View
222
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
SUMMER INTERNSHIP PROGRAMME 2011 UNICEF INDIA
Documentation of Samiksha: Lessons Learned from a School Monitoring System Fatima Alam Ana Maria Angarita Adrienne Henck Ioanna Sikiaridi In collaboration with KIIT University, School of Rural Management Bhubaneswar
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the policies
or the views of UNICEF and/or the School of Rural Management, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar.
Contents
List of Tables, Maps and Figures 1
Acknowledgements 2
List of Acronyms 3
Executive Summary 5
Introduction 7
Background 9
Education context 9
Monitoring systems 12
Strategy and Implementation of Samiksha 15
What is Samiksha? 15
Key Samiksha stakeholders 16
Process 19
Samiksha process 19
Analysis of Samiksha process 21
Measures undertaken to improve the Samiksha process 24
Progress and Results 25
Factors enabling progress and results 28
Factors hindering progress and result 30
Lessons Learned 33
Next Steps 35
References 37
Cuttack CMC Mission Cantonement Dagarapara Lalbag Dagarapara Mahanadi Vihar Mahanadi Vihar Narasinghpur Ransinghpur Allara Sridhara Siaria ACME NB Nodal Jharsuguda Jharsuguda Puranabasti Badhaimunda Harijanpanda PS Talpatia Mundadhipa PPS Barmal PS Kirmira Arda Kankaramunda PUP Arda PS Deopan Sulahi UP UPS Deopan Keonjhar Banspal Kundhei Kundhei Laxmidhar Suakathi Mining Talakainsari Harichandanpur Kaduadiha Kaduadiha Makasukhila Harichandanpur Kaliaduma Jaunliporkhari Koraput Koraput Koraput Ex-Board UPS Gopalput UPS Lauriguda Thana PS Project PS Semilliguda Semilliguda Aligam UPS Block Colony UPS Kunduli Malipungar UPS Kunduli UPS
List of Tables, Maps and Figures
Tables
Table 1: Comparison of education in Orissa and India
Table 2: Samiksha categories and indicators
Table 3: Samiksha colour-coded ranking categories
Table 4: District profiles
Table 5: Participants
Figures
Figure 1: Key Samiksha stakeholders
Figure 2: Flow of school data and feedback
Figure 3: Teacher attendance
Figure 4: District overall Samiksha score
Figure 5: Improvement of sample schools by category
Figure 6: Sample selection structure
Figure 7: Overall Samiksha scores for sample blocks
Maps
Map 1: Map of Orissa
Acknowledgements
We take this opportunity to thank UNICEF and the Knowledge Community on Children in India (KCCI)
Internship Programme for selecting us to be a part of their team and for giving us the opportunity for this
fruitful learning experience.
We also thank UNICEF Orissa and KIIT University, School of Rural Management, Bhubaneswar for their
logistical support throughout the internship and fieldwork.
Further, we would like to acknowledge the contributions of officials from the Orissa Department of
School and Mass Education (DoSME) for their assistance in procuring the data and for assisting us with
our fieldwork.
And finally, special thanks to the children, parents, teachers, headmasters, officials at the District SSA
offices, and Block and Cluster Resource Centre Coordinators (BRCCs and CRCCs) in Cuttack,
Jharsuguda, Keonjhar and Koraput for making our field visits possible and sharing their experiences with
us. Without their support, this report would not have been possible.
List of Acronyms
AIES All India Education Survey
ASER Annual Status of Education Report
BCF Block Compilation Format
BRCC Block Resource Centre Coordinator
CMC Cuttack Municipal Corporation
CRCC Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator
CWSN Children with Special Needs
DCF District Compilation Format
DEE Directorate of Elementary Education
DIS District Inspector of Schools
DISE District Information System for Education
DoSME Department of School and Mass Education
DPC District Project Coordinator
DPEP District Primary Education Programme
GoI Government of India
GoO Government of Orissa
ICF Individual Compilation Format
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MLE Multilingual Education Programme
MPLAD Member of Parliament Local Area Development
MTA Mother Teacher Association
NCERT National Council of Educational Research and Training
OPEPA Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority
PGCD People‟s Group for Children‟s Development
PTA Parent Teacher Association
PTC Performance Tracking Cell
PTR Pupil-Teacher Ratio
RTE Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act
SC Scheduled Caste
SCF State Compilation Format
SI Sub-Inspector of Schools
SMC School Management Committee
SMU State Monitoring Unit
SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
ST Scheduled Tribe
TLM Teaching Learning Material
UEE Universal Elementary Education
UNICEF United Nations Children's Emergency Fund
VEC Village Education Committee
Executive Summary
Background: An effective school monitoring system is critical for the improvement of education.
However, evolving socio-economic and policy contexts require the constant revision of monitoring
systems. In response to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act and
challenges in education, the Orissa Department of School and Mass Education (DoSME) developed an
innovative school monitoring system in November 2010. The scheme, called Samiksha, involves
continuous monitoring of nearly all government elementary schools, analysis of monitor reports, and
interventions directed at improving school quality. Samiksha‟s 80 indicators, which represent the inputs
and processes for determining the outcomes in a model school, are divided into five categories: School
Environment, Curricular Program, Co-curricular Program, School-Community Link and School
Management.
Purpose of Report: The novelty of Samiksha means that there is much uncertainty around how the
system is functioning in actuality. The purpose of this report is to address these knowledge gaps by
providing documentation that examines lessons learned from the initial performance of Samiksha. The
analysis is based on semi-structured interviews conducted with Samiksha‟s key stakeholders, including
government officials and school actors, in 32 schools across four districts.
Progress: During the first six months of Samiksha‟s implementation, 29 out of 30 districts have
improved their overall score. Most stakeholders have become more aware of school improvement
processes and accountable in performing their duties and responsibilities. Additionally, Samiksha has
enhanced the systematization of the school improvement process and has allowed the DoSME to track
school progress across the five categories. The individual motivation of stakeholders has played an
important role in the effective use of available resources and the successful implementation of Samiksha.
On the other hand, although the standardized monitoring format has facilitated the collection and analysis
of data, the subjectivity of some indicators continues to present challenges to consistent and uniform
monitoring. Limited capacity of some monitors and lack of awareness among most School Management
Committee (SMC) members and some teachers jeopardizes the long-term sustainability and
institutionalization of the system. Furthermore, administrative issues such as teacher shortage and the
socio-economic conditions of the surrounding community may affect the capacity of schools to improve.
These factors explain part of the variations in schools within and across districts.
Lessons Learned: The following lessons learned apply both specifically to the implementation of
Samiksha in Orissa and more broadly to the use of monitoring systems in India and in other contexts:
A school monitoring system is an essential way forward in the implementation of the norms and
standards of the RTE Act.
Broad scope, frequency and regularity are essential features of an effective school monitoring system.
Raising the awareness and capacity of all stakeholders is critical for a successful and sustainable school
monitoring system.
An integrated school improvement and monitoring approach is crucial for an effective school
monitoring system.
Potential Application: To ensure the successful implementation of the RTE norms and standards, other
states may consider adopting a large-scale monitoring system like Samiksha. Such a system could be
beneficial to every state if adapted to the local context to account for the baseline conditions of the school
system and variable socio-economic and demographic characteristics.
Next Steps: The following next steps should guide the DoSME‟s future implementation of Samiksha:
Increase awareness about Samiksha among stakeholders
Improve capacity of monitors
Ensure proper monitoring
Develop stronger and more systematic information and feedback flows
Revise Samiksha continuously to ensure the ongoing improvement of schools
Introduction
An effective school monitoring system is critical for the improvement of education. Such a monitoring
system should involve the collection of data on what is happening in the schools. It also should be
integrated with the analysis, evaluation and feedback of the data and the design and implementation of
evidence-based interventions. In India, various school monitoring systems exist that capture different
aspects of the education system. However, evolving socio-economic and policy contexts require the
constant revision of monitoring systems to capture changing needs.
The Orissa Department of School and Mass Education (DoSME) introduced a school monitoring and
evaluation system in November 2010. The scheme, called Samiksha1, involves continuous monitoring of
nearly all government elementary2 schools, analysis of school performance data based on 80 indicators,
and the implementation of interventions directed at improving school quality. The innovativeness of
Samiksha stems from its broad scope, frequency, and regularity. No other state in India has implemented
a scheme involving such frequent and geographically widespread monitoring of schools—each month
about 5,000 monitors collect data from approximately 50,000 schools, or more than 90 per cent of all
government elementary schools in Orissa. 1 The DoSME also refers to Samiksha as Samikhya. This report uses Samiksha throughout.
2 The term „elementary‟ refers to primary (Class I-V) and upper primary (Class VI-VIII) levels.
Guided by the emphasis of the national Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act
on school quality, Samiksha‟s 80 indicators represent the inputs and processes which determine the
outcomes in a model school. The indicators are divided into five categories: School Environment,
Curricular Program, Co-curricular Program, School-Community Link and School Management. Thus,
this new system of continuous monitoring and evaluation provides policy makers and other stakeholders
with a broad assessment of the state of education in Orissa and facilitates the development of strategies
for improvement in the quality of schooling.
However, the novelty of Samiksha means that there is much uncertainty around how the system is
functioning in actuality. The purpose of this report is to address these knowledge gaps by providing
documentation that examines lessons learned from the initial performance of Samiksha.
The following questions guided our documentation of Samiksha and analysis of lessons learned:
a. What improvements have been made in the school system since the implementation of Samiksha?
b. How does the school monitoring format and process facilitate the implementation of Samiksha?
c. Does Samiksha reflect the real issues of schools?
d. Does Samiksha accurately capture the progress of schools?
e. What factors explain inter-district and intra-district school performance variation?
We visited 32 schools in four sample districts, Cuttack, Jharsuguda, Keonjhar3, and Koraput, and
conducted semi-structured interviews with Samiksha‟s main stakeholders, including government officials
and school functionaries.4 By analysing the data we constructed lessons learned based on the most salient
themes in the findings. We conclude this report by proposing recommendations for improving the school
monitoring system. 3 Keonjhar is also referred to as Kendujhar. This report uses Keonjhar throughout. 4 See Appendix I and Appendix II For detailed information on Methodology and Questionnaires.
As Samiksha is still new and our sample size is small, a large-scale evaluation of Samiksha is not
appropriate for this study. Nonetheless, this report will play a critical role in developing a strong
foundation for Samiksha through documentation of stakeholder perspectives, identification of challenges
and recommendations of appropriate and viable reforms. Additionally, because the DoSME produced
very little documentation on Samiksha, even in the planning stages, this report will serve as
documentation for the Government of Orissa (GoO) and as an instructional resource for other states
considering the adoption of school monitoring systems like Samiksha. This documentation is useful for
understanding the importance of monitoring systems in achieving RTE Act compliance and how states
address the norms and standards set by the Act. The DoSME seeks to continuously revise and strengthen
the monitoring system. This report will give stakeholders the opportunity to examine the initial
performance of Samiksha and address key concerns before problems become endemic. Finally, the
rationale behind this study is that the long-term success and sustainability of such a large-scale project
depends on building a strong foundation and support from all relevant stakeholders.
Background
To analyze Samiksha it is important to understand the state of education in India and Orissa. This section
will provide an overview of the national and state education policies and interventions. It also provides a
description of existing school monitoring systems in India.
Education context
National policy context
Education is the concurrent responsibility of the Government of India (GoI) and its states. The national
policy context has greatly influenced how the Orissa DoSME has approached the challenges of education
in the state.
Launched in 2001, the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), or Education for All, aims at providing eight years
of quality education to all children in the age group 6-14 by 2015. The GoI implements SSA in
partnership with state governments and through a district-level decentralized management framework.5
The specific goals of the policy are universal enrolment and retention, reduction of gender gaps in
education and increased enrolment and retention of Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and
socio-economically disadvantaged minority groups. The SSA also addresses the crucial systemic issue of
teacher shortages and teacher training and education. 5 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), „Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan: Framework of Implementation‟, p. 2. Available at:
http://ssa.nic.in/page_portletlinks?foldername=ssa-framework
6 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), „Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan: Framework of Implementation‟, p. 3. Available at:
http://ssa.nic.in/page_portletlinks?foldername=ssa-framework
In 2009, the Indian Parliament enacted the RTE Act making free and compulsory education a right of
every child in the age group 6-14 years. The Act came into force on 1st April, 2010, and Orissa was
among the first states to implement it. In addition to issues of accessibility and equity, the RTE Act
emphasizes aspects of education quality such as comfortable Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR), curriculum
reform and improvement of student evaluation methods.6 However, the school system is faced with an
acute shortage of teachers. Moreover, the provision of adequate training to available teachers also remains
crucial in order to fulfil the “child-centred teaching” envisioned in the RTE Act.
State of education in Orissa
The State Education Policy in Orissa, developed and implemented the DoSME, reflects the national
education priorities and is based on achieving the goals of SSA. It is implemented through two agencies,
the Directorate of Elementary Education (DEE) and Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority
(OPEPA).
The Orissa DoSME conceived of Samiksha in the context of critical challenges faced by the state‟s
education system. These challenges include gender, regional, and SC/ST disparities in literacy rates and
educational achievement; language barriers for ST children and accommodating cultural diversity through
the curriculum. The state is home to 62 tribes which comprise 22.1 per cent of the population and speak
30 different languages.7 Even though overall state literacy rates have improved, reaching the India
average rates, SC/ST children lag behind with lower enrolment rates and higher drop-out rates (see Table
1) due to reasons such as cultural and language barriers. Poor retention rates also hamper the achievement
of universal elementary education (UEE), a key aim of the national SSA initiative. To address some of the
disparities, the state adopted the national Mid-Day Meal Programme and implemented a Multilingual
Education Programme (MLE). The Mid-Day Meal Programme, launched in 1995 by the Ministry of
Women and Child Development, aims at promoting regular school attendance while improving the
nutritional status of children at the primary level.8 The MLE Programme, which uses the tribal language
of the area as the medium of instruction, has been implemented in schools in tribal areas since 2006.9 It
operates under the belief that when children learn in their own mother tongue and environment, it helps
them to develop their knowledge in their own socio-cultural context. 7 Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India, „Orissa: Data Highlights: The
Scheduled Tribes‟, Census of India 2001, New Delhi, 2001. Available at:
http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/dh_st_orissa.pdf
8 National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA), Government of India. „Education for
All Mid-Decade Assessment: Reaching the Unreached‟, New Delhi, 2008, pp. 26-27. Available at:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001817/181775e.pdf
9 Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority (OPEPA), „Multilingual Education in Orissa: Issues and
Interventions.‟ Available at: http://www.opepa.in/MLE_in_Orissa.pdf
Teacher shortages, inadequate teacher training and the lack of a sufficient number of school facilities and
poor school infrastructure pose additional obstacles to improving education. To address remoteness and
poor communication in many rural areas, following the national RTE norm, the state should provide a
primary school within one kilometre of all habitations with a minimum population of 300 people. In case
of habitations located in hilly areas with minority population, the norm is 200 people. Furthermore, the
state should provide an upper primary school within a distance of three kilometres in every habitation
with a minimum population of 500 people.
Table 1: Comparison of education in Orissa and India
Orissa
India
Literacy Rate10 Overall 73.45 74.04
Male 82.40 82.14
Female 64.36 65.46
Drop-Out Rates (Classes
I-VIII)11
All
Categories
Overall 62.63 48.71
Boys 64.83 48.49
Girls 59.49 48.98
SC Overall 67.55 55.25
Boys 67.18 53.70
Girls 68.02 57.28
ST Overall 80.74 62.95
Boys 81.66 62.76
Girls 78.96 63.20
Percentage of Single-Teacher Primary Schools12 17.99 12.26
10 Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India, „Provision Population Totals,
Orissa Series‟, Census of India 2011, New Delhi, 2011. Available at:
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_data_products_orissa.html
11 Department of Education, Planning, Monitoring and Statistics Division, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India, „Selected Education Statistics 2005-2006: MHRD‟, New Delhi, 2008.
Available at: http://www.educationforallinindia.com/SES2005-06.pdf 12 National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA) and Department of Social Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India, „Elementary Education in India: Progress Towards UEE‟, Flash Statistics DISE 2009-2010, New
Delhi, 2011. Available at:
http://www.dise.in/Downloads/Publications/Publications%202009-10/Flash%20Statistics%202009-10.pdf
Education interventions in Orissa
Taking universal enrolment, universal retention and quality education as essential for the proper
implementation of the RTE Act, the DoSME has introduced a number of interventions, as discussed
below.
Ama Vidyalaya: Ama Vidyalaya is a school beautification project which includes provisions for
improving both external and internal spaces of schools. For example, schools should construct a
boundary wall around the school and establish a Teaching Learning Material (TLM) corner inside
each classroom. All schools receive Rs 75,000 to assist with the implementation of the project. As part
of the Ama Vidyalaya, every school is required to have a student cabinet. Members of the cabinet are
responsible for various activities related to hygiene and sanitation, food, environment, education and
discipline. The student cabinet is an initiative to increase student participation in the management of
schools and enhance their leadership capabilities.
Samarthya: Samarthya is an integrated training and capacity building plan for elementary and
secondary school teachers.
School Management Committee (SMC): The RTE Act mandates the constitution of a SMC in every
school, other than unaided schools. The responsibilities of the SMC include recording the academic
progress of students, ensuring the enrolment and continued attendance of all the children, monitoring the
implementation of the Mid-Day Meal Programme and improving the school facilities and environment.
Siksha Chetana Abhiyan: Siksha Chetana Abhiyan is a massive state-wide campaign to encourage
community mobilization for the implementation of the RTE Act. Conducted from 15th to 21st April,
2011, in collaboration with the Department of Rural Development, Department of Scheduled Caste &
Scheduled Tribe Development and UNICEF, it aims to promote sanitation practices in schools through
community participation. Additionally, it includes „Pravesh Utsav' in which school premises are
decorated to welcome newly-enrolled children.
Monitoring systems
Role of monitoring systems
A well-functioning monitoring system is critical for the effective achievement of programme or, in this
case, education goals. Monitoring is:
“...a continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide
management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development intervention with indications of the
extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds.”13 13 The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation
and Results Based Management, Paris, 2002, pp. 27-28. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf
For an effective monitoring process, the collection of data must be accompanied by its analysis and
evaluation. Monitoring in education also requires the establishment of standards for the effective
assessment of features such as teacher quality, curricula, student performance and other elements of the
entire education system.14 14 Tavola, H. „Educational Planning‟, Journal of Educational Studies, Volume 30, Nos. 1 and 2, 2008, p. 3.
15 World Bank, „Why is it Important to Institutionalize Government M&E System?‟ Available at:
http://go.worldbank.org/ZDHJ987I80
16 National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), „Education Survey.‟ Available at:
http://www.ncert.nic.in/programmes/education_survey/index_education.html
While monitoring holds stakeholders accountable for their actions, the effectiveness of a monitoring
system also depends on the involvement of various stakeholders. Increased awareness of Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E), and its tools, methods and techniques, helps to increase the demand for it and thereby
strengthens its functioning. Thus, the institutionalization of a monitoring system is necessary for its
success. The institutionalization of an M&E system implies that:
“…it produces monitoring information and evaluation findings which are judged valuable by key
stakeholders, when this information is used to improve government performance, and when there is
sufficient demand for the M&E function to ensure its funding and its sustainability for the foreseeable
future.” 15
Other monitoring systems in India
Policy makers often use data from a variety of monitoring systems to develop education strategies. The
three most widely used are discussed below:
All India Education Survey (AIES): Conducted by the National Council of Educational Research and
Training (NCERT), AIES enables the collection of information on the country‟s overall progress in the
area of school education. However, the time lag between the collection and the dissemination of data is a
significant limitation of this system.
AIES covers availability of schooling facilities in rural habitations; physical and educational facilities in
schools; incentive schemes and beneficiaries; medium of instruction and languages taught; enrolment
particularly of SCs, STs, girls and educationally disadvantaged minority groups; teachers and their
academic and professional qualifications; library; laboratory; ancillary staff and subject-wise enrolment at
+2 stage of education.16
District Information System for Education (DISE): DISE is a school-based statistical system initiated in
1995 to monitor the implementation of the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP). In 2001, in
light of the SSA, DISE was extended to cover the level of elementary education in the entire country.
District and School Report Cards are produced to provide information in a standardised format.
Furthermore, it has drastically improved the time lag in data dissemination from seven to eight years to
less than one year.17
17 National University of Educational Planning and Implementation (NUEPA), District Information System for
Education. Available at: http://www.dise.in/Downloads/DISE%20Flier.pdf
18 National University of Educational Planning and Implementation (NUEPA), About DISE. 2009. Available at:
http://www.dise.in/dise2001.htm
19 Annual Status of Education Report Centre, Annual Status of Education Report: Overview, New Delhi. Available
at: http://www.asercentre.org/ngo-education-india.php?p=ASER+survey
DISE covers two types of information: village level and school level. Village-level data comprises
variables related to access to educational facilities of various types, identification of habitations without
access to primary and upper primary schools based on distance norms, inventory of all types of
educational institutions including recognized and unrecognized schools in the village.
School-level information comprises core data on school location, management, rural-urban enrolment,
buildings, equipment, teachers, medium of instruction, age-grade matrix, children with special needs
(CWSN), and examination results. The school summary report, shared with the school, contains key data
on the school and a summary of indicators which are compared with the cluster, block and the district
averages.18
Annual Status of Education Report (ASER): Since 2005, Pratham, a non-governmental organization has
conducted an annual survey to assess children's ability to read simple text and do basic arithmetic.
Covering over 70,000 children, ASER is significant in highlighting the prioritization of education quality
in government policy.19
Strategy and Implementation of Samiksha
What is Samiksha?
Samiksha is a state-wide school monitoring system adopted by the Orissa DoSME in November 2011.
The purpose is to continuously monitor the progress of elementary schools, analyze school performance
data, and implement appropriate interventions to improve the state of education in Orissa. Three key
features define Samiksha:
Scope: Unlike other monitoring systems which collect data on a sample of schools, Samiksha aims to
track 100 per cent of the elementary schools in Orissa. Approximately 50,000 schools out of a total of
53,61420 schools are currently being monitored by about 5,000 monitors. The DoSME plans to expand the
monitoring to reach all schools by August 2011.
20 Department of School and Mass Education, Government of Orissa. Literacy and Mass Education: An Overview.
Available at: http://www.orissa.gov.in/schooleducation/index.htm
Frequency: The Samiksha process occurs on a monthly basis. Monitors quickly identify problem areas
and provide feedback to schools, and the DoSME receives rapid, comprehensive assessments of the state
of education in Orissa.
Regularity: As an ongoing system, Samiksha captures school performance trends over time and aids
in the development of strategies for further improvement in the quality of education.
The Samiksha monitoring format includes 80 indicators which each school should strive to achieve. The
indicators represent the inputs and processes which determine the outcomes in a model school. A team of
experts under the DoSME selected the 80 indicators drawing on pre-existing pedagogical interventions
and teacher training curricula and modules. Many of the indicators are linked to the norms and standards
of the RTE Act and to the state-wide education interventions discussed above. The quality of education
delivered in a school depends on the indicators which are divided into five categories (see Table 2).
Table 2: Samiksha categories and indicators
Category
Number of
Indicators
Example Indicators
School Environment 16 Boundary wall / fence Toilets available and properly used
Curricular Programme 30 Adequate Teaching Learning Materials (TLMs)
available & used by children and teachers
Students actively participate in learning
Co-curricular
Programme
14 Health check-up done in last month
School cabinet functional
School-Community
Link
10 VEC/SMC formed according to rule
School Management 10
Headmaster monitored the teaching of other teachers
Key Samiksha stakeholders
UNICEF: UNICEF is involved in the development of education in Orissa, including the
development and implementation of Samiksha.
Department of School and Mass Education (DoSME): The DoSME, headed by the Secretary is
the primary government agency responsible for administering education services in the state of
Orissa. The current Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Aprajita Sarangi, conceptualized and
spearheaded the development of Samiksha. The State Monitoring Unit (SMU), also known as the
Performance Tracking Cell (PTC), supports the Secretary to develop school improvement
interventions by analyzing the Samiksha school report data, producing state level compilation
reports, and providing feedback to the districts through communication channels and review
meetings.
District Office, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA): The District SSA offices administer education
programmes and services at the district level. The District Project Coordinator (DPC), who heads
the SSA offices, is required to monitor at least five schools per month. The District SSA office
produces a monthly district-level compilation of Samiksha data that is submitted to the DoSME.
This compilation includes cluster and block school reports while the DPC‟s reports are
submitted to the SMU separately and are not included in the state compilation. Other district
officials such as members of the pedagogy cell and planning coordinators play secondary roles
with regard to Samiksha. They may assist with the compilation reports
or utilize data in the development of interventions targeted towards disadvantaged groups such as
girls, tribal children or CWSN.
District Inspector of Schools (DIS)
The DIS is required to monitor at least five schools, preferably upper primary, per month.
Sub-inspector of Schools (SI)
The SI is required to monitor at least five schools, preferable upper primary, per month.
Block Resource Centre Coordinator (BRCC)
The BRCC is required to monitor at least five schools, preferably upper primary, per month. He
produces a block-level compilation of Samiksha data and submits it to the District SSA office.
Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator (CRCC)
The CRCC is required to monitor at least ten schools per month. He consolidates school data into
a cluster-level Individual Compilation Format (ICF) and submits it to the BRCC for inclusion in
the block-level compilation. As the most ground-level official, the CRCC has the greatest
responsibility for ensuring school improvement.
Village Education Committee/School Management Committee (VEC/SMC)
The VEC is a working group of local community members that manages schools in a particular
village. In April 2011, the DoSME directed all schools to replace the VECs with SMCs. In
June 2011, most schools had made this transition. The SMCs, led by a President and constituted
of parents, teachers and community members, perform a similar function to the VEC.
Headmaster
The headmaster is a teacher who is the highest figure in a school. Along with the SMC President,
the headmaster has access to and makes decisions regarding school funds. The headmaster is
responsible for directing school improvement initiatives.
Teachers
Teachers, along with headmasters, are responsible for the functioning and improvement of
schools. Teachers receive feedback directly from the BRCCs and CRCCs and are held
accountable for the progress of schools.
Students
Students do not actively contribute to Samiksha but are passive beneficiaries of the system.
School improvements have the greatest impact on the education of students.
Community
The communities surrounding schools do not actively contribute to Samiksha but are passive
beneficiaries of the system through the overall improvement of the community through
education.
Figure 1: Key Samiksha stakeholders
Process
Samiksha process
Monitoring of schools
CRCCs, BRCCs, SIs, DISs, DPCs and state officials serve as school monitors. CRCCs are required to
spend a full day at each school while BRCCs, DISs, SIs and DPCs are required to spend one to two hours.
Monitors observe all aspects of the school including classroom transactions; interact with students and
teachers; and share observations with teachers, the headmaster, the VEC/SMC President and community
members. In consultation with teachers CRCCs record on the school monitoring format five specific
actions for the school to take up in the next month. The monitoring process functions like a dialogue on
school improvement between the monitor and teachers. Ultimately, this dialogue is the primary
mechanism for school improvement.
Monitors complete a school monitoring format in which they select „yes‟ or „no‟ to indicate the presence
or absence of each of the 80 indicators.21 Monitors sub-total the number of „yes‟s‟ for each of the five
categories to obtain a category score and then total the category scores to obtain an overall school score.
The number of teachers in position, number of teachers present, number of teachers in uniform, number
of classrooms available, and class and total enrolment and attendance figures are recorded. Additionally,
the format includes spaces for the following: 21 DPCs and DIs have a separate format that includes 30 of these 80 indicators. Their formats are sent to the SMU separately and are not included into the district compilation.
comments on each indicator;
school improvement activities by category for the next month;
progress made after previous monitoring event; and
remarks and suggestions by the CRCC including innovative TLMs and practices observed, important
issues raised by teachers, and five important activities to be taken up in the coming month.
The monitor leaves one copy of the completed school monitoring report with the school and retains a
second copy for use in the compilation reports. See Appendix III for a sample school monitoring format
and Appendix IV for a completed school report.
Compilation of data
The data compilation process follows the same schedule each month (see Figure 2).
1st-19th day: School monitors visit schools and complete monitoring reports.
20th day: The CRCC compiles his reports into an Individual Compilation Format (ICF) and submits the
ICF to the BRCC. The BRCC and SI compile their reports into ICFs. The DIS submits his ICF to the
DPC, and this ICF is compiled with the DPCs consolidation of his own school monitoring reports.
22nd day: The BRCC consolidates the ICFs from the CRCCs, SIs, and BRCCs into a block level
compilation, the BCF. The BRCC submits the BCF to the DPC.
25th day: All BCFs are consolidated into a district-level compilation, the DCF, which the DPC submits
to the SMU. The DIS/DPC compilation is sent separately to the SMU.
25th-7th days: The SMU consolidates all DCFs into a State Compilation Format (SCF) and submits it to
the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. The compilations of DPCs, DISs and other state officials are submitted
separately by the SMU to the Secretary.
State analysis and feedback
The SMU ranks the block and district scores, and plans to rank cluster scores in the future. The ranked
scores are classified according to colour-coded quartiles (see Table 3).
Table 3: Samiksha colour-coded ranking categories
Category
Colour
Percentage
A Green 76-100
B Purple 51-75
C Yellow 26-50
D Red 1-25
The SMU also conducts additional analysis to determine key problem areas within the 50 poorest
performing blocks and communicates this information through memos to the appropriate DPCs.
District meetings are held in which the DPC and BRCCs discuss Samiksha progress and
strategies for improvement. The BRCCs are responsible for working with CRCCs to identify
poor performing schools and improve their scores.
Figure 2: Flow of school data and feedback
Secretary SMU DIS SI DPC
BRCC Samiksha school report data
Feedback on school improvement
School
CRCC
Analysis of Samiksha process
In the section below we analyze the findings related to the functioning of the Samiksha process.
Although Samiksha has increased stakeholder awareness about the inputs and processes
necessary for school improvement, some key stakeholders still lack awareness.
The 80 indicators in Samiksha represent the qualities of an ideal school. As Samiksha has given
headmasters and teachers a structured format and guidelines of what they need to accomplish for
school improvement, they can now identify the problem areas in their school. In addition,
Samiksha has led to improvements in curricular and classroom activities as teachers have
become more aware of the inputs and processes they should use for classroom transactions. For
example, teachers now realize the importance of using TLMs, stories and other interactive
activities rather than traditional teacher-centred methods in order to foster child participation and
promote peer learning. Furthermore, the frequency and structure of Samiksha make headmasters
aware of the importance of maintaining more organized and
thorough records. This improvement in school management facilitates the further development of
schools. Even though Samiksha has raised awareness among school actors, most SMC members
were unaware of it. This is understandable as SMCs were only created in March 2011. However,
the lack of awareness among some teachers is problematic and remains a key obstacle to the
successful implementation of Samiksha.
The standardized school monitoring format facilitates the collection and analysis of school
data. Standardization of reporting formats is one of the most advantageous characteristics of any
monitoring system. Compared to other nationwide monitoring formats, the Samiksha reporting
format is particularly simple because it is centred on a relatively small number of indicators. The
„yes/no‟ format facilitates the collection, analysis and comparison of data from a large number
of schools. Monitors can easily collect data, identify problem areas and track the progress of
schools each month. In addition, schools benefit from the standardized format through
increased awareness of steps for improvement and through the systematization of the school
improvement process. Also, the format aids in undertaking analysis at different levels by
providing a common platform for evaluation.
The school monitoring format presents challenges to the implementation of Samiksha.
The monitoring format also has disadvantages that impact the broader Samiksha process. While
all monitors attended a one-time training before the initiation of Samiksha, the DoSME did not
provide detailed guidelines on how to judge individual indicators. Instead, monitors must rely on
their own judgment and make subjective decisions about the presence or absence of each
indicator. For example, when a school has only a partial boundary wall, some monitors will
choose „yes‟ to indicate that the boundary wall is present, while others will choose „no‟ to
indicate that is not present. In Cuttack, a CRCC explained that if there is one wall, he marks
„no‟, but if there are three or four walls, he marks „yes‟. In a similar case, a Keonjhar DIS
instructed BRCCs and CRCCs to mark „yes‟ even if only ten per cent of the boundary wall
existed.
For many indicators in the Curricular Programme category, monitors must evaluate classroom
situations to determine the presence or absence of an indicator. This kind of monitoring is
particularly subjective. How many children must raise their hand to indicate that “children ask
questions freely?” What level of participation is necessary to qualify as “children actively
participate in learning?” What constitutes “positive behaviours towards CWSN, girls, SC and ST
children”? For example, in a Koraput school the indicators „teacher knows every child by name
and social background‟, „students actively participate in learning‟, „students ask questions
freely‟ and „peer learning encouraged in classroom‟ were marked as
„yes‟ even though the CRCC indicated in the comments section that „some are‟. Instead of
making the monitoring process more objective, the „yes‟/‟no‟ format makes monitoring more
subjective and prone to variation.
The „yes‟/„no‟ format is also problematic for monitors when indicators are present but not
appropriately functional. For the indicator “toilets available and properly used”, some schools
in the sample had toilets available, but students were not able to use them because the facilities
were improperly maintained. For instance, in a Koraput school, the CRCC marked „yes‟ for
„toilets available and properly used‟ but indicated in the comments that they are „fully
damaged‟. Similarly, in another school in Koraput, the CRCC marked „yes‟ for child-friendly
elements but indicated in the comments section that they were not functional. By forcing
monitors to choose either „yes‟ or „no‟, Samiksha school reports may suggest a higher level of
improvement than has actually taken place.
Monitors use the comment spaces provided next to each indicator to elaborate on their decision
to select „yes‟ or „no‟. They also use the final sections of the format, including “Remarks and
Suggestions by the CRCC” and “Important Issues Raised by Teachers”, to more accurately
describe school issues. These qualitative components play an important role in structuring the
monitoring process as a dialogue on school improvement between CRCCs and teachers.
However, these comments are not taken into account in the school‟s overall score or in district,
block or cluster rankings. Additionally, because these sections are not included in the
compilation reports, they are not considered during the analysis. BRCCs, district officials and the
SMU may consequently have imperfect information on school-level realities.
The grassroots monitoring process is problematic.
Due to issues such as inaccessibility and remoteness of schools, and lack of CRCC motivation
and professionalism, CRCCs may not independently verify information thereby leading to
inaccurate reports. A lack of monitoring of CRCCs also aggravates the problem of
misrepresentation of information in school reports. Additionally, CRCCs have inadequate
training on Samiksha monitoring. Despite experience as teachers, CRCCs may not have a proper
understanding of some indicators and may lack capacity to make recommendations for the
improvement of those indicators. In Keonjhar there was a shortage of CRCC and BRCC
monitors. As a result, some schools are not monitored.
Some schools are double-counted in Samiksha compilation reports and analysis.
Some schools are monitored twice in a month by multiple officials, almost always a CRCC and a
BRCC. Because these officials do not coordinate their visits, two school monitoring reports are
completed and
included in the compilations reports. In this way, Samiksha is double-counting schools.
Twenty-eight per cent of the schools in the sample had incidences of multiple counting. In these
affected schools, 43 per cent of the total reports were repetitions. Most of the repetitions included
discrepancies of only two or three indicators. However, in some cases the discrepancies were
greater than ten indicators. In one case from Cuttack, the CRCC and BRCC visited the same
school only eight days apart, yet the BRCC reported an overall score of 44 out of 80, 22
indicators less than the CRCC‟s score of 66 out of 80. These discrepancies are problematic.
First, they reveal the subjectivity of Samiksha monitoring. In the Cuttack case, the BRCC
indicated that separate toilets were available for girls and courses were covered according to
scheme, while the CRCC indicated that there were no separate toilets for girls and courses were
not being covered according to scheme. Additionally, the double-counting of schools means that
the qualities of double-visited schools are being over-represented in compilation reports.
Finally, because BRCCs are more likely to visit easily accessible, and consequently better
performing, schools, Samiksha results may be upwardly skewed.
Measures undertaken to improve the Samiksha process
Despite the problems described above, the DoSME has already taken actions to improve the
Samiksha process.
Performance Appraisal System of CRCC: To assess grassroots-level monitoring, state officers
visit schools in an assigned education district and complete a school monitoring format intended
to assess the monitoring performance of CRCCs.
State-level meeting for BRCCs and CRCCs of the 50 lowest performing-blocks: To have a
clearer view of the problems faced by the 50 lowest-performing blocks, a state-level meeting was
organized for all of the BRCCs and CRCCs of these blocks. This meeting also helped to increase
the accountability of these stakeholders. The goal was to better understand the reasons behind
low performance in order for the DoSME to more effectively design and target interventions and
support these blocks.
Cluster-level analysis has been initiated in some districts: Some districts have initiated
analysis of cluster-level data to better identify problem areas.
SMC training at the district level: District-level training for SMC members has been initiated
to inform them of Samiksha.
Progress and Results
In the next section, we analyze the progress made in the education system since the implementation of
Samiksha. We also examine the factors that may enable and hinder this progress.
Samiksha has made the school improvement process more systematic.
Samiksha has created a state-wide flow of information and feedback. By bringing all stakeholders
together under one platform, Samiksha has improved communication between them. The monitoring
system has allowed the state to keep track of the progress of schools in all districts and identify
poor-performing districts as a first step to improve education state-wide. Furthermore, Samiksha has
made the work of schools more systematic. Schools now have a clear list of indicators that they need to
achieve according to a given timeline. The CRCC process of setting monthly priority targets helps
schools to be more systematic in making improvements.
Samiksha has made all stakeholders more accountable in fulfilling their responsibilities.
Officials are more accountable for school improvement through their role as monitors. Samiksha has also
alerted school-level actors of their duties and responsibilities and made them accountable by requiring
them to achieve monthly targets. According to state data, teacher attendance has improved (see Figure 3).
Interviewee responses support this and suggest that teacher punctuality has also improved. Teachers and
headmasters reported that since Samiksha teachers have realized their responsibility to motivate the
community and parents to send children to school. However, student regularity remains a challenge as
much depends on guardians and parents and the perceived importance of education.
Figure 3: Teacher Attendance22 80
85
90
95
100
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Teacher Attendance (% )
Months (2010-2011) 22 Data from the DoSME Samiksha presentation, April 2011.
23 Overall 29 districts out of 30 have improved. Despite fluctuations, there is no difference between Koraput‟s
November 2010 and April 2011 score.
Samiksha has tracked school improvement progress.
Despite some variation, overall the Samiksha scores across the districts23 have improved. As depicted in
Figure 4, even though Jharsuguda started with the lowest score of 42 per cent, it increased by 23 per cent
in just six months, surpassing both Koraput and Keonjhar. Keonjhar has slowly improved by 8 per cent
whereas Koraput has remained stagnant achieving only 55 per cent. Despite a dip in February, Cuttack
has steadily increased its score to become one of the best-performing districts. We address some of the
reasons for these variations below.
Figure 4: District overall Samiksha score24 30
40
50
60
70
80
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Samiksha Score (%)
Months (2010-2011) Cuttack Jharsuguda Keonjhar Koraput 24 Data from the DoSME Samiksha presentation, April 2011.
The 32 sample schools displayed progress in all five categories of Samiksha. As illustrated in Figure 5
even though Curricular Programme has increased the most by 32 per cent it remains the second lowest
category. This increase may be attributed to the increased awareness of school actors regarding inputs and
processes for teaching. However, insufficient teacher training presents challenges to further improvement
in this category. The rest of the categories have increased in the six months by around 20 to 25 per cent.
Regarding Co-curricular Programmes, some teachers in a school in Jharsuguda suggested that there
should be greater scope for both theoretical and practical training in order to be able to implement what
they learn in theory on the school ground. Community participation has strengthened with monthly PTA,
MTA and SMC meetings conducted regularly since they are now part of the 80 indicators that are
mandatory and are monitored by officials. The dip experienced in the School-Community Link category
in March may be partly explained by the fact that SMC were newly formed and were still in the process
of learning about their duties and responsibilities. It must be noted that all schools are not visited every
month. Thus, the number of schools included in each data point in Figure 5 varies by month. Given these
limitations, caution should be taken when interpreting the figure below.
Figure 5: Improvement of sample schools by category25 40
60
80
100
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Samiksha Score (%)
Months (2010-2011) School Environment Curricular Programme Co-curricular Programme School-Community Link School Management Overall Score 25 Graph drawn using data available from the Samiksha reports of the sample size of 32 schools visited during fieldwork.
Factors Enabling Progress and Results
Individual motivation is critical for the effective management of resources.
Some schools are able to make positive change given the available resources. Motivated actors are able to
use innovative and resourceful practices to impact change in schools. Motivation levels may vary for
reasons such as community support, workload and personal characteristics. The following are some
examples:
Teachers can take initiatives for the improvement of their schools. A teacher in a rural Cuttack school
complained about the unavailability of raw materials required for making TLMs while another suggested
that TLMs should be provided to the teachers by the District SSA office. These examples illustrate the
contrast with a rural Keonjhar school where teachers use the Rs 500 TLM grant provided to all teachers
state-wide to procure raw material for making TLMs and students actively participate in making them.
According to state guidelines, school toilets are to be cleaned by students under the guidance and
supervision of a teacher. A teacher in an urban Cuttack school complained that parents would not let their
children clean toilets. As a result, the toilets remained dirty unless the headmistress washed them herself.
However, another school in the same district overcame this problem by discussing with parents the
hygiene and health issues associated with unclean toilets. It created a student cabinet, with a Sanitation
Committee comprising students appointed on monthly-rotation basis. The Sanitation Committee was
responsible for keeping toilets clean and teaching very young children how to use them.
The motivation of headmasters is critical for school improvement. In a Keonjhar school, which
consistently scored at or below 50 per cent, the headmaster had not reported to work for several months.
Furthermore, two schools located a few kilometres apart within the same cluster in Koraput had very
different Samiksha scores. Despite an indifferent CRCC, the presence of an active and motivated
headmaster may have enabled the better performing school to improve. Through his initiative, the
headmaster was able to involve the neighbouring community and the SMC in school improvement.
However, the poor performing school did not have strong support from the headmaster or other
stakeholders. In another instance in a Keonjhar school that lacked physical space for a playground, the
headmaster provided child-friendly toys as an alternative to child-friendly elements.
The role of parents and the community is also crucial in school performance. At a school in Cuttack,
tensions between the VEC President and the headmaster over funding and the joint control of the school
bank account impeded the construction of a much-needed new school building. However, in many cases
parents and community have a positive impact. For example, to overcome a lack of funds, an involved
SMC President in a Keonjhar school applied for and was allocated the Member of Parliament Local Area
Development (MPLAD) fund to construct a boundary wall. Members of the MTA in a Jharsuguda school
visited the school daily. They were involved in cooking the Mid-Day Meal and supervising construction
activities in the school. The group‟s intensive involvement in the school helped the school to more than
double its Samiksha score from November to April.
Local initiative is also significant in the performance of Samiksha. In Koraput, a local organization,
People‟s Group for Children‟s Development (PGCD), developed a monitoring initiative to track child
participation. This monitoring scheme was subsequently adopted by the District SSA office. During their
visits, CRCCs also have to interact with children and collect data on child participation activities such as
the school cabinet and child reporting. The district then analyzes the data with the aim of assessing and
increasing child participation in schools. Thus, in ensuring that certain critical indicators are properly
understood and fulfilled by schools, this initiative furthers the aim of Samiksha. For example, the
initiative monitors the use of the Idea Box by requiring monitors to check the suggestions given by
children and their implementation.
Factors Hindering Progress and Results
False progress captured in Samiksha score.
In some cases, Samiksha only measures the presence of certain indicators and does not reflect on their
usage. Thus, the achievement of an indicator may not indicate real success if the improvements are not
appropriately functional. This was most evident in the case of the Idea Box. In Koraput, teachers and
officials reported that the notion of student participation in school improvement was unfamiliar to the
students. As a result, students did not use the Idea Box. In most other instances across the four districts,
student submissions comprised stories and songs instead of ideas for school improvement. Additionally,
following Samiksha guidelines, almost all schools had placed dustbins in every classroom. However,
because of the absence of a well-functioning garbage collection service, a school in Keonjhar reported
emptying the school waste just outside the premises in the surrounding area, thereby undermining the
values of cleanliness and hygiene dustbins are meant to instil. Furthermore, according to Ama Vidyalaya
guidelines, a subject-wise Question Bank is to be available and hung on a designated wall in the
classrooms. While the Question Bank was available in most schools, it was kept in the headmaster‟s
office and not in apparent use. Again, while TLM corners were present in many classrooms, they were
often not stocked with adequate TLMs.
Samiksha indicators primarily focus on inputs.
The assumption behind Samiksha is that an improvement in inputs will lead to improved school quality.
A further assumption is that improved school quality will enhance student outcomes. However,
Samiksha includes only a few indirect measures of student achievement, such as “students master
learning outcomes as per Scheme” and „„written work done and regularly corrected.” While such
indicators capture some elements of student performance, they are difficult to objectively monitor.
Without linking objective measures of student outcomes to Samiksha it becomes difficult to accurately
measure the effectiveness of the school monitoring system.
School capacity to improve Samiksha indicators may be constrained by administrative issues.
Several issues related to teachers impact a school‟s capacity to improve. These include teacher training,
teacher shortage and multi-grade teaching as a result of classroom shortages. Other factors include limited
funding and resources. Some schools may not have the land to build child-friendly elements, and others
may not have access to water which may impact their ability to properly maintain toilets. In addition, lack
of inter-departmental coordination is problematic for the achievement of some indicators. For instance, in
schools where there are no toilets, the support of the Rural Works Department, which is responsible for
the construction of toilets, is needed. In schools where the condition of building infrastructure of hostels
is poor and deteriorated intervention from the Tribal Welfare Department is necessary. Similarly, the
support from the Health Department is needed to coordinate with the field-level staff to visit the schools
regularly and check the health of the children.
Important issues not accounted for in the Samiksha process nonetheless affect school ability to perform
well on Samiksha indicators.
In spite of the comprehensiveness of Samiksha‟s indicators, schools face issues that fall outside their
scope. For instance, schools in all four districts commonly cited teacher shortage as the most critical issue
facing their school. Teacher shortage affects both PTR and multi-grade teaching. However, schools are
not authorized to appoint teachers. Because teachers are such an important link in school improvement
and are directly involved with the implementation of many of the indicators, teacher shortage is an
obstacle to improving a school‟s Samiksha score.
Samiksha school performance is affected by the socio-economic conditions of the surrounding
community.
School performance is also dependent on factors external to the school system. Some Samiksha indicators
focus on classroom transactions which directly involve students, who cannot be separated from their
context. Poverty, illiteracy of parents and guardians, child work and seasonal migration for work are
responsible for student absenteeism, which directly and indirectly affects Samiksha scores. In Koraput
and Keonjhar, cultural issues such as the prevalence of child marriage and gender bias affect the
attendance and performance of children in school. Furthermore, language is a major issue in tribal areas,
creating a communication gap between teachers and ST students, particularly young students of classes I
and II. The presence of multiple tribal languages in an area, adversely affects the teaching and learning
process in the classroom and therefore, the motivation of children to attend school.
If students are missing school, their participation and achievement is adversely affected. For instance, in
Keonjhar students are irregular because they participate in work in the household and the fields and this
affects their availability and participation in the schools. In some areas of Jharsuguda, families migrated
for three to four months to work on brick construction. Children would move with their families and thus
their irregular attendance affected their learning outcomes. Moreover, schools in remote areas face several
additional challenges. Poor roads and communication networks impact teacher attendance and monitory
visits by officials.
Lessons Learned
The documentation of Samiksha provides lessons learned that apply both specifically to the
implementation of Samiksha in Orissa and more broadly to the use of monitoring systems in India and in
other contexts.
A school monitoring system is an essential way forward in the implementation of the norms and
standards of the RTE Act.
Having a monitoring system that incorporates the norms and standards of the RTE Act has helped Orissa
to assess the state of education and move towards improvement in the school system. As other states
implement the RTE Act, they may consider adopting a large-scale monitoring system like Samiksha.
Such a system could be beneficial to every state if adapted to the local context to take into account the
baseline conditions and socio-economic and demographic characteristics.
Broad scope, frequency and regularity are essential features of an effective school monitoring
system.
These characteristics have contributed to Samiksha‟s effectiveness as a school monitoring system. Given
that a large portion of Orissa‟s population lives in inaccessible areas and that remote schools are typically
excluded from review, an expansive monitoring system is necessary to ensure that all schools have a basic
level of prescribed inputs. The frequency and regularity of the monitoring process ensures that there is
minimal time lag in the availability and analysis of data. It also facilitates the state-wide tracking of
school progress.
Raising the awareness and capacity of all stakeholders is critical for a successful and sustainable
school monitoring system.
For a school monitoring system to be successful all stakeholders such as government officials, school
staff, parents and community members must recognize its importance and potential. This recognition will
motivate them to actively participate in the school improvement process and ensure the proper
implementation of the system. Furthermore, capacity-building of actors is critical for ensuring reliable
collection and analysis of data and for strengthening the system. Finally, stakeholder commitment and
involvement is necessary for the long-run sustainability of the system.
An integrated school improvement and monitoring approach is crucial for an effective school
monitoring system.
School improvement should take place both during the monitoring visits and after data analysis and
feedback. In addition to data collection the monitoring system should also be about creating spaces for
dialogue on school improvement between school-level actors and monitors. Monitors should collaborate
with school-level actors to prioritize problem areas, set targets and adopt actions for improvement. This
interaction between monitors and school-level actors is just as important to a monitoring system as
top-level data analysis and development of interventions.
Next Steps After analyzing the process and implementation of Samiksha, we recommend the following next steps.
These should guide the DoSME‟s further improvement of Samiksha.
Increase awareness about Samiksha among stakeholders.
Increased awareness of Samiksha among stakeholders will not only serve to enhance school performance
but also strengthen and institutionalize the monitoring system itself. However, most SMC members and
some teachers showed low levels of awareness about Samiksha. If made aware, these stakeholders can
provide an additional level of monitoring beyond the official monitors. Through continuous and informal
monitoring, these actors can serve exert extra pressure on schools. For example, if SMC members raise
questions regarding a school‟s provision of inputs required by Samiksha, headmasters and teachers may
feel more accountable.
Actions
CRCCs should conduct Samiksha information sessions at the school level with SMC, PTA and MTA
members.
Cluster-, block- or district-level workshops should be held for SMC members and teachers to address
knowledge gaps and provide further details about Samiksha‟s 80 indicators.
Improve capacity of monitors.
The DoSME should provide further training to CRCCs and BRCCs to improve their understanding of
their various Samiksha responsibilities. Monitors should understand how to judge the more subjective
indicators and how to coordinate school visits between them to ensure that all the schools are covered and
are not double-counted other than for verification purposes. Additionally, the BRCC and CRCC capacity
to support and guide schools towards the achievement of Samiksha indicators must be improved.
Actions
The DoSME should provide precise instructions for assessing the indicators. In addition, the DoSME
should develop and disseminate guidelines for the achievement of indicators.
The DoSME should provide training to BRCCs and CRCCs on how to analyze Samiksha school
reports to enable inter- and intra-cluster comparisons.
Ensure proper monitoring.
Given the remoteness of some clusters and schools, the monitoring of school monitors is required to
ensure that they are performing their duties as per Samiksha guidelines.
Actions
The DoSME should strengthen and regularize the existing system for monitoring of monitors. In the
monitoring, the DoSME should place special emphasis on remote clusters and schools as these are the
most affected.
The DoSME should also ensure that action is taken against fraudulent and inaccurate reporting.
Develop stronger and more systematic information and feedback flows.
The DoSME should improve the mechanism for channelling information down to lower levels. Improved
mechanisms should also be developed for communicating information on school issues to upper levels.
Actions
The process of block and cluster analysis already initiated in some districts should be regularized and
introduced into all districts such that clusters and schools receive feedback on their district and state-wise
ranking.
The cluster and block compilation report should be revised to include sections for qualitative school
information so that actors at the district level can be informed of school-level issues.
Feedback and information sharing meetings for BRCCs and CRCCs from the lowest performing blocks
should be regularized to facilitate communication among stakeholders.
Revise Samiksha continuously to ensure the ongoing improvement of schools.
Revisions to Samiksha indicators are necessary to ensure that school performance trends do not plateau.
These revisions will incrementally stretch each school towards the goal of becoming a model school.
Action
The DoSME should eliminate widely-achieved indicators and introduce more challenging ones to
ensure that schools continue to improve. For example, when the question bank is present in at least 95 per
cent of schools, the indicator “subject-wise question bank available” should be revised to “subject-wise
question bank properly used according to scheme”.
References Annual Status of Education Report Centre, Annual Status of Education Report: Overview, New Delhi.
Available at: http://www.asercentre.org/ngo-education-india.php?p=ASER+survey
Department of Education, Planning, Monitoring and Statistics Division, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India, „Selected Education Statistics 2005-2006: MHRD‟, New Delhi,
2008. Available at: http://www.educationforallinindia.com/SES2005-06.pdf
Department of School and Mass Education, Government of Orissa. Literacy and Mass Education: An
Overview. Available at: http://www.orissa.gov.in/schooleducation/index.htm
Koraput District Office, Government of Orissa, „Biju KBK Plan 2010-2011‟, 2010. Available at
http://koraput.nic.in/New/planning/plan.html
National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), „Education Survey.‟ Available at:
http://www.ncert.nic.in/programmes/education_survey/index_education.html
National University of Educational Planning and Implementation (NUEPA), About DISE. 2009.
Available at: http://www.dise.in/dise2001.htm
National University of Educational Planning and Implementation (NUEPA), District Information System
for Education. Available at: http://www.dise.in/Downloads/DISE%20Flier.pdf
National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA), Government of India.
„Education for All Mid-Decade Assessment: Reaching the Unreached‟, New Delhi, 2008, pp. 26-27.
Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001817/181775e.pdf
National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA) and Department of Social
Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, „Elementary
Education in India: Progress Towards UEE‟, Flash Statistics DISE 2009-2010, New Delhi, 2011.
Available at:
http://www.dise.in/Downloads/Publications/Publications%202009-10/Flash%20Statistics%202009-10.pdf
Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India, „Orissa: Data
Highlights: The Scheduled Tribes‟, Census of India 2001, New Delhi, 2001. Available at:
http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/dh_st_orissa.pdfhttp://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Publis
hed/SCST/dh_st_orissa.pdf
Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India, „Provision Population
Totals, Orissa Series‟, Census of India 2011, New Delhi, 2011. Available at:
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_data_products_orissa.html
Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority (OPEPA), „Multilingual Education in Orissa: Issues and
Interventions.‟ Available at: http://www.opepa.in/MLE_in_Orissa.pdf
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), „Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan: Framework of Implementation.‟ Available at:
http://ssa.nic.in/page_portletlinks?foldername=ssa-framework
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Glossary of Key Terms in
Evaluation and Results Based Management, Paris, 2002, pp. 27-28. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf
Tavola, H. „Educational Planning‟, Journal of Educational Studies, Volume 30, Nos. 1 and 2, 2008, p. 3.
World Bank, „Why is it Important to Institutionalize Government M&E System?‟ Available at:
http://go.worldbank.org/ZDHJ987I80
Appendix I
Methodology
Site selection rationale
Sample selection structure
We selected four districts for the fieldwork and data collection. Within each district we selected two
blocks, within each block two clusters, and within each cluster two schools. Therefore, our total sample
consisted of 32 schools across 16 clusters in eight blocks. The structure of the sample for one district is
depicted in the figure below, and all districts follow the same pattern.26 District Block Cluster School
School Cluster School School Block Cluster School School Cluster School School 26 See Appendix V for individual district selection.
Figure 3: Sample selection structure
District profiles and selection rationale
We selected the four sample districts, Cuttack, Jharsuguda, Keonjhar and Koraput to represent a range of
geographic, demographic and socio-economic characteristics and Samiksha rankings facilitating cross-
district comparisons. As indicated in the map below, the districts were selected to represent the northern,
southern, eastern and western regions of Orissa as well as various levels of literacy rates (see Table 4).
Map 1: Map of Orissa
Cuttack: Cuttack is the administrative and commercial centre of Orissa. In 2010, the overall literacy rate
was 84.20 per cent against an overall literacy rate of 73.45 per cent for the state.27 Gender disparity in
literacy rates is relatively low compared to other districts (male: 90.51 per cent, female: 77.64 per cent).28
Overall, the district has consistently scored in the top five per cent for each month of Samiksha reporting.
The inclusion of Cuttack in the sample serves as an example of a well-performing district. 27 Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India, „Provision Population Totals,
Orissa Series‟, Census of India 2011, New Delhi, 2011. Available at:
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_data_products_orissa.html
28 Ibid.
Jharsuguda: This district lies in Orissa‟s industrial belt and is rapidly being urbanized with the expansion
of power, metal and cement plants. Consisting of only five blocks, this small district lies on the
north-western part of the state. While 17.07/31.34 per cent of the population is classified as SC/ST29,
literacy rates slightly exceed the state average (overall: 78.36 per cent; male/female: 86.27/70.05 per
cent).30 Jharsuguda ranked fifth out of 30 districts on the Samiksha report card from April. Both Keonjhar
and Jharsuguda represent average-performing districts that still face many challenges.
29 Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India, „Provision Population Totals,
Orissa Series‟, Census of India 2011, New Delhi, 2011. Available at:
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_data_products_orissa.html 30 Ibid.
31 Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India, „District Profiles‟, Census of
India 2001, New Delhi, 2001. District Profiles. Available at:
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/PopulationFinder/District_Master.aspx?state_code=21
32 Ibid.
33 Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India, „Provision Population Totals,
Orissa Series‟, Census of India 2011, New Delhi, 2011. Available at:
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_data_products_orissa.html 34 Ibid.
35 Koraput District Office, Government of Orissa, „Biju KBK Plan 2010-2011‟, 2010. Available at:
http://koraput.nic.in/New/planning/plan.html
Keonjhar: The population of Keonjhar largely depends on agriculture with 86.36 per cent residing in rural
areas.31 Literacy rates are below the state average (overall: 69 per cent; male/female: 79.22/58.7 per cent),
though still significantly better than very poor districts such as Koraput. The district is located in
north-eastern Orissa and is home to 46 STs32 with SC/ST making up 11.62/44.5 per cent of the
population.33 In April, Keonjhar ranked 19th out of 30 districts on the Samiksha district report card. In
both Keonjhar and Koraput, tribal populations constitute a large portion of the rural population and are
disadvantaged in respect to education. Poor road networks, high poverty rates and language gaps for ST
populations pose significant challenges in these two districts.
Koraput: Koraput has the third lowest literacy rate (overall: 49.87 per cent; male/female: 61.29/38.92 per
cent) in the state and stands in stark contrast to Cuttack.34 Socially segregated and isolated tribal
communities make up for more than 50 per cent of the population, and more than 80 per cent of villages
include only SC/ST populations.35 Poor infrastructure and difficult communication throughout the district
are the main obstacle to improve education. While Koraput has consistently ranked in the bottom five per
cent for each month of Samiksha report, overall the district is meeting nearly 50 per cent of the indicators.
The inclusion of Koraput in the sample serves as an example of a poor-performing district.
Table 4: District profiles
District
Literacy
Rate36
Population37
Samiksha, April
2011
Overall
Male
Female
SC
ST
Rural
Urban
Overall
Score
Rank
Cuttack 84.20 90.51 77.64 19.08 3.57 72.61 27.38 72.46 2
Jharsuguda 78.36 86.27 70.05 17.07 31.34 63.53 36.47 65.13 5
Keonjhar 69.00 79.22 58.7 11.62 44.50 86.36 13.64 61.41 19
Koraput 49.87 61.29 38.92 13.04 49.62 83.19 16.81 54.82 28
36 Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India, „Provision Population Totals,
Orissa Series‟, Census of India 2011, New Delhi, 2011. Available at:
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_data_products_orissa.html
37 Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India, „District Profiles‟, Census of
India 2001, New Delhi, 2001. District Profiles. Available at
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/PopulationFinder/District_Master.aspx?state_code=21
Block, cluster and school selection rationale
To facilitate the intra-district comparisons and to understand the reasons behind variations in Samiksha
scores we selected a relatively low performing block and a relatively high performing block within each
district (see Figure 4). Furthermore, we collected information from blocks and clusters with different
geographic and demographic characteristics. The final sample consists of a variation of rural and urban
schools as well as schools with different SC/ST populations. This sampling variation helped to examine
how the external factors affected schools performance in the achievement of Samiksha indicators.
Figure 4: Overall Samiksha scores for sample blocks38 69.49
61.62
62.70
55.00
57.36
59.11
70.27
52.81
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Jharsuguda Kirmira CMC Narasinghpur Banspal Harichandanpur Koraput Semiliguda Jharsuguda
Sample Blocks Cuttack Keonjhar Koraput SamikshaScore (%)
38 Data from the DoSME Samiksha presentation, April 2011.
Participants
Although the primary unit of analysis was the school, stakeholders at all levels participated in the
study. Sample sizes for participant groups varied in the four districts based on availability and
relevance (see Table 5). We divided the participants into government officials and school-level
actors.
Government officials: At the state level, participants included the Secretary and SMU officials.
At the district level, participants included officials in the District SSA office such as the DPC,
Planning Coordinators, the DIS and others. BRCCs and CRCCs of the selected blocks and
clusters also participated in the study.
School-level actors: At the school level, participants included the headmasters and teaching staff,
SMC Presidents and members, students and other community members.
Table 5: Participants
Participant Type
Number of Participants
Government Officials Commissioner-cum-Secretary 1
State Monitoring Officer 1
District Project Coordinator 4
District Pedagogy Coordinator 2
District Tribal Coordinator 1
District Inspector of Schools 1
Sub-Inspector of Schools 2
Block Resource Centre Coordinator 5
Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator 13
School-level Actors39 Headmaster 29
SMC members 14
Teachers 24
MTA members 1
Students 18
Community members 1
39 Interviews conducted with groups of students, SMC members and MTA members are counted as one participant.
A group includes two or more individuals.
Procedure
The fieldwork was conducted over two weeks from June to July 2011. We documented and analyzed
lessons learned from the initial performance of Samiksha using qualitative research methods. To capture
issues at the policy, operational, and ground levels, we selected a broad range of methodological tools as
listed below:
1. Analysis of policy documents, census and human development reports, and Samiksha school reports,
and compilation reports;
2. Individual and group semi-structured interviews with government officials and school-level actors;
3. Observations of schools infrastructure and classroom transactions.
To analyze the lessons learned, we identified and examined recurring themes arising from our interviews
and observations. Furthermore, we used Samiksha school reports to supplement the findings.
Research constraints and limitations
Shortage of time was one of the major limitations to the research: Ten days of fieldwork limited the
amount of time spent at each school. This inhibited us from building trust and rapport with teachers,
children, and SMC members and affected the responses.
Small sample size: Given that Samiksha monitors approximately 50,000 schools in Orissa, 32 schools
are not an accurate representative sample.
Communication: Most interviews were conducted with translators. In the use of three languages, Oriya,
Hindi and English, some ideas may have gotten lost.
Limited process documentation on Samiksha: Limited process documentation was an additional
challenge to the initial development of the project.
Unforeseen challenges during the fieldwork: Various changes had to be made to the design of the
research. Although we had originally planned to verify selected Samiksha indicators during school visits,
this was not possible due to the shortage of time and other logistical challenges. In addition, we slightly
deviated from our original sample selection structure by visiting three instead of two clusters in two
blocks. Finally, even though the presence of government officials during school visits was necessary to
provide access to schools, it may have influenced the responses of participants.
Appendix II State Secretary Questionnaire
1. Why was there a need for Samiksha?
2. How did you develop the concept for the system? Was your idea influenced by national and state
policies, specifically RTE?
3. How does Samiksha differ from other planning, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that are
institutionalized within the government?
4. What is your opinion of the progress of Samiksha since its inception? What improvements in the
sphere of education have come about as a result of the establishment of Samiksha?
Has Samiksha minimized inequities in the provision of educational services as per the specified
indicators?
5. What have been the main challenges from your standpoint in implementing Samiksha?
6. What changes and reforms to the system in the future will be needed to accomplish the original goal of
Samiksha?
Other State Level Officials Questionnaire
1. Why was there a need for Samiksha?
2. How does Samiksha differ from other planning, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that are
institutionalized within the government?
3. How does the funding mechanism work? Do you divide the funds equally for each district, block and
school or is there some kind of formula?
4. Do you provide any additional funding to the low performing districts/blocks/schools to improve their
indicators?
5. Who is responsible for implementing the system? Who reviews the analyzes and reports and proposes
interventions?
6. How does the State communicate the results and suggests interventions to lower government
authorities such as at the district, block and cluster level? Do you target interventions to improve specific
indicators state-wide and if so how do you prioritize the indicators? Or, do you target interventions at the
regional level and if so how do you prioritize the regions that receive the interventions?
7. How have the various stakeholders such as district, block and cluster officials and schools responded
to the initiative?
8. Who is responsible for supervising and monitoring interventions at the district, block and school
levels?
9. What is your opinion of the progress of Samiksha since its inception? What improvements in the
sphere of education have come about as a result of the establishment of Samiksha? Has Samiksha
minimized inequities in the provision of educational services as per the specified indicators?
10. What have been the main challenges in implementing Samiksha?
11. What changes and reforms to the system in the future will be needed to accomplish the original goal
of Samiksha?
District Officials Questionnaire
Personal Information
1. What is your position?
2. How long have you been in this position?
3. What are your main responsibilities/duties in this position?
4. What would you say are the biggest challenges in education in Orissa and in your district?
5. How do you divide your time between serving different blocks/clusters/schools? Are some
blocks/clusters/schools easier to work with? Why?
Samiksha
Implementation
6. Are you involved in Samiksha? What is your specific role? Please describe in detail how you were
involved with Samiksha in the last months.
7. How often do you receive the score card of your district with individual-school information?
8. Who or which department is responsible for analysing the data collected from the field and suggesting
interventions? Who is responsible for implementing interventions and ensuring the improvement of
schools?
9. How do you use the monthly report to plan and target interventions at the block, cluster or school level
in order to improve your score?
10. Who are the stakeholders in Samiksha and what are their roles?
Impact
11. What improvements in the sphere of education in your specific district do you think have come about
as a result of the establishment of Samiksha?
12. How do you respond to state recommendations for improving school performance in your district?
13. How does the funding mechanism work in relation to school improvement? Do you divide the funds
equally for each block and school or is there some kind of formula?
14. Has there been a time in the last year that you did not have the resources you needed to perform your
duties? What resources were lacking? How were you able to get these resources?
15. Why is your district score good/average/bad? What are the challenges or obstacles to improve your
indicators? Are there factors (socio-economic, geographical, cultural) outside of the school system that
affect Samiksha indicators and your capacity to improve them?
16. Have you received any additional funding to improve the low performing blocks/schools of your
district?
17. Have you received help, other than financial assistance, on how to improve low-performing
blocks/schools?
18. Do you have any concrete examples (using a particular indicator, maybe?) of how the data you have
collected has influenced or changed the implementation of interventions and programmes to improve your
district‟s schools‟ performance?
Perceptions
19. In your opinion, is there need for a performance tracking system like Samiksha to monitor progress in
education throughout the state?
20. Do you think of Samiksha as an important and necessary system for ensuring progress towards
achievement of RTE?
21. How closely do you think Samiksha reflects the real issues on the ground?
22. Do you think Samiksha is able to objectively capture the progress in the schools in your district?
23. Were you consulted on the development of Samiksha? Have you been consulted regarding its
implementation?
24. Who do you think benefits most from Samiksha?
25. If you had to make changes for improvement in Samiksha, what would these changes be? Have you
expressed these recommendations/suggestions to your superior?
Other questions
26. Do you have any examples of Samiksha monitoring reports that you can share with us?
27. Could you suggest other officials who we should meet to get more information for our research?
28. Could you suggest specific schools or clusters we should visit to get a more holistic view of education
patterns in your district as reflected in your score cards?
Block and Cluster Officials Questionnaire
Personal Information
1. What is your position?
2. How long have you been in this position?
3. What are your main responsibilities/duties in this position?
4. What would you say are the biggest challenges in education in Orissa and in your district/block/cluster?
5. How do you divide your time between serving different clusters/schools? Are some clusters/schools
easier to work with? Why?
Samiksha
Implementation
6. Are you involved in Samiksha? What is your specific role? Please describe in detail how you were
involved with Samiksha in the last months. (If a monitor, do you feel the training you received was
sufficient? If you have doubts about how to answer indicators, is there someone you can consult?)
7. Who are the stakeholders in Samiksha and what are their roles?
8. Who or which department is responsible for analysing the data collected from the field and suggesting
interventions? Who is responsible for implementing interventions and ensuring the improvement of
schools?
9. Do you receive the score card of your district with individual-school information?
10. Do you use the monthly report to plan and target interventions at the block, cluster or school level in
order to improve your score?
Impact
11. What improvements in the sphere of education in your specific school/cluster/block/district do you
think have come about as a result of the establishment of Samiksha?
12. How do you respond to district recommendations for improving school performance in your
block/cluster?
13. How does the funding mechanism work? Do you divide the funds equally for each block/cluster and
school or is there some kind of formula?
14. Has there been a time in the last year that you didn‟t have the resources you needed to perform your
duties? What resources were lacking? How were you able to get these resources?
15. Why is your district score good/average/bad? What are the challenges/obstacles to improve your
indicators? Are there factors (socio-economic, geographical, cultural) outside of the school system that
affect Samiksha indicators and your capacity to improve them?
16. Have you received any additional funding to improve the low performing schools of your
block/cluster?
17. Have you received help, other than financial assistance, on how to improve them?
18. Do you have any concrete examples (using a particular indicator, maybe?) of how the data you have
collected has influenced or changed the implementation of interventions and programmes to improve your
district‟s schools‟ performance?
Perceptions
19. In your opinion, is there need for a performance tracking system like Samiksha to monitor progress in
education throughout the state?
20. Do you think of Samiksha as an important and necessary system for ensuring progress towards the
achievement of RTE?
21. How closely do you think Samiksha reflects the real issues on the ground?
22. Do you think Samiksha is able to objectively capture the progress in the schools in your block/cluster?
23. Were you consulted on the development of Samiksha? Have you been consulted regarding its
implementation?
24. Who do you think benefits most from Samiksha?
25. If you had to make changes for improvement in Samiksha, what would these changes be?Have you
expressed these recommendations/suggestions to your superior?
Others
26. Do you have any examples of monitoring reports that you can share with us?
27. Could you suggest other officials who we should meet to get more information for our research?
28. Could you suggest specific schools or clusters we should visit to get a more holistic view of education
patterns in your district as reflected in your score cards?
SMC Members Questionnaire
1. How many members are there in the committee? How many parents, teachers, others? How many
SC/ST parents? How many mothers?
2. How often do you meet?
3. What are the main issues discussed?
4. What is your decision-making process?
5. How do you improve your school?
6. What are your responsibilities in terms of financing?
7. Do you take initiatives for new programmes or do you follow directions from the district, block and/or
cluster officials?
Samiksha
8. Are you familiar with Samiksha? What do you know about Samiksha? How did you first learn about
it? What do you think is its main purpose? Do you feel Samiksha will enhance the improvement of your
school?
9. Was there any kind of orientation or training workshop held when Samiksha was implemented?
10. Do you receive your school‟s score report cards? If yes, how often?
11. Do you ask for data/info from Samiksha? If yes, how often and in what way do you use it?
12. In the past months, have you received any information from Samiksha reports that has been useful to
you? If yes, please describe it. Have the reports influenced the way and materials you use to teach?
13. How has Samiksha affected your duties/responsibilities? In the past months, have you received any
information from Samiksha reports that has made your job more challenging? If yes, please describe it.
14. Who is responsible for implementation and monitoring of district or state interventions?
Perceptions
15. In your opinion, what are the strengths and weaknesses of Samiksha? Where do you think it can
improve?
16. How closely do you think Samiksha reflects the real issues on the ground?
17. Do you think Samiksha is able to objectively capture the progress in the schools in your block/cluster?
18. What do you think are the main challenges/obstacles in improving your school performance and
reaching the RTE goals in your village?
Teachers Questionnaire
Personal Information
1. How many years of teaching experience do you have?
2. What is the highest level of education you have? Have you received any teacher training before starting
or during your years as a teacher?
3. What class do you teach? Is it a multi-grade class?
4. What are your main responsibilities/duties other than teaching?
5. Can you describe a typical day?
6. Are you satisfied with your job? Are you happy with your duty station? Was this your first choice? Do
you know the local dialect/ tribal language of the area you are stationed in?
Samiksha
7. Are you familiar with Samiksha? What do you know about Samiksha? How did you first learn about
it? What do you think is its main purpose? Do you feel Samiksha will enhance the improvement of your
school?
8. Was there any kind of orientation or training workshop held when Samiksha was implemented?
9. Do you receive your school‟s score report cards? If yes, how often? Do you ask for data or
information from Samiksha reports? If yes, how often and in what way do you use it?
10. In the past months, have you received any information from Samiksha reports that has been useful to
you? If yes, please describe it. Have the reports influenced the way and materials you use to teach?
11. How has Samiksha affected your duties/responsibilities? In the past months, have you received any
information from Samiksha reports that has made your job more challenging? If yes, please describe it.
Perceptions
12. In your opinion, what are the strengths and weaknesses of Samiksha? Where do you think it can
improve?
13. Do you think Samiksha is able to objectively capture the progress in the schools in your block/cluster?
14. How closely do you think Samiksha reflects the real issues on the ground?
Students Questionnaire
1. Why do you come to school?
2. What do you like about school?
3. What do you not like about school?
4. If you do not sometimes come to school, why?
5. What changes do you think will make school better for you?
6. How far do you live from school? How to you get to school?
7. Do you have to work after school?
Appendix III Sample Samiksha school monitoring format SAMIKSHA: ____________________________________________________________________________________
SCHOOL MONITORING SCHEDULE (For CRCC / BRCC / SI of Schools) MS-I
Instructions For CRCC Observe at least 10 schools in a month. Spend the whole day in the school, observe at least two classroom transactions and take a demonstration class. Interact with teachers and a few students. Share your observations with teachers in a cordial manner. Decide the activities to be taken up in the next month in consultation with teachers. Preferably, share your observations with the VEC President / Community Members Prepare two copies of the report: (i) one for the school, (ii) one for your office record. Compile all the monitoring outcomes of your visits in the prescribed proforma(ICF-1) before the 20thday of the month and submit the same at BRC on the next day. For BRCC / SI of Schools Observe at least 5(five) schools, preferably Upper Primary/Elementary schools in a month. Spend at least two hours in the school on the day of visit and observe at least one classroom transaction. Interact with teachers and a few students. Share your observations with teachers in a cordial manner. Decide the activities to be taken up in the next month in consultation with the teachers. Prepare two copies of this report: (i) one for the school, (ii) one for your office record. Complete your school monitoring by the 20th day of every month. Compile all the reports of your visits in the prescribed format (ICF-2) in duplicate and place one copy at the BRC by 22nd day of the month. BRCC and S.I.s of Schools of the block are to consolidate all the reports of compilation of all CRCCs, S.I.s of Schools and the BRCC in the prescribed proforma (BCF-7) in duplicate and submit one copy to the DPC of the District by 22nd day of the month.
SCHOOL MONITORING SCHEDULE Date of visit: …………………..….. Arrival: …………..… Departure: ………..…. Duration: ………………….…… hours
School Category: A / B / C / D
________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary Statement (Fill up the table after you have completed the monitoring activity) Dimension School
Environment (16)
Curricular Programme (30)
Co-curricular Programme (14)
School-Community Link (10)
School Management (10)
Total (80)
No. of “Yes” responses
Percentage
___________________________________________________________________________________________ Name of the School: …………………………………………………….. Range of Classes: I-V/I-VII/I-VIII/VI-VII/VI-VIII Cluster: ……………………………………………….… Block: …………………………………… District: …………………..……………….. No. of Teachers In position
No. of Teachers Present throughout the day
No. of teachers with uniform
No. of classrooms available
Class I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total
Enrolment
Attendance
Percentage
A. SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT Indicators Status Comments, if
any One/Two activities for the next month
Yes No Boundary wall / Fence
School compound is clean Garden Kitchen garden Drinking water Toilets available and properly used Separate toilet for girls
Information Board properly filled Child-friendly elements (slides, swings, etc.)
Ramp and Rail Classrooms named Classrooms are clean Dustbin in each classroom Children show cleanliness habits Textbooks available with every child Idea Box B: CURRICULAR PROGRAMME Features Status Comments, if any Two/ Three activities for the next
month
Yes No Teacher knows every child by name and social
background Adequate classroom /seating space Language used by teachers understood by children
Courses covered according to scheme Lesson notes maintained and used in classroom transactions
Students mastered learning outcomes as per scheme
Ground level blackboard available and used in Class I
Adequate TLMs available and used by children and teachers
TLM corner in each class Student-prepared TLMs available in the school Subject-wise Activity bank available Wall activities used for learning Textbook Practice exercises done by children Written work done and regularly corrected Students actively participate in learning Seating arrangement done as per activity Students ask questions freely Peer learning encouraged in classroom Children take up and complete project work Children’s products displayed Subject-wise Question Bank available Unit test done according to scheme
Unit Test results recorded and shared with students
Unit test results shared with parents Unit test results used to improve student performance
Progress Card regularly maintained Teaching provision to cater to the learning needs of CWSN and low achievers
Indication of positive behaviors towards CWSN, girls, SC and ST children
Library books issued to students during last month
Reference materials (handbook, manual etc) for teachers available in school .
C: CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAMME Features Status Comments, if any One/Two activities for the next month
Yes No Prayer held in time
News of the Day read in the prayer class All teachers present in the prayer class Health check up done in the last month School cabinet functional
MeenaManch / Meena Cabinet functional Meena cabinet activities recorded Physical Educational activities / Sports done as specified in time table
Work experience activities (handicrafts, clay modeling, cleaning etc.) done in school regularly.
Debates, essay, quiz, seminar/guest talk done monthly
Bi-monthly Art education facilities (dance, song, drawing etc.)
Science/ Math exhibitions done in the school during the last year
Club activities (reading club, nature club etc) conducted in school
Co-curricular performance reflected in progress card
D: SCHOOL-COMMUNITY LINK Features Status Comments, if
any One activity for the next month
Yes No VEC / SMC formed according to rule
VEC / SMC meeting held last month Resolutions of VEC / SMC meetings implemented
Activities done as per School Development Plan by VEC/ SMC
PTA meeting held during last quarter MTA meeting held last month Children’s attendance and performance discussed in last MTA / VEC / SMC meeting
VEC / SMC / Community members discuss children’s learning and performance
VEC / SMC / Community members participate in co-curricular activities
VEC / SMC monitors the utilization of grants
E: SCHOOL MANAGEMENT Features Status Comments, if
any One/Two activities for the next month
Yes No MDM served regularly
Annual Calendar of activities available and displayed
Activities done according to Annual Calendar
Head-teacher monitored the teaching of other teachers
Log Book properly maintained NTB register maintained TLM stock register maintained General Stock Register Cash Book for SIG, TLM, R & M SIG, TLM & R & M Grants properly utilized F. DEMONSTRATION LESSON BY CRCC Features Status Comments, if
any Brief description of the topic and the innovative strategy followed
Yes No CRCC took a demonstration class
Teachers were present in the demonstration class
Follow up discussion with teachers after demonstration class
G. PROGRESS MADE AFTER PREVIOUS MONITORING EVENT Monitoring done during last two months
Sl no Monitoring personnel Date Suggested activities in the last monitoring Progress made
1.
2.
3.
4.
H: REMARKS AND SUGGESTIONS BY THE CRCC Did you discuss your observations with the teachers? Yes / No Did you discuss your observations with the VEC members? Yes / No Any innovative TLMs and pedagogic practices observed. Yes/No
Innovative TLMs and practices observed Key Initiator(s)
Important issues raised by teachers:
Issues Suggestions by CRCC
1.
2.
3.
Five important activities to be taken up in the coming month
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Signature of all Teachers: Signature of the CRCC / BRCC / SI of Schools Date:
Appendix II Completed School Monitoring Format
Recommended