parents are not
satisfied with the level of education that is being provided in the school.
12. DISE data should be declared as official data to get maximum accuracy.