An Overview of 5% Sample Post Enumeration Survey

of DISE Data-2006-07

Anugula N. ReddyAssistant Professor

E-mail: anreddy@nuepa.org, anugula.reddy@gmail.com

Department of EMIS, NUEPA

2

Significance of PES

• DISE as a system - collates unit level data to arrive aggregates at national, provincial and even below

• The unit level data is not lost in the upward transition of data

• In combination with software, this eliminates completely computational errors at various stages

• The only way the errors can still creep in is at the stage filling of DCFs and entry of data

• Even at the stage entry of data several errors can be eliminated through checks in software

• Thus the filling of DCFs assumes critical importance in elimination of errors

• The PES is a way of estimating and understanding the errors taking place at this stage

3

About Post Enumeration Survey

• to verify the veracity of data provided at school level through Post Enumeration Survey (PES)

• The survey is also expected to report the willingness, ability, readiness of principals and/or head teachers to provide data and the proper maintenance of records for the same

• To be assigned to an external agency like university department, monitoring agency, research institute, etc.

• It is now mandatory to submit the data along with the report of Post Enumeration Survey

4

Suggestive Methodology

• 10% of districts to be selected by state authorities in each state subject to a minimum of 2 districts- not to repeat the same district in subsequent year

• 5% of schools from each block of chosen district shall selected by the agency identified to carry out the survey

• Filled in forms of DISE to be handed over to the agency after data collection

• The data shall be collected on the following components

– Location– School and Head Teacher/Principal– Staff (Teaching and Non-teaching staff)– Facilities– Enrolment– Examination Results

5

Components for verification

– A Location• Rural/Urban

– B. About School• Year of Establishment

• School Category (Pry/UP, etc)

• Type of school (Boys/Girls/Co-educational)

• Lowest Class

• Highest Class

• School Management

• Residential School• Type of Residential School (Ashram/Private,

etc.)

• Shift school

6

Components for verification

C. Staff– Teacher posts sanctioned and in position– Number of teachers (Excluding principal/head

teacher)– Para teachers– Non teaching staff– Number of staff employed for midday meals and

cleaning– Number of teachers present on the day of survey

D. Facilities– Status and Type of building– Number of blocks in schools– Condition of class rooms– Electricity, Common toilet, Separate toilet for girls,

Separate toilet for staff– Condition of boundary wall, Source of drinking water,

Play ground– No. of computers in good condition, Seating

arrangement

7

Components for verification

• Enrolment– Total Enrolment –Current and Previous Year - Class

wise (Boys and Girls), ST and SC, OBC and Children with Disabilities

– Repeaters–Current and Previous Year Class wise– Number of children who left school –Current and

Previous Year,– Class wise

• Enrolment and Attendance– Enrolment and Attendance on the day of survey class

wise, gender, total, SC and ST• Examination Results (for present and previous academic

year)– Enrolment in class IV/V at the end of academic year by

gender, Total, SC and ST– Appeared for examination in class IV/V at the end of

academic year by gender, Total, SC and ST– Passed examination in class IV/V at the end of academic

year by gender, Total, SC and ST

8

Some Observations

• 22 states and union territories have under taken PES. (list of states which undertook PES is given in Annexure)

Nature of Organization Number of states

Research Institutes 4

Universities 5

NGOs 5

State level professional bodies (like SIEMT, SIE, etc.)

4

Private educational institutes 2

Research consultancy firms 2

9

Some Observations

• Major states that did not undertake PES include Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Jharkhand and Delhi

• Quality of Survey and reporting varies significantly

• Minor deviations in methodology can also be noticed

• These relate to selection of sample, sharing of data with state authorities, etc.

• In several states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, etc. not much variation in the data between PES and DISE is reported

• However in case of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, etc, medium to large variation is reported with respect to several variables

10

Some Observations

• Coverage of DISE is nearly complete with a few notable exceptions

• With respect to enrolment in aggregate terms, no large deviation is reported

• However, one can find deviation with respect to enrolment in about 30% of schools in states like MP, AP

• Surprisingly, considerable variation is reported with respect to items such as-year of establishment, highest and lowest class, status and type of building, management of school, condition of class rooms, and other infrastructural variables

• Incomplete filling of DISE forms is reported in a few cases

11

Some Observations

• Positive and co-operative response of principles and head teachers

• Satisfactory maintenance of school records

• Required to consult multiple records

• Analysis is mostly confined to reporting of deviations

12

Some Suggestions

• There is a need to analyse the data to find the patterns, if any in the discrepancies

• There is a need to provide orientation to the agencies/researchers involved in the PES with regard to methodology and protocols

• Perhaps a suggestive tabular plan may be provided to improve the quality and uniformity in presentation

13