E4384 V1 India – Third Elementary Education Project (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan - III) Limited Environment Assessment and Management Framework Page 1 of 85 Draft Version: December 7, 2013 Abbreviations AWP&B Annual Work Plan and Budget BoQ Bill of Quantities BRC Block Resource Centre CSS Centrally Sponsored Scheme CWSN Children with Special Needs DEO District Education Office DFID Department for International Development (UK) DIET District Institute for Education and Training DISE District Information System for Education DPs Development Partners DPC District Program Coordinator DPO District Project Office DPR Detailed Project Report DPEP District Primary Education Program DSEL Department of School Education and Literacy EFA Education for All GER Gross Enrolment Ratio GIA Grant in Aid GoI Government of India ICR Implementation Completion Report IDA International Development Association IFB Invitation for Bid IGNOU Indira Gandhi National Open University IS Indian Standards JRM Joint Review Mission M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDGs Millennium Development Goals MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development MoU Memorandum of Understanding NAS National Assessment Survey NCERT National Council for Educational Research and Training NCF National Curriculum Framework Page 2 of 85 NCTE National Council for Teacher Education NER Net Enrolment Ratio NGO Non-Governmental Organization NIOS National Institute for Open Schooling NOC No-Objection Certificate NUEPA National University for Educational Planning and Administration NSS National Sample Survey O&M Operations and Maintenance PAB Project Approval Board PDO Project Development Objective PRI Panchayati Raj Institutions (local government institutions) PTA Parents-Teachers Association PTR Pupil Teacher Ratio PWD Public Works Department RI Regional Institutions RMSA Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan SC Scheduled Caste SCERT State Council of Education Research and Training SEMIS Secondary Education Management Information System SFG Special Focus Group SIEMAT State Institute of Educational Management and Training SIS State Implementation Society SMDC School Management Development Committee SPO State Project Office SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan ST Scheduled Tribe SWAp Sector-wide Approach TA Technical Assistance TC Technical Cooperation TSG Technical Support Group UT Union Territories WB The World Bank Page 3 of 85 Section 1 Project Background and Description 1. Background The role of Universal Elementary Education (UEE) for strengthening the social fabric of democracy through provision of equal opportunities to all has been accepted since the inception of India as a Republic. The original Article 45 in the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution mandated the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children up to age fourteen in a period of ten ye ars. With the formulation of National Policy on Education (NPE), 1986/92, India initiated a wide range of programs for achieving the goal of UEE. These efforts were intensified in the 1980s and 1990s through several schematic and program interventions, such as Operation Black Board (OBB), Shiksha Karmi Project (SKP), Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Project (APPEP), Bihar Education Project (BEP), U.P Basic Education Project (UPBEP), Mahila Samakhya (MS), Lok Jumbish Project (LJP), and Teacher Education which put in place a decentralized system of teacher support through District Institutes of Education and Training, District Primary Education Programme (DPEP). Currently the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) is implemented as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme in partnership with State Governments for universalizing elementary education across the country. 2. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan – About the Program Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) is India’s main program for universalizing elementary education. Its overall goals include universal access and retention, bridging of gender and social category gaps in education and enhancement of learning levels of children. SSA provides for a variety of interventions, including inter alia, opening of new schools and alternate schooling facilities, construction of schools and additional classrooms, toilets and drinking water, provisioning for teachers, periodic teacher training and academic resource support, text books and support for learning achievement. India passed its Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which became effective from April 2010, and gave effect to Article 21-A (Eighty-sixth Amendment of the Indian Constitution, 2002) making the provision of free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of 6-14 years one of the Fundamental Rights. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which represents the consequential legislation envisaged under Article 21-A, means that every child has a right to full time elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies certain essential norms and standards. The need to address inadequacies in retention, residual access, particularly of un-reached children, and the questions of quality are the most compelling reasons for the insertion of Article 21-A in the Constitution of India and the passage of the RTE Act, 2009. SSA has been designated as the implementation vehicle for RTE. The various provisions, including those pertaining to physical infrastructure and related facilities are to be aligned with the legally mandated norms and standards and free entitlements mandated by the RTE Act. Page 4 of 85 3. Main Achievements of SSA The SSA interventions have resulted in impressive gains, especially in access an d equity. Over the years there has been significant spatial and numerical expansion of elementary schools in the country. Access and enrollment at the primary stage of education have reached near universal levels. The number of out-of-school children has reduced significantly. A decade ago, 25% of the world’s out of school children were in India - this number has now fallen to below 8%, with over 20 million out-of-school children being brought into school, most in low-income states, and enrolment at the elementary level reaching 200 million. The Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) at the primary level improved significantly from 82% to 99.8% during this period – reaching the MDG target. Gender parity has been achieved and the enrolment shares of SCs and STs have in creased relative to their share in the population1. The transition rate from primary (grades 1- 5) to upper primary level (grades 6-8) improved from 75.0% in 2002-03 to 86.6 % in 2011-12. Retention rates in elementary education improved from 32.0% to 54.8% (in states with elementary grades 1 to 8) and from 45.5 % to 80.6% (in states with grades 1-7) over the same time period. The gender gap in elementary education has narrowed and the percentage of children belonging to scheduled castes and tribes enrolled is proportionate to their population. 4. Key Challenges Despite these gains, education in India faces many challenges. There remains an unfinished agenda of universal education at the upper primary stage. The number of children, particularly children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections, who drop out of school before completing upper primary education, remains high. The quality of learning achievement is not always entirely satisfactory even in the case of children who complete elementary education. The main challenge now is to improve pupil attendance and retention, and to focus on learning outcomes, especially for the disadvantaged groups. To achieve this, special efforts are required to enhance social accountability, institutional reform and governance for improved service delivery. In this context, one of the mandates of RTE is that all private schools will provide 25% of its places to children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their school fees will be subsidized by the government. Some of the other key challenges include the following: a) Poor Learning Outcomes: Learning outcomes for children in Indian schools are low and the learning trajectories for children who remain in school are almost flat.2. According to the National Achievement Survey (NAS) for grade 5, administered for the first time in 2009, the national average achievement in mathematics was 46.5%; in language 58.6 %; and in environmental studies 50.3 %. Moreover, the depth of the problem is illustrated by the variation in 1 48.4 % SC enrollment against population of 48.5%; 19.80% ST enrolment against population of 16.20% 2 Planning Commission, GOI – 12th Five-Year Plan Page 5 of 85 test scores; the standard deviations in the average achievement for mathematics, language and environmental studies were 21.3, 18.3 and 20.7 respectively. NAS reflects variation across states that is surprising, with low - income states often out-performing more advanced states. Uttar Pradesh, a state with low human development indicators, was the top performer in 2012 NAS- a result so surprising that it been commented upon by the 17th Joint Review Mission (JRM). In fact, students in Uttar Pradesh represent by far the highest performing State group in mathematics, much higher than students in the more advanced state of Tamil Nadu. Surprisingly, NAS shows that there is no significant difference in achievement between urban and rural students across the country, which the 17th JRM mentions with skepticism. It is pertinent to note here that moving forward, learning assessment systems need strengthening and triangulation with other assessment sources. The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER), which uses a different sampling and testing methodology from NAS, indicate that learning achievement has been decreasing over the years since 2010. Reading proficiency has deteriorated; in 2012, 11.6 % of students are unable to read anything compared with 7.7% in 2010.3 A similar trend is observed for arithmetic proficiency. While it is not surprising that the large influx of students has made efforts to improve outcomes more difficult, the fact remains that too many children are not learning what they need to learn. Even India’s t op schools perform poorly on international assessments. A Quality Education Study (QES) conducted in 2011 revealed that the performance of children in Class 4 in top Indian schools is below international standards, as established through the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). Further, the QES 2011 indicates that there has been a drop in learning levels since the last QES in 2006. b) Dropouts and Attendance: A large percentage of children enter primary schooling but drop out before entering upper primary schooling. The net enrolment rate (NER) at the upper primary level i.e., grades 6 – 8, increased from 50.7% in 2007- 08, to 67.0%, which is still a serious concern.4 Further, dropout rates are higher amongst the marginalized groups and communities such as girls, SC/ST and the Muslim community. There also seems to be a strong correlation between existing literacy levels and student attendance rates. c) Children with special needs (CWSN): According to the Government of India (GOI), there are over 3.2 million children with special needs, of which only 2.7 million are enrolled in schools. Many Non-Government Organizations, however, argue that the number of CWSN is actually much higher. Under the RTE 2009, addressing the needs of CWSN is a state obligation/mandate. However, there are inter- and even intra-state differences in the 3 The percentage of students who are able to read an entire story or at least comfortably read a paragraph from the story reduced by 2.4 percentage points and 2.7 percentage po ints respectively from 2010 to 2012. 4 DISE: 2011-12 Page 6 of 85 measurement, implementation and the understanding of what constitutes inclusive education for these children. Special efforts are needed to provide CWSN scholastic and co-scholastic parity with other children. d) Variations in state performance . Some of the more educationally backward states such as Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh register some of the lowest student attendance rates (less than 60.0%). A large proportion of students in these states belongs to economically weak segments of the population, and is prone to migrate on a seasonal basis. Furthermore, strong variations are observed across geographies, indicating that certain states are clearly doing better than the others. For example, NAS results for grade 5 indicate that average achievement score for the state of Manipur was 74.5%, much higher than the 30.5% in the state of Goa. The latest Educational Development Index (EDI, 2012-13) released on December 5, 2013, reveal that Bihar, West Bengal, UP, Goa and Assam continue to slide down on the EDI5 and Jharkhand is at the lowest spot at 35. Much could be learned from further examining these stark inter-state differences since these differences can provide useful cross-state learning. There is a clear need to support governments in states with poor achievement scores to help them in developing the requisite capacity to improve internal efficiency in schools as well as the quality of education. e) Weak monitoring of and accountability for performance. Teacher performance can be judged by a range of measures, including competence, effort and student outcomes. These in turn can be variously measured. Standards for teacher performance need to be simple, understandable and can be monitored. However, as of now, no systematic effort has been made to develop teacher standards in India. Measurement of student performance now has a robust foundation, with the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) having carried out a national assessment in Class 5 in 2012. However, this assessment methodology has to be extended to other grades and over time. State-level assessments are few and far between, limiting the states’ ability to carry out innovative and remedial programs that clearly address gaps in teacher, school, and student performance. 5. Third Elementary Education Project (SSA III) SSA has been supported by the World Bank, DFID and the EU through a Sector Wide Approach (SWAp). Since 2004, the International Development Association (IDA) has contributed US$1.85 billion to the program, US$500 million in SSA I (2004-07) and US$1.35 billion in SSA II (2008-12). DFID and the European Union (EU) together contributed an additional US$546 million to SSA I and US$375 million to SSA-II. Continuing its support to Govt. of India’s Elementary Education program, SSA III as a project is a Special Investment Lending on a Sector wide (Swap) a pproach and 5 Educational Development Index (2012-13): NUEPA. EDIs are based on parameters like access, infrastructure, student-teacher ratio, teacher training besides outcomes vis-à-vis GER, SC/ST/OBC/Minority enrolment, dropout rates etc. Page 7 of 85 will finance states’ annual work programs and a small number of activities at the national level. As under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA – the elementary education program) I and II, the project will support the whole program and finance a share of the overall program. Financing decisions for Districts and States are made based on the Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP&B) process which are approved by the Project Approval Board (PAB) of the MHRD, GOI. The P roject’s Development Objective is to improve school outcomes of elementary school children through quality-oriented interventions. 6. Programme/Project Interventions There are some continuing gaps in access in some states which will need to be filled through minor civil works (for example, to build toilets for girls and additional classrooms to respond to demand), upgrading of schools, annual school grants, transparent merit and need based recruitment of teachers, salaries of teachers and staff for implementation, and provision of textbooks and other teaching learning materials. The support to SSA III will focus on the key goals of SSA namely: access, equity, quality and institutional reform. However, the shift in activities from SSA II will be seen through two key thrust areas which will be financed under SSA III – (I) Improving quality for enhancing learning outcomes and (ii) strengthening monitoring and evaluation for enhanced accountability. The key new thrust areas for support include: 1) Improving Quality and Enhancing Learning Outcomes 2) Strengthening monitoring and evaluation for improved accountability The component financing the Improving Quality and Enhancing Learning Outcomes will receive special attention in: (i) Development of grade level learning indicators for students; (ii) Early grade reading and mathematics; (iii) Upper Primary Math and Science Learning; and (iv) School Leadership development and School performance assessment. The second component financing Strengthening monitoring and evaluation for improved accountability will have the following key thrust areas : (i) Monitoring learning outcomes; (ii) Evolving performance standards for teachers’ accountability; (iii) Social accountability; (iv) Unified District Education System for Education (UDISE); (v) Special Focus Districts; (vi) Institutional Strengthening at different levels and; (vii) Strengthened planning and Appraisal under the program. Specific details about the proposed scope and coverage of activities under the two said components are detailed out below: 1. Improving Quality and Enhancing Learning Outcomes The project will provide special attention to quality improvement with inherent accountability measures through the special components that will inform the SSA program in all its dimensions including access and equity. The following areas will receive special attention: Page 8 of 85 1.1 Development of grade level learning indicators for students The project will support, through provision of consulting services and training, the development of grade and subject specific learning indicators to m easure children’s progress in acquiring the expected knowledge and skills at different grade levels. The NCERT will develop the model and illustrative indicators at the national level. While a few states have developed the indicators suited to their state specific curriculum, the national indicators will be a ready reference for other states to adopt or adapt. These learning indicators will be used as performance standards for all assessment tools supported under the project, at classroom, state and national level. 1.2 Early grade reading and mathematics The objective is that children in early grades (1 and 2) should achieve foundational skills in reading and mathematics leading to improved retention and improved learning levels. At the national level, NCERT will develop guidelines and quality standards for early grade learning. Each state will use the national guidelines to develop or extend its own state-specific early grade learning program along with the state academic authority and begin implementation in the 2013-14 academic year. Ministry of Human Resource Department (MHRD) will monitor implementation while NCERT will provide capacity building. Specific academic and relevant pedagogical approached will be followed to develop customized learning assessment items for grades 1 and 2. 1.3 Upper Primary Math and Science Learning The grade and subject wise learning indicators established by NCERT will be used by states in their strategies to improve science and math teaching in upper primary schools. There will be specialized teacher training programs (using appropriately developed special training modules) and this will be supplemented by follow up and on-site support through the Block Resource Centres (BRCs) and Cluster Resource Centres (CRCs). Specific approaches have been identified for enhancing math and science teaching standards at the upper primary level like use of math and science kits, worksheets, computer aided learning modules, assignment of projects to students, and setting up of libraries and laboratories. 1.4 School Leadership development and School performance assessment To improve school management competence of school headmasters and educational administrators, a new National Centre for School Leadership (NCSL) within NUEPA (pls. spell out as this is the first time it is being used), will be established, through technical assistance. The NCSL will develop a school leadership program and support its implementation in states, including the development of standards and a framework for assessment of school performance in elementary schools. The program has been initiated in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Mizoram, and Uttar Pradesh, and will be extended to all states during the project period. The project will finance of School performance assessment through development of indicators that will be developed by NUEPA. These will evolve the school as the delivery and accountability point, guided by the common core and set expected performance standards. Page 9 of 85 The initiatives will include (a) school performance standards to provide common core and expectations for all schools (b) guidance on strategies for helping schools to improve (c) use of the performance standards as the reference or benchmark for both internal and external evaluations of the school and (d) school performance standards to be integrated and interlinked with school leadership and teachers’ performance (e)effectiveness of communication enhanced between the different levels for common understanding of the standards. State programs on school standards and performance assessment like the Gujarat’s - Gunotsav, Odisha’s Samiksha and efforts of Karnataka School Quality Assessment Organization (KSQAO) will be used as reference points. The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) England will be providing technical support to NUEPA. 1.5 Teacher training and professional development Recognizing the importance of providing adequate number of teachers, the project will finance systems that facilitate the (i) achievement of the prescribed Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) for each school, (ii) ensuring that no school has a teacher vacancy of more than 10% (through effective redeployment of surplus teachers) and (iii) provision of subject specific teachers, head teacher and part time instructors for art, health and work education in upper primary schools. The practice of recruiting at least 50% women teachers will be encouraged within the fund arrangement for teacher salary in accordance with the fund sharing pattern between Centre and States. The project will finance teachers recruited through a process that takes into account the minimum qualifications as laid down by the designated academic authority for the same, namely the Nation Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The project will finance improvement of elementary education by making available professionally trained teachers for the school system by further strengthening pre-service training through appropriate convergence with the Teacher Education Scheme. The project will support annual in-service training of teachers, to enable them to continuously upgrade their knowledge and teaching skills through (i) identification of teacher training needs (ii) annual review of teacher training packages (iii) long term and sustainable plan for preparation of master trainers and (iv) research and development for teacher training. 2. Strengthening monitoring and evaluation for improved accountability 2.1 Monitoring learning outcomes The project will support a three tier strategy for assessment of learning outcomes for enhanced accountability, through provision of consulting services, training and learning materials:  NAS conducted by NCERT (pls. spell out as this is first time it is being used) : While the technical rigor of the NAS has greatly improved, only one grade (Grade V) has been assessed with the new methodology. The project will support continued capacity building of NCERT to extend the methodology to other grades and to demonstrate reliability over time for a given grade. Moreover, the next challenge is to promote the use of NAS results for remedial action at the policy level and to improve the teacher education system. This will require new skills in qualitative analysis as well as articu lation and dissemination of results. Finally, the project will support expansion of the Page 10 of 85 coverage of NAS to include CWSN in their home and school environment. The project will support these activities through technical assistance (TA) including minor civil works, purchase of equipment and procurement of goods and services.  State Learning Achievement Survey (SLAS): While at the national level the NCERT has been conducting NAS, States/UTs need more disaggregated data on student outcomes at district and sub-district levels for remedial action and corrective measures. States/UTs will be supported, through consultant services and training, in conducting their own SLAS, learning from the experiences of states like Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Bihar. While the NAS is an important tool for highlighting the national and state level picture, what needs as much focus is assessment and analysis of the learning levels at District and sub -district level. The proposed funds would support this effort, in order to create and stre ngthen a culture of measuring children’s learning across states. As a measure to link learning outcomes with budgetary approvals, GOI will link budgetary allocations to state efforts at learning assessments through the Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWPB) process. School level classroom based assessments through the further development of Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) of pupils. The project will fund teacher training, technical assistance, and procurement of learning materials to improve classroom processes with approaches that integrate evaluation having child-friendly approaches and efficient record keeping.  In addition, there will be efforts to strengthen impact evaluation of various aspects of the program. As a first step, the Bank has submitted three proposals to the Strategic Impact Evaluation Trust Fund (SIEF), to conduct rigorous evaluations addressing core issues relating to learning at the elementary level. These evaluations focus on interventions that: (1) build parental and teacher capacity to improve school accountability and learning outcomes; (2) minimize the learning deficits children of seasonal migrants suffer due to periodic relocation; and (3) provide access to low-income children to non-state schools (across the cost spectrum), and compare learning gains in these schools relative to government schools. The SSA program will also make available resources to the states for research and monitoring under the Research Evaluation, Supervision and Monitoring (RESM) grant through which the states will undertake quality research and evaluation research activities. These research inputs will also feed into program implementation. 2.2 Evolving performance standards for teachers’ accountability NCERT will develop, through appropriate provision of training and support, teacher performance standards. The NCERT has developed a framework for Performance Indicators for Elementary School Teachers (PINDICS) that are based on norms and standards as enunciated in various studies and statutory orders of the government issued from time to time. (Details in Annex) These performance standards define the criteria expected when teachers perform their major tasks and duties. Under each performance standard there will be specific tasks which teachers are expected to perform- termed as specific standards. These are further delineated as performance indicators that can be used to observe progress and to measure actual Page 11 of 85 result compared to expected result. These performance standards define the criteria expected when teachers perform their major tasks and duties. These are further delineated as performance indicators that can be used to observe progress and to measure actual result compared to expected result. NCERT will also develop and pilot instruments to measure teacher competence under PINDICS. PINDICs will eventually evolve as the framework for effective teacher performance for effective monitoring and benchmarking across the country. 2.3 Social Accountability The RTE Act, 2009, supports the concept of social accountability and community participation through its various provisions. Every school must have a School Management Committee (SMC) consisting of representatives of the local authority, parents and guardians of children at the school and teachers and also making provision for three-quarters of the members to be from parents/guardians with proportionate representation from weaker section/disadvantaged group and 50% being women. SMCs monitor the working of the school; prepare a school development plan; and, monitor utilization of grants received. A continuous stream of capacity building exercises is needed to strengthen this institution. The project will support strengthening of this grass root level tool of social audit for enhancing social accountability to the community for a well-functioning school. In the context of RTE, the process of social audit that has been in practice thus far will be deepened to allow for the multiple layers and multitude of stakeholders involved in the delivery of education followed by the process of Shiksha Samvad (Education Dialogue) at various levels. 2.4 Unified District Education System for Education (UDISE) The project will finance the Educational Management Information System (EMIS) unit that has been developed for every district in the country. Key data systems of this unit are the school based annual information system called District Information System for Education (DISE) and household survey reports. The project will finance further strengthening and professionalizing data compilation through the aforesaid systems for school based planning; throwing light on infrastructure, access, retention, quality, teacher related issues that will be used in the process of planning and even monitoring, evaluation and mid-course corrections. DISE data collects information from all schools irrespective of its type, recognized or un-recognized, government and private. The project will support the movement towards a unified system of data collection for elementary level, with all ongoing par allel systems amalgamating with DISE. In order to minimize duplication in data collection and multiplicity of agencies collecting data from same schools, the MHRD has unified the data gathering systems across the school sector, developing a Unified DISE (UDISE). UDISE will now consolidate data across the school education sector covering elementary (Classes I-VIII) and secondary (Classes IX-X) segments. UDISE systems will surmount concerns that have emerged around inconsistency in data gathering, overlapping of information sources at the upper primary level especially in case of composite schools (upper primary along with secondary schools). A dedicated wing/section of a permanent nature will be identified/ established that can act as nodal agency at national level. The nodal agency, NEUPA will take over the responsibility of unified system for collection of school education Page 12 of 85 statistics. The project will finance development of the UDISE system that will be rolled out in phases in the academic year 2013-14. State level nodal agencies will be identified to coordinate activities relating to collection, collation and dissemination of data under unified system for collection of school education statistics. Efforts will be supported for the strengthening of systems for collection of duly filled in data collection formats (DCFs), better checking for errors and non - filling at various levels, training of teachers, training CRCs in collection of data, and digitalisation of report generation with more effective dissemin ation of data. Integrated data sets covering all schools at primary, upper primary, secondary and higher secondary levels will be received from all states and hosted at the NUEPA website: schools-www.schoolreportcards.in 2.5 Special Focus Districts The project will finance special interventions for the educationally backward districts that are allocated about 65 % of SSA funds. Low income states (and within them the majority of the special focus districts identified by GOI) are generally the large spending states and will be provided special attention under the project for addressing concerns of out of school children, enhancing transition (especially for children from special focus groups and migrant children) and for quality improvement efforts. In 2012-13, the GOI declared 419 districts as special focus districts. The government gives special attention to these special focus districts, which are identified on indicators of infrastructure deficit, a high concentration of the SCs and STs, minority population, out-of-school children and high gender gap. Funds for these districts are sanctioned on priority for different interventions including opening new schools, teacher recruitment and construction work. Other special focus district categories include Muslim concentration districts, conflict-affected districts and border area districts. NUEPA has developed an Educational Development Index (EDI) to track progress of the States towards Universal Elementary Education (UEE). The project will finance the strengthening of the EDIs for the district and sub- districts levels for effective ranking of states based on their performance on developmental indicators, encouraging states and districts to improve their performance and have a closer look at both the inputs and the outputs for better outcomes. EDIs for each district will be taken into cognizance while preparing the district AWP&Bs and their appraisals for more effective targeting of resources to the neediest regions. The project will encourage performance linked fun d releases; an educationally backward district that does not utilize the resources in the manner intended, it is unlikely to continue to receive a priority. 2.6 Institutional Strengthening at different levels The project will support institutional strengthening with greater decentralization for autonomy in planning. The quality of the planning exercise will be further augmented by the involvement of CRCs and BRCs that will be carefully nurtured to provide capacity for effective planning by the SMCs. Institutional reforms that allow local communities to participate effectively in the affairs of the school through the SMCs for ensuring that the school system emerges as the principal institution for community partnership. Page 13 of 85 2.7 Strengthened planning and Appraisal under SSA The District Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP&B) process is central to the planning and implementation of SSA. All SSA expenditures and activities are driven by the AWP&Bs prepared by about 600 districts of the country. The process of AWP&B development, endorsement, appraisal, approval and monitoring supports the SSA Framework for Implementation that is the basis for the implementation of the RTE Act. It supports bottoms up approach to planning, building upon inter- sectoral convergence at the grassroots level. The project will finance program management systems that support planning processes for the development of district AWPBs covering concerns of access, equity and quality through creation of individual School Development Plans (SDPs) that emerge from a process of micro planning undertaken in a participatory manner for all the habitations falling within the catchment area of the ‘neighborhood’ school. This will help convergence with investments from relevant centrally sponsored schemes for greater cost efficiency. The AWP&Bs, appraised at the National level by the Project Appraisal Board (PAB) of the MHRD, reviews progress against targets and commitments, identifies problem areas; examines the quality of data used for planning; interventions suggest ed for various components; and convergence in implementation with programs being implemented by other departments/ministries. The minutes of the PAB for all States reflecting agreements on project targets, outcomes, undertakings, commitments and funding are placed on the MHRD website for disclosure and wider dissemination. Those proposals which are rejected by the PAB are also discussed and the details are provided in the minutes of the meeting. The project will fund this planning and appraisal process and further deepen the grassroots involvement of the community through effective SDPs. Technical Assistance: The MHRD has requested for technical assistance for capacity building of its national institutions, the NCERT and NUEPA. This will be undertaken through a proposed Technical Assistance fund which will be a grant from DFID. The TA fund will support the following:  Support to NCERT (para 2.1 above) to ensure delivery of the planned National Assessment Survey (NAS) cycle through (i) Training on NAS design of instruments, IRT sampling and psychometric analysis of data for future NAS rounds in grades 3, 5 and 8 (ii) review of design of assessments reports to provide qualitative reports for analysis by policy planners at district and sub-district levels (iii) supporting state level assessment systems.  Support to NUEPA (para 1.4 above) to undertake capacity building on school leadership and developing standards for school performance The TA fund will operate under the following principles: (i) DFID would manage and finance the TA (ii) technical expertise would be sourced competitively; (iii) NCERT, NUEPA and MHRD will play the key role in the selection of technical expertise; and (iv) bi-annual Joint Review Missions (JRMs) will review the progress towards the TAs objectives. Considering the significance of the TA to the project and to the goals of SSA itself, MHRD will use part of the proceeds of the loan to support NCERT and NUEPA in undertaking capacity enhancement on learning assessments and school leadershi p and school performance assessment. Page 14 of 85 7. Project Beneficiaries The project is expected to directly benefit about 200 million children enrolled in elementary schools and 1.8 million teachers in the sector. Girls are expected to be about 48.4 percent of the total beneficiaries. 8. Project Cost and Financing SSA III will be financed by a US$ 400 million Investment Project Financing. The credit will finance a share (1.3%) of the GoI’s Education for All Program. IDA Financing Project cost Project Activities (USD % Financing (USD Millions) Millions) Improving Quality and Enhancing Learning 16,191,000,.00 218.,35 55% Outcomes Strengthening monitoring and evaluation for 4,883,000,.00 65.85 16% improved accountability Enhancing access and retention for 8,586,000,.00 115.79 29% disadvantaged children Page 15 of 85 Section 2 Approach and Methodology Used for the Limited EA The very achievement of the programme/project objectives, particularly indicators related to access and equity, depends directly on the provision of safe, clean and sustainable surroundings in schools to create a conducive learning and teaching environment. The SSA as a program has evolved since its launch and several guidelines and manuals have been developed to help in attaining this goal. Under SSA II, environmental issues were related mainly to civil works, including construction of toilets and water facilities in schools. The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the SSA II was undertaken and completed in September 2007, including findings from National Third Party Evaluation (TPE) conducted in several major states. National level monitoring consisted of TPE, periodic reviews by project implementing authorities and special monitoring visits by TSG and other members. National level monitoring was supplemented through the joint review missions (JRMs). These missions were effective in identifying shortcomings and highlighting good practices. For SSA III, a Diagnostic Review or Limited Environment Assessment (EA) study was conducted and completed in November 2013. This exercise was intended towards facilitating MHRD and the states governments in overcoming the some of the challenges/deficiencies with regard to environment, health and safety aspects in elementary schools in an incremental manner (building on efforts of the program till date) and in introducing/implementing the concept of ‘greener schools’. 1. Approach Used The diagnostic review study/limited EA and the recommendations to strengthen the environmental performance of SSA as a program were solely driven by the objective of creating and maintaining safe, clean and sustainable surroundings in schools, which has been recognized as a basic pre-requisite for ensuring a conducive learning and teaching environment. Accordingly, the methodology to achieve this goal involves the following: (a) Study and review of secondary data/information regarding environment, health and safety provisions/aspects. (b) Review of the nature and extent of compliance of environment, health and safety aspects in schools. (c) Identification of good practices, strengths, deficiencies and gaps in the existing system/s with regard to planning, implementation, enforcement and monitoring of environment, health and safety aspects in schools. (d) Providing recommendations to help improve/strengthen the environmental performance of the programme. 2. Parameters Assessed The review and assessment included, but was not limited to the following aspects: Page 16 of 85 a. Siting/location of the school b. Planning and Lay-out of the campus (including orientation of buildings; internal circulation arrangements) c. Structural safety aspects (application and adherence to building codes; condition of buildings) d. Building Design (building lay-out; space for various activities; materials used) e. Class room design (space availability; natural light and ventilation; display arrangements) f. Measures for Disaster Risk Management g. Facilities for Physically Challenged h. Water management in the school i. Drinking water arrangements j. Drainage arrangements k. Sanitation arrangements and its condition l. Energy m. Waste management (collection and disposal) n. Exposure to pollution particularly dust, toxic fumes, contaminated water and noise. o. Fire and Electrical Safety Practices p. Over-all operation and maintenance aspects (housekeeping; cleanliness and hygiene) 3. Methodology Adopted 1. Review of Secondary Data/Information a. At National Level The environment related information has been collated from various available documents with Ministry of Human Resource Development. The review provided necessary insights on various environmental management measures that have been ingrained under the program to provide a school that is children friendly and environmentally sustainable. The findings from the documentation review provided the foundation for diagnostic assessment study and covered the various stages associated with planning, design, construction and maintenance of schools. It covered review of contents and mechanisms adopted for compliance with SSA/Whole School Development Plan requirements. The key documents reviewed include the following:  SSA implementation framework  Whole School Development Plan (WSDP) Guidelines  Civil work Review Report - 2007-08  Joint Review Meeting minutes Page 17 of 85  District Information System for Education (DISE) data  Other Guidelines/Manuals (including Building As learning Aid and manuals for civil works) The documents mentioned in point (i) to (ii) gave information on the program requirements to make a school environmentally sustainable and making it contribute towards the overall learning experience of the children and documents mentioned in point (iii) to (v) provided insights into the achievement and challenges that the states have faced during implementation, particularly with regard to infrastructure gaps, construction and operation. b. At State Level As part of the assessment exercise, site visits were two states - Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat to review the state ’ s approach to address the program requirements set out in SSA/WSDP, particularly with a focus on the environmental management requirements. The documents prepared (listed below) by the states were reviewed as part of this exercise.  Habitation Mapping  Whole School Development Plan – state specific application  Specific Assessment Report (such as EA done for SSA in Uttar Pradesh)  School Mapping  Building plan drawing(s)  Civil Work - Planning and Implementation Manual  Monitoring Checklist – during construction The review focused mainly on how effectively environmental management has been integrated on overall project and sub-project level execution. 2. Meetings with Key Stakeholders Discussion with key stakeholders were also held at the State, district, block and school (involving head master and SMC members) level. The discussions were mainly aimed to seek feedback and assess the implementation issues in terms of site selection, building design, execution, quality of work, institutional support faced by different stakeholders. The discussion especially with District Education Officer, Block Education Officer and Engineer (district level) provided a sense on implementation challenges of the program at district and block level. On the other hand, discussions with members of School Management Committees helped in understanding their perception of the over-all program and in assessing their understanding of specific roles and responsibilities. 3. Site Visits to Selected Schools On the basis of information collected and reviewed both at national and state level, specific aspects were reviewed on the ground. For this, site visits to selected schools were made. The specific parameters that were reviewed include; Page 18 of 85  Type of program intervention i.e. new school, major repair, additional room construction etc.  Overall school campus planning  Building plan & design  School site selection  Condition of building  Use of cost effectiveness technologies/construction materials  Overall construction quality (completed building)  Provisions for CWSN  Drinking water facility  Sanitation facility  Hygienic around drinking water source, kitchen and in/around sanitation facilities  Safety issues  Kitchen shed/area  Grain storage room  Electricity connection  SMC functioning  Utilization of O&M budget  Monitoring mechanism The above parameters help in identification of environmental concerns that can/needs to be address to have a school with good environment that will be inviting, appealing to children and community. 4. Information supplemented by Other Studies carried out in the past While the state and school coverage carried out for this specific assessment may seem fairly limited, the study primarily builds on the assessments conducted earlier for SSA I and SSA II. Further, it has been informed by results from a similar exercise conducted for the Secondary School Program (Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan, RMSA) (also managed by MHRD), which looked at several upper primary schools across five states, namely Assam, Gujarat, Odisha, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh. Page 19 of 85 Section 3 Diagnostic Review – Key Findings Using the approach and methodology described in Section 2, the limited environment assessment exercise/diagnostic review was conducted. The key findings from this assessment are presented in the sub-sections given below: 1. SSA Framework – Review of the Guidelines from an EHS perspective The current Program Framework (revised after RTE and currently in force) for Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan lays out clear and quite well defined requirements, from an environment, health and safety perspective. It seeks to develop each school’s built - environment as an ecosystem for learning. The school is envisioned as inclusive and pedagogically rich, sustainable eco-system, safe and secure from hazards, incorporating elements of green architecture, optimum resource-utilization through culturally and environmentally sustainable practices. The SSA framework intends to achieve the above vision through preparation of Whole School Development Plan (WSDP) to integrate infrastructure design and development contributing towards learning of children in the school. A WSDP is required to include: i. Infrastructure plan to follow the education plan ii. A safe and secure environment for all children iii. Clean and hygienic environment for all children iv. Child-centered planning with overall development of child (physical, social, emotional and cognitive) addressed v. Responsive towards needs of all children and the diversity they bring in a school vi. Entire school space (indoor and outdoor) as learning continuum for a child and the teacher – this is to be recognized by all stakeholders while planning vii. Developing the entire school space as resource for fun and learning activities using ideas of Building as Learning Aid (BaLA) viii. Maximizing the whole school as a resource – not just for children and teachers of that school but also for the community and neighborhood schools ix. Respectful towards the local context and tradition – wisdom, social needs, educational needs, culture, geology, climate, flora-fauna, etc. x. Optimum resource utilization and cost effectiveness xi. Integrates good practices in environmentally sustainable designs – to demonstrate and practice them xii. Scope for future expansion Further, the RTE Act lays down the norms and standards for a school building. A school building has to be an all-weather building comprising at least one classroom for every teacher and an office-cum-store-cum- Head teachers room, barrier free Page 20 of 85 access, toilets, safe and adequate drinking water facility for all children, arrangements for securing the school building boundary wall or green fencing, a kitchen for cooking MDM, a playground, equipment for sports and games, a library, and Teaching and Learning Material. While the complete document is available on MHRD’s website, the c overage of specific topics relevant from an environment, health and safety perspective in the various sections of SSA Framework for Implementation (revised after RTE Act) is presented in the table below: Section Description Key Aspect/s Covered Establishment needed for school and time 1.5 RTE Road Map frame the norms are to be provided. Mapping to facilitate Gap analysis on need for schools and 2.2 children access in optimizing connectivity to neighboring school. neighboring school Mentions about upgrading of Education Up-gradating of Guarantee Scheme and Alternative and 2.4 Alternate School Innovative Education facilities to regular Facilities primary school.  Norms for opening new schools  Overcoming barriers to opening new schools, Enabling provisions up-grading and expansion of schools 2.5 under SSA to  Redeploying public building and universalize Access infrastructure  Refurbishing unused old building  Mapping of CWSN, and Education of Children 3.12  removal of architectural barriers in the with Special Needs school Provides for specialized support on design of Potential areas of 5.3 infrastructure, school buildings, capacity partnership building of SMC in decision making etc. Whole school Master plan for school educational work, and 6.2 development infrastructure and its development Provides vision on development of each Unified vision of a 6.3 school’s built environment as an ecosystem of school learning Provides guidance for school building plan, Critical consideration design, orientation for better light & 6.4 for design, planning ventilation, construction quality, CWSN, safety and implementation features, hazards resistant features Page 21 of 85 Section Description Key Aspect/s Covered Provide guidance for major repairs, retrofitting Other provisions for existing building towards hazard resistant 6.5 school infrastructure design, drinking & sanitation facilities, kitchen development shed, playground, boundary wall/fencing for security; Mentions requirements for capacity of SMC on Capacity building of development of drawings, understanding cost 6.7 SMC for undertaking estimates, assessing building material quality, building construction keeping accounts, material procurement etc. Allocation for school Cap on expenditure for civil works not to 6.8 infrastructure exceed 33% development  Mention needs for qualified technical staff at block, district and state level Technical support for  Setting of design cell at district and state 6.10 implementation level  need for Third Party evaluation for quality assurance SSA support for school Lists out infrastructure elements supported 6.11 infrastructure under SSA Sets out mechanism for inter-sectoral collaboration and convergence; (like PWD for The state level 7.3 design school spaces from pedagogic structure perspective, Dept. of Science to provide geo- spatial technology for school mapping etc.) Mentions various elements to be monitored by School supervision by Block Education Officer of which condition of 7.8 Block and Cluster building and infrastructures, drinking water, Functionaries usability of toilet etc. are listed. Provides aspects that will be monitored such as ‘school development plans’ to ensure that Monitoring at National 7.12 schools have all facilities such as infrastructure, Level teachers, TLE and child friendly and barrier free access with good learning environment. Provides factors to be considered for finalizing 9.6 Urban planning neighborhood school in urban area. Page 22 of 85 Key Finding: In terms of the vision, requirements and norms, the current SSA Framework is comprehensive and covers with clarity several key requirements that can ensure a clean, safe and environment friendly school. 2. Joint Review Missions – Review of Proceedings/Minutes The minutes from the joint review missions were helpful in identification of systemic challenges/issues faced by the the states faces during the implementation of the program. The issues vary from limited fund availability, non-availability of land for new schools/expansion of schools, concerns around technical support, coordination issues with PHED/RRWD for sanitation and water supply provisions and other site specific problems (such as flooding, erosion, difficult terrain, water shortage etc.) . The JRMs have also pointed out to the needs to look at a school ‘ as a whole ’ and to adopt a holistic vision in this regard – development of school infrastructure in a phased manner without the holistic vision has led to patchy/incomplete development, sometimes creating issues for future development as well. Key Finding/s: Following the practical difficulties faced in the field and learning from experiences, new guidelines such as those pertaining to Whole School Development have been developed. As part of this, two key requirements pertaining to preparation of detailed layout plan, including mapping of school campus and specific environment assessment have been built into the guidelines. Further, there are variations within performance of states and how similar issues are handled differently. Despite the fact that the local context may/will vary, there are substantive opportunities for cross-learning to help resolve specific issues. 3. Availability of Physical Infrastructure Facilities – Review of DISE data The over-all physical environment in a school depends on infrastructure availability. The infrastructure demand in line with the objectives of SSA and requirements of RTE Act still remains to be fully/nearly achieved. In this context, data available has been analyzed to understand the infrastructure needs. The analytical data 6 of 2011- 12 (provisional) has been used and ‘aggregate of all states’ has been used to understand the over-all situation of school infrastructure availability in the country. The key findings are presented below and state-specific data has been presented in Annexure 1. School Building/s  Only 64.34% of school buildings are pucca; for 18.86% there is no information and remaining is either kutcha or semi pucca or schools are operated from tents.  It is worth mentioning that 81.86% of schools are reportedly in a good condition and remaining either need minor or major repairs. 6 DISE website Page 23 of 85 Status of school building (aggregate of all states) Upper Primary Primary Upper Primary Primary All Type with Upper with U P & Primary Only With Sec/ Schools Primary Sec/H Sec only H Sec Private 18.58 23.69 65.07 20.31 34.83 22.61% Rented 4.72 11.03 12.01 1.99 13.95 4.47% Government 72.94 64.28 21.15 74.85 48.47 67.63% Govt. school in 1.25 0.54 1.07 1.78 1.96 1.21% rent free building School building type (aggregate of all states) Primary Upper Primary with Upper All Primary with U P Primary Type Upper Primary Only & Sec/H With Schools Primary only Sec Sec/H Sec Pucca 63.75 66.19 67.30 62.30 66.45 64.36% Kutcha 5.81 3.84 2.98 4.63 4.30 5.11% Partially 2.39 0.76 0.74 2.36 0.91 1.91% pucca Tent 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.09% Multiple types 8.44 15.97 8.49 4.60 14.30 9.89% No response 19.47 13.21 20.48 26.09 14.00 18.86% Condition of School Building/S (aggregate of all states) Primary Upper Primary with Upper All Primary with U P Primary Condition Upper Primary Only & Sec/H With Sec/H Schools Primary only Sec Sec Good 77.87 83.84 93.24 81.41 80.70 81.86% condition Need Minor 14.53 10.42 4.73 13.17 12.11 11.91% Repair Need Major 7.60 5.74 2.03 5.41 7.19 6.23% Repair Page 24 of 85 Toilets Majority of schools have toilet for boys (81.14%) and girls (72.16%). However, in terms of functionality, the figure is 84.68% for girls and 65.87% for boys. Toilet for boys (aggregate of all states) Primary Primary with Upper Primary Upper All with Upper U P & Sec/H Primary With Only Primary only Schools Primary Sec Sec/H Sec 78.17 87.27 93.02 79.53 85.94 81.14 Toilet for girls (aggregate of all states) Primary with Primary with Upper All Primary Upper Upper U P & Sec/H Primary With Only Primary only Schools Primary Sec Sec/H Sec 65.40 83.02 93.12 73.13 88.18 72.16 Kitchen Shed A majority of schools (92.06%) are providing mid-day meals. However, only 40.94% of these schools have a kitchen shed. Kitchen Shed (aggregate of all states) Primary with Primary Upper All Primary Upper Primary Upper with U P & Primary With Only only Schools Primary Sec/H Sec Sec/H Sec 46.30 44.75 40.73 15.06 25.10 40.94 Drinking Water Facility The provision of drinking water facility in schools stands at 94.10%. Drinking Water Facilities (Aggregate of all states) Primary Primary with Upper Primary Upper All with Upper U P & Sec/H Primary With Only Primary only Schools Primary Sec Sec/H Sec 93.28 96.51 97.09 93.89 97.11 94.10 Page 25 of 85 Boundary Wall A secure school campus is necessary for the safety of the children as well assets created under the program. However, currently only 56.89% of schools have boundary wall. The need to provide boundary wall has to be established and prioritized based on the site conditions of the area in which the school is located. Boundary Wall (aggregate of all states) Primary with Primary with Upper Upper Primary Upper U P & Sec/H Primary Primary With All Schools Only Primary Sec only Sec/H Sec 48.57 74.11 88.16 49.12 76.63 56.89 Ramps The provision of a ramp with railing has been factored into account for children with special needs under SSA guidelines. However, only 53.43% of schools has been to provide ramps, and therefore a large gap still remains to be filled. Availability of Ramp (aggregate of all states) Primary with Primary with Upper Upper Primary Upper U P & Sec/H Primary Primary With All Schools Only Primary Sec only Sec/H Sec 53.28 59.96 36.27 58.48 40.19 53.43 Playground Only 56.10% of schools have playground – innovative ways of planning and design would be required to meet the shortfall. Availability of Playground (aggregate of all states) Upper Primary with Primary with Primary Upper Primary Upper U P & Sec/H All Schools Only Primary only With Primary Sec Sec/H Sec 48.85 60.64 81.00 64.72 79.28 56.10 Key Finding/s: While substantive progress has been made on provision of basic infrastructure in schools, there are clearly specific aspects that attention under SSA III to overcome the current gaps. Beyond this, attention will be needed to ensure that the quality of works and finishing are not compromised in the process of achieving physical targets. Page 26 of 85 4. Findings from Field Assessment This sub-section presents the findings from the secondary data/information review, field assessment and discussion with the stakeholders: Site Selection The improper selection of site for locating a school has an implication on the overall physical environment of the campus, including at times with impacts on health and hygiene conditions. While there are instances where choices were fairly limited due to geographic, social or land availability constraints, environmental issues like flooding, water logging/stagnation of water in school campus due to absence/ blockage of drains, erosion, exposure to vectors etc. The importance of proper site selection has been reported in 31 st Joint Review Meeting by the states of Assam and Uttarakhand, where schools have been affected due to floods. In case of Assam, the location in a riverine area resulted in washing away of the school itself. In addition, school campus located along/too close to national highways, railway lines, water bodies are of concern from a safety and exposure to noise pollution. The consultation with stakeholders in Uttar Pradesh has also pointed out that the schools located in plateau region like Bundelkhand of the state have challenges related to water availability. Here, temporary measures have been taken-up by the school for bringing in water through tankers with support from community. The site selection plays an important role, particularly in states with varying geo- climatic conditions. The exclusion of site selection aspect during planning stage not only increases the vulnerability of the children and teachers, but has also resulted into delay in civil work construction and wastage of money due to damage in infrastructure created. Key Finding/s: Learning lessons from implementation experience thus far, wherever possible site specific improvement/interventions should be implemented. For new schools to be established to meet the previously unmet demand or to fulfill requirements set forth under RTE, due considerations should be given to ‘site selection criteria’ before finalizing the location of a school. The guidance for this already exists but just needs to be applied on the ground by the states. Building Planning & Design The assessment has looked into campus planning, integration of energy efficient measures, cost effectiveness through use of locally available materials among other aspects listed in Section 2 of this document. Some of the issues that have come to light while assessing this aspect are mentioned below:  Currently, many states (except Gujarat) still go with one design for all sc hools and this approach needs to be carefully revisited.  The need for drainage in the school campus was not assessed and no proper provisions have been made. The result is water logging during rainy season creating accessibility and health problems. With prolonged stagnation of water, Page 27 of 85 issues such as unhygienic conditions, odour due to decay of organic matter and vector breeding crop-up. In Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, water logging in rainy seasons within school campus due to absence of drains has been recorded.  The use of innovative design and cost effective construction material has not been adopted in most states. Very few states have tried to use locally available material like fly-ash bricks and bamboo for roof ceiling/partition wall as construction material.  The orientation of the building is such that daylight and proper ventilation is not adequately available in the classroom.  The drinking water and sanitation are planned and executed in isolation, as a result of which necessary disposal especially for waste water from hand pump/drinking water facility area is not provided.  The un-planned addition of class rooms is creating a scenario where land availability is hindering/will hinder future expansion.  For CWSN, construction of ramp has been included. However, concerns remain due to choice of inappropriate location, level difference’s encountered after entry into the building (and therefore the main ramp not fulfilling the required purpose) and issues around improper specifications (angle of the slope, width). Some good practices too have come to the fore. This includes:  A separate site/school specific plan and estimate has been prepared, where construction was not feasible as per the Model Plan of the state. Example – Gujarat.  Plantations and some basic landscaping within the campus – mostly as initiatives of the individual Head Master. Key Finding/s: The findings show a substantial variation in practice both within and between the states. While good practices have been noted, there remains a scope for improvement in introducing environment friendly building design and holistic campus development. The application of the WSDP guidelines prepared this year (March 2013) should help in this regard. Also, specific guidelines may need more detailing out or require changes from existing provisions, which should be taken-up by the states after detailed consultations with concerned stakeholders. Construction On the basis of discussion with officers/stakeholders at the district, block and school level, some insights on challenges during construction were obtained. These include:  Capacity of the head master, SMC members and official/s of Education Department at block and district level to provide inputs during construction stage is usually limited. Though training has been provided on overall supervision and monitoring during construction, appropriate finishing and detailing in civil works requires specific attention. Page 28 of 85  Inadequate technical staff to support and guide during construction stage at block level has been highlighted. Taking the case of Uttar Pradesh, where Junior Engineer, Rural Engineering Department is responsible for technical support during construction. There is only one supervisor for a block and with such assignments as additional charge over and above the existing responsibilities, there are practical difficulties in providing the required/ necessary support.  The weak capacity in terms of human resource at state, district and block level has resulted into issues regarding the quality of works. For resolving such issues, the need for stronger Third Party Evaluation was recommended in the Civil Works Review Report.  Lack of proper technical oversight has also resulted in building/s getting into poor condition - requiring repair and maintenance much earlier in their lifecycle. In few school buildings visited in Uttar Pradesh, structural cracks, flooring damage and falling of wall plaster was observed. Key Finding/s: Several of these issues can be avoided/minimized by strengthening the Technical Support for supervision during construction. More attention is required on finer issues pertaining to details in design and finishing works. Operation and Maintenance The program does have provision for grants for the maintenance of the infrastructure created. But the available data shows only 67.17% of schools have received the grant. School Development Grant Received (aggregate of all states) Primary with Primary with Upper Upper Primary All Primary Upper UP & Sec/H Primary With Sec/H Only Schools Primary Sec only Sec 72.98 64.47 17.44 65.70 55.63 67.17 Some states have made additional provisions to support the operation and maintenance but in most cases the amount is too meager. Several stakeholders have shared challenges/issues (including non-availability of man-power to carry out specific cleaning related tasks) regarding this issue. A specific discussion would be required to ensure that maintenance issues, that are vital for ensuring safe and healthy learning environment, get proper attention from all levels. 5. Civil Work Review Report (2007-08) The report provides findings from the reviews based on visits to schools in 11 states. The report also highlights the various shortcomings as well good practices that have been observed in different states. The inputs from this review are useful Page 29 of 85 since these are real time reflections of the challenges/issues faced on the ground for improving/strengthening existing guidelines and processes of the program. Parameters Issues Good Practices Reviewed Andhra Pradesh Assam Omission of existing infrastructure School specific plan & (haphazard constructed) resulted in estimates prepared, where shrinking of play field area. construction activities are not feasible as per Model Plan. Absence of drainage arrangement creates water logging during rainy Uttar Pradesh season. Plantation done due to School premise mapping done, individual initiative of head however, lack detail information on master. existing infrastructure, land area, Gujarat future expansion etc. Different building plan & Assam design available for selection Absence of drainage arrangement and best suited to site condition. water logging during monsoon. School mapping inadequate and require detail information on existing infrastructure, land area, future Planning expansion etc. Process Uttar Pradesh One design for entire districts, VEC not consulted. Alteration in building plan done due to land constraint, engineer not informed. Additional unit/room has reduced school premise land area – constructed as separate unit/room. No drainage arrangement to drain rain water. Land availability at uran area is problem. Lack of infrastructure data at block and district level. There is no provision for future expansion in current planning process. Andhra Pradesh AP, Uttar Pradesh No topographic survey done on Factors like electrical lines, Site selection telephone lines, location in account of flat terrain. hazardous area has been considered for new site. Page 30 of 85 Parameters Issues Good Practices Reviewed Assam Gujarat No topographic survey done and Topographical survey carried school site located near village pond, out for ground that is national highway, railway line. undulating for design mofication. School areas are water logged. Site not selected in vicinity of Uttar Pradesh electric line, rain water No topographic survey done and most drainage line etc. of school site is in filling as nallah, pond or ditch exist there. Andhra Pradesh Construction of building done in isolation of toilet and drinking water facility. Assam Assam Construction Ramps with railing have been Water deficiency during construction provided in almost all building, Process in karbi angling & cachar districts. properly placed and use of all No retaining wall for schools children. constructed in hilly area. Uttar Pradesh Roof devoid of rain spouts. AP Fly ash bricks were used for Uttar Pradesh construction in Nellore & Cost Effectiveness No cost effective technique adopted. Vizianagaram. Techniques Assam Bamboo used in roof ceiling, partition wall. Andhra Pradesh AP One building design for entire state. Has good ventilation. The building design does not have Water harvesting structure provision of ramp for CWSN. provided in new building constructed (UNICEF assisted). Simple building design without any Design Seismic resistant factor energy efficient system. Innovations considered during design for Roof drain and foundation protection new building. not adequate. Assam Assam Change in internal layout of No energy efficient system building building (big hall), by design. replacing internal wall with Page 31 of 85 Parameters Issues Good Practices Reviewed Uttar Pradesh partition made of bamboo. Ramps are not as per specification. Has good ventilation. Ventilation not adequate in urban Uttar Pradesh area. Seismic resistant factor No energy efficient system building considered during design. design. Gujarat Ignorant about rain water harvesting Building plan modified where structure. land availability was less. Gujarat Ramps meeting specification Reliable drinking water facility missing and proper railing provided. in rural school. Good ventilation. Wanting of sanitation in rural area. Sanitation in urban area provided for girl and boy and maintained neat and clean. Outer wall of school act as boundary wall thereby reducing/minimizing requirement of boundary wall. Roof rain water harvesting is provided. Energy efficient building design. Andhra Pradesh Hand pump become defunct due to misuse by outsiders and stealing of accessories. New building devoid of water and sanitation facilities (rural work services to provide and work in isolation). Additional Waste water from use needs proper Facilities disposal to maintain hygienic condition of campus. Sanitation facility inadequate in rural area. Existing toilet are defunct (used by outsiders). Need for boundary wall to preserve assets created. Page 32 of 85 Parameters Issues Good Practices Reviewed Assam No paving and maintenance around hand pump. No water for toilet and is in unhygienic condition due to no cleaner. Toilet facility seems to be inadequate with no privacy for girl. Boundary wall not provided in most of school. Uttar Pradesh Reliable source missing in rural school especially in plateau area where boring of well is not possible. Toilet provided is inadequate and no water provision, not maintained creating unhygienic condition. The toilet facility for girls has no privacy. Need for boundary wall to prevent entry of stray animals. AP School located in village or vicinity child safety or security Andhra Pradesh is no concern. Location of school along road and Railing on ramp for CWSN. pond pose safety for children. Assam & Uttar Pradesh No firefighting arrangement. Safety Audits Seismic resistance considered Assam during design and No firefighting arrangement. construction. Safety concern due to school location Gujarat along national highway and railway Seismic factor considered line. during design. Earthing made mandatory for electricity connection. Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Need for a third party evaluation for Assistant Engineer is available Implementation ensuring quality of work. from site selection and supervision during construction. Page 33 of 85 Parameters Issues Good Practices Reviewed Uttar Pradesh Assam Rural engineer deputed at block level Good technical staff supports. don’t take interest in civil work due Gujarat overloaded work. Third party agency deputed to Sufficient technical man-power monitor quality of work. required for guidance and supervision. Need third party evaluation for ensuring quality of work. Andhra Pradesh, Assam Operation and Inadequate fund, suggested for - Maintenance review. AP, Gujarat, UP, Assam Community Donated land and necessary Involvement - items for construction of and Responses school. Sense of ownership when manage by them. Andhra Pradesh Provision for Other than ramp with railing, there is children with no provision like toilet etc. - Special Needs (CWSN) Ramps have not been provided in all school building. Key Finding/s: The Civil Works Review has provided relevant and useful insight into several systemic and state specific issues. The lessons learnt and recommendations from this exercise should be revisited from time to time to review progress in resolving the identified issues. A similar review in future focusing on O&M issues should also be useful in gauging progress about the delivery of the program objectives, from an infrastructure point of view. Conclusion The nature of activities proposed under the current project does not pose significant environmental risks. The environmental issues in the project are related mainly to the construction and operation of schools. Impacts pertaining to: (a) location (environmental and social features of the site and surrounding land-uses); (b) design (lay-out within the campus, sanitation, water supply, drainage, solid waste arrangements, waste water management, ventilation, access, energy efficiency, material usage, fire safety, storage facility and natural disaster dimension) and; (c) construction management, including occupational health and safety issues will have to be dealt with in cases where new school construction and/or additional civil works to meet the RTE requirements, including toilets and water facilities are envisaged. This will also include the Page 34 of 85 situations where need based infrastructure is introduced for children with special needs. In a vast majority of the cases where the school infrastructure has already been created, the most pertinent environment, health and safety issues revolve around the need for maintaining a clean, hygienic and safe learning and teaching environment. Issues such as regular cleaning and proper maintenance of toilets, kitchen, water supply facilities, regular quality checks for the p otable water supply and waste management would require attention. Page 35 of 85 Section 4 Implementation Arrangements With the SSA becoming the main vehicle of implementing the RTE Act, the SSA framework suggests an integrated structure at the state and district levels for management at the state government level. 1. Institutional Arrangements Management and implementation arrangements under SSA III will provide for: (i) program management, oversight and review; (ii) undertaking management and implementation through institutional arrangements like the PAB of the SSA; (iii) providing and generating technical support and capacity building effected through national and state level institutions. National Level The SSA is governed at the Centre by a General Body chaired by the Prime Minister, an Executive Committee and a Project Approval Board. At the national level, a PAB is functional that assists the General Body in the management and oversight of the SSA project that is now the vehicle for the RTE Act. The RTE Act envisages a National Advisory Council at the Centre and State Advisory Councils, to advice on the implementation of the Act. As for monitoring the Act designates the NCPCR and its state counterparts to ensure that the rights of the child are not violated. State Level At the State level, a State Mission Authority whose governing council is chaired by the Chief Minister operates as an autonomous SIS which provides direction and oversight at the State level. The SIS, through the State Project Office (SPO), coordinates with District and sub-District level organizations; supports districts in preparing annual plans and budgets (AWPBs); is responsible for monitoring and evaluation; and serves as a channel for the flow of funds to the lower l evels. The SPO reports on implementation progress, and submits and negotiates the consolidated AWP&Bs, to the national level. District Level At the District level, the oversight function is carried out by District Elementary Education Committees, chaired by the District Collector. The District Project Office (DPO), which works in close collaboration with the SPO, prepares the district AWP&B, and monitors physical and financial implementation progress. The district office is headed by the District Education Officer (DEO) who also performs the duties of the District Project Coordinator (DPC). Sub-district Level Block Education Offices (BEOs) have administrative responsibility for the schools, working in close collaboration with BRCs and CRCs on academic support. With the Page 36 of 85 passing of the RTE Act, the sub-district level authority or the “local authority” having administrative control over the school or empowered by or under any law for the time being in force to function as a local authority in any city, town o r village;7… will through close coordination with the SMCs oversee educational management and implementation in the block. Community and School Level Under the RTE Act the SMCs have been provided greater powers and responsibilities. They can take the support of the PRIs, to effectively monitor and implement SSA, through community mobilization, preparing school development plans, identifying out of school children and monitoring students’ and teachers’ attendance. SMCs are often sub committees of the Gram Panchayat (the village level elected government). 2. Monitoring and Evaluation National level monitoring consists of Third Party Evaluations (TPE), periodic reviews by project implementing authorities and special monitoring visits by TSG and other members. National level monitoring is supplemented through the JRMs. These missions have been effective in identifying shortcomings and highlighting good practices on a variety of aspects, including environment, health and safety dimensions. DISE coverage has expanded across all schools and it continues to provide critical information required for infrastructure planning for schools. The same mechanisms will be used for monitoring the environmental, health and safety requirements and performance under the project as well. This will also include environmental audits which will be conducted by special teams constituted out of the existing lot of engineers within the state implementing agencies. All States and UTs will be covered in a cycle of three years. The audits are expected to provide the state technical teams an opportunity to learn through self-evaluation. 7 SSA Framework for Implementation, 2009 Page 37 of 85 Section 5 Management Framework: Recommendations for Strengthening Environmental Performance 1. Sustainability for Schools The Management Framework and recommendations in this section focus on sustainable development principles that can be embedded into whole-school management practices and provide practical guidance to help schools operate in a more sustainable way. In this context, the broad goals of a safe and environmental friendly school building would be to:  Create a safe/hazard free school environment  Improve indoor air quality and maintain good learning/teaching environment  Employ day-lighting strategies  Improve classroom acoustics  Conserve water and manage storm-water runoff  Encourage waste management efforts  Employ sustainable purchasing and green cleaning practices However, based on the findings from the diagnostic review, t his section provides some general guidelines for SSA III to achieve the above mentioned goals and achieve/strengthen the objectives created under the SSA – Framework for Implementation and the norms set forth under RTE Act on issues pertaining to environment, health and safety aspects in schools. All the goals are interrelated and a building can achieve best results only through a continual process of balancing trade-offs. Given the vast geographical, social, economical and political variation across India it is very difficult to provide absolute solutions to all problems. Thus, certain amount of decision making in the local context is essential. For example increasing ventilation also increases the ingress of heat which can be a problem in hot and dry climate. It is generally observed that maintenance of schools building is irregular and in some cases far from desired due to lack of funds. Without maintenance, most of the systems and material deteriorates over time resulting in poor educational environment. Thus, given a choice, material and systems should be selected based on the maintenance requirement rather than capital cost. Page 38 of 85 Page 39 of 85 Page 40 of 85 2. Recommendations/Suggestions The SSA as a program has evolved since its launch and several guidelines and manuals have been developed. The SSA program understands the needs to integrate environmental dimensions in the over-all school development and management context - as a result of which the Ministry of Human Resources Development has already developed several guidelines for the said purpose. Most of these manuals continue to remain relevant to the program and will therefore be used for SSA III as well. In addition, some states too have developed/translated the key requirements for improved dissemination of requirements/messages into the field. A clear vision is evident from the guidelines to make school appealing to children and parents to accomplish the goal set under the program. However, one of the key finding of the assessment is even though several guidelines exist, there is a substantial scope to strengthen the application and implementation of these instruments, more so in the context of specific less developed states . The diagnostic assessment lead to identification of some key areas/issues that require support/strengthening as part of SSA III to improve the over-all environment performance of the program. The basic premise of the recommendations/suggestions is towards increasing the capacity in terms of supporting institution set-up at different level with right mix of technical skill people to correctly appreciate and apply the guidelines/norms formulated and enforcement of these through regular monitoring and evaluation, from planning to operation. The following section describes the various measures/suggestions: 1. Application and implementation of Whole School Developmen t Plan The key elements of WSDP includes: i. Whole school development Planning and School Management Committee ii. Understanding Educational issues in planning iii. Understanding school and planning iv. Ensuring safety and reducing vulnerability v. WSSHE, Managing, Conserving, Resource and Recycling waste vi. Planning for maintenance our school vii. Planning with children in focus viii. Institutional mechanism for WSDP Recommendations i. Finalization of the draft guidelines on ‘Whole School Development Plan’ taking into cognizance and inputs or suggestion from the key stakeholders including State Government. Page 41 of 85 ii. Providing support and guidance to the states on application of integrated or holistic planning norms as outlined in the set guidelines – with specific emphasis on spatial planning related aspects. - Rectification or minor changes that may be required to improve safety - Include small alteration or additions to provide need based infrastructure & facilities for CWSN. - Landscaping and creation of green spaces - Provision of boundary walls - Other elements that may be considered important in the local/state context (such as water conservation measures in water deficit areas) iii. All states should strive to implement the ‘whole school development plan’ requirement, which includes school mapping and preparation of detailed layout of school campus and infrastructure records. iv. Preparation of a training module and capacity building to ensure proper the implementation of WSDP. 2. Construction The main issue that is associated with construction is lack of technical knowledge at SMC level and inadequate technical staff for supervision and monitoring. Recommendations i. Adopt or use existing manuals and guidelines that have been developed for civil works related activities. Use existing guidelines on construction planning & management (listed below) during construction of new or expansion of school building. - Community Construction Manual - Building Rural Primary School: Towards Improved Design - Child Friendly Elements Rural Primary School: Engineer’s Handbook i. Ensure adequate number of technical staff (architect & civil engineers) availability for proper design and execution of civil works. ii. Capacity building or training of SMC members who are responsible for monitoring day to day civil work activity. 3. Operation & Maintenance The school infrastructure Operation and Maintenance (O&M) is currently financed through annual Repair and Maintenance Grants (RMG) and other State funds, which are not always adequate. Under the project, all States will develop/strengthen sustainable school infrastructure O&M procedures. A feature of SSA has been the involvement of communities and school level institutions such as VECs/SMCs in the identification, planning, design, implementation, operation and maintenance of schools and other program activities, which will continue to form a part of these procedures. The nature, scale and level of interventions, however will continue to remain contextual and will vary between and sometimes, even within the state. Page 42 of 85 Recommendations i. Discuss and formulate appropriate mechanism for budget allocation for O&M works. ii. All states to develop/update O&M procedures/guidelines. - Specific attention is required on issues related to maintaining cleanliness and hygiene in campuses particularly in toilets, kitchen and water sup ply facilities. - Periodic monitoring of potable water quality - Maintenance of drainage and prevention of water logging/accumulation in school campus 4. Awareness & Capacity Building The awareness on various environmental aspects to be integrated as part of ‘W hole School Development Plan’ is very limited . A training plan should be prepared covering key topics/subjects. Training for SPIU, DPIUs and SMCs could focus on the following: - Site Selection - Campus – Layout and Planning - Building design and introduction of environment and child friendly elements - Energy efficiency measures - Cost effective construction materials - Health and Safety in School - Waste management An Awareness and Sensitization program for students is also required. Interventions related to cleanliness and hygiene awareness among students should be strengthened by dove-tailing existing available materials and schemes or as part of value education classes. 5. Replication & Dissemination of Good Practices The innovations developed during DPEP, SSA I and II (such as BaLA - Building as Learning Aid) have been implemented in some states but there remains a significant opportunity to scale-up good practices. The review of documents highlights several practices that have evolved to address different type of environmental issues in varying sites conditions by various states. While MHRD has been sharing this information and has encouraged states to present this information during Review Meetings, the outreach largely remains limited to the audience present. Discussions in the field have clearly reflected the need to collate and share this information about good practices (and even lessons learnt) in a much more accessible manner. Page 43 of 85 Annexures Page 44 of 85 Annexure 1 : State-wise Data on Infrastructure Availability Table 1: Percentage Distribution of School by Status of School Building (2011-2012) Upper Primary with U. Primary& Primary with Upper Primary With Primary Primary State/UT Building Status Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Only Only Andaman & Nicobar Islands Private 18.33 17.33 0.00 0.00 12.75 16.82 Rented 13.94 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.64 Government 61.75 78.67 0.00 0.00 87.25 70.79 Government school in rent free 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Andhra Pradesh building Private 10.84 24.88 33.18 0.00 30.13 16.75 Rented 7.27 22.33 24.01 0.00 17.87 11.71 Government 77.26 52.43 40.19 0.00 50.29 68.11 Government school in rent free building 1.65 0.25 2.54 0.00 1.05 1.34 Arunachal Pradesh Private 27. 36.53 91 42. 17.72 31.55 Rented 96 0.16 2.7 6.03 91 0.33 0.69 0.36 Government 69. 57.3 2.45 46. 74.37 63.81 Government school in rent free building 01 2.73 3.41 0.51 69 10.03 7.07 4.16 Assam Private 27. 36.53 91.00 42. 17.72 31.55 Rented 96 0.16 2.70 6.03 91 0.33 0.69 0.36 Government 69. 57.30 2.45 46. 74.37 63.81 Government school in rent free building 01 2.73 3.41 0.51 69 10.03 7.07 4.16 Bihar Private 0.89 1.50 31.50 2.13 2.06 1.37 Rented 0.53 0.54 1.22 0.85 0.00 0.54 Government 72. 96.37 57.52 93. 93.81 82.49 Government school in rent free building 58 1.01 0.55 5.08 62 1.70 3.09 0.85 Chandigarh Page 45 of 85 Upper Primary with U. Primary& Primary with Upper Primary With Primary Primary State/UT Building Status Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Only Only Private 35. 48.28 37.14 0 50 39.04 Rented 71 7.14 0 0.71 0 0 1.07 Government 57. 48.28 60.71 0 50 58.29 Government school in rent free building 140 0 1.43 0 0 1.07 Chhattisgarh Private 3.14 50.91 63.25 2.65 35.66 6.02 Rented 2.85 41.93 32.93 0.96 16.08 4.59 Government 87. 4.23 2.21 92. 36.36 83.96 Government school in rent free building 66 1.35 2.23 1.20 82 1.05 4.20 1.32 Dadra & Nagar Haveli Private 4.98 5.49 50.00 0.00 0.00 6.29 Rented 3.48 2.20 37.50 0.00 0.00 3.97 Government 91. 92.31 0.00 0.00 100.00 89.07 Government school in rent free building 54 0.00 0.00 12.50 100.00 0.00 0.66 Daman & Diu Private 9.84 37.50 75.00 0.00 0.00 13.27 Rented 11. 12.50 12.50 8.00 9.09 10.62 Government 48 78. 50.00 0.00 92. 90.91 75.22 Government school in rent free building 69 0.00 0.00 12.50 00 0.00 0.00 0.88 Delhi Private 10. 29.71 47.68 27. 13.00 22.46 Rented 48 23. 66.29 16.68 50 15. 1.86 23.22 Government 15 63. 3.62 33.44 00 52. 81.73 51.88 Government school in rent free building 65 2.52 0.38 2.05 50 5.00 3.10 2.27 Goa Private 7.82 14.61 16.27 10. 18.37 10.35 Rented 11. 23.60 75.90 98 60. 46.26 25.22 Government 24 79. 61.80 6.63 98 26. 32.65 63.24 Government school in rent free building 86 0.68 0.00 0.00 83 1.22 2.72 0.80 Gujarat Page 46 of 85 Upper Primary with U. Primary& Primary with Upper Primary With Primary Primary State/UT Building Status Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Only Only Private 4.06 12.59 65.73 52. 54.55 10.78 Rented 3.61 9.22 25.87 81 13. 27.27 7.79 Government 91. 77.60 3.50 86 30. 18.18 80.74 Government school in rent free building 47 0.45 0.40 1.40 03 2.97 0.00 0.44 Haryana Private 7.41 83.94 88.98 0.83 4.28 26.07 Rented 1.56 12.66 7.80 0.25 0.44 3.13 Government 89. 1.20 1.86 96. 94.75 69.32 Government school in rent free building 54 0.88 0.07 0.08 45 0.33 0.28 0.53 Himachal Pradesh Private 1.71 28.69 42.49 0.18 0.66 4.95 Rented 4.16 69.64 54.26 0.26 0.47 8.91 Government 92. 1.39 2.11 93. 97.33 84.20 Government school in rent free building 85 1.17 0.00 0.67 05 6.33 1.41 1.79 Jammu & Kashmir Private 6.36 14.98 45.79 0.78 1.77 13.24 Rented 32. 14.97 14.99 54. 4.87 24.34 Government 95 48. 68.74 39.04 69 30. 92.26 55.69 Government school in rent free building 84 11.61 1.29 0.15 47 14.06 1.11 6.60 Jharkhand Private 3.48 6.99 44.20 34. 32.98 7.06 Rented 1.38 2.45 7.89 78 0.00 1.90 2.03 Government 91. 89.13 44.63 43. 53.53 87.83 Government school in rent free building 48 0.62 0.47 0.81 48 15.22 7.69 0.74 Karnataka Private 6.92 18.30 75.48 39. 49.03 21.24 Rented 5.85 7.22 22.11 44 17. 9.58 7.70 Government 86.12 73.89 1.69 14 26.53 35.30 69.30 Government school in rent free building 0.93 0.50 0.46 15. 4.97 1.46 Kerala 49 Page 47 of 85 Upper Primary with U. Primary& Primary with Upper Primary With Primary Primary State/UT Building Status Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Only Only Private 58.56 63.82 60.66 86.26 64.53 61.97 Rented 2.93 2.47 1.02 0.58 0.77 2.26 Government 34.63 30.37 32.95 11.26 30.91 31.95 Government school in rent free building 0.55 0.37 0.45 0.15 0.62 0.49 Lakshadweep Private 11.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.65 Rented 27.78 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 13.95 Government 55.56 100.00 66.67 100.00 100.00 76.74 Government school in rent free building 0.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 2.33 Madhya Pradesh Private 4.36 41.63 51.92 2.56 63.21 9.30 Rented 5.00 57.75 46.63 1.75 24.87 11.29 Government 89.98 0.34 1.21 94.93 10.88 78.79 Government school in rent free building 0.26 0.21 0.20 0.29 1.04 0.26 Maharashtra Private 5.93 8.89 37.28 17. 31.91 12.79 Rented 9.30 15.06 30.35 57 44. 61.33 21.18 Government 82.84 75.04 17.34 59 24.32 4.91 64.09 Government school in rent free building 0.69 0.50 13.90 13. 1.25 1.02 Manipur 51 Private 18.29 52.76 77.34 74.47 26.11 34.73 Rented 0.62 1.23 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.71 Government 77.41 45.55 21.59 25.53 73.89 62.16 Government school in rent free building 0.78 0.46 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.58 Meghalaya Private 38.70 80.09 82.79 42.50 61.54 41.08 Rented 2.37 6.64 5.74 2.55 2.80 2.53 Government 42.61 7.11 7.38 40.09 25.87 40.81 Government school in rent free building 12.57 3.79 1.64 8.65 4.90 11.26 Mizoram Page 48 of 85 Upper Primary with U. Primary& Primary with Upper Primary With Primary Primary State/UT Building Status Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Only Only Private 12.67 74.69 53.85 8.64 20.00 18.52 Rented 1.62 14.81 46.15 1.47 40.00 3.49 Government 80.93 9.57 0.00 85.28 40.00 73.74 Government school in rent free building 1.62 0.31 0.00 2.65 0.00 1.81 Nagaland Private 8.19 85.07 96.01 0.74 2.10 22.44 Rented 1.09 1.87 1.84 0.18 0.00 1.03 Government 79.86 12.69 1.84 65.62 93.01 64.02 Government school in rent free building 3.55 0.37 0.31 4.44 3.50 3.09 Odisha Private 2.98 5.89 45.02 21. 33.79 9.18 Rented 2.06 2.18 5.35 98 0.24 0.79 1.89 Government 90.76 91.09 47.51 71.60 59.68 85.34 Government school in rent free building 0.95 0.35 1.20 4.06 4.28 1.38 Puducherry Private 6.32 26.17 48.64 0.00 0.00 21.76 Rented 8.42 25.23 28.64 0.00 1.10 16.36 Government 84.21 46.73 18.18 0.00 98.90 59.74 Government school in rent free building 0.70 0.93 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.71 Punjab Private 11.82 82.85 85.97 0.17 6.39 29.24 Rented 2.98 15.92 11.39 0.14 0.48 5.02 Government 83.99 0.60 1.72 98.99 92.51 64.75 Government school in rent free building 0.85 0.11 0.19 0.61 0.48 0.60 Rajasthan Private 11.32 41.39 65.73 11.43 8.87 28.49 Rented 0.97 0.83 0.25 3.21 1.24 0.86 Government 82.98 56.58 33.72 81.79 87.97 67.90 Government school in rent free building 2.24 0.81 0.20 2.50 1.49 1.43 Sikkim Page 49 of 85 Upper Primary with U. Primary& Primary with Upper Primary With Primary Primary State/UT Building Status Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Only Only Private 19.19 22.19 15.14 0.00 0.00 19.23 Rented 12.04 14.69 2.70 0.00 28.57 11.41 Government 67.37 62.50 81.62 100.00 71.43 68.30 Government school in rent free building 0.42 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.33 Tamil Nadu Private 27.95 20.62 90.28 73.53 29.01 31.07 Rented 5.25 1.39 7.59 5.88 1.07 4.18 Government 66.35 77.65 1.89 17.65 68.59 64.21 Government school in rent free building 0.41 0.31 0.18 2.94 1.27 0.49 Tripura Private 2.46 2.71 8.95 0.00 10.67 3.86 Rented 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 Government 96.48 97.14 90.56 100.00 86.67 95.42 Government school in rent free building 0.57 0.08 0.49 0.00 2.67 0.45 Uttar Pradesh Private 23.41 82.40 79.93 24.72 83.10 27.52 Rented 4.56 12.88 7.70 2.34 2.52 4.32 Government 70.73 3.14 8.79 71.63 11.06 66.82 Government school in rent free building 0.61 0.54 1.63 0.71 2.34 0.66 Uttarakhand Private 12.54 65.70 72.21 18.43 15.18 16.77 Rented 8.30 29.48 13.65 5.07 0.46 7.90 Government 73.45 1.81 7.94 71.72 78.53 69.86 Government school in rent free building 0.44 0.36 0.99 0.63 1.10 0.54 West Bengal Private 76.72 73.42 69.24 70.78 77.88 76.35 Rented 4.58 20.83 14.46 2.29 1.88 4.47 Government 18.64 5.57 16.18 26.90 20.24 19.13 Government school in rent free building 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.02 All States Page 50 of 85 Upper Primary with U. Primary& Primary with Upper Primary With Primary Primary State/UT Building Status Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Only Only Private 18.58 23.69 65.07 20.31 34.83 22.61 Rented 4.72 11.03 12.01 1.99 13.95 6.78 Government 72.94 64.28 21.15 74.85 48.47 67.63 Government school in rent free building 1.25 0.54 1.07 1.78 1.96 1.21 Table 2: Percentage Distribution of School by Type of School Building (2011-2012) Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Building Type Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec A&N Islands Pucca 36.65 41.89 0.00 0.00 51.96 41.22 Partially Pucca 15.94 9.46 0.00 0.00 4.90 12.18 Kuccha 11.16 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.98 7.03 Tent 1.99 2.70 0.00 0.00 0.98 1.87 Multiple Type 8.37 40.54 0.00 0.00 35.29 20.37 No Response 25.90 4.05 0.00 0.00 5.88 17.33 Andhra Pradesh Pucca 61.54 50.42 49.09 0.00 52.30 57.92 Partially Pucca 2.58 4.11 3.87 0.00 2.73 2.87 Kuccha 1.02 0.61 0.46 0.00 0.29 0.81 Tent 0.16 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.11 Multiple Type 8.86 14.22 9.41 0.00 15.11 10.86 No Response 25.85 30.60 37.18 0.00 29.55 27.43 Arunachal Pradesh Pucca 16.46 33.37 35.94 28. 48.48 21.85 Partially Pucca 21.73 25.41 18.43 95 18.42 18.18 22.31 Kuccha 34.97 4.18 0.92 0.00 3.03 25.51 Page 51 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Building Type Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Tent 8.36 0.31 0.46 0.00 0.00 5.95 Multiple Type 5.93 29.49 30.41 10.53 22.73 12.77 No Response 12.55 7.24 13.82 42.11 7.58 11.62 Assam Pucca 37.08 29.43 25.46 26. 40.95 35.01 Partially Pucca 16.45 15.07 15.48 98 23.86 22.85 17.92 Kuccha 22.11 14.10 15.58 25. 7.28 21.93 Tent 0.34 0.19 0.00 42 0.15 0.00 0.29 Multiple Type 15.95 28.59 19.14 17.98 25.38 16.98 No Response 8.07 12.62 24.34 5.61 3.54 7.87 Bihar Pucca 50.92 65.81 41.72 58. 34.69 56.93 Partially Pucca 1.97 2.61 7.19 72 4.68 9.18 2.29 Kuccha 0.60 0.56 3.79 0.00 1.02 0.61 Tent 0.34 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 Multiple Type 6.46 27.40 22.75 31.06 28.57 15.22 No Response 39.70 3.58 24.55 5.53 26.53 24.74 Chandigarh Pucca 78.57 82.76 94.29 0.00 100.00 91.44 Partially Pucca 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kuccha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 0.00 3.45 2.14 0.00 0.00 2.14 No Response 21.43 13.79 3.57 0.00 0.00 6.42 Chhattisgarh Pucca 54.52 43.64 54.20 62. 32.89 56.15 Partially Pucca 7.74 7.21 4.80 82 2.65 5.26 6.31 Kuccha 1.25 2.47 0.80 0.28 0.66 1.04 Tent 0.09 0.00 0.20 0.06 0.00 0.08 Page 52 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Building Type Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Multiple Type 7.80 5.26 7.60 3.66 5.26 6.56 No Response 28.61 41.42 32.40 30.52 55.92 29.87 D&N Haveli Pucca 22.28 23.08 75.00 0.00 0.00 23.76 Partially Pucca 51.98 25.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.24 Kuccha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 6.44 48.35 12.50 0.00 100.00 19.47 No Response 19.31 3.30 12.50 100.00 0.00 14.52 Daman & Diu Pucca 70.49 75.00 87.50 96. 90.91 79.65 Partially Pucca 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kuccha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No Response 29.51 25.00 12.50 4.00 9.09 20.35 Delhi Pucca 51.97 81.87 68.05 51. 35.29 56.98 Partially Pucca 5.15 1.34 3.61 22 17.07 20.49 6.43 Kuccha 4.41 0.00 0.55 14. 5.24 3.17 Tent 0.16 0.00 0.00 63 0.00 0.00 0.08 Multiple Type 14.78 1.72 20.09 7.32 28.97 16.52 No Response 23.55 15.08 7.69 9.76 10.02 16.82 Goa Pucca 86.61 64.04 84.94 81. 88.44 84.89 Partially Pucca 0.59 0.00 1.81 71 1.22 1.36 0.80 Kuccha 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 0.59 2.25 0.00 1.22 2.04 0.80 Page 53 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Building Type Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec No Response 11.83 33.71 13.25 15.85 8.16 13.25 Gujarat Pucca 71.56 77.40 81.82 73. 81.82 75.80 Partially Pucca 11.00 3.71 0.70 36 1.64 0.00 5.66 Kuccha 0.17 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 Tent 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Multiple Type 7.03 11.41 1.40 0.66 0.00 10.10 No Response 10.22 7.29 16.08 24.34 18.18 8.24 Haryana Pucca 90.24 52.30 55.79 80. 94.70 80.95 Partially Pucca 0.09 0.00 0.03 07 0.08 0.03 0.06 Kuccha 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 Multiple Type 1.06 0.20 0.27 0.68 0.78 0.77 No Response 8.59 47.50 43.92 19.16 4.46 18.20 Himachal Pradesh Pucca 63.88 70.89 82.49 78. 61.83 66.94 Partially Pucca 8.68 2.51 1.24 46 8.22 7.17 7.73 Kuccha 3.24 1.39 0.29 2.99 3.70 3.01 Tent 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Multiple Type 21.55 5.01 5.84 5.85 26.14 18.43 No Response 2.65 20.19 10.14 4.48 1.17 3.88 Jammu & Kashmir Pucca 47.03 62.51 75.72 45. 68.02 55.71 Partially Pucca 19.15 19.55 7.92 74 10.85 8.33 17.98 Kuccha 10.99 4.01 0.34 1.55 1.35 7.25 Tent 0.19 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 Multiple Type 2.28 11.46 13.86 1.55 20.27 6.99 No Response 20.36 2.23 2.17 40.31 2.03 11.88 Page 54 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Building Type Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Jharkhand Pucca 59.79 76.83 49.52 37. 56.16 64.91 Partially Pucca 0.91 1.31 2.09 50 4.17 2.26 1.12 Kuccha 1.18 0.63 0.75 6.25 0.31 0.96 Tent 0.38 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 Multiple Type 2.07 11.91 14.08 20.83 9.24 6.02 No Response 35.67 9.32 33.57 31.25 32.03 26.75 Karnataka Pucca 77.48 80.12 74.09 51. 73.14 77.61 Partially Pucca 2.35 2.31 2.37 05 1.87 2.49 2.35 Kuccha 1.19 0.59 0.34 0.47 0.69 0.82 Tent 0.35 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.18 0.20 Multiple Type 5.98 11.15 4.67 1.41 4.65 7.88 No Response 12.64 5.76 18.45 45.20 18.85 11.14 Kerala Pucca 61.40 45.33 31.48 63. 58.29 53.72 Partially Pucca 3.94 2.18 0.89 65 4.38 2.09 2.99 Kuccha 0.23 0.07 0.00 0.15 0.05 0.14 Tent 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 Multiple Type 12.88 23.01 14.73 18.69 18.00 15.80 No Response 21.54 29.42 52.89 13.14 21.52 27.34 Lakshadweep Pucca 5.00 30.00 50.00 50. 25.00 21.74 Partially Pucca 15.00 20.00 0.00 00 0.00 0.00 10.87 Kuccha 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.35 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 45.00 50.00 16.67 50.00 75.00 47.83 No Response 25.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 15.22 Madhya Pradesh Page 55 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Building Type Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Pucca 81.02 54.98 62.79 84. 65.28 78.36 Partially Pucca 3.23 4.30 3.50 48 1.87 6.74 3.08 Kuccha 0.09 0.52 0.12 0.03 0.52 0.13 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 6.34 3.51 3.34 4.11 5.18 5.48 No Response 9.32 36.69 30.25 9.52 22.28 12.95 Maharashtra Pucca 71.89 76.68 66.82 30. 75.11 73.06 Partially Pucca 4.19 2.93 5.30 26 3.95 6.03 4.28 Kuccha 0.83 0.49 0.47 2.63 1.52 0.94 Tent 0.12 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.07 Multiple Type 6.83 12.91 7.70 1.32 8.94 8.68 No Response 16.15 6.96 19.66 61.84 8.36 12.97 Manipur Pucca 8.42 6.60 19.48 6.38 9.55 9.96 Partially Pucca 35.31 29.91 26.07 25.53 40.76 33.00 Kuccha 36.78 32.98 15.95 46. 12.10 31.86 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 81 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 7.97 17.79 28.22 8.51 33.76 13.96 No Response 11.52 12.73 10.28 12.77 3.82 11.23 Meghalaya Pucca 22.47 33.18 54.92 20. 31.47 22.50 Partially Pucca 45.48 19.63 12.30 27 29.42 25.87 40.45 Kuccha 12.52 6.54 3.28 5.87 2.80 10.54 Tent 0.89 0.93 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.70 Multiple Type 3.04 11.21 9.84 3.58 9.09 3.45 No Response 15.60 28.50 19.67 40.67 30.77 22.37 Mizoram Pucca 1.29 2.77 0.00 1.37 0.00 1.47 Page 56 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Building Type Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Partially Pucca 56.58 32.92 7.69 52.79 20.00 52.03 Kuccha 5.74 6.46 0.00 5.18 0.00 5.55 Tent 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.14 Multiple Type 0.84 0.62 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.85 No Response 35.35 57.23 92.31 39.59 80.00 39.97 Nagaland Pucca 18.65 22.30 43.12 12. 29.17 20.43 Partially Pucca 43.58 40.52 25.69 40 23.40 47.92 37.48 Kuccha 8.64 16.36 2.14 1.67 11.11 7.25 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 7.70 10.78 22.63 3.20 10.42 8.55 No Response 21.42 10.04 6.42 59.33 1.39 26.28 Odisha Pucca 35.82 28.69 48.02 37. 37.04 34.47 Partially Pucca 12.09 6.31 6.53 48 20.28 14.85 11.36 Kuccha 1.15 0.36 0.28 5.53 2.77 1.39 Tent 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 Multiple Type 32.70 62.32 38.27 33.17 40.56 41.13 No Response 18.21 2.32 6.90 3.51 4.78 11.63 Puducherry Pucca 71.88 60.75 67.12 0.00 83.52 70.21 Partially Pucca 2.43 6.54 3.65 0.00 1.10 3.26 Kuccha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 16.67 21.50 26.03 0.00 13.19 19.86 No Response 9.03 11.21 3.20 0.00 2.20 6.67 Punjab Pucca 89.67 71.15 75.43 69. 91.89 83.83 Partially Pucca 0.45 0.48 0.25 82 0.17 0.59 0.40 Page 57 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Building Type Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Kuccha 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 1.42 0.33 0.42 1.03 1.89 1.17 No Response 8.46 28.03 23.90 28.98 5.62 14.60 Rajasthan Pucca 84.88 80.47 84.09 80. 93.57 83.67 Partially Pucca 0.42 0.89 0.64 00 0.36 0.18 0.61 Kuccha 0.23 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.19 Tent 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Multiple Type 1.16 2.69 3.38 0.36 1.75 2.01 No Response 13.28 15.75 11.82 19.29 4.49 13.52 Sikkim Pucca 37.76 26.93 22.70 100. 14.29 32.58 Partially Pucca 20.84 13.31 1.08 00 0.00 14.29 15.84 Kuccha 5.73 4.64 0.54 0.00 14.29 4.71 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 18.18 46.13 69.73 0.00 28.57 33.31 No Response 17.48 8.98 5.95 0.00 28.57 13.57 Tamil Nadu Pucca 52.29 42.29 75.71 44. 60.49 53.10 Partially Pucca 16.11 5.12 1.44 12 14.71 2.11 11.33 Kuccha 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Tent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multiple Type 23.05 46.44 11.16 20.59 23.38 26.54 No Response 8.54 6.15 11.69 20.59 14.02 9.03 Tripura Pucca 40.55 47.05 45.15 0.00 69.33 43.72 Partially Pucca 9.69 10.31 9.45 0.00 9.33 9.82 Kuccha 4.76 1.55 0.49 0.00 1.33 3.01 Page 58 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Building Type Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Tent 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Multiple Type 19.43 39.22 43.44 0.00 20.00 29.47 No Response 25.53 1.86 1.47 100.00 0.00 13.96 Uttar Pradesh Pucca 74.82 58.42 56.99 65. 60.94 71.21 Partially Pucca 0.72 0.97 1.08 69 0.41 0.47 0.64 Kuccha 0.10 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.07 Tent 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Multiple Type 1.29 3.07 2.37 1.43 2.15 1.42 No Response 23.07 37.41 39.57 32.46 36.44 26.64 Uttarakhand Pucca 82.43 73.72 65.10 74. 83.86 80.70 Partially Pucca 4.07 0.96 0.25 95 2.63 1.09 3.37 Kuccha 0.16 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.18 0.15 Tent 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Multiple Type 2.91 2.87 1.49 1.96 10.12 3.41 No Response 10.40 22.10 33.17 20.41 4.74 12.36 West Bengal Pucca 48.72 41.07 56.33 9.25 76.13 48.89 Partially Pucca 6.14 5.85 2.83 1.08 1.05 5.29 Kuccha 1.38 3.36 0.49 0.51 0.08 1.22 Tent 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.05 Multiple Type 14.55 3.74 7.26 1.80 20.37 14.13 No Response 29.15 45.97 33.09 87.33 2.32 30.42 All States Pucca 63.75 66.19 67.30 62. 66.45 64.36 Partially Pucca 5.81 3.84 2.98 30 4.63 4.30 5.11 Kuccha 2.39 0.76 0.74 2.36 0.91 1.91 Tent 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.09 Page 59 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Building Type Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Multiple Type 8.44 15.97 8.49 4.60 14.30 9.86 No Response 19.47 13.21 20.48 26.09 14.00 18.66 Table 3: Percentage Distribution of School by Condition of School Building (2011-2012) Upper Condition of Primary with Primary with U. Primary& Upper Primary With State/UT Primary Only Primary All Schools Classroom Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec Only A & N Islands Good Condition 87.60 83.66 0.00 0.00 87.79 86.98 Need Minor Repair 9.72 9.16 0.00 0.00 8.86 9.14 Need Major Repair 2.69 7.18 0.00 0.00 3.35 3.89 Andhra Pradesh Good Condition 79.53 86.40 93.67 0.00 87.55 83.92 Need Minor Repair 13.78 9.46 5.28 0.00 8.60 10.99 Need Major Repair 6.70 4.14 1.05 0.00 3.86 5.09 Arunachal Pradesh Good Condition 54.08 55.04 65.72 65.07 67.34 56.48 Need Minor Repair 28.88 24.95 20.30 32.19 22.67 26.06 Need Major Repair 17.04 20.01 13.97 2.74 9.98 17.45 Assam Good Condition 61.77 54.16 62.23 50.29 43.09 57.58 Need Minor Repair 18.54 22.12 22.57 21.83 30.85 20.75 Need Major Repair 19.69 23.71 15.21 27.88 26.06 21.67 Bihar Good Condition 74.87 75.58 65.76 70.65 65.99 75.17 Need Minor Repair 15.71 15.00 21.10 16.93 22.05 15.35 Need Major Repair 9.42 9.42 13.14 12.42 11.95 9.48 Chandigarh Page 60 of 85 Upper Condition of Primary with Primary with U. Primary& Upper Primary With State/UT Primary Only Primary All Schools Classroom Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec Only Good Condition 79.84 90.71 92.35 0.00 100.00 91.80 Need Minor Repair 8.87 8.89 6.60 0.00 0.00 6.92 Need Major Repair 11.29 0.40 1.05 0.00 0.00 1.28 Chhattisgarh Good Condition 75.48 95.17 97.46 82.72 87.52 80.58 Need Minor Repair 15.67 4.22 1.93 12.91 9.06 13.06 Need Major Repair 8.85 0.61 0.61 4.37 3.42 6.36 Dadra & Nagar Haveli Good Condition 73.68 90.02 100.00 0.00 100.00 89.36 Need Minor Repair 25.00 7.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.07 Need Major Repair 1.32 2.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.57 Daman & Diu Good Condition 78.79 94.44 100.00 89.91 88.89 88.11 Need Minor Repair 12.46 5.56 0.00 10.09 11.11 8.25 Need Major Repair 8.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64 Delhi Good Condition 94.30 99.67 97.69 89.19 91.55 96.08 Need Minor Repair 4.33 0.28 1.86 8.11 6.48 3.03 Need Major Repair 1.36 0.05 0.45 2.70 1.96 0.89 Goa Good Condition 83.64 92.16 92.95 91.54 86.99 88.09 Need Minor Repair 13.36 6.56 6.18 6.68 10.60 9.82 Need Major Repair 3.01 1.28 0.87 1.78 2.41 2.08 Gujarat Good Condition 87.87 89.80 99.23 94.68 100.00 89.65 Need Minor Repair 8.63 6.50 0.77 5.02 0.00 6.71 Need Major Repair 3.50 3.71 0.00 0.31 0.00 3.64 Haryana Good Condition 85.34 98.13 98.97 88.41 84.55 91.59 Need Minor Repair 8.67 1.66 0.78 7.55 9.32 5.16 Need Major Repair 5.98 0.20 0.25 4.03 6.14 3.25 Page 61 of 85 Upper Condition of Primary with Primary with U. Primary& Upper Primary With State/UT Primary Only Primary All Schools Classroom Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec Only Himachal Pradesh Good Condition 71.66 96.85 97.08 76.07 68.14 79.87 Need Minor Repair 18.77 2.88 2.67 19.78 23.68 14.28 Need Major Repair 9.58 0.27 0.25 4.14 8.18 5.84 Jammu & Kashmir Good Condition 73.18 71.57 88.38 76.56 61.79 76.94 Need Minor Repair 20.69 21.11 8.77 16.67 25.97 17.30 Need Major Repair 6.12 7.32 2.85 6.77 12.23 5.76 Jharkhand Good Condition 87.49 83.86 90.66 84.21 83.73 85.99 Need Minor Repair 6.93 8.19 5.08 5.70 8.30 7.36 Need Major Repair 5.59 7.95 4.26 10.09 7.96 6.66 Karnataka Good Condition 78.22 79.32 98.73 89.57 85.07 82.34 Need Minor Repair 14.84 13.29 1.00 7.38 11.49 11.81 Need Major Repair 6.95 7.39 0.26 3.05 3.44 5.85 Kerala Good Condition 74.55 80.54 88.75 80.27 83.48 81.44 Need Minor Repair 21.22 15.07 8.39 17.63 12.95 14.83 Need Major Repair 4.23 4.39 2.85 2.10 3.57 3.73 Lakshadweep Good Condition 85.19 77.36 90.48 100.00 84.34 84.79 Need Minor Repair 4.63 20.75 9.52 0.00 15.66 11.97 Need Major Repair 10.19 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.24 Madhya Pradesh Good Condition 76.84 94.49 96.79 83.26 93.88 83.32 Need Minor Repair 17.04 5.10 3.01 13.18 5.26 12.72 Need Major Repair 6.12 0.41 0.20 3.56 0.87 3.96 Maharashtra Good Condition 88.36 86.13 93.34 97.09 92.59 89.14 Need Minor Repair 6.80 8.07 4.89 2.33 5.77 6.81 Page 62 of 85 Upper Condition of Primary with Primary with U. Primary& Upper Primary With State/UT Primary Only Primary All Schools Classroom Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec Only Need Major Repair 4.84 5.79 1.77 0.58 1.64 4.05 Manipur Good Condition 44.26 66.24 80.80 34.29 79.67 70.82 Need Minor Repair 31.60 19.74 13.82 51.43 13.69 18.54 Need Major Repair 24.14 14.02 5.38 14.29 6.64 10.64 Meghalaya Good Condition 56.17 69.32 77.76 64.57 64.91 61.11 Need Minor Repair 28.76 21.86 16.02 25.21 27.77 26.43 Need Major Repair 15.08 8.82 6.22 10.22 7.33 12.46 Mizoram Good Condition 59.03 90.81 91.23 68.82 100.00 75.37 Need Minor Repair 28.57 9.08 8.77 21.49 0.00 18.24 Need Major Repair 12.40 0.11 0.00 9.69 0.00 6.40 Nagaland Good Condition 60.97 68.10 84.64 59.95 44.75 70.54 Need Minor Repair 29.18 21.68 13.21 28.70 23.74 21.60 Need Major Repair 9.85 10.21 2.15 11.35 31.51 7.86 Odisha Good Condition 60.26 62.02 81.00 49.01 43.36 59.20 Need Minor Repair 21.26 20.29 12.32 25.02 28.47 21.59 Need Major Repair 18.48 17.69 6.68 25.98 28.17 19.22 Puducherry Good Condition 92.13 93.66 98.91 0.00 87.25 95.18 Need Minor Repair 3.36 4.64 0.68 0.00 7.72 2.74 Need Major Repair 4.51 1.70 0.41 0.00 5.03 2.08 Punjab Good Condition 80.81 97.60 98.90 84.65 83.08 90.57 Need Minor Repair 13.30 2.14 0.96 11.54 10.10 6.55 Need Major Repair 5.89 0.27 0.13 3.81 6.82 2.88 Rajasthan Good Condition 73.59 85.69 89.89 85.65 69.60 82.52 Page 63 of 85 Upper Condition of Primary with Primary with U. Primary& Upper Primary With State/UT Primary Only Primary All Schools Classroom Upper Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec Only Need Minor Repair 17.35 9.84 6.96 10.24 19.79 11.75 Need Major Repair 9.06 4.47 3.15 4.11 10.62 5.73 Sikkim Good Condition 52.37 59.90 58.11 75.00 66.13 56.75 Need Minor Repair 30.51 24.08 26.82 25.00 33.87 27.36 Need Major Repair 17.12 16.02 15.07 0.00 0.00 15.89 Tamil Nadu Good Condition 92.00 91.20 99.64 94.74 92.91 93.82 Need Minor Repair 6.08 6.66 0.31 3.68 5.54 4.73 Need Major Repair 1.92 2.14 0.05 1.58 1.55 1.45 Tripura Good Condition 71.39 67.08 67.40 100.00 60.74 68.47 Need Minor Repair 16.95 18.57 19.88 0.00 25.92 18.62 Need Major Repair 11.67 14.36 12.71 0.00 13.34 12.91 Uttar Pradesh Good Condition 82.18 90.27 93.87 85.33 90.71 84.01 Need Minor Repair 13.78 8.63 4.94 11.56 7.25 12.51 Need Major Repair 4.04 1.11 1.19 3.10 2.04 3.48 Uttarakhand Good Condition 68.34 94.98 97.03 71.27 63.86 73.03 Need Minor Repair 17.19 4.18 2.63 17.34 21.64 15.41 Need Major Repair 14.47 0.84 0.33 11.39 14.50 11.56 West Bengal Good Condition 67.41 78.22 85.35 68.02 65.50 67.63 Need Minor Repair 16.99 13.35 8.33 15.53 18.63 17.10 Need Major Repair 15.60 8.43 6.32 16.45 15.86 15.27 All States Good Condition 77.87 83.84 93.24 81.41 80.70 81.86 Need Minor Repair 14.53 10.42 4.73 13.17 12.11 11.91 Need Major Repair 7.60 5.74 2.03 5.41 7.19 6.23 Page 64 of 85 Table 4: Percentage Distribution of School having Boundary Wall (2011-12) Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec A & N Islands 49.40 38.67 0.00 0.00 46.08 46.73 Andhra Pradesh 46.61 70.91 86.81 0.00 80.40 56.92 Arunachal Pradesh 22.01 52.91 71.10 65.79 83.33 32.77 Assam 21.96 45.47 72.10 18.52 63.91 24.05 Bihar 41.33 68.05 62.08 71.61 60.20 52.49 Chandigarh 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.0 Chhattisgarh 50.06 82.67 89.20 49.28 72.37 0 51.79 D & N Haveli 24.26 69.23 100.00 100.0 100.00 40.26 Daman & Diu 86.89 87.50 100.00 0 96.00 90.91 90.27 Delhi 97.79 97.33 99.37 95.12 99.38 98.32 Goa 71.85 86.52 82.53 75.61 68.71 73.69 Gujarat 77.96 93.12 93.71 93.09 100.00 89.01 Haryana 92.92 97.54 98.96 88.95 97.63 94.56 Himachal Pradesh 41.24 66.16 73.97 38.59 57.24 45.85 Jammu & Kashmir 18.78 35.29 73.83 37.98 59.73 30.83 Jharkhand 14.88 31.10 64.88 58.33 64.31 23.47 Karnataka 59.53 77.07 90.78 73.77 69.02 69.73 Kerala 74.50 82.67 86.06 71.28 85.34 77.48 Lakshadweep 35.00 40.00 66.67 100.0 37.50 43.48 Madhya Pradesh 37.00 83.47 90.90 0 36.94 88.60 43.44 Maharashtra 48.74 69.51 80.87 75.00 70.55 59.00 Manipur 14.18 41.56 71.56 46.81 63.69 30.53 Meghalaya 14.02 58.88 82.79 17.92 49.65 16.81 Mizoram 59.42 52.31 76.92 65.49 80.00 60.82 Nagaland 67.56 71.85 81.96 37.19 54.17 62.26 Odisha 55.12 72.96 83.44 62.19 68.01 61.94 Puducherry 83.68 94.44 92.27 0.00 98.90 89.96 Page 65 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With Upper Primary& State/UT Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Punjab 94.94 97.32 98.02 90.30 95.09 95.24 Rajasthan 59.27 87.02 93.60 89.64 93.17 75.53 Sikkim 20.78 34.98 44.39 100.0 28.57 28.18 Tamil Nadu 68.08 73.24 96.36 0 79.41 81.33 72.65 Tripura 5.18 8.42 37.62 0.00 57.33 12.86 Uttar Pradesh 61.32 86.88 89.57 56.91 91.92 61.75 Uttarakhand 80.93 84.25 95.79 80.63 64.22 79.68 West Bengal 30.63 65.74 78.55 25.26 69.30 34.87 All States 48.57 74.11 88.16 49.12 76.63 56.89 Table 5: Percentage Distribution of School having Drinking Water Facility (2011-12) Primary with Primary with Upper Primary Upper Primary With State/UT Primary Only U. Primary and All Schools Upper Primary Only Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec A & N Islands 96.05 92.06 0.00 0.00 98.89 96.06 Andhra Pradesh 83.47 89.45 99.68 0.00 91.72 85.37 Arunachal Pradesh 70.62 89.39 91.39 94.59 96.72 75.83 Assam 85.74 96.31 100.00 90.30 96.73 86.89 Bihar 88.74 99.05 95.45 99.56 98.86 92.95 Chandigarh 100.00 100.0 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 Chhattisgarh 93.69 0 97.53 100.00 91.73 90.79 93.08 D & N Haveli 97.87 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.00 98.55 Daman & Diu 100.00 0 100.0 100.00 0 100.0 100.00 100.00 Delhi 100.00 0 100.0 100.00 0 100.0 100.00 100.00 Goa 99.43 0 98.31 100.00 0 100.0 100.00 99.23 Gujarat 99.97 99.99 100.00 0 100.0 100.00 99.99 Haryana 99.28 94.74 100.00 0 99.19 99.84 99.37 Page 66 of 85 Primary with Primary with Upper Primary Upper Primary With State/UT Primary Only U. Primary and All Schools Upper Primary Only Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec Himachal Pradesh 98.65 100.0 100.00 97.67 99.53 98.63 Jammu & Kashmir 75.15 0 84.02 94.83 88.28 92.17 79.58 Jharkhand 87.21 94.66 97.92 96.30 96.19 90.00 Karnataka 99.38 99.74 100.00 99.13 98.01 99.40 Kerala 97.65 99.49 97.62 98.77 99.37 94.81 Lakshadweep 100.00 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.00 100.00 Madhya Pradesh 97.87 0 98.67 100.00 0 97.31 100.00 97.73 Maharashtra 90.38 94.87 98.02 100.0 97.77 92.18 Manipur 93.48 96.88 99.30 0 100.0 100.00 94.51 Meghalaya 61.98 73.68 87.50 0 52.00 82.35 59.20 Mizoram 89.92 87.14 100.00 91.05 100.00 90.00 Nagaland 65.63 89.19 93.75 42.60 65.49 59.94 Odisha 92.93 97.46 97.94 96.37 97.98 94.66 Puducherry 100.00 100.0 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 Punjab 99.99 0 100.0 99.62 100.0 99.97 99.97 Rajasthan 91.97 0 95.74 96.03 0 98.80 96.97 93.74 Sikkim 93.50 98.11 99.37 100.0 100.00 95.68 Tamil Nadu 100.00 100.0 100.00 0 100.0 100.00 100.00 Tripura 66.35 0 77.27 94.57 0 100.0 96.97 74.90 Uttar Pradesh 99.19 98.85 100.00 0 94.94 100.00 97.88 Uttarakhand 95.69 100.0 100.00 93.47 94.35 95.19 West Bengal 97.86 0 94.17 98.77 91.12 99.40 97.57 All States 93.28 96.51 97.09 93.89 97.11 94.10 Page 67 of 85 Table 6: Percentage distribution of schools having girls Toilet facility 2011-2012 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Upper Primary With Functional Girls Upper Primary& State/UT Primary Only Primary Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Toilet Primary Sec./Higher.Sec A & N Islands 72.91 90.67 0.00 0.00 98.04 82.0 90.88 Andhra Pradesh 51.39 76.62 92.10 0.00 83.10 1 61.3 46.89 Arunachal Pradesh 24.09 68.13 84.72 78.9 87.88 8 38.5 72.63 Assam 49.02 67.91 71.44 5 49.7 67.90 0 50.5 80.43 Bihar 41.31 67.61 48.69 5 78.2 64.95 4 52.2 77.86 Chandigarh 100.00 100.00 100.00 6 0.00 100.00 3 100.00 98.92 Chhattisgarh 48.94 76.50 93.17 60.2 66.91 53.7 78.06 D & N Haveli 53.47 83.52 100.00 4 100.0 100.00 7 64.0 91.24 Daman & Diu 93.44 100.00 100.00 095.4 100.00 3 95.4 95.24 Delhi 98.64 100.00 100.00 5 100.0 100.00 5 99.3 99.01 Goa 74.58 88.76 94.44 096.2 92.41 4 80.4 91.02 Gujarat 99.55 99.70 100.00 5 100.0 100.00 7 99.6 97.80 Haryana 91.78 97.00 98.96 085.2 97.98 6 93.5 94.07 Himachal Pradesh 95.14 91.36 98.56 8 97.6 99.24 9 96.0 86.68 Jammu & Kashmir 15.02 43.14 83.17 7 51.2 71.02 2 32.7 75.82 Jharkhand 63.64 74.46 82.02 8 56.5 75.05 7 68.2 83.74 Karnataka 96.56 97.84 98.31 2 96.6 95.73 0 97.0 98.57 Kerala 72.14 87.93 88.93 3 88.0 95.20 3 80.7 85.19 Lakshadweep 65.00 90.00 66.67 0 100.0 100.00 2 78.2 88.89 Madhya Pradesh 75.60 79.69 92.97 074.9 92.26 6 76.2 80.43 Maharashtra 68.48 84.99 93.07 0 92.1 88.36 9 77.3 96.92 Manipur 85.97 84.20 95.71 9 55.3 90.38 0 87.1 87.54 Meghalaya 34.82 62.62 95.76 2 37.4 66.67 0 36.8 75.24 Mizoram 72.58 68.92 96.15 7 83.3 80.00 6 76.1 84.78 Nagaland 59.34 83.70 93.27 3 35.9 67.83 4 59.9 60.50 Odisha 29.30 52.60 68.57 3 45.6 68.67 6 41.1 60.16 0 4 Page 68 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Upper Primary With Functional Girls Upper Primary& State/UT Primary Only Primary Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Toilet Primary Sec./Higher.Sec Puducherry 95.74 100.00 99.53 0.00 97.37 97.7 99.25 Punjab 82.91 85.27 95.61 90.9 97.44 9 87.8 97.84 Rajasthan 93.18 97.25 98.49 8 96.7 97.32 1 95.5 93.61 Sikkim 72.32 91.90 96.77 5 100.0 100.00 4 81.8 92.62 Tamil Nadu 65.83 90.62 96.07 079.6 89.24 7 75.2 95.08 Tripura 29.56 68.62 82.06 9 100.0 85.29 6 51.1 82.87 Uttar Pradesh 80.63 86.70 87.42 081.8 85.23 8 81.3 83.54 Uttarakhand 75.03 87.08 94.18 1 79.9 86.40 2 77.6 82.23 West Bengal 49.80 72.85 85.25 3 53.2 95.72 3 54.7 89.05 All States 65.40 83.02 93.12 1 73.1 88.18 0 72.1 84.68 3 6 Table 7: Percentage Distribution of schools having boys toilet facility 2011-2012 Primary with Primary with Upper Primary Upper Primary With Functional Boys Upper U. State/UT Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Toilet Primary Primary& A & N Islands 80.48 92.00 0.00 0.00 98.02 86.65 83.51 Andhra Pradesh 70.83 83.46 86.07 0.00 80.67 74.63 21.57 Arunachal Pradesh 51.89 80.04 91.16 42.86 11.41 51.64 41.54 Assam 56.17 75.37 83.90 51.57 76.27 56.88 41.35 Bihar 59.05 86.35 65.73 82.40 77.42 70.31 51.37 Chandigarh 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 98.91 Chhattisgarh 51.05 75.48 91.38 58.20 69.01 54.56 71.00 D & N Haveli 69.31 87.91 100.00 0.00 100.00 75.83 78.17 Daman & Diu 98.36 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.09 89.91 Delhi 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.81 Goa 82.76 92.05 96.89 98.77 95.92 86.98 75.83 Gujarat 54.27 84.81 90.65 93.21 100.00 76.36 93.68 Haryana 92.04 98.33 99.28 80.01 92.82 92.65 87.28 Page 69 of 85 Primary with Primary with Upper Primary Upper Primary With Functional Boys Upper U. State/UT Primary Only Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Toilet Primary Primary& Himachal Pradesh 76.69 95.26 98.37 79.13 89.07 80.58 82.52 Jammu & Kashmir 32.50 64.42 88.79 52.63 81.11 50.22 42.52 Jharkhand 71.38 81.63 86.13 61.90 68.41 75.36 71.44 Karnataka 97.86 98.16 98.42 96.50 95.64 97.66 95.84 Kerala 87.83 87.20 86.12 91.96 90.39 87.97 74.09 Lakshadweep 85.00 90.00 83.33 100.00 100.00 89.13 78.05 Madhya Pradesh 90.59 91.23 96.60 85.21 93.85 89.67 66.50 Maharashtra 90.96 95.68 94.90 93.10 92.08 92.49 93.43 Manipur 91.16 93.98 98.61 91.30 97.95 93.10 81.82 Meghalaya 58.69 80.09 97.46 60.52 83.21 60.12 45.27 Mizoram 70.50 84.31 96.15 72.38 80.00 72.93 27.60 Nagaland 76.03 92.59 96.31 40.25 77.78 71.76 37.82 Odisha 74.87 83.51 76.42 72.28 72.08 76.65 23.26 Puducherry 98.58 100.00 98.62 0.00 95.95 98.51 95.78 Punjab 96.79 98.29 99.20 97.41 98.46 97.59 79.46 Rajasthan 67.72 84.39 90.45 76.67 81.60 77.22 91.83 Sikkim 93.02 98.75 97.30 100.00 100.00 95.20 57.09 Tamil Nadu 84.07 86.32 96.00 88.06 80.75 84.93 72.14 Tripura 69.40 81.19 94.58 100.00 92.19 77.69 35.70 Uttar Pradesh 87.85 88.51 91.76 87.51 87.60 87.80 65.65 Uttarakhand 93.46 95.57 96.07 91.50 92.44 93.17 63.02 West Bengal 85.80 87.16 89.23 67.60 94.15 85.44 46.30 All States 78.17 87.27 93.02 79.53 85.94 81.14 65.87 Page 70 of 85 Table 8: Percentage distribution of school having ramps 2011-12 Primary with Primary with U. Primary Upper Primary Upper Primary With State/UT Primary Only Upper & Sec./Higher.Sec Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary A & N Islands 17.93 26.67 0.00 0.00 28.43 21.96 Andhra Pradesh 16.98 25.38 16.69 0.00 24.37 19.6 Arunachal Pradesh 3.65 6.93 9.17 13.16 7.58 4.81 Assam 50.58 52.28 5.60 37.25 13.01 46.35 Bihar 45.06 75.78 21.96 77.97 35.71 57.51 Chandigarh 21.43 44.83 49.29 0.00 50.00 46.52 Chhattisgarh 40.01 17.94 21.60 45.17 24.34 40.17 D & N Haveli 15.84 31.87 12.50 100.0 0.00 20.79 Daman & Diu 49.18 50.00 12.50 0 68.00 45.45 50.44 Delhi 60.92 52.00 70.17 60.98 84.92 65.4 Goa 46.53 55.06 15.06 23.17 23.81 40.03 Gujarat 84.92 81.44 46.85 45.72 27.27 81.98 Haryana 63.80 36.99 44.32 65.37 78.35 60.84 Himachal Pradesh 56.80 11.28 11.29 46.33 64.03 51.7 Jammu & Kashmir 5.84 20.33 18.46 13.95 18.81 12.52 Jharkhand 30.10 50.77 30.62 22.92 11.28 36.56 Karnataka 60.65 72.30 23.84 43.09 27.44 58.76 Kerala 57.72 58.15 40.80 64.14 49.87 54.38 Lakshadweep 45.00 80.00 66.67 0.00 87.50 60.87 Madhya Pradesh 54.55 37.78 48.45 66.77 48.19 55.05 Maharashtra 78.15 75.04 28.51 32.89 21.89 64.96 Manipur 4.86 8.13 11.01 6.38 10.19 6.65 Meghalaya 18.36 10.75 9.84 23.39 16.08 19.4 Mizoram 50.26 8.62 3.85 54.74 0.00 46.61 Nagaland 9.26 8.15 6.73 6.69 5.56 8.22 Odisha 45.62 64.57 34.87 43.71 11.27 46.23 Puducherry 59.72 41.67 36.36 0.00 72.53 51.34 Punjab 76.05 14.54 21.24 86.84 86.53 63.34 Page 71 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Primary Upper Primary Upper Primary With State/UT Primary Only Upper & Sec./Higher.Sec Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary Rajasthan 53.24 59.11 55.66 67.86 72.78 56.89 Sikkim 3.77 5.57 10.16 0.00 0.00 5.18 Tamil Nadu 59.18 83.94 22.93 55.88 67.99 62.33 Tripura 51.06 52.40 75.86 0.00 76.00 56.34 Uttar Pradesh 77.87 47.18 47.85 68.78 45.32 73.32 Uttarakhand 47.71 12.89 20.79 42.52 30.58 43.5 West Bengal 48.99 8.59 21.69 15.11 65.06 47.72 All States 53.28 59.96 36.27 58.48 40.19 53.43 Table 9: Percentage distribution of school having playground 2011-12 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With State/UT Primary Only Upper Primary Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary & A & N Islands 51.79 61.33 0.00 0.00 69.61 57.71 Sec./Higher.Sec Andhra Pradesh 48.19 66.75 81.22 0.00 81.58 57.45 Arunachal Pradesh 21.36 54.23 75.69 36.84 80.30 32.54 Assam 47.79 53.63 58.04 66.91 76.13 52.40 Bihar 23.06 44.63 48.50 52.97 60.20 32.19 Chandigarh 92.86 86.21 96.43 0.00 100.00 94.65 Chhattisgarh 33.05 72.15 83.60 44.88 69.74 38.67 D & N Haveli 20.79 41.76 100.00 100.0 100.00 29.70 Daman & Diu 47.54 62.50 87.50 0 60.00 63.64 55.75 Delhi 74.48 80.57 92.23 58.54 79.38 80.08 Goa 40.18 59.55 81.93 63.41 65.99 49.64 Gujarat 64.89 77.11 95.10 91.45 100.00 73.97 Haryana 70.64 84.76 91.91 68.82 80.19 76.62 Himachal Pradesh 60.14 95.82 97.03 58.86 84.31 66.63 Jammu & Kashmir 20.89 44.85 82.77 31.01 64.82 36.29 Jharkhand 26.18 30.89 56.75 62.50 68.21 29.97 Karnataka 49.56 69.91 89.40 77.52 85.62 65.65 Page 72 of 85 Primary with Primary with U. Upper Primary Upper Primary With State/UT Primary Only Upper Primary Only Sec./Higher.Sec All Schools Primary & Kerala 56.78 70.62 81.06 85.57 86.96 66.42 Sec./Higher.Sec Lakshadweep 0.00 20.00 16.67 0.00 100.00 23.91 Madhya Pradesh 51.18 84.19 92.19 55.52 90.67 56.73 Maharashtra 52.62 64.13 88.99 80.26 88.96 63.35 Manipur 50.51 58.74 72.48 59.57 83.44 56.91 Meghalaya 32.46 49.53 71.31 41.72 66.43 35.84 Mizoram 36.58 47.08 57.69 43.60 60.00 40.34 Nagaland 35.58 63.33 73.09 27.30 54.86 40.50 Odisha 18.15 29.60 56.95 50.96 71.50 29.65 Puducherry 44.44 72.22 89.09 0.00 72.53 66.20 Punjab 72.46 69.33 83.60 82.01 87.94 76.88 Rajasthan 31.19 52.91 73.49 57.14 67.67 46.27 Sikkim 49.79 75.85 83.96 100.0 71.43 61.94 Tamil Nadu 74.87 74.71 98.19 0 83.82 84.04 77.61 Tripura 49.94 64.76 80.51 100.0 85.33 60.34 Uttar Pradesh 77.40 85.47 84.19 0 78.37 87.15 78.18 Uttarakhand 55.31 81.86 89.60 55.42 55.83 56.93 W est Bengal 28.11 37.40 53.06 35.05 63.52 32.30 All States 48.85 60.64 81.00 64.72 79.28 56.10 Table 10 : Percentage Distribution of Schools Having Kitchen Shed 2011-12 Primary with U. Primary Upper Primary % Schools Providing Mid-day Primary with Upper Primary & With Meal (Government & Aided State/UT Primary Only Upper Primary Only All Schools Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec Management) A & N Islands 17.51 31.75 0.00 0.00 30.43 23.80 94.28 Andhra Pradesh 32.44 63.26 75.08 0.00 8.54 32.98 95.90 Arunachal Pradesh 24.80 46.31 48.30 47.37 31.25 30.52 84.26 Assam 64.02 64.46 8.89 3.35 4.67 49.03 89.87 Page 73 of 85 Primary with U. Primary Upper Primary % Schools Providing Mid-day Primary with Upper Primary & With Meal (Government & Aided State/UT Primary Only Upper Primary Only All Schools Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec Management) Bihar 8.83 20.7 6.53 12.4 14.44 13.6 92.48 Chandigarh 0.00 1 46.6 23.08 5 0.00 66.67 3 25.4 93.22 Chhattisgarh 49.88 7 39.20 54.17 18.51 30.68 2 40.71 97.08 D & N Haveli 27.55 44.19 33.33 0.00 100.00 32.75 99.65 Daman & Diu 57.14 75.00 33.33 60.00 81.82 60.87 97.83 Delhi 2.00 29.6 14.76 14.2 10.30 6.3 8.66* Goa 1.04 3 5.19 10.26 9 9.88 9.59 9 3.6 96.97 Gujarat 39.45 47.35 30.77 28.57 25.00 6 44.83 89.94 Haryana 20.48 20.59 17.78 13.21 15.15 18.18 97.14 Himachal Pradesh 18.67 0.00 23.08 1.80 3.15 13.92 99.41 Jammu & Kashmir 0.79 2.19 5.26 6.25 5.82 1.6 96.90 Jharkhand 23.89 42.68 42.11 23.08 29.31 2 30.57 97.09 Karnataka 71.94 78.35 29.61 41.80 33.22 68.80 97.16 Kerala 61.91 62.79 62.56 66.04 60.88 61.24 95.82 Lakshadweep 65.00 80.00 50.00 50.00 87.50 69.57 97.83 Madhya Pradesh 66.02 19.44 26.97 25.12 40.85 55.48 97.83 Maharashtra 26.07 34.70 57.33 11.54 31.12 29.24 94.28 Manipur 67.02 67.60 69.54 14.71 23.84 64.52 96.33 Meghalaya 24.68 9.71 14.93 9.85 6.84 20.21 89.43 Mizoram 52.81 16.20 0.00 6.18 0.00 32.78 93.18 Nagaland 67.73 72.97 31.25 34.22 80.28 59.27 74.13 Odisha 20.02 32.98 43.53 7.99 11.78 21.83 94.45 Puducherry 25.30 42.59 36.11 0.00 11.11 26.23 96.59 Punjab 25.27 5.19 7.61 1.74 2.85 17.43 87.49 Rajasthan 35.22 41.95 45.12 33.20 17.93 36.48 75.41 Sikkim 25.94 36.77 37.72 100.00 42.86 30.86 91.08 Tamil Nadu 92.10 94.60 64.27 94.00 88.20 91.82 97.64 Tripura 43.85 69.70 76.63 0.00 52.00 57.19 99.43 Page 74 of 85 Primary with U. Primary Upper Primary % Schools Providing Mid-day Primary with Upper Primary & With Meal (Government & Aided State/UT Primary Only Upper Primary Only All Schools Sec./Higher.Sec Sec./Higher.Sec Management) Uttar Pradesh 61.39 8.53 10.04 13.52 6.84 45.55 89.21 Uttarakhand 73.62 22.22 22.50 7.14 6.27 53.79 97.33 West Bengal 56.59 5.43 18.52 4.89 21.70 49.43 86.82 All States 46.30 44.75 40.73 15.06 25.10 40.94 92.06 Note - Source of Data used in Table 1-10 is from Analytical Data Report available on DISE website. Page 75 of 85 Annexure 2 : Guidelines for Environment Friendly Schools In addition to the SSA’s existing guidelines and manuals, the following guidance is being provided to help create safe and sustainable school buildings and enhance environmental friendliness of school buildings: a. Sustainable School Design Innovative Design is strongly committed to designing schools that not only embrace the concept of sustainability but are, in themselves, teaching tools for sustainability. Studies have shown that schools incorporating passive solar features, such as daylighting, use less energy, student grades have improved, and attendance is higher. The school should incorporate environmentally friendly design principles, including:  Building orientation to increase day lighting and reduce fluorescent lighting  High-efficiency electric lighting  Light and motion detectors to monitor energy usage (if viable)  Solar panels to heat water for the school  Minimize impervious surface in the landscape  Rainwater collection to water school lawns  Native landscaping to reduce water use  Eco-garden to demonstrate water conservation and aquatic plants and animals (if viable)  Outdoor teaching spaces  Use of regionally produced products  Low-toxic or non-toxic building materials  Weather station to demonstrate energy and water conservation systems  Minimized construction waste, and recycling of construction materials, and  Restoring waterways and vegetation in and around site. b. Site Selection and Preservation It is appreciated that from a design perspective, designers are not commonly presented with a choice of sites for a new building to be constructed upon. However, in those situations where a choice is offered it is necessary to consider, again at the earliest possible stage, the wider issues in design terms. The site may be vulnerable due to possibility of flooding, pollution or vehicular accidents. To ensure safety of students, the following guidance may be of help:  The site should be at least 5 ft above the 100 years High Flood Level of the nearest water body. Page 76 of 85  The site should not be located within 1 km from any industrial estate or any major hazard category industry as per Ministry of Environment and Forest classification.  The site should not be within 1 km at the downwind side of any red category industry as per the Central Pollution Control Board classification. Wind direction should be taken as annual average wind direction provided by nearest weather station.  The site should not be abutting National Highways. If unavoidable, then the access to the site should not be directly from the highway.  The site should not be on or within a distance of 500 m from a municipal/ hazardous waste dumping ground.  The site should not be on or within a distance of 500 m from a contaminated area declared by State of Central Pollution Control Board. It is preferable to choose site which is near to:  Bus stops  Developed area with where local governmental body is providing water supply, sewage and solid waste facility c. Use of site features/site planning and landscape design The design must make use of existing site features. The site features can be appreciated in the form of existing trees, slope, boulders, water body/channel or even presence of good view of natural landscape. As far as possible, such features should be preserved and used as part of design.  Develop the site in an environmentally sensitive manner.  Understand and maximize natural site conditions.  Design the site for easy pedestrian, bicycle, mass transit, and handicap accessibility.  Provide site protection during construction. d. Energy Efficient Building Envelope  Design shall address all radiant energy flows as well as conductive heat gain and loss.  Select the optimum glazing for each location on the building.  Provide proper window treatments to maximize winter solar gain and minimize summer overheating. e. Construction Material Major amount of energy is consumed by building construction material in manufacturing and transportation. Page 77 of 85 Use of Recycled Material: Recycling construction material or use of material with recycled content will reduce demand for new material. Maximum use of fly ash can be a major environmental achievement. As per the Fly Ash Notification September 1999 and amended as on August 23 rd 2003 fly ash should be used as building construction material, if the project is located with 100km of Thermal Power Station. This can be achieved through following measures:  RC (reinforced concrete) (including ready-mix concrete) to make use of fly ash by using PPC (Portland pozzolona cement) containing fly ash. A minimum of 15 percent replacement of cement with fly ash in PPC (by weight of the cement used) in the over-all RC for meeting the equivalent strength requirements.  Use fly ash in Plaster/masonry mortar by employing PPC. Use plaster and/or masonry mortar, which utilizes a minimum 30 percent of fly ash in PPC, in 100 percent wall/ceiling finishes and wall construction, meeting the required structural properties. Other recycled material can be incorporated in the building by adopting the following measures:  Use of recycled steel for reinforcement.  Use of construction waste generated during construction for levelling and land filling instead of soil or murom.  Use of furnace slag in concrete.  Use of rejected or thrown away furniture. In case of retrofitting existing building, emphasis should be on preserving all the structural members in their original form and use the shell of the building, as far as possible, to house the new activities. Local Material: To reduce the energy consumption in material transport, use of local material is essential. Any material, which is processed within 500 km from the construction site should be considered as local material. As mentioned earlier if there is conflict between relatively maintenance free material to be procured from distance against high maintenance required material available locally, the decision maker should choose material with less maintenance requirement. Use of precast beams, slabs and panels greatly reduces construction waste and hence demand for new material. Wood: Use of material obtained from rapidly growing trees and shrubs will also reduce pressure on new material. Trees or shrubs that complete their life cycle within 10 years should be considered as rapidly renewable material. Example of such building material is composite panel doors with wheat or cork core. Wood whenever used in the building must have certificate from Forest Department. The wood should be directly procured from Auction conducted by Forest Department or the chain of custody should be ensured to ascertain that the wood is coming from officially cut wood provided by Forest Department. Page 78 of 85 f. Indoor Air Quality / VOC free materials Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions caused by paints, varnishes, sealants are harmful for occupiers. The building must use paints that emit low or zero VOC. The VOC limits are specified in the table below. Material and VOC Limits Type of Material VOC Limit Paints Non Flat Paints 150 gram/litre Flat (Mat) Paints 50 gram/litre Anti Corrosive/ Anti Rust Paint 250 gram/litre Varnish 350 gram/litre Adhesives Wood Flooring Adhesives 100 gram/litre Tile Adhesives 65 gram/litre Wood Adhesives 30 gram/litre  Consider physical, biological, and chemical sources of potentially harmful contaminants and select environmentally friendly alternatives.  Consider material placement, encapsulation, and the incorporation of barriers as means to insure good indoor air quality.  Incorporate standards for air ventilation strategies.  Implement pollutant sensors and air quality monitoring equipment that controls fresh air make-up.  Use natural ventilation strategies where practical. g. Lighting Sufficient lighting is essential in every school building for tasks like reading, writing, art and crafts etc. Insufficient lighting may increase stress on eyes and irritation. The lighting can be divided as Natural Lighting and Artificial Lighting according to its source. Natural Lighting: In a school building, lighting is most important aspect of design. Use of natural light is most preferable as it is free and provides better colour recognition. At least 75% of the floor area of each classroom should achieve at least 2% day light factor. Day light factor can be calculated using various free software that can simulate the natural lighting. For manual calculation following method should be adopted. Page 79 of 85  Window Area: Area of glass in the window  Floor Area: Carpet area of the room  Actual Visible transmittance: Transmittance of glass used for window For other factors see the following figure. Other considerations include the following:  Incorporate day lighting as a significant lighting strategy for all main teaching and learning spaces.  Orient buildings to maximize southern exposure and minimize east -west walls.  Reduce cost by integrating day lighting components into overall design.  Account for benefits of day lighting by reducing cooling equipment and electrical lighting.  In general, the internal colour should by a light shade which will reflect available light Energy Benefits of Day Lighting  Drastically reduces energy costs by up to 64%  Saves on the up-front expense of cooling and electrical equipment, thereby keeping costs within budget  Cuts the expenses associated with long-term mechanical and lighting equipment maintenance  Produces superior lighting conditions; and  Improves health and increases attendance. Artificial Lighting / Energy Efficient Lighting and Electrical Systems: Artificial lighting should be mostly used as support to natural lighting at day hours in most of the classrooms. Artificial lighting will be absolutely necessary in case of laboratories, library, stores and function halls. While selecting lighting bulbs, the following factors should be considered:  The lighting should be designed using software that can simulate indoor lighting conditions using manufacturer’s data about luminaries. Such software is freely available on internet.  Compact Fluorescent Lamps are easily available and provide great efficiency in lighting small spaces. These lamps or T5 tube lights should be used in class rooms.  To light large areas like play ground or function halls, high pressure sodi um vapour lamps should be used. These lamps are the most energy efficient lamps and have long working life. Page 80 of 85  Lighting grid should match the working platform grid in laboratories.  Employ lighting systems that are compatible with the day lighting strategy and use full-spectrum lighting in well-utilized, non-day lit spaces.  Utilize controls that reduce lighting levels in stages according to the amount of natural daylight in each space.  Use high-efficiency products that require low maintenance.  Control key components of lighting, mechanical, and electrical systems with energy management system. h. Ventilation Indoor air quality is adversely affected by presence of indoor air pollutants and air changes. In a school building, indoor air pollution can come from following sources: paints, varnishes, solvents that emit volatile organic compounds and carbon dioxide from human breathing. Generally used cleaning agents and cooking also contributes to indoor air pollution. To eliminate the threat of indoor air pollution , good ventilation is essential. To ensure good ventilation following points should be considered:  In most of the school building the class rooms are built along a corridor in a row. This arrangement minimizes use of space but eliminates the possibility of cross ventilation. If the school design is single storied then following arrangement can be used to achieve cross ventilation without compromising the use of single corridor by two rows of classrooms. See figure given here.  At least 3 m. distance should be there between two external surfaces (say, walls) which are facing each other.  Preferably, the room should have openings on two different walls to ensure cross ventilation.  After the building construction is complete, including internal colouring and furniture work, the building should not be used for 10 days. During this time, all the doors and windows should be kept open so that all accumulated indoor pollution during construction can be flushed out.  Laboratories must achieve desired ventilation through exhaust fans.  If the school building is single storey, wherever possible wall mounted fans should be used instead of ceiling fans. The ceiling of a single storied building absorbs heat of sun radiation and the ceiling fan circulates hot air into the room. A wall mounted fan circulates comparatively cooler air and adds to the comfort of the user.  Employ energy efficient mechanical system.  Avoid over sizing equipment.  Utilize waste heat wherever possible.  Use energy efficient strategies to insure good indoor air quality. Page 81 of 85 i. Water Water conservation in a school building can be achieved by adopting the following measures:  Providing water efficient landscape.  Trees that do not require water after first two years should be preferred i n the school premises.  Minimize water consumption for irrigation through the use of native plants and xeriscape principles.  Design landscapes with drought-resistant, native plants and grasses, and that support integrated pest management (IPM).  The garden or trees should be irrigated with drip irrigation system  Avoid unnecessary water waste by incorporating low-flow and water conserving fixtures.  Use low-flow fixtures. Water efficient taps (discharging less than 12 litres/minute under 5 bar pressure) should be installed.  The taps should be of self closing type.  Water efficient duel flushing system should be used in all water closets.  Harvest rainwater from the building roof and site for irrigation and toilet flushing. Rainwater harvesting can be efficient way of reducing fresh water demand. Rain water harvesting system should be installed in the school building. The system should include water collecting pipes from the roof top, valves to direct the down coming water, storage tank and ground water recharge pit/ well. The storage tank should be able store at least two days rain water in it. The capacity of the tank can be calculated in the following manner. Max Rain Fall (as per IMD) occurred in a day in = Storage Capacity of tank last 10 years for the regions expressed in meters in Cubic Meters X roof area in squire meters X 0.9 X 2 The system should allow for the first rainfall water to be directed to storm water drain and then subsequently should be directed into the storage tank. The overflow of the storage tank should be connected to rainwater harvesting pit or well. The overflow of the recharge pit or well should be connected to storm water drainage. j. Energy Reducing the electrical consumption without compromising the users comfort level is the goal of a sustainable building. The energy consumption in a school building would be for lighting and mechanical ventilation. If the day-lighting and ventilation aspects are taken care of, the majority of electrical consumption requirements Page 82 of 85 would be reduced. To enhance energy savings, the following measures should be implemented.  Consider the wide range of viable passive energy technologies and integrate them into over-all design for maximum effect.  Could use Energy modelling and simulation softwares as a decision making tool regards to the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) that can be implemented and are also economically viable.  Use of electrical ballast for all lighting fixtures  Use of China Mosaic or White Cement Tiles on the roof to reflect the heat radiated by sun.  Use of energy efficient fans.  Installation and use of at least 1 kW capacity hybrid system (Solar and Wind) for artificial lighting.  Dove tailing with other GoI initiatives such as the Solar Mission. k. Solid Waste Solid waste generated in the school building is considered as Municipal Solid Waste which is largely non-hazardous. Such waste would comprise of biodegradable material, recyclable material and inert material. Segregation at source would be essential to manage the waste efficiently. The biodegradable part of the waste should be composted within the school premises. Various composting techniques are available and can be used as per the requirement of the particular case. Composting would be most suitable technique for rural schools as it requires large areas but can be treated without any cost. Vermi-composting, on the other hand requires smaller space and requires some maintenance at regular intervals. Organic Waste Converter requires least space but is costliest to maintain. Thus, technique should be selected according to space availability and cost constraints. The recyclable waste can be sold to authorised vendors and inert waste should be handed over to the local governing body. Some part of waste generated by school may be hazardous waste also. Especially waste coming from laboratories and non-functional electrical bulbs would prove dangerous, if not handled properly. Waste coming from laboratories may contain harmful chemicals and the issue with Compact Florescent Lamps are the sharp glass pieces and mercury. The designer should provide a secluded storage space for such waste which is not easily accessible to any student. l. Barrier free Environment The States need to create a barrier free physical environment in the school on following lines: Page 83 of 85 Children with loco-motor impairment: Includes children with non ambulatory and semi ambulatory disabilities.  Gates, approach road and steps to allow for smooth movement.  Ramps with handrails to be provided.  No major level differences within building.  Toilets to be provided with adjustable seat, grab rail and ramp. Children with visual impairment: Includes children with low vision and total blindness.  Plan of the building should be simple.  Design of windows and illumination levels to eliminate glare  Reduce distance between the child and the chalk board  Use of contrasting colours and textures to aid identification of levels, ramps, passageways, steps, doors etc.  Minimize risk of injuries - avoid projections, sharp edges etc.  Provision of embossed eye charts on walls Children with hearing impairment: Children with hearing deficiency or have difficulty in comprehending words and sounds in noisy environments.  Reduce distance between teacher and child  Insulate walls – provision of low cost mats and panels, soft board, charts etc.  Provision of supplementary visual information – ideograms Children with intellectual impairment: Children with uncommon social behavior or hyperactive  Provide for open space and greenery  Create / in built personal space for the child  Use of bright colours  Provision of in built play elements m. Safety Safety of the pupil and teaching staff is foremost important issue, which can be addressed through some design interventions as mentioned below:  Providing sufficient high boundary wall – open access not just to the school grounds but to areas around the buildings will be a safety concern as schools in rural areas may be constructed outside developed areas.  Providing strong and good quality doors, windows, frames and locking devices;  Making roofs difficult to access  Providing sufficient firebreaks in wall, ceiling and roof voids; Page 84 of 85  Improper or easily accessible storage of waste could be harmful to pupil  Providing sufficient and proper storage. Lack of this generally results in piling of equipments, furniture or records in corridor which will hamper movement especially in the case of emergency. n. Other Environmentally Sensitive Building Products and Systems  Consider the life-cycle energy and environmental impacts of products, materials, and processes - prefer local, recycled, non-polluting materials.  Use products that are made from recycled materials.  Prefer local products, materials, and services.  Use products/materials that do not pollute  Use alternative fuel and solar electric service vehicles and buses.  Discourage single car travel by providing convenient connections to mass transit, safe bicycle paths and pedestrian friendly walkways.  Develop and implement an effective commissioning process that will help ensure proper operation of mechanical and electrical systems.  Through the design of the building, send a clear message that sustainability matters - design the school as a teaching tool for sustainability. Page 85 of 85