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 III Section I. Summary of RTI Data 6 IV A. Outcome Indicators 6 V B. Annual Municipal Budget for Education 14 VI C. Monitoring and Evaluation 17 VII a) Teacher Inspection Reports 20 VIII b) Enquiries conducted against Teaching staff (Teachers/HMs) and suspensions 21 IX c) Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation 21 X D. Compliance with norms laid down under Right to Education Act 24 XI Section II. Deliberation by Municipal Councillors and MLAs 29 XII Section III. Data from Household Survey 35 XIII III. Ward-wise Data 38 XIV Annexure 1 – Survey Methodology 44 XV Annexure 2 – Socio Economic Classification (SEC) Note 45 XVI Annexure 3 – Inspection Report Form 46 XVII Annexure 4 – Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation Form 48 XVII Annexure 5- RTI response for District Profile 49 XVIII Annexure 6 - Scholarship Circular for 2015-16 50 Chart 1 Chart 1: Reasons for not being happy with Municipal School (%) 37 Tables Table 1: Total No. of Students (Enrolments) in Mumbai’s Municipal Schools 2011 1 6 - 2016 2 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 12 Table 11: Standards-wise Enrolments and Dropouts in Mumbai Public Schools 11 12 (MPS)
2 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
12 Table 12: Comparison between MCGM and Private Schools: SSC Results 13 Table 13: Comparison between Private and MCGM Schools: Scholarships for 4th 13 13 and 7th Standard 14 Table 14: Annual Municipal Budget and Per-capita allocation for Students 14 15 Table 15: Per-child Allocation and Expenditure (In Rs. Crore) 15 Table 16: Budgeted vs. Actual Expenditure Summary 2014-16 for Primary 16 16 Education(In Rs. Crore) 17 Table 17: Strength of the School Inspection Unit 2012-16 18 18 Table 18: Inspection norms for School Inspectors 18 19 Table 19: Medium-wise Inspectors 2014-16 19 20 Table 20: D, M/East and P/South ward Teacher Inspection Data 20 21 Table 21: CCE data for Wards D, M/E and P/S for 2015-16 22 Table 22: Percentage of Students graded ‘E2’ i.e. continuously absent in wards 22 22 D, M/E and P/Sin 2015-16 23 Table 23: Compliance with Infrastructure and other norms under RTE (2014-15) 24 24 Table 24: Infrastructure of MCGM schools 25 Table 25: Student Classroom Ratio (SCR)/Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) and Teacher 25 26 Classroom Ratio in Mumbai 26 Table 26: Medium Wise Pupil (Student) Teacher Ratio in 2015-16 27 27 Table 27: Schools with School Management Committees in 2014-15 28 Table 28: Number of questions asked and Number of meetings by Councillors 28 29 on Education in all Committees 29 Table 29: Category wise number of Questions asked by Councillors on Education 29 Table 30: Questions asked by Education Committee Members in 2012-13 to 30 30 2015-16 Table 31: Ward-wise questions asked by councillors on Education in the year 31 31 April’15 to March’16 Table 32: Issues raised/Questions asked by Councillors in the year April’15 to 32 32 March’16 33 Table 33: Questions asked by MLAs on Education 33 34 Table 34: Issue-wise questions asked by MLAs on Education 34 35 Table 35: Current Medium of Education (%) 35 Table 36: Respondents from Table 35 whose current medium of education is 36 36 other than English and would want to change to English medium (%) 37 Table 37: Respondents taking private tuitions/coaching classes (%) 36 38 Table 38: Details on source of Tuitions (%) 36 39 Table 39: Percentage happy with the School 37 40 Table 40: Ward-wise Total Number of Students in Municipal Schools in Mumbai 38 41 Table 41: Ward-wise drop in Enrolments between 2011-12 and 2015-16 39 42 Table 42: Ward-wise Total Number of Dropout in Municipal Schools in Mumbai 40 43 Table 43: Ward-wise Total Number of Teachers in Municipal Schools in Mumbai 41 44 Table 44:Ward-wise Total Number of Pass outs in Municipal Schools in Mumbai 42 Table 45: Population-wise Number of Student in Government, Pvt. Aided, Pvt. 46 43 Unaided and Unrecognised Schools in 2015-16
3 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Section I. Summary of RTI Data
A. Outcome Indicators
Table 1: Total No. of Students (Enrolments) in Mumbai’s Municipal Schools 2011 - 2016
Year 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Total Students 439,153 434,523 404,251 397,085 383,485
% Change in Enrolments Year on Year 0.3% -1.1% -7% -2% -3%
Medium-wise1 Change in Enrolments Year on Year (%) No. 116086 103048 91919 73992 71454 Marathi % -6.9% -11.2% -10.8% -19.50% -3.43% No. 136361 137315 125120 116111 119384 Hindi % 3% 0.7% -8.9% -7.20% 2.82% No. 48474 57235 57915 66467 71260 English % 22.2% 18.1% 1.2% 14.77% 7.21% No. 113935 114521 110776 106918 105307 Urdu % 2.1% 0.5% -3.3% -3.48% -1.51% No. 8083 7037 5686 5299 4956 Gujarati % -10.4% -12.9% -19.2% -6.81% -6.47% No. 3966 3601 2828 2549 2526 Kannada % -8.1% -9.2% -21.5% -9.87% -0.90% No. 8275 8011 7161 6065 5954 Tamil % -12.3% -3.2% -10.6% -15.31% -1.83% No. 3266 2978 2280 2062 1870 Telugu % 0.2% -8.8% -23.4% -9.56% -9.31%
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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 2: Total Dropouts in Mumbai’s Municipal Schools 2011- 2016
Year 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Dropouts2 32,580 40,011 47,2183 51,741 57,788 Dropouts (per 100) 7 9 12 13 15 Medium-wise4 Dropouts Year on Year (%) No. 6523 6859 6817 7724 9320 Marathi % 5.6% 6.7% 7.4% 10.4% 13.0% No. 13178 19332 21283 21744 27343 Hindi % 9.7% 14.1% 17.0% 18.7% 22.9% No. 2596 2750 3346 3543 3986 English % 5.4% 4.8% 5.8% 5.3% 5.6% No. 8918 9681 14496 15731 15834 Urdu % 7.8% 8.5% 13.1% 14.7% 15.0% No. 370 377 257 320 303 Gujarati % 4.6% 5.4% 4.5% 6.0% 6.1% No. 247 291 297 273 261 Kannada % 6.2% 8.1% 10.5% 10.7% 10.3% No. 318 354 472 396 440 Tamil % 3.8% 4.4% 6.6% 6.5% 7.4% No. 394 335 221 239 253 Telugu % 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.
2From 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 3: Transition Rate of Students from Class 7 to Class 8 in 2015-16
Standard Academic Year Total Enrolment Transition Rate 7 2014-15 47245 53% 8 2015-16 24869
Inference:
The Transition Rate5 of students studying in Class 7 in 2014-15 to Class 8 in 2015-16 in MCGM schools was only 53% in 2015-16.
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* 330,856 -5.7 2019-20* 308,198 -6.8 2020-21* 282,982 -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.
5The 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 5: Retention Rate in Municipal Schools- Class 1 to Class 7 Retention Rate (%) Standard Academic Year Total Enrolments Year on Year 1 2011-12 53729 - 2 2012-13 58683 109.2 3 2013-14 55923 104.1 4 2014-15 55886 104.0 5 2015-16 51411 95.7 6 2016-17* 46789 87.1 7 2017-18* 45559 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 63,392 - 2009-10 67,477 6.4 2010-11 62,587 -7.2 2011-12 53,729 -14.2 2012-13 46,913 -12.7 2013-14 39,663 -15.5 2014-15 39,214 -1.1 2015-16 34,549 -11.9 2016-17* 29,199 -15.5 2017-18* 22,583 -22.7 2018-19* 14,703 -34.9 2019-20* 5,558 -62.2
Inference:
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.
9 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 7: Medium-wise6 Class I Enrolments 2010 to 2016
2010- 2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Medium No. of No. of Y17 No. of Y1 No. of Y1 No. of Y1 No. of Y1 Students Students to Students to Students to Students to Students to Y2 Y2 Y2 Y2 Y2
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 1003 821 -18 619 -25 609 -2 543 -11 539 -1 Telugu 442 353 -20 256 -27 212 -17 188 -11 174 -7
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 schools8
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 No. of Schools 11 183 363 575 Standards 1st 1st to 2nd 1st to 3rd 1st to 4th No. of Students 576 7514 19427 39409 Medium-wise Enrolments Marathi 263 4464 10774 16441 Hindi 28 1263 7715 Urdu 313 2940 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.
6Data 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 9: Total Dropouts in Semi-English schools
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 No. of Schools 11 183 363 575 Standards 1st 1st to 2nd 1st to 3rd 1st to 4th No. of Students 576 7514 19427 39409 Dropouts 74 216 1149 3725 Dropouts per 100 13 3 6 9 Medium-wise Dropouts In no. 31 124 653 1930 Marathi Dropouts per 100 12 3 6 12 In no. 34 756 Hindi Dropouts per 100 3 10 In no. 43 92 462 1031 Urdu Dropouts per 100 14 3 6 7 In no. 1 Gujarati Dropouts per 100 0.59 In no. 1 Kannada Dropouts per 100 1 In no. 4 Tamil Dropouts per 100 0.88 In no. 2 Telugu Dropouts per 100 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 10: Standards-wise Enrolment and Dropout in Semi-English schools
Year Standards 1 2 3 4 Enrolments 576 2012-2013 Dropouts 74 Dropouts per 100 13 Enrolments 6949 565 2013-2014 Dropouts 135 81 Dropouts per 100 2 14 Enrolments 11205 7653 569 2014-2015 Dropouts 267 779 103 Dropouts per 100 2 10 18 Enrolments 18729 12415 7703 562 2015-2016 Dropouts 901 1680 1033 111 Dropouts per 100 5 14 13 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 2015- 16.
Table 11: Standards-wise Enrolments and Dropouts in Mumbai Public Schools (MPS)
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Stand Enrolm Drop Dropouts Enrolm Drop Dropouts Enrolm Drop Dropouts ard ents out per 100 ents out per 100 ents out per 100 Jr. Kg 2527 35 1 2651 29 1 3321 22 1 Sr. Kg 3092 68 2 4317 82 2 3724 69 2 1 3618 31 1 4097 43 1 4097 81 2 2 3156 200 6 3906 185 5 4156 199 5 3 2925 243 8 3504 255 7 3889 209 5 4 2415 172 7 3171 261 8 3475 201 6 5 1646 125 8 2502 144 6 3059 196 6 6 973 54 6 1783 91 5 2501 130 5 7 452 26 6 1064 37 3 1809 84 5 8 0 0 0 469 20 4 1370 38 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 402 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 20804 954 5 27464 1147 4 31803 1231 4
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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 12: Comparison between MCGM and Private Schools: SSC Results
No. of Candidates Appeared Total Pass Pass in (%) Year MCGM Private MCGM Private MCGM Private School School School School School School Mar-11 11,515 159,572 6,806 131,230 59 82 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 10,779 159,913 7,809 136,686 72 85 Mar-16 10,824 153,754 7,824 131,738 72 86
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: Scholarships9for 4th and 7th Standard
Middle School Scholarship Examination (4th Standard) Candidates Appeared Scholarship Holders Scholarship Holders in % Year MCGM Private MCGM Private MCGM Private School School School School School School 2011-12 9,637 21,998 43 2,044 0.4% 9.3% 2012-13 5,426 21,223 23 1,954 0.4% 9.2% 2013-14 2,621 20,660 33 1,944 1.3% 9.4% 2014-15 5,634 19,351 88 1,889 1.6% 9.8% 2015-16 4th std. Scholarship exam was not conducted in the year 2015-16* High School Scholarship Examination (7th Standard) 2011-12 7,160 19,227 8 1,758 0.1% 9.1% 2012-13 4,283 20,190 6 1,611 0.1% 8.0% 2013-14 1,727 19,982 2 1,615 0.1% 8.1% 2014-15 3,799 18,284 12 1,605 0.3% 8.8% 2015-16 7th 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.
9The 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)
13 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
B. Annual Municipal Budget for Education
Table 14: Annual Municipal Budget and Per-capita allocation for Students
Total Annual Budget Year (Rs. in crores) Total Students 2008-09 911 451,810 2009-10 1,255 449,179 2010-11 1,761 437,863 2011-12 1,800 439,153 2012-13 2,388 434,523 2013-14 2,613 404,251 2014-15 2,773 397,085 2015-16 2,630 383,485 2016-17 2,567 383,485
Inference:
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).
14 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 15: Per-child Allocation and Expenditure (In Rs. Crore)
Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Estimate Expenditure Estimate Expenditure Estimate Account Head 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2015-16 2016-17 Primary Education Total Revenue Expenses 2,313 1,870 2,144 1,578 2,070 Total Project works/Capital Expenses (A) 345 76 357 110 325 Total Primary education (i) 2,658 1,945 2,501 1,688 2,394 Secondary Education Total Revenue Expenses 111 81 119 88 142 Total Project works/Capital Expenses (B) 4 - 10 3 31 Total secondary education (ii) 115 81 129 91 173 Total Education Budget (C) (i + ii = C) 2,773 2,027 2,630 1,779 2,567 % Utilisation 73% 68% Less: Grants to Private Primary aided 415 360 256 254 300 School (D) Total (C-D) 2,358 1,667 2,374 1,524 2,267 Total students 397,085 397,085 383,485 383,485 383,485 Per Capita cost for every student (in 59,375 41,972 61,894 39,744 59,115 actual rupees) Less: Total Project works/Capital 764 436 623 367 656 Expenses and Grants(A+B+D=E) Total (C-E) 2,009 1,591 2,007 1,411 1,911 Per Capita cost for every student (in 50,586 40,066 52,326 36,807 49,835 actual rupees)
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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 16: Budgeted vs. Actual Expenditure Summary 2014-16 for Primary Education (In Rs. Crore)
Budget Estimates Actual % Utilisation Sr. 2013- 2014- 2015- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2013- 2014- 2015 No Account Head 14 15 16 14 15 16 14 15 -16 Establishment 831 876 901 655 709 690 79% 81% 77% 1 Expenses Administrative 62 86 85 53 67 57 84% 78% 67% 2 Expenses Operation and 224 183 106 50 96 81 22% 53% 77% 3 Maintenance10 3a Incentive to Girl Students 6 7 6 4 1 4 67% 13% 63% 3b Consumables 114 74 1 0 0 - 0% 0% 0% 3c School Stores 82 84 84 41 89 69 50% 106% 82% 3d Other O&M 22 19 15 4 6 8 19% 33% 54% Finance and Interest 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 98% 98% 98% 4 Charges Programme 21 24 18 6 10 3 30% 42% 14% 5 Expenses Revenue Grants, Contribution & 966 1,139 1,022 720 833 724 75% 73% 71% 6 Subsidies Depreciation & - - - 16 19 23 7 Others Provision for doubtful 10 4 11 - 134 - 0% 3359% 0% receivables/refund 8 of tax (172) 137 117 9 Prior Period Total Revenue Expenses 2,115 2,313 2,144 1,501 1,870 1,578 71% 81% 74% Project Works/Capital 357 345 357 127 76 110 36% 22% 31% Expenses Grand Total 2,472 2,658 2,501 1,748 1,628 1,945 66% 73% 67%
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%.
10Break up of Operation and Maintenance for 2012-13 were under different heads therefore overall figure has been given.
16 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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 hierarchy11 of the two wings:
Deputy Administrative Administrative Head Clerks Education Officer (A.O. Setup and Clerks Education Officers Schools) Officer Academic Superintendent School Schools, HM, Dy. Setup (Schools) Inspectors HM, Teachers etc.
Out of the 50-odd functions12 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.
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.
11The 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 12Source: Information received from Department of Education, MCGM under Right to Information Act (2005).
17 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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
Number of Teachers Maximum No. of Medium of Instruction City/Suburbs per Inspector schools per Inspector City 300 25 Marathi Suburbs 250 25 Urdu/Hindi/Gujarati City/Suburbs 250 25 Tamil/English/Telugu/Kannada City/Suburbs 250 25
18 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 19: Medium-wise Inspectors 2014-16
Teacher13 Available Inspectors Teachers per Inspector Medium of 2015- 2012- 2015- 2012 2013 2014- 2015- Instruction 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2013- 2014- 1614 13 16 -13 -14 15 16 14 15 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 8 343 271 273 341 Gujarati 398 363 349 274 1 1 2 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 0 NA NA NA NA M.R.* 82 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Other Departme 9 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA nt15 Total 13447 12693 12496 10637 75 76 80 74 179 167 156 144
Inference:
As per Department of Education norms16, 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.
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.
13Source: 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. 16Source: Information received from MCGM Department of Education under Right to Information Act (2005).
19 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
a) Teacher Inspection Reports17
Table 20: D, M/East and P/South ward Teacher Inspection Data
Particulars of Inspection Form D Ward M/E Ward P/S Ward Dropout (Per 100) 20 24 20 Pass out (In %) 71 50 67 No. of teachers 100 1161 371 No. of teachers inspection reports provided 31 398 74 % 31 34 20 Usage of examples, case study while teaching Usage 94 99 97 Usage of Teaching/Aids (Equipment/material) Yes 94 64 85 Student Involvement Good 94 92 92 18 Formative Evaluation Technique Used Yes 97 99 96 Teacher Student Interaction good 87 92 81 Entries in the daily lesson plan and actual teaching Proper 94 83 93 Self-evaluation by the teacher Good 32 21 41 Prepared test papered or question paper Prepared 74 98 64 Teacher’s Portfolio Good 48 68 61 Subject wise student’s response Good 77 71 91
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.
17The Teacher Inspection Form used in the Academic Year 2015-16 is attached in Annexure 3. 18Evaluation 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.
20 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 21: CCE data for Wards D, M/E and P/S for 2015-16
Less than Std. A 1 A2 B 1 B 2 C 1 C 2 C 2 1st Language 4th 3.2 10.3 17.1 18.9 12.6 3.4 34.5 7th 5.0 14.3 19.7 18.2 12.5 3.9 26.3 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 Science/Social Science 4th 3.5 11.0 17.4 19.0 11.4 3.1 34.5 Science 7th 5.3 14.3 18.6 16.9 13.2 5.4 26.3 Social Science 7th 5.8 13.0 17.6 17.6 13.8 5.9 26.3
Table 22: Percentage of Students graded ‘E2’ i.e. continuously absent in wards D, M/E and P/S in 2015-16
Std. E2 4th 31% 7th 23%
Inference:
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.
22 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
D. Compliance with norms laid down under Right to Education Act19* Table 23: Compliance with Infrastructure and other norms under RTE20(2014-15) Indicator : Schools with Infrastructure Govt. and Local Facilities Available bodies Private Aided Private Unaided Unrecognised Total Schools 1252 436 665 80 No. of Student 3,91,772 1,53,058 3,15,877 14401 No. of Teacher 12496 3600 6876 409 Number 1252 436 665 80 Building % 100% 100% 100% 100% Office cum store cum HM Number 1180 428 640 78 room % 94.25% 98.17% 96.24% 97.50% One class room for every Number 1002 281 288 58 teacher % 80.03% 64.45% 43.31% 72.50% Number 1155 409 560 65 Ramp % 92.25% 93.81% 84.21% 81.25% Number Separate Toilet for Boys 1252 419 626 78 % 100% 96.10% 94.14% 97.50% Number 1252 427 647 79 Separate Toilet for Girls % 100% 97.94% 97.29% 98.75%% Number Drinking Water Facility 1252 436 665 80 % 100% 100% 100% 100% Kitchen Shed (Govt. &Aided Number 296 94 178 23 Schools) % 23.64% 21.56% 26.77% 28.75% Number 1177 410 610 72 Boundary Wall % 94.01% 94.04% 91.73% 90% Number 1113 379 588 70 Playground % 88.90% 86.93% 88.42% 80% Indicator: Outcomes MCGM Private Number 7,809 1,36,686 SSC % 72% 85% Middle School Scholarship Number 88 1,889 (4th) % 1.6% 9.8% Number 12 1,605 High School Scholarship (7th) % 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.
19Source:http://www.ncert.nic.in/html/pdf/educationalsurvey/Manual_on_Statistics_and_Indicators_of_School_Education/Ed ucational_Indicators___Final___2.pdf 20Norms of Schools with Infrastructure facilities available , as specified under section 19 of "The right of children to free and compulsory education Act,2009"
24 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 24: Infrastructure of MCGM schools
Indicator : Schools with Infrastructure Facilities Available 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total Schools 1291 1266 1252 No. of Student 4,27,785 4,01,416 3,91,772 No. of Teacher 13,447 12,693 12,496 Number 1291 1266 1252 Building % 100 100 100 Office cum store cum Number 1291 1212 1180 HM room % 100 95.73 94.25 One class room for Number 1232 1006 1002 every teacher % 95.4 79.46 80.03 Number 1291 1125 1155 Ramp % 100 88.86 92.25 Separate Toilet for Number 1291 1261 1252 Boys % 100 99.61 100 Separate Toilet for Number 1284 1264 1252 Girls % 99.5 99.84 100 Drinking Water Number 1291 1266 1252 Facility % 100 100 100 Kitchen Shed (Govt. Number 1291 1071 296 &Aided Schools) % 100 84.6 23.64 Number 1238 1221 1177 Boundary Wall % 95.9 96.45 94.01 Number 1291 1183 1113 Playground % 100 93.44 88.90 Indicator: Outcomes Number 7,809 1,36,686 7,809 SSC % 72 85 72 Middle School Number 88 1,889 88 Scholarship (4th) % 1.6 9.8 1.6 High School Number 12 1,605 12 Scholarship (7th) % 0.3 8.8 0.3
25 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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 Mumbai21
Govt. and Pvt. Un- Indicator Local bodies Pvt. Aided Unaided recognised Number of classrooms (1 to 8) 17570 3438 6100 421 Number of classrooms (9 to 10) 744 64 109 18 Student classroom ratio (SCR) 21 44 51 33 Primary schools having SCR more Number 131 193 316 23 than 30 % 71.20% 44.27% 47.59% 28.75% Upper Primary /Sec./Higher Sec. Number 104 113 231 21 schools having SCR more than 35 % 0.10% 0% 0% 0% Number 1002 281 288 58 One class room for every teacher % 80.03% 64.45% 43.31% 72.50% Number 35 7 3 1 Schools with single teacher % 2.8% 1.61% 0.45% 1.25%
Primary schools having PTR more Number 14 98 188 12 than 30 % 1.1% 22.5% 28.3% 15%
Upper Primary /Sec./Higher Sec. Number 86 0 0 0 schools having PTR more than 35 % 6.9% 0% 0% 0%
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.
21Source: Educational Indicators: http://www.ncert.nic.in/html/pdf/educationalsurvey/Manual_on_Statistics_and_Indicators_of_School_Education/ Educational_Indicators___Final___2.pdf
26 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 26: Medium Wise Pupil (Student) Teacher Ratio in 2015-16
Teachers (Includes Students (Includes HM, Vice- Primary, Upper Students per Medium No. of Schools principal/Dy. HM, Primary and Teacher Teachers, Special Secondary) Teachers)
Marathi 421 71,454 2,809 25 Hindi 277 119,384 2,978 40 Urdu 243 105,307 2,727 39 Gujarati 70 4,956 274 18 Tamil 35 5,954 221 27 Telugu 32 1,870 74 25 Kannada 38 2,526 152 17 English 131 71,260 1,320 54 MR 16 774 82 9 Total 1,26322 383,485 10,637 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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
MNC Private Aided Private Unaided Un- recognised Number % Number % Number % Number % Not Applicable23 57 4.5 4 0.9 476 72.9 100 90.9 Yes 1209 95.5 439 99.1 177 27.1 10 9.1 Total 1267 443 653 110
23SMC 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 No. of No. of No. of No. of total No. of total No. of No. of No. of total Questi Meetin Questi Meeti Questi total Questio Meeti Name of Committee ons gs ons ngs ons Meetings ns ngs BMC General Body Meeting (GBM) 32 66 45 65 49 79 47 74 Education Committee 62 19 45 15 44 30 86 33 Ward Committee 23 241 29 255 20 301 27 280 Raise of Other Committee 17 243 14 276 36 407 33 337 Total 134 569 133 611 149 817 193 724
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 No. of No. of No. of No. of Questions Asked Councillors Councillors Councillors Councillors 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 0 164 157 166 158 1 35 43 32 37 2 to 4 23 21 24 24 Above 4 5 6 5 8 Total 227 227 227 227
Inference: Only 8 councillors have asked more than 4 questions on education while 158 councillors did not ask a single question.
29 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 30: Questions asked by Education Committee Members in 2012-13 to 2015-16 No. of ques. asked No. of ques. asked No. of ques. asked No. of ques. asked Councillors Name on education on education on education on education (2012-13) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2015-16) Ajanta Yadav* 8 NA 11 NA Anil Trimbakkar 7 5 4 37 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 Manoj Kotak NA 1 3 NA Mangesh Pawar 2 NA NA NA Nandakumar Vaity NA NA NA 1 Noorjahan Shaikh 2 4 4 2 Prakash Darekar 4 2 1 3 Prajakta (Sawant) Vishwasrao NA NA NA 4 Priyatama Sawant 8 5 4 5 Ratna Mahale NA 2 4 1 Rakhee Jadhav 0 NA NA NA Rajeshree Shirwadkar NA NA NA 4 Samita Naik NA NA 0 3 Sanjay Bhalerao 0 0 NA NA Seema Shivalkar 3 NA NA NA Shailaja Girkar 6 NA NA NA Shivanand Shetty NA 0 0 NA Shubhada Patkar 3 1 2 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 Vinod Shelar NA 9 5 NA Vitthal Kharatmol 1 7 4 NA Yamini Jadhav 6 6 3 9 Total 66 55 58 86 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 31: Ward-wise questions asked by councillors on Education in the year April’15 to March’16 No. of councilors who asked Total questions No. of No. of question on asked on Ward students councillors education education A 7038 4 0 0 B 2402 3 1 1 C 432 4 1 1 D 3138 7 1 1 E 10580 8 4 20 F/N 27242 10 4 8 F/S 7829 7 1 1 G/N 20559 11 4 5 G/S 13676 9 2 5 H/E 21145 11 5 47 H/W 8366 6 0 0 K/E 17860 15 6 15 K/W 16583 13 4 6 L 34631 15 4 14 M/E 54147 13 4 10 M/W 15208 8 3 4 N 20000 12 3 6 P/N 33898 16 6 9 P/S 14419 8 0 0 R/C 9267 10 3 3 R/N 8921 7 5 22 R/S 12170 11 3 6 S 14694 13 4 7 T 9280 6 1 2 Total 3,83,485 227 69 193
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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 32: Issues raised/Questions asked by Councillors in the year April’15 to March’16
Issues Question asked Closure of the schools 2 Dropout rate 1 Education Related 6 Human Resources Related 50 Higher/Technical Education 2 Infrastructure 11 Municipal School Related 38 New schools 3 Negligence in duty of MCGM officials/Staff related 2 Naming/Renaming of School 6 Primary education 1 Private and Trust school related 8 Providing and fixing educational materials 3 School repairs and reconstruction 10 Schemes/Policies in Education Related 37 Secondary education 1 Student issues related 9 Upgradation/reduction of Standards and section of school 2 Vocational training for Blind and differently abled (Handicapped) 1 Total 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 33: Questions asked by MLAs on Education
Mumbai related Total Political Education Question in Name of MLA Party Area Questions Education Abu Azmi SP Mankhurd Shivaji Nagar 2 12 Ajay Choudhari SS Shivadi 0 13 Ameet Satam BJP Andheri (West) 2 3 Amin Patel INC Mumbadevi 23 163 Ashish Shelar BJP Vandre (West) 3 14 Ashok Patil SS Bhandup (West) 2 10 Aslam Shaikh INC Malad West 14 88 Atul Bhatkhalkar BJP Kandivali (East) 1 12 Bharati Lavekar BJP Varsova 0 1 Kalidas Kolambkar INC Wadala 6 16 Mangal Lodha BJP Malabar Hill 4 11 Mangesh Kudalkar SS Kurla (SC) 0 5 Manisha Chaudhary BJP Dahisar 1 10 Md. Arif (Naseem) Khan INC Chandivali 11 33 Parag Alavani BJP Vile Parle 3 10 Prakash Surve SS Magathane 0 2 Prakash Phaterpekar SS Chembur 0 2 Raj Purohit BJP Colaba 2 3 Ramchandra Kadam BJP Ghatkopar (West) 0 0 Ramesh Latke SS Andheri (East) 0 0 Sadanand Sarvankar SS Mahim 1 8 Sanjay Potnis SS Kalina 1 7 Sardar Singh BJP Mulund 3 19 Selvan Tamil BJP SionKoliwada 0 0 Sunil Shinde SS Worli 1 14 Sunil Raut SS Vikroli 2 10 Sunil Prabhu SS Dindoshi 4 22 Trupti Sawant SS Bandra (East) 2 6 Tukaram Kate SS Anushakti Nagar 2 4 Varsha Gaikwad INC 178 Dharavi (SC) 4 20 Waris Pathan AIMEIM Byculla 0 7 Yogesh Sagar BJP Charkop 1 9 Total 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 34: Issue-wise questions asked by MLAs on Education
Mumbai related Edu. Total Question in Questions Education Issues Anganwadi/Balwadi/Creche Related 0 11 Ashram School Related 1 48 Cast/Tribe education 1 4 Central/State Government and Zilla Parishad school 0 50 Dropout Rate 0 1 Education Related 9 34 Fees structure 0 4 Government College 0 3 Higher/Technical Education 15 55 Human Resources Related 8 82 Infrastructure 4 4 Municipal School Related 14 17 Providing and fixing education materials 2 2 School repairs and reconstruction 8 8 Primary/Secondary education 0 29 Private College Related 8 24 Private and Trust school related 8 36 Schemes/Policies in Education Related 14 116 Syllabus / Curriculum 0 1 Student Issues Related 3 3 SC/ST/OBC Education 0 2 Total 95 534
34 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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 All SEC A SEC B SEC C SEC D SEC E
8 5 3 6 8 16 Public English 60 81 78 66 50 41 Private 4 1 2 3 6 8 Public Marathi 12 7 8 11 17 14 Private 5 1 2 4 6 8 Public Hindi 5 2 4 5 8 5 Private 1 0 0 1 1 1 Public Gujarati 1 1 0 1 0 2 Private 1 0 1 1 1 4 Public Urdu 1 1 1 1 1 1 Private 0 0 0 0 1 1 Public Other Indian Language 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private
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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 36: Respondents from Table 35 whose current medium of education is other than English and would want to change to English medium (%)
Language All SEC A SEC B SEC C SEC D SEC E English 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 (%)
All Private School Municipal School Yes 63 66 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 39: Percentage happy with the School
All Private School Municipal School Yes 91 93 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 Facilities provided to students are not 9 very good 18 45 Infrastructure facilities of the school are very poor Future scope is very limited 31 Quality of education is not very good
39 The teachers are not that good
Fees of the school is very high
55 School is located pretty far away from my place 46 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
III. Ward-wise Data24
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 7672 7685 7600 7548 7038 B 2779 2812 2542 2626 2402 C 764 674 547 695 432 D 3291 3269 2798 3116 3138 E 12392 11433 11432 11490 10580 F/N 34964 35033 32187 29713 27242 F/S 9510 9179 8486 8178 7829 G/N 21238 23747 22211 20851 20559 G/S 15942 15743 14729 13880 13676 H/E 26138 26373 22942 22043 21145 H/W 9922 9714 9493 8844 8366 K/E 20411 20139 15234 17729 17860 K/W 19948 19051 17725 17226 16583 L 34662 35655 35345 34584 34631 M/E 52049 53510 53394 54372 54147 M/W 21006 17028 16324 15564 15208 N 27949 25956 22875 21086 20000 P/N 35793 36706 35507 34917 33898 P/S 16754 16165 15003 14858 14419 R/C 13454 13410 10047 10632 9267 R/N 9695 9680 9420 9389 8921 R/S 13887 13903 12610 12757 12170 S 17071 16507 15719 15157 14694 T 11862 11151 10081 9830 9280 Total 4,39,153 4,34,523 4,04,251 3,97,085 3,83,485
24Source: Data received from Administrative Officer (Schools) of 24 wards of Mumbai under Right to Information Act (2005).
38 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 41: Ward-wise drop in Enrolments between 2011-12 and 2015-16
% Change in Ward 2011-12 2015-16 Enrolments A 7672 7038 -8 B 2779 2402 -14 C 764 432 -43 D 3291 3138 -5 E 12392 10580 -15 F/N 34964 27242 -22 F/S 9510 7829 -18 G/N 21238 20559 -3 G/S 15942 13676 -14 H/E 26138 21145 -19 H/W 9922 8366 -16 K/E 20411 17860 -12 K/W 19948 16583 -17 L 34662 34631 0 M/E 52049 54147 4 M/W 21006 15208 -28 N 27949 20000 -28 P/N 35793 33898 -5 P/S 16754 14419 -14 R/C 13454 9267 -31 R/N 9695 8921 -8 R/S 13887 12170 -12 S 17071 14694 -14 T 11862 9280 -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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 42: Ward-wise Total Number of Dropout in Municipal Schools in Mumbai25
2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- Ward in % in % 12 13 14 in % 15 in % 16 in %
A 353 4.6% 615 8.0% 1021 13.4% 1161 15.4% 1083 15.4% B 271 9.8% 255 9.1% 107 4.2% 336 12.8% 350 14.6% C 58 7.6% 0 0.0% 0 0% 8 1.2% 22 5.1% D 377 11.5% 449 13.7% 469 16.8% 534 17.1% 639 20.4% E 455 3.7% 678 5.9% 731 6.4% 615 5.4% 801 7.6% F/N 2769 7.9% 4326 12.3% 4346 13.5% 3167 10.7% 3792 13.9% F/S 804 8.5% 561 6.1% 693 8.2% 626 7.7% 458 5.9% G/N 1448 6.8% 2214 9.3% 2797 12.6% 2016 9.7% 2372 11.5% G/S 988 6.2% 1046 6.6% 903 6.1% 1126 8.1% 1062 7.8% H/E 993 3.8% 1568 5.9% 1697 7.4% 2306 10.5% 2452 11.6% H/W 981 9.9% 608 6.3% 922 9.7% 1239 14.0% 955 11.4% K/E 1796 8.8% 1456 7.2% 894 5.9% 1709 9.6% 2063 11.6% K/W 1406 7.0% 1445 7.6% 98 0.6% 1891 11.0% 2085 12.6% L 2630 7.6% 5041 14.1% 5960 16.9% 6025 17.4% 6042 17.4% M/E 4790 9.2% 4681 8.7% 11510 21.6% 11732 21.6% 12787 23.6% M/W 1081 5.1% 1565 9.2% 1980 12.1% 2067 13.3% 2339 15.4% N 1560 5.6% 1964 7.6% 1403 6.1% 1795 8.5% 2088 10.4% P/N 2934 8.2% 4410 12.0% 4857 13.7% 5000 14.3% 6140 18.1% P/S 1858 11.1% 1976 12.2% 1912 12.7% 2411 16.2% 2750 19.1% R/C 1255 9.3% 1058 7.9% 762 7.6% 713 6.7% 997 10.8% R/N 966 10.0% 1949 20.1% 2033 21.6% 2309 24.6% 2537 28.4% R/S 1152 8.3% 687 4.9% 1074 8.5% 1863 14.6% 2070 17.0% S 1002 5.9% 877 5.3% 671 4.3% 697 4.6% 1394 9.5% T 653 5.5% 582 5.2% 378 3.7% 395 4.0% 510 5.5% Total 32,580 7.4% 40,011 9.2% 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%).
25Source: Data received from Administrative Officer (Schools) of 24 wards of Mumbai under Right to Information Act (2005).
40 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 43: Ward-wise Total Number of Teachers in Municipal Schools in Mumbai26
Student Student Student Student Student 2011- 2012- Ward teacher teacher 2013- teacher 2014- teacher 2015- teacher 12 13 ratio ratio 14 ratio 15 ratio 16 ratio A 175 44 175 44 130 58 209 36 193 36 B 83 33 81 35 83 31 87 30 86 28 C 32 24 30 22 27 20 28 25 26 17 D 109 30 113 29 113 25 117 27 100 31 E 354 35 391 29 390 29 387 30 363 29 F/N 806 43 881 40 807 40 815 36 766 36 F/S 286 33 336 27 315 27 218 38 223 35 G/N 573 37 650 37 623 36 490 43 620 33 G/S 503 32 480 33 480 31 471 29 407 34 H/E 570 46 630 42 634 36 567 39 581 36 H/W 253 39 264 37 257 37 237 37 218 38 K/E 545 37 658 31 495 31 544 33 494 36 K/W 531 38 547 35 479 37 495 35 491 34 L 873 40 978 36 896 39 877 39 909 38 M/E 1035 50 1147 47 1137 47 1194 46 1161 47 M/W 460 46 463 37 476 34 428 36 509 30 N 885 32 837 31 819 28 703 30 645 31 P/N 841 43 875 42 868 41 826 42 804 42 P/S 400 42 422 38 430 35 396 38 371 39 R/C 383 35 379 35 326 31 370 29 320 29 R/N 256 38 250 39 264 36 232 40 231 39 R/S 353 39 420 33 393 32 327 39 321 38 S 527 32 558 30 542 29 486 31 471 31 T 401 30 432 26 366 28 349 28 327 28 Total 11,234 39 11,997 36 11,350 36 10853 37 10637 36
26Source: 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 44:Ward-wise Total Number of Pass outs27 in Municipal Schools in Mumbai
2013- 2014- 2015- Ward 2011-12 In % 2012-13 In % In % In % In % 14 15 16
A 191 90% 264 79% 362 81% 239 86% 258 93% B 115 56% 84 55% 97 68% 94 68% 95 75% C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA D 63 51% 69 62% 79 68% 109 78% 71 68% E 243 60% 227 58% 231 69% 217 69% 221 74% F/N 696 74% 678 71% 684 74% 585 70% 681 78% F/S 181 59% 253 63% 277 74% 246 69% 253 78% G/N 315 63% 269 50% 410 81% 324 64% 380 73% G/S 784 77% 637 66% 656 78% 692 84% 648 81% H/E 414 53% 457 52% 484 59% 552 67% 481 66% H/W 158 64% 184 71% 152 38% 157 69% 168 69% K/E 334 52% 398 58% 430 67% 483 74% 455 73% K/W 310 60% 314 56% 268 47% 385 69% 363 71% L 196 47% 216 45% 348 79% 326 76% 331 75% M/E 81 20% 175 38% 99 16% 216 63% 193 48% M/W 233 52% 275 54% 355 72% 267 57% 328 71% N 742 58% 736 60% 777 69% 654 68% 662 70% P/N 986 68% 935 62% 956 74% 874 73% 793 70% P/S 527 62% 487 58% 574 78% 389 58% 432 67% R/C 355 67% 271 61% 240 55% 182 55% 236 70% R/N NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA R/S 317 68% 300 59% 332 70% 318 76% 299 75% S 132 57% 166 75% 201 79% 233 80% 243 83% T 250 52% 263 62% 255 62% 246 66% 233 69% Total 7,623 61% 7,658 60% 8,431 67% 7788 70% 7824 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%.
27C 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Table 45: Population-wise Number of Student in Government, Pvt. Aided, Pvt. Unaided and Unrecognised Schools in 2015-16
Government Pvt. Aid Pvt. Unaid Unrecognised No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Total Total Ward Population School student School student School student School student Schools Students A 185014 16 6984 1 651 14 7786 0 0 31 15421 B 127290 15 2365 11 3331 6 1875 6 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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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. The total study sample was 25,215.
44 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
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 School SSC/ Some College Grad/ Post- Grad/ Post- OCCUPATION Illiterate formal schooling 5th – 9th HSC but not Grad Grad Gen. Grad Prof. / School up to 4th
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 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Annexure 3 – Inspection Report Form
46 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
47 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Annexure 4 – Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation Form
48 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Annexure 5- RTI response for District Profile
49 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
Annexure 6 - Scholarship Circular for 2015-16
50 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
51 State of Municipal Education in Mumbai