Source: PIB & Ministry of Human Resource Development
The Performance Grading Index (PGI) is a tool to provide insights on the status of school education in the States and UTs including key levers that drive their performance and critical areas for improvement. Department of School Education and Literacy (DoSEL) has designed the PGI to catalyze transformational change in the field of school education.
Performance of states and UTs 2017-18
- Inter-State Differential: On a maximum possible of 1000 points, the range between the States and UTs with the highest and the lowest score is almost 300 which is 30% of the maximum points. Thus there exists a considerable difference within the States and UTs as far as their performance in the arena of School Education is concerned as assessed by the PGI.
Grading of states as per PGI
- Best Achievers vis-a-vis the Ultimate Goal: The States and UTs which are in Grade 1 as per the evaluation this year, still have considerable ground to cover to reach the maximum aggregate of 1000 points. Thus, Chandigarh, Kerala and Gujarat, which are in the first grade are ranked 34th, 22nd and 5th in terms of their size. Similarly, the States which are in Grade VI, are ranked 23rd (Meghalaya), 26th (Nagaland) and 15th (Arunachal Pradesh) respectively.
- Size vis-a-vis Performance: The Performance of a State/UT is often perceived to be linked to the size (geographical area) of the State/UT as it has a bearing on several logistic, administrative and other issues. However, size does not appear to be a determining factor in the performance of States and UTs in the field of School education as assessed by the PGI.
- Population vis-a-vis Performance: Population may be construed to be a hindrance to development as it tends to increase the financial burden of interventions by the Government. In terms of population size, the Grade 1 States and UTs are 32nd (Chandigarh), 13th (Kerala) and 9th (Gujarat). The population ranking of three States viz. Meghalaya, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh which are in Grade VI are 23rd, 25th, and 27th respectively. Hence, the effect of the population on the performance of States and UTs is inconclusive.
- Domain-wise performance of states: A summary of Domain wise performance of all the States and UTs is as follows.
- An analysis of the Domain wise performance shows that while the best performing States and UTs have done very well or fairly well across all Domains all of them still have some way to go before they reach the highest levels.
- Good Practices: Each State/UT, it is heartening to note, has some areas where it has done exceedingly well. It is expected that the PGI would act as a platform for the States and UTs to share the best practices and thereby enable all States and UTs to improve their overall performance.
- The Weakest Links:
- A Domain wise analysis also brings out some areas of general concern for all the States and UTs. It is pertinent to note that in the case of all the four Domains categorized under Outcomes, the top score is more than 90% of the maximum possible points in the respective Domain. However, in the case of the Domain relating to Governance & Management, the top score (279, Gujarat) is only 78% of the maximum points (360).
- At the other end of the spectrum, the minimum score obtained in this Domain is below 40% (36.1%). This clearly implies that this is the area all States and UTs must focus upon. The PGI accords the highest importance to this Domain because compliance with the indicators here will lead to critical structural reforms in areas ranging from monitoring the attendance of teachers to ensuring transparent recruitment of teachers and principals.
- While it is common knowledge that shortage of teachers and principals and administrative staff, lack of regular supervision and inspection, inadequate training of the teachers, timely availability of finances (all of which are captured in the Governance and Management Domain) are some of the factors plaguing the education system in the country, it is for the first time that there is a reliable tool which corroborates this.
- Through the PGI, the shortfalls can be measured objectively and regularly. This is crucial for taking necessary steps to eliminate the gaps.
- The second area that require attention is the Domain for Infrastructure and facilities where the lowest score obtained was only 38% of the Maximum points. Indicators like availability of ICT facilities, timely availability of textbooks and uniforms, which are critical inputs for better performance of students (and mentioned in the RTE Act), are measured in the Infrastructure & Facilities Domain.
- Learning Outcomes: This is perhaps the most important Domain and is the ultimate goal of the Index. However, unlike other Domains which are relatively easier to comply with e.g. providing infrastructure facilities or setting up mechanisms to check attendance, improving learning outcomes takes time and patience. All the other Domains support Learning Outcomes and converge towards it. It has been observed that, in general, the scores of learning outcomes obtained in the higher standards are less than those in the lower standards. It is therefore, imperative to ensure better interventions at the lower standards as it will have a positive cascading effect at the higher levels.