School Education Quality Index

Author Name

Admin_niti

Choose Report Type

Publication Date

Sun, 09/01/2019 - 15:30

Report Upload

Download (9.24 MB)

vertical

Education

PDF Text

2019 iii
FOREWORD
Inclusive development hinges upon ensuring quality education. Proper schooling prepares
individuals for social and civic responsibility, builds social capital and encourages effective cognitive
development.
The idea of a New India envisages an enlightened citizenry, an India where public policy is
proactively engaging with an aspirational population. Internationally, achieving the 2030 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) constitutes a global resolve for holistic socio-economic progress. As
the nodal agency for tracking and coordinating the implementation of the SDGs in India and as
per its mandate to promote cooperative and competitive federalism, NITI Aayog has continuously
endeavoured to evolve national indices which chart the pathway to an inclusive, sustainable and
prosperous tomorrow.
The School Education Quality Index (SEQI) has been developed to provide insights and data-based
feedback on the success of school education across the States and Union Territories of India. The
index attempts to provide a platform for promoting evidence-based policy making and highlights
possible course-corrections in the education sector.
While the Right to Education Act ensured access to education for all children, there is a felt need
to improve the quality of education and service delivery. Data from assessments such as the
National Achievement Survey and the Annual Status of Education Report reinforces the need for
system-level interventions across the school education system, with a focus on improving grade-
level competency and ensuring that India’s schooling system delivers on learning outcomes.
The measurement of quality-related education outcomes is imperative for incentivizing States and
Union Territories to improve the performance of their school systems. Initiatives of the NITI Aayog
such as the Sustainable Action for Transforming Human capital – Education (SATH-E) further
emphasise the need for innovative policy design customised to the unique needs of the States.
Developed in close partnership with the Ministry of Human Resource Development, States and
Union Territories, the World Bank and sector experts, SEQI aims to provide a credible regular
assessment of the performance and effectiveness of policy interventions across all States and Union
Territories.
The development of SEQI was a collaborative and participatory exercise spanning over eighteen
months and included consultations with experts in school education, statistics and the development
sector. In the true spirit of federalism, the index involved extensive engagement with the States and
Union Territories for finalisation of the indicators, sensitisation workshops on methodology, data
collection and validation.
Quality school education is a function of a targeted focus on learning outcomes, efficient governance
structures, provision of necessary infrastructure and ensuring equitable academic opportunities.
SEQI exists in a symbiotic ecosystem, which converges efforts across the government to evolve an
education landscape which resonates with the ideals of a youthful nation and which realises the
potential of every single child across India.
Amitabh Kant
CEO, NITI Aayog v
Acknowledgements
The School Education Quality Index (SEQI) was the result of extensive consultations across the
education space. The NITI Aayog is grateful to the State Governments and Union Territories for
their support and assistance throughout the process of finalising the index. State nodal officers,
departmental officials and local resource teams provided crucial inputs and constant feedback
which helped develop the index framework, as well as compile and validate the various streams of
data.
The NITI Aayog would like to thank the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development, under
the leadership of Ms. Rina Ray, Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, for its
partnership and support throughout the entire course of the index development process.
NITI acknowledges and appreciates the technical assistance provided by the World Bank,
led by Mr. Junaid Kamal Ahmad, World Bank Country Director, India and Mr. Cristian Aedo,
Education Practice Manager for South Asia, World Bank. The design methodology was finalised
in consultation with Ms. Shabnam Sinha, Lead Education Specialist; Ms. Marguerite Clarke, Senior
Education Specialist; Mr. Kartik Pental, Education Specialist; Mr. Varun Kapoor, Consultant; and
Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Consultant.
NITI Aayog is thankful to the peer reviewers, Professor Geeta Gandhi Kingdon, Chair of Education
Economics and International Development, Institute of Education, University College London; Mr.
Shihab Ansari Azhar, Senior Private Sector Specialist, Macroeconomics, Trade and Investments,
World Bank and Ms. Tazeen Fasih, Lead Education Specialist, South Asia Region, World Bank, for
the quality review of the index.
The Education and Skills Development team of IPE Global, the Independent Validation Agency (IVA),
was led by Mr. Shalendar Sharma, Director; Dr. Shashiranjan Jha, Senior Manager; and Ms. Manisha
Bhattacharjee, Senior Analyst. The online interactive data portal for SEQI was developed by
SilverTouch Technologies, led by Mr. Vipul Thakkar, Managing Director; Mr. Himanshu Jain, Director;
Ms. Surbhi Singhal, Senior Business Analyst; and Mr. Kalpesh Zankat, Software Developer.
The project was designed and executed under the overall guidance of Dr. Rajiv Kumar,
Vice-Chairman, NITI Aayog and Mr.  Amitabh Kant, CEO, NITI Aayog. The Education Vertical, led by
Mr.  Alok Kumar, Adviser; Ms. Sigy Thomas Vaidhyan, former Director; Mr. Ashish Kumar, Director;
Mr. Harshit Mishra, Deputy Adviser; and Ms. Sarah Iype, Young Professional, planned, implemented,
and co-ordinated the entire project. Mr. KVL Akshay, Young Professional, helped design and edit the
report. vi
ABBREVIATIONS
CAL Computer Aided Learning
CWSN Children with Special Needs
DIET District Institute of Education and Training
DoSEL Department of School Education and Literacy
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IEP Individualized Education Program
IVA Independent Validation Agency
MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development
MIS Management Information System
NA Not Applicable
NAS National Achievement Survey
NCERT National Council of Education Research and Training
NER Net Enrolment Ratio
NIEPA National Institute of Education Planning and Administration
NITI National Institution for Transforming India
NPSSE National Programme on School Standards and Evaluation
NSQF National Skills Qualification Framework
OBC Other Backward Classes
OoSC Out of School Children
PAB Project Approval Board
PTR Pupil Teacher Ratio
RMSA Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan
RTE Right to Education
SC Scheduled Caste
SCERT State Council of Education Research and Training
SDMIS Student Data Management Information System
SDP School Development Plan
SEQI School Education Quality Index
SL School Leadership
SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
ST Scheduled Tribe
UID Unique Identification
UDISE Unified District Information System for Education
UT Union Territory vii
FOREWORDiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSv
ABBREVIATIONSvi
LIST OF TABLESviii
LIST OF FIGURESix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
ABOUT THE INDEX11
MAIN FINDINGS23
Overall Performance23
Incremental Performance31
Change in Ranks Over Time32
Change in Category and Domain Scores Over Time36
PERFORMANCE ON INDICATORS49
CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD105
ANNEXURES107
Annexure I: Indicator-wise Data Tables108
Annexure II: Original SEQI Indicators130
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Index Categories and Domains12
Table 2: Indicator Description12
Table 3: Grouping of States and UTs18
Table 4: Timelines for the Development of SEQI19
Table 5: Key Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities for Index Development20
Table 6: Details of State/UT Consultation Workshops for SEQI20
Table 7: Details of State/UT Data Validation Workshops21
Table 8: Percentage of Schools Covered by Vocational Education64
Table 9: Difference in Performance between SC and General Category Students65
Table 10: Difference in Performance between ST and General Category Students67
Table 11: Difference in Performance between Students in Rural and Urban Areas68
Table 12: Difference in Performance between Boys and Girls70
Table 13: Difference in Transition Rate from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for SC and General Category71
Table 14: Difference in Transitions Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for ST and General Category72
Table 15: Difference in Transition Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for OBC and General Category74
Table 16: Difference in Transition Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for Boys and Girls75
Table 17: Percentage of Entitled CWSN Receiving Aids and Appliances77
Table 18: Percentage of Schools with Toilets for Girls78
Table 19: Percentage of Students whose Unique ID is Seeded in SDMIS79
Table 20: Percentage of Average Daily Attendance of Students in SDMIS81
Table 21: Percentage of Teachers whose Unique ID is Seeded in Any Electronic Database82
Table 22: Percentage of Average Daily Attendance of Teachers Recorded in an Electronic Attendance System83
Table 23: Percentage of Single Teacher Schools84
Table 24: Percentage of Academic Positions filled at State Level Academic Training Institutions – SCERTs or Equivalent90
Table 25: Percentage of Academic Positions Filled at District Level Academic Training Institutions - DIETs92
Table 26: Percentage of School Head-Masters/Principals who have completed School Leadership (SL) Training94
Table 27: Percentage of Schools that have Completed Self-Evaluation96
Table 28: Percentage of Schools that have Made School Improvement/Development Plans97
Table 29: Average Number of Days Taken by State/UT to Release Total Central Share of Funds to Societies98
Table 30: Average Number of Days Taken by State to Release Total State Share of Funds to Societies99
Table 31: Percentage of New Teachers Recruited Through a Transparent Online System101
Table 32: Percentage of Teachers Transferred Through a Transparent Online System102
Table 33: Percentage of Head-Masters/Principals Recruited Through a Merit-Based Selection System103
Table i: Original SEQI: Summary of Index130
Table ii: Original SEQI: Detailed List of Indicators130 ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Large States: Overall and Category-wise Performance, 2016-1725
Figure 2: Small States: Overall and Category-wise Performance, 2016-1726
Figure 3: UTs: Overall and Category-wise Performance, 2016-1727
Figure 4: Large States: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-1728
Figure 5: Small States: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-1729
Figure 6: UTs: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-1730
Figure 7: Large States: Overall Performance Score and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-1733
Figure 8: Small States: Overall Performance Score and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-1734
Figure 9: UTs: Overall Performance Score and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-1735
Figure 10: Large States: Change in Performance on the Outcomes Category36
Figure 11: Small States: Change in Performance on the Outcomes Category37
Figure 12: UTs: Change in Performance on the Outcomes Category37
Figure 13: Large States: Change in Performance on the Access Outcomes Domain38
Figure 14: Small States: Change in Performance on the Access Outcomes Domain39
Figure 15: UTs: Change in Performance on the Access Outcomes Domain40
Figure 16: Large States: Change in Performance on the Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain41
Figure 17: Small States: Change in Performance on the Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain42
Figure 18: UTs: Change in Performance on the Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain42
Figure 19: Large States: Change in Performance on the Equity Outcomes Domain43
Figure 20: Small States: Change in Performance on the Equity Outcomes Domain44
Figure 21: UTs: Change in Performance on the Equity Outcomes Domain45
Figure 22: Large States: Change in Performance on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category46
Figure 23: Small States: Change in Performance on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category47
Figure 24: UTs: Change in Performance on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category48
Figure 25: Average Score in Class 3 for Language & Mathematics – Large States50
Figure 26: Average Score in Class 3 for Language & Mathematics – Small States and UTs51
Figure 27: Average Score in Class 5 for Language & Mathematics – Large States51
Figure 28: Average Score in Class 5 for Language & Mathematics – Small States and UTs52
Figure 29: Average Score in Class 8 for Language & Mathematics – Large States53
Figure 30: Average Score in Class 8 for Language & Mathematics – Small States and UTs53
Figure 31: Adjusted NER at Elementary Level – Large States54
Figure 32: Adjusted NER at Elementary Level – Small States and UTs54
Figure 33: Adjusted NER at Secondary Level – Large States55
Figure 34: Adjusted NER at Secondary Level – Small States and UTs55
Figure 35: Transition Rate from Primary to Upper-Primary Level – Large States56
Figure 36: Transition Rate from Primary to Upper-Primary Level – Small States and UTs57
Figure 37: Transition Rate from Upper-Primary to Secondary Level – Large States57
Figure 38: Transition Rate from Upper-Primary to Secondary Level – Small States and UTs58
Figure 39: Percentage of Identified Out-of-School Children Mainstreamed – Large States59 x
Figure 40: Percentage of Identified Out-of-School Children Mainstreamed – Small States and UTs59
Figure 41: Percentage of Schools having CAL at Elementary Level – Large States60
Figure 42: Percentage of Schools having CAL at Elementary Level – Small States and UTs61
Figure 43: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Computer Lab Facility – Large States61
Figure 44: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Computer Lab Facility – Small States and UTs62
Figure 45: Percentage of Schools having Book Banks/Reading Rooms/Libraries – Large States63
Figure 46: Percentage of Schools having Book Banks/Reading Rooms/Libraries – Small States and UTs63
Figure 47: Percentage of Elementary Schools Meeting Teacher Norms – Large States85
Figure 48: Percentage of Elementary Schools Meeting Teacher Norms – Small States and UTs85
Figure 49: Percentage of Upper-Primary Schools Meeting Subject-Teacher Norms – Large States86
Figure 50: Percentage of Upper-Primary Schools Meeting Subject-Teacher Norms – Small States and UTs87
Figure 51: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Teachers for All Core Subjects – Large States87
Figure 52: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Teachers for All Core Subjects – Small States and UTs88
Figure 53: Percentage of Schools with Head-Master/Principal – Large States89
Figure 54: Percentage of Schools with Head-Master/Principal – Small States and UTs89
Figure 55: Percentage of Teachers Provided with Sanctioned Number of Days of Training – Large States93
Figure 56: Percentage of Teachers Provided with Sanctioned Number of Days of Training – Small States and UTs94 1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1 2
About the Index
The School Education Quality Index (SEQI) was developed to evaluate the performance of States and
Union Territories (UTs) in the school education sector. The index aims to bring an outcomes focus to
education policy by providing States and UTs with a platform to identify their strengths and weaknesses
and undertake requisite course corrections or policy interventions. In line with NITI Aayog’s mandate to
foster the spirit of competitive and cooperative federalism, the index strives to facilitate the sharing of
knowledge and best practices across States and UTs.
Developed through a collaborative process including key stakeholders such as MHRD, the World Bank
and sector experts, the index consists of 30 critical indicators that assess the delivery of quality education.
These indicators are categorized as follows:
Category 1: Outcomes
Domain 1: Learning Outcomes
Domain 2: Access Outcomes
Domain 3: Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes
Domain 4: Equity Outcomes
Category 2: Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes
Schooling should result in tangible learning outcomes. To ensure the system is geared towards learning,
SEQI assigns almost half its weight to learning outcomes. This sends a strong signal across the nation to
ensure the focus remains centred on learning.
SEQI focuses on indicators that drive improvements in the quality of education rather than on inputs or
specific processes. The index thus seeks to institutionalise a focus on improving education outcomes with
respect to learning, access, equity and governance in India.
To facilitate like-to-like comparisons, States and UTs have been grouped as Large States, Small States and
UTs. Within each of these groups, the indicator values have been appropriately scaled, normalized and
weighted to generate an overall performance score and ranking for each State and UT.
States and UTs are ranked on their overall performance in the reference year 2016-17, as well as on
the change in their performance between the reference year and base year (2015-16). The rankings
present incredible insights on the status of school education across States/UTs and their relative progress
over time. 3
Key Results
Large States: The overall performance score for Large States ranged from 76.6 percent for Kerala to
36.4 percent for Uttar Pradesh.
Small States and UTs: Among Small States, the overall performance score varied from 68.8 percent for
Manipur to 24.6 percent for Arunachal Pradesh. In UTs, the overall performance score ranged from 82.9
percent for Chandigarh to 31.9 percent for Lakshadweep.
Figure A: Large States: Overall and Category-wise Performance, 2016-17
Reference Year (2016-17)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Karnatak a
Keral a
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtr a
Odisha
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Overall Performance
Outcomes Category
Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category
There are large variations in the overall scores for States and UTs as well as in
how they perform in different category areas in the reference year (2016-17).
1.
Note:  The Outcomes Category score for Himachal Pradesh is 55.6 percent and Madhya Pradesh is 46.0 percent. 4
Most States and UTs perform better on Outcomes than on Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes,
but there is variation within these categories in terms of specific areas of strength and weakness. It is,
therefore, important for States and UTs to strengthen their capacity to address their specific areas for
improvement.
Large States: Out of the 20 Large States, 18 improved their overall performance score between 2015-16
and 2016-17. Five of these States (Haryana, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Gujarat) showed high rates of
improvement, with increases of 18.5, 16.8, 13.7, 12.4 and 10.6 percentage points respectively.
Figure B: Small States and UTs: Overall and Category-wise Performance, 2016-17
Reference Year (2016-17)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Arunachal Pradesh
Goa
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Sikki m
Tripur a
Reference Year (2016-17)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigar h
Dadra &
Nagar Havel i
Daman & Diu
Delh i
Lakshadweep
Puducherr y
Small StatesUnion Territories
Overall Performance
Outcomes Category
Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category
A small group of States and UTs significantly outpace all others in their rates
of improvement.
2.
Note: The Outcomes Category score for Andaman & Nicobar Islands is 40.8 percent, Meghalaya is 39.2 percent and Mizoram
is 50.8 percent. 5
Kerala
Base Year Rank (2015-16)
Reference Year Rank (2016-17)
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Kerala ▬
Andhra Pradesh ▬
Assam ▲ 5
Bihar ▬
Chhattisgarh ▬
Gujarat ▲ 2
Haryana ▲ 5
Himachal Pradesh ▼ 1
Jammu & Kashmir ▬
Jharkhand ▬
Karnataka ▼ 8
Madhya Pradesh ▼ 1
Maharashtra ▼ 3
Odisha ▲ 6
Punjab ▬
Rajasthan ▼ 1
Tamil Nadu ▬
Telangana ▼ 1
Uttar Pradesh ▲ 1
Uttarakhand ▼ 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
77.6%
63.2%
58.6%
56.6%
58.1%
52.4%
51.2%
51.0%
50.7%
49.5%
48.4%
48.4%
47.8%
44.4%
39.3%
34.8%
34.7%
32.8%
30.0%
28.5%30.6%
37.3%
39.0%
46.5%
47.1%
47.2%
48.1%
52.9%
54.9%
56.1%
56.1%
59.1%
59.4%
60.2%
62.5%
62.8%
63.0%
69.5%
73.4%
82.2%
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Figure C: Large States: Overall Performance and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-17
Small States: Among the eight Small States, five showed an improvement in their overall performance
score between 2015-16 and 2016-17, of which three stood out (Meghalaya, Nagaland and Goa), with gains
of 14.1, 13.5 and 8.2 percentage points respectively. 6
Figure D: Small States: Overall Performance and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-17
Figure E: UTs: Overall Performance and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-17
Union Territories: All seven UTs showed an improvement in their overall performance score between
2015-16 and 2016-17. Three of them (Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Puducherry) stood out for
the size of the increase, with gains of 16.5, 15.0 and 14.3 percentage points, respectively.
Base Year Rank (2015-16)
Reference Year Rank (2016-17)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TripuraTripura ▬
Mizoram
Mizoram ▼ 2
Goa
Goa ▲ 1
Manipur
Manipur ▲ 1
SikkimSikkim ▬
Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh ▼ 2
Meghalaya
Meghalaya ▲ 1
Nagaland
Nagaland ▲ 1 48.5%
47.7%
45.6%
45.3%
43.9%
30.4%
24.3%
22.4%28.4%
35.9%
38.4%
43.0%
46.5%
46.9%
53.8%
56.1%
Base Year Rank (2015-16)
Reference Year Rank (2016-17)
▼ 3
ChandigarhChandigarh ▬
DelhiDelhi ▬
Andaman &
Nicobar Island
Andaman &
Nicobar Island
Puducherry
Puducherry ▲ 1
Lakshadweep
Lakshadweep ▼ 2
Daman & Diu
Daman & Diu ▲ 2
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
▲ 2
70.0%
60.0%
42.8%
40.8%
37.5%
34.0%
29.9%42.8%
44.2%
44.9%
50.5%
55.1%
69.9%
73.9% 7
It is important to note that most of the States and UTs have shown commendable improvement between
the base and reference years. The better performing States/UTs highlight the proven efficacy of reform and
offer alternate policy prescriptions for similar States/UTs.
Large States: Karnataka leads the Large States on the Outcomes category, with a score of 81.9 percent.
Uttar Pradesh scores the lowest at 34.1 percent.
Figure F: Large States: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-17
Reference Year (2016-17)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Karnatak a
Keral a
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtr a
Odisha
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Outcomes Category
Learning Outcomes Domain
Equity Outcomes Domain
Access Outcomes Domain
Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain
Within the Outcomes category, there is a high degree of variation in State and
UT performance on Learning Outcomes, Access Outcomes and Infrastructure
& Facilities for Outcomes. On the other hand, there is little variation in Equity
Outcomes.
3.
Note: The Equity Outcomes Domain score for Rajasthan is 79.4 percent. 8
Small States and UTs: Manipur ranks first among the Small States on the Outcomes category, with
a score of 82.1 percent. Arunachal Pradesh has the lowest score at 27.2 percent. Chandigarh is the best
performing UT on the Outcomes category, with a score of 88.4 percent, while Lakshadweep received the
lowest score (28.9 percent).
Scores on the Outcomes category are primarily driven by Learning Outcomes, which receives more than
50 percent of the total weight assigned to this category. In addition to the challenges of improving learning
outcomes, the results highlight that educational access and infrastructure are continuing issues for States/
UTs and require additional focus and investments.
The Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category accounts for about 30 percent of the overall score.
It includes indicators related to student and teacher attendance systems, availability of in-service teacher
professional development, school leadership, accountability, transparency in teacher recruitment and
financial discipline.
Large States: Kerala leads the Large States in this category, with a score of 79.0 percent, while Jharkhand
has the lowest score of 21.0 percent.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reference Year (2016-17)
Small StatesUnion Territories
Reference Year (2016-17)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Outcomes Category
Learning Outcomes Domain
Equity Outcomes Domain
Access Outcomes Domain
Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain
Arunachal Pradesh
Goa
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Sikkim
Tripur a
Chandigarh
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
Daman & Diu
Delh i
Lakshadweep
Puducherr y
Figure G: Small States and UTs: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-17
In the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category, overall performance
is primarily driven by scores for school leadership, teacher availability and
transparency in teacher/school leader recruitment.
4.
Note: The Equity Outcomes Domain score for Chandigarh is 77.6, Goa is 68.5, Lakshadweep is 46.5 and Meghalaya is 43.1. The
Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain score for Delhi is 41.9. 9
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17)
+24.3%
+18.8%
+18.5%
+18.4%
+18.1%
+16.2%
+15.8%
+15.2%
+14.5%
+13.7%
+12.3%
+10.6%
+9.4%
+8.3%
+6.9%
+6.1%
+4.3%
+0.9%
-1.4%
-13.5%
90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%100%
Haryana
Assam
Odisha
Jammu & Kashmir
Gujarat
Telangana
Punjab
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Chhattisgarh
Rajasthan
Bihar
Jharkhand
Kerala
Himachal Pradesh
Maharashtra
Uttarakhand
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
44.5%
38.8%
46.9%
54.6%
79.0%
21.0%
35.2%
56.4%
57.5%
63.2%
42.2%
53.7%
35.4%
66.6%
49.8%
61.9%
62.8%
62.9%
52.8%
50.7%
43.7%
34.5%
40.8%
44.1%
43.8%
39.3%
49.3%
70.7%
11.5%
24.6%
48.7%
27.0%
37.9%
19.2%
48.5%
31.4%
43.4%
44.0%
38.5%
47.7%
Figure H: Large States: Change in Performance on the Governance Processes Aiding
Outcomes Category
Small States and UTs: Mizoram ranks first among Small States, with a score of 47.5 percent, while
Arunachal Pradesh ranks last with a score of 18.3 percent. Chandigarh is the best-performing UT, with a
score of 69.5 percent, while Dadra & Nagar Haveli received the lowest score of 33.5 percent.
Investments to strengthen performance on Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category indicators
could have an immediate positive impact on a State/UT’s SEQI scores and, over the medium term, also
enhance their education outcomes. 10
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17)
90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
Nagaland
Meghalaya
Tripura
Mizoram
Goa
Manipur
Arunachal Pradesh
Sikkim
+23.1%
+20.6%
+13.2%
+10.1%
+8.4%
+5.5%
+2.2%
+0.5%
22.1%45.2%
18.1%38.7%
25.1% 38.3%
47.5%37.4%
26.5% 34.9%
30.5% 36.0%
16.1% 18.3%
44.5%45.0%
Figure I: Small States and UTs: Change in Performance on the Governance Processes
Aiding Outcomes Category
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17)
+24.5%
+20.9%
+15.6%
+14.8%
+12.7%
+9.0%
+8.5%
90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
Puducherry
Daman & Diu
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Delhi
Lakshadweep
Chandigarh
13.7%38.2%
31.1%52.0%
17.9%33.5%
24.3%39.1%
53.7% 66.4%
30.1% 39.1%
61.0% 69.5%
100%
Conclusion
SEQI serves as a useful tool to assess the success of India’s school education system. The index comprises
indicators that will help steer a State/UT’s efforts to improve the delivery of quality education. It is hoped
that the index provides instructive feedback to States/UTs and non-governmental service providers to drive
crucial reforms and encourage innovation in cost-effective policy approaches.
SEQI is envisioned as a dynamic instrument that will continue to evolve. Over time, the relevance of the
existing indicators and the availability of data for new indicators will be factored into the index design. In
particular, the linkages between policy actions and SEQI indicators will be analyzed to reflect the efforts
made by States and UTs to improve school education. It is hoped that the index will help facilitate the
sharing of best practices and drive improvements in the delivery of quality education across India. About the
Index
11 12
Aim and Purpose
SEQI aims to drive policy reforms that will improve the quality of school education. The index seeks to
institutionalise a focus on enhancing education outcomes by driving improvements in learning levels, access,
equity, infrastructure and governance processes.
The index recognises that school education is a subject on the Concurrent List and that State-level
leadership is crucial for improving outcomes in a cost-effective manner. The index will serve as a regular
and transparent review of the status of school education quality across the States and UTs.
Index Categories and Domains
SEQI is based on a set of indicators that measure the overall effectiveness, quality and efficiency of the
Indian school education system. The index encourages States/UTs to improve their scores by showing
progress across these aspects.
Table 1: Summary of Index Categories and Domains
CategoryDomain
Number of
indicators
Total weight
1. Outcomes
1.1 Learning Outcomes3 360
1.2 Access Outcomes3 100
1.3 Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes 325
1.4 Equity Outcomes7 200
2. Governance Processes
Aiding Outcomes
Covering student and teacher attendance,
teacher availability, administrative adequacy,
training, accountability and transparency
14 280
Total 30 965
List of Indicators, Corresponding Weights and Data Sources
Table 2: Indicator Description
S.No. IndicatorWeightData SourceSchool Management Valence
Category 1: Outcomes
Domain 1.1: Learning Outcomes
1.1.1Average score in Class 3200NAS
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
(a)Language100
(b)Mathematics100
1.1.2Average score in Class 5100NAS
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
(a)Language50
(b)Mathematics50 13
S.No. IndicatorWeightData SourceSchool Management Valence
1.1.3Average score in Class 860 NAS
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
(a)Language30
(b)Mathematics30
Category 1: Outcomes
Domain 1.2:   Access Outcomes
1.2.1Adjusted Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) 40 UDISE All management Positive
(a)Elementary level20
(b)Secondary level (Class 9 to 10) 20
1.2.2Transition rate40 UDISE All management Positive
(a)Primary to Upper-primary level 20
(b)Upper-primary to Secondary level 20
1.2.3
Percentage of identified Out-of-
School Children mainstreamed
in last completed academic year
(Class 1 to 8)
20
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
Category 1: Outcomes
Domain 1.3: Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes
1.3.1Computer Related Learning10 UDISE All management Positive
(a)
Percentage of schools having
Computer-Aided Learning (CAL) at
Elementary level
5
(b)
Percentage of Secondary schools with
computer lab facility
5
1.3.2
Percentage of schools having book
banks/reading rooms/libraries
(Class 1 to 12)
5 UDISE All management Positive
1.3.3
Percentage of schools covered by
vocational education (Class 9 to 12)
10 UDISE
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
Category 1: Outcomes
Domain 1.4: Equity outcomes
1.4.1
Difference (Absolute value) in
performance between Scheduled
Caste (SC) and General Category
students
30 NAS
Government &
Government Aided
Negative
(a)Language
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
(b)Mathematics
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85 14
S.No. IndicatorWeightData SourceSchool Management Valence
1.4.2
Difference (Absolute value) in
performance between Scheduled
Tribe (ST) and General Category
students
30 NAS
Government &
Government Aided
Negative
(a)Language
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
(b)Mathematics
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
1.4.3
Difference (Absolute value) in
performance between students
studying in Rural and Urban areas
30 NAS
Government &
Government Aided
Negative
(a)Language
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
(b)Mathematics
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
1.4.4
Difference (Absolute value) in
student performance between boys
and girls at Elementary level
30 NAS
Government &
Government Aided
Negative
(a)Language
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
(b)Mathematics
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
1.4.5
Difference (Absolute value) in
Transition Rate in all schools from
Upper-primary to Secondary level
40 UDISE All management Negative
(a)SC and General Category10
(b)ST and General Category10
(c)OBC and General Category 10
(d)Boys and Girls10 15
S.No. IndicatorWeightData SourceSchool Management Valence
1.4.6
Percentage of entitled Children
With Special Needs (CWSN)
receiving aids and appliances
(Class 1 to 10)
Note: This is measured against targets set
in the PAB minutes where the number of
students receiving aids/appliances is specified.
30
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
1.4.7
Percentage of schools with toilet
for girls (Class 1 to 12)
10 UDISE All management Positive
Category 2: Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes
Attendance
2.1Student attendance50
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
(a)
Percentage of children whose unique ID
is seeded in Student Data Management
Information System (SDMIS)
20
(b)
Percentage of average daily attendance
of students in SDMIS/electronic/digital
database updated atleast every month
(Class 1 to 12)
Note: Data is collected monthly and
aggregated.
30
2.2Teacher attendance30
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
(a)
Percentage of teachers whose unique ID
is seeded in any electronic database of
the State Government/UT Administration
(Class 1 to 12)
10
(b)
Percentage of average daily attendance
of teachers recorded in the electronic
attendance system
Note: Data is collected monthly and
aggregated.
20
Teacher adequacy
2.3Percentage of single teacher schools10 UDISE All management Negative
2.4
Percentage of schools meeting
teacher norms as per RTE Act
20
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
(a)
Percentage of Elementary schools
meeting teacher norms
10
(b)
Percentage of Upper-primary schools
meeting subject-teacher norms
10
2.5
Percentage of Secondary schools
with teachers for all core subjects
(Class 9 to 10)
10
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
Administrative adequacy
2.6
Percentage of schools with Head-
Master/Principal
20 UDISE All management Positive 16
S.No. IndicatorWeightData SourceSchool Management Valence
Training
2.7
Percentage of academic positions
filled in State and District academic
training institutions at the beginning
of the given academic year
Note: Measured against number of positions
approved/sanctioned by MHRD
15
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
-Positive
(a)SCERTs or equivalent5
(b)DIETs10
2.8
Percentage of teachers provided
with sanctioned number of days of
training in the given financial year
(Class 1 to 10)
20
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
2.9
Percentage of head-masters/
principals who have completed
School Leadership training in the
given financial year (Class 1 to 12)
15
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
Government &
Government Aided
Positive
Accountability & transparency
2.10
Percentage of schools that have
completed self-evaluation and made
school improvement/development
plans in the given financial year
20
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
All management Positive
(a)
Percentage of schools that have
completed self-evaluation
5
(b)
Percentage of schools that have made
school improvement/development plans
Note: Includes only those self-evaluation
systems that are approved by the
DoSEL-MHRD.
15
2.11
Timely release of funds
Note: Includes funds for both SSA and RMSA.
On release of Central share of funds, the
Central share is supposed to be transferred
to State implementation societies within 15
days and the State share is supposed to be
released to State implementation societies
within 30 days.
10
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
- Negative
(a)
Average number of days taken by State/
UT to release total Central share of
funds to societies (during the previous
financial year)
5
(b)
Average number of days taken by
State to release total State share due
to State societies (during the previous
financial year)
Note: This indicator is not applicable for
UTs. Most UTs do not contribute a State/
UT share and this reduces the ability to
compute and compare scores.
5 17
S.No. IndicatorWeightData SourceSchool Management Valence
2.12
Number of new teachers recruited
through a transparent online
recruitment system as a percentage
of total number of new teachers
recruited in the given financial year.
Note: The transparent recruitment system
should include:
a) annual assessment of the teacher
demand – displayed online; b) written
test (may or may not be online); c) online
advertisement for recruitment; d) online
display of marks secured by all applicants;
e) online display of objective, merit-based
criteria for selection; f) transparent, online
counselling for teachers.
20
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
- Positive
2.13
Number of teachers transferred
through a transparent online
system as a percentage of total
number of teachers transferred in
the given year (Class 1 to 12)
Note: The transparent online transfer system
should:
a) include a regular and annual transfer;
b) be done on an electronic and transparent
online system; c) include teacher preferences;
d) be based on an objective transfer policy
20
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
- Positive
2.14
Number of head-masters/principals
recruited through a merit-based
selection system as a percentage
of total number of head-masters/
principals recruited (in the given
financial year) (Class 1 to 12)
20
MHRD’s ShaGun
MIS/States
- Positive
Notes:
• In general, base year refers to 2015-16 and reference year refers to 2016-17. The exceptions to this are the NAS-
based indicators for which there is no base year data and for which the reference year data is from 2017-18. The
lack of base year data for NAS is because the 2017 survey is not comparable to previous cycles.
• If a State/UT did not submit data for a required indicator, a score of ‘Zero’ was assigned.
• If an indicator is Not Applicable (NA) for a State/UT, it has been excluded from the calculation, and the weight
reallocated to the remaining sub-indicators (if available) or to the entire domain/category. 18
State and Union Territory Categorization
States and UTs have been categorised into three groups – Large States, Small States and UTs to facilitate
like-to-like comparison.
Table 3: Grouping of States and UTs
GroupNumberStates/UTs
Large States
1
20
Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal
Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab. Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh
and Uttarakhand
Small States8 Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura
Union Territories 7
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Delhi, Daman
& Diu, Lakshadweep and Puducherry
Scoring Methodology
For indicators where a higher value signifies better performance (indicators with positive valence), the
scaled value (S) for the i
th
indicator (S
i
), for the State or UT (X) with data value (X
i
), has been calculated
as follows:
Similarly, for indicators where a lower value signifies better performance (indicators with negative valence),
the scaled value was calculated as follows:
The minimum and maximum values of each indicator were ascertained based on the values for that indicator
across States or UTs within the relevant group (Large States, Small States and UTs). The resultant scaled
value for each indicator lies between 0 and 1, with the best performing State or UT receiving a score of 1.
Based on the scaled values (S
i
), the overall performance score has been calculated for each year after the
application of indicator-wise weights (W
i
):
States/UTs’ overall performance scores for a given year have been used to arrive at their ranking for that
year. The difference between the scores for reference and base years has been used to compute the change
in performance over time. Therefore, the index presents two types of ranking: (i) overall performance
(reference year ranking) and (ii) incremental performance (difference in overall performance between
reference and base years).
Scaled value (S
i
) =
[(X
i
– Minimum value )×100]
[Maximum value – Minimum value]
Scaled value (S
i
) =
[(Maximum value – X
i
)×100]
[Maximum value – Minimum value]
Overall Performance Score

(Year)
=
∑W
i*S
i
∑W
i
1. West Bengal did not participate in this round of SEQI. 19
The Index Development Process
The idea of developing a quality index to rank States and UTs on their performance in school education
originated in 2017. SEQI was conceptualized, designed and developed between July 2017 and February
2019, with the final report generated for publication in June 2019.
Table 4:  Timelines for the Development of SEQIS. No.Step/Activity 2017
20182019
Jan-Mar Apr-JunJul-SepSep-Dec Jan Feb-June
1
Conceptualization &
design of the index
2
State/UT consultation
workshops
3Data collection
4
Validation of data and
workshops with States/
UTs
5
Index score and rank
computation
6
Peer review & report
generation 20
Key Stakeholders – Roles and Responsibilities
The index was developed through a highly collaborative exercise involving key stakeholders who supported
the process of selecting, finalizing and assigning weights to indicators; collecting, cleaning and validating
data and drafting the report.
Table 5: K ey Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities for Index Development
NITI AayogMHRDStates and UTs
World
Bank
Independent
Validation
Agency (IVA)
Web Portal
Developer
Development
of SEQI in close
partnership
with MHRD and
States/UTs
Support on
development and
finalisation of
SEQI indicators
Provide inputs on
SEQI indicators and
weights
Provide
inputs
on SEQI
indicators
and weights
Validation of data
submitted by
States/UTs
Development of
web-series to link
data from ShaGun
portal to SEQI
portal
Overall
management
and facilitation
of interaction
between States/
UTs and the IVA
Provide published
data (NAS and
UDISE)
Input the required
data on the ShaGun
portal
Analysis and
visualization
of data
collected
and
validated by
the IVA
Review of
supporting
documents and
participation in
data validation
workshops with
States/UTs
Maintenance of
online electronic
records
Report
writing and
dissemination
Development of
and facilitating
access to ShaGun
portal for
collecting data
from States/UTs
Coordination with
different departments,
Districts and the IVA;
Adopt and share
SEQI with various
departments
Drafting and
finalizing the
SEQI report;
Facilitating
peer reviews
Generation and
validation of SEQI
scores and ranks;
and final data
certification on the
portal
Publishing of SEQI
results on portal
Detailed deliberations on the indicators were held with MHRD, States/UTs administrators and sector
experts through consultation workshops.
Table 6: Details of State/UT Consultation Workshops for SEQI
VenueDate Participant States/UTs
Chandigarh 07.07.2017
Chandigarh, Delhi, Goa, Himachal, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala and
Tamil Nadu
Raipur, Chhattisgarh14.07.2017
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chhattisgarh, Daman & Diu, Madhya
Pradesh, Punjab and Rajasthan
Bengaluru, Karnataka21.07.2017Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Uttarakhand
Bhubaneshwar, Odisha31.07.2017
Haryana, Jharkhand, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Odisha, Telangana
and Uttar Pradesh
Guwahati, Assam 04.08.2017
Andhra Pradesh,   Arunachal Pradesh,  Assam, Bihar, Mizoram, Sikkim and
Tripura
A ‘SEQI – The Success of Our Schools’ guidebook, detailing the indicators, scoring methodology, weights
and data sources, was published in May 2018. 21
Data Collection
The data used to compute SEQI has been mostly sourced from publicly available data sources (published
Unified District Information System for Education (UDISE) data and NAS (2017) results). Where data is not
available in the public domain, duly verified information has been sought from the States and UTs.
States/UTs appointed nodal officers for collating and submitting the data required for SEQI. Data was
submitted online through the MHRD’s ShaGun portal and extracted into NITI Aayog’s online portal (http://
social.niti.gov.in/). Data from publicly available data sets and sources was directly fed into the system by
the IVA. The process of data entry and submission by the States and UTs began in April 2018 and ended in
December 2018.
Data Validation and Score Computation
Under the supervision of NITI Aayog, the data was validated and finalized by an Independent Validation
Agency (IVA). The first level of verification was desk based and revealed differences across States and UTs
in the underlying sources and comparability of the data submitted for a few indicators. To correct for these
differences, the coverage of the affected indicators was revised to help improve comparability and to ensure
the data is sourced from publicly available sources.
The second round of verification focused on data directly submitted by the States and UTs. This data was
not publicly available and pertained to the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category indicators.
The IVA organized workshops where the data requirements and calculation methodologies were explained
to participating States/UTs, who provided documentary evidence for the data submitted. A few indicators
were subsequently dropped from the index as verifiable documentary proof for the data was not available
in some States/UTs.
Table 7: Details of State/UT Data Validation Workshops
VenueDate Participant States/UTs
NITI Aayog, New Delhi 12.09.2018
Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana,
Himachal, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar
Pradesh and Uttarakhand
NITI Aayog, New Delhi 13.09.2018
Arunachal Pradesh,  Assam, Chandigarh, Delhi, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Puducherry, Sikkim and Tripura
Via Video-conferencing (For States/
UTs that were unable to attend the
workshops in New Delhi)
28.09.2018
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman &
Diu, Jammu & Kashmir, Lakshadweep and Telangana
The finalised data was then used by the IVA to calculate scaled values, overall performance scores and
ranks. The validation agency also validated the scores and ranks that were simultaneously generated in
the online portal hosted by NITI Aayog. This served as a mechanism to cross-check the index scores and
ranks.
Limitations
The analysis of States’/UTs’ incremental performance excludes data on learning outcomes. This is
because learning outcomes data from the latest round of NAS 2017 is not comparable with that
from previous cycles (due to changes in test items, coverage and reporting scales).
The lack of time series data for many indicators restricted the team’s ability to use statistical
techniques to derive indicator, domain and category-wise weights. Instead, weights were derived in
consultation with MHRD, sectors experts and States and UTs.
Originally, the index was based on 33 indicators with a total weight of 1000 points. However, due to
the lack of reliable data, some of the indicators/sub-indicators had to be dropped. Subsequently, the
index was revised to 30 indicators with a total weight of 965 points. In cases where a sub-indicator
was dropped, its weight was re-assigned to the other sub-indicators under the same indicator. In
cases where an entire indicator was dropped, its weight allocation was removed and the overall
index weight was revised downwards. For a detailed list of the original indicators, sub-indicators and
corresponding weights, please refer to Annexure II.
To ensure that all index data points remain consistent with published data sources and evidence
submitted by the States and UTs, some indicators had to be modified. As a result, while most
indicators cover only the performance of government-managed schools, a few cover all school types
(Government, Government Aided and privately managed) (see Annexure II for further details).
MAIN FINDINGS
Overall
Performance
23 24
Reference Year (2016-17) Performance
Overall Performance on Outcomes and Governance
Overall performance is the weighted aggregate of a State or UT’s performance on the two categories:
(i) Outcomes and (ii) Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes.
The Outcomes category comprises four domains: (a) Learning Outcomes, (b) Access Outcomes,
(c) Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes and (d) Equity Outcomes. Scores on this category are primarily
driven by Learning Outcomes, which receives more than 50 percent of the total weight assigned to this
category.
The Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category includes indicators related to student and
teacher attendance systems, teacher and administrative adequacy, training, as well as accountability and
transparency. Scores on this category are primarily driven by a State’s performance on indicators related
to school leadership, teacher availability and transparency in teacher/school leader recruitment.
A. Large States
Kerala, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Assam are the best-performing Large States,
each achieving an overall performance score above 60.0 percent. Kerala has the highest overall performance
score of 76.6 percent. Uttar Pradesh ranks last among the Large States, with an overall performance score
of 36.4 percent.
States’ overall performance may hide variations in their performance on the underlying categories. Of
the 20 Large States, 10 perform better on the Outcomes category, with the most noticeable performance
differences observed in the cases of Karnataka, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh. The other Large States
perform better on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category, with the most noticeable
performance differences observed in the cases of Odisha, Punjab and Haryana.
In the Outcomes category, Karnataka leads the Large States, with a score of 81.9 percent while
Uttar Pradesh has the lowest score of 34.1 percent. In the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes
category, Kerala has the highest score of 79.0 percent while Jharkhand comes in last with a score of
21.0 percent. 25
Figure 1: Large States: Overall and Category-wise Performance, 2016-17
Reference Year (2016-17)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Karnatak a
Keral a
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtr a
Odisha
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Overall Performance
Outcomes Category
Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category
B. Small States
Manipur, Tripura and Goa are the top-performing Small States, each achieving an overall performance
score above 55 percent. Manipur has the highest overall performance score of 68.8 percent. Arunachal
Pradesh ranks last, with an overall performance score of 24.6 percent.
Of the eight Small States, seven perform better on the Outcomes category, with the most noticeable
performance differences observed in the cases of Manipur, Tripura and Goa. Sikkim is the only Small State
that performs better on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category.
Manipur ranks first among the Small States on the Outcomes category, with a score of 82.1 percent.
Arunachal Pradesh has the lowest score, at 27.2 percent. In the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes
category, Mizoram has the highest score of 47.5 percent while Arunachal Pradesh ranks last with a score
of 18.3 percent.
Note:  The Outcomes Category score for Himachal Pradesh is 55.6 percent and Madhya Pradesh is 46.0 percent. 26
Figure 2: Small States: Overall and Category-wise Performance, 2016-17
Reference Year (2016-17)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Arunachal Pradesh
Goa
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Sikki m
Tripur a
Overall Performance
Outcomes Category
Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category
C. Union Territories
Chandigarh and Dadra & Nagar Haveli are the top-performing UTs, with each achieving an overall
performance score above 50.0 percent. Chandigarh has the highest overall performance score of 82.9
percent while Lakshadweep ranks last, with an overall performance score of 31.9 percent.
Of the seven UTs, four perform better on the Outcomes category, with the most noticeable performance
difference observed in Dadra & Nagar Haveli. Delhi, Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep perform better on
the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category.
Consistent with its overall score, Chandigarh is also the best-performing UT on the Outcomes and
Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes categories, with scores of 88.4 percent and 69.5 percent
respectively. Lakshadweep received the lowest score (28.9 percent) on the Outcomes category while
Dadra & Nagar Haveli received the lowest score (33.5 percent) on the Governance Processes Aiding
Outcomes category.
Note: The Outcomes Category score for Meghalaya is 39.2 percent and Mizoram is 50.8 percent. 27
Figure 3: UTs: Overall and Category-wise Performance, 2016-17
Domain-specific Performance on Outcomes
There is a high degree of variation in States’ and UTs’ performance on three of the domains that make up
the Outcomes category: Learning Outcomes, Access Outcomes and Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes.
In contrast, there is little variation among States and UTs in their Equity Outcomes.
States’ and UTs’ performance on Learning Outcomes is driven by their results on the NAS 2017. Their
performance on Access Outcomes is primarily driven by enrolment ratios at the secondary level and
transition rates from upper-primary to secondary level. In terms of Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes,
States’ and UTs’ performance is strongly linked to the presence of CAL at the elementary level and
vocational education at the secondary and senior-secondary level.
Reference Year (2016-17)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigar h
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Daman & Diu
Delh i
Lakshadweep
Puducherr y
Overall Performance
Outcomes Category
Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category
Note: The Outcomes Category score for Andaman & Nicobar Islands is 40.8 percent. 28
Figure 4: Large States: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-17
Reference Year (2016-17)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Karnatak a
Keral a
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtr a
Odisha
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Outcomes Category
Learning Outcomes Domain
Equity Outcomes Domain
Access Outcomes Domain
Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain
A. Large States
Karnataka, Rajasthan, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh have the highest scores on the Outcomes category,
mainly due to their strong performance on Learning Outcomes. Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Jammu &
Kashmir have the lowest Outcomes category scores.
Note: The Equity Outcomes Domain score for Rajasthan is 79.4 percent. 29
B. Small States
Among the Small States, Manipur, Tripura and Goa have the highest scores on the Outcomes category
while Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya have the lowest. Here again, States’ performance is primarily
driven by their Learning Outcomes scores.
Figure 5: Small States: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-17
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reference Year (2016-17)
Arunachal Pradesh
Goa
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Sikkim
Tripur a
Outcomes Category
Learning Outcomes Domain
Equity Outcomes Domain
Access Outcomes Domain
Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain
Note: The Equity Outcomes Domain score Goa is 68.5 and Meghalaya is 43.1. 30
Figure 6: UTs: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-17
Reference Year (2016-17)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Chandigar h
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Dadra & Nagar
Havel i
Daman & Diu
Delhi
Lakshadweep
Puducherr y
Outcomes Category
Learning Outcomes Domain
Equity Outcomes Domain
Access Outcomes Domain
Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain
C. Union Territories
Among UTs, Chandigarh and Dadra & Nagar Haveli have the highest Outcomes category scores, strongly
linked to their performance on the NAS 2017. Lakshadweep and Daman & Diu received the lowest
Outcomes scores.
Note: The Equity Outcomes Domain score for Chandigarh is 77.6 and Lakshadweep is 46.5. The Infrastructure & Facilities for
Outcomes Domain score for Delhi is 41.9.
MAIN FINDINGS
Incremental
Performance
31 32
Change in Ranks Over Time
Note: Due to the lack of comparable NAS data for the base (2015-16) and reference (2016-17) years, this
section excludes NAS-based indicators (indicators 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3 and 1.4.4).
The ranking of States/UTs based on their scores for 2015-16 and 2016-17 reveals interesting trends in
their progress at the national level. The identification of States/UTs that have outpaced the group in
incremental performance, as well as improvement in specific categories and domains will provide a useful
basis for inter-state learning.
In the absence of NAS-based indicators, change in overall performance scores/ranks are primarily
driven by State/UT performance on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category. This category
accounts for about 58 percent of the index weight. Within the category, State/UT performance is primarily
driven by indicators related to teacher management information systems, subject teacher availability and
teacher training.
A. Large States
Among the 20 Large States, 18 improved their overall performance between 2015-16 and 2016-17. The
average improvement in these 18 states is 8.6 percentage points although there is a lot of variation around
that average in terms of the fastest and slowest improving States. Due to this variation, many States that
improved their overall performance score still show a decline in rank.
For example, Rajasthan improved its overall performance score by more than eight percentage points, but
still slipped in the overall ranking. This is because States like Haryana, Assam, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha
improved their overall performance scores by 18.5, 16.8, 13.7 and 12.4 percentage points respectively,
outpacing all the others. Only Karnataka and Uttarakhand experienced a decline in both their overall
performance score and rank between 2015-16 and 2016-17. 33
Figure 7: Large States: Overall Performance Score and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-17
Note:  The 2015-16 score for Andhra Pradesh was 48.42 and for Chhattisgarh was 48.40.
Kerala
Base Year Rank (2015-16)
Reference Year Rank (2016-17)
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Kerala ▬
Andhra Pradesh ▬
Assam ▲ 5
Bihar ▬
Chhattisgarh ▬
Gujarat ▲ 2
Haryana ▲ 5
Himachal Pradesh ▼ 1
Jammu & Kashmir ▬
Jharkhand ▬
Karnataka ▼ 8
Madhya Pradesh ▼ 1
Maharashtra ▼ 3
Odisha ▲ 6
Punjab ▬
Rajasthan ▼ 1
Tamil Nadu ▬
Telangana ▼ 1
Uttar Pradesh ▲ 1
Uttarakhand ▼ 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
77.6%
63.2%
58.6%
56.6%
58.1%
52.4%
51.2%
51.0%
50.7%
49.5%
48.4%
48.4%
47.8%
44.4%
39.3%
34.8%
34.7%
32.8%
30.0%
28.5%30.6%
37.3%
39.0%
46.5%
47.1%
47.2%
48.1%
52.9%
54.9%
56.1%
56.1%
59.1%
59.4%
60.2%
62.5%
62.8%
63.0%
69.5%
73.4%
82.2%
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 34
B. Small States
Five Small States have shown an improvement in their overall performance score between 2015-16 and
2016-17, with the average improvement being around nine percentage points. However, as in the case of
Large States, there is considerable variation between the fastest and slowest improving States. States such
as Meghalaya, Nagaland and Goa outpaced the others, improving by 14.1, 13.5 and 8.2 percentage points
respectively, thus improving their ranks in the process.
Base Year Rank (2015-16)
Reference Year Rank (2016-17)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TripuraTripura ▬
Mizoram
Mizoram ▼ 2
Goa
Goa ▲ 1
Manipur
Manipur ▲ 1
SikkimSikkim ▬
Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh ▼ 2
Meghalaya
Meghalaya ▲ 1
Nagaland
Nagaland ▲ 1 48.5%
47.7%
45.6%
45.3%
43.9%
30.4%
24.3%
22.4%28.4%
35.9%
38.4%
43.0%
46.5%
46.9%
53.8%
56.1%
Figure 8: Small States: Overall Performance Score and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-17 35
Figure 9: UTs: Overall Performance Score and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-17
Base Year Rank (2015-16)
Reference Year Rank (2016-17)
▼ 3
ChandigarhChandigarh ▬
DelhiDelhi ▬
Andaman &
Nicobar Island
Andaman &
Nicobar Island
Puducherry
Puducherry ▲ 1
Lakshadweep
Lakshadweep ▼ 2
Daman & Diu
Daman & Diu ▲ 2
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
▲ 2
70.0%
60.0%
42.8%
40.8%
37.5%
34.0%
29.9%42.8%
44.2%
44.9%
50.5%
55.1%
69.9%
73.9%
C. Union Territories
All seven UTs have shown an improvement in their overall performance scores. The average improvement
is 9.5 percentage points. Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Puducherry improved their overall
performance scores by 16.5, 15.0 and 14.3 percentage points respectively, which enabled them to improve
their ranking. 36
Change in Category and Domain Scores Over Time
Change in Outcomes Category Scores
The Outcomes category accounts for about 42.0 percent of the incremental performance score. In the
absence of NAS-related indicators, changes in States’ and UTs’ scores on this category are primarily driven
by changes in their performance on Access Outcomes and Equity Outcomes.
A. Large States
Overall, 14 of the Large States showed an improvement in their Outcomes category score and six showed
a decline. Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana improved their Outcomes scores by 10.0
percentage points or more. On the other hand, Outcomes scores for Telangana, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand
fell by more than five percentage points. The change in scores ranged from a 20.1 percentage points
increase in Andhra Pradesh to a 12.0 percentage point decrease in Telangana.
Figure 10: Large States: Change in Performance on the Outcomes Category
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17)
90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%100%
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Uttar Pradesh
Haryana
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Odisha
Jammu & Kashmir
Bihar
Rajasthan
Himachal Pradesh
Maharashtra
Gujarat
Kerala
Punjab
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Uttarakhand
Telangana
+20.1%
+14.2%
+11.4%
+10.6%
+9.9%
+5.5%
+4.3%
+4.1%
+4.1%
+2.8%
+2.6%
+1.6%
+0.8%
+0.4%
-0.6%
-1.9%
-3.2%
-7.7%
-9.0%
-12.0%
65.4%
47.0%
45.3%
32.8%
40.8% 52.2%
68.1% 78.7%
61.6% 71.5%
45.4% 50.9%
82.9% 87.2%
53.8% 57.9%
39.5% 43.6%
37.4% 40.2%
61.0% 63.6%
72.4%74.0%
83.1%83.9%
57.7%58.1%
86.5%87.1%
66.3%68.2%
51.4% 54.6%
43.9% 51.6%
61.0% 70.0%
55.9%43.9% 37
B. Small States
Overall, four of the eight Small States showed an improvement in their Outcomes category score. Goa and
Meghalaya improved their Outcomes score by more than five percentage points. On the other hand, scores
for Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh fell by more than five percentage points. The change in scores ranged
from a 7.8 percentage points increase in Goa to a 16.5 percentage point decrease in Mizoram.
C. Union Territories
Overall, five of the seven UTs showed an improvement in their Outcomes category score. Dadra & Nagar
Haveli and Daman & Diu improved their score by more than 10 percentage points. On the other hand,
Andaman & Nicobar Islands score fell by 16.8 percentage points.
Figure 11: Small States: Change in Performance on the Outcomes Category
Note: The 2015-16 score for Tripura was 80.373 and for 2016-17 it was 80.436. Its performance improved by 0.063 percentage
points between the base and the reference year.
Goa
Meghalaya
Nagaland
Tripura
Sikkim
Manipur
Arunachal Pradesh
Mizoram
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17)
+7.8%
+5.2%
+0.4%
+0.1%
-2.8%
-3.8
-7.7%
-16.5%
79.5%71.7%
38.1%32.9%
23.2%22.8%
80.4%80.4%
40.3% 43.1%
61.6% 65.4%
42.2% 49.9%
45.3%61.8%
90% 100%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
Figure 12: UTs: Change in Performance on the Outcomes Category
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Daman & Diu
Delhi
Puducherry
Lakshadweep
Chandigarh
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
10%0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
+14.2%
+10.5%
+6.1%
+0.3%
+0.3%
-2.5%
-16.8%
46.2% 60.4%
37.9% 48.4%
68.5% 74.6%
77.9%78.2%
47.6%47.9%
79.8% 82.3%
51.3%68.1%
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17) 38
Figure 13: Large States: Change in Performance on the Access Outcomes Domain
Assam+25.6%
+21.9%
+15.4%
+12.0%
+11.8%
+11.0%
+10.8%
+10.8%
+6.4%
+5.3%
+4.4%
+4.3%
+3.3%
+1.9%
-1.0%
-2.0%
-3.3%
-4.2%
-9.3%
-14.2%
Andhra Pradesh
Haryana
Uttar Pradesh
Gujarat
Rajasthan
Madhya Pradesh
Karnataka
Maharashtra
Tamil Nadu
Chhattisgarh
Odisha
Uttarakhand
Himachal Pradesh
Punjab
Kerala
Jammu & Kashmir
Telangana
Bihar
Jharkhand
38.1%63.7%
36.3%58.2%
58.9%
50.5%
52.3% 64.1%
56.2%45.2%
37.5% 48.3%
69.1%
77.9% 84.3%
87.8%
61.0%56.6%
65.2%
68.4% 71.7%
84.0% 85.9%
73.6%
88.7%
65.2%61.0%
42.9%33.6%
29.0%43.2%
24.0%20.7%
90.7%
72.6%
69.5%
93.1%
79.9%
38.5%
74.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17)
Change in Access Outcomes Domain Scores
The Access Outcomes domain accounts for about 49.0 percent of the Outcomes category incremental score
and about 20 percent of the overall incremental score. It covers enrolment and flow-related indicators such
as the adjusted net enrolment ratio, transition rates and the mainstreaming of out-of-school children.
A. Large States
Apart from Jharkhand, Bihar, Telangana, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala and Punjab, all Large States improved
their score on the Access Outcomes domain. Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat,
Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka improved by more than 10 percentage points. On the other
hand, the scores for Jharkhand and Bihar decreased by more than nine percentage points. The change in
scores ranged from a 25.6 percentage points increase in Assam to a 14.2 percentage point decrease in
Jharkhand.
The positive change in the scores of States like Assam, Andhra Pradesh and Haryana is driven by their
improved performance on indicators like ‘Transition Rate from Primary to Upper-Primary Level’, ‘Transition
Rate from Upper-Primary to Secondary Level’ and ‘Percentage of Identified Out-of-School-Children 39
Mainstreamed (Class 1 to 8)’. These same indicators are causing the decline in Bihar’s performance. In
the case of Jharkhand, the negative change in performance can be attributed to a lower ‘Adjusted NER at
Elementary and Secondary Levels’ and ‘Transition Rate from Upper-Primary to Secondary Level’.
B. Small States
Access Outcomes improved in Goa, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura, but fell in Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram,
Sikkim and Nagaland. The change in scores ranged from a 6.9 percentage points increase in Goa to a 20.2
percentage point decrease in Arunachal Pradesh.
Like the trends among Large States, the top performing Small States on Access Outcomes, Goa and Manipur,
have improved significantly in the ‘Percentage of Identified Out-of-School-Children Mainstreamed’. On the
other hand, poor performance on ‘Transition Rate from Primary to Upper-Primary Level’ and ‘Adjusted
NER at the Secondary Level’ have led to a decline in this domain for Arunachal Pradesh.
C. Union Territories
Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli improved their Access Outcomes score by more than 10
percentage points. Chandigarh has also marginally improved its score. Scores for all other UTs decreased.
The change in scores ranged from a 14.9 percentage point increase for Daman & Diu to a 10.5 percentage
point decrease for Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
Daman & Diu’s higher score on Access Outcomes is due to its improved performance on ‘Transition Rate
from Primary to Upper-Primary Level’ and ‘Transition Rate from Upper-Primary to Secondary Level’.
Meanwhile, Dadra & Nagar Haveli’s higher score is due to its improvement in the ‘Percentage of Out-of-
School-Children Mainstreamed’. Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry have shown a decline in their
‘Adjusted NER at Elementary and Secondary Levels’, leading to a drop in their performance on Access
Outcomes.
Figure 14: Small States: Change in Performance on the Access Outcomes Domain
Goa+6.9%
+4.1%
+3.5%
+1.0%
-4.5%
-7.1%
-9.1%
-20.2%
Manipur
Meghalaya
Tripura
Nagaland
Sikkim
Mizoram
Arunachal Pradesh
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
86.4%79.5%
65.6%61.5%
43.1%
86.6%87.6%
39.6%
15.8%
37.3% 44.4%
66.3% 75.4%
72.0%51.8%
11.3%
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17) 40
Figure 15: UTs: Change in Performance on the Access Outcomes Domain
Daman & Diu+14.9%
+14.1%
+1.3%
-1.0%
-1.5%
-5.3%
-10.5%
0% 10% 20%30% 40% 50%60%70% 80% 90%100%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Chandigarh
Delhi
Lakshadweep
Puducherry
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
57.8%42.9%
39.0% 53.1%
69.6%70.9%
70.3%69.3%
48.1%
77.5%
59.0%48.5%
82.8%
46.6%
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17)
Change in Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain Scores
The Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes domain accounts for about 12.0 percent of the Outcomes
category incremental score and about five percent of the overall incremental score. It covers indicators
related to computer-aided learning, vocational education and provision of computer laboratories and
libraries in schools.
A. Large States
Twelve Large States improved their score on the Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes domain. Haryana,
Chhattisgarh, Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh improved their score by more than five percentage
points. On the other hand, the scores for Kerala, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh decreased by more than
five percentage points. The change in scores ranged from a 14.0 percentage point increase in Haryana to
a 5.7 percentage point decrease in Kerala.
The improvement in scores for Haryana, Chhattisgarh and Jammu & Kashmir on Infrastructure &
Facilities for Outcomes is a result of their improvement on ‘Percentage of Schools Covered by Vocational
Education in Classes 9 to 12’. Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand and Kerala fell behind due to a decrease in the
‘Percentage of Secondary Schools with Computer Lab Facility’. 41
B. Small States
Four Small States improved their scores on the Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes domain. Mizoram
and Manipur improved their score by more than five percentage points. The change in scores ranged from
a 6.1 percentage point increase in Mizoram to a 22.3 percentage point decrease in Sikkim.
The change in the ‘Percentage of Schools Covered by Vocational Education in Classes 9 to 12’ has driven
improvement in Mizoram, which is the top-performing State, but has also caused the large decline in
Sikkim.
Figure 16: Large States: Change in Performance on the Infrastructure & Facilities for
Outcomes Domain
90%100%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
Haryana
Gujarat
Assam
Odisha
Jammu & Kashmir
Telangana
Punjab
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Chhattisgarh
Rajasthan
Bihar
Jharkhand
Himachal Pradesh
Kerala
Maharashtra
Uttarakhand
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
+14.0%
+9.6%
+8.6%
+7.1%
+4.3%
+3.2%
+3.0%
+1.7%
+1.4%
+0.6%
+0.5%
+0.2%
-1.2%
-1.4%
-2.1%
-2.9%
-3.3%
-5.1%
-5.2%
-5.7%
63.8%77.8%
29.1% 38.7%
26.1% 34.7%
60.8% 67.9%
5.1% 9.4%
24.4% 27.6%
17.5% 20.5%
61.8% 63.5%
24.6%26.0%
18.5%17.9%
10.4%10.9%
50.6%50.8%
25.8%27.0%
29.4%30.8%
45.9% 48.0%
13.4% 16.3%
72.7% 76.0%
18.7% 23.8%
21.7% 26.9%
48.9% 54.6%
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17) 42
C. Union Territories
Five UTs improved their score on the Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes domain. Andaman & Nicobar
Islands, Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep improved their score by more than 10.0 percentage points. On
the other hand, the score for Chandigarh and Puducherry decreased by more than five percentage points.
The change in score ranged from a 12.4 percentage point increase in Andaman & Nicobar Islands to a 11.0
percentage point decrease in Chandigarh.
While Andaman & Nicobar Islands improved due to the increase in the ‘Percentage of Schools Covered
by Vocational Education in Classes 9 to 12’, Daman & Diu showed improvement because of a steep rise in
the ‘Percentage of Schools with Computer Lab Facility’. Chandigarh’s decline in this domain is due to the
decrease in ‘Percentage of Schools with Computer Lab Facility’.
Figure 17: Small States: Change in Performance on the Infrastructure & Facilities for
Outcomes Domain
90%100%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
+6.1%
+5.2%
+4.4%
+0.1%
-2.3%
-2.4%
-4.3%
-22.3%
Mizoram
Manipur
Tripura
Goa
Nagaland
Arunachal Pradesh
Meghalaya
Sikkim
32.4% 38.5%
31.8%26.6%
14.3%9.9%
89.6%89.7%
28.7% 31.0%
15.1% 17.5%
10.9%6.6%
26.4%48.7%
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17)
Figure 18: UTs: Change in Performance on the Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain
90%100%80%70%60%50%40%30%0% 20%10%
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Daman & Diu
Lakshadweep
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Delhi
Puducherry
Chandigarh
+12.4%
+11.1%
+10.1%
+8.9%
+5.5%
-7.8%
-11.0%
42.6% 55.0%
8.4% 19.5%
49.6% 59.7%
37.7%28.8%
36.4% 41.9%
51.4% 59.2%
77.0% 88.0%
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17) 43
Change in Equity Outcomes Domain Scores
The Equity Outcomes domain accounts for about 39.0 percent of the Outcomes category incremental score
and about 16.0 percent of the overall incremental score. It covers indicators related to inclusive education;
the difference in transitions rates for boys and girls; and the difference in transition rates for General
Category, Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) students.
A. Large States
Among the Large States,  Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Karnataka
improved their score by more than 10.0 percentage points. On the other hand, the score for Uttarakhand,
Telangana, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat decreased by more than 10.0 percentage points. The change in score
ranged from a 25.6 percentage points increase for Andhra Pradesh to a 26.8 percentage point decrease
for Uttarakhand. The indicator driving the change in performance, both for improving States like Andhra
Pradesh and Bihar, and declining States like Uttarakhand, is ‘Percentage of Entitled Children with Special
Needs (CWSN) Receiving Aids and Appliances’.
Figure 19: Large States: Change in Performance on the Equity Outcomes Domain
90% 100%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
+18.7%
+15.1%
+12.0%
+11.5%
+5.6%
+4.2%
+3.5%
+3.0%
+2.5%
-0.4%
-0.4%
-0.4%
-4.2%
-4.7%
-7.1%
-12.9%
-16.9%
-26.4%
+25.6%Andhra Pradesh
Bihar
Uttar Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Karnataka
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Haryana
Assam
Kerala
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Himachal Pradesh
Punjab
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Gujarat
Chhattisgarh
Telangana
-26.8%Uttarakhand
63.3%88.9%
57.7%39.0%
51.3%66.4%
63.0% 75.0%
63.8% 75.3%
47.8% 53.4%
86.9% 91.1%
84.4%80.9%
34.9% 37.9%
92.9% 95.4%
69.4%69.8%
61.5%61.9%
61.1%61.5%
59.3% 63.5%
87.1% 91.8%
87.1% 94.2%
54.5% 67.4%
43.3%60.2%
56.4%30.0%
57.4%84.2%
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17) 44
B. Small States
Of the five Small States that showed an improvement on Equity Outcomes, Goa and Meghalaya improved
their score by more than 10.0 percentage points. On the other hand, the score for Mizoram and Manipur
decreased by more than 15.0 percentage points. The change in score ranged from a 11.3 percentage point
increase for Goa to a 32.9 percentage point decrease for Mizoram.
Goa has improved due to a decrease in the ‘Difference in Transition Rate in All Schools from Upper Primary
to Secondary Level between SCs and General Category’. In the case of Meghalaya, the improvement is
driven by an increase in the ‘Percentage of Entitled CWSN Receiving Aids and Appliances’. Mizoram sees a
decline due to an increase in ‘Difference in Transition Rate in All Schools from Upper Primary to Secondary
Level Between SCs, STs and General Category’ and in ‘Difference in the Transition Rate between Boys’
and Girls’.
C. Union Territories
Four UTs improved their score on Equity Outcomes. Of these, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Delhi improved
their score by more than 15.0 percentage points. The largest improvement (16.2 percentage points) was
observed in Dadra & Nagar Haveli. On the other hand, the score for Andaman & Nicobar Islands decreased
by 33.9 percentage points.
The improved scores of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Delhi on Equity Outcomes are linked to a decrease in
the ‘Difference in Transition Rate in All Schools from Upper Primary to Secondary Level between SCs/STs
and General Category’. The decline in the performance of Andaman & Nicobar Islands can be attributed to
the decrease in their ‘Percentage of Entitled CWSN Receiving Aids and Appliances’.
Figure 20: Small States: Change in Performance on the Equity Outcomes Domain
90%1 00%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
+11.3%
+10.2%
+8.6%
+7.3%
+6.3%
-2.6%
-16.3%
-32.9%
Goa
Meghalaya
Sikkim
Nagaland
Arunachal Pradesh
Tripura
Manipur
Mizoram
67.7%56.4%
31.4% 41.6%
39.7%4 8.3%
29.1%3 6.4%
32.5%3 8.8%
92.1%
82.3%66.0%
54.0%21.1%
94.7%
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17) 45
Change in Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category Scores
The Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category accounts for about 58.0 percent of the incremental
score and is in turn primarily driven by performance on indicators related to school leadership,
financial discipline, teacher availability and availability of transparent systems for teacher/school leader
recruitment.
A. Large States
Haryana, Assam, Odisha, Jammu & Kashmir, Gujarat, Telangana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh all improved
their score on this category by more than 15.0 percentage points. Scores for Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh decreased by 13.5 and 1.4 percentage points respectively.
Several indicators drive the change in a State’s overall score on Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes.
For example, the ‘Percentage of Teachers Whose Unique ID is Seeded in Any Electronic Database’ could
explain the improved performance of Gujarat, Assam, Odisha and Jammu & Kashmir. The ‘Percentage of
Teachers Provided with Sanctioned Number of Days of Training’ is linked to positive changes in Haryana
and Jammu & Kashmir’s performance but has led to a sharp decline for Karnataka.
Figure 21: UTs: Change in Performance on the Equity Outcomes Domain
90%100%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Delhi
Puducherry
Daman & Diu
Lakshadweep
Chandigarh
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
+16.2%
+15.3%
+9.9%
+4.9%
-0.6%
-4.4%
-33.9%
60.6%76.8%
76.3%91.6%
77.5% 87.4%
40.8% 45.7%
45.8%46.4%
53.6%87.5%
91.8% 96.2%
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17) 46
Figure 22: Large States: Change in Performance on the Governance Processes Aiding
Outcomes Category
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17)
+24.4%
+18.8%
+18.5%
+18.4%
+18.1%
+16.2%
+15.8%
+15.2%
+14.5%
+13.7%
+12.3%
+10.6%
+9.5%
+8.3%
+6.9%
+6.1%
+4.3%
+0.8%
-1.4%
-13.5%
90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%100%
Haryana
Assam
Odisha
Jammu & Kashmir
Gujarat
Telangana
Punjab
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Chhattisgarh
Rajasthan
Bihar
Jharkhand
Kerala
Himachal Pradesh
Maharashtra
Uttarakhand
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
44.5%
38.8%
46.9%
54.6%
79.0%
21.0%
35.2%
56.4%
57.5%
63.2%
42.2%
53.7%
35.4%
66.6%
49.8%
61.9%
62.8%
62.9%
52.8%
50.7%
43.7%
34.5%
40.8%
44.1%
43.8%
39.3%
49.3%
70.7%
11.5%
24.6%
48.7%
27.0%
37.9%
19.2%
48.5%
31.4%
43.4%
44.0%
38.5%
47.7% 47
Figure 23: Small States: Change in Performance on the Governance Processes Aiding
Outcomes Category
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17)
90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
Nagaland
Meghalaya
Tripura
Mizoram
Goa
Manipur
Arunachal Pradesh
Sikkim
+23.1%
+20.6%
+13.2%
+10.1%
+8.4%
+5.5%
+2.2%
+0.5%
22.1%45.2%
18.1%38.7%
25.1% 38.3%
47.5%37.4%
26.5% 34.9%
30.5% 36.0%
16.1% 18.3%
44.5%45.0%
B. Small States
All Small States improved their score on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category. Nagaland
improved its score by 23.1 percentage points followed by Meghalaya at 20.6 percentage points.
Nagaland and Meghalaya both improved in the ‘Percentage of Teachers Provided with Sanctioned Number
of Days of  Training’. Meghalaya has additionally shown a positive change in the ‘Number of Head-
Masters/Principals Recruited Through a Merit-Based Selection System as a Percentage of Total Number
of Head-Masters/Principals Recruited’ and ‘Percentage of Schools Meeting Teacher Norms as per RTE in
Elementary Schools’. 48
C. Union Territories
All UTs improved their score in the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category by at least 8.5
percentage points. Puducherry improved its score by 24.5 percentage points, followed by Daman & Diu at
20.9 percentage points.
Puducherry has the highest increase in percentage points. It shows a positive change on two indicators:
‘Percentage Distribution of Schools with Head-Masters/Principals’ and ‘Percentage of Teachers Provided
with Sanctioned Number of Days of Training’. Daman & Diu’s improvement in this domain is driven by
a steep increase in the ‘Percentage of Average Daily Attendance of Teachers Recorded in the Electronic
Attendance System’.
Figure 24: UTs: Change in Performance on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category
Base Year (2015-16)
Reference Year (2016-17)
+24.5%
+20.9%
+15.6%
+14.8%
+12.7%
+9.0%
+8.5%
90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
Puducherry
Daman & Diu
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Delhi
Lakshadweep
Chandigarh
13.7%38.2%
31.1%52.0%
17.9%33.5%
24.3%39.1%
53.7% 66.4%
30.1% 39.1%
61.0% 69.5%
100% PERFORMANCE
ON INDICATORS
49 50
This section presents States’/UTs’ performance on each indicator included in SEQI. Where possible, it
draws comparisons between base year and reference year performance. Data are presented first for
Large States, and then for Small States and UTs.
Category 1: Outcomes
Domain 1: Learning Outcomes
Indicator 1.1.1: Average Score in Class 3 for Language & Mathematics
The Class 3 NAS scores reflect the quality of foundational learning (preschool education, Class 1 and
Class 2) in a State. This is an important indicator as improvements in foundational learning are positively
correlated with improved enrolment, retention and completion rates at higher levels of education as
well as with improved labor market outcomes. Improved outcomes in foundational learning are also
related to improved health-seeking behavior and reduced delinquency. Among the Large States, average
performance on the Class 3 language test ranges from 79.0 percent for Andhra Pradesh to 58.0 percent for
Uttar Pradesh. In the case of mathematics, average performance ranges from 75.0 percent for Karnataka
to 56.0 percent for Punjab.
Among the Small States and UTs, Chandigarh has the highest average language and mathematics scores
of 75.0 and 71.0 percent respectively while Arunachal Pradesh has the lowest average scores of 51.0 and
49.0 percent respectively.
Figure 25: Average Score in Class 3 for Language & Mathematics – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Average Percentage Correct
Language Mathematics
Jharkhand
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Rajasthan
Gujarat
Chhattisgarh
Assam
Haryana
Punjab
Uttarakhand
Odisha
Maharashtra
Karnataka
Telangana
Tamil Nadu
Himachal Pradesh
Keral a
79.0
74.0
72.0
70.0 67.0
63.0
65.0
60.0
71.0
65.0
65.0
58.0
69.0
63.064.0
62.0
70.0
66.0
78.0
75.0
72.0
72.0
70.0
62.0
70.0
65.0
64.0
62.0
63.0
56.0
77.0
72.0
62.0
62.0
68.0
69.0
58.0
59.0
72.0
67.0 51
Indicator 1.1.2: Average Score in Class 5 for Language & Mathematics
In India, Class 5 is the senior-most grade at the primary level and therefore an important educational
milestone in a student’s life. The Class 5 NAS measures the quality of education at the end of primary
education and students’ preparedness to transition to the upper-primary level. Among the Large States,
Karnataka has the highest average Class 5 language and mathematics scores of 71.0 and 67.0 percent
respectively. Punjab and Uttar Pradesh have the lowest average language score of 50.0 percent; Punjab also
has the lowest average mathematics score of 43.0 percent.
Figure 26: Average Score in Class 3 for Language & Mathematics – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Average Percentage Correct
Sikkim
Nagaland
Goa
Arunachal
Pradesh
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Tripura
Lakshadweep
Daman & Diu
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Puducherry
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
Delhi
Language Mathematics
Union TerritoriesSmall States
51.0
49.0
66.0
59.0
71.0
68.0
62.0
57.0
69.0
61.0
67.0
64.0 60.0
55.0
67.0
61.062.0
62.0
75.0
71.0
71.0
66.0 66.0
57.0
58.0
54.0
56.0
58.0
59.0
62.0
Figure 27: Average Score in Class 5 for Language & Mathematics – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Average Percentage Correct
Language Mathematics
Jharkhand
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Rajasthan
Gujarat
Chhattisgarh
Assam
Haryana
Punjab
Uttarakhand
Odisha
Maharashtra
Karnataka
Telangana
Tamil Nadu
Himachal Pradesh
Keral a
67.0
64.0
60.0
61.0
57.0
52.0
55.0
47.0
59.0
57.0 55.0
46.0
61.0
49.0
54.0
54.0
61.0
56.0
71.0
67.0
69.0
63.0
56.0
48.0
61.0
52.0
51.0
55.0
50.0
43.0
69.0
65.0
58.0
49.0
57.0
56.0
50.0
49.0
64.0
58.0 52
Among the Small States and UTs, Chandigarh has the highest average language and mathematics scores
of 69.0 and 64.0 percent respectively while Arunachal Pradesh has the lowest average scores of 43.0 and
39.0 percent respectively.
Indicator 1.1.3:   Average Score in Class 8 for Language & Mathematics
In India, elementary education concludes with the completion of Class 8, after which students transition to
secondary education. The Class 8 NAS measures the quality of education at the end of elementary education
and students’ preparedness to transition to the secondary level. Among the Large States, Rajasthan has
the highest average Class 8 language and mathematics scores of 67.0 and 57.0 percent respectively. Jammu
& Kashmir has the lowest average language score of 43.0 percent while Punjab has the lowest average
mathematics score of 31.0 percent.
Among the Small States and UTs, Chandigarh has the highest average language and mathematics scores
of 61.0 and 46.0 percent respectively. Arunachal Pradesh has the lowest average language score of 44.0
percent while Sikkim has the lowest average mathematics score of 30.0 percent.
Figure 28:   Average Score in Class 5 for Language & Mathematics – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Average Percentage Correct
Sikkim
Nagaland
Goa
Arunachal
Pradesh
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Tripura
Lakshadweep
Daman & Diu
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Puducherry
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
Delhi
Language Mathematics
Union TerritoriesSmall States
43.0
39.0
53.0
46.0
59.0
56.0
47.0
42.0
50.0
44.0
52.0
46.0
50.0
42.0
57.0
51.0
53.0
49.0
69.0
64.0 64.0
59.0
50.0
43.0
52.0
44.0
51.0
46.0
51.0
51.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 53
Figure 29:   Average Score in Class 8 for Language & Mathematics – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Average Percentage Correct
LanguageMathematics
Jharkhand
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Rajasthan
Gujarat
Chhattisgarh
Assam
Haryana
Punjab
Uttarakhand
Odisha
Maharashtra
Karnataka
Telangana
Tamil Nadu
Himachal Pradesh
Kerala
58.0
50.054.0
49.0
58.0
45.0
56.0
36.0
64.0
47.0
57.0
37.0
59.0
35.0
43.0
37.0
61.0
51.0
63.0
51.0
63.0
50.0
55.0
40.0
63.0
40.0
53.0
44.0
54.0
31.0
67.0
57.0
57.0
35.053.0
37.0
53.0
40.0
59.0
40.0
Figure 30:   Average Score in Class 8 for Language & Mathematics – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Average Percentage Correct
Sikkim
Nagaland
Goa
Arunachal
Pradesh
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Tripura
Lakshadweep
Daman & Diu
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Puducherry
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
Delhi
Language Mathematics
Union TerritoriesSmall States
44.0
33.0
60.0
34.0
52.0
42.0
49.0
34.0
45.0
36.0
45.0
34.0
51.0
30.0
54.0
38.0
50.0
34.0
61.0
46.0
60.0
45.053.0
32.0
55.0
32.049.0
33.0
46.0
31.0
Domain 2: Access Outcomes
Indicator 1.2.1a: Adjusted Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) at Elementary Level
Adjusted NER refers to the total number of pupils in a particular stage of school education enrolled
either in the corresponding stage or the next stage of school education expressed as a percentage of
the corresponding population. Reference year data shows that 18 States and UTs reported an adjusted
NER greater than 90.0 percent. In contrast, Nagaland, Sikkim and Jammu & Kashmir reported the lowest
adjusted NERs of 76.7, 68.9 and 67.3 percent respectively. 54
Figure 32: Adjusted NER at Elementary Level – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
92.1
91.4
98.0
100
100
100
100
100
82.9
79.6
84.6
85.0
86.7
87.6
100
68.9
76.7
97.3
99.9
100
100
100
79.0
79.9
82.2
82.7
82.8
86.9
100
Adjusted NER: Elementary
(Percentage)
Sikkim
Nagaland
Goa
Arunachal
Pradesh
Manipur
100
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Tripura
Lakshadweep
Daman & Diu
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Puducherry
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Delhi
For most States and UTs, there is very little difference between their adjusted NER for 2015-16 and 2016-17.
However, in the case of Sikkim, Nagaland, Jharkhand and Jammu & Kashmir, there was a decrease of five
percentage points or more in their adjusted NER over this period.
Figure 31: Adjusted NER at Elementary Level – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Base Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
75.2
67.3
83.7
79.8
75.5
80.5
86.8
84.6
85.8
86.2
86.5
86.8
89.6
87.2
89.5
87.7
100
89.7
91
91.1
91.4
91.8
97.8
91.9 92.7
93.2
94.5
93.3
95.1
94.7
94.1
95.7
95.4
95.9
97.7
96.9
96.2
99
100
99.6
Jammu & Kashmir
Uttar Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Haryana
Rajasthan
Uttarakhand
Telangana
Jharkhand
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Punjab
Kerala
Chhattisgarh
Odisha
Karnataka
Himachal Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Assam
Bihar
Ajusted NER: Elementary (Percentage) 55
Indicator 1.2.1b: Adjusted Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) at Secondary Level
Reference year data shows that seven States and UTs reported an adjusted NER greater than 80.0 percent.
In contrast, Sikkim, Nagaland and Jharkhand reported the lowest adjusted NERs of 22.1, 35.8 and 46.3
percent respectively.
For most States and UTs, there is very little difference between their adjusted NER for 2015-16 and 2016-17.
However, in the case of Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Jharkhand and Nagaland, there was a
decrease of five percentage points or more in their adjusted NER over this time period. Less than half of
the States and UTs reported an improvement in their adjusted NER. While the average adjusted NER for
UTs and Large States is 73.6 and 65.2 percent respectively, the corresponding estimate for Small States is
relatively lower at 57.7 percent.
Figure 33: Adjusted NER at Secondary Level – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Adjusted NER: Secondary (Percentage)
Base Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
58.2
51.4
55.7
55.8
54.7
56.1
56.3
57.4
60.0
58.4
70.6
63.4
69.0
66.4
68.7
66.2
83.5
89.8
92.1
90.0
46.3
46.5
47.1
54.5
54.9
57.6
58.2
58.9
60.8
62.3
63.6
65.2
67.2
69.8
70.0
75.4
77.4
88.8
89.8
90.3
Jharkhand
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Rajasthan
Gujarat
Chhattisgarh
Assam
Haryana
Punjab
Uttarakhand
Odisha
Maharashtr a
Karnataka
Telangana
Tamil Nadu
Himachal Pradesh
Kerala
Figure 34: Adjusted NER at Secondary Level – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Adjusted NER: Secondary (Percentage)
Sikkim
Nagaland
Goa
Arunachal
Pradesh
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Tripura
Lakshadwee p
Daman & Diu
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Puducherry
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
Delhi
44.8
46.0
50.3
73.1
61.6
87.4
88.5
88.9
53.5
65.9
76.6
74.3
84.2
86.1
84.9
83.1
85.9
22.1
35.8
36.8
58.1
59.2
76.4
83.6
89.4
54.2
66.7
72.8
74.8
76.3
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States 56
Indicator 1.2.2a: Transition Rate from Primary to Upper-Primary Level
The transition rate for primary to upper-primary level tracks the percentage of pupils enrolled in the
highest grade at the primary level (Grade V) who transition to the lowest grade at the upper-primary level
(Grade VI) in the next academic year. During 2016-17, 27 States and UTs reported a transition rate above
90.0 percent. In contrast, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar reported the lowest transition rates of 77.9,
76.3 and 76.1 percent respectively.
Among the Small States and UTs, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh reported a decrease of more than
five percentage points in their transition rates over this period. The average transition rates for UTs, Large
States and Small States were 98.2, 92.3 and 89.0 percent respectively.
Figure 35: Transition Rate from Primary to Upper-Primary Level – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
120
100
110
Transition Rate- Primary to Upper
Primary (Percentage)
Base Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
85.0
76.1
84.2
76.379.1
77.9
93.6
87.3 88.7
89.6
91.3
90.6
92.0
91.6
98.2
92.5 93.5
93.0
85.6
93.3
94.3
94.3
95.3
95.7
96.4
96.8 91.0
97.2
98.1
97.7
95.0
98.6
98.1
98.6
98.7
99.2
92.4
99.5
100
100
Bihar
Jharkhand
Uttar Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Madhya Pradesh
Odisha
Rajasthan
Telangana
Uttarakhand
Assam
Chhattisgarh
Punjab
Karnataka
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Tamil Nadu
Himachal Pradesh
Maharashtra
Haryana
Kerala 57
Indicator 1.2.2b: Transition Rate from Upper-Primary to Secondary Level
The transition rate for upper-primary to secondary level is the number of pupils admitted to the first grade
of secondary-level education in a given year (Grade VIII), expressed as a percentage of the number of pupils
enrolled in the final grade of upper-primary education (Grade VII) in the previous year. For the reference
year, 24 States and UTs reported a transition rate of 90.0 percent and above. However, Jharkhand, Bihar
and Meghalaya reported the lowest transition rates of 69.4, 73.9 and 73.9 percent respectively.
Figure 36: Transition Rate from Primary to Upper-Primary Level – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Transition Rate - Primary to Upper
Primary (Percentage)
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
87.3
79.0
84.7
81.7
91.3
90.2
94.7
90.7
93.1
91.3
96.0
91.6
100
97.894.6
94.0
97.3
96.2
100
98.2
96.0
99.1
98.0
99.7
100
100
100
100
Nagaland
Manipur
Arunachal
Pradesh
Tripura
Meghalaya
Sikkim
Mizoram
Goa
Delhi
Lakshadwee p
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Daman & Diu
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Chandigarh
Puducherry
97.0
89.9
Figure 37: Transition Rate from Upper-Primary to Secondary Level – Large States
Base Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Transition Rate: Upper Primary to
Secondary (Percentage)
79.2
84.6
81.5
84.2
87.5
86.9
92.8
92.1
94.1
94.9
88.9
93.6
87.4
97.2
96.7
97.6
92.9
94.4
98.7
99.8
69.4
73.9
84.1
84.2
86.1
86.8
91.3
93.1
93.5
93.7
94.2
94.3
94.5
94.6
96.8
97.7
97.8
97.8
98.5
100
Jharkhand
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh
Gujarat
Jammu & Kashmir
Chhattisgarh
Odisha
Karnataka
Uttarakhand
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
Punjab
Assam
Telangana
Tamil Nadu
Himachal Pradesh
Haryana
Andhra Pradesh
Maharashtra
Kerala 58
Most States and UTs reported marginal changes in their transition rates over this time period. However,
in the cases of Nagaland and Bihar, declines of more than 10.0 percentage points were reported. Further,
the average transition rates for UTs, Large States and Small States were 98.9, 91.1 and 87.2 percent
respectively.
Indicator 1.2.3: Percentage of Identified Out-of-School Children Mainstreamed
As per MHRD, “A 6-14-year-old child will be considered out-of-school if s/he has never been enrolled in an
elementary school or if after enrolment has been absent from school without prior intimation for reasons of absence
for a period of 45 days or more”. Further, the Right to Education Act norms stipulate the formulation of
strategies to provide special training for out-of-school children (OoSC) to mainstream them within an
age-appropriate class in a regular school. In 2016-17, Daman & Diu, Maharashtra, Puducherry, Uttar
Pradesh and Uttarakhand were able to mainstream all of the OoSC that they had identified in the previous
academic year. In contrast, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep and Nagaland
did not report any mainstreaming of OoSC.
Several States and UTs reported an improvement in the percentage of OoSC mainstreamed against the
number identified. However, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Kerala, Punjab, Bihar, Sikkim, Chhattisgarh and
Madhya Pradesh reported a more than 10.0 percentage point decrease in the mainstreaming of identified
OoSC over this period.
Figure 38: Transition Rate from Upper-Primary to Secondary Level – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Transition Rate: Upper Primary to Secondary
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
80.3
73.9
92.0
76.8
87.7
83.3
89.0
86.4
95.5
88.9
100
94.0
98.0
94.4
100
100
91.6
93.2
99.8
99.3
99.9
99.9
98.6
100
99.0
100
97.8
100
99.4
100
Meghalaya
Nagaland
Manipur
Arunachal
Pradesh
Mizoram
Sikkim
Tripura
Goa
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Delhi
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Daman & Diu
Lakshadwee p
Puducherry 59
Figure 39: Percentage of Identified Out-of-School Children Mainstreamed – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Base Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
1.9
12.5
18.9
50.3
32.1
59.5
75.0
88.3
76.4
50.2
75.5
85.0
68.4
100
88.1
75.1
93.1
93.1
100
100
1.8
21.9
31.1
35.9
50.2
56.4
59.5
64.0
64.5
69.4
75.5
78.0
79.9
81.2
82.0
83.5
94.1
99.9
100
100
Percentage of OoSC Mainstreamed
Jammu & Kashmir
Telangana
Assam
Bihar
Rajasthan
Himachal Pradesh
Chhattisgarh
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Jharkhand
Odisha
Gujarat
Punjab
Karnataka
Haryana
Tamil Nadu
Maharashtra
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Figure 40: Percentage of Identified Out-of-School Children Mainstreamed – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage of OoSC Mainstreamed
Sikkim
Nagaland
Goa
Arunachal
Pradesh
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Tripura
Lakshadwee p
Daman & Diu
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Puducherry
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
Delhi
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.6
0.0
14.0
20.1
41.2
28.1
15.0
31.4
61.3
32.7
51.4
61.7
70.0
63.4
62.4
57.3
74.3
71.8
54.2
93.0
100
100
91.7
100 60
Domain 3: Infrastructure Outcomes
Indicator 1.3.1a: Percentage of Schools having Computer-Aided Learning (CAL) at
Elementary Level
MHRD developed and operationalized a CAL program under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) scheme,
with the objective of integrating computers into classrooms as a learning tool. The figures below reflect
State and UT data on the percentage of Government schools that are using CAL at the elementary
level.
In 2016-17, only four States and UTs employed CAL in more than 50.0 percent of their schools at the
elementary level. Among them, Chandigarh and Lakshadweep recorded the highest percentages of
76.7 and 75.6 percent respectively. In contrast, Bihar,  Tripura, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Jammu & Kashmir,
Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh had CAL in fewer than five percent of their elementary
schools.
Figure 41: Percentage of Schools having CAL at Elementary Level – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Base Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Jharkhand
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Rajasthan
Gujarat
Chhattisgarh
Assam
Haryana
Punjab
Uttarakhand
Odisha
Maharashtra
Karnataka
Telangana
Tamil Nadu
Himachal Pradesh
Kerala
2.6
2.5
2.8
2.9
3.5
3.9
4.4
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.1
5.1
5.0
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.4
5.7
6.4
8.2
8.2
7.8
8.4
10.6
10.8
10.8
11.3
12.6
12.7
14.4
14.4
32.1
32.7
33.6
33.1
51.9
49.6
58.5
58.3
Percentage of Schools with CAL at
Elementary Level 61
Indicator 1.3.1b: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Computer Lab Facility
Reference year data shows that only 10 States and UTs have been able to provide computer laboratories
in more than 50.0 percent of their secondary schools. Among them, Lakshadweep and Dadra & Nagar
Haveli have reported the highest percentage of schools with computer lab facilities; 84.6 and 81.0
percent respectively.
Figure 42: Percentage of Schools having CAL at Elementary Level – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
Percentage of Schools with CAL at
Elementary LeveL
Tripura
Daman & Diu
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Puducherry
Lakshadwee p
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Delhi
Sikkim
Nagaland
Goa
Arunachal
Pradesh
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2.6
2.8
3.6
3.8
7.2
7.3
9.8
9.7
11.2
11.0
14.0
14.0
14.5
14.3
17.7
17.0
10.3
10.0
15.3
17.1
33.0
35.1
41.4
44.8
73.6
62.1
78.1
75.6
76.5
76.7
Figure 43: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Computer Lab Facility – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage of Secondary and Senior
Secondary Schools with Computer Labs
Base Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Bihar
Jharkhand
Uttar Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Madhya Pradesh
Odisha
Rajasthan
Telangana
Uttarakhand
Assam
Chhattisgarh
Punjab
Karnataka
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Tamil Nadu
Himachal Pradesh
Maharashtra
Haryana
Kerala
23.8
0.8
12.9
10.9
11.2
11.8
17.1
16.2
35.6
19.3
28.5
23.0 23.6
23.3
35.4
26.629.9
26.9
36.1
27.4
37.3
28.733.7
32.3
34.1
34.6
40.9
34.6
47.7
38.3
52.2
43.4
50.6
45.1
62.0
59.8
46.6
65.7
64.0
67.0 62
Between 2015-16 and 2016-17, the percentage of schools with computer laboratories reduced by more
than 10.0 percentage points in Sikkim, Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland, Jharkhand, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa and
Meghalaya.
Indicator 1.3.2: Percentage of Schools having Book Banks/Reading Rooms/Libraries
As per Right to Education Act norms, each school is mandated to have a library with newspapers, magazines
and subject-specific books for all students. As of 2016-17, 21 States and UTs have a book bank/reading
room/library in more than 90.0 percent of their schools. However, Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya
reported that only 28.4 and 12.4 percent of their schools respectively have such resources.
In 2016-17, the average number of schools with a library stood at 96.9 and 87.9 in UTs and Large States
respectively. The corresponding number for Small States was much lower, at 48.7 percent.
Figure 44: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Computer Lab Facility – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
Percentage of Secondary and Senior
Secondary Schools with Computer Labs
Daman & Diu
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Puducherry
Lakshadwee p
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Delhi
Sikkim
Nagaland
Goa
Arunachal
Pradesh
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Tripura
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
41.4
0.0
24.6
7.0
10.9
7.3
27.7
12.0
25.7
15.4 19.5
21.2
47.1
49.1
73.6
60.0
42.9
39.7
45.8
66.7
75.6
72.3 69.5
73.0
73.8
75.7
76.2
81.0
76.9
84.6 63
Figure 45: Percentage of Schools having Book Banks/Reading Rooms/Libraries – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage of Schools with Libraries
Base Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Jharkhand
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Rajasthan
Gujarat
Chhattisgarh
Assam
Haryana
Punjab
Uttarakhand
Odisha
Maharashtra
Karnataka
Telangana
Tamil Nadu
Himachal Pradesh
Kerala
58.5
61.9
63.0
64.2
70.1
69.5
71.5
72.8
74.2
72.8
89.6
89.9
90.0
90.0
91.6
91.8
91.8
92.3
92.6
92.6
92.3
93.0
92.9
94.7
95.7
95.1
96.0
95.8
96.0
96.1
97.8
96.3
96.9
96.6
96.7
96.7
96.2
96.9
99.2
99.3
Figure 46: Percentage of Schools having Book Banks/Reading Rooms/Libraries – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage of Schools with Libraries
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
Meghalaya
Goa
Delhi
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Lakshadwee p
Puducherry
Nagaland
Manipur
Arunachal
Pradesh
Mizoram
Sikkim
Tripura
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Daman & Diu
12.0
12.4
26.3
28.4
27.7
28.7
40.9
40.2
43.2
43.9
60.4
58.9
77.4
77.6
99.2
99.2
95.9
87.6
96.4
96.9
98.2
97.9
99.0
98.0
97.4
98.3
99.9
99.9
97.8
100 64
Indicator 1.3.3: Percentage of Schools Covered by Vocational Education
The Government of India has been encouraging States/UTs to prioritise the introduction of vocational
education in secondary and senior secondary schools. The objective is to facilitate school to work
transition. The figures below reflect State and UT data on the percentage of schools that offer vocational
programs. In 2016-17, only six States and UTs offered vocational education in more than 10.0 percent of
their schools.
Table 8: Percentage of Schools Covered by Vocational Education
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Himachal Pradesh13.2%20.0%
Maharashtra17.0%19.7%
Haryana9.4%18.8%
Jammu & Kashmir4.1%10.8%
Punjab8.0%7.1%
Chhattisgarh1.3%5.8%
Assam1.5%2.7%
Madhya Pradesh0.6%2.1%
Uttar Pradesh0.5%0.0%
Telangana0.1%0.0%
Odisha0.1%0.0%
Kerala1.4%0.0%
Karnataka0.1%0.0%
Jharkhand0.6%0.0%
Gujarat0.5%0.0%
No Coverage in Base and Reference Year:Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand
Small States
Goa74.0%68.3%
Mizoram3.2%8.4%
Arunachal Pradesh5.1%1.9%
Manipur0.0%0.2%
Meghalaya9.0%0.0%
Sikkim23.7%0.0%
No Coverage in Base and Reference Year:Nagaland and Tripura
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar Islands8.5%13.3%
Chandigarh7.1%8.5%
Puducherry0.5%0.0%
No Coverage in Base and Reference Year:Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Delhi and Lakshadweep 65
Domain 4: Equity
Indicator 1.4.1: Difference in Performance between Scheduled Caste (SC) and
General Category Students
Ensuring equity in learning outcomes is a powerful predicator of the quality of education being provided to
the more vulnerable sections of society. Here, equity does not only signify equity in input-related indicators,
like provision of entitlements, but is more so reflective of equity in learning outcomes, i.e., the difference
in the learning outcomes of children from vulnerable sections and those of General Category students. It
captures absolute values and is neutral to the direction of the difference, i.e., whether General Category
students outscored SC students or vice versa.
Among the Large States, the difference between SC and General Category student scores on the NAS
language test ranges from zero (Class 3 Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh; Class 8 Assam, Tamil Nadu
and Uttar Pradesh) to six (Class 5 Jammu & Kashmir; Class 8 Haryana, Kerala, Odisha and Uttarakhand).
In mathematics, the difference ranges from zero (Class 3 Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka;
Class 5 Chhattisgarh, Punjab and Rajasthan; Class 8 Gujarat) to six (Class 3 Odisha; Class 5 Andhra
Pradesh).
Among the Small States and UTs, the difference between SC and General Category student scores on the
NAS language test ranges from zero (Class 3 Nagaland and Tripura; Class 5 Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar
Haveli, Daman & Diu and Tripura; Class 8 Goa) to 28 (Class 5 Andaman & Nicobar Islands). In mathematics,
the difference ranges from zero (Class 3 Nagaland; Class 5 Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Tripura; Class 8
Delhi) to 30 (Class 3 Mizoram).
Table 9: Difference in Performance between SC and General Category Students
States/UTs
LanguageMathematics
Class 3Class 5Class 8Class 3Class 5Class 8
Large States
Andhra Pradesh0 4 5 1 6 3
Assam2 3 0 2 3 5
Bihar2 3 5 2 2 3
Chhattisgarh2 2 3 4 0 4
Gujarat1 2 1 2 2 0
Haryana4 4 6 4 3 3
Himachal Pradesh1 1 4 1 1 1
Jammu & Kashmir1 6 1 0 5 2
Jharkhand2 3 5 4 1 3
Karnataka2 1 4 0 1 1
Kerala2 2 6 2 1 1
Madhya Pradesh1 3 3 1 2 2
Maharashtra2 4 3 1 1 3
Odisha3 4 6 6 5 3
Punjab1 2 4 1 0 2 66
States/UTs
LanguageMathematics
Class 3Class 5Class 8Class 3Class 5Class 8
Rajasthan2 2 3 1 0 2
Tamil Nadu1 1 0 3 3 2
Telangana1 5 2 1 1 3
Uttar Pradesh0 2 0 0 1 2
Uttarakhand4 3 6 3 3 2
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh 2 4 4 2 1 2
Goa3 2 0 2 2 1
Manipur2 5 3 9 9 1
Meghalaya16 6 3 16 15 6
Mizoram17 10 2 30 4 6
Nagaland0 6 9 0 5 3
Sikkim3 3 3 1 4 1
Tripura0 0 1 2 0 3
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar Islands NA 28 26 NA 22 18
Chandigarh1 0 3 1 2 1
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 2 0 3 5 0 5
Daman & Diu8 0 1 6 2 1
Delhi1 3 1 2 3 0
LakshadweepNA
Puducherry3 2 11 5 2 8
Indicator 1.4.2: Difference in Performance between Scheduled Tribe (ST) and
General Category Students
Among the Large States, the difference in ST and General Category student scores on the NAS language
test ranges from zero (Class 5 Gujarat and Karnataka; Class 8 Himachal Pradesh) to 14 (Class 8 Kerala). In
mathematics, the difference ranges from zero (Class 5 Bihar, Karnataka and Maharashtra; Class 8 Gujarat
and Maharashtra) to 14 (Class 3 Kerala).
Among the Small States and UTs, the difference in ST and General Category student scores on the
NAS language test ranges from zero (Class 3 Daman & Diu; Class 8 Daman & Diu and Sikkim) to 22
(Class 3 Meghalaya). In mathematics, the difference ranges from zero (Class 8 Daman & Diu) to 26
(Class 3 Mizoram). 67
Table 10: Difference in Performance between ST and General Category Students
States/UTs
LanguageMathematics
Class 3Class 5Class 8Class 3Class 5Class 8
Large States
Andhra Pradesh4 8 7 5 11 6
Assam8 9 5 6 11 9
Bihar2 1 5 2 0 7
Chhattisgarh2 1 4 4 2 3
Gujarat2 0 2 3 2 0
Haryana5 5 11 1 4 7
Himachal Pradesh 1 3 0 1 5 2
Jammu & Kashmir3 4 2 2 2 2
Jharkhand4 3 6 6 4 6
Karnataka2 0 2 1 0 0
Kerala12 10 14 14 3 3
Madhya Pradesh4 6 7 4 5 6
Maharashtra5 4 7 5 0 0
Odisha8 9 11 11 9 6
Punjab6 4 7 6 12 6
Rajasthan5 7 7 6 6 5
Tamil Nadu2 2 5 2 2 1
Telangana7 10 6 5 5 4
Uttar Pradesh2 11 4 2 10 3
Uttarakhand8 5 6 6 8 7
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh 7 10 10 7 6 4
Goa2 1 2 5 3 2
Manipur12 6 8 12 1 1
Meghalaya22 7 6 21 18 5
Mizoram18 15 1 26 7 6
Nagaland5 1 1 3 3 6
Sikkim6 2 0 2 1 1
Tripura3 5 14 4 4 3
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar Islands 2 2 10 1 4 1
Chandigarh15 2 9 8 8 3
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 3 5 6 5 6 5
Daman & Diu0 2 0 8 4 0
Delhi2 4 1 2 4 2
LakshadweepN/A
Puducherry15 4 21 9 4 8 68
Indicator 1.4.3: Difference in Performance between Students in Rural and Urban
Areas
Among the Large States, the difference in the performance of rural and urban students on the NAS language
test ranges from zero (Class 3 Haryana, Odisha and Telangana; Class 5 Assam, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh
and Uttarakhand; Class 8 Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand) to six (Class 3 Himachal
Pradesh). In mathematics, the difference ranges from zero (Class 3 Gujarat, Haryana, Odisha, Punjab and
Telangana; Class 5 Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala and Rajasthan; Class 8 Kerala and Telangana) to seven
(Class 3 Himachal Pradesh; Class 8 Uttar Pradesh).
Among the Small States and UTs, the difference in the performance of rural and urban students on the NAS
language test ranges from zero (Class 3 Arunachal Pradesh; Class 5 Puducherry; Class 8 Chandigarh) to
12 (Class 3 Andaman & Nicobar Islands). In mathematics, the difference ranges from zero (Class 3
Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh and Daman & Diu; Class 5 Goa; Class 8 Arunachal Pradesh and Delhi) to 10
(Class 3 Sikkim).
Table 11: Difference in Performance between Students in Rural and Urban Areas
States/UTs
LanguageMathematics
Class 3Class 5Class 8Class 3Class 5Class 8
Large States
Andhra Pradesh3 3 2 3 2 5
Assam1 0 3 1 2 4
Bihar4 2 5 5 2 2
Chhattisgarh1 1 0 1 2 3
Gujarat1 0 1 0 1 3
Haryana0 1 2 0 1 1
Himachal Pradesh 6 0 2 7 4 2
Jammu & Kashmir5 3 4 4 0 1
Jharkhand4 3 3 6 1 4
Karnataka2 2 4 3 4 5
Kerala2 1 2 2 0 0
Madhya Pradesh4 3 1 4 2 1
Maharashtra3 3 1 3 5 3
Odisha0 1 1 0 3 5
Punjab2 1 1 0 1 1
Rajasthan1 1 0 2 0 3
Tamil Nadu1 1 0 3 2 2
Telangana0 1 2 0 1 0
Uttar Pradesh4 1 3 1 1 7
Uttarakhand4 0 0 1 4 5
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh 0 1 5 0 2 0
Goa1 3 4 3 0 1
Manipur4 2 1 5 5 2 69
States/UTs
LanguageMathematics
Class 3Class 5Class 8Class 3Class 5Class 8
Meghalaya1 1 5 5 9 2
Mizoram6 2 5 7 1 1
Nagaland9 4 4 3 3 5
Sikkim11 5 2 10 6 1
Tripura1 1 10 2 3 3
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar Islands 12 1 3 4 2 2
Chandigarh1 2 0 0 1 3
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1 5 5 2 3 2
Daman & Diu6 9 1 0 4 1
Delhi2 2 2 1 3 0
Lakshadweep4 6 3 6 2 1
Puducherry3 0 2 2 1 2
Indicator 1.4.4: Difference in Performance between Boys and Girls
Among the Large States, the difference in the performance of boys and girls on the NAS language test
ranges from zero (Class 3 Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand; Class 5 Bihar and Uttarakhand;
Class 8 Assam, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh) to five (Class 8 Kerala). In mathematics, the difference ranges
from zero (Class 3 Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana
and Uttar Pradesh; Class 5 Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Jharkhand, Madhya
Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu; Class 8 Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Kerala, Odisha, Rajasthan
and Telangana) to two (Class 3 Karnataka; Class 8 Gujarat, Haryana and Karnataka).
Among the Small States and UTs, the difference in the performance of boys and girls on the NAS language
test ranges from zero (Class 3 Arunachal Pradesh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Manipur; Class 5 Arunachal
Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura; Class 8 Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura) to seven (Class 5 Daman
& Diu). In mathematics, the difference ranges from zero (Class 3 Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Andaman &
Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Delhi, Lakshadweep and Puducherry; Class 5 Andaman & Nicobar
Islands, Manipur, Mizoram and Tripura; Class 8 Arunachal Pradesh, Daman & Diu, Delhi, Manipur and Sikkim)
to five (Class 5 Daman & Diu). 70
Table 12: Difference in Performance between Boys and Girls
States/UTs
LanguageMathematics
Class 3Class 5Class 8Class 3Class 5Class 8
Large States
Andhra Pradesh1 1 1 1 0 0
Assam1 1 0 0 0 0
Bihar0 0 2 0 0 1
Chhattisgarh0 1 1 1 0 1
Gujarat1 2 4 0 1 2
Haryana2 2 2 1 0 2
Himachal Pradesh 1 1 1 1 1 1
Jammu & Kashmir1 2 2 1 1 1
Jharkhand1 1 1 0 0 1
Karnataka1 2 2 2 1 2
Kerala3 4 5 1 1 0
Madhya Pradesh1 1 2 1 0 1
Maharashtra1 3 3 0 1 1
Odisha1 2 1 0 0 0
Punjab1 2 4 0 1 1
Rajasthan0 1 0 0 0 0
Tamil Nadu2 2 4 1 0 1
Telangana1 1 1 0 1 0
Uttar Pradesh2 2 0 0 1 1
Uttarakhand0 0 1 1 1 1
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh 0 0 1 0 1 0
Goa4 5 3 1 2 1
Manipur0 0 0 0 0 0
Meghalaya1 1 1 1 1 1
Mizoram1 3 3 1 0 3
Nagaland1 0 0 1 1 1
Sikkim2 1 2 2 1 0
Tripura2 0 0 1 0 1
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
3 4 3 0 0 1
Chandigarh1 2 2 2 1 2
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0 3 4 0 3 2
Daman & Diu3 7 4 2 5 0
Delhi2 4 3 0 2 0
Lakshadweep6 1 4 0 3 1
Puducherry2 3 4 0 2 2 71
Indicator 1.4.5a: Difference in Transition Rate from Upper Primary to Secondary
Level for SC and General Category Students
Among the Large States, the difference in reference year transition rates from upper primary to secondary
level between SC and General Category students is smallest (0.01 percent) in Tamil Nadu and highest (19.6
percentage points) in Uttar Pradesh. For the Small States and UTs, the difference in transition rates is least
(zero) in Puducherry and highest (56.8 percentage points) in Mizoram.
Among all the States and UTs, Delhi recorded the largest decline in the difference in transition rates
between the base and reference years (i.e., from 20.3 percentage points to 3.6 percentage points). In
contrast, Mizoram showed the largest increase in the difference in transition rates between the base and
reference years (from zero to 56.7 percentage points).
Table 13: Difference in Transition Rate from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for SC and
General Category Students
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Tamil Nadu8.5%0.1%
Himachal Pradesh2.0%0.5%
Maharashtra1.0%1.4%
Kerala2.2%1.5%
Odisha5.6%2.3%
Andhra Pradesh0.5%2.3%
Jammu & Kashmir0.5%3.0%
Punjab0.2%3.7%
Rajasthan0.5%4.4%
Bihar7.8%4.9%
Gujarat5.2%5.7%
Haryana10.3%5.7%
Madhya Pradesh8.5%6.4%
Assam12.5%6.5%
Karnataka21.5%8.8%
Chhattisgarh5.4%10.3%
Uttarakhand7.4%12.4%
Telangana3.1%15.9%
Jharkhand18.9%19.0%
Uttar Pradesh22.8%19.6%
Small States
Goa13.5%0.5%
Tripura3.1%1.0%
Arunachal PradeshN/A14.6%
Sikkim5.4%16.4% 72
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Manipur10.1%22.0%
Meghalaya4.3%22.2%
NagalandN/A28.6%
Mizoram0.0%56.8%
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar IslandsN/A
LakshadweepN/A
Puducherry5.1%0.0%
Chandigarh2.3%2.0%
Delhi20.4%3.6%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli7.0%4.7%
Daman & Diu10.2%13.5%
Indicator 1.4.5b: Difference in Transition Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary
Level for ST and General Category Students
Among the Large States, the difference in reference year transition rates from upper primary to secondary
level between ST and General Category students is smallest (zero) in Uttar Pradesh and highest (16.8
percentage points) in Madhya Pradesh. For the Small States and UTs, the difference in transition rates is
smallest (zero) in Lakshadweep and highest (20.2 percentage points) in Manipur.
Among all the States and UTs, Sikkim recorded the largest decline in the difference in transition rates, from
16.9 percentage points in the base year to 5.7 percentage points in the reference year. In contrast, Manipur
recorded the biggest increase in the difference in transition rates, from 0.6 percentage points in the base
year to 20.2 percentage points in the reference year.
Table 14: Difference in Transitions Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for ST and
General Category Students
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
HaryanaN/A
PunjabN/A
Uttar Pradesh0.0%0.0%
Kerala2.2%1.5%
Rajasthan1.0%3.4%
Himachal Pradesh1.6%3.7%
Maharashtra5.6%5.1%
Uttarakhand5.6%5.2%
Odisha10.6%7.8%
Bihar11.5%9.2%
Andhra Pradesh4.8%10.2% 73
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Assam15.4%10.4%
Tamil Nadu4.2%10.9%
Telangana6.1%11.9%
Jammu & Kashmir12.1%12.1%
Jharkhand15.3%13.1%
Gujarat13.6%14.2%
Karnataka18.1%14.6%
Chhattisgarh13.2%15.1%
Madhya Pradesh20.3%16.8%
Small States
Goa0.0%0.5%
Arunachal Pradesh7.7%0.7%
Tripura1.1%3.2%
Sikkim16.9%5.7%
Mizoram6.4%10.7%
Meghalaya6.5%12.3%
Nagaland22.7%13.4%
Manipur0.6%20.2%
Union Territories
PuducherryN/A
Lakshadweep2.5%0.0%
Andaman & Nicobar Islands3.3%0.7%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli6.7%1.4%
ChandigarhN/A2.0%
DelhiN/A3.6%
Daman & Diu10.2%13.5%
Indicator 1.4.5c: Difference in Transition Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary
Level for OBC and General Category Students
Among the Large States, the difference in reference year transition rates from upper primary to secondary
level for OBC and General Category students is smallest (zero) in Odisha and highest (18.9 percentage
points) in Telangana. For the Small States and UTs, the difference in transition rates is smallest (0.5 percentage
points) in Goa and highest (36.4 percentage points) in Manipur.
Among all the States and UTs, Karnataka recorded the largest decline in the difference in transition rates,
from 29.7 percentage points in the base year to 7.4 percentage points in the reference year. In contrast,
Manipur recorded the largest increase in the difference in transition rates, from 8.7 percentage points in the
base year to 36.4 percentage points in the reference year. 74
Table 15: Difference in Transition Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for OBC and
General Category Students
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Odisha4.9%0.0%
Maharashtra0.3%0.8%
Tamil Nadu14.3%0.9%
Andhra Pradesh4.1%1.3%
Kerala2.2%1.5%
Bihar14.6%1.6%
Punjab6.4%2.2%
Uttar Pradesh11.7%2.9%
Jammu & Kashmir13.8%3.1%
Madhya Pradesh5.7%3.4%
Himachal Pradesh3.8%3.7%
Rajasthan2.4%6.1%
Haryana13.5%6.6%
Karnataka29.7%7.4%
Chhattisgarh4.5%7.6%
Jharkhand11.5%8.4%
Assam9.3%8.7%
Uttarakhand11.1%11.6%
Gujarat12.0%12.2%
Telangana2.0%18.9%
Small States
Mizoram0.0%NA
Goa0.0%0.5%
Tripura3.4%5.4%
Nagaland31.0%11.1%
Sikkim18.0%14.4%
Arunachal Pradesh9.3%14.6%
Meghalaya25.6%26.0%
Manipur8.7%36.4%
Union Territories
Puducherry7.6%1.5%
Chandigarh2.3%2.0%
Andaman & Nicobar Islands3.4%2.9%
Delhi3.2%3.6%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli4.2%8.9%
Daman & Diu10.2%13.5%
Lakshadweep0.0%20.0% 75
Indicator 1.4.5d: Difference in Transition Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary
Level for Boys and Girls
Among the Large States, the difference in reference year transition rates from upper primary to secondary
level for boys and girls is smallest (0.2 percentage points) in Telangana and largest (15.3 percentage points)
in Uttar Pradesh. For the Small States and UTs, the difference in transition rates is smallest (zero) in Goa
and Lakshadweep and largest (6.3 percentage points) in Arunachal Pradesh.
Among all the States and UTs, Lakshadweep recorded the largest decline in the difference in transition
rates, from 3.8 percentage points in the base year to zero in the reference year. In contrast, Uttar Pradesh
recorded the largest increase in the difference in transition rates, from 11.3 percentage points in the base
year to 15.3 percentage points in the reference year.
Table 16: Difference in Transition Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for Boys and Girls
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Telangana0.4%0.2%
Tamil Nadu0.4%0.4%
Himachal Pradesh1.5%0.4%
Assam1.2%0.4%
Kerala0.7%0.5%
Andhra Pradesh0.4%0.5%
Uttarakhand1.8%0.6%
Bihar0.7%0.9%
Odisha1.2%0.9%
Punjab1.4%1.1%
Karnataka0.8%1.9%
Chhattisgarh1.6%2.0%
Jharkhand3.1%2.4%
Maharashtra3.7%2.5%
Haryana2.9%3.4%
Rajasthan3.8%3.8%
Jammu & Kashmir2.4%4.0%
Madhya Pradesh8.1%7.2%
Gujarat10.1%9.0%
Uttar Pradesh11.3%15.3%
Small States
Goa0.2%0.0%
Sikkim0.7%0.2%
Meghalaya0.5%0.5%
Tripura0.3%1.0%
Manipur1.9%1.7% 76
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Nagaland0.1%3.2%
Mizoram2.5%5.8%
Arunachal Pradesh6.6%6.3%
Union Territories
Lakshadweep3.8%0.0%
Daman & Diu2.5%0.1%
Delhi0.5%0.1%
Puducherry0.2%0.1%
Chandigarh0.1%1.1%
Andaman & Nicobar Islands1.3%1.4%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli4.0%3.4%
Indicator 1.4.6: Percentage of Entitled Children with Special Needs (CWSN)
Receiving Aids and Appliances
RTE norms stipulate the provision of aids and appliances for every Child With Special Needs (CWSN).
Under SSA and RMSA, there are funds earmarked for Inclusive Education. These funds are meant to assist
schools in providing their CWSN with Individualized Education Program (IEP), aids and appliances and
special education teacher resource support.
For the reference year, 18 States and UTs reported that at least 50.0 percent of the entitled CWSN have
received aids and appliances in their respective classrooms. Among them, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar
Haveli, Delhi, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu reported a perfect score. In contrast,
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Sikkim and
Telangana did not record any CWSN in their schools receiving entitled aids and appliances. Among Large
States and UTs, the average percentage of CWSN receiving aids and appliances is 60.2 percent and
58.9 percent respectively. The corresponding value for Small States is relatively lower at 30.4 percent.
Most States and UTs reported a marginal year on year change in the provision of aids and appliances. The
exception to this was Andaman & Nicobar Islands, which reported a 100-percentage point decrease from
its base year. 77
Table 17:Percentage of Entitled CWSN Receiving Aids and Appliances
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Jharkhand100%100%
Karnataka100%100%
Rajasthan100%100%
Tamil Nadu100%100%
Kerala92.4%98.1%
Andhra Pradesh15.3%98.0%
Haryana100%97.2%
Maharashtra100%86.5%
Uttar Pradesh50.2%82.8%
Jammu & Kashmir53.4%82.4%
Madhya Pradesh80.7%69.5%
Gujarat86.0%57.6%
Uttarakhand100%45.5%
Bihar4.9%37.8%
Assam15.8%15.2%
Chhattisgarh33.3%14.7%
Himachal Pradesh10.3%11.3%
Punjab16.2%8.2%
Odisha0.0%0.0%
Telangana0.0%0.0%
Small States
Manipur100%99.4%
Tripura100%93.3%
Meghalaya0.0%36.5%
Goa17.5%13.9%
Arunachal Pradesh0.0%0.0%
Mizoram0.0%0.0%
Nagaland0.0%0.0%
Sikkim0.0%0.0%
Union Territories
Chandigarh100%100%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli69.0%100%
Delhi100%100%
Puducherry81.9%68.2%
Daman & Diu44.2%44.2%
Andaman & Nicobar Islands100%0.0%
Lakshadweep0.0%0.0% 78
Indicator 1.4.7: Percentage of Schools with Toilets for Girls
For the reference year, 32 States and UTs reported that at least 95.0 percent of their schools had girls’
toilets. Assam and Meghalaya reported the lowest percentages for this indicator; 83.4 and 84.1 percent
respectively.
Most States and UTs reported similar year-on-year percentages for this indicator. However, Sikkim and
Nagaland reported a decrease between the base and reference years; 2.5 and 2.1 percentage points
respectively. The average percentage of schools having girls’ toilets for UTs, Large States and Small States
was 100, 97.6 and 96.7 percent respectively.
Table 18: Percentage of Schools with Toilets for Girls
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Himachal Pradesh99.8%100%
Gujarat100%100%
Tamil Nadu99.9%99.9%
Punjab99.8%99.8%
Andhra Pradesh99.7%99.8%
Uttar Pradesh99.8%99.7%
Haryana99.6%99.5%
Chhattisgarh99.2%99.5%
Kerala99.2%99.3%
Rajasthan99.7%99.2%
Maharashtra99.4%99.0%
Telangana100%98.5%
Jharkhand96.8%98.2%
Odisha97.1%98.2%
Karnataka99.6%97.4%
Jammu & Kashmir95.0%96.9%
Uttarakhand97.2%96.8%
Madhya Pradesh96.7%96.7%
Bihar90.1%90.1%
Assam83.9%83.4%
Small States
Goa100%100%
Tripura99.9%99.9%
Mizoram99.3%99.2%
Manipur98.7%98.9%
Nagaland99.9%97.8%
Sikkim99.8%97.3%
Arunachal Pradesh96.6%96.1%
Meghalaya84.3%84.1% 79
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar Islands100%100%
Chandigarh100%100%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli100%100%
Daman & Diu100%100%
Delhi100%100%
Lakshadweep100%100%
Puducherry100%100%
Category 2: Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes
Indicator 2.1a: Percentage of Children whose Unique ID is seeded in Student Data
Management Information System (SDMIS)
States and UTs are encouraged to track their students through the SDMIS as a way to inform the Unified
District Information System for Education (UDISE). UDISE is meant to serve as a longitudinal database for
tracking the schooling status of students from pre-school to senior secondary and to provide a foundation
for evidence-based policy responses. Given that the SDMIS norms became effective only in 2016-17, the
base year values do not show any States and UTs using the database in 2015-16. However, reference year
data shows that all States and UTs have successfully migrated from their existing Management Information
Systems (MIS) to the SDMIS.
Table 19: Percentage of Students whose Unique ID is Seeded in SDMIS
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Andhra Pradesh0.0%100%
Assam0.0%100%
Bihar0.0%100%
Chhattisgarh0.0%100%
Gujarat0.0%100%
Haryana0.0%100%
Himachal Pradesh0.0%100%
Jammu & Kashmir0.0%100%
Jharkhand0.0%100%
Karnataka0.0%100%
Kerala0.0%100%
Madhya Pradesh0.0%100%
Maharashtra0.0%100%
Odisha0.0%100%
Punjab0.0%100%
Rajasthan0.0%100% 80
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Tamil Nadu0.0%100%
Telangana0.0%100%
Uttar Pradesh0.0%100%
Uttarakhand0.0%100%
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh0.0%100%
Goa0.0%100%
Manipur0.0%100%
Meghalaya0.0%100%
Mizoram0.0%100%
Nagaland0.0%100%
Sikkim0.0%100%
Tripura0.0%100%
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar Islands0.0%100%
Chandigarh0.0%100%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli0.0%100%
Daman & Diu0.0%100%
Delhi0.0%100%
Lakshadweep0.0%100%
Puducherry0.0%100%
Indicator 2.1b: Percentage of Average Daily Attendance of Students in SDMIS
As per the RTE norms, States/UTs are mandated to develop appropriate monitoring mechanisms to
track and measure quality-based outcomes such as student attendance and learning outcomes. Under
recent Information and Communications Technology (ICT) based initiatives, States and UTs have been
encouraged to facilitate the tracking of students through sophisticated digital databases or the SDMIS.
Reference year data shows that only seven States and UTs record and update student attendance data
through the SDMIS or any digital database on a monthly basis. Kerala and Daman & Diu have reported
the highest percentages at 92.1 and 81.8 percent respectively. 81
Table 20: Percentage of Average Daily Attendance of Students in SDMIS
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Kerala92.4%92.1%
Odisha74.2%74.2%
Andhra Pradesh60.2%70.2%
Bihar69.8%65.8%
Assam54.4%62.6%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir,
Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil
Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand
Small States
No Coverage in Base
andReference Year:
Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and
Tripura
Union Territories
Daman & Diu81.8%81.8%
Delhi63.8%60.5%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep
and Puducherry
Indicator 2.2a: Percentage of Teachers whose Unique ID is seeded in any Electronic
Database
Alongside the storage and tracking of student-related indicators, RTE norms also mandate States and UTs
to develop mechanisms for capturing teacher indicators. Recently, many States and UTs have made efforts
to develop a unique ID (UID) for each teacher in their education system. These unique IDs are meant to
assist State Governments and UTs in monitoring and tracking teacher-related indicators across various
electronic/digital databases.
Reference year data shows that 26 States and UTs have integrated their teachers’ unique IDs into
electronic databases. In fact, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil
Nadu, Delhi and Lakshadweep have stored all their teachers’ unique IDs in their respective electronic
databases. However, nine States and UTs have not yet initiated the process of seeding teachers’ unique
IDs into electronic databases. 82
Table 21: Percentage of Teachers whose Unique ID is Seeded in Any Electronic Database
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Andhra Pradesh100%100%
Madhya Pradesh100%100%
Maharashtra100%100%
Punjab100%100%
Rajasthan100%100%
Tamil Nadu100%100%
Jammu & Kashmir40.4%96.8%
Kerala72.7%72.7%
Chhattisgarh68.9%70.8%
Odisha0.0%70.7%
Himachal Pradesh68.7%68.1%
Karnataka64.3%66.8%
Gujarat0.0%51.5%
Telangana49.6%49.0%
Assam0.0%45.3%
Haryana44.6%42.0%
Uttarakhand0.0%29.0%
Bihar0.6%16.3%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand
Small States
Sikkim97.5%97.6%
Manipur93.0%93.0%
Mizoram0.0%53.1%
Tripura22.5%22.9%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Meghalaya and Nagaland
Union Territories
Delhi100%100%
Lakshadweep100%100%
Chandigarh65.4%89.6%
Puducherry38.2%38.3%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu 83
Indicator 2.2b: Percentages of Average Daily Attendance of Teachers Recorded in an
Electronic Attendance System
To address teacher absenteeism in schools, unique teacher ID allocation has been designed to assist States
and UTs in tracking teacher availability in classrooms on a real-time digital platform. Reference year data
shows that only five States and UTs have recorded the daily attendance of teachers in their respective
electronic systems. Daman & Diu and Assam have recorded the highest percentages at 97.3 and 73.0
percent respectively.
Table 22: Percentage of Average Daily Attendance of Teachers Recorded in an Electronic
Attendance System
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Assam77.7%73.0%
Haryana55.4%55.4%
Andhra Pradesh8.2%8.5%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand,
Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan,
Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand
Small States
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram Nagaland, Sikkim and
Tripura
Union Territories
Daman & Diu0.0%97.3%
Delhi69.7%71.8%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli,
Lakshadweep and Puducherry
Indicator 2.3: Percentage of Single Teacher Schools
Single teacher schools have an adverse effect on the provisioning of resources, on student learning
outcomes and on the supervision of schools. Recently, there has been a push towards ‘Consolidation of
Small Schools’ to promote a collective effort in increasing the efficiency of resource utilization by schools,
leading to higher quality of education and improved student retention.
Reference year data shows that 29 States and UTs have single teacher schools. Arunachal Pradesh, Goa
and Jharkhand have the highest percentages of single teacher schools at 26.6, 19.7 and 16.9 percentage
points respectively. In contrast, six States and UTs do not have any single teacher schools. Most States and
UTs have a reference year value similar to the base year. Andaman & Nicobar Islands showed the largest
improvement between base and reference year, a 4.4 percentage point decrease, which has effectively
eliminated all single teacher schools. 84
Table 23: Percentage of Single Teacher Schools
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Jharkhand16.2%16.9%
Andhra Pradesh15.5%14.1%
Telangana11.8%12.6%
Madhya Pradesh12.8%12.6%
Rajasthan11.8%12.3%
Uttarakhand6.6%8.2%
Karnataka7.3%6.9%
Assam1.9%6.7%
Himachal Pradesh8.2%6.7%
Jammu & Kashmir6.0%6.1%
Uttar Pradesh8.5%5.9%
Chhattisgarh4.8%5.4%
Bihar4.1%4.2%
Haryana4.8%3.9%
Punjab5.5%3.2%
Maharashtra2.9%3.1%
Odisha3.6%2.4%
Gujarat1.7%2.3%
Kerala2.2%2.1%
Tamil Nadu2.2%1.9%
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh26.8%26.6%
Goa19.7%19.7%
Manipur6.6%7.2%
Meghalaya7.0%6.9%
Mizoram2.0%1.8%
Nagaland1.7%1.1%
Sikkim0.2%0.2%
Tripura0.2%0.0%
Union Territories
Daman & Diu0.7%2.1%
Delhi0.2%0.1%
Andaman & Nicobar Islands4.4%0.0%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli1.7%0.0%
No Single Teacher Schools in Base
and Reference Year:
Chandigarh, Lakshadweep and Puducherry 85
Indicator 2.4a: Percentage of Elementary Schools meeting Teacher Norms
Reference year data shows that 26 States and UTs are meeting the prescribed RTE teacher norms in at
least 70.0 percent of their schools. Lakshadweep, Puducherry and Chandigarh have recorded the highest
percentages, with values of 100, 98.9 and 98.5 percent respectively. In contrast, Jharkhand and Bihar, have
recorded the low percentages on this indicator; 41.1 and 26.3 percent respectively.
Figure 47: Percentage of Elementary Schools Meeting Teacher Norms – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Telangan a
Karnatak a
Jharkhand
Bihar
Uttarakhan d
Rajastha n
Uttar Pradesh
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Haryan a
Gujara t
Keral a
Maharashtr a
Assa m
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Chhattisgarh
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Punja b
Percentage of Schools meeting Teacher
Norms- RTE Ac t
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
21.0
26.3
38.0
41.1
84.0
58.2
62.0
60.8
62.0
64.1
65.0
66.5
67.0
67.5
68.0
68.4
67.0
71.7
78.0
74.5
70.0
74.7
75.0
75.9
81.0
82.2
48.0
82.5
87.0
83.4 83.0
85.4
86.0
87.4
84.0
89.7
88.0
90.1
94.0
94.9
Figure 48: Percentage of Elementary Schools Meeting Teacher Norms – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage of Schools meeting
Teacher norms - RTE Act
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
Meghalaya
Goa
Delhi
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Lakshadwee p
Puducherry
Nagaland
Manipur
Arunachal
Pradesh
Mizoram
Sikkim
Tripura
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Daman & Diu
63.0
66.8
76.0
75.8
87.0
80.5
77.0
88.3
86.0
88.5
93.0
95.4
98.0
96.0
94.0
96.5
79.0
81.3
82.0
88.5
87.0
89.2
94.0
98.3
98.0
98.5
98.0
98.9
100
100 86
Most States and UTs have shown improvements over their base year value. Uttar Pradesh showed the
biggest growth, with a 34.5 percentage point increase. In contrast, Uttarakhand had the biggest decline
from its base year value, with a 25.8 percentage point decrease. The average percentage of schools meeting
prescribed teacher norms for UTs and Small States is 93.5 and 86.0 percent respectively. The average
percentage for Large States is relatively lower at 72.3 percent.
Indicator 2.4b: Percentage of Upper-Primary Schools meeting Subject-Teacher
Norms
Reference year data shows that 22 States and UTs have at least 50.0 percent of their upper-primary
schools meeting the prescribed subject teacher norms. Chandigarh and Delhi have recorded the highest
percentages at the upper-primary level, with scores of 96.3 and 87.8 percent respectively. In contrast, both
Uttar Pradesh and Odisha have only 12.0 percent of their upper-primary schools meeting RTE prescribed
subject teacher norms.
Most States and UTs have maintained a reference year value similar to their base year value. However,
Puducherry recorded a 56-percentage point drop from its base year value. The average percentages for
UTs and Small States are 70.8 and 60.9 percent respectively. In contrast, the average percentage for Large
States is significantly lower at 42.1 percent.
Figure 49: Percentage of Upper-Primary Schools Meeting Subject-Teacher Norms – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Telangana
Karnataka
Jharkhand
Bihar
Uttarakhand
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Haryana
Gujarat
Kerala
Maharashtr a
Assam
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Prades h
Chhattisgar h
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Punja b
Percentage of Upper Primary Schools
meeting teacher norms
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
13.0
12.2
17.0
12.5
15.0
15.5
23.0
24.0
22.0
24.3
26.0
30.6
33.0
31.5
35.0
31.6
29.0
32.5
34.0
38.6
45.0
43.8
51.0
50.2
51.0
51.2
52.0
53.7
63.0
58.7 59.0
59.8
62.0
64.3
65.0
65.3
72.0
69.9
70.0
73.0 87
Indicator 2.5: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Teachers for All Core Subjects
As per RMSA norms, teacher recruitment is based on PTR and the subject-specific requirements of the
State. Each school is mandated to have a minimum of five subject teachers specifically for the core subjects:
English, Language, Mathematics, Science and Social Science.
Figure 50: Percentage of Upper-Primary Schools Meeting Subject-Teacher Norms – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage of Upper Primary Schools
meeting teacher norms
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
Meghalaya
Goa
Delhi
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Lakshadwee p
Puducherry
Nagaland
Manipur
Arunachal
Pradesh
Mizoram
Sikkim
Tripura
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Daman & Diu
40.0
39.8
52.0
53.8
55.0
55.8
59.0
57.4
63.0
63.2
63.0
66.3
73.0
73.5
73.0
77.2
81.0
24.9
57.0
54.8
77.0
73.6
75.0
75.0
79.0
83.1
85.0
87.8
94.0
96.3
Figure 51: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Teachers for All Core Subjects – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Karnatak a
Jharkhand
Bihar
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Gujarat
Maharashtr a
Assam
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Chhattisgar h
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Punjab
Percetage of Secondary Schools with
Teachers for all Core Subjects
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
3.0
3.5
3.0
4.0
8.0
7.6
9.0
10.8
10.0
11.4
8.0
11.4
12.0
11.9
14.0
13.8
18.0
16.5
17.0
20.8
27.0
30.0
41.0
39.7
40.0
40.1
41.0
40.2
Telangana
45.0
43.6
Kerala
44.0
45.7
Haryana
44.0
47.0
Uttarakhand
45.0
47.9
55.0
57.0
54.0
57.8 88
The reference year data shows that only seven States and UTs have at least 50.0 percent of their secondary
schools meeting the prescribed core subject teacher norms. Delhi and Chandigarh have the highest
percentages; 91.9 and 86.9 percent respectively. In contrast, Puducherry is meeting the core subject teacher
availability norms in only 2.7 percent of their schools.
The average value for UTs and Small States is 53.5 and 37.4 percent respectively. The average for Large
States is relatively lower, at 28.0 percent. Most States and UTs have reference year values similar to their
base year. In contrast, Lakshadweep recorded a significant change, with a 26.0 percentage point increase
from its base year value.
Indicator 2.6: Percentage of Schools with Head-Master/Principal
As per SSA norms, the post of a Head-Master or Principal is only sanctioned in the case of upper-primary
schools. In lower primary school grades, the senior teacher or the head teacher discharges all administrative
duties. Under RMSA, all secondary and higher secondary schools are mandated to appoint a Head-Master/
Principal and an Assistant Head-Master/Vice Principal.
Reference year data shows that 26 States and UTs have filled the posts of Head-Master/Principal in at
least 50.0 percent of their schools. Puducherry and Gujarat have recorded the highest percentages at 87.7
and 87.1 percent respectively. In contrast, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Bihar and Arunachal Pradesh have
filled the Head-Master/Principal positions in only 8.0, 19.5 and 25.5 percent of their schools respectively. It
is important to note that as per the 2016-17 UDISE, Andhra Pradesh did not record any percentage for
the reference year as the State has not submitted any data on this indicator.
Figure 52: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Teachers for All Core Subjects – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percetage of Secondary Schools with
Teachers for all Core Subjects
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
Meghalaya
Goa
Delhi
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Lakshadweep
Puducherry
Nagaland
Manipur
Arunachal
Pradesh
Mizoram
Sikkim
Tripur a
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Daman & Diu
13.0
12.1
17.0
16.4
37.0
37.4 32.0
37.4
44.0
42.2
45.0
45.4
47.0
49.6
59.0
58.5
0.0
2.7
37.0
39.0
14.0
40.0
48.0
50.4
55.0
63.6
82.0
86.8
92.0
91.9 89
Figure 53: Percentage of Schools with Head-Master/Principal – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Telangana
Karnataka
Jharkhan d
Bihar
Uttarakhand
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Haryana
Gujarat
Kerala
Maharashtr a
Assam
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Prades h
Chhattisgar h
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Punja b
Percentage of Secondary and HIgher
Secondary Schools having Principals
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
38.9
0.0
16.5
19.5
23.6
23.9
15.2
35.3
38.8
38.9
49.1
48.8
51.4
51.3
58.5
54.2
46.4
55.6
57.0
56.1
56.3
58.3
61.4
60.2
63.1
63.0
68.9
67.4
67.1
68
68.4
68.6
76.9
74.5
87.0
84.6
86.6
85.4
86.2
87.1
Averages for Small States, UTs and Large States on this indicator were 64.6, 58.1 and 55.0 percentage points
respectively. Most States and UTs have reference year values similar to their base year value. Puducherry
shows the biggest improvement, with a 26.5 percentage point increase from the base year. In contrast,
Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Delhi recorded a decrease of 48.8 and 24.4 percentage points respectively
from their base year values.
Figure 54: Percentage of Schools with Head-Master/Principal – Small States and UTs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage of Secondary and HIgher
Secondary Schools having Principals
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
Meghalaya
Goa
Delhi
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Lakshadwee p
Puducherry
Nagaland
Manipur
Arunachal
Pradesh
Mizoram
Sikkim
Tripura
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Daman & Diu
23.6
25.5
62.7
62.1
70.6
66.8
70.5
68.8
69.3
69.0
72.7
72.4
74.8
72.7
79.2
79.1
56.8
8.0
57.4
33.0
57.3
55.9
55.4
56.8
80.7
79.8
83.8
85.4
61.2
87.7 90
Indicator 2.7a: Percentage of Academic Positions filled at State Level Academic
Training Institutions – SCERTs or Equivalent
The State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) is the nodal agency for structural and
policy reforms, along with capacity building for academic leadership, in States/UTs. All States and UTs
currently have an operational SCERT (or an equivalent State academic support body) and a District
Institute of Education and Training (DIET) in every District to support the SCERT in implementing and
monitoring education-based schemes and programs at the District level.
Reference year data shows that 21 States and UTs have filled at least 60.0 percent of the academic
positions in their State academic training institutions. Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab
have been able to fill all academic positions in their respective State training institutions. In contrast,
Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand have recorded the lowest percentages of academic positions filled, at 11.4
and 12.2 percent respectively.
The average values on this indicator for Small States, Large States and UTs are 78.2, 66.5 and 62.2 percent
respectively. Most States and UTs have reference year values similar to their base year value. Puducherry
showed the biggest improvement, with a 16.6 percentage point increase from its base year. Rajasthan and
Tamil Nadu recorded the largest declines of 9.7 and 11.4 percentage points respectively.
Table 24: Percentage of Academic Positions filled at State Level Academic Training Institutions –
SCERTs or Equivalent
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Himachal Pradesh100%100%
Jammu & Kashmir100%100%
Punjab100%100%
Chhattisgarh92.5%90.0%
Karnataka88.9%88.9%
Telangana88.5%88.5%
Madhya Pradesh83.7%81.4%
Uttar Pradesh77.8%77.8%
Gujarat75.0%75.0%
Assam67.4%69.8%
Odisha66.7%66.7%
Uttarakhand64.6%64.6%
Haryana63.6%59.1%
Maharashtra55.5%55.9%
Tamil Nadu65.4%54.0%
Kerala51.9%53.8%
Rajasthan58.1%48.4%
Bihar36.7%32.7%
Jharkhand12.2%12.2%
Andhra Pradesh11.4%11.4% 91
Small States
Nagaland96.2%94.2%
Meghalaya96.4%92.9%
Arunachal Pradesh88.9%88.9%
Manipur86.4%86.4%
Tripura81.3%81.3%
Mizoram73.1%73.1%
Goa66.7%66.7%
Sikkim42.3%42.3%
Union Territories
Puducherry66.7%83.3%
Chandigarh53.8%61.5%
Delhi59.1%55.6%
Andaman & Nicobar Islands48.4%48.4%
Not  ApplicableDadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep
Indicator 2.7b: Percentage of Academic Positions filled at District Level Academic
Training Institutions - DIETs
Similar to SCERTs, the DIET is meant to provide academic and resource support at the grassroots level for
all programs being undertaken in the area of elementary education.
Reference year data shows that 16 States and UTs have filled at least 60.0 percent of the academic
positions in their District academic training institutions. Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Arunachal Pradesh,
Karnataka and Nagaland have been able to fill all academic positions in their respective District institutions.
In contrast, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana recorded the lowest percentages of filled positions; 19.4 and
36.0 percent respectively.
The reference year values for most States and UTs are similar to their base year values. Odisha and Tamil
Nadu recorded the biggest improvements, with a 27.8 and 14.3 percentage point increase respectively
over base year values. In contrast, Manipur recorded a 14.9 percentage point decrease from its base
year value. 92
Table 25: Percentage of Academic Positions Filled at District Level Academic Training
Institutions - DIETs
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Karnataka100%100%
Odisha63.2%91.0%
Haryana79.3%89.4%
Jammu & Kashmir80.6%82.9%
Himachal Pradesh75.0%73.9%
Uttarakhand76.0%70.8%
Punjab72.2%67.1%
Tamil Nadu50.0%64.3%
Maharashtra61.7%61.7%
Uttar Pradesh56.7%58.7%
Gujarat56.8%56.8%
Jharkhand53.1%53.1%
Madhya Pradesh50.0%49.5%
Assam56.5%49.1%
Chhattisgarh44.4%48.5%
Rajasthan45.5%45.4%
Kerala42.3%42.3%
Bihar43.2%41.7%
Telangana36.0%36.0%
Andhra Pradesh19.4%19.4%
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh100%100%
Nagaland100%100%
Mizoram84.5%84.5%
Tripura69.8%69.8%
Goa58.3%58.3%
Meghalaya55.6%55.6%
Manipur62.0%47.1%
Sikkim40.9%40.9%
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar Islands100%100%
Delhi71.50%68.60%
Lakshadweep64.30%64.30%
Puducherry58.30%58.30%
Not Applicable Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu 93
Indicator 2.8: Percentage of Teachers provided with Sanctioned Number of Days
of Training
The Teacher Education Policy stipulates norms for the provision of in-service training for all teachers
nationwide. In collaboration with the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) at
the national level, SCERTs at the State level and DIETs at the District level, each State and UT is mandated
to provide its teachers with a sanctioned number of trainings in a given financial year. Each State and UT is
also provided with the flexibility to provide trainings relevant to their particular context.
Twenty-six States and UTs have provided at least 80.0 percent of their teachers with the sanctioned
number of trainings in the reference year. Among them, 15 States and UTs have recorded a perfect score.
In contrast, Arunachal Pradesh did not report any teacher trainings. Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Telangana
also reported very low scores; 10.7 and 21.1 percent respectively.
The average for Large States, UTs and Small States was 84.9, 81.9 and 72.7 percent respectively. Most
States and UTs reported reference year values similar to their base year value. Jammu & Kashmir and
Nagaland reported the greatest improvements over their base year values; 87.3 and 86.0 percentage
points respectively.  Arunachal Pradesh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Telangana recorded large declines of
100, 86.0 and 76.1 percentage points respectively.
Figure 55: Percentage of  Teachers Provided with Sanctioned Number of Days of  Training – Large States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
21.1
97.2
Telangana
94.0
41.7
Karnatak a
57.857.8
Jharkhand
86.4
59.3
Bihar
92.0
83.4
Uttarakhand
96.7
85.6
Rajasthan
74.1
86.6
Uttar Pradesh
94.8
89.6
Odisha
91.090.3
Tamil Nadu
59.3
91.3
Haryana
100
91.6
Gujarat
100 99.5
Kerala
100 100
Maharashtr a
100 100
Assam
98.898.1
Madhya Pradesh
100 100
Andhra Pradesh
80.4
100
Chhattisgar h
100 100
Himachal Pradesh
12.7
100
Jammu & Kashmir
79.4
100
Punjab
Percentage of teacchers provided
with training
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17) 94
Figure 56: Percentage of  Teachers Provided with Sanctioned Number of Days of Training –
Small States and UTs
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
Daman & Diu
Chandigarh
Delhi
Lakshadweep
Puducherry
Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage of teachers with
provided with training
Base Year (2015-16)Reference Year (2016-17)
Union TerritoriesSmall States
Sikkim
Goa
Mizoram
Meghalaya
Arunachal
Pradesh
Manipur
Nagaland
Tripura
100
0.0
0.0
54.8
100
56.3
100
84.3
0.0
86.0
100 100100 100 100 100
96.7
10.7
70.070.0
100
92.9
100 100 100 100
60.1
100 100
100
Indicator 2.9: Percentage of School Head-Masters and Principals who have
completed School Leadership Training
The professional development of head-masters/principals is a key lever for improving the quality of
education provision. Therefore, SSA and RMSA norms have been revised to mandate States and UTs to
organize School Leadership (SL) training programs for all head-masters/principals in Government schools.
Reference year data shows that only 20 States and UTs have conducted SL training for their respective
head-masters/principals. In 12 of these States and UTs, all head-masters/principals have completed the
training. Most States and UTs have reported reference year values similar to their base year values.
Table 26: Percentage of School Head-Masters/Principals who have Completed School
Leadership (SL) Training
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Uttar Pradesh0.0%100%
Andhra Pradesh100%100%
Jammu & Kashmir100%100%
Kerala100%100%
Maharashtra100%100%
Odisha100%100%
Tamil Nadu100%100%
Telangana0.0%100%
Haryana100%97.1% 95
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Madhya Pradesh100%96.3%
Himachal Pradesh92.0%77.9%
Rajasthan74.0%67.1%
Uttarakhand98.0%50.8%
Gujarat0.0%45.2%
Karnataka100%28.7%
Bihar9.1%23.5%
Chhattisgarh50.0%0.0%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Jharkhand, Punjab and Assam
Small States
Goa0.0%100%
Sikkim100%0.0%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Meghalaya
Union Territories
Chandigarh89.9%100%
Daman & Diu100%100%
Delhi100%100%
Andaman & Nicobar Islands76.0%0.0%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep and Puducherry
Indicator 2.10a: Percentage of Schools that have Completed Self-Evaluation
The National Programme on School Standards and Evaluation (NPSSE), which is driven by the National
Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA), aims to help elementary and secondary
schools carry out self-evaluations as a medium for improving education quality and management.
The reference year data shows that at least 50.0 percent of schools in 17 States and UTs have
completed self-evaluations. Himachal Pradesh and Jharkhand recorded the highest percentages; 84.6
and 83.7 respectively. In contrast, seven States and UTs have yet to record any schools completing self-
evaluations.
The average percentages for UTs, Large States and Small States were 57.1, 46.8 and 11.3 percent
respectively. Several States and UTs have recorded an improvement over their base year values.
Jharkhand and Andaman & Nicobar Islands recorded the biggest gains; 83.7 and 80.0 percentage points
respectively. 96
Table 27: Percentage of Schools that have Completed Self-Evaluation
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Himachal Pradesh85.0%84.6%
Jharkhand0.0%83.7%
Maharashtra83.7%82.7%
Odisha84.0%82.7%
Chhattisgarh87.7%81.7%
Tamil Nadu0.0%78.6%
Andhra Pradesh0.0%76.3%
Madhya Pradesh74.0%73.1%
Gujarat65.3%64.3%
Karnataka73.8%61.7%
Uttarakhand0.0%57.7%
Kerala14.7%49.9%
Rajasthan0.0%30.8%
Punjab0.0%20.4%
Assam0.0%5.1%
Bihar0.0%2.3%
Telangana0.0%0.1%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh
Small States
Mizoram40.8%40.1%
Manipur0.0%19.7%
Goa19.0%14.6%
Tripura0.0%8.2%
Nagaland0.0%8.1%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Sikkim
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar Islands0.0%80.0%
Daman & Diu78.6%78.6%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli0.0%68.6%
Puducherry0.0%60.7%
Chandigarh53.7%58.2%
Delhi0.0%53.5%
No Coverage in Base and
Reference Year:
Lakshadweep 97
Indicator 2.10b: Percentage of Schools that have made School Improvement/
Development Plans
As per the RTE norms, every school is mandated to formulate an annual School Development Plan (SDP) as
part of its monitoring and assessment strategy. Each SDP is supposed to cover the areas of physical access,
enrolment, infrastructure, teacher information and student learning levels. The responsibility of developing
the SDP lies with the School Management Committee.
At least 90 percent of schools in 19 States and UTs created SDPs in the reference year. Among them, 15
States and UTs reported a perfect score. In contrast, 13 States and UTs did not report any schools creating
SDPs in the reference year.
Table 28: Percentage of Schools that have Made School Improvement/Development Plans
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Assam0.0%100%
Kerala89.3%100%
Madhya Pradesh100%100%
Maharashtra100%100%
Punjab0.0%100%
Rajasthan0.0%100%
Tamil Nadu0.0%100%
Telangana0.0%100%
Odisha99.3%99.0%
Gujarat96.0%95.7%
Chhattisgarh89.0%91.9%
Andhra Pradesh0.0%88.1%
Bihar0.0%58.7%
Jharkhand0.0%1.4%
Karnataka100%0.0%
No SDPsdeveloped in Base and
Reference Year:
Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and
Uttarakhand
Small States
Mizoram100%100%
Nagaland0.0%100%
Tripura0.0%100%
No SDPs developed in Base and
Reference Year:
Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur, Meghalaya and Sikkim 98
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Union Territories
Chandigarh100%100%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli0.0%100%
Delhi0.0%100%
Puducherry0.0%100%
Andaman & Nicobar Islands0.0%99.7%
No SDPs developed in Base and
Reference Year:
Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep
Indicator 2.11a: Average Number of Days taken by State/UT to Release Total
Central Share of Funds to Societies
Reference year data shows that, on average, the State/UT Governments of Daman & Diu, Kerala and
Rajasthan take the least number of days (between 7 to 10 days) to release the total central share of
funds to societies. In contrast, Puducherry and Manipur take the most amount of time: 150 and 116 days
respectively. The average number of days recorded by Large States is 27 days. The averages for Small States
and UTs are 52 and 47 days respectively.
Table 29: Average Number of Days Taken by State/UT to Release Total Central Share of
Funds to Societies
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Kerala710
Rajasthan1010
Tamil Nadu1212
Chhattisgarh2015
Karnataka1515
Odisha1715
Jammu & Kashmir3516
Gujarat2817
Assam2719
Himachal Pradesh2020
Madhya Pradesh2120
Jharkhand2325
Uttarakhand2525
Bihar5329
Telangana13632
Punjab6736
Andhra Pradesh7545 99
Haryana7550
Uttar Pradesh6060
Maharashtra7575
Small States
Sikkim2121
Mizoram2926
Nagaland5332
Tripura4848
Meghalaya5456
Arunachal Pradesh6060
Goa6060
Manipur104116
Union Territories
Daman & Diu77
Chandigarh1012
Dadra & Nagar Haveli1935
Andaman & Nicobar Islands4040
Lakshadweep4040
Delhi4545
Puducherry130150
Indicator 2.11b: Average Number of Days taken by State to Release Total State
Share of Funds to Societies
Reference year data shows that, on average, the State Governments of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and
Uttarakhand require only one day to release the total State share of funds to societies. In contrast, Manipur
takes 101 days. The average number of days recorded by Large States and Small States are 21 days and
46 days respectively.
Table 30: Average Number of Days Taken by State to Release Total State Share of Funds to Societies
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Bihar81
Uttarakhand11
Tamil Nadu53
Rajasthan77
Madhya Pradesh11
Kerala710
Chhattisgarh2015 100
Himachal Pradesh1515
Jammu & Kashmir915
Karnataka1515
Odisha1715
Gujarat2817
Uttar Pradesh2020
Jharkhand2130
Maharashtra3030
Telangana13632
Punjab6736
Andhra Pradesh7545
Haryana7550
Assam3659
Small States
Meghalaya1312
Goa3030
Sikkim3131
Nagaland6743
Mizoram4545
Tripura4545
Arunachal Pradesh6060
Manipur25101
Union Territories
Not Applicable
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu,
Delhi, Lakshadweep and Puducherry
Indicator 2.12: Percentage of New Teachers Recruited through a Transparent
Online System
States and UTs have been encouraged by the Government of India to develop online teacher recruitment
systems to serve as a transparent system for teacher recruitment. Ten States and UTs reported using an
online system for the recruitment of all new teachers in the reference year. Most States and UTs, however,
are yet to adopt this practice. 101
Indicator 2.13: Percentage of Government School Teachers Transferred through a
Transparent Online System
Eight States and UTs reported using an online system for teacher transfers in the reference year. Among
them, seven States and UTs used the system for all teachers transfers that year. Most States and UTs,
however, are yet to adopt this practice.
Table 31: Percentage of New Teachers Recruited Through a Transparent Online System
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Assam0.0%100%
Chhattisgarh100%100%
Gujarat100%100%
Haryana0.0%100%
Jammu & Kashmir100%100%
Kerala100%100%
Odisha0.0%100%
Punjab100%100%
Rajasthan100%100%
Andhra Pradesh100%0.0%
Karnataka100%0.0%
Uttar Pradesh100%0.0%
No new Teachers recruited
through a Transparent Online
System in Base and Reference
Year:
Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Telangana
Small States
No new Teachers recruited
through a Transparent Online
System in Base and Reference
Year:
Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and
Tripura
Union Territories
Chandigarh100%100%
No new Teachers recruited
through a Transparent Online
System in Base andReference
Year:
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Delhi,
Lakshadweep and Puducherry 102
Table 32: Percentage of Government School Teachers Transferred Through a Transparent
Online System
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Chhattisgarh0.0%100%
Gujarat100%100%
Haryana0.0%100%
Karnataka100%100%
Kerala100%100%
Tamil Nadu100%100%
Uttar Pradesh0.0%100%
Andhra Pradesh100%0.0%
Madhya Pradesh100%0.0%
No teachers transferred
through a Transparent Online
System in the Base and
Reference Year:
Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Odisha, Punjab,
Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Telangana and Uttarakhand
Small States
No teachers transferred
through a Transparent Online
System in Base and Reference
Year:
Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and
Tripura
Union Territories
Delhi47.3%50.0%
No teachers transferred through
a Transparent Online System in
Base and Reference Year:
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu,
Lakshadweep and Puducherry
Indicator 2.14: Percentage of School Head-Masters/Principals Recruited through a
Merit-based Selection System
Given the importance of school leaders in enhancing the quality of schooling, States and UTs have been
encouraged to adopt a merit-based system for the recruitment of head-masters/principals. Currently,
vacancies for this post are typically filled on the basis of seniority.
Reference year data shows that only six States and UTs have a merit-based system for the recruitment of
head-masters/principals. These six States and UTs have recruited all their head-masters/principals through
a merit-based selection system for the reference year. 103
Table 33: Percentage of Government School Head-Masters/Principals Recruited Through a
Merit-based Selection System
States/UTsBase Year (2015-16) Reference Year (2016-17)
Large States
Gujarat0.0%100%
Himachal Pradesh100%100%
Rajasthan100%100%
No School Head-Master/Principal Recruited
through a Merit-based Selection System in the
Base and Reference Year:
Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Jammu
& Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar
Pradesh and Uttarakhand
Small States
Meghalaya0.0%100%
Sikkim100%100%
No School Head-Master/Principal Recruited
through a Merit-based Selection System in the
Base and Reference Year:
Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and
Tripura
Union Territories
Chandigarh100%100%
No School Head-Master/Principal Recruited
through a Merit-based Selection System in the
Base and Reference Year:
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman &
Diu, Delhi, Lakshadweep and Puducherry
CONCLUSION
AND
WAY FORWARD
105 106
SEQI is a useful tool for the systematic measurement of performance across States and Union Territories.
The index reflects the diversity and complexity of the school education landscape in India. It also provides
useful insights to States and UTs for data-driven decision making, including better targeting of interventions
for quality enhancement.
SEQI is envisioned as a dynamic instrument that will continue to evolve. Over time, the relevance of the
existing indicators and the availability of data for new indicators will be factored into the index design. In
particular, the linkages between policy actions and SEQI indicators will be analyzed to reflect the efforts
made by States and UTs to improve school education.
The index will also benefit from ongoing improvements to the quality of the data being collected through
publicly available sources. Particular attention will be given to obtaining data from national learning surveys
that allow for comparisons over time. Efforts will also be made to improve system coverage by including
more data on non-governmental private schools. At the same time, care will be taken to balance any such
enhancements with the need to maintain a core set of indicators so as to facilitate the tracking of changes
in States’/Uts’ performance over time.
Schooling should result in successful learning outcomes. A credible system of assessment in this regard is
crucial to design remedial action.
SEQI focuses on indicators that can drive improvements in the quality of eduction rather than on inputs
or specific processes. The index has been developed through the view of an outcome lens rather than a
process lens.
The NITI Aayog aims to drive tangible policy improvements towards achieving quality education in a
coherent and collaborative manner. The index seeks to institutionalise a focus on improving educational
outcomes with respect to learning, access, quality and governance in India.
The NITI Aayog hopes that this index will institutionalise a strong focus on improving school education
outcomes with respect to learning, access, equity and governance in India, and also help facilitate the
sharing of best practices. ANNEXURES
107 108
State/Union
Territory
1.1.1: Class 3 NAS
Score – Language
1.1.2: Class 3 NAS
Score – Mathematics
1.1.3: Class 5 NAS
Score – Language
1.1.4: Class 5 NAS
Score – Mathematics
1.1.5: Class 8 NAS
Score – Language
1.1.6: Class 8 NAS
Score – Mathematics
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Large States
Andhra PradeshNA79%NA74%NA67%NA64%NA58%NA50%
AssamNA72%NA70%NA60%NA61%NA54%NA49%
BiharNA67%NA63%NA57%NA52%NA58%NA45%
ChhattisgarhNA65%NA60%NA55%NA47%NA56%NA36%
GujaratNA71%NA65%NA59%NA57%NA64%NA47%
HaryanaNA65%NA58%NA55%NA46%NA57%NA37%
Himachal PradeshNA69%NA63%NA61%NA49%NA59%NA35%
Jammu & KashmirNA64%NA62%NA54%NA54%NA43%NA37%
JharkhandNA70%NA66%NA61%NA56%NA61%NA51%
KarnatakaNA78%NA75%NA71%NA67%NA63%NA51%
KeralaNA72%NA72%NA69%NA63%NA63%NA50%
Madhya PradeshNA70%NA62%NA56%NA48%NA55%NA40%
MaharashtraNA70%NA65%NA61%NA52%NA63%NA40%
OdishaNA64%NA62%NA51%NA55%NA53%NA44%
PunjabNA63%NA56%NA50%NA43%NA54%NA31%
RajasthanNA77%NA72%NA69%NA65%NA67%NA57%
Tamil NaduNA62%NA62%NA58%NA49%NA57%NA35%
TelanganaNA68%NA69%NA57%NA56%NA53%NA37%
Uttar PradeshNA58%NA59%NA50%NA49%NA53%NA40%
UttarakhandNA72%NA67%NA64%NA58%NA59%NA40%
ANNEXURE I: INDICATOR-WISE DATA TABLES 109
State/Union
Territory
1.1.1: Class 3 NAS
Score – Language
1.1.2: Class 3 NAS
Score – Mathematics
1.1.3: Class 5 NAS
Score – Language
1.1.4: Class 5 NAS
Score – Mathematics
1.1.5: Class 8 NAS
Score – Language
1.1.6: Class 8 NAS
Score – Mathematics
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Small States
Arunachal PradeshNA51%NA49%NA43%NA39%NA44%NA33%
GoaNA66%NA59%NA53%NA46%NA60%NA34%
ManipurNA71%NA68%NA59%NA56%NA52%NA42%
MeghalayaNA62%NA57%NA47%NA42%NA49%NA34%
MizoramNA69%NA61%NA50%NA44%NA45%NA36%
NagalandNA67%NA64%NA52%NA46%NA45%NA34%
SikkimNA60%NA55%NA50%NA42%NA51%NA30%
TripuraNA67%NA61%NA57%NA51%NA54%NA38%
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
NA62%NA62%NA53%NA49%NA50%NA34%
ChandigarhNA75%NA71%NA69%NA64%NA61%NA46%
Dadra & Nagar HaveliNA71%NA66%NA64%NA59%NA60%NA45%
Daman & DiuNA66%NA57%NA50%NA43%NA53%NA32%
DelhiNA58%NA54%NA52%NA44%NA55%NA32%
LakshadweepNA56%NA58%NA51%NA46%NA49%NA33%
PuducherryNA59%NA62%NA51%NA51%NA46%NA31% 110
State/Union
Territory
1.2.1(a): Adjusted
NER at Elementary
Level
1.2.1(b): Adjusted
NER at Secondary
Level
1.2.2(a): Transition
Rate Primary to
Upper Primary
1.2.2(b): Transition
Rate Upper Primary
to Secondary
1.2.3: Out of School
Children (Elementary)
Mainstreamed
1.3.1(a): Schools
Having CAL at
Elementary Level
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Large States
Andhra Pradesh75.5%80.5%51.4%46.5%91.0%97.2%94.4%97.8%50.2%69.4%4.2%4.1%
Assam96.2%99.0%58.4%62.3%85.6%93.3%87.4%94.5%18.9%31.1%5.1%5.4%
Bihar100%99.6%55.8%54.5%85.0%76.1%84.6%73.9%50.3%35.9%2.6%2.5%
Chhattisgarh94.5%93.3%60.0%60.8%94.3%94.3%86.9%86.8%75.0%59.5%4.4%4.0%
Gujarat91.0%91.1%57.4%58.9%98.1%97.7%84.2%84.2%68.4%79.9%58.5%58.3%
Haryana85.8%86.2%70.6%63.6%92.4%99.5%92.9%97.8%75.1%83.5%12.6%12.7%
Himachal Pradesh95.4%95.9%92.1%89.8%98.1%98.6%97.6%97.7%59.5%56.4%7.8%8.4%
Jammu & Kashmir75.2%67.3%55.7%47.1%93.6%87.3%87.5%86.1%1.9%1.8%3.5%3.9%
Jharkhand100%89.7%58.2%46.3%84.2%76.3%79.2%69.4%75.5%75.5%2.8%2.9%
Karnataka94.1%95.7%66.2%75.4%96.4%96.8%92.1%93.1%88.1%82.0%10.6%10.8%
Kerala92.7%93.2%90.0%90.3%100%100%99.8%100%88.3%64.0%51.9%49.6%
Madhya Pradesh86.8%84.6%54.7%54.9%88.7%89.6%81.5%84.1%76.4%64.5%4.0%4.1%
Maharashtra91.4%91.8%68.7%70.0%98.7%99.2%98.7%98.5%93.1%99.9%8.2%8.2%
Odisha95.1%94.7%66.4%69.8%91.3%90.6%92.8%91.3%85.0%78.0%5.7%6.4%
Punjab97.8%91.9%63.4%65.2%95.3%95.7%93.6%94.3%100%81.2%33.6%33.1%
Rajasthan86.5%86.8%56.3%58.2%92.0%91.6%94.9%93.7%32.1%50.2%10.8%11.3%
Tamil Nadu97.7%96.9%89.8%88.8%95.0%98.6%96.7%96.8%93.1%94.1%32.1%32.7%
Telangana89.5%87.7%83.5%77.4%98.2%92.5%97.2%94.6%12.5%21.9%5.2%5.2%
Uttar Pradesh83.7%79.8%56.1%57.6%79.1%77.9%88.9%94.2%100%100%5.1%5.0%
Uttarakhand89.6%87.2%69.0%67.2%93.5%93.0%94.1%93.5%100%100%14.4%14.4% 111
State/Union
Territory
1.2.1(a): Adjusted
NER at Elementary
Level
1.2.1(b): Adjusted
NER at Secondary
Level
1.2.2(a): Transition
Rate Primary to
Upper Primary
1.2.2(b): Transition
Rate Upper Primary
to Secondary
1.2.3: Out of School
Children (Elementary)
Mainstreamed
1.3.1(a): Schools
Having CAL at
Elementary Level
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh100%99.9%73.1%58.1%97.0%89.9%89.0%86.4%49.6%0.0%7.2%7.3%
Goa98.0%97.3%88.5%83.6%100%97.8%100%100%15.0%31.4%9.8%9.7%
Manipur100%100%87.4%76.4%84.7%81.7%87.7%83.3%51.4%61.7%11.2%11.0%
Meghalaya100%100%50.3%36.8%94.7%90.7%80.3%73.9%14.0%20.1%3.6%3.8%
Mizoram100%100%61.6%59.2%96.0%91.6%95.5%88.9%61.3%32.7%14.5%14.3%
Nagaland91.4%76.7%46.0%35.8%87.3%79.0%92.0%76.8%0.0%0.0%17.7%17.0%
Sikkim92.1%68.9%44.8%22.1%93.1%91.3%100%94.0%41.2%28.1%14.0%14.0%
Tripura100%100%88.9%89.4%91.3%90.2%98.0%94.4%70.0%63.4%2.6%2.8%
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
84.6%82.2%76.6%72.8%100%98.2%99.9%99.9%0.0%0.0%10.3%10.0%
Chandigarh85.0%82.7%74.3%74.8%100%100%98.6%100%74.3%71.8%76.5%76.7%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli87.6%86.9%65.9%66.7%98.0%99.7%91.6%93.2%54.2%93.0%15.3%17.1%
Daman & Diu79.6%79.9%53.5%54.2%96.0%99.1%99.0%100%100%100%33.0%35.1%
Delhi100%100%83.1%85.9%94.6%94.0%99.8%99.3%62.4%57.3%41.4%44.8%
Lakshadweep82.9%79.0%86.1%84.9%97.3%96.2%97.8%100%0.0%0.0%78.1%75.6%
Puducherry86.7%82.8%84.2%76.3%100%100%99.4%100%91.7%100%73.6%62.1% 112
State/Union
Territory
1.3.1(b): Secondary
Schools with
Computer Lab
1.3.2: Schools
Having Book
Banks/Reading
Rooms/ Libraries
1.3.3: Secondary
and Senior
Secondary Schools
Offering Vocational
Education
1.4.1(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 3
1.4.1(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 5
1.4.1(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 8
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Large States
Andhra Pradesh23.8%0.8%96.0%95.8%0.0%0.0%NA0NA4NA5
Assam12.9%10.9%58.5%61.9%1.5%2.7%NA2NA3NA0
Bihar23.6%23.3%70.1%69.5%0.0%0.0%NA2NA3NA5
Chhattisgarh34.1%34.6%92.6%92.6%1.3%5.8%NA2NA2NA3
Gujarat37.3%28.7%92.9%94.7%0.5%0.0%NA1NA2NA1
Haryana62.0%59.8%96.9%96.6%9.4%18.8%NA4NA4NA6
Himachal Pradesh36.1%27.4%95.7%95.1%13.2%20.0%NA1NA1NA4
Jammu & Kashmir47.7%38.3%63.0%64.2%4.1%10.8%NA1NA6NA1
Jharkhand35.6%19.3%91.6%91.8%0.6%0.0%NA2NA3NA5
Karnataka17.1%16.2%97.8%96.3%0.1%0.0%NA2NA1NA4
Kerala50.6%45.1%96.7%96.7%1.4%0.0%NA2NA2NA6
Madhya Pradesh29.9%26.9%90.0%90.0%0.6%2.1%NA1NA3NA3
Maharashtra52.2%43.4%96.0%96.1%17.0%19.7%NA2NA4NA3
Odisha35.4%26.6%92.3%93.0%0.1%0.0%NA3NA4NA6
Punjab46.6%65.7%96.2%96.9%8.0%7.1%NA1NA2NA4
Rajasthan33.7%32.3%71.5%72.8%0.0%0.0%NA2NA2NA3
Tamil Nadu64.0%67.0%99.2%99.3%0.0%0.0%NA1NA1NA0
Telangana11.2%11.8%91.8%92.3%0.1%0.0%NA1NA5NA2
Uttar Pradesh28.5%23.0%74.2%72.8%0.5%0.0%NA0NA2NA0
Uttarakhand40.9%34.6%89.6%89.9%0.0%0.0%NA4NA3NA6 113
State/Union
Territory
1.3.1(b): Secondary
Schools with
Computer Lab
1.3.2: Schools
Having Book
Banks/Reading
Rooms/ Libraries
1.3.3: Secondary
and Senior
Secondary Schools
Offering Vocational
Education
1.4.1(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 3
1.4.1(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 5
1.4.1(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 8
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh27.7%12.0%26.3%28.4%5.1%1.9%NA2NA4NA4
Goa73.6%60.0%99.2%99.2%74.0%68.3%NA3NA2NA0
Manipur47.1%49.1%27.7%28.7%0.0%0.2%NA2NA5NA3
Meghalaya25.7%15.4%12.0%12.4%9.0%0.0%NA16NA6NA3
Mizoram10.9%7.3%77.4%77.6%3.2%8.4%NA17NA10NA2
Nagaland24.6%7.0%40.9%40.2%0.0%0.0%NA0NA6NA9
Sikkim41.4%0.0%60.4%58.9%23.7%0.0%NA3NA3NA3
Tripura19.5%21.2%43.2%43.9%0.0%0.0%NA0NA0NA1
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
42.9%39.7%96.4%96.9%8.5%13.3%NANANA28NA26
Chandigarh75.6%72.3%99.0%98.0%7.1%8.5%NA1NA0NA3
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
76.2%81.0%97.4%98.3%0.0%0.0%NA2NA0NA3
Daman & Diu45.8%66.7%95.9%87.6%0.0%0.0%NA8NA0NA1
Delhi69.5%73.0%98.2%97.9%0.0%0.0%NA1NA3NA1
Lakshadweep76.9%84.6%97.8%100%0.0%0.0%NANANANANANA
Puducherry73.8%75.7%99.9%99.9%0.5%0.0%NA3NA2NA11 114
State/Union
Territory
1.4.1(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 3
1.4.1(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 5
1.4.1(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 8
1.4.2(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 3
1.4.2(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 5
1.4.2(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 8
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Large States
Andhra PradeshNA1NA6NA3NA4NA8NA7
AssamNA2NA3NA5NA8NA9NA5
BiharNA2NA2NA3NA2NA1NA5
ChhattisgarhNA4NA0NA4NA2NA1NA4
GujaratNA2NA2NA0NA2NA0NA2
HaryanaNA4NA3NA3NA5NA5NA11
Himachal PradeshNA1NA1NA1NA1NA3NA0
Jammu & KashmirNA0NA5NA2NA3NA4NA2
JharkhandNA4NA1NA3NA4NA3NA6
KarnatakaNA0NA1NA1NA2NA0NA2
KeralaNA2NA1NA1NA12NA10NA14
Madhya PradeshNA1NA2NA2NA4NA6NA7
MaharashtraNA1NA1NA3NA5NA4NA7
OdishaNA6NA5NA3NA8NA9NA11
PunjabNA1NA0NA2NA6NA4NA7
RajasthanNA1NA0NA2NA5NA7NA7
Tamil NaduNA3NA3NA2NA2NA2NA5
TelanganaNA1NA1NA3NA7NA10NA6
Uttar PradeshNA0NA1NA2NA2NA11NA4
UttarakhandNA3NA3NA2NA8NA5NA6 115
State/Union
Territory
1.4.1(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 3
1.4.1(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 5
1.4.1(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and SC
Students – Class 8
1.4.2(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 3
1.4.2(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 5
1.4.2(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 8
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Small States
Arunachal PradeshNA2NA1NA2NA7NA10NA10
GoaNA2NA2NA1NA2NA1NA2
ManipurNA9NA9NA1NA12NA6NA8
MeghalayaNA16NA15NA6NA22NA7NA6
MizoramNA30NA4NA6NA18NA15NA1
NagalandNA0NA5NA3NA5NA1NA1
SikkimNA1NA4NA1NA6NA2NA0
TripuraNA2NA0NA3NA3NA5NA14
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
NANANA22NA18NA2NA2NA10
ChandigarhNA1NA2NA1NA15NA2NA9
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
NA5NA0NA5NA3NA5NA6
Daman & DiuNA6NA2NA1NA0NA2NA0
DelhiNA2NA3NA0NA2NA4NA1
LakshadweepNANANANANANANANANANANANA
PuducherryNA5NA2NA8NA15NA4NA21 116
State/Union
Territory
1.4.2(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 3
1.4.2(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 5
1.4.2(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 8
1.4.3(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Urban
and Rural Areas –
Class 3
1.4.3(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Urban
and Rural Areas –
Class 5
1.4.3(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Urban
and Rural Areas –
Class 8
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Large States
Andhra PradeshNA5NA11NA6NA3NA3NA2
AssamNA6NA11NA9NA1NA0NA3
BiharNA2NA0NA7NA4NA2NA5
ChhattisgarhNA4NA2NA3NA1NA1NA0
GujaratNA3NA2NA0NA1NA0NA1
HaryanaNA1NA4NA7NA0NA1NA2
Himachal PradeshNA1NA5NA2NA6NA0NA2
Jammu & KashmirNA2NA2NA2NA5NA3NA4
JharkhandNA6NA4NA6NA4NA3NA3
KarnatakaNA1NA0NA0NA2NA2NA4
KeralaNA14NA3NA3NA2NA1NA2
Madhya PradeshNA4NA5NA6NA4NA3NA1
MaharashtraNA5NA0NA0NA3NA3NA1
OdishaNA11NA9NA6NA0NA1NA1
PunjabNA6NA12NA6NA2NA1NA1
RajasthanNA6NA6NA5NA1NA1NA0
Tamil NaduNA2NA2NA1NA1NA1NA0
TelanganaNA5NA5NA4NA0NA1NA2
Uttar PradeshNA2NA10NA3NA4NA1NA3
UttarakhandNA6NA8NA7NA4NA0NA0 117
State/Union
Territory
1.4.2(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 3
1.4.2(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 5
1.4.2(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for General
Category and ST
Students – Class 8
1.4.3(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Urban
and Rural Areas –
Class 3
1.4.3(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Urban
and Rural Areas –
Class 5
1.4.3(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Urban
and Rural Areas –
Class 8
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Small States
Arunachal PradeshNA7NA6NA4NA0NA1NA5
GoaNA5NA3NA2NA1NA3NA4
ManipurNA12NA1NA1NA4NA2NA1
MeghalayaNA21NA18NA5NA1NA1NA5
MizoramNA26NA7NA6NA6NA2NA5
NagalandNA3NA3NA6NA9NA4NA4
SikkimNA2NA1NA1NA11NA5NA2
TripuraNA4NA4NA3NA1NA1NA10
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
NA1NA4NA1NA12NA1NA3
ChandigarhNA8NA8NA3NA1NA2NA0
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
NA5NA6NA5NA1NA5NA5
Daman & DiuNA8NA4NA0NA6NA9NA1
DelhiNA2NA4NA2NA2NA2NA2
LakshadweepNANANANANANANA4NA6NA3
PuducherryNA9NA4NA8NA3NA0NA2 118
State/Union
Territory
1.4.3(b): Difference
in NAS Math Scores
for Urban and Rural
Areas – Class 3
1.4.3(b): Difference
in NAS Math Scores
for Urban and Rural
Areas – Class 5
1.4.3(b): Difference
in NAS Math Scores
for Urban and Rural
Areas – Class 8
1.4.4(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 3
1.4.4(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 5
1.4.4(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 8
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Large States
Andhra PradeshNA3NA2NA5NA1NA1NA1
AssamNA1NA2NA4NA1NA1NA0
BiharNA5NA2NA2NA0NA0NA2
ChhattisgarhNA1NA2NA3NA0NA1NA1
GujaratNA0NA1NA3NA1NA2NA4
HaryanaNA0NA1NA1NA2NA2NA2
Himachal PradeshNA7NA4NA2NA1NA1NA1
Jammu & KashmirNA4NA0NA1NA1NA2NA2
JharkhandNA6NA1NA4NA1NA1NA1
KarnatakaNA3NA4NA5NA1NA2NA2
KeralaNA2NA0NA0NA3NA4NA5
Madhya PradeshNA4NA2NA1NA1NA1NA2
MaharashtraNA3NA5NA3NA1NA3NA3
OdishaNA0NA3NA5NA1NA2NA1
PunjabNA0NA1NA1NA1NA2NA4
RajasthanNA2NA0NA3NA0NA1NA0
Tamil NaduNA3NA2NA2NA2NA2NA4
TelanganaNA0NA1NA0NA1NA1NA1
Uttar PradeshNA1NA1NA7NA2NA2NA0
UttarakhandNA1NA4NA5NA0NA0NA1 119
State/Union
Territory
1.4.3(b): Difference
in NAS Math Scores
for Urban and Rural
Areas – Class 3
1.4.3(b): Difference
in NAS Math Scores
for Urban and Rural
Areas – Class 5
1.4.3(b): Difference
in NAS Math Scores
for Urban and Rural
Areas – Class 8
1.4.4(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 3
1.4.4(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 5
1.4.4(a): Difference
in NAS Language
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 8
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Small States
Arunachal PradeshNA0NA2NA0NA0NA0NA1
GoaNA3NA0NA1NA4NA5NA3
ManipurNA5NA5NA2NA0NA0NA0
MeghalayaNA5NA9NA2NA1NA1NA1
MizoramNA7NA1NA1NA1NA3NA3
NagalandNA3NA3NA5NA1NA0NA0
SikkimNA10NA6NA1NA2NA1NA2
TripuraNA2NA3NA3NA2NA0NA0
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
NA4NA2NA2NA3NA4NA3
ChandigarhNA0NA1NA3NA1NA2NA2
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
NA2NA3NA2NA0NA3NA4
Daman & DiuNA0NA4NA1NA3NA7NA4
DelhiNA1NA3NA0NA2NA4NA3
LakshadweepNA6NA2NA1NA6NA1NA4
PuducherryNA2NA1NA2NA2NA3NA4 120
State/Union
Territory
1.4.4(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 3
1.4.4(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 5
1.4.4(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 8
1.4.5(a) Difference
in Upper Primary
to Secondary
Transition Rate –
General and SC
1.4.5(b) Difference
in Upper Primary
to Secondary
Transition Rate –
General and ST
1.4.5(c) Difference
in Upper Primary
to Secondary
Transition Rate –
General and OBC
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Large States
Andhra PradeshNA1NA0NA00.5%2.3%4.8%10.2%4.1%1.3%
AssamNA0NA0NA012.5%6.5%15.4%10.4%9.3%8.7%
BiharNA0NA0NA17.8%4.9%11.5%9.2%14.6%1.6%
ChhattisgarhNA1NA0NA15.4%10.3%13.2%15.1%4.5%7.6%
GujaratNA0NA1NA25.2%5.7%13.6%14.2%12.0%12.2%
HaryanaNA1NA0NA210.3%5.7%NANA13.5%6.6%
Himachal PradeshNA1NA1NA12.0%0.5%1.6%3.7%3.8%3.7%
Jammu & KashmirNA1NA1NA10.5%3.0%12.1%12.1%13.8%3.1%
JharkhandNA0NA0NA118.9%19.0%15.3%13.1%11.5%8.4%
KarnatakaNA2NA1NA221.5%8.8%18.1%14.6%29.7%7.4%
KeralaNA1NA1NA02.2%1.5%2.2%1.5%2.2%1.5%
Madhya PradeshNA1NA0NA18.5%6.4%20.3%16.8%5.7%3.4%
MaharashtraNA0NA1NA11.0%1.4%5.6%5.1%0.3%0.8%
OdishaNA0NA0NA05.6%2.3%10.6%7.8%4.9%0.0%
PunjabNA0NA1NA10.2%3.7%NANA6.4%2.2%
RajasthanNA0NA0NA00.5%4.4%1.0%3.4%2.4%6.1%
Tamil NaduNA1NA0NA18.5%0.1%4.2%10.9%14.3%0.9%
TelanganaNA0NA1NA03.1%15.9%6.1%11.9%2.0%18.9%
Uttar PradeshNA0NA1NA122.8%19.6%0.0%0.0%11.7%2.9%
UttarakhandNA1NA1NA17.4%12.4%5.6%5.2%11.1%11.6% 121
State/Union
Territory
1.4.4(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 3
1.4.4(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 5
1.4.4(b): Difference
in NAS Math
Scores for Boys and
Girls – Class 8
1.4.5(a) Difference
in Upper Primary
to Secondary
Transition Rate –
General and SC
1.4.5(b) Difference
in Upper Primary
to Secondary
Transition Rate –
General and ST
1.4.5(c) Difference
in Upper Primary
to Secondary
Transition Rate –
General and OBC
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Small States
Arunachal PradeshNA0NA1NA0NA14.6%7.7%0.7%9.3%14.6%
GoaNA1NA2NA113.5%0.5%0.0%0.5%0.0%0.5%
ManipurNA0NA0NA010.1%22.0%0.6%20.2%8.7%36.4%
MeghalayaNA1NA1NA14.3%22.2%6.5%12.3%25.6%26.0%
MizoramNA1NA0NA30.0%56.8%6.4%10.7%0.0%NA
NagalandNA1NA1NA1NA28.6%22.7%13.4%31.0%11.1%
SikkimNA2NA1NA05.4%16.4%16.9%5.7%18.0%14.4%
TripuraNA1NA0NA13.1%1.0%1.1%3.2%3.4%5.4%
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
NA0NA0NA1NANA3.3%0.7%3.4%2.9%
ChandigarhNA2NA1NA22.3%2.0%NA2.0%2.3%2.0%
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
NA0NA3NA27.0%4.7%6.7%1.4%4.2%8.9%
Daman & DiuNA2NA5NA010.2%13.5%10.2%13.5%10.2%13.5%
DelhiNA0NA2NA020.4%3.6%NA3.6%3.2%3.6%
LakshadweepNA0NA3NA1NANA2.5%0.0%0.0%20.0%
PuducherryNA0NA2NA25.1%0.0%NANA7.6%1.5% 122
State/Union
Territory
1.4.5(d) Difference
in Upper Primary to
Secondary Transition
Rate – Boys and Girls
1.4.6: Provision of
Aids and Appliances
to Entitled CWSN
1.4.7: Schools with
Toilets for Girls
2.1(a): Seeding of
Student UIDs in
SDMIS
2.1(b): SDMIS
coverage for
Students’ Average
Daily Attendance
2.2(a): Seeding
of  Teacher UIDs
in an Electronic
Database
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Large States
Andhra Pradesh0.4%0.5%15.3%98.0%99.7%99.8%0.0%100%60.2%70.2%100%100%
Assam1.2%0.4%15.8%15.2%83.9%83.4%0.0%100%54.4%62.6%0.0%45.3%
Bihar0.7%0.9%4.9%37.8%90.1%90.1%0.0%100%69.8%65.8%0.6%16.3%
Chhattisgarh1.6%2.0%33.3%14.7%99.2%99.5%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%68.9%70.8%
Gujarat10.1%9.0%86.0%57.6%100%100%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%51.5%
Haryana2.9%3.4%100%97.2%99.6%99.5%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%44.6%42.0%
Himachal Pradesh1.5%0.4%10.3%11.3%99.8%100%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%68.7%68.1%
Jammu & Kashmir2.4%4.0%53.4%82.4%95.0%96.9%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%40.4%96.8%
Jharkhand3.1%2.4%100%100%96.8%98.2%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Karnataka0.8%1.9%100%100%99.6%97.4%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%64.3%66.8%
Kerala0.7%0.5%92.4%98.1%99.2%99.3%0.0%100%92.4%92.1%72.7%72.7%
Madhya Pradesh8.1%7.2%80.7%69.5%96.7%96.7%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%100%100%
Maharashtra3.7%2.5%100%86.5%99.4%99.0%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%100%100%
Odisha1.2%0.9%0.0%0.0%97.1%98.2%0.0%100%74.2%74.2%0.0%70.7%
Punjab1.4%1.1%16.2%8.2%99.8%99.8%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%100%100%
Rajasthan3.8%3.8%100%100%99.7%99.2%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%100%100%
Tamil Nadu0.4%0.4%100%100%99.9%99.9%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%100%100%
Telangana0.4%0.2%0.0%0.0%100%98.5%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%49.6%49.0%
Uttar Pradesh11.3%15.3%50.2%82.8%99.8%99.7%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Uttarakhand1.8%0.6%100%45.5%97.2%96.8%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%29.0% 123
State/Union
Territory
1.4.5(d) Difference
in Upper Primary to
Secondary Transition
Rate – Boys and Girls
1.4.6: Provision of
Aids and Appliances
to Entitled CWSN
1.4.7: Schools with
Toilets for Girls
2.1(a): Seeding of
Student UIDs in
SDMIS
2.1(b): SDMIS
coverage for
Students’ Average
Daily Attendance
2.2(a): Seeding
of  Teacher UIDs
in an Electronic
Database
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh6.6%6.3%0.0%0.0%96.6%96.1%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Goa0.2%0.0%17.5%13.9%100%100%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Manipur1.9%1.7%100%99.4%98.7%98.9%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%93.0%93.0%
Meghalaya0.5%0.5%0.0%36.5%84.3%84.1%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Mizoram2.5%5.8%0.0%0.0%99.3%99.2%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%53.1%
Nagaland0.1%3.2%0.0%0.0%99.9%97.8%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Sikkim0.7%0.2%0.0%0.0%99.8%97.3%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%97.5%97.6%
Tripura0.3%1.0%100%93.3%99.9%99.9%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%22.5%22.9%
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
1.3%1.4%100%0.0%100%100%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Chandigarh0.1%1.1%100%100%100%100%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%65.4%89.6%
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
4.0%3.4%69.0%100%100%100%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Daman & Diu2.5%0.1%44.2%44.2%100%100%0.0%100%81.8%81.8%0.0%0.0%
Delhi0.5%0.1%100%100%100%100%0.0%100%63.8%60.5%100%100%
Lakshadweep3.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%100%100%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%100%100%
Puducherry0.2%0.1%81.9%68.2%100%100%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%38.2%38.3% 124
State/Union
Territory
2.2(b): MIS
Coverage for
Teachers’ Average
Daily Attendance
2.3: Single Teacher
Schools
2.4(a): Elementary
Schools Meeting
Teacher Norms
2.4(b): Upper
Primary Schools
Meeting Subject
Teacher Norms
2.5: Secondary
Schools with
Teachers for All
Core Subjects
2.6: Distribution of
Schools with Head-
Master/Principal
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Large States
Andhra Pradesh8.2%8.5%15.5%14.1%67.0%71.7%52.0%53.7%55.0%57.0%38.9%0.0%
Assam77.7%73.0%1.9%6.7%78.0%74.5%51.0%51.2%41.0%39.7%76.9%74.5%
Bihar0.0%0.0%4.1%4.2%21.0%26.3%34.0%38.6%17.0%20.8%16.5%19.5%
Chhattisgarh0.0%0.0%4.8%5.4%81.0%82.2%51.0%50.2%18.0%16.5%57.0%56.1%
Gujarat0.0%0.0%1.7%2.3%65.0%66.5%29.0%32.5%10.0%11.4%86.2%87.1%
Haryana55.4%55.4%4.8%3.9%87.0%83.4%70.0%73.0%44.0%46.7%63.1%63.0%
Himachal Pradesh0.0%0.0%8.2%6.7%88.0%90.1%72.0%69.9%40.0%40.1%67.1%68.0%
Jammu & Kashmir0.0%0.0%6.0%6.1%83.0%85.4%23.0%24.0%9.0%10.8%46.4%55.6%
Jharkhand0.0%0.0%16.2%16.9%38.0%41.1%33.0%31.5%3.0%3.5%23.6%23.9%
Karnataka0.0%0.0%7.3%6.9%62.0%60.8%15.0%15.5%14.0%13.8%51.4%51.3%
Kerala0.0%0.0%2.2%2.1%94.0%94.9%65.0%65.3%44.0%45.7%86.6%85.4%
Madhya Pradesh0.0%0.0%12.8%12.6%62.0%64.1%22.0%24.3%27.0%30.0%38.8%38.9%
Maharashtra0.0%0.0%2.9%3.1%75.0%75.9%35.0%31.6%12.0%11.9%58.5%54.2%
Odisha0.0%0.0%3.6%2.4%70.0%74.7%17.0%12.5%3.0%4.0%49.1%48.8%
Punjab0.0%0.0%5.5%3.2%84.0%89.7%63.0%58.7%41.0%40.2%56.3%58.3%
Rajasthan0.0%0.0%11.8%12.3%67.0%67.5%26.0%30.6%8.0%11.4%68.4%68.6%
Tamil Nadu0.0%0.0%2.2%1.9%86.0%87.4%62.0%64.3%54.0%57.8%87.0%84.6%
Telangana0.0%0.0%11.8%12.6%68.0%68.4%45.0%43.8%45.0%43.6%15.2%35.3%
Uttar Pradesh0.0%0.0%8.5%5.9%48.0%82.5%13.0%12.2%8.0%7.6%68.9%67.4%
Uttarakhand0.0%0.0%6.6%8.2%84.0%58.2%59.0%59.8%45.0%47.9%61.4%60.2% 125
State/Union
Territory
2.2(b): MIS
Coverage for
Teachers’ Average
Daily Attendance
2.3: Single Teacher
Schools
2.4(a): Elementary
Schools Meeting
Teacher Norms
2.4(b): Upper
Primary Schools
Meeting Subject
Teacher Norms
2.5: Secondary
Schools with
Teachers for All
Core Subjects
2.6: Distribution of
Schools with Head-
Master/Principal
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh0.0%0.0%26.8%26.6%63.0%66.8%52.0%53.8%45.0%45.4%23.6%25.5%
Goa0.0%0.0%19.7%19.7%76.0%75.8%73.0%73.5%44.0%42.2%70.6%66.8%
Manipur0.0%0.0%6.6%7.2%87.0%80.5%73.0%77.2%47.0%49.6%62.7%62.1%
Meghalaya0.0%0.0%7.0%6.9%77.0%88.3%63.0%63.2%17.0%16.4%79.2%79.1%
Mizoram0.0%0.0%2.0%1.8%86.0%88.5%55.0%55.8%59.0%58.5%72.7%72.4%
Nagaland0.0%0.0%1.7%1.1%94.0%96.5%63.0%66.3%32.0%37.4%74.8%72.7%
Sikkim0.0%0.0%0.2%0.2%98.0%96.0%59.0%57.4%37.0%37.4%69.3%69.0%
Tripura0.0%0.0%0.2%0.0%93.0%95.4%40.0%39.8%13.0%12.1%70.5%68.8%
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
0.0%0.0%4.4%0.0%94.0%98.3%77.0%73.6%48.0%50.4%56.8%8.0%
Chandigarh0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%98.0%98.5%94.0%96.3%82.0%86.8%83.8%85.4%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli0.0%0.0%1.7%0.0%82.0%88.5%79.0%83.1%55.0%63.6%55.4%56.8%
Daman & Diu0.0%97.3%0.7%2.1%87.0%89.2%57.0%54.8%37.0%39.0%57.3%55.9%
Delhi69.7%71.8%0.2%0.1%79.0%81.3%85.0%87.8%92.0%91.9%57.4%33.0%
Lakshadweep0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100%100%75.0%75.0%14.0%40.0%80.7%79.8%
Puducherry0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%98.0%98.9%81.0%24.9%0.0%2.7%61.2%87.7% 126
State/Union
Territory
2.7(a): Academic
Positions Filled
in SCERTs or
Equivalent
2.7(b): Academic
Positions Filled in
DIETs
2.8: Teachers
Provided With
Sanctioned Number
of Days of  Training
2.9: Head-Masters/
Principals
Completed School
Leadership Training
2.10(a): Schools
That Have
Completed Self
Evaluation
2.10(b): Schools
That Have
Made School
Improvement Plans
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Large States
Andhra Pradesh11.4%11.4%19.4%19.4%100%100%100%100%0.0%76.3%0.0%88.1%
Assam67.4%69.8%56.5%49.1%100%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.1%0.0%100%
Bihar36.7%32.7%43.2%41.7%86.4%59.3%9.1%23.5%0.0%2.3%0.0%58.7%
Chhattisgarh92.5%90.0%44.4%48.5%80.4%100%50.0%0.0%87.7%81.7%89.0%91.9%
Gujarat75.0%75.0%56.8%56.8%100%91.6%0.0%45.2%65.3%64.3%96.0%95.7%
Haryana63.6%59.1%79.3%89.4%59.3%91.3%100%97.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Himachal Pradesh100%100%75.0%73.9%100%100%92.0%77.9%85.0%84.6%0.0%0.0%
Jammu & Kashmir100%100%80.6%82.9%12.7%100%100%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Jharkhand12.2%12.2%53.1%53.1%57.8%57.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%83.7%0.0%1.4%
Karnataka88.9%88.9%100%100%94.0%41.7%100%28.7%73.8%61.7%100%0.0%
Kerala51.9%53.8%42.3%42.3%100%99.5%100%100%14.7%49.9%89.3%100%
Madhya Pradesh83.7%81.4%50.0%49.5%98.8%98.1%100%96.3%74.0%73.1%100%100%
Maharashtra55.5%55.9%61.7%61.7%100%100%100%100%83.7%82.7%100%100%
Odisha66.7%66.7%63.2%91.0%94.8%89.6%100%100%84.0%82.7%99.3%99.0%
Punjab100%100%72.2%67.1%79.4%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%20.4%0.0%100%
Rajasthan58.1%48.4%45.5%45.4%96.7%85.6%74.0%67.1%0.0%30.8%0.0%100%
Tamil Nadu65.4%54.0%50.0%64.3%91.0%90.3%100%100%0.0%78.6%0.0%100%
Telangana88.5%88.5%36.0%36.0%97.2%21.1%0.0%100%0.0%0.1%0.0%100%
Uttar Pradesh77.8%77.8%56.7%58.7%74.1%86.6%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Uttarakhand64.6%64.6%76.0%70.8%92.0%83.4%98.0%50.8%0.0%57.7%0.0%0.0% 127
State/Union
Territory
2.7(a): Academic
Positions Filled
in SCERTs or
Equivalent
2.7(b): Academic
Positions Filled in
DIETs
2.8: Teachers
Provided With
Sanctioned Number
of Days of  Training
2.9: Head-Masters/
Principals
Completed School
Leadership Training
2.10(a): Schools
That Have
Completed Self
Evaluation
2.10(b): Schools
That Have
Made School
Improvement Plans
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh88.9%88.9%100%100%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Goa66.7%66.7%58.3%58.3%100%56.3%0.0%100%19.0%14.6%0.0%0.0%
Manipur86.4%86.4%62.0%47.1%100%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%19.7%0.0%0.0%
Meghalaya96.4%92.9%55.6%55.6%0.0%54.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Mizoram73.1%73.1%84.5%84.5%100%100%0.0%0.0%40.8%40.1%100%100%
Nagaland96.2%94.2%100%100%0.0%86.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%8.1%0.0%100%
Sikkim42.3%42.3%40.9%40.9%100%100%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Tripura81.3%81.3%69.8%69.8%100%84.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%8.2%0.0%100%
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
48.4%48.4%100%100%100%100%76.0%0.0%0.0%80.0%0.0%99.7%
Chandigarh53.8%61.5%NANA100%92.9%89.9%100%53.7%58.2%100%100%
Dadra & Nagar HaveliNANANANA96.7%10.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%68.6%0.0%100%
Daman & DiuNANANANA70.0%70.0%100%100%78.6%78.6%0.0%0.0%
Delhi59.1%55.6%71.5%68.6%100%100%100%100%0.0%53.5%0.0%100%
LakshadweepNANA64.3%64.3%100%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Puducherry66.7%83.3%58.3%58.3%60.1%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%60.7%0.0%100% 128
State/Union
Territory
2.11(a): Number of
Days Taken to Release
Central Share of Funds to
Societies
2.11(b): Number of
Days Taken to Release
State Share of Funds
to Societies
2.12: Percentage of
Teachers Recruited
Through Transparent
Online System
2.13: Percentage of
Teachers Transferred
Through Transparent
Online System
2.14: Percentage of Head-
Masters/Principals Recruited
Through a Merit Based
Selection System
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Large States
Andhra Pradesh75457545100%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Assam271936590.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Bihar5329810.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Chhattisgarh20152015100%100%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%
Gujarat28172817100%100%100%100%0.0%100%
Haryana755075500.0%100%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%
Himachal Pradesh202015150.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100%100%
Jammu & Kashmir3516915100%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Jharkhand232521300.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Karnataka15151515100%0.0%100%100%0.0%0.0%
Kerala710710100%100%100%100%0.0%0.0%
Madhya Pradesh2120110.0%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Maharashtra757530300.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Odisha171517150.0%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Punjab67366736100%100%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Rajasthan101077100%100%0.0%0.0%100%100%
Tamil Nadu1212530.0%0.0%100%100%0.0%0.0%
Telangana13632136320.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Uttar Pradesh60602020100%0.0%0.0%100%0.0%0.0%
Uttarakhand2525110.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 129
State/Union
Territory
2.11(a): Number of
Days Taken to Release
Central Share of Funds to
Societies
2.11(b): Number of
Days Taken to Release
State Share of Funds
to Societies
2.12: Percentage of
Teachers Recruited
Through Transparent
Online System
2.13: Percentage of
Teachers Transferred
Through Transparent
Online System
2.14: Percentage of Head-
Masters/Principals Recruited
Through a Merit Based
Selection System
2015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-172015-162016-17
Small States
Arunachal Pradesh606060600.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Goa606030300.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Manipur104116251010.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Meghalaya545613120.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100%
Mizoram292645450.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Nagaland533267430.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Sikkim212131310.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100%100%
Tripura484845450.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
4040NANA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Chandigarh1012NANA100%100%0.0%0.0%100%100%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli1935NANA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Daman & Diu77NANA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Delhi4545NANA0.0%0.0%47.3%50.0%0.0%0.0%
Lakshadweep4040NANA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Puducherry130150NANA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 130
Annexure II: Original SEQI Indicators
Table (i): Original SEQI: Summary of Index
CategoryDomain
Number of
indicators
Total weight
1. Outcomes
1.1 Learning outcomes3 360
1.2 Access outcomes3 100
1.3 Infrastructure and facilities for outcomes325
1.4 Equity outcomes7 200
2. Governance processes
aiding outcomes
Covering attendance, teacher adequacy,
administrative adequacy, training,
accountability and transparency
17 315
Total 33 1,000
Table (ii): Original SEQI: Detailed List of Indicators
In order to address inaccuracies in data, some of the indicators in the SEQI had to be revised or dropped.
Details of these are found in the remarks column below.
S.No. IndicatorWeightValence
Data
source
School
Management
Remarks
Category 1: Outcomes
Domain 1.1: Learning Outcomes
1.1.1Average score in Class 3200
(a)Language100PositiveNAS
Government &
Government Aided
-
(b)Mathematics100PositiveNAS
Government &
Government Aided
-
1.1.2Average score in Class 5100
(a)Language50PositiveNAS
Government &
Government Aided
-
(b)Mathematics50PositiveNAS
Government &
Government Aided
-
1.1.3Average score in Class 860
(a)Language30PositiveNAS
Government &
Government Aided
-
(b)Mathematics30PositiveNAS
Government &
Government Aided
-
Category 1: Outcomes
Domain 1.2: Access Outcomes
1.2.1
Adjusted Net Enrolment
Ratio (NER)
40
(a)Elementary level20PositiveUDISEAll management -
(b)Secondary level (Class 9 to 10)20PositiveUDISEAll management - 131
S.No. IndicatorWeightValence
Data
source
School
Management
Remarks
1.2.2Transition rate 40
(a)Primary to Upper-primary level20PositiveUDISEAll management -
(b)
Upper-primary to Secondary
level
20PositiveUDISEAll management -
1.2.3
Percentage of identified
Out-of-school-children
mainstreamed in last
completed academic year
(Class 1 to 8)
20Positive
MHRD’s
ShaGun
MIS/
States
Government &
Government Aided
-
Category 1: Outcomes
Domain 1.3: Infrastructure & facilities for outcomes
1.3.1
Computer Related
Learning:
10
(a)
Percentage of govt. schools
having Computer-Aided
Learning (CAL) at Upper-
primary Level
5 PositiveUDISEAll management
Indicator has
been revised to
“Percentage
of schools
having CAL
at elementary
level” to match
published UDISE
data.
(b)
Percentage of secondary
schools having computer lab
facility – (Class 9 and 10)
5 PositiveUDISEAll management
Indicator has
been revised to
“Percentage
of secondary
schools with
computer lab
facility” to match
published UDISE
data from the
State Report
Cards.
1.3.2
Percentage of schools
having Book Banks/Reading
Rooms/ Libraries (Class 1
to 12)
5 PositiveUDISEAll management -
1.3.3
Percentage of schools
covered by Vocational
education:
10
(a)
Classes 9 and 10
Note: Covers pre-vocational and
vocational education– if any of the
two is present, the criterion is met.
5 PositiveUDISE
Government &
Government Aided
Sub-indicators
have been
merged to match
published UDISE
data.
(b)Classes 11 and 125 PositiveUDISE
Government &
Government Aided 132
S.No. IndicatorWeightValence
Data
source
School
Management
Remarks
Category 1: Outcomes
Domain 1.4: Equity outcomes
Note: In case data for any of the following vulnerable groups is not available for a particular State/UT, the indicator weight will
be equally distributed among the remaining sub-indicators/ indicators in the domain.
1.4.1
Difference (Absolute value)
in performance between
Scheduled Caste (SC) and
General Category students
30
Absolute
value
function
with
negative
valence
NAS
Government &
Government Aided
-
(a)Language15
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
(b)Mathematics15
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
1.4.2
Difference (Absolute value)
in performance between
Scheduled Tribe (ST) and
General Category students
30
Absolute
value
function
with
negative
valence
NAS
Government &
Government Aided
-
(a)Language15
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
(b)Mathematics15
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
1.4.3
Difference (Absolute value)
in performance between
students studying in Rural
and Urban areas
30
Absolute
value
function
with
negative
valence
NAS
Government &
Government Aided
-
(a)Language15
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
(b)Mathematics15
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85 133
S.No. IndicatorWeightValence
Data
source
School
Management
Remarks
1.4.4
Difference (Absolute value)
in student performance
between boys and girls at
Elementary level
30
Absolute
value
function
with
negative
valence
NAS
Government &
Government Aided
-
(a)Language15
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
(b)Mathematics15
Class 35
Class 55
Class 85
1.4.5
Difference (Absolute
value) in Transition Rate
from Upper-primary to
Secondary level
40
Absolute
value
function
with
negative
valence
UDISEAll management -
(a)SC and General Category 10
(b)ST and General Category 10
(c)
Minorities and General
Category
10
Here, OBCs have
been considered
as minorities to
match published
UDISE data.
(d)Boys and Girls10
1.4.6
Inclusive Education for
Children with Special Needs
(CWSN)
30
(a)
Gross Enrolment Ratio of
CWSN (age group 6 to 18
years)
20Positive - -
Indicator has
been dropped due
to unavailability
of published data.
The weight of
this indicator has
been distributed
to 1.4.6 (b)
(b)
Percentage of entitled CWSN
receiving aids and appliances
(Class 1 to 10)
Note: This is measured against
targets set in the PAB minutes,
where number of students receiving
aids/appliances is specified.
10Positive
ShaGun/
States
Government &
Government Aided
Revised weight of
indicator- 30
1.4.7
Percentage of schools
having functional girls toilet
(Class 1 to 12)
10PositiveUDISEAll management
Indicator has
been revised to
“Percentage of
schools with
toilet for girls” to
match published
UDISE data. 134
S.No. IndicatorWeightValence
Data
source
School
Management
Remarks
Category 2: Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes
Attendance
2.1Student attendance 50
(a)
Percentage of children whose
unique ID is seeded in Student
Data Management Information
System (SDMIS)
20Positive
ShaGun/
States
Government &
Government Aided
-
(b)
Percentage of Average Daily
Attendance of students in
SDMIS / electronic/digital
database updated at least
every month – Class 1 to 12
Note: Data is collected on a
monthly basis and aggregated.
30Positive
ShaGun/
States
Government &
Government Aided
-
2.2Teacher attendance 30
(a)
Percentage of teachers whose
unique ID is seeded in any
electronic database of the State
Government/UT Administration
(Class 1 to 12)
10Positive
ShaGun/
States
Government &
Government Aided
-
(b)
Percentage of average daily
attendance of teachers
recorded in the electronic
attendance system
Note: Data is collected monthly
and aggregated.
20Positive
ShaGun/
States
Government &
Government Aided
-
Teacher adequacy
2.3
Percentage of single
teacher schools
10NegativeUDISEAll management
Indicator has
been revised to
“Percentage
single teacher
schools” to
match published
UDISE data.
2.4
Percentage of schools
meeting teacher norms as
per RTE Act:
20
Positive
ShaGun/
States
Government &
Government Aided
-
(a)
Percentage of Elementary
schools meeting teacher norms
10
(b)
Percentage of Upper-primary
schools meeting subject-teacher
norms
10
2.5
Percentage Secondary
Schools who have teachers
for all core subjects (Class
9 to 10)
10Positive
ShaGun/
States
Government &
Government Aided
- 135
S.No. IndicatorWeightValence
Data
source
School
Management
Remarks
Administrative adequacy
2.6
Percentage of elementary
schools meeting head-
master norms as per
RTE – All management
10PositiveUDISEAll management
Indicators have
been merged
to “Percentage
distribution of
schools with
Head-Master/
Principal” to
match published
UDISE data.
2.7
Percentage of secondary
schools having head-
masters/principals
10PositiveUDISEAll management
2.8
Average occupancy (in
months) of Chief Education
Officer/ District Education
Officer in last 03 years for
all Districts
Note:
If a State/UT has both a CEO and
DEO, data for the senior-most
officer in charge of education in
the District is taken into account.
Base year: April 1st 2013-
March 31st 2016. Reference Year:
April 1st 2014-March 31st 2017
Full time means that the primary
charge should be DEO of a district.
Additional charges in other areas,
may not be counted.
20Positive
MHRD’s
ShaGun
MIS/
States
-
Indicator has
been dropped due
to inconsistencies
in data submitted
by States/UTs
and the weight
of the index has
been revised
downwards.
2.9
Average occupancy (in
months) of an officer (with
regards to school education
only), for following three
posts at State level for last
03 years
Note:
Full time means that the primary
charge should be PS-Education/
SPD-SSA/SPD-RMSA. Additional
charges may be in other areas.
For UTs or States with UT Cadre,
officers holding additional charges
also may get full credit.
Base year: April 1st 2013-
March 31st 2016. Reference Year:
April 1st 2014-March 31st 2017
15Positive
MHRD’s
ShaGun
MIS/
States
-
Indicator has
been dropped due
to inconsistencies
in data submitted
by States/UTs
and the weight
of the index has
been revised
downwards.
(a)
Principal Secretary/if not,
Secretary
Note: Data for the senior-most
(only one) policy officer in charge
of education in the State is taken
into account.
5
(b)SPD (SSA)5
(c)SPD (RMSA)5 136
S.No. IndicatorWeightValence
Data
source
School
Management
Remarks
Training
2.10
Percentage of academic
positions filled in State and
District academic training
institutions at the beginning
of the given academic year
Note: Measured against number of
positions approved/sanctioned by
MHRD
15Positive
MHRD’s
ShaGun
MIS/
States
--
SCERTs or equivalent 5
DIETs10
2.11
Percentage of teachers
provided with sanctioned
number of days of training
in the given financial year
(Class 1 to 10)
20Positive
MHRD’s
ShaGun
MIS/
States
Government &
Government Aided
-
2.12
Percentage of Head-
Masters/ Principals who
have completed School
Leadership (SL) training in
the given financial year -
(Class 1 to 12)
15Positive
MHRD’s
ShaGun
MIS/
States
Government &
Government Aided
-
Accountability & transparency
2.13
Percentage of schools
that have completed self-
evaluation and made school
improvement/development
plans in the given financial
year
20Positive
MHRD’s
ShaGun
MIS/
States&
UDISE
All management -
a)
Percentage of schools that have
completed self-evaluation
5
b)
Percentage of schools that have
made school improvement/
development plans
Note: Includes only those self-
evaluation systems that are
approved by the DoSEL-MHRD.
15
2.14
Timely release of funds
Note: Includes funds for both SSA
and RMSA.
On release of Central share of funds,
the Central share is supposed to be
transferred to State implementation
societies within 15 days, and the
State share is supposed to be
released to State implementation
societies within 30 days.
Positive
MHRD’s
ShaGun
MIS/
States
--
a)
Average number of days taken
by State /UT to release total
Central share of funds to
societies (during the previous
financial year)
5 137
S.No. IndicatorWeightValence
Data
source
School
Management
Remarks
b)
Average number of days
taken by State /UT to release
total State share due to State
societies (during the previous
financial year)
5
Indicator is NA
for UTs and its
weight has been
redistributed to
2.14 (a) only for
UTs.
2.15
Number of new teachers
recruited through a transparent
online recruitment system as a
percentage of total number of
new teachers recruited in the
given financial year.
Note: The transparent recruitment
system should include:
a) annual assessment of the
teacher demand – displayed
online;
b) written test (may or may not be
online);
c) online advertisement for
recruitment;
d) online display of marks secured
by all applicants;
e) online display of objective, merit-
based criteria for selection;
f) transparent, online counselling
for teachers.
20Positive
MHRD’s
ShaGun
MIS/
States
--
2.16
Number of teachers transferred
through a transparent online
system as a percentage of total
number of teachers transferred
in the given year (Class 1 to 12)
Note: The transparent online
transfer system should:
a) include a regular and annual
transfer;
b) be done on an electronic and
transparent online system;
c) include teacher preferences;
d) be based on an objective
transfer policy
20Positive
MHRD’s
ShaGun
MIS/
States
--
2.17
Number of head-masters/
principals recruited through a
merit-based selection system as
a percentage of total number
of head-masters/principals
recruited (in the given financial
year) – (Class 1 to 12)
20Positive
MHRD’s
ShaGun
MIS/
States
--