Secondary Education in West Bengal

State Policy, Equity and

Performance

Sarbajit Sengupta
Srabani Chakrabarty
Sponsored by SANEI
Collaboration
Prof. Muzaffer Ahmed, Prof Matiur Rahman
 Most studies on primary and basic education
PROBE (1999), Pratichi (2002),NIEPA (2002)
Kochar (2001), Banerjee (2003)

 Present study 93 schools in 5 districts

 Disparities between rural and urban schools (in physical &

human resources & student performance)

 Connection between resources & performance

 Discussion of school education policy in W. Bengal

 Sample Schools by District
District Secondary HS Total
Birbhum 17 7 24
Barddhaman 7 14 21
Kolkata 5 13 18
Malda 4 7 11
Murshidabad 12 7 19
Total 45 48 93
 Sample Schools by location & Level

• More HS schools in
Urban & Metro
35
33

30
25
• Sec schools being
25
upgraded after
discontinuing HS in
20
Num ber of

S e c o n d a ry
S c h o o ls

15
15

10 7
8
5 HS
colleges
5

R u ra l U rb a n M e t r o p o lit a n • Many schools listed as

Sec turned out to be HS
 Establishment of Schools by
location

70 6 6 .6 7 65
6 0 .3 1
60

50
p re -1 9 4 4
40 3 5 .2 8
p e rc e n ta g e

30
30 2 6 .6 7 1 9 4 4 -7 3
20
1974-
10 4 .4 1
6 .6 7 5 2003
0

R u ra l U rb a n M e tro
• Very few schools set up after 1973
• Most metro schools were established earlier
 Sample Schools by Gender
• Most schools in rural
areas are coed (lower
pop density)
50 47
45
Boys

• Higher prop of gender

40

35
G ir ls
30

segregated schools in
Num ber

25
Coed
20

15

10 8
3 5 4
6 5 4
6 urban & metro (set up
earlier)
5

R u ra l U rb a n M e tro

• Difficulty of identifying
boys and coed from
school lists
 Distribution of Schools by No of Classrooms

80
70
60
50
s c h o o ls
p e rc e n t o f

40
30 U rb a n + M e t ro H S
20 U rb a n + M e t ro S e c
10 R u ra l H S
R u ra l S e c
0
6 . 0 -9 . 0 1 0 . 0 -1 3 . 0 1 4 . 0 -1 7 . 0 1 8 . 0 -2 1 . 0 22 - 25 26 - 29 30 &
a b o ve
N u m b e r o f C la ssro o m s

Sec: 70% Rural schools have 6-9rooms, 70% of non-rural have >=10

HS: 80% rural schools have 10-21 rooms, 56% non-rural have >=22
 School infrastructure : Library, labs, toilets
10 0 .0 0

9 0 .0 0
% w it h
8 0 .0 0
L ib r a r y
7 0 .0 0

6 0 .0 0
% w it h L a b
p e rc e n ta g e

5 0 .0 0

4 0 .0 0 Av no of
3 0 .0 0 T o ile t s
2 0 .0 0

10 .0 0

0 .0 0

R u ra l R u ra l H S U rb a n U rb a n H S M e tr o M e tr o H S
S e c o n d a ry S e c o n d a ry S e c o n d a ry

Sec: 15-20% of rural & urban have labs & libraries; for metro 60% have
libraries &100% have labs. Toilets: Rural 1.67, Urban 2.57, Metro 5.40

HS: 70-75% rural and urban schools have libraries, 70% of rural
schools and 100% of urban schools have labs. Nearly all metro schools
have libraries & labs Toilets: Rural 2.84, Urban 6.13, Metro 10.73
 Distribution of schools by no. of teachers
1 0 0 .0 0
8 0 .0 0
6 0 .0 0
p e rc e n t o f
s c h o o ls

4 0 .0 0
2 0 .0 0
0 .0 0
< = -9 1 0 --1 3 1 4 --1 7 1 8 --2 1 2 2 --2 5 2 6 --2 9 >=30
n u m b e r o f te a c h e r s

R u ra l S e c R u ra lH S U rb a n S U rb a n H S
M e tr o S e c M e tr o H S

27% of rural sec schools have 9 or less teachers, No sec

school has more than 21 teachers
12% of rural HS schools have >=30 teachers, the ratio for
urban and metro schools is 37.5% and 53.3%
For all schools, 85-90% of sanctioned posts filled
 Distribution of Schools by Enrollment

7 0 .0 0 %
6 0 .0 0 %
5 0 .0 0 %
4 0 .0 0 % 5 0 .0 0 %
3 0 .0 0 % 4 0 .0 0 %
2 0 .0 0 % 3 0 .0 0 %
1 0 .0 0 % 2 0 .0 0 %
0 .0 0 % 1 0 .0 0 %
0 .0 0 %

501-

701-
<400

1000

>1101
901-
600

800
R u ra l H S U rb a n H S M e tro H S

R u ra l S e c U rb a n S e c M e tro S e c

Sec:Metro 80% <500(A: 415),Rural 63%>500 (A 668), Urban 85% >500(A642)

HS:Metro 59% <500(A 768), Rural 84%>700 (A959),Ur ban87% >700(A968)
Girls: higher in metro and in sec schools
 Change in V enrollment & V-X Retention 1998-03
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-1 0 R u ra l S e c

R u ra l H S

U rb a n S e c

U rb a n H S

M e tr o S e c

M e tr o H S
% c h a n g e in c la s s V E n r o llm e n t 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 3 R e t e n t io n V - X 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 3

Enroll change V-low in metro, rural:higher in sec (32%)

than HS(15%), urban:higher in HS(31%) than sec(19%)
Retention V-X: 30-35% in rural (all) and urban (sec) 60-65
in urban (HS) and metro(all)
 Student: Teacher & Student: Classroom ratios
• S:T & S:CR ratios
90
highest in rural, lower
80
70
in urban & lowest in
60
50
metro
40
30
• Lower for HS schools
20
10
except in urban areas
0
• Worst in rural sec
R u ra l S e c o n d a r y

R u ra l H S

schools(61.5,81.9) best
U rb a n S e c o n d a ry

U rb a n H S

M e t ro S e c o n d a ry

M e t ro H S

in metro HS(25.7, 31.1)

S tu : Te a c h S tu : R o o m
 Madhyamik performance
• Pass % lower in sec compared
to HS schools
• % lowest in rural (63,68)
100
80
higher in urban(74,85) % best
60
in metro(80,91)
40 • 1st div low in rural& urban sec,
20 much higher in urban HS &
0
R u ra l R u ra l U rb a n U rb a n M e tro M e tro
metro
Sec HS Sec HS Sec HS
• Girls better than av in urban
1 s t D iv % gir lp a s s % pass %
sec & metro schools
 Student background & tuition expenses
• In each location greater %
of students with less
12
siblings & more parent edu
10
in HS schools
8
6 • In each location, students
4 in HS schools pay more for
2 pvt tuition
0 • Siblings lower, parent edu
ru ra l s e c
ru ra l H S
u rb a n s e c

higher & tuition expenses

u rb a n H S

m e tr o s e c

m e tr o H S

higher in urban & metro

areas.

n o s ib lin g t u it io n in R s 1 0 0 / m p a re n t e d u
 Summary of findings
• Rural schools set up later, more secondary & coed. Few
schools after ’74
• Lower resources in rural & sec schools
• enrollment and enrollment growth falls & retention rises
as we move from rural to urban to metro. Girls enroll more
in metro.
• Higher enrollment & retention in HS schools
• passing & 1st div rate rises from rural to urban to metro &
in HS schools. Girls better in metro
• Less siblings,more parent edu & higher tuition exp from
rural to urban to metro & in HS schools (school choice ?)
 Qn 1: Rural-Urban Disparity :(a) Background

• Grant in aid:50%-60%(rural)
salaries + other expenses based
on enrollment, IX_X enroll,
Stratio, results, teachers qualif,
discipline 70

• West Bengal school system most 60

50

‘privatized’(1951-2)
40
30
20

• 1973-Salary Deficit (restriction of

10
0
% G ovt
%PA

fees)
% PUA
% G ovt
fu n d s

W est B engal In d ia

• 1978-Complete Deficit
• 1981-Free Education (full funding
by govt)
 (b)Teacher pay and recruitment
• Teachers pay doubled (54-66), went up
1.6 times (66-75), 3.2 times (81-86),3.3
times(86-96). underestimate.

B a s ic P a y o f T e a c h e rs (M a s t e rs + T ra in in g )
1 s t s c a le 1954 1957 1961 1966 1970 1975 1981 1986 1996
90 125 140 230 240 340 390 550 1780 6000

C h a n g e in A p p r o ve d n u m b e r o f T e a c h e r s 1 9 7 5 - 1 9 9 8
C la s s u n it s 6 8 10 12 13 14 15 18 20
A p p r o v e d n o '7 5 12 14 18 22 23 25 27 32 36
A p p r o v e d n o '9 8 12 12 13 14 14 15 15 16 17

SSC: 1997 Centralised teacher recruitment

Financial stringency: lower number of approved
teachers
 (c) Unintended result of full funding
• Freeze in teacher
recruitment & rise in ST
Ratio
• Greater proportion of
lower level schools (JH & 5 0 .0 0

sec) in rural areas with less 4 0 .0 0

3 0 .0 0
resources 2 0 .0 0

• Lower enrollment & 1 0 .0 0

growth in metros due to

0 .0 0
1 9 9 2 -9 3 1 9 9 6 -9 7 1 9 9 7 -9 8 1 9 9 8 -9 9 1 9 9 9 -0 0 2 0 0 0 -0 1 2 0 0 1 -0 2

preference for private te a c h e rs (0 0 0 0 ) S T R a t io e n r o llm e n t ( la k h s )

English schools
 c) Observation from our study
• Differences between resources of rural, urban & metro
schools & between Sec & HS schools is matched by
differences in retention rates and Madhyamik performance
• student background and tuitions also important
• Endogeneity may be a factor: students from more aware
families tend to send children to HS schools that have
better infrastructure
• Teacher pay has increased simultaneously with a rise in
PTS
• Poor school infrastructure may be a factor, but expenses
on as well as incidence of PTS is higher in more urban
areas & HS schools (Endogeneity may be the reason – i.e.,
students in these schools come from better background)