12.07.2015 Views

Student Flow at Primary Level - DISE

Student Flow at Primary Level - DISE

Student Flow at Primary Level - DISE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

60 <strong>Student</strong> <strong>Flow</strong> <strong>at</strong> <strong>Primary</strong> <strong>Level</strong>in drop-out r<strong>at</strong>e in non-DPEP districts in these st<strong>at</strong>es. As against 1.69percent in Kerala, the corresponding drop-out r<strong>at</strong>e in Tamil Nadu is 1.88,in Karn<strong>at</strong>aka it is 2.83 and in Himachal Pradesh 4.08 percent. The differenceof about 2 percentage points in case of Himachal Pradesh between DPEPand non-DPEP districts is significant one. It may be noted th<strong>at</strong> HimachalPradesh is a DPEP Phase II st<strong>at</strong>e and only 5 out of its 12 districts werecovered under DPEP. Among the rest of the st<strong>at</strong>es, barring Uttarakhand,no significant difference is noticed in drop-out r<strong>at</strong>e in primary classes inDPEP and non-DPEP districts. As against a drop-out r<strong>at</strong>e of 10.25 percentfor its DPEP districts, Uttarakhand has reported a high drop-out r<strong>at</strong>e of14.10 percent in its non-DPEP districts.Table 28Average <strong>Flow</strong> R<strong>at</strong>es in DPEP and Non-DPEP Districts 2004-05(Based on Common Schools: 2004-05 and 2005-06)C<strong>at</strong>egory Gender Promotion Repetition Drop-outR<strong>at</strong>e R<strong>at</strong>e R<strong>at</strong>eBoys 81.05 7.75 11.20DPEP Districts Girls 81.24 7.91 10.85Total 81.14 7.83 11.03Boys 84.45 7.17 8.37Non-DPEP Districts Girls 85.13 7.07 7.80Total 84.77 7.07 8.10Boys 83.57 6.28 10.15All Districts Girls 83.96 6.29 9.75Total 83.76 6.29 9.96As it seems from the above analysis, the advanced st<strong>at</strong>es have benefitedthe most out of the DPEP programme. Non-DPEP districts in theeduc<strong>at</strong>ionally advanced st<strong>at</strong>es have also faired well. Irrespective of thedistricts being under DPEP or non-DPEP c<strong>at</strong>egories, advanced st<strong>at</strong>es fairedwell in both the c<strong>at</strong>egories. Similarly, non-DPEP districts in theeduc<strong>at</strong>ionally not-so-developed st<strong>at</strong>es did not fair well as did the districtsunder DPEP in these st<strong>at</strong>es. On the other hand, there are a few smallst<strong>at</strong>es who do not have any experience of programmes like DPEP but theirdrop-out r<strong>at</strong>e and other indic<strong>at</strong>ors are positive compared to a few otherst<strong>at</strong>es having experience of such programmes. It may also be observedth<strong>at</strong> both the advanced as well as backward districts (in terms of literacyr<strong>at</strong>es) were selected under the DPEP programme. It is also interesting tonote th<strong>at</strong> st<strong>at</strong>es th<strong>at</strong> have reported lower drop-out r<strong>at</strong>es are the DPEPPhase I st<strong>at</strong>es, except Himachal Pradesh which is the DPEP Phase II st<strong>at</strong>e.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!