2010/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/12

Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010

Reaching the marginalized

Deprivation of Education: A Study of Slum Children in Delhi, India

Yuko Tsujita2009

This paper was commissioned by the Education for All Global Monitoring Report as background information to assist in drafting the 2010 report. It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the EFA Global Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010, Reaching the marginalized” For further information, please contact efareport@unesco.org

Background Paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010

Deprivation of Education: A Study of Slum Children in Delhi, India

Yuko Tsujita April 2009

Deprivation of Education: A Study of Slum Children in Delhi, India1

Yuko Tsujita Introduction “Education for All” in India has intensified since the 1990s. For example, external aid, especially World Bank loans to primary education, significantly increased in the 1990s due to the implementation of “Adjustment with a Human Face” under economic liberalization in 1991. There has been more political and constitutional commitment to elementary education in recent years. Decentralisation and community participation in education was encouraged in the 73rd and 74th amendments to the constitution in the early 1990s, and free and compulsory basic education from 6 to 14 years of age, as a fundamental right, was added to the 86th Constitution of India in 2002, and was legislated at national level in 2009. At the same time, since the 1980s, it has become increasingly clear that the de facto privatization of education, reflected in the growing number of private schools, has become prominent in a large number of states, including the educationally backward states. Nevertheless, “Education for All” is still an uncompleted task, since approximately 17% of children aged 5 to 14 are still out of the school, and 36% of the total population of India were illiterate in 2004/05 (Government of India, 2006)2. This overall picture of education in India implies that educational opportunities and attainment for the urban deprived are much lower than for the affluent sections of the population.

The recent rapid urban population growth and relative lack of attention to urban poverty, has possibly exacerbated multi-dimensional deprivation, including deprivation of education, in urban areas. The total number of poor and undernourished individuals living in urban areas has increased since the 1980s (Haddad et al., 1999). Likewise in Delhi, capital city of India, the number of poor below the poverty line has nearly doubled in just over five years from 1.2 millions in 1999/00 to 2.3 millions in 2004/05 (Government of Delhi, 2008). Since secondary data focusing on slum household

1 I would like to thank Rajan and Purushottham who carried out household surveys. Rajnish Kumar helped me in data processing and cleaning. I am also grateful to Satendra Kumar, Manoj Kumar and N. S. Kumar, who assisted me in various stages of the field work. Thanks also go to Marion Maule who helped with editing. Any error is, however, my sole responsibility. 2 National Sample Survey statistics are based not on enrollment but on the current attendance status. A person who is enrolled might not currently attend the educational institution.

1

is limited and small sample sized, ad hoc attempts have been made by individuals based on small samples3. A few of the limited slum households surveyed in India indicate that urban poverty can be spatially concentrated in slums4. For example, poverty incident was estimated at 50% in 1996 (Gupta and Mitra, 2002) and 25% in 1999/00 (Mitra, 2003) in notified sample slums in Delhi, which is much larger than the 8.2% for Delhi as a whole in 1999/00 (Government of Delhi, 2006)5. Although the population of slums accounted for 24.1% of urban cities with a population above one million in India (Government of India, 2005a), the limited number of previous studies of education in slum areas in India is further confined mainly to analyses based on school surveys in slum areas (For example, Tooley and Dixion, 2007), or slum children’s survey which focus on a few slums (For example, Aggarwal and Chugh, 2003; Banerji, 2000; Jha and Jingram, 2005). Household surveys in slum areas rarely examined children’s educational deprivation. As a result, the disparity in the urban areas in terms of education is under-researched (Govinda, 2002).

Poverty, or low incomes, adversely affect the quality and quantity of education at the macro, country, level (See UN Millennium Project, 2005), the meso, region and school levels (See Govinda, 2002; Michaelowa, 2001; Watkins, 2000), and the micro, household, level (See Harper et al. 2003; Watkins, 2000). Much education research shows that education deprivation is caused not merely by poverty, but also by related factors (see for example, Dyer and Rose, 2006). In the case of India, these factors might be closely related to gender, caste, labour market opportunities, the quality of learning and facilities in schools.

This paper seeks to present an overview of the deprivation of education among slum children aged 5 to 14 in Delhi and to highlight the difference between slum and other children. The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 2 will show schooling in Delhi’s notified slums based on the household survey. Section 3 will provide the basic 3 Government of India (2003) investigated conditions of urban slums as a whole and Government of India (2005b) is a small sample survey round. The sample size of household in Delhi slums and squatters is 217, which is much smaller than my household survey and no question is asked about education. 4 The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, defined slum areas as a) being in any respect unfit for human habitation or b) by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such buildings, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities, or any combination of these factors, which are detrimental to safety, health or morals. 5 In India, poverty indices in large cities (14.2%) are estimated to be lower than in medium towns (20.4%) and smaller towns (24.2%) in the National Sample Survey in 1999/00 (Kundu and Sarangi, 2005). The National Sample Survey has not carried out any slum specific household surveys in large sample survey rounds and cannot disaggregate slum households in the surveys, either.

2

analysis of out-of-school children, Section 4 will discuss policy and practice for improving the education of slum children and the Conclusion will summarize the findings. It is noted that this paper will report more on gender aspect rather than caste and religion aspects when data is disaggregated, since comparative data, largely drawn from the National Sample Surveys, on non-scheduled caste and tribe children cannot disaggregate upper caste and other backward classes at the time of writing6. This study is based on data collected from a slum survey in Delhi carried out by the author and two investigators from November 2007 to March 2008. The 2001 Census provisionally showed that the slum population in Delhi was approximately 1.9 million, which is approximately 22% of the total population (Government of Delhi, 2006). The total slum population and its share of the total population of Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) was less than that of Greater Mumbai Municipal Cooperation (GMMC). The literacy rate in DMC slum areas (56%), however, was far less than that of GMMC (72%) and the proportion of scheduled caste population in Delhi slums (26%) was much larger than that of Greater Mumbai slums (6%). In Delhi, the capital of India, there are numerous migrants from the less developed and educationally backward regions of India, such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. It is noted that the surveyed slums are confined to notified slums, defined as notified urban areas by respective municipalities, corporations, local bodies or development authorities7 . Due to this sampling, it is unlikely to include the poorest of the poor, such as the homeless, the destitute and short-term or new migrants. Three-stage stratified random sampling techniques were used. In the first stage, using the Jhuggi-jhompadi (notified slums) list prepared by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), slum clusters with 200 and more households in all the

6 The ratios of General Castes (i.e. Upper Castes), Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) children (including Muslims and other religious groups) in the slum survey are 23.0%, 31.9% and 38.2% (The caste status of the rest is unknown or unanswered). The attendance ratio of General Castes is 61.8%, which is higher than those of OBCs (45.9%) and SC/ST children (54.7%). The reason why the attendance of OBCs is lower than that of SC/ST is the most of Muslims are categorized as OBC. Religion wise, the ratios of Hindu, Muslim and others are 73.5%, 24.8% and 1.7% respectively. The attendance ratio of Hindu children is 55.5%, while that of Muslim children is 50.6%. 7 The National Sample Surveys defined that a “non-notified slum” is a compact urban area with a collection of poorly built tenements, mostly of a temporary nature, crowded together usually with inadequate sanitary and drinking water facilities in unhygienic conditions, if at least 20 households lived in that area (Government of India, 2003). It was reported that notified slums have better access to a wide range of infrastructures including drinking water, electricity, roads within slums and approach to slums, latrine facilities, drainage, underground sewage, garbage collection etc. (ibid.)

3

nine revenue districts were considered. Since the sample was confined to a total of 50 clusters due to time and financial constraints, the proportion of the number of clusters in each district to total was used as the weight in deciding the number of clusters to be selected from each district. Once the number of clusters to be selected from a particular district was estimated, the specific clusters were randomly selected. In the second stage, the proportion of the number of households in each of the sample clusters to the total households in 50 clusters was used as the weight in distributing 417 sample households across the city. In the final stage, after interviews with the pradhan (slum chief) or informal leaders in the selected clusters on various aspects of slum dwellers, households were randomly selected for interviews. Among 417 households, the number of children aged 5 to 14 turned out to be 718: 417 boys and 301 girls. 2. Attendance of Slum Children The National Sample Survey showed that the percentage of children aged 5 to 14 who are currently attending school, referring to whether a person is currently attending any educational institution, was 90.3% in Delhi in 2004/05. Interestingly, the attendance ratio for girls (91.3%) was slightly higher than that for boys (89.5%), which was not found in the national trend; 84.7% for boys and 79.2% for girls. Table 1 shows the current status of education among slum children. The survey asked firstly if slum children were currently attending any school, and then those not currently attending were asked if they had ever attended schools. If they had, they were regarded as dropout children. If they had not, they are regarded as never-attended children. Despite the high density of neighbourhood schools in Delhi8, the attendance ratio is only 54.5%, which is much lower than the attendance ratio in Delhi as a whole. It follows a similar pattern of attendance ratio across gender where the attendance ratio of girls (55.8%) is slightly higher than that of boys (53.5%) in slums. This is attributable to a slightly lower dropout ratio for girls, 6.3- percentage- point- lower than boys (as shown in Table 4), while never-attended ratio for girls (32.9%) is slightly higher than that of boys (30.5%).

8 District Information System for Education (DISE) shows that the density of schools in Delhi, 27.3 primary schools and 15.4 upper primary schools per 10 sq km was the highest in the country in 2007/08 (NUEPA, 2009). NSS also showed that all notified slums have a primary school within a distance of one kilometer in 2002 (Government of India, 2003). There is no information on the number of primary schools per population in slums and urban areas as a whole.

4

Table 1 Educational Status of Slum Children

AgeNo. Share (%) No. Share (%) No. Share (%) No. Share (%)

5 52 58.4 19 21.3 18 20.2 89 1006 27 44.3 6 9.8 28 45.9 61 1007 25 37.9 0 0.0 41 62.1 66 1008 23 30.7 2 2.7 50 66.7 75 1009 18 29.0 3 4.8 41 66.1 62 10010 28 28.6 9 9.2 61 62.2 98 10011 14 30.4 2 4.3 30 65.2 46 10012 17 18.3 21 22.6 55 59.1 93 10013 15 20.0 23 30.7 37 49.3 75 10014 7 13.2 16 30.2 30 56.6 53 100

Total 226 31.5 101 14.1 391 54.5 718 100Source: Author's Survey.

Currently notattending Currently Attending Total

Never Attended (%) Ever Attended (%)

Even among the currently attending children, over-age is common. According

to District Information System for Education (DISE) data, the ratios of over-aged children in schools in Delhi (pupils’ completed age calculated as on the mid-school year, i.e. the end of September) were 7.9% and 12.23% respectively at primary and upper primary school levels (Mehta, 2008). Table 2 shows the percentage of children in each class by age in slums9. The gray-shaded columns are the right standard at right age as per Government of Delhi. For example, 16.4% of children in standard I are 5 years old and were admitted at the “right” age. Since the school year in Delhi begins in April, some children turn 6 years old (10.4%) by the time of survey. Due to the fact that the exact date of birth is not easily obtained, it is not possible to find who exactly is over-aged in the sample, i.e. some 6 year olds in standard I can be over-aged10. However, any child who is more than 7 years old is definitely regarded as an over-aged child. In standard I, 37.3% of students are 7 years old, 16.4% of students are 8 years old, and 11.9% of students are 8 years old. That means, at least 73.1% of slum students in standard I are over-aged. Base on the household survey, there are three reasons for late admission. Firstly, there are administration-related factors. Only 33.7% of the children

9 It is noted that the structure of school education in Delhi is 5-year-primary, 3-year-upper primary and 2-year-secondary within the national framework of 10-year education. Age of admission is officially 5 years old. 10 The exact date of birth was not asked in the survey, since it took quite a long time or was sometimes impossible to find in the pre-test rounds of the survey. In fact, 52.2% of household heads of 718 children in the sample are illiterates and 50.8% of children said none of their parents had ever attended schools. Moreover, it is difficult to cross check the date of birth, since birth certificates are normally kept in the school for school-going and dropout children.

5

in the sample have a birth certificate, which is mandatory for admission to any government school11. Parents have to seek to obtain an affidavit for a birth certificate. The application for school admission date is also sometimes limited to a very short period of time. If parents are unaware, unavailable or unable to apply for schooling on that specific day(s), children are less likely to be admitted later due to non-availability of seats. Secondly, there can be school-side problems. There are often not enough seats for all the children in the area. As will be discussed in section 4, the growth rate of enrolled students is much more rapid than that of schools in Delhi in the last two decades. In our interviews with pradhans (slum chiefs) and informal leaders in all the slums, there are at least a few schools which slum children attend from the same slums, and children in the same slum are not necessarily attending the same nearest schools12. Thirdly, migration seems to affect slum children. For example, migration would prevent a family from obtaining a birth certificate or a transfer certificate at the time of admission to school. 64.1% of children in the sample were born in Delhi, followed by 17.6% in the former state of Uttar Pradesh (currently Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand) and 6.4% in the former state of Bihar (currently Bihar and Jharkhand)13. Attendance ratio at the age of 5 is 22.4% for those who were born in Delhi, 11.1% for those who were born in Uttar Pradesh & Uttarakhand and 16.7% for those who were born in Bihar and Jharkhand. 37.4% of children born in Delhi have a birth certificate, while the corresponding figures for migrant children are 27.0% from formerly Uttar Pradesh state and 19.6% from formerly Bihar state. UP and Bihar are backward states in terms of development, including education. Moreover, some migrant parents would not understand the age of admission to school in Delhi either, as age of admission is 6 years in the former state of Bihar (Bihar and Jharkhand). A previous study in slums (Jha and Jingram, 2005) pointed out that migration is likely to prevent children from continuously attending school due to occasional long visits to place of origin, and from understanding the language used at school. This study, however, does not have strong evidence of the argument, since 14.3% of dropout children who were born in Delhi visited their parental place of origin during the previous one year, which is higher than 5.3% of dropout children from formerly Uttar Pradesh and 14.2% of dropout children

11 62.4% of children under 5 years old have a birth certificate in 2005/06 in Delhi, according to National Family Health Survey (International Institute for Population Sciences, 2007). 12 There are 2.8 primary schools and 2.6 upper primary schools on average which children attend from the same slum. 13 In 2000, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were bifurcated into two states respectively.

6

from what was formerly Bihar14. The Hindi language is shared by Delites and northern states, including former Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. It does not seem a major problem among the children of migrants in this study, since 87.1% of dropout children (87.8%, 89.5% and 85.7% of dropout children from Delhi, formerly UP and formerly Bihar, respectively) and 86.3% of never- attended-children (84.6%, 95.2% and 94.1% of never-attended children from Delhi, formerly UP and formerly Bihar respectively), in comparison with 91.8% of currently-attending-children, use Hindi at home, while 97.0% of dropout children (95.9% of dropout children from Delhi and 100% of dropout children from formerly UP and Bihar) answered Hindi as the medium of language in the attended school in the last 365 days. Table 2 Pecentage Distribution of Currently Attending Children in Each Class by Age (%)

No ofObservation

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Tota

Pre School 25 28.0 36.0 16.0 8.0 12.0 100Standard I 67 16.4 10.4 37.3 16.4 11.9 4.5 3.0 100Standard Ⅱ 69 0.0 17.4 5.8 33.3 21.7 14.5 2.9 4.3 100Standard Ⅲ 77 9.1 15.6 20.8 33.8 6.5 9.1 5.2 0.0 100Standard Ⅳ 44 2.3 4.5 38.6 22.7 20.5 9.1 2.3 100Standard Ⅴ 50 0.0 8.0 22.0 48.0 12.0 8.0 100Standard Ⅵ 21 4.8 0.0 38.1 42.9 14.3 100Standard Ⅶ 22 0.0 9.1 50.0 36.4 100Standard Ⅷ 11 18.2 18.2 63.6 100Standard Ⅸ 3 66.7 33.3 100Standard Ⅹ 2 100.0 100Source: Author's Survey.

0.0

0.02.0

0.04.5

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

lAge

Standard

Apart from delayed admission, the repetition rate, the percentage of those who have ever repeated the same grade, out of the total number of children, is 19.8% among dropout children, and 10.0% among currently-attending children in the sample15. Table 2 clearly shows the high number of over-aged-school-going children in slum areas. The exception is standard IX and X, when a large number of students seem to have already dropped out. It seems the surviving students, though only a few, are in school at the right age. This can also be attributable to dropout problems as will be discussed. It is particularly relevant to a subtle way of discouraging attendance by the supply side, as 14 On average, 19.4% of children visited their (or parents) place of origin during the previous one year. The average days of visit to their (or parental) place of origin is 5.1 days among currently attending children, 2.3 days among dropout children and 3.8 days among never-attended children. 15In 2008/09, the Government of Delhi adopted the policy of no repetition till standard Ⅷ, under which students with more than 75% attendance in the school, and having taken the final exam, are entitled to go to the next higher standard. Any student who fails to meet the two criteria is supposed to repeat the same grade.

7

the grade becomes higher. At the end of standards X and Ⅻ, all students in Delhi take the Central Board of Secondary Education exam. To raise the pass rate at this exam, some children who are less likely to pass, are discouraged from turning up for the exam, or from continuing schooling before taking the exams, based on interviews with pradhans and informal leaders in slums.

Recently, the number of children enrolled in private schools, particularly low-fee unrecognized private schools, is said to have been growing rapidly in India (See, for example, Tooley and Dixson, 2007)16. The Seventh All India Educational Survey in 2002 showed that 23.7% of boys and 17.3% of girls enrolled in private schools at primary and upper primary level in Delhi, although these figures are likely to be understimated17. Table 3 shows the distribution of attended school types of children (both currently attending and dropout children) during the last one year. 97.2% of children attend government schools. Among 492 children, only eight children attended private schools and six children attended other types of schools, such as schools run by religious-charity organizations and NGOs. What is worse, half of the private-school-going children dropped out during the previous one year. All dropout children were 2 to 4 years older than the right schooling age class. All four dropout children who attended private school, except for one, were at sixth standard (upper primary level). They attended government primary school, shifted to private upper primary school and then dropped out at the first year of upper primary school, due to bad performance (1 child) and own unwillingness to continue studying (2 children). In particular, two of the children dropped out after repeating the 6th standard more than twice.

Multiple state surveys by UNICEF which looked at school children as a whole, highlighted the bias against girls and lower castes (Mehrotra, 2006). However, at least bias against girls cannot be found in this study (Table 3). On one hand, it is argued that the growth of private primary schools in slum areas is catering for the need of low-income families (Tooley and Dixson, 2007), though “low income” is not defined. On

16 Private schools in India are disaggregated into aided schools and unaided schools. The former is privately managed, but regular maintenance grants, mainly teachers’ salaries, are granted by the government. The latter is completely managed and financed by private parties. The other way of classifying private schools is recognized schools and unrecognized schools. All private schools are expected to be under the recognition, instruction and inspection of the state government. 17 It is widely acknowledged that government’s educational statistics on school enrollment, based on school surveys, are often over-estimated due to over-reporting and statistics on private schooling are under-estimated due to excluding a large number of the unrecognized schools.

8

the other hand, it is also argued that the enrolment in private schools was small due to the fact that very few families could bear the expenses (Aggarwal and Chugh, 2003) 18. This survey in Delhi slums supports the latter argument that only a small percentage of slum children attend private schools. Based on interviews with 50 slum pradhans, there are only 12 government schools, one religious charity-based school and four NGO schools within slum areas19, while there are 259 government or 29 private schools outside slum areas which slum children attend20. Although 94.5% of children attend a school within one kilometer from their home, and 94.2% walk to the school, many children did not attend a school inside the slums, due to constraints of space for schools within slums. Schools within slums are either run in small houses or smaller buildings than schools outside the slums. The growing number of private schools around notified slum areas does not mean that slum children can attend those private schools. Since housing areas in Delhi are mixed slums and other geographical clusters of settlement, it can be explained that government housing and approved colonies for the middle class, in which children are likely to be absorbed into private schools, exist near slums. The association between the rise of private schools near slum areas, and absorbing slum children into such schools, does not seem to be straightforward. Table 3 Distribution of Attended School Type of Children in the last 365 days

No. Share (%) No. Share (%) No. Share (%) No. Share (%)Boys 283 97.6 4 1.4 3 1.0 290 100Girls 195 96.5 4 2.0 3 1.5 202 100

General Caste 122 98.4 0 0.0 2 1.6 124 100OBC 136 92.5 8 5.4 3 2.0 147 100

SC/ST 184 99.5 0 0.0 1 0.5 185 100Not Specified 36 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 36 100

478 97.2 8 1.6 6 1.2 492 100Note 1: Children include dropout and currently attending children.Note 2: Other types of schools are run by religious-charity organisations or NGOs.Note 3: Caste categories includes Muslims and other religions.Note 4: Chi-square statistics for the independence of gender distribution from girls (degree of freedom is 2) is 0. 85 (not significant).

Total

Gender

Caste

Total

Government School Private School Other Types of School

3. Out-of-School Children: The Burden of Schooling Cost 18 In this slum household survey, annual tuition fees per private going children at standard I are from Rs. 100 to Rs. 1,000. 19 Aggarwal and Chugh (2003) pointed out that there were hardly any schools inside slums, based on their survey on slum children in 30 schools in Delhi. 20 The structure of education (5-year-primary, 3-year-upper primary, 2-year-secondary and 2 year-upper-secondary) does not match the standards schools offer. According to interviews with pradhans in 50 slums, there are 12 different types of schools in terms of grades which slum children attend as follows; 1) Nursery to Grade 5, 2) Grade 1 to 5, 3) Nursery to Grade 8, 4) Grade1-8, 5) Grade 1-10, 6) Nursery to Grade 10, 7) Nursery to Grade 12, 8) Grade 1-12, 9) Grade 6-12, 10) Grade 5-12, 11) Grade 6-10 and 12) Grade 6-8.

9

The ratio of children who have never attended school (i.e. they might be enrolled but never attended) to total children is 31.5% (Table 1). Only 2.2% of those children are reported to have engaged in paid work in the last 365 days. This implies that the majority of never-attended children neither work nor attend schools. The never-attended ratio for girls is 32.9%, a little higher than that for boys (30.5%). Reasons for “never attended“ are: financial constraints (36.6%), followed by underage (32.3%, but 12.9% after 6 years old) and parents’ negative perception of education per se (11.8%). The National Sample Survey in 2004/05 showed that the most cited reason for never-attended school among 5 to 14 year-old children is “education is not considered as necessary” at national level21. While parental perception is a dominant reason for never-attended in India as a whole, the cost of education is an obstacle to attending school in slum areas, followed by parental understanding for age for admission and for importance of education.

Dropout rates in Delhi were 2.6% among standard I to V students, 16.3% among standard I to Ⅷ students and 46.26% among standard I to X students in 2005/06 (Government of India, 2008). Table 4 shows age-wise dropout rates of slum children. Dropout is defined as those who have ever attended schools but are currently not attending. It is important to mention when dropout grades and reasons were asked, only 53.5% of dropout slum children answered which grade they dropped out and why. This implies that the rest of the children might happen to be not attending schools for some reasons such as illness, disinterest in studies, work etc, for a while. In fact 10.9% of dropout children got engaged in paid work, which rate is much higher than those of the never-enrolled children (2.2%) and of the whole sample (2.4%). On one hand, the age-wise dropout rates of slum children are particularly high at 5 and 12, 13 and 14 years old. Age-wise high dropout at younger age might be due to the fact that transfer from pre-schooling to formal school admission is not smooth. On the other hand, grade-wise dropout rates are higher in the middle grades such as IV (25.0%), V (30.6%) and VI (25.0%) and higher grade at IX (33.0%). This implies slum children are not easily transferred or easily promoted from primary to upper primary grades. Interestingly, it seems that once girls start attending school, they are less likely to drop out. Dropout

21 The National Sample Survey (Government of India, 2006) showed per 1,000 distribution of persons of age 5-14 years who are currently not attending any educational institution by status and broad reason for non-attendance. Out of 1,000 currently non-attending children, 765 children have never attended any educational institution. Out of 765 never-attended children, non-attendance is attributed to “education is not considered necessary” (143 children), followed by “school is too far” (44 children), “has to attend domestic chores” (29 children), and “has to supplement household income” (25 children).

10

ratio of girls (16.8%) is lower than that of boys (23.1%). Particularly, the rate at the age of five is much lower for girls (38.5%) than for boys (58.3%). This can be attributed to 1) decision-making of sending girls to school is likely to take place by the time they are sent to school and 2) the higher percentage of girls reporting that they, rather than boys, were awarded various incentive schemes especially at lower grades (Table 6).

Slum children in the sample dropped out for financial reasons (34.1% of dropout children), followed by negative perception of education by parents (13.6% of dropout children). The NSS 2004/05 showed the distribution of the most common reasons for dropout (percentage of reasons for the total number of currently not attending children aged 5 to 14 years old) is “Children have to supplement household income”, followed by “Education is not considered necessary” and “Has to attend to domestic chores”22. It seems there is not much difference in dropout reasons between slum children and children in general.

Table 4 Percentage of DropoutAge Male Female Total

5 58.3 38.5 51.46 25.0 11.1 17.67 0.0 0.0 0.08 4.2 3.6 3.89 7.7 5.6 6.8

10 8.6 17.1 12.911 4.5 10.0 6.312 32.1 17.4 27.613 39.5 36.4 38.314 37.0 31.6 34.8

Total 23.1 16.8 20.5Source: Author's Survey.

The cost of schooling is the most important reason for having never-attended and dropout children in slums. It is widely acknowledged that government education is not free. The household share of expenditure seems to have increased in recent years. The National Account Statistics (2008) shows that private expenditure on education services to total consumption expenditure at constant prices, has increased from 1.9% in 22 The National Sample Survey (Government of India, 2006) showed per 1,000 distribution of persons of age 5-14 years who are currently not attending any educational institution by status and broad reason for non-attendance. Out of 1,000 currently non-attending children, 235 children have ever attended any educational institution but currently not attending. Out of 235 never-attended children, 55 children answered they have to supplement household income, followed by education not considered necessary (46 children), and 35 children having to carry out domestic chores.

11

1999/00 to 2.6% in 2006/07. In urban Delhi, education accounts for 8.0% of monthly household expenditure in 2006/07 (Government of India, 2008b). Table 5 shows annual expenditure on education per government-school-going children. As a child progressed to the upper standards, the expenditure increased. In particular, two items, a) stationery, books and notebooks, and b) coaching and private tuition account for a large proportion of the total cost. The reason why stationery, textbooks and book costs are high can be related to the practice of memorizing what they learnt at school and tuition. As far as private tuition is concerned, 17.4% of school-going-children aged 5 to 14 in the sample, take private tuition. The higher grade students are more likely to be sent to private tuition, such as 68.2% (7th standard), 81.8% (8th standard) and 100% (9th and 10th standard). In other words, private tuition is essential to continue schooling among slum children and only those who take private tuition survive till upper standard.

Educational expenditure patterns across gender in the lower echelons of the economy for primary-level (Standard I-V) follow the same pattern as the population as a whole, i.e. average monthly expenditure on elementary education (primary and upper primary school levels) in UNICEF’s eight Indian states survey in 1999 was Rs. 2,030.8 for general caste boys, while the corresponding figure for general caste girls was Rs. 2,024.8 (Panchamukhi, 2005 p. 307-308). Table 5 Average annual expenditure per reporting-government-school-going student by item of expentiture (Rs.)

Item of expenditure Stdard I-V StandardVI-VIII

StandardIX-X Stdard I-V Standard

VI-VIIIStandard

IX-XNo. of Observations 154 32 3 109 21 2Tuition fee & other required fees 97 216 480 98 217 110Uniforms & Other clothing 88 314 300 83 372 1,000Stationary, Texbooks & Books 303 848 1,067 268 1,067 2,250Meals, transportation & lodging 21 40 200 12 115 500Coacning, private tution fees 51 359 1,333 42 692 1,200Parents Association Fees 24 16 40 15 17 0Others (e.g. school excursions) 3 5 17 14 49 0Total 662 1,745 3,437 641 2,603 4,060Source: Author's Survey.

Boys Girls

Only girls are awarded some incentives, including scholarships, free textbooks, clothing, etc. after standard Ⅷ (Table 6), even though some incentive schemes, such as free text books for everyone, monetary incentives for minorities students, including Muslims, and clothing subsidies for everybody, are, on paper, available for boys beyond standard Ⅷ in Delhi (Annex I). Despite the fact that school-attending girls are more likely to be rewarded through various schemes, the total amount of out-of-pocket expenditure for girls is higher at upper grades (Class VI afterwards). It is expected that

12

girls who attend schools till higher standards are more likely to be from relatively wealthier households.

Table 6

StandardNo of

reportedchildren

No ofawardedchildren

Coverageof

incentives(%)

AverageMoneraty

Value (Rs.)

No ofreportedchildren

No ofawardedchildren

Coverageof

incentives(%)

AverageMoneraty

Value (Rs.)

I 34 29 85.3 474.3 31 28 90.3 440.0II 27 23 85.2 474.3 39 38 97.4 412.2III 47 44 93.6 474.3 29 26 89.7 326.2IV 27 25 92.6 474.3 16 14 87.5 470.9V 35 17 48.6 389.9 14 7 50.0 355.0VI 15 4 26.7 343.8 6 2 33.3 375.0VII 13 9 69.2 427.6 9 4 44.4 320.0VIII 5 0 0.0 - 6 3 50.0 675.3IX 2 0 0.0 - 1 1 100.0 160.0X 1 0 0.0 - 1 1 100.0 300.0

Total 206 151 74.0 410.9 152 124 80.8 381.6NB: Educational incentives include scholorships, texbooks, uniforms, hostel, meals etc..Source: Author's Survey.

Average annual monetary value of educational incentives estimated by reporting parents ofschool going children (Rs.)

Male Female

88.0% of children in the sample are from households below the poverty line.

Table 7 shows the disparity between economic conditions and education expenditures in slum households. As per capita monthly expenditure increases, monthly educational expenditure per school-going child rises. It is noteworthy that only slum children from households in the three highest monthly per capita income percentiles had private tuition. As pointed out earlier, private tuition seems to play an important role among slum children who continue to study till the upper grades. Among relatively wealthier groups, the percentage of children staying on at school is higher. Gender wise, the educational expenditure per month for school-going-girls is lower than that for boys from the lowest to middle percentiles. In the higher percentiles, however, expenditure for girls exceeds, or is higher than, that of boys. Wealthier households do not have strong gender discrimination against school-going girls. Monthly expenditure on education per school-going child, as a proportion of per capita monthly consumption expenditure, is remarkably high, ranging from 5.6% to 21.2%. Toward the highest per capita monthly expenditure households, per child expenditure on education takes a large share of total expenditure. At the same time, it is important to note that per child expenditure is zero among the lowest percentile in the sample. Household financial conditions matters if they are sent to school.

13

Table 7 Population-Percentile of Monthly per Capita Expenditure Distribution

Monthly percapita

expenditure(Rs.)

per child (5-14)per montheducaionalexpenditure

(Rs.)

per school-going-child (5-14) per

montheducaionalexpenditure

(Rs.)

per school-going-boys (5-14) per

montheducaionalexpenditure

(Rs.)

per school-going-girls (5-14) per

montheducaionalexpenditure

(Rs.)

No. of Observations 718 718 391 223 16810th 254.2 0.0 14.2 14.7 13.320th 298.0 8.8 18.3 19.6 16.330th 323.3 15.8 22.5 23.3 18.340th 356.1 18.3 27.5 30.0 24.550th 384.8 23.3 34.8 35.8 34.460th 421.4 30.2 45.8 46.0 44.870th 476.9 41.7 59.2 55.0 63.380th 522.3 58.8 86.5 86.5 86.790th 631.9 91.7 109.4 103.3 119.0100th 812.3 150.0 172.5 172.5 172.5Source: Author's Survey. 4. Discussion for Policy and Practice Various governmental poverty alleviation programmes, including education programmes, do not target slum dwellers per se but often do target households below a certain per capita monthly expenditure in India and a certain level of annual income, particularly in Delhi. There is often reluctance to provide basic infrastructure and services to slum areas because rural to urban migrants are often regarded as temporary urban residents. Sarva Shiksha Abiyaan (SSA), which has been implemented since 2000/01 to universalize primary educational by 2010, exceptionally mentions urban deprived children as one of the four specially targeted groups. The National Literacy Mission targets the most productive and reproductive age group of 15 to 35, which has been enlarged to include 9 to 14 year olds outside formal and non-formal schooling. The Government of Delhi has various educational incentive programmes, such as free supply of textbooks, uniforms, stationery, shoes, provision of various scholarships and mid-day meals (Annex I). Certain non-governmental organizations (NGOs) provide basic education for urban disadvantaged children, including children living in slums, child labourers etc. in various innovative ways (Chakravarty, 2002). A variety of basic learning opportunities are at least theoretically available for urban deprived children in slum areas.

However, only half the children attended school and one fifth dropped out of schools in this survey. It seems difficult to retain at school the SSA’s targeted urban deprived children, including “street children, child labourers, domestic workers and the

14

children of parents who are engaged in professions that make the children’s education difficult, education of children living urban working class slum, children who are working in industry, children working in households, children at tea shop, etc. 23” It is suggested that assistance with admission processes and the obtaining of birth certificates, especially for children whose parents have never attended school and/or migrated from rural areas, can be helpful to improve registration of children at school. Collaboration with Anganwadi, community-based child-care centres initiated by the Government of India, which provide health, nutrition and non-formal education for pre-school-aged children, can be effective in finding school-aged children in slums. 33 of the 50 surveyed slums have at least one Anganwadi. Similarly, 21 out of 50 slums, have an NGO or Community-based organization which provides similar child-care services for pre-school children. Improving the provision of pre-school education is important not only as a means of child development and nutrition per se but also as a means of improving formal school attendance.

This slum survey found that the cost of schooling is one of the major obstacles in the retention and completion of schooling for slum children. A wide range of government incentive programmes for the weaker section of society can be improved to reach slum households (See Annex I for Delhi government’s incentive programmes). It is estimated that a maximum of 7.8% of slum households in the sample exceed the annual parental income of 100 thousand rupees, imposed by some incentive programmes. The actual beneficiaries are less than the estimated beneficiaries (Table 6). A breakdown of educational costs shows that private coaching, and stationery, textbooks and books place a particularly high burden on education. The Government of Delhi provides free textbooks for all students from standards I to Ⅻ without any parental income ceiling, however, financial assistance for the purchase of stationery is limited to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Minorities from Ⅵ to Ⅻ whose annual parental income is less than 100 thousand rupees and who have attended school more than 70% in the previous year. The target of assistance for purchasing stationery can be expanded.

This analysis shows that the majority of slum children attended government schools. According to District Information System for Education (DISE) in 2007/08, there were 4,742 primary to senior-secondary schools (I to XII standards) in Delhi, of which 61.7% are government schools. School facilities and pupil-teacher ratios in primary schools are generally better in Delhi than the national average (Table 8). The

23 SSA website (http://164.100.51.121/ssa-framework/coverage-of-special-focus-groups/).

15

provision of schools does not meet the rapid increase of school-aged children and demand for education. The growth rate of government schools from pre-primary to senior-secondary schools (36.7%) was lower than that of enrollment (80.4%) from 1991/92 to 2005/06 (Government of Delhi, 2008). DISE data in 2006-07 also shows that 51.5% of 2,923 government schools (1,505 schools) share the same building in different shifts. This implies an increasing demand for education in spite of limited space for constructing new schools. Given the fact that land for new schools is limited in Delhi, the need for improving schools could be shifted towards enhancing the quality of learning.

DISE data shows that the percentages of OBC and SC/STs teachers are quite low at 7.9% and 14.0% respectively in Delhi, while the proportions of these children are 31.9% for OBC and 38.2% for SC/ST in the slum survey. Social distance between teachers and students in government schools is already regarded as one of the reasons why teachers do not understand their students. Discrimination against lower castes is ingrained in the consciousness of teachers, reflecting pedagogical exchange in schools (Bhargava, 2003). Mooij (2008) argued that government schoolteachers regard themselves as middle-class. They send their own children to private schools and tend to consider government school education as second-class education. Although the quality of learning environment in government schools, including school facilities, teachers, teacher-student relationships, etc.,, which is widely perceived to be worse than that of private schools (Table 8 shows differences in terms of some school quality-related indicators between government and private schools) is beyond the scope of this paper, the importance of enhancing the quality of the learning environment in government schools should be emphasized, since slum children, except for a few, depend upon government schools. Table 8 School Learning Facilities and Environment based on DISE (2007/08)

India

Total Government Privateaided

Privateunaided

Total No. of Schools 1,246,810 4,742 2,982 310 1,450Percentage of Schools which has Drinking Water (%) 86.8 99.5 - - -Common Toilet (%) 62.7 90.5 - - -Girl's Toilet (%) 50.6 74.15 - - -Computer (%) 4.3 72.8 - - -Average No. of Classrooms 4.3 18.7 17.8No of Teachers 4.5 21.5 21.0 23.9 22.0Pupil-Teacher Ratio 33.0 24.0 26.0 18.0 22.0Source: NUEPA (2009).

20.3

Delhi

16

Conclusion A household survey in slum areas shows that only just over half the children are in school. It also shows that a high over-age and dropout ratio exists among slum children. Over-age is often the outcome of late admission to school. Late admission is caused both by demand side (migration from rural areas to slums) and by supply side (lack of school capacity for all children, a short period of admission, requirement of birth certificate etc.). School availability at a short distance does not explain why quite a large number of slum children are still less educated. Economic problems were one of the main reasons why children did not attend school.

Some recent studies indicate that fee-paying private schooling prevalent in slum areas increased and catered for the need of “low income” families. Slum children in this household study, however, except for a few, attend government school. What is worse, half of private school-going-children dropped out. The improvement of quality and quantity of government schools remains an important policy agenda for children in the lower echelons of society, who have no choice but to attend government schools. Some policy and practice amendments, such as collaboration with anganwadi, extension of subsidy for stationery, books etc., are recommended to improve admission, retention and completion of compulsory education. References Aggarwal Y. P. and Chugh S. 2003. “Learning Achievement of Slum Children in Delhi”, Occasional Paper 34. New Delhi: National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration.

Banerji, R. 2000. “Poverty and Primary Schooling: Field Studies from Mumbai and Delhi”, Economic and Political Weekly, 35 (10) pp. 795-802.

Bharvaga, P. 2003. “The Threshold of Intergenerational Transfer of Poverty”, Paper for International Conference on Staying Poor: Chronic Poverty and Development Policy available at http://www.chronicpoverty.org/pdfs/2003conferencepapers/bhargava.pdf.

Dyer, C. and Rose P. 2006. Chronic Poverty and Education: A Review of Literature, revised draft, Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre, January 2006.

Chakrabarty, V. 2002. “Education of Urban Disadvantaged Children”, in R. Govinda ed. Government of Delhi 2008. Economic Survey 2007/08, Delhi. Government of NCT of Delhi 2006. Delhi Human Development Report 2006:

Partnership for Progress, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Government of India 2003. Condition of Urban Slums 2002: Salient Features, NSS 58th Round (July 2002-December 2002), New Delhi: National Sample Survey Organisation.

17

____________ 2005a. Census of India 2001 Slum Population (640 Cities and Town Reporting Slums), New Delhi: Census of India.

____________ 2005b. Housing Condition in India: Household Amenities and Other Characteristics, NSS 58th Round (July 2002-December 2002), New Delhi: National Sample Survey Organisation.

____________ 2006. Status of Education and Vocational Training in India, NSS 61st Round (July 2004-June 2005), New Delhi: National Sample Survey Organisation.

____________ 2008a. Annual Report 2007-08, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi.

____________ 2008b.Household Consumer Expenditure in India, 2006-07, NSS 63rd Round (July 2006-June 2007), New Delhi: National Sample Survey Organisation.

Govinda, R. ed. 2002. India Education Report, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Gupta I. and Mitra A. 2002. “Rural Migrants and Labour Segmentation: Micro-Level Evidence from Delhi Slums”, Economic and Political Weekly, 37 (2), pp. 163-168.

Haddad, L. Ruel M.T. and Barrett J. L. 1999. “Are Urban Poverty and Undernutrition Growing?: Some Newly Assembled Evidence”, World Development, 27 (11), pp. 1891-1904.

Harper, C., Marcus R. and Moore, K. 2003. “Enduring Poverty and the Conditions of Childhood Life course and Intergenerational Poverty Transmissions”, World Development, 31(3), pp. 535-554.

International Institute for Population Sciences, National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) 2005/06 Volume I, Mumbai: IIPS.

Jha, J. and D. Jingran 2005. Elementary Education for the Poorest and Other Deprived Groups: The Real Challenge of Universalization, Delhi: Manohar.

Kundu, A. and N. Srangi 2005. “Employment Guarantee: The Issue of Urban Exclusion”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 3642-3646.

Mehta, Arun, C. 2008. Elementary Education in India: Progress Towards UEE, National University of Education Planning and Administration and Department of Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.

Mehtrotra, S. 2006. The Economics of Elementary Education in India: The Challenge of Public Finance, Private Provision and Household Costs, New Delhi: Sage.

Michaelowa, K. 2001. “Primary Education Quality in Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa: Determinants of Learning Achievements and Efficiency Considerations”, World Development, 29 (10), pp. 1699-1716.

Mitra, A. 2003. Occupational Choices, Networks, and Transfers: An Exegesis Based on

18

Micro Data from Delhi Slums, New Delhi: Manohar. Mooij, J. 2008. “Primary Education, Teachers’ Professionalism and Social Grade about Motivation and Demotivation of Government School Teachers in India”, International Journal of Educational Development, 28, pp. 508-523.

National University of Educational Planning and Administration 2009. Elementary Education in India: Progress Towards UEE, NUEPA and Government of India.

Panchamukhi, P.R. 2005. Household Expenditure on Elementary Education, Mehrotra, S. P.R. Panchamukhi, R. Srivastava and R. Srivastava eds. Universalizing Elementary Education in India: Encaging the `Tiger’ Economy, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Tooley, J. and P. Dixon 2007. “Private Schooling for Low-Income Families: A Census and Comparative Survey in East Delhi, India”, International Journal of Educational Development, 27 pp. 205-217.

UN Millennium Project 2005. Towards Universal Primary Education: Investments, Incentives and Institutions, London: Earthscan.

Watkins, K. 2000. Oxfam Education Report, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19

Appendix I Main Primary and Secondary Education related schemes provided by Government of Delhi

(As of August 2008)

Type Scheme Target Parental

Annual

Income

Ceiling

Amount of financial

incentives or in-kind per

person

Scholars

hips

Scholarship to Disabled

Persons

Handicapped

students

No Rs. 50 for primary

classes, Rs. 70 for middle

classes, Rs. 125 for

secondary, Rs. 200 for

senior secondary,

graduate &

post-graduate Rs. 500

per month.

Lal Bahadur Shastri

Scholarship to

Meritorious Students of

Economically Weaker

Section of Society

More than 80%

marks in the last

annual exam for

Class 7 to 12

students

Rs. 100

thousand

per annum

Rs. 400 per annum for

7th and 8th, Rs. 600 for

class 9 & 10, Rs. 1,550

for 11 & 12.

Incentive as scholarship

for promoting education

Girls, SC/ST/OBC

students from class 1

to 5

No Not specified

Welfare of Educationally

Backward Minority

Students

Educationally

backward Minorities

(Neo-Buddhists &

Muslims)

Rs. 100

thousand

per annum

Rs. 20 per month or Rs.

200 per annum for

primary classes, Rs. 30

per month or Rs. 300 for

middle class, Rs. 40 per

month or Rs. 400 per

annum for secondary and

Rs. 50 per month or Rs.

500 per annum for senior

secondary.

20

Merit Scholarship to

SC/ST/OBC/Minorities

Students studying in

Classes- VI to XII

Students in Classes 6

to 12 in government

and aided schools

No

condition

for SC/ST

but Rs.

100

thousand

per annum

for OBC &

Minorities

Class 6 to 8: Rs. 500 per

annum for scoring

between 55% to 60% and

Rs. 600 per annum for

scoring more than 60%.

Class 9 to 12: Rs. 1,350

per annum for scoring

between 55% and 60%

and Rs. 1,700 per annum

for scoring more than

60%.

Reimbursement of

Tuition fee in Public

Schools

All students classes 1

to 5 and Class 6 to 12

students whose

scoring 50% and

above and attendance

not less than 80% in

the preceding year

Rs. 100

thousands

per annum

100% reimbursement of

tuition fee to the

students whose family

income less than Rs. 60

thousands & 75%

reimbursement of tuition

fee to the students whose

family income is between

60 and 100 thousands

per annum.

Ladli Girls Rs. 100

thousand

per annum

Rs. 11,000 on birth of a

girl (Rs. 10,000 for

non-institutional birth),

Rs. 5,000 deposit each

time on admission to 1, 6,

9th, pass out 10th and

admission to 12th

classes. The total deposit

would be Rs. 100

thousands by 18 years

old.

Nutrition Supplementary

Nutrition Programme

0-6 years children &

mothers, adolescent

girls & pregnant

women

No Providing meals.

21

Mid-Day Meals

(Government of India

Programme)

All Children in

primary and upper

primary classes in

government, aided,

non-formal education

centres

No Providing meals.

National Programme for

Adolescent Girls

Adolescent girls aged

11-19

No To provide 6kg of wheat

to the under weight

adolescent girls.

Uniform,

Clothing,

Shoes,

Socks,

Textbook

s,

stationer

y, etc.

Subsidy for School

Uniform to Students

1 to 12 th class

students in

government &

government aided

schools & students in

free ship quota in

education guarantee

scheme schools,

alternative and

innovative education

centre.

No Rs. 500 per student per

year to all boys and girls.

Free Supply of Text

Books

do No Text books are given free

of cost to all students

Class 8 to 12 who

opted mathematics as

subject

No Geometry set box

(costing Rs. 30)

Blind Students No Braille books

Welfare Schemes for

children of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi

(MCD) Schools

Children aged 5 to 11

years

No Free text books &

uniform

All MCD school

Students

No One set of summer dress

& Shoes

Class 1 to 3 No One jersey

Welfare Schemes for

Children of New Delhi

Municipal Council

Class 1 to 12 in

NDMC & its aided

schools

No Free text books to class 1

to 12, free stationery to

class 1 to 5, free uniform

22

23

(NDMC) Schools clothes to class 1 to 12,

free shoes and socks to

class 1 to 5.

Financial Assistance for

Purchase of Stationery to

SC/ST/OBC/Minorities

Students

SC/ST/OBC/Minority

students whose

attendance should

not be less than 70%

in the preceding year

in government and

aided schools

Rs. 100

thousand

per annum

Rs. 45 per month for 10

month for classes 6 to 8

and Rs. 75 per month for

10 months for classes 9

to 12.

Hostels Hostel for

SC/ST/OBC/Minority

Boys

100 boys for students

more than 12th

classes in

government schools

Rs. 100 thousand per annum

Hostel for

SC/ST/OBC/Minority

Girls

70 girls for students

more than 12th

classes in

government schools

Rs. 100 thousand per annum

Non-for

mal

educatio

n

Kishori Shakti Yojana Girls aged 11- 18 No To provide the required

literacy & innumeracy

skills through the

non-formal stream of

education; to train and

equip the adolescent girls

to improve upgrade

home-based and

vocational skills etc.

Source: Planning Department, Government of Delhi website

(http://delhiplanning.nic.in/Reports/plan%20Schemes.pdf).