Moa Jamir
Two all-India indices released within one week in June have designated the quality of education in Nagaland in an unenviable position among its peers and citizens, besides possibly putting those at the helms of affairs in some discomfiture.
The first index was the NITI Aayog’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2021 India Index released on June 3, in which the State was ranked 2nd lowest among States and Union Territories (UTs) in the provision of ‘Quality Education.’
The second index, the Performance Grading Index (PGI) released on June 6, slotted Nagaland along with two others states - Arunachal and Chhattisgarh in the bottom-3 and was ranked at Level IV (701 - 750) Grade III out of possible 1000 points.
Since 2018, SDG Index documents and ranks the progress made by States and UTs towards achieving the SDGs; while PGI, introduced 2019, is “a tool to provide insights on the status of school education in States and UTs including key levers that drive their performance and critical areas for improvement.”
In the former, Nagaland’s score declined from 47 in 2019 to 39 in 2020, while in the latter, it was among 10 States/UTs improving the score by 5-10%. While it can be argued that the indices take different indicators to arrive at the final score, inference can be drawn from consistent low ranking on both that something is amiss with the system.
This does not mean that the indices are not free of any data inconsistency. For instance, SDG Index informed that Nagaland had the lowest Adjusted Net Enrolment Ratio (ANER) in elementary education at 67.38% among the states; while in the PGI, it scored 10 out of 10 (10/10) and 8/10 for retention rate at the elementary level. The transition rate from elementary till the secondary level is shown to be robust (10/10).
However, both indices were consistent in highlighting the apparent problem at the secondary level - the SDG Index showing annual dropout rate level of class 9-10 at 24%, against the national average of 17.87% while in the PGI, the retention rate was lowest (7/10) for Nagaland.
In terms of learning outcomes, Nagaland scored well in PGI (168 out of 180) while the SDG Index highlighted that percentage of students in grade VIII achieving at least a ‘minimum proficiency level in terms of nationally defined learning outcomes to be attained,’ was among the lowest in the State at 61.0% against the national average of 71.9.
Both indices highlighted high gender parity in Nagaland with a GPI of 1.11 in the SDG Index while the difference between boys and girls transition rate from upper primary to secondary level in PGI was 10/10.
In term of equity and accessibility, particularly for persons with disability (PWDs), both indices highlighted more or less similar results. For instance, the SDG Index revealed that PWDs (15 years and above) completing at least secondary education was lowest in Nagaland (11.9% against the national average of 19.3%) while it scored the lowly on the provision of accessibility in school for Children with Special Needs (CWSN) in PGI.
PGI showed a high enrollment of CWSN (6-18 years) with a score of 9/10, the percentage of schools having functional CWSN friendly toilets was just 2/10 and 7/10 for schools having ramps. In fact, in the PGI parameter of equity, Nagaland got full scores in all indicators, except those related to CWSN.
Going beyond the comparative analysis, the PGI provided significant insights into where changes can be made apart from those highlighted earlier.
Nagaland scored lowest in PGI in the category of ‘Infrastructure & Facilities’ with just 101 out of a possible 150. Among others, lack of Integrated Science and Computer labs, vocational education (class IX-XII), as well as failure to deliver uniforms to elementary level students within three months were highlighted.
In terms of governance, the State scored badly in parameters of upper primary schools meeting norms of subject - teacher as per Right to Education Act, filling up of academic positions in state and district academic institutions, days taken to release total Central and State’s share of funds to societies, teachers’ evaluation, transparent teachers transfer etc.
Looking at the key indicators, apart from the dropout rate attributable to various internal and external factors, most are related to governance and infrastructure which can be corrected via adequate policy changes as well as robust monitoring and implementation. To ensure quality education as well as evading annual discomfiture, the State Government would do well by executing a time-bound action plan and course correction.
