Dpep Full Form In Education?

0 Comments

Dpep Full Form In Education
What is DPEP in Education? DPEP stands for District Primary Education Program, The program intends to make primary education accessible to all, through formal primary schools or alternative methods. The primary objectives of DPEP are: 1.To reduce the school dropout rate at primary schools below 10 percent.2.To increase the achievement rates by 25% or above the average level.3.To minimize the disparities in accessibility of education to less than 5 percent.4.To facilitate non-formal education for all children to primary schooling

It is a centrally sponsored scheme where the Central government funds 85% of the expenses, whereas 15% is from the budget of State governments. Initiated in 1994,it covered 41 districts in different states, and later expanded to 271 districts across 18 states. It is a part of the Social Net Credit Adjustment Loan under the Structural Adjustment Programme of the World Bank.

Strategy

Sensitive to the needs and limitations of girls, and children from disadvantaged communities. Generate demand for the education of girls.

Further Reading Find more related in the linked article. Related Links : What is DPEP in Education?
View complete answer

When did DPEP start in Kerala?

The District Primary Education Program (DPEP), launched in November 1994, was an ambitious attempt to address these challenges and to provide a decisive thrust to universalize and transform the quality of primary education.
View complete answer

What is the role of DPEP in Assam?

The District Primary Education Programme (DPEP)was launched in Assam in the year 1994- 95 to achieve the goal of universalisation and to work for quality improvement of Elementary Page 7 7 education. Initially the programme was launched in 4 districts. Later it was extended to 5 more districts.
View complete answer

What is DPEP education Programme in Odisha?

Last Updated On: 27/04/2022 Education is an indispensable input for development of human resources. While the overall literacy rate in 1951 was 15.8%, it was only 4.5% among females. The overall literacy rate in Odisha has increased to 73.45% and that for males to 82.4% and that for females to 64.36% as per 2011 census.

The state has 18 universities and 1679 general colleges. By the end of 2003-04, there were 34 Engineering colleges including 5 Government colleges and 27 Engineering schools / polytechnics including 13 in the public sector. There were 176 Industrial Training Institute including 24 under Government and 152 under private management.

In the field of medical science, the state has three medical colleges, one dental college, one Pharmacy College, three ayurvedic colleges, four homoeopathic colleges and one nursing college in the Government sector. Besides there are two Ayurvedic colleges, two homoeopathic colleges and twenty-one pharmacy colleges in the private sector.

  • In 1950-51, there were 9801 primary schools with 16525 teachers and 3.15 lakh students.
  • By the end of 2003-04 it was 42104 no.
  • Of primary schools with 78233 teachers and 4918067 students.
  • Middle schools and secondary schools are 11510 and 6938 nos.
  • Respectively.
  • As per 2004-05 survey, the no.
  • Of Government general colleges were 97 and aided colleges are 487.

Since 1950-51, there has been a considerable expansion in the number of educational institutions, enrollment and number of teachers at all levels. The UNICEF assisted ECE program is being implemented in the state since 1982 with the objective of motivating children in the age group of 3-5 years towards primary education with a view to achieve the aim of Universalisation of Elementary Education (UEE).

  • ICDS projects and agencies like state council of child welfare and state social welfare advisory board are administering the pre-primary stage education through Anganwadies, Balwadis and Creche centers.
  • The District Primary Education (DPEP) was launched in Odisha in 1996-97 with a view to achieve the long cherished goal of universalisation of primary education in the state through district specific planning.

Sarbasikhya Abhiyan (SSA) programme is being implemented in the state of Odisha. District Wise Literacy Rate in Odisha (As per the Census Report – 2011) Source – Census Report 2011

Download District Wise Literacy Rate and Population Attending School (1961, 1971, 1981, 1991 & 2001)

List of Universities in Odisha

/td>

· Utkal University, Bhubaneswar
· Utkal University of Culture
· Sambalpur University, Burla
· Berhampur University, Bhanjavihar
· Ravenshaw University, Cuttack
· Sri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya, Puri
· Fakir Mohan University, Balasore
· North Odisha University, Baripada
· Odisha University of Agriculture & Technology, Bhubaneswar
· Biju Patnaik University of Technology, Rourkela
· National Institute of Technology ( Formerly Regional Engineering College ), Rourkela
· Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology,Burla
· International Institute of Information Technology(IIIT)
· Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Deemed University
· Siksha O Anusandhan University (Deemed University)
· Centurion University of Technology and Management
· National Law University, Odisha, Cuttack
· Central University,Odisha,Koraput

/td>

table>

List of Technical Institution s in Odisha · IIIT, Bhubaneswar · National Institute of Technology ( Formerly Regional Engineering College ), Rourkela · University College of Engineering, Burla, Sambalpur · College of Engineering & Technology(CET), Bhubaneswar · Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang, Dhenkanal · Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar · Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology,, Deemed University · Orissa Engineering College, Bhubaneswar · College of Engineering, Bhubaneswar · Silicon Institute of Technology · Krupajala Group of Institutions · Institute of Technical Education & Research · CV Raman College of Engineering, Bhubaneswar · Dhaneswar Rath Institute of Engineering & Management Studies, Cuttack, · Gandhi Institute of Engineering & Technology · National Institute of Science and Technology – Berhampur. · Ghanashayam Hemalata Institute of Technology, Puri · Synergy Institute of Engineering and Technology · Seemanta Engineering College, Mayurbhanj. · SAMANTA CHANDRA SEKHAR INST.OF TECH. & MGT. · Padmanava College of Engineering, Rourkela. · Satyasai Engineering College, Balasore · Ajaya Binay Institute of Technology, Cuttack, · Jagannath Institute of Engineering & Technology, Cuttack · Majhighariani Institute of Technology Centurion Institute of Technology Jagannath Institute of Technology and Management · Centurion School of Rural Enterprise management

table>

NO. OF SCHOOLS IN OPEPA

District Name Total Rural School Urban School PrimarySection (I – V) UpperPrimarySection ( VI – VII) SecondarySection (VIII – X)
ANGUL 2237 197896 2177 189569 60 8327 1833 132033 232 42889 268 30142
BALASORE 4170 423968 3932 385840 238 38128 3173 277262 596 81329 585 58170
BARAGARH 2554 230827 2441 211477 113 19350 1979 118412 380 53494 310 32251
BHADRAK 2677 306184 2530 279231 147 26953 2133 191972 294 57102 368 47766
BOLANGIR 3035 234150 2877 215874 158 18276 2512 155434 287 48034 303 25536
BOUDH 971 73909 953 70731 18 3178 889 47010 55 14587 79 6418
CUTTACK 3826 402755 3233 309021 593 93734 3055 237846 456 86078 809 67669
DEOGARH 949 54338 916 50437 33 3901 820 38380 62 9639 81 5596
DHENKANAL 2081 198364 1974 180678 107 17686 1678 115712 196 45362 292 31456
GAJAPATI 1864 101900 1806 94920 58 6980 1804 79292 55 16752 83 5223
GANJAM 4578 530187 4125 456033 453 74154 3875 370591 383 105666 604 44524
JAGATSINGHPUR 1952 179967 1858 163824 94 16143 1545 101245 214 37969 305 33459
JAJPUR 3175 343517 3065 330556 110 12961 2428 215610 354 71080 485 54210
JHARSUGUDA 1018 90290 783 59344 235 30946 842 55261 104 21902 124 13534
KALAHANDI 3333 277856 3228 259069 105 18787 2925 202135 257 48508 278 24081
KANDHAMAL 2270 148796 2218 139414 52 9382 2129 111854 85 22463 146 10826
KENDRAPARA 2700 255022 2599 241249 101 13773 2111 147688 307 56348 391 46610
KEONJHAR 3370 270542 3176 244600 194 25942 2622 186765 349 51448 522 31520
KHURDHA 2553 329711 1809 194637 744 135074 2034 203006 534 68337 668 55650
KORAPUT 3267 180910 3022 153560 245 27350 3131 139100 107 28973 148 10034
MALKANGIRI 1450 96142 1411 90090 39 6052 1330 78970 28 11197 128 3583
MAYURBHANJ 5971 414583 5792 388493 179 26090 5204 301627 400 74065 625 43100
NAWARANGPUR 2324 183642 2253 172050 71 11592 2159 147833 115 29160 121 8145
NAYAGARH 1846 165958 1810 160554 36 5404 1477 99619 191 35839 249 24123
NUAPADA 1616 108832 1592 105365 24 3467 1401 84965 140 18757 122 9821
PURI 2875 289244 2671 254863 204 34381 2348 170524 250 64464 385 46975
RAYAGADA 2675 151580 2569 133628 106 17952 2592 116370 95 24086 123 10208
SAMBALPUR 2256 152924 1962 123393 294 29531 1925 96170 248 38706 251 17228
SONEPUR 1259 103193 1190 94733 69 8460 1068 56219 110 27136 120 15135
SUNDERGARH 4403 330903 3729 242061 674 88842 3846 223347 373 68906 410 36111
Total 79255 6828090 73701 5995294 5554 832796 66868 4502252 7257 1360276 9383 849104

ul> Click for BLOCK WISE PRIMARY SCHOOLS

Click for BLOCK WISE MIDDLE SCHOOLS

Click for BLOCK WISE SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Click for ECO-CLUB SCHOOLS

Source: Economic Survey and Odisha Govt Website
View complete answer

How many districts does DPEP cover in Assam?

PLANNING PROCES S UNDER DPEP : ASSAM – Prior to DPEP, the responsibility of educational planning was entirely vested with the Director (Education) and all the plans were prepared at the State level. The planning process under DPEP necessitated a departure from this approach and it introduced various changes in the planning process in Assam. The planning process under DPEP for preparation of the district plans got started in Assam in May-June 1993. As an initial step, the state level officers attended a meeting at NIEPA, New Delhi in March, 1993. In the beginning of May, 1993, the National core team members visited Assam and held meetings at the State level to orient educational functionaries to prepare district plans. Following this, core groups were formed and meetings were organised at the district and State levels. These meetings were attended by officers from elementary education department and faculties of DIET and BTC. The first draft of the district plan was submitted to the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) in July 1993. The National Core Team members commented on the draft plans. The IDA preparatory mission visited the state in July, 1993 and the DPEP plan formulation process was assessed. The need for more participatory approach was emphasised in the discussions. Subsequently, District Core Groups organised meetings at the district, sub-division and sub-district levels with NGOs, teachers’ associations, village community representatives and functionaries of education and other related department. In all five meetings were organised at state level, twenty six meetings were organised at district and sub-district levels, and two hundred and forty two meetings were held at the block level. The recommendations made in these meetings were in-corporated in the second draft of the plan which was then submitted to Government of India (GOI) in the month of December 1993. The third draft of the work plan was submitted to GOI for approval in April 1994, this draft incorporated in it the proposals made by the pre-appraisal mission which visited the state in the month of February 1994. The final sanctions pertaining to AWP & B 94-95 were received by November 1994. To facilitate plan preparation process, workshops were organised at NIEPA after every mission. The educational functionaries involved with DPEP planning process participated in these workshops in September, 1993 and February, 1994. As a follow-up to NIEPA workshops, core group meetings were organised at the state and district levels to streamline the activities associated with district planning process. The initial plans were prepared based on secondary sources of data. However, the results of the baseline studies conducted by NCERT, New Delhi was made available in April 1994 which were incorporated into the planning process. A study conducted by Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta was also used as a basis for formulating the perspective plan and AWP & B for 1994-95. Besides the above mentioned two studies a study on State Finances for education also provided inputs while drawing up the perspective plan and the annual work plan 1994-95. The planning process in Assam aimed to include, first, an analysis of the present situation which includes a description of educational programmes already in operation, a quantitative analysis of educational process, an analysis of available physical and infrastructure facilities, an assessment of education at district level, emphasis on data base for planning, need based and continous planning process. Second, identification of targets that the plan is supposed to achieve. Third, the strategies required to achieve the targets. Fourth, planning to be made consultative and participatory. Fifth, the efforts to translate the intervention strategies into practice. Sixth, estimation of financial requirements, Seventh preparation of implementation schedule to carry out the various activities. Eight, to monitor and evaluate various activities following from the plans. The state component plans were prepared after the draft district plan, were formulated. From 1995 onwards, annual plan preparation became a continous process in Assam. The plan preparation process for the year 1995-96 started in February, 1995. State and district level meetings were organised in which need for new intervention for realising the goals was emphasised and a list of new activities were identified. In order to make the planning process efficient and to streamline project planning and monitoring aspects of the programme, the procedures of preparing AWP&B were streamlined. Computerised systems were developed to take care of both the financial costing and time scheduling of different activities/sub activities to be executed under AWP & B. A software was procured for this purpose from ICSS, New Delhi. It was pointed out that due to delay in start of 1994-95 plan activities a lot of activities got carried over to 1995-96. The draft plan was submitted to Government of Assam (GOA) in April, 1995, the modified plan was submitted to GOA in May, 1995. The final approval was received in September, 1995. The main constraints faced in 1995-96 plan implementation was that the VEC personnel could not be trained due to the lack of Resource Persons at Block and cluster level. Hence, the community at the village level was not consulted at the time of preparation of the AWP&B. However, in 1996-97 the participatory process in the preparation of the AWP&B was extended up to the village level. Meetings were organised at the BRC and CRC level, discussions were also held with teachers and village education committee members. The suggestions that were made in these meetings were sought to be incorporated at the district level plan formulation exercise. In 1996-97 the draft plans were prepared at the district level with discussions taking place with the state level and district level functionaries. The revised final version of the plan was submitted to Government of India in April 1996, while the final approval was received in August,1996. The reconstitution of VEC proved to be a major constraining factor in plan implementation in 1996-97. Participatory Planning was emphasised while initiating planning for AWP & B in 1997-98. An effort was made to involve the local community at micro level planning and decision making. The VECs, CRCs and BRCs were involved in the process of planning and implementation of different educational activities in a participatory mode. The process of preparation of AWP&B 1997-98 started in October, 1996. Workshops, meetings and discussions were organised at the district, BRC, CRC and VEC levels in which needs assessment at VEC, CRC and BRC levels were undertaken. After discussing the various problems and issues with the educational functionaries, the first draft of the plan was prepared. The draft plan that was prepared was further discussed component-wise at the state level. For this purpose workshops and meetings were organised with DPOs and officials of the State Project Office. The teams that were involved in preparing the district level plans were further given orientation by a team from Ed.Cil. The first draft of AWP&B 1997-98 for all DPEP-I districts was thus sought to be prepared and finalised through a participatory process. The initial plans were less participatory in nature. It was pointed out that the plans could not move beyond the block level because the DPOs did not identify with the plans as their own plans and this hampered the planning process to a great extent. Although VECs were formed, they were not properly consulted before preparing the plans. Consequently the plans did not reflect realities. For example, while preparing plans, seasonal variations were not taken into consideration. Assam has a severe monsoon period when all activities come to a virtual halt. Since the scheduling of activities in the earlier plans did not take into account these ground realities, it resulted in delay and non implementation of the plans. Another reason for slow implementation of the plans, is the repeated transfer of DPEP trained personnel during the planning process and later. Learning from the experiences relating to planning from DPEP I, measures have been taken to make the planning process more efficient under DPEP II. A lot of significant changes have been proposed to be brought about in the planning process in DPEP II. A brief outline of the planning process proposed to be undertaken under DPEP II is as follows. While preparing the plans under DPEP II the steps that are proposed to be undertaken by the state office included : (i) constituting district planning teams and orienting them to the basics of DPEP; (ii) Training of Five(5) members from each DPEP district at LBSNAA, Mussoorie for Nine (9) days; (iii) constitution of Block level planning teams and their orientation; (iv) constitution of VEC; (v) providing funds for pre-project cost; (vi) developing guideline/orientation to hold meetings with the stake holders; (vii) identification of issues/problems through participatory process; and (viii) organising state level workshops for identification of strategies to address the identified issues relating to DPEP. An elaborate planning process has been started under DPEP II which has resulted in identification of local specific problems in enrolment, retention and quality improvement, identification of potential causes for this problem. Identification of potential strategies for addressing these problems on a priority basis has also been sought to be addressed while preparing the plans under DPEP II. Hence all the output of participatory planning are being used to prepare district plans under DPEP II. It has also been mentioned that in DPEP II micro planning and mapping exercises on pilot basis are proposed to be undertaken from the beginning of project implementation. The requirement for trained professionals is being met by training of professionals at LBSNAA, Mussoorie. The plan of action that has been proposed to be undertaken is DPEP II included :- (i) Constitution of District Core Teams comprising of DEEO, DI, BEEO, programme officers, BRC co-ordinators, social workers, representatives from NGOs, women groups etc.; (ii) Identification of master trainers; (iii) Development of manuals and other documents; (iv) Training of master trainers; (v) Orientation of Block education committee/Block level education committees; and (vi) Organising awareness generation programmes. The above mentioned measures were expected to supply a village profile and village action plan for target area villages, completion of school mapping exercise in pilot blocks, development of a pool of master trainers at the district and sub district level for subsequent extension and for awareness generation and mobilisation in the community. PLANN ING PROCESS UNDER DPEP : HARYANA Of the seven districts with female literacy lower than the national average, four districts, namely, Hisar, Kaithal, Jind and Sirsa were selected in the first phase of the DPEP introduced in the state in March, 1993. At first there was a national workshop organised in March, 1993 where the state level officers participated. Subsequently, the national core team members visited the state to facilitate district plans and state component plans. The process of preparing district plans was initiated by issuing a letter from the Director, Primary Education Haryana. A preparatory meeting was organised by the DPE Haryana at the SCERT, Gurgaon in which other officers, such as, educational administrators, subject specialists of SCERT and the concerned District Primary Education Officers and Block Education Officers took part. The broad areas on which information was required were identified and the DPEOs were requested to organise a meeting of BEOs for collection of the requisite information. It was also decided to contact the concerned teachers, Block Officers, members of Panchayat and VEC, villagers, community leaders etc. and share with them the aims and objectives of the DPEP. Maa Beti Mela, Wall writings, Prabhat Pheries, Enrolment Drives, Competition amongst girls etc. were organised in the district to mobilise community support. Also, posters, cartoons, songs/poems, nukkar nataks, kathhputali pradarshan were organised which were found to be very useful in mobilising the community, specially the women and the girls. When the participatory process of the district planning was in progress, the national core team conducted a number of studies which includes Learner Achievement Study, State Finance study on Education, studies on Designing, Production and Distribution of Textbooks, Teacher Notivation and Gender. These studies were conducted in all the four districts from October 1993 to March 1994. For preparing district plans and also to facilitate better coordination with the members of the SCERT who were involved in the formulation of district plans, two committees, namely, District Core Team and the State Core Team were constituted. A working group was also created at the district level which consisted of BEOs, Head Teachers/Teachers, Anganwari Workers/Village Nurse, Social Workers and some retired persons. Mainly, the working group was the sub-set of the district core team. In addition, teachers and head teachers were also involved in conducting meetings with the village elders to identify problems relating to drop-outs, out-of-school children and irregularity of students. The representatives of mahila mandals, yuva mandals, VEC/VCC, NGOs were also invited in the meetings convened at the district/block level to seek their suggestions regarding the identified issues and problems. The local community were also involved in locating the site for ECCE, NFE Centers, for donating land for BRC and for providing chopals to organise some school programme. The first meeting of the District Core Team was held in July, 1993 under the chairmanship of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of district Hissar. It was decided in the meeting that a number of meetings would be organised at the block and village levels which will help to acquaint people with the DPEP. Similarly, meetings of working groups were also organised to discuss various components that were to be incorporated in the plan document. The strategies for organising the participatory process emphasised mainly the involvement of the local agencies like VEC, Panchayat members, village elders, social workers, teachers, BEOs and NGOs in the areas where they were working. The members of the working group were involved in planning process with their own problems and issues relating to the areas of access, retention, achievement, drop-outs, out-of-school children, community participation, gender disparities etc. The praticipatory planning process took place during the period April 1993 to March 1994. In the meetings held at the block/district levels, local educational problems were identified and were discussed by the group members of different areas. After the discussions, intervention strategies were included in the district plan proposals. The working group at the district level also comprised of SCERT experts. Whenever the proposal was reviewed by the national experts/appraisal missions, the suggestions given were incorporated in the revised plan document. The BEOs conducted house to house and village-to-village surveys and collected information. Once the data were collected from the field the same was analysed and used in the school mapping related exercises for purposes of opening of new schools/branch schools, construction of school building and additional classrooms, toilets, boundary walls and installation of hand pumps and their repairs etc. Similarly, the information was also used in creating NFE centers which was mainly based upon the number of drop-outs and out-of-school children. For dissemination of the information, a News Letter at the DIET level was started. Similarly, the plan document also included detailed strategies to prioritise activities to facilitate convergence of services at the local level. On receipt of the information collected, the working group started preparing the draft district plans. The members of the working group were trained at NIEPA, NCERT and IIE, Pune. A meeting of the National Core Team, Working Group and State Officers was held in May, 1993 to discuss the hurriedly prepared draft plan proposals. The districts could initiate participatory planning process only to a limited extent and hence it was found to be very weak. The district plans were finally prepared at the state level and hence lacked local specificity to an extent. In this sense, the planning process in comparison to other DPEP states was less decentralised and participatory in Haryana in the initial stages. However, these limitations are overcome at a latter stage. Due to intervention of the centre, the same was taken up to a great extent but compared to other states it was not rigorous and elaborate. One of the significant contribution of the state was that it has originated the idea of Block Resource Centre was porposed in the district plans. Now, BRCs are a common feature in all the DPEP states. During the plan preparation, its revision and re-drafting at every stage, consultative process was adopted for making it need based with local specific inputs. In order to improve the draft plan, between September-November, 1993, four meetings were held at the SCERT, Gurgaon. Similarly, two workshops were organised at NIEPA, New Delhi. Suggestions were also received from the field supervisors and experts from the large number of meetings conducted at different levels. At the school/village level about sixty such meetings were organised; at the block level about twenty two meetings and at district levels six meetings were organised in which a large number of officers and functionaries took part. It was noticed during the surveys and planning process that a number of students who were in the Government schools were also enrolled in the private schools. One of the possible reasons of this phenomenon was that the children enrolled in the unrecognized private schools were not allowed to appear in the board examinations held by the state. The State Government has recently withdrawn this condition. The other reason was due to prevailing criteria of admission in the Navodaya Vidhayala and the poor quality of education in the Government Schools. However, the State Government has now introduced an innovative scheme of evaluation and opened admission to both Government as well as Private students in the Navodhaya Vidhayala. Due to implementation of noon-meal scheme in the state, dual enrolment is also noticed to be increased. The likely number of children that are to be covered in the Government schools is also not known because of the fact that many of them are already enrolled in the private schools. But the EMIS under the DPEP do not collect information on unrecognised private institutions. However, on an experimental basis, this variable is now added to the Data Capture Format in one of the DPEP districts in the state. To monitor the implementation of the district plan an autonomous society, namely, Haryana Prathmik Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad was created in November, 1994. It was only recently that the state has taken initiative to establish SIEMAT and hence most of the faculty positions are lying vacant. The SIEMAT is located at Gurgaon. One of the positive impact of the existing programmes in the state was that it did not require school readiness programme because of the strong ECCE programmes that were in operation in the state. During the mobilisation campaigns, the villagers pressurised and demanded upgrading their primary schools to middle schools and from middle to high schools so that their wards, specially girls, continue to get education in the same village itself. But opening a new middle school or the upgradation of the primary school to middle school were outside the purview of the DPEP. The visible change that is noticed in the state is that the process of plan formulation has totally transformed the district people and they are not willing to accept experts from the SCERT whereas at the time of start of the DPEP they were wholly depended upon the SCERT expertise. This shows an improvement in self confidence of the educational functionaries at the district level. One of the positive feature of the capacity building exercises is that the state has already developed a manual for the VEC members which includes duties, responsibilities and power’s of the VEC members. Based on the experience of the first phase districts, the state feels involvement of the VEC in the planning process requires proper training and orientation. Otherwise, the VEC members will not be able to constitute to the planning process in an effective manner. In fact, VECs are the key to the success only through which things can be put into the right direction and hence more and more powers need to be given to the VEC. It has also been noticed that the data collection under the EMIS is good but most of the Districts are not in a position to analyse the data which is mainly because of the fact that the Computer Programmers who are appointed in the DPEP districts are not well versed with education system and basic indicators that are needed for planning. One of the important problems which the state DPEP is facing is that of the frequent change of the State Projector Director, thus creating a lot of coordination and administrative problems. The SPD has changed four times in a short period of about five years. PLANNIN G PROCESS UNDER DPEP: KARNATAKA The District Primary Education Programme was launched in four districts of the state in its first phase. Initially there were hardly any institutional/organisational arrangement in the state which were geared to plan, implement, monitor or evaluate the district level educational programmes. The expertise in planning and management of education were either inadequate or even totally lacking in the districts. It was therefore quite a challenging task to design and develop district education plans by the district people within the time frame that was given. This was even more difficult because the district plans were expected to be evolved through a participatory planning process. As a first step towards operationalisation of the programme a state level core team was formed. The team represented government officials as well as experts and academicians drawn from resource institutions like Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, Institute of Social and Economic Change, Bangalore and Mysore University. In order to develop district plans it was decided to give the responsibility of one district to one academic expert from these institutions for overall guidance. The core team constituted in May 1993 had the responsibility to look after all matters concerning pre-project activities, project formulation and networking with resource institutions, periodically visit district and provide the necessary guidance and technical assistance for plan formulation, monitor and review the implementation of programme at regular intervals; establish and operate a computer based MIS and conduct research studies and review and evaluate the programme from time to time. In order to help the core team members to evolve district plans through participatory planning process a workshop was organised in May 1993 in which experts from national level organisations also participated. This workshop helped identifying broad parameters within which district plans are to be prepared. This workshop also helped drawing a schedule of activities to be undertaken at state and district levels. The planning exercise at the district level was initiated by through a district core group. The members of district core groups were oriented in a two days workshop organised at the state level in the end of May, 1993. This was the first activity undertaken towards the preparation of district educational plans. A wide variety of people participated in this workshop from the district. This includes inspectors of schools, Asstt. Education Officers, district core team members namely Dy. Commissioner, Chief Secretary Zilla Panchayat, College Principal, DIET faculty, Education Officer, NGOs, headmasters of schools, officials of Women and Child Welfare department etc. This workshop oriented the participants to DPEP the guidelines given by Government of India for plan preparation. Further modalities for eliciting cooperation of local people to ensure participatory planning were also discussed. Actual planning exercise started after this workshop. During the internal discussions, the role of community members as stakeholders was emphasized and modalities for ensuring community participation were decided. The need for the formation of Village Education Committees (VEC) was also emphasised in the discussion. In order to ensure that the grassroot level people are involved in the planning exercise the district core group team members visited serveral villages to make the people aware about the importance of education specially that of girls and disadvantaged groups. In this regard Chairman and members of Village Panchayat, local leaders, women etc. were involved. They were made aware of the programme (DPEP) to be launched in the district for achieving the goal of universalisationm of primary education. Their help and cooperation was sought to make the programme successful. Villagers were encouraged to form Village Education Committees (VECs) for which broad guidelines were given. During the process of developing district educational plan some problems were experienced in DPEP phase I in Karnataka. These were : (i) Till that stage guidelines given by Government of India (GOI) for formulating plans were fluid. The GOI was issuing guidelines which kept changing quite frequently; (ii) Due to this frequent change in guidelines, the district teams were hard pressed for time in revising the plan proposals and the plans had to be revised many times; (iii) There was only a limited professional capacity among members of the district planning group and hence they found it very difficult to undertake the job of revision and re-revision in a meaningful way; (iv) The Baseline Assessment Study could not be completed due to paucity of time and that is why the results of this study could not be used for plan formulation in the initial stages; and (v) During the initial phase the decentralization process had just initiated and was minimal as it required a lot of attitudinal change on the part of various people. During discussions, various points that emerged in connection with the planning process undertaken in DPEP Phase I are as follows : – There was hardly any time available between planning and implementation There was very less time available to conduct appropriate in-depth training for the planning groups. There was absolutely no follow up to the initial training. It is therefore clear that the capacity building of district planning groups could not be ensured. There was also a strong need to have follow up training also. Adequate and appropriate data were not available on the basis of which district plans could be formulated. Whatever data was available was not only inadequate but was also unreliable. So the educational data system needs to be strengthened and made more reliable. There had been frequent transfer of officials in the districts under DPEP which hampered the scope of retaining the planning teams for a considerable time. The procurement procedure suggested in the guidelines is quite tedious and that is why there were delays in the procurement and the flow of funds was slow. This is the reason that in the initial years the absorpotion of budget was quite low. During the planning and implementation of the programme, horizontal linkages between the existing educational administration machinery and the one that came into existence due to implementation of the programme at state, district and block levels were not properly worked out. The co-ordination between state project office and state Directorate of Education as also SCERT, between District Elementary Education Office and District Project Office, and that between Block Education Office and Block Resource Centre were in many cases either lacking or were not upto the desired level. In the initial years of DPEP Phase I there was no clear idea about the institutional arrangement for building in the area of planning and management capacity in the state. In some states including Karnataka, still there is no clear idea whether any state level institution like SIEMAT will be established or will there be some other mechanism evolved at the state level. PLANNING PRO CESS UNDER DPEP : KERALA The DPEP activities started in Kerala on 15th April, 1993. On this day, the Directorate of Education organised a meeting of DIET principals and staff representatives and educational officers at the State Institute of Education, Trivandrum. In this meeting, the DPEP which was then titled as SSN project was discussed. Besides, the existing educational scenario, the relevance of DPEP in Kerala were also discussed extensively and three educationally backward districts namely Malappuram, Wayanad and Kasaragode were selected for the programme. These three districts have their own specific characteristic features. Malappuram is the largest district having highest percentage of Muslim population; Wayanad is mainly dominated by tribal population; and Kasaragod is a bilingual district. Nearly 10% of all schools in the northern belt have either Kannada medium schools and have parallel classes in Kannada medium. In this meeting, there were discussions on different parameters of the ensuing programme with the expert teams from NIEPA and NCERT. Faculty members from NIEPA, provided outlines on different steps involved in planning of the project. It included specification of objectives; assessment of the situation; specification of targets; strategies; programmes and activities; costing; phasing of the programmes etc. This was succeeded by other informative discussion on different dimensions in formal and non-formal education. In the meeting it was decided that the project documents were to be prepared in respective districts and the DIETs would play a leading role in the planning process. An important aspect focused upon throughout the discussion was the essentiality and relevance of the participatory process in preparing the project document. Thus Kerala initiated the process of preparation of the project proposal. DIET Principals went back, had prolonged discussions with the DIET staff. It was emphasised that the district level plans were to be developed by those people who were the direct baneficiaries of the programme. This necessitated a consultative process to arrive at areas of convergence to set priorities. So detailed plan was chalked out and systematically carried out. At the state level it was decided to create a core team to undertake planning and implementation activities. A State Core Team under the Chairmanship of DPI and 14 other members was constituted to initiate planning activities. At the district level, a District Core Team under the Chairmanship of District Collector was also constituted. At the district level, the District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) were entrusted with the major responsibility of preparing district plan documents. A team of 5 members with the DIET Prinicipal as the convenor was formed in each selected district to prepare the plan document. These staff members were relieved from their normal duties so as to enable them to devote full time for plan preparation. There was a nodal officer located in the Directorate of Public Instructions in Trivandrum to coordinate the planning activities. Besides, advisory committees were formed at state, district, block, panchayat and school levels to facilitate the planning process. The Government also received professional support from all concerned, particularly from the faculty of NIEPA, and NCERT, Officers from the Department of Education, MHRD, Government of India, representatives of the funding agency and members of various Appraisal Missions. From the very beginning planning activities were decentralised and participation of concerned departments and beneficiaries was emphasized in the planning process. To start with, immediately after the state level discussions on DPEP, the DIET pricipals of selected districts held discussions with DDC, DEOs and AEOs in each district and appraised them on the need for the project, i.e. DPEP. The project details were discussed with District Collectors, Planning Officers, MLAs and other people’s representatives and valuable suggetions were collected. A brochure explaining the objectives of the DPEP and the rough outline of the project procedures were printed. Again meetings of AEOs were held. Project familiarisation exercise was done. AEOs in turn held meetings of the primary school headmasters in their sub-districts and copies of the brochure were distributed to them to hold meetings in their own schools. The headmasters held meetings of their staff, PTA members, representatives of other local bodies and community leaders in their locality. These meetings and discussions created an excellent rapport with the educational functionaries of the selected districts. In the next phase of activities, DIETS prepared detailed questionnaries to collect information on the existing facilities at school level and also the future requirements. Necessary secondary data were collected from District Officers of different departments. DIET principals and the concerned staff attended several meetings in Trivandrum to discuss the modus operandi of the preparation of the district plan. Thus, need assessment in the field of primary education along with awareness creation campaigns was given top priority in the planning process. Special teams were constituted in DIETs for undertaking relevant studies for preparation of the project. Before preparation of the district plan documents in the concerned districts, several rounds of discussions were held with people’s representatives at district, block, to gather relevant information on primary education in their respective areas. Specifically, discussions were held with : (i) Panchayat Presidents; (ii) PTA functionaries; (iii) tribal leaders; (iv) tribal women ward/members; (v) religious leaders; (vi) Madrasa/Mahalla committee functionaries; (vii) non-governmental organisations; and (viii) office-bearers of clubs, reading rooms, and other cultural organisations and necessary suggestions to improve primary education facilities were collected. Also, studies on Baseline Assessment, Gender, Teacher Training and Tribal Education undertaken in the State by NIEPA, New Delhi and NCERT, New Delhi provided necessary information and data for undertaking the planning exercise. On the basis of data privided by various studies and feedback received from various sections of the society mentioned above, the project plans were prepared in the selected districts. Special training was given by NIEPA, New Delhi for undertaking the planning exercise. Then details plans of action were finalised and were transformed into “interventions”. Justification for each intervention, detailed of implementation strategies, target groups, implementation agencies, financial commitments etc. were clearly mentioned in the draft district plan. During the last week of July,1993, the Project Identification Mission visited selected districts and held discussions with the District Planning Team members. Such discussions helped to identify the flaws and drawbacks in the plan preparation procedure and provided remedial measures to overcome such problems. In the light of discussions with the Mission members, and their observations and comments, the draft project plan was modified. Detailed information were simultaneously collected from the departments concerned with the development of education in the state. District Collectors held meetings of the Panchayat Presidents and discussed minor details of the project plan. Panchayat Presidents in turn held meetings of the heads of the basic realities in each school, and consolidated the ideas received and sent them to the concerned DIETs. Also, the draft plans were shared with experts at state and national levels. On the basis of suggestions received from all concerned, the draft plans were finalised. It is to be noted here that the consultative process was so intensive that the original draft plan documents had to be revised nearly 10 times before giving them a final shape. It is worth mentioning here that special measures were taken to involve voluntary agencies and organisations working in the State in the planning process. Experiences gained during the total literacy programme in Kerala was an additional input in the planning exercise. The final project plan was submitted to the Department of Education, MHRD, Government of India in 1994. In the suceeding years the process of annual work plan preparation involved even more participatory techniques. Block level orientation-cum-discussion was given to Panchayat Presidents and members. Special effort was made to identify existing problems, specific interventions and related activities to be undertaken in Panchayats of selected districts. These were consolidated, prioritised and printed in booklets and distributed to Panchayats. In the next stage, district level workshops were organised to thoroughly discuss the draft annual plans. These annual work plans were then finalised on the basis of feedback received from such district level workshop. After having obtained the approval of the annual work plan by the District Advisory Body, the information was passed on to the VECs. The VECs then planned and executed the necessary activities for improvement of primary education in their respective villages. It is to be commented that the decentralisation process which took place during the preparation stage of the project plan facilitated to make the district plans more local specific. To conclude, such a planning exercise was a novel experience for the state level officers, teachers and general public. Instead of getting things done at the top level a real kind of decentralised planning procedure was adopted. Everybody was able to contribute something in the planning process. The more important thing was that they felt that they had a “role” in the whole planning exercise. It was actually an effort by all concerned to improve primary education in Kerala. PLANNING PROC ESS UNDER DPEP : MADHYA PRADESH The state has the distinction of initiating a few innovations in the country in the field of education. The Non-Formal Education programme in Tikamgarh and the Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme run by Eklavya are the two programmes originated in Madhya Pradesh. In the late 1980s two projects on primary education were initiated in the state – `Roopantar’ project meant for 14 districts initiated by Education Department and `Dhumkuriya’ project meant for 5 districts initiated by Tribal Welfare Department. These projects were in the process of preparation and finalisation when DPEP was introduced in the State. By early 1993 the concept of District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) was evolved at GOI level and it was decided that all programmes related to UPE should follow a broad approach and guidelines of DPEP. It was therefore decided to merge both `Roopantar’ and `Dhumkuriya’ projects under DPEP in Madhya Pradesh. The emphasis was laid on participatory approach to ensure community participation in the planning process and cover all issues related to primary education i.e. access, participation and quality improvement. Nineteen districts were covered under the first phase of the DPEP. The exercise of district plan formulation was initiated in 1993 in the state for all the nineteen districts covered under DPEP. In order to develop district educational plans, planning groups were formed at various levels namely state, district, block and village. At the outset state level planning group was constituted to formulate guidelines to prepare district plans and the state component plan. This group also worked out the approach to plan preparation, the strategies, components and the interventions to be incorporated in the plan documents. In this process broad guidelines were finalised and were circulated to districts for evolving district educational plans. In order to orient district level educational functionaries to develop district plans, a state level workshop was organised in which education officers and tribal welfare officers of all the DPEP districts participated. They were oriented towards formulation of district plans and were provided with guidelines to prepare district plans. It was decided during the workshop to constitute district level planning groups to prepare district plans. The initial plans were based on the data and information collected by the educational functionaries. Later, the plans were modified taking into account the results of the baseline studies. The district planning groups had representation from all education related departments. Thus the DIETs, District Statistical Office, Rural Engineering Service Department, College of Education, Women and Child Development Department, Panchayat And Rural Welfare Department, District Planning Office, DRDA/DUDA were all represented in the district planning groups. Data were collected from the villages and blocks and were consolidated at the district level. Further educational needs of villages were assessed at the block level and block level plans were prepared by Block Planning groups. To further decentralise the planning process, Block planning groups were formed with block level officers of different departments as their members. In order to orient the block planning groups a district level workshop was organised in which they were oriented towards school mapping exercise, village survey and preparation of village plans. Collection of village level data and its analysis was carried out to identify actual local level requirements at the Village level. In order to develop village plans, village planning groups were formed. This was represented by local panchayat members and other public representatives, Anganwadi Workers, Patwari, health workers and Rural Agriculture Extensive Officer etc. These village planning groups were also given orientation towards conducting village surveys to assess educational needs of villages and developing village education plans. The state received academic and professional support to prepare district educational plans from experts, educationists and professional resource organisations from the state and national levels. Baseline study was conducted by NCERT and the college of education and DIETs helped in training district, block and village level planning groups. Youth volunteers from National Service Scheme and Nehru Yuvak Kendra helped organise planning meetings. Support of NGOs, gender specialists and experts on tribal issues was elicited during the planning process. Similarly, support from experienced, retired teachers and educationists were helpful to assess the training needs at the local level. The approach ensured that the planning process was participatory in nature. In order to ensure peoples’ participation at large in the planning exercise, people were mobilised through elected local bodies. The local bodies which are active in the state were involved in the planning process. The planning process ensured involvement of local community, VECs, Gram Panchayats, Janpad Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats. A sizeable number of members of local bodies actively participated in the process. The activities undertaken to mobilise people at large in this regard were – organising Shiksha Jyoti Campaign, Kala Jathas, media campaign, seeking cooperation of elected representatives, community melas, PTA meetings, Nukkad Nataks and organisation of folk dances etc. In Madhya Pradesh a bottom up approach was adopted to formulate district educational plans under the DPEP. The planning process started right from the Village level. Village plans were formulated and based on the village plans. Block plans were developed and the district plans were finalised based on consolidating the block plans. This process was not only rigorous but also ensured local participation to evolve district plans. A major problem faced during the planning exercise was the paucity of time for ensuring participation of all sections of people in the planning process. The actual time that was available to prepare Village plans was hardly two months which was not sufficient enough keeping in view that such exercise was undertaken for the first time and hence planning capacity at the local level was to be developed. To a great extent, the same constraint was experienced in DPEP Phase II districts of the state. In Phase-I districts gender studies, alongwith other studies, were conducted to identify problems of girls’ education and to address gender issues. But in phase II districts such gender studies have been discontinued and social assessment studies (SAS) are conducted. It was argued that SAS can not take care of gender issues in a meaningful way and so it can not replace gender study. So it was emphasized that gender studies should continue in new districts also where DPEP is being launched. As noted earlier, Panchayat Raj Institutions were active in the planning process in Madhya Pradesh. It was found that at the village levels most of the deliberations were dominated by PRI representatives. This indirectly contributed to a reduced role of the VEC members. It is important in the context of the state to evolve strategies to strengthen both the local bodies and VECs Further many a time there was conflict and confrontation between Village Education Committees and local primary school teachers. There is a need for proper orientation of VEC members to clearly understand their roles and responsibilities in planning and management of primary education. Teachers need to be oriented towards the role of VEC so as to make them understand that VECs are organisational arrangements, to help them in managing schools. Such orientation and closer interaction may help them to understand and respect their rights and duties. There was a general agreement that the problems faced during the planning exercises by all states under DPEP should be shared among states so that it may help them to overcome such problems. Such experience sharing exercise should be undertaken on continuous basis. The experience of DPEP Phase I planning process in Madhya Pradesh shows that; (i) motivation of community is very important if the participatory approach is to be successfully undertaken; (ii) orientation and training of planning groups right from district to village levels should be indepth and rigorous; (iii) certain programmes for VEC members is necessary; the VEC members are to be oriented towards DPEP and more importantly to their roles and responsibilities in developing district plans and implementing them. PLANNING PROCESS U NDER DPEP : MAHARASHTRA The Government of Maharashtra initiated pre-project activities in 1993 for the implementation of the District Primary Education Programme in the five districts of the state. (Recently the programme is extended to additional four districts under the DPEP II). Simultaneously, preparation of State Programme of Action for UPE by 2000 was also initiated in the year 1993. Seven districts from the Marathwada region and four Tribal districts with female literacy rates lower than the national average were identified. Later the State POA also emphasised the need for area intensive approach to accelerate UPE in the educationally backward districts of the state. Of the 119 blocks, 103 blocks were educational backwards. As a first step towards preparing district plans under the DPEP, a meeting was organised in Mumbai where members of the national core team and education functionaries at the state levels and district levels participated. This meeting helped shaping the activities to be undertaken to prepare district plans. Subsequently, a state level committee under the chairmanship of Secretary, State School Education Department was constituted in 1993, with Deputy Secretary (Primary Education), Director of Education, Director of SCERT, Director of SIET, CEO of concerned districts, Joint Directors and Deputy Directors in Directorate, Regional Deputy Director and concerned District Education Officers as it members. Following this, a number of meetings were organised at the state level and district levels to acquaint the functionaries with major concerns of DPEP. More specifically these meetings focussed on issues pertaining to access, retention, quality and capacity building at the local level. The district level plans were prepared and state component plans were prepared later. Various committees were constituted at the district level and several meetings were organised to make the planning process participatory. The support for district plan preparations were made through workshops organised by NIEPA. The State Component Plan was formulated with a view to develop a proper information system to create an autonomous society for DPEP, to strengthen state level institutes such as, SCERT to build capacity at the State level and also to establish an institute, namely, the Maharashtra Institute of Educational Planning and Administration for training in the areas of Educational Planning and Management. In view of this, an advisory body, namely, Maharashtra Prathamik Shikshan Parishad was formed under the Societies Act and later its administrative and financial rules were also prepared. In addition to this, later in 1994, a DPEP Cell was also created in the SCERT, Pune. A number of studies, such as, Baseline Assessment Study, State Finance Study, Teacher motivation study, study on textbooks, Gender study and Tribal Study were conducted in the districts. Similarly, each district conducted a status study on access, retention, quality and capacity building. All these studies became the basis to revise the district plans. Basically, the studies were conducted through the SCERT under the guidance of the National Core Teams. To facilitate the activities of the District Core Team, a state level officer was also associated with each of the five districts included under the DPEP. Apart from the Project Planning Committee, two separate bodies, namely, District Governing Body and District Executive Committee were also created in each of the five districts under the DPEP. The President, Zilla Parishad was the Chairman of the Governing Body whereas The CEO, Zilla Parishad was the Chairman of the District Executive Committee. Equal representation was given to different departments under the Zilla Parishad and officers working within the education department. The main responsibility of the Governing Body was to review the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project whereas the DEC was entrusted with the responsibility of the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project. Both the district committees worked within the guidelines supplied by the State Level Governing Body and Executive Committee. The President of Zilla Parishad was the Chairman of the District Governing Body whereas the CEO of the concerned district was its Co-Chairman and Additional Collector, Chairman (Education Committee), Regional Deputy Director, Chairman (Mahila Bal Kalyan Samiti), Chairman (Social Welfare Committee), Mayor/President of Municipal Corporation, President (Sarpanch Sanghatana) etc. were its members and Education Officer (Primary) was its Member Secretary. Similarly, structures were also created at the block and the village levels and equal representation was given to all sections of society. The Chief Executive Officer (Zilla Parishad) was the Chairman of the District Executive Committee and the Education Officer (Primary) was its Member Secretary. The Chairman (Education Committee), District Health Officer, representative of District Project Planning Committee, Executive Engineer (Works) and Education Officer (Secondary) were the other members of this committee. At the Block level, Block Education Committee with Chairman (Panchayat Samiti) as its Chairman was constituted. Sarpanchs of Gram Panchayat, national/state awarded Headmaster/Teachers of Primary School, representative of SC/ST community, members of VEC etc. were other members of the committee. The creation of Cluster Resource Committee was another form of the decentralised process initiated in the districts under the DPEP. The VEC in the state is in fact the Village Local Committees created by a Government Resolution in 1991. The Head Master of the local Zilla Parishad Primary School was the Member Secretary of the committee. The VEC played critical role at the grassroot level in monitoring and supervising the pre-primary education centers, formal primary schools, NFE centers and adult education centers in its jurisdiction of the Village Panchayat. Village Education Committee also played a vital role in the micro planning process at the village level. The VECs were entrusted with the construction work of toilets in the schools, minor repair works of school building whereas the Grampanchayat was fully entrusted with the construction of one and two room school buildings. The size of the VEC vary from five to fifteen members which consists of representatives of youth, parents, teachers, minorities, backward community and members of the village panchayat, fifty per cent of which are expected to be females. The VEC was formed by the Gram Sabha in a meeting convened by the Gram Panchayat. The VECs have enhanced the affinity and community participation for the DPEP activities and for rapport based quality improvement programme. As a part of the capacity building exercise and also to initiative participatory planning process, a number of training programmes/workshops/visits were organised at the national, state and local levels during August 1993 and July 1994. Before the programme was formally launched, house to house surveys were also conducted so as to identify drop-out and out-of-school children. Similarly, as part of the participatory planning exercise, a number of meetings and workshops were organised during June- August, 1994 in which Deputy Education Officer, Block Education Officers and ADEIs, Primary School Head Masters and Teachers, Resource Persons etc. took part. Orientation in the household survey, identification of drop-outs, schedule of teachers training, orientation in DPEP and related themes were discussed in these meetings. For convergence purposes, agencies like District Rural Development Agency, Ground Water Survey Department, ICDS, Health Department, Social Welfare Department, Employment Exchange etc. were identified and the activities that were to be converged were listed. Similarly, within Education Department, institutions like SCERT, State Institute of Education MIEPA, SIE and State Textbook Bureau were identified and activities were listed. For the involvement of the local body in the planning process, a meeting was organised at Aurangabad during October 15-16, 1994 and the discussions centred around convergence of DPEP activities. Similarly, a meeting was organised in March 1995 at Aurangabad under the chairmanship of CEO to sought co-operation from the NGOs. The responsibility of district plans were entrusted to the concerned CEOs who prepared district plans for which District Core Teams were constituted under the Chairmanship of CEO. The district plans were developed through participatory planning approach for which different teams were constituted at the District, Block and the Village levels. All the five draft district plans were then submitted to state level for editing and their integration with the State Component Plan so as to ensure that DPEP is an additionality and also to ensure convergence of the DPEP with similar programmes and schemes of the other departments. Thereafter, the draft State Component and District Plans were submitted to the State Government for its approval. Despite good start, the state is facing a number of problems. A lot more work needs to be done so far as the capacity building exercise is concerned. The coordination with the DIETs is poor and the procedures for sharing of responsibilities is also not very effective. The extent of decentralisation envisaged did not take place which is more important in view of the states long experience in the area of decentralisation which it ensured through the creation of Zilla Parishad in 1962. More or less, the first phase district plans were developed at the Directorate level. In fact, at the time of launching the programme in 1993, improving the quality of education was one of the major goals and objectives of the programme but the resource utilisation rate shows that it has taken a back seat as the civil work activities account for major share of expenditure. One of the possible reasons for low utilisation is that the money transferred was not utilised because of time constraints. It is a general practice that money is transferred to the district office which in turn is transferred to the block level functionaries who are not in a position to spend it at a short notice. Perhaps, this may not be the only reason for the low utilisation of funds. The civil work could not be completed in the first three years of the project because of the shortage of the staff in DRDA which was identified as the main construction agency. However, the State is of the view that the civil works will be completed during the next year; all the BRCs and additional classrooms will be constructed by the next year. The State is also of the view that so far as the utilisation on account of educational components is concerned, visioning is one of the most important factors for which rigorous training needs to be given to the district functionaries. Although MIEPA was established in 1994 at Aurangabad, the institute has not yet become fully functional. The institute has recently got a regular Director, but it has not yet got adequate Resource Persons and Faculty Members; similarly it does not have its own building. Presently, the Institute is functioning in a rented building The State is planning to construct a separate building for the institute. Since the institute is located in an educationally backward district, it is not possible to get good resource persons in adequate number for the smooth conduct of its research and training programmes. At present, some of the Government Officers are working as Resource Persons but they have certain limitations. Alternatively, the Institute at present, has also trained some of the district officers of the DPEP; but this is not a happy arrangement. In view of this, the Institute is compelled to invite Resource Persons either from Pune or Mumbai or from Delhi whenever programmes are organised. Most of the first phase districts also faced problems in procuring items required under different component headings. For better procurement, training in PERT and CPM techniques needs to be given to the project staff. The DPEP districts also faced coordination problems because of the fact that the State Secretariat, Education Directorate and MIEPA are all located in different places. One of the other major problem is the frequent transfer of the DPEP staff. During the period, the SPD was changed many times. However, state is having benefit of the experience of the Education Secretary who is in office for more than eight years. This provides continuity to the programmes. DISTRICT PLANNING IN EDUCATION U NDER DPEP : TAMILNADU The DPEP activities in the state started in February, 1993 when Tamilnadu government received a communication from the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, to prepare a project under DPEP to achieve Universal Primary Education by the year 2000. Accordingly, three districts with female literacy rate below the national average, namely Dharmapuri, South Arcot and Thiruvannamalai, were selected for the purpose. Initially, the state government was quite new to the concepts of participatory and decentralized planning processes as suggested by the Ministry of HRD, Government of India. However, with the available professional expertise in the state, Tamilnadu initiated efforts towards developing district plans. The planning exercise under DPEP in Tamilnadu was undertaken by the Directorate of Elementary Education. A small unit at the state level was established to undertake the planning exercise. This unit constituted a State Core Team to facilitate the planning process. This unit was responsible for giving final shape to the district as well as state plans under DPEP in Tamilnadu. Before undertaking the planning exercise for each of the three selected districts, a Visualisation Meeting was organised at state level in Madras from 1st to 5th February, 1993. Officials from Directorates of School Education, Elementary Education, Teacher Education, Research and Training and Non- Formal Education participated in this meeting. Also, a team of seven officials consisting of two block level education officers, one Deputy Inspector of Schools, one headmaster of the primary school, one Aided School headmaster, one teacher representative and one member from the Non-Governmental Organisation from each selected district participated in this state level meeting. The basic objectives of this meeting was to: (i) discuss the salient features of Social Safety Net and DPEP; (ii) discuss the problems and issues relating to universalisation of primary education in the selected districts; and (iii) to suggest ways and means to achieve universal primary education in the districts. Based on initial write-ups on problems and issues in universalisation of primary education in the selected districts, various alternative strategies for universalisation of primary education in the identified districts were suggested in the meeting. The next phase of activities was for the preparation of the preliminary project documents for the selected districts. The visualisation meeting in Madras was followed by discussions on DPEP at the district level. One Deputy Director of Education and one faculty from Madras DIET were deputed to each one of the three selected districts to initiate discussions with District Teams, consisting of representatives from all sections of primary education, on planning process to be undertaken in these districts. This District Team, with the professional assistance from the state level officers, prepared the preliminary district plan documents on the basis of DPEP guidelines. In these plan documents, problems and issues in achieving universal primary education were clearly identified and strategies were spelt out. The available data collected from the districts were taken as the base for preparing the preliminary plan documents. The preliminary plan documents were then discussed by the State Core Team, consisting of representatives from the Directorate of Elementary Education, Directorate Teacher Education, Research and Training, District Education Officer, Dharmapuri and Madras Institute of Development studies. Also the plan documents were shared with the representatives of the funding agencies, Ministry of HRD, Government of India and Resource Organisations such as NIEPA and NCERT in March, 1993. On the basis of the suggestions received from these organisations, the initial plan documents were revised in which emphasis was on participatory planning and decentralisation of the planning process. The final district plan documents were then submitted to the Ministry of HRD, Department of Education, Government of India on 29th April, 1993. However, it is to be noted here that the professional expertise provided by the representatives of the funding agency, Department of Education, Ministry of HRD, Government of India, Resource Organisations such as NIEPA and NCERT, and members of the Preparatory Mission helped in making the planning process decentralised and participatory. Also consultation of plan documents and reports of on-going projects like Bihar Education Project and Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Project (APPEP) helped the planning process. The Phase I draft plan prepared in June 1993 was scrutinised by the members of the National Core Team and funding agencies. These plans were further revised. NIEPA organised workshops to revise the district plans. These revised plans were submitted to MHRD and members of the Appraisal Mission. Needless to add, the district plans were revised many times before they were finalised. Meanwhile the state government prepared the state component plan, which were also appraised and finalised along with the district plans. The decentralised planning process and participatory method of evolving plan documents are the two important features of the DPEP. The DPEP Plan Documents speak much of its participatory approach. Therefore, the planning team took every care, labour and pains in making the plan more participatory in its contents and processes. Opinion gathering local meetings with the local level functionaries like Assistant Elementary Education Officers (AEEO’s) and Deputy Inspectors, Head masters, Teachers and the Retired Officers, Head masters, Teachers etc. were conducted invariably at all blocks of the three districts. Utmost care was taken to incorporate their views, opinions and suggestions in the plan documents. Members of the Mother Teacher Council (MTC), Parent Teacher Associations (PTA), Representatives of NGOs and Community leaders participated in the discussions and highlighted the constraints to achieve UPE and feasible means to overcome these constraints. Need Assessment Meetings at the village level with Headmasters, Teachers and Village Community, MTC, Building Committee were conducted. The Inspecting Officers, Principals of the respective DIETS and faculty Members of DIETS participated in the discussions leading to design the strategies and remedial measures. DPEP is an additionality. It comes to the rescue and renders additional interventions to the departments who are working in the same field for the realisation of universal enrolment, retention and achievement. DPEP initiatives are to cope with the on-going programmes by other departments. Moreover, education is also a multifaceted affair. The convergence of departments like Health, Social, Harijan, Tribal Welfare departments, Revenue, TWAD Board and Local Administration Departments serve much to the cause of Universalisation of Elementary Education. So a co-ordinated communication network, and multipronged targetting will help a lot in the realisation of the DPEP goals and objectives directly or indirectly. Tamilnadu Phase I plans have therefore, envisaged initiatives to realise convergence of activities initiated by all the other departments and bodies serving in the same direction. Even at the State Level Planning Process, this aspect is taken care of. All the Secretaries of the Education Department and Co-ordinating Departments have become ex-officio members in the Tamilnadu Mission of Education for All. At the district level, a meeting was conducted under the Chairmanship of the District Collector with participants from other departments. The participants were: Revenue Divisional Officer; Rural Development Officer; Social Welfare Officer; District Development Officer; Adi Dravida Welfare Officer; District Medical Officer; District PWD Engineers; and District Labour Welfare Officer. Convergence of intra-departmental units has also been taken care of in the planning process. A live co-ordination between the Arivoli Iyakkam, NFE, ECCE, Alternate Schools, Middle Schools High Schools has been established for giving ample scope for discussions. There were no elected local bodies in Tamilnadu at the time of district planning under DPEP in 1993. Therefore, local participation meant involvement of local VIPs and socially recognised persons, PTA members, teachers and community members. However, in Phase II planning process, the state has involved the Local Bodies in the planning process both in District Level Planning and in Micro Planning as there are elected representatives now. Moreover, the services of the Municipal Commission and its official machinery were made use of in urban areas wherever needed. The Panchayat Union Commissioner/B.D.O. and the officials under them at the Block level were consulted in the planning process. An impartial assessment will hold that though decentralisation did take place in the planning process, its extent was not to the expected level. This was primarily due to the fact that such a planning exercise was largely new to the state. Besides, the reality was that the lower level organisations and institutions were not ready with their prepositions and data to cope with full decentralisation. The ground level functionaries were not fully aware of the new opportunities to express their views. Initially, the plan documents were weak in terms of participatory approach and decentralisation of the planning process. However, this problem could be solved, after intensive consultations and discussions with various concerned organisations and agencies. Similarly, the plan documents in the initial stages were lacking necessary data and information. Hence the district plans were revised. The final plan documents, after revisions, were substantially different from the initial plan documents. An important point to be noted here is that the planning process became more consultative and participatory in nature. The Tamilnadu government has taken all necessary steps to institutionlise people’s participation in the planning process under DPEP to universalise primary education in the selected districts.

View complete answer

Who is the founder of DPEP?

The District Primary Education Programme The origins of DPEP. Prior to 1990, there were a few large scale foreign funded projects in education. UNICEF and the ILO had funded some non-formal education centres, the Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Programme (APPEP) which was funded by the ODA (now called DFID, UK), the Siksha Karmi with Dutch funding and Lok Jumbish with funding from SIDA, were the only programmes operational.

All of these were ‘aid’ programmes. Since 1990, the government of India began accepting funding for elementary education in the form of loans, with the World Bank being the largest creditor. The European Union is also a large donor. From the point of view of the World Bank, which provides the major component of the funds in the form of a loan, the funding seems to be linked to ‘providing a safety net’ within the overall policy of structural adjustment.

Indeed, the first programme funded by the World Bank in Uttar Pradesh prior to DPEP, was referred to as a safety net programme. In 1993, the MHRD, Gol, conceived the DPEP as an umbrella scheme under which the support from all the different funding agencies would be channelled,

  • The (DPEP) programme consists of a scheme spread over seven years to achieve the following: – Decentralised and participatory planning and administration at the district level, involving village leadership, NGOs, schools, district and block personnel.
  • Specific strategies to increase enrolment and retention of girls, SC and ST students (identified as gender, caste and tribe ‘gaps’ in primary education).

– Focus on enhancing capacities of teachers by providing workshops for teachers and production of new teaching learning materials to improve student achievement of learning. – Administrative capacity building at the district and block levels. – Collection of data and setting up an Education Management and Information System (EMIS),

  • Aided Programmes or Guided Policies? DPEP in Karnataka, PADMA M SARANGAPANI, A R VASAVI, Economic & Political Weekly, 09/08/2003, DPEP was funded by external assistance,
  • Though flow of money becomes easier the conditionalities attached to the aid can be dangerous.
  • The second new parameter — that of external assistance to India’s basic education projects — is arguably temporary.

But its sheer dimension both in absolute terms and in terms of the proportion of contribution it provides to a project should not go unnoticed. The total estimated outlay on the seven new projects in the basic education sector is Rs 29.26 billion for the eighth plan period.

The expect ed flow of external resources for the support of this outlay is Rs 24.51 billion, which is about 84 per cent of the total. The DPEP alone claims Rs 19.50 billion. Surely such a degree of dependence on foreign aid for providing the basic educational needs of the masses would have been quite unthinkable even a few years back.

While one need not be hysterical about the possible danger of such dependence in a vital sector of society, there can be no doubt that there should be only humiliation in store for us if we are unable to use this money in a way that makes the outcomes both desirable and transparent to all.

  1. The DPEP is rightly seen by the international funding agencies as the flagship of India’s new education policy.
  2. But they have put some of their eggs in other baskets too.
  3. The DPEP is,of course, the major response to Jomtien 1990 but at least some of the other six projects are not only more compact but also more directly targetted in terms of the Jomtien call for education for all.

One example is Mahila Sama-khya, a project on education for women’s equality through organisation of women’s collectives. It covers 20 districts and has a total outlay of Rs 513 million, the whole of which is being covered by external assistance. – Learning by degrees from below, Tapas Majumdar, Telegraph, 17/10/1994, The World Bank-aided multi-phased District Primary Education Programme (DPEP), which was launched in 1997, currently ensures primary education for nearly 2.7 crore children in the 6-11 age group in 11,000 primary schools across the state.

  • Of the total Rs 904 crore released by the World Bank, Rs 828 crore has been spent.
  • The World Bank had advised that initially, the programme cover villages where the female literacy rate was below the national average of 39.2 per cent as computed in the 1991 census.
  • At that time, the rural literacy rate in Uttar Pradesh was 19.02 per cent; this increased to 25.3 per cent by 2001.

Of the 11,000 schools run under the project, nearly 7,000 operate from new cost-effective, yet attractive, buildings conceptualised and developed by local people with local materials under Board supervision. The buildings have red trap bond walls, exposed brick masonry and local stone slab roofing.

  • Because few villages have power, the buildings are designed to stay warm in winter and cool in summer, almost in the pattern of historical monuments.
  • Other interesting features of the buildings are the hexagonal classrooms, which have been determined to be more conducive to group learning than regular squares or rectangles, and blackboards in the shape of animals, fruits and geometrical figures.

The schools are also fitted out with slides and swings crafted from used tyres as well as games like Ludo and Snakes and Ladders. So successful have the innovations proved that the Uttar Pradesh government issued a GO in 1999, suggesting that all primary schools in the state a total of 88,684 follow the model structure and facilities.

Even private schools in urban pockets in Lucknow have adopted some of these designs. – A Lesson in Education, Amit Sharma, Indian Express, 07/07/2002, The positive impact of DPEP. Primary Education and Ninth Plan Despite all initiatives taken for achieving universalisation of primary education the backlog has continued in enrollment and dropout rate is still high.

Two major initiative has been taken during Eighth Plan are the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) and Nutrition Support to Primary Education ( Midday Meal Programme ) with a view to addressing the problem of equality, access retention and quality at primary state.

  • During the VIII Plan the enrollment of girls and children for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes has shown an increase at the primary stage.
  • The dropout rates have also shown a declining trend.
  • However, there is still a long way to achieve the goal of universalisation of primary education.
  • The Ninth plan apart from carrying out the directions given by NEP(1992)12 – is committed to making the nation fully literate by 2005 AD; keeping in view the declaration of education as an aspect of Fundamental Right.

The Midday Meal Scheme will be implemented in all the states to ensure regular attendance and retention in primary and middle level schools.- Policies and Programmes to Improve School Education in Rural India – A Critical Evaluation, H.D.Dwarakanath, Social Action 01/10/2002, In a dilapidated building sporting the board ‘Government High School’ in Alwaye, a prominent town in Ernakulam District, a few Class One students are trying to learn the tables of seven by counting the seeds of the manjadi plant.

  1. A few others are reading aloud an ‘adukkalapaattu’ and a ‘bhakshanapattu’ (songs on kitchen vessels and food) from charts clipped to a rope tied across the classroom.
  2. No text-books and no scribbling down mean-ingless information.
  3. The noise is deafening, the scene pure chaos.
  4. ‘The kids have never enjoyed learning better,” says their teacher, “but an official order to cease this kind of teaching could come any day now.” This school is one of the many government-aided schools in Kerala that has undergone a curriculum revision under the DPEP (District Primary Education Programme) intro-duced by the Left government in the early nineties.text books were changed.

Written content was minimised. Drawing, colouring, group activities, field trips and reading comers in classrooms were the new curricu-lum. Teachers were trained in batches by expert groups. Monitoring agencies comprising of higher-grade teachers and jilla officers toured schools to extend support and tech-nical tips.

But it bombed. In just the fourth year of its implementation, the DPEP lost the complete faith of the public and was labelled the greatest fiasco of the Left government. – Off the beaten track, Shwetha E George, Humanscape, REALISING THE potential of distance education, 18 states (in-cluding the newly formed), have inspired Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) to “re-view its directions and strate-gies” taken under Distance Education Programme (DEP) for Development of Primary Education Personnel (DPEP) Launched in 1997 and funded by the World Bank, DEP was en-gaged in building the capacity among primary education per-sonnel (teaching and non-teach-ing) of education are developed in print and non-print forms,

Presently, the programme us-es audio, audio-visual, tele-con-ferencing, print study material etc as means to train the per-sonnel. “However, using distance education as a mode, a scientific and systematic strategy for de-velopment of primary education personnel, particularly teachers teaching primary levels, is yet to emerge in a vast country like India”, said Ravi Mohan of IGNOU.- lGNOU to target primary education, Mrinal Bahukhandi, Pioneer, 28/12/2000, District Primary Education Programme Guidelines, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, 01/05/1995, R.N21.8 District Primary Education Programme, Rao, Digumarti Bhaskara, 1998, B.N21.R60 Getting Children Back to School – Case Studies in Primary Education, Ramachandran, Vimala, Sage Publications India Pvt.

Ltd.01/01/2003, B.N21.R2 – “Nali-Kali: Revitalizing Primary Education through Pedagogic Renewal” Vimala Ramachandran Section 2 pg.211-248 – “The Model Cluster Development Approach: DPEP, UP” ( Gender Sensitive Education ) Deepa Das, Ch 10 p.g.375-407 More Articles: – An educative experience, Anita Rampal, Frontline, – Movement Against DPEP Attains Victory in Kerala, Proletarian Era, 15 August 2001, – An educative experience, Anita Rampal, Frontline, 17/08/01, – Secretariat March in Thiruvananthapuram against DPEP, Proletarian Era, 15/02/2001, ******************************************************************************************************************************************** Reports: 1.

Different Approaches for Achieving EFA – Indian Experience, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, 01/01/2003, R.N00.41 – pg 36-52 pg 136-142 2. Ministry of Human Resource Development – Annual Report 2003-2004, Government of India, 01/01/2004, N00.30 -DPEP- pg 56-57 3.

  • Reaching Out Further: Para Teachers in Primary Education – An In-depth Study of Selected Schemes, Bodh Siksha Samiti, EDCIL/DPEP, 01/01/1999, R.N21.18 4.
  • DPEP): Progress Overview 1997, Ministry of Human Resource Dev, 01/03/1997, R.N21.1 5.
  • Reaching Out Further: Para Teachers in Primary Education: An Overview, Educational Consultants India Ltd., DPEP, 01/01/1998, R.N21.17 6.

District Primary Education Programme Guidelines, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, 01/05/1995, R.N21.8 7. District Primary Education Programme (DPEP): GOI Appraisal Mission Himachal Pradesh, Edu. Consultants India Ltd., 01/03/1996, R.N21.4 8.

District Primary Education Programme (DPEP): National Staff Appraisal Report Orissa, Edu. Consultants India Ltd, 01/03/1996, R.N21.112 9. District Primary Education Programme (DPEP): Progress Overview 1997, Ministry of Human Resource Development, 01/03/1997, R.N21.1 10. District Primary Education Programme: Guidelines, Govt Of India, Centre for Micro-Planning & Research, 01/11/1994, R.N21.2 11.

Synthesis reports on student’s Achievement in DPEP Districts, Dr. SKS Gautam, Learning conference 2004, MHRD and Azim Premji foundation- DPEP- R.N21.24 12. Learning achievement at the end of primary cycle in DPEP states, ABL Srivastava, Learning conference 2004, MHRD and Azim Premji foundation- DPEP- R.N21.24 13.

  • District Primary Education Programme, Rao, Digumarti Bhaskara, 1998, B.N21.R60 ******************************************************************************************************************************************** Books: 1.
  • Getting Children Back to School – Case Studies in Primary Education, Ramachandran, Vimala, Sage Publications India Pvt.

Ltd.01/01/2003, B.N21.R2 – “Nali-Kali: Revitalizing Primary Education through Pedagogic Renewal” Vimala Ramachandran Section 2 pg.211-248 – “The Model Cluster Development Approach: DPEP, UP” ( Gender Sensitive Education ) Deepa Das, Ch 10 p.g.375-407 2.
View complete answer

Why Kerala is best in education?

Kerala is the only state in India where over 90% of the population can read and write, thanks to the compulsory education system.
View complete answer

What is DPEP main objective?

What is DPEP in Education? DPEP stands for District Primary Education Program, The program intends to make primary education accessible to all, through formal primary schools or alternative methods. The primary objectives of DPEP are: 1.To reduce the school dropout rate at primary schools below 10 percent.2.To increase the achievement rates by 25% or above the average level.3.To minimize the disparities in accessibility of education to less than 5 percent.4.To facilitate non-formal education for all children to primary schooling

It is a centrally sponsored scheme where the Central government funds 85% of the expenses, whereas 15% is from the budget of State governments. Initiated in 1994,it covered 41 districts in different states, and later expanded to 271 districts across 18 states. It is a part of the Social Net Credit Adjustment Loan under the Structural Adjustment Programme of the World Bank.

Strategy

Sensitive to the needs and limitations of girls, and children from disadvantaged communities. Generate demand for the education of girls.

Further Reading Find more related in the linked article. Related Links : What is DPEP in Education?
View complete answer

What is the impact of DPEP?

The DPEP opened more than 160,000 new schools, including almost 84,000 alternative schooling (AS) centers. The AS centers covered nearly 3.5 million children, while another 200,000 children were covered by bridge courses of different types.
View complete answer

What is the difference between SSA and DPEP?

Present education system: Systems like Montessori, DPEP, SSA

  • Present education system:
  • Systems like Montessori, DPEP, SSA
  • ‘THE SECRET OF CHILDHOOD’ AND THE ‘SENSITIVE PERIODS’
  • Maria Montessori
  • Principles of Montessori method

The first principle is to train the pupil to be independent of others in respect of the ordinary practices of life. The ultimate reference is to the sense of touch, which is regarded as fundamental and primordial. The Montessori maintains that the sense of touch is fundamental.

  • It undergoes great development during the early years of life.
  • If neglected at this age, it loses its susceptibility to training.
  • The Psychological method Montessori “psychological method in education implies that the educative process is adapted to the stage of mental development of child, and to his interest.

In the Montessori method, ‘It is necessary then to offer those exercises which correspond to the need of development felt by an organism, and if the child’s age has carried him past certain need, it is never possible to obtain, in its fullness, development which missed its proper moment.

  • If a child fails to perform a task or to appreciate the truth of a principle, the teacher must not make him conscious of his error by repeating the lesson.
  • She must assume that the task has been presented prematurely.
  • Before again presenting the stimulus, she must await the manifestation of the symptoms, which indicate that the need exists.

The duration of a process is determined not by the exigencies of an authorized timetable, but by the interval, which the child finds requisite to exhaust his interest. No Prizes In the Montessori system there are no prizes. The pupil’s sense of mastery is his highest reward: “His own self-development is his true and almost his only pleasure.” Perfect Freedom According to Montessori, “The method of observation (that is, the psychological method) is established one fundamental base – the liberty necessitates independence of action on the part of the child.

  1. Practices of Montessori method
  2. The practices of the Montessori method fall into three classes:
  3. 1. The exercises of practical life;
  4. 2. The exercises in sensory training; and

3. The didactic exercises. The Exercises in Practical Life Freedom, according to Montessori, does not consist in having other at one’s command to perform the ordinary services, but in being able to do these for oneself, in being independent of others. Thus in the House of Childhood the pupils learn how to wash their hands, using little wash-stands with small pitchers and basins, how to clean their nails, brush their teeth and so on.

Exercises are also arranged to train the child in the movements necessary in dressing and undressing. Montessori devised certain formal gymnastic exercises to develop co-ordinated movements in the child. She disapproved of the child practicing the ordinary gymnastic exercises arranged for the adult. She maintained “We are wrong” if we consider little children from their physical point of view as little men.

Exercises in Sense Training “To make the process one of self-education”, Montessori explains in The Advanced Montessori Method,” Method, “it is not enough that the stimulus should call forth activity, it must also direct it. The child should not only persist for a long time in an exercise; he must persist without making mistakes.

All the physical or intrinsic qualities of the objects should be determined, not only by the immediate reaction of attention they provoke in the child, but also by their possession of this fundamental characteristic, the control of error, that is to say, the power of evoking the effective collaboration of the highest activities (comparison, judgment).” In sensory training the senses are isolated whenever that is possible.

The pupils of the Montessori schools are blindfolded, a feature of the training which seems to add zest to their efforts. The auditory exercises are given in an environment not only of silence, but even of darkness.

  • Material Used in Sensory Training
  • • For perception of size : A series of wooden cylinders varying in height only, in diameter only or in both dimension at once, are employed, likewise blocks varying regularly in size, and rods of regularly, graded lengths.
  • • For perception of form : In it are used geometrical insets in metal, in wood or the shapes of the insets drawn on paper.
  • • For discrimination in weight : It was tablets of wood similar in size but different in weight.
  • • For touch : All highly polished surface and a sand-paper surface are used.
  • • For sense of temperature : Here are used small metal bowls with caps.
  • • For auditory acuity : Cylindrical sound boxes are used containing different substances.
  • • For the colour sense : A graded series of coloured woods is used.

• Tactual Activity : Similar methods are adopted in developing in the child’s tactual acuity, and in training him to discriminate differences in temperature and in weight. In these exercises the child is blindfolded or is enjoined to keep his eyes closed during the tests; he is encouraged to do so by being told that he will thus be able to feel the differences better.

  • Development in Elementary Education The Parliament has passed the Constitution’s 86th Amendment Act, 2002 to make elementary education a Fundamental Right for children in the age- group of 6-14 years.
  • The progress of enrolment has increased from 192 (lakh) persons in 1950-51 to 1224 (lakh) persons in 2003-04 in the age group of 6-11 years.

For the development of education at elementary level several provisions were laid down by the government. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan The Scheme of Sarva Shilksh Abhiyan (SSA) was launched in 2001. The goals of SSA are as follows: (i) All 6-14 age children in school/ Education Guarantee Scheme Center/bridge course by 2003.

(ii) All 6-14 age children complete five year primary education by 2007 (iii) All 6-14 age children complete eight years of schooling by 2010 (iv) Focus on elementary education on satisfactory quality with emphasis on education for life (v) Bridge all gender and social category gaps at primary stage by 2007 and at elementary education level by 2010 and (vi) Universal retention by 2010.

The programme covers the entire country with special focus on education needs of girls, SCs/ STs and other children in difficult circumstances. The programme seeks to open new schools in habitations which do not have schooling facilities and strengthen existing school infrastructure through provision of additional class rooms, toilets, drinking water, maintenance grant and school improvement grant.

The SSA has a special focus on girls and children of weaker sections. District Primary Education Programme The Centrally sponsored Scheme of District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) was launched in 1994 as a major initiative to revitalize the primary education system and to achieve the objective of universalisation of primary education.

DPEP adopts a holistic approach to universalize access, retention and improve learning achievement and to reduce disparities among social groups. Adopting an area-specific approach’ with district as the unit of planning, the key sensitivity to local conditions and ensuring full participation of the community.

DPEP is based on the principle of ‘additionally’ and is structured to fill in the existing gaps. The programme components include construction of classrooms and new schools, opening of Non-formal/ Alternative Schooling Centers, appointment of new teachers, setting up early childhood education centers, strengthening of State Councils of Educational Training through District Institute of Education and Training(DIETs), setting up of Block Resource Centers/Cluster Resource Centres, teacher training, development of Teaching Learning Material, Research based interventions, special interventions for promoting education of disadvantaged groups, girls, SC/ST, etc.

initiatives for providing integrated education to disabled children and distance education for teacher training have also been incorporated in the DPEP Scheme. Education system in Kerala – History

  • Gurukul System
  • Pallikkoodams by Christian missionaries – irrespective of caste or religion
  • School for girls was established by the Maharaja in 1859, which was an act unprecedented in the Indian subcontinent
  • In the 1860’s, the government spread the educational programs into Malabar
  • Kerala’s achievements in the field of education – near total literacy, free and universal primary education.
  • Low drop out rate at the school level, easy access to educational institutions, gender equality in access etc. –
  • In these respects, Kerala is often compared not only with the other Indian states or developing

countries but also with some of the developed countries. Division of education system

  • Kerala Primary Education – Kerala High School Education
  • Kerala Secondary Education /Vocational Secondary Schools
  • Kerala Higher Education – Distance Education program in Kerala.

Boards of Education

Many of the schools owned by private sector are aided by government.

  1. ú Kerala State Education Board
  2. ú Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE)
  3. ú Central Board for Secondary Education (CBSE)
  4. ú National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS)

No fees(or a nominal fees) are required in schools run by or aided by government. Fees concerning the higher and technical education are very low; the ratio of recovery of government’s revenue expenditure was 2.6% in 2009–2010 Major Govt. Interventions

1994 – DPEP (District Primary Education Programme)

  • ú A major initiative to revitalize the primary education system and to achieve the objective of universalization of primary education.
  • ú DPEP has so far opened more than 1,60,000 new schools
  • ú Village Education was given more importance
  • ú About 1,77,000 teachers, including para-teachers have been appointed

The most negative part of the DPEP –

  1. ú it gave the children’s a lot of negatives
  2. ú It made d language and spoken abilities of our students worse
  3. ú they were made to collect match boxes n feathers, well they were aimed at giving practical
  4. ú experience for children – but what did it actually gave them? something is still a question mark

2001 -SSA – (SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN)

  • ú Centrally sponsored scheme at the end of the Ninth Five Year Plan to improve the educational status.
  • ú Education for girls, scheduled caste and tribal children
  • ú Education of sc/st children
  • ú Free textbooks to all girls/SC/ST children up to Class-VIII.
  • ú At least 50 % of the teachers to be appointed have to be women.
  • ú Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS).

2007 – Higher Secondary centralized Allotment Process (hsCap)

  1. ú Popularly known as Single Window Admission
  2. ú The software is developed by taking care of all the existing rules of rank generation and Communal reservations by the DHSE (Directorate of Higher Secondary Education)
  3. ú hsCap provided by NIC has eliminated the requirement for a student to apply in multiple Schools where the student is seeking the admission and also eliminated the task of virtually appearing for interview in multiple schools
  4. Other Govt. Schemes
  5. ú Kalaksethra is a district training centre where special training/ coaching will be given to artistically talented but financially backward students.

Merit Cum Means Scholarship

  • ú Comprehensive scholarship scheme of the Higher Secondary level for the meritorious students belonging to BPL families.
  • ú Remedial coaching is implemented to give special coaching to weak students in selected Government Higher Secondary Schools having pass percentage below 50.
  • ú NSS provides platform for leadership practice life-skill acquisition etc and help the volunteers learn how to live among others

Adolescent Counseling and Health Care Programme

§ These was some of the very useful schemes introduced by the government.2008 – Choice Based Credit System

The Four Pillars of the UG reforms

ú -Semesterisation – – Choice-based credit system – “Courses” to “programmes” ú – Continuous assessment – – Grading : Present education system: Systems like Montessori, DPEP, SSA
View complete answer

What is DPEP and girl education?

Primary education is a segment that needs acute attention and action in India. The District Primary Education Program or DPEP is aimed at providing primary education to all children in the country. Initiated in 1994 in 41 districts and expanded to 271 districts by 2002-03, the goals of DPEP are aligned with the National Education Policy.

While DPEP was implemented in these districts, the approach of the program was area- specific. Every geographical region has its own challenges to the accessibility of primary education. Along with this, the socio-economic challenges also vary from district to district. Thus, DPEP acknowledged the local conditions that were preventing children from availing formal schooling and started working on mitigating them.

Geographical Coverage of the Program The expanse of the District primary Education Program grew with the years. The DPEP started with 41 districts in the states of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu in 1994. The impact of the program encouraged it to be extended to the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Gujarat, and Himachal Pradesh.

  • It further extended to 271 districts of the country, impacting a child population of 60% all over the country.
  • Suggested Read: PARAMARSH-All You Need to Know Strategy of Implementation The strategy of implementation is based on the differential needs of the districts.
  • Some trends were observed in all the districts and were included in the plan of action.

The DPEP is focused on education-deprived regions and communities. One of the disadvantaged communities was identified to be girl children. This is a concerning statistic since girls are a large population segment and deprivation of education affects the national growth.

  1. It was observed that girls are particularly disadvantaged due to a lack of demand for education in girls.
  2. Another observation after thorough research and survey of the areas revealed the various constraints and needs of girls that prevent them from attending school.
  3. On the basis of this data, a district selection criteria were developed.

District Selection Criteria The District Selection Criteria revolved around two parameters. The first was whether the district’s female literacy rate was lower than the national average or not. The second was whether the district had organised a total literacy campaign through which awareness of the need for education could be raised.

Integrated Program

The DPEP was designed to have a holistic scope. It would take all regional schemes and policies under its wing or coordinate with the existing district-level program to enhance the effectiveness of all the efforts made towards the accessibility of primary education in the district.

  1. Not only would the policies converge, but so would their resources.
  2. Resource allocation and distribution have a major role in the implementation of program like DPEP.
  3. This would entail working closely with grassroots officials and increasing community participation in the districts.
  4. Decentralisation Since every district has peculiar conditions and challenges, a decentralised mechanism was essential.

This means that no general formula or strategy can be applied uniformly to all the districts. A distinct was to be taken as the unit of planning and implementation. Customised strategies followed grassroot level participation as locals would be able to give realistic statistics which would further concept clarity and sensitivity to a certain area.

  1. Community Participation With an initiative like DPEP, community participation is indispensable.
  2. Teachers, parents and other functionaries must join hands to make DPEP a success.
  3. The community at large would follow them in their efforts to make the district education-friendly for both boys and girls.
  4. The program pays special emphasis to the role of the community at large.

Equity and Positive Discrimination- The concept of positive discrimination focuses on providing the disadvantaged communities with opportunities to reach the same standards of living as everyone else. With regard to education, DPEP focuses on the vulnerable groups like scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, girls and disabled persons.

The goal of equity can be furthered via the DPEP by eliminating some of the specific challenges these communities face. Accountability DPEP has been constructed in a way that reflects the idea of a people’s project. The government and government officials are mere facilitators and the ownership is in the hands of the community.

The goal is to help people realize that it is their community that benefits from the program and not the government so that they do not feel like outsiders. For any project to be successful, it must be fully accepted and absorbed by the community and its members.

It also gives people an opportunity to be flexible and apply methods that are most effective and relevant to each community. Funding of DPEP The DPEP receives funding from the Indian government, State governments and international bodies. It is a centrally sponsored scheme which means that the centre and state government share the responsibility of funding the program.

The central government gives 85% of the project cost and the respective state governments pays 15%. The international funding is provided by organisations like the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), Official Development Assistance (ODA), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency(SIDA), and the Netherlands.

The total external financial assistance amounts to 7 thousand crore approximately with a major contribution from the International Development association (IDA). Conclusion Primary education is the foundation of personal development in humans. The ages of 3-10 witness steep learning curves in children.

The brain is open to learning in the conceptual, rational and linguistic spheres. Primary education also forms the foundation for intermediate and higher education amongst individuals. The progress of a country can only be brought about by a strong education system.

The District Primary Education Program understands the need for primary education and tries to reach the lowest rungs of society to achieve the goal of education for the country. It expects all the sections of society to join hands towards this goal. Teachmint offers the best-in-class education ERP solutions to educational institutes.

Do check it out to provide a hassle-free experience to your stakeholders and increase your student enrolment percentage. With our advanced learning management system, you can improve the teaching-learning experience.
View complete answer

What are the major components of DPEP?

Free and compulsory Education for Children Report No.165 5.3.10. District Primary Education Programme.- The District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) is a special thrust and a new initiative to achieve Universalisation of Elementary Education (UEE).

The programme takes a holistic view of primary education development and seeks to operationalise the strategy of UEE through district specific planning with emphasis on decentralised management, participatory processes, empowerment and capacity building at all levels. The programme is implemented through the State level registered societies.5.3.11.

The programme aims at improvising access to primary education for all children, reducing primary dropout rates to less than 10 per cent., increasing learning achievement of primary school students by 25 per cent. and reducing the Jenifer end social gap to less than gender and social gap to less than five per cent.5.3.12.

  • The programme is structured to provide additional inputs over and above the Central/State Sector Schemes for elementary education.
  • The programme fills in the existing gaps in the development of primary education and seeks to revitalise the existing system.
  • DPEP is contextual and has a marked gender focus.

The programme components include construction of classrooms and new schools, opening of non-formal/alternative schooling centres, appointment of new teachers, setting up early childhood education centre, strengthening of State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs)/ District Institute of Education Training (DIETs), setting up of block resource centres/cluster resource centres, teacher training, development of teaching learning material, research based interventions, special interventions for education of girls, education of SC/ST etc.

A new initiative of providing integrated education to disabled children and distance education for teacher training has also been incorporated in the DPEP Scheme.5.3.13. The district is the unit of programme implementation and selected on the basic of twin criteria, viz., (a) educationally backward districts with female literacy below the national average, and (b) districts where total literacy campaigns (TLCs) have been successful, leading to enhanced demand for elementary education 5.3.14.

DPEP is a centrally-sponsored scheme. Eighty-five per cent. of the project cost is provided by the Government of India which is resourced by external funding, which is already tied up to the extent of Rs.3,450 crore. The balance 15 per cent. is shared by the participating states.

The World Bank is providing assistance to the tune of US $ 200.3 million (Rs.806 crore) for the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) phase-I and an amount of US$ 425.0 million (Rs.1,480 crore) for DPEP Phase-II for which a grant from Government of Netherland amounting to US $ 25.8 million (Rs.90 crore) is also tied up.

The European Community has made available a grant of ECU’s 150 million (approximately Rs.585 crore), for implementation of DPEP in 19 districts of Madhya Pradesh.5.3.15. Assistance from ODA of UK amounting to Rs.42.5 million (Rs.255 crore) and Rs.37.71 million (Rs.226,22 crore) is available for DPEP in Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal respectively.

The World Bank has also offered assistance for coverage of 17 educational districts (27 revenue districts) in Bihar under DPEP phase-III.5.3.16. The programme, which was initially launched in 42 districts of seven States in 1994, is now covering a total of 122 districts in 13 states. The programme implementation has shown promising results as per reports of various supervision missions and evaluatory studies.

The programme is encouraging application of numerous innovative and practical interventions for improving access, retention and quality of education. : Free and compulsory Education for Children
View complete answer

When did district primary education Programme start?

In 1994, the District Primary Education Programme was started with the objective of universalisation of primary education.
View complete answer

What is the funding of DPEP?

Funding of the programme DPEP is a centrally sponsored scheme, and as per the financial allocations 85% of the project cost is shared by Government of India (GOI) and 15% has to be from the budgets of respective State governments.
View complete answer

Which is the 1st school in Assam?

Cotton Collegiate Government H.S. School Government school in Guwahati, India Cotton Collegiate Government H.S. SchoolLocation Panbazar India InformationTypeGovernmentEstablished1835 ; 188 years ago ( 1835 ) School districtKamrup ( Metro )PrincipalBalay Kumar BorahAffiliation Website Cotton Collegiate Government Higher Secondary School is an institution for high school education located in the heart of,, a northeastern state of India.
View complete answer

Which is the first English school in Assam?

In 1835, the government, run by the East India Company, approved the proposal and a school was established with 58 students; it was called the Gauhati School. Thus secondary education set its foot in Assam in 1835. Mr. Singer was the first headmaster of Gauhati School.
View complete answer

Who is called Father of special education?

Career – Samuel Kirk is recognized for his accomplishments in the field of special education, while sometimes being referred to as the “Father of Special Education”. He began his teaching career at the Oaks School in Chicago in 1929, where he worked specifically with boys who were delinquent and had mental disabilities.

  • His interest in the field of special education continued as he worked closely with individuals with learning disabilities.
  • Samuel Kirk “wrote so widely and so authoritatively on so many aspects of mental retardation and learning disorders and was responsible for so many innovations in diagnosis, training, and social policy”.

In 1963, Kirk delivered a speech to an education conference and was the first to use and define the term ” learning disability “. This speech had a monumental effect on social policies and also helped name Kirk to the federal post by John F. Kennedy who had a sister who had a mental disability (now more commonly called an intellectual disability).

Kirk laid the groundwork for passing laws, which required schools to provide help for children with learning disabilities. In public policy (1964), Kirk persuaded Washington to provide money in order to train teachers to help students with learning disabilities. Kirk’s commitment to students with learning disabilities led to the first ever Institute for Research on Exceptional Children more than 50 years ago, which is still a popular foundation in the special education department.

Within Kirk’s publications regarding learning disabilities, he describes classifications used for children with learning disabilities. This includes a unified classification of children with low intelligence, while they are differentiated based on a degree of learning deficit, for educational purposes.
View complete answer

Who is the father of special education in India?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr. Mithu Alur
Alur at the North South Dialogue IV, Goa in February, 2012
Born Shoma Bose 27 March 1943 (age 79) Kolkata, India
Nationality Indian
Occupation(s) Educator, Disability Rights Activist, Researcher, Writer, Published Author
Years active 1972–present
Organization ADAPT – Able Disable All People Together
Known for Starting services for people with disability in India
Spouse Sathi Alur
Children Malini Chib, Nikhil Chib
Website www,adaptssi,org /home,html

Mithu Alur (born 27 March 1943 and usually referred to as Dr. Mithu Alur ) is the founder chairperson of The Spastic Society of India – now rechristened ADAPT – Able Disable All People Together, She is an educator, disability rights activist, researcher, writer and published author on issues concerning people with disability in India.
View complete answer

When was DPEP launched as a major initiative to revitalize the primary education system?

What is DPEP? Option 3 : District Primary Education Programme Free 40 Questions 40 Marks 15 Mins The centrally—sponsored scheme of the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) was launched in 1994 as a major initiative to revitalize the primary education system and to achieve the objective of universalization of primary education. Key Points

District Primary Education Program (DPEP) is one of the largest education projects in the world, which aims at achieving the goal of universalization of elementary education by giving emphasis on district-specific planning with decentralized management, participatory processes, empowerment, and capacity building at all levels. The program is a major initiative to revitalize the primary education system and to achieve the objective of upper primary education. DPEP (phase I) is a project by the central government and started in five states with the help of the World Bank, later it was expanded to more States. Every state is indicated to choose five districts to start this project, with the most backward district where women education is less than the national ratio and districts where Total Literacy Campaigns (TLCs) have been successfully leading to enhanced demand for elementary education.

Thus, DPEP is District Primary Education Program. India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.8 Crore+ Students : What is DPEP?
View complete answer

Which state did DPEP first start?

NIEPA Digital Archives JSPUI Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://14.139.60.153/handle/123456789/2374

Title: DPEP Kerala A Retrospect: District Primary Education Programme, kerala 1994-2003
Authors:
Keywords: District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) KeralaKerala DPEP Retrospect
Issue Date: 2003
Publisher: DPEP Programme, Kerala
Abstract: District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) came to a close by 30th of June 2003 leaving lasting imprints in the education scenario of Kerala with hectic activities touching almost all areas of primary education. The DPEP had been implemented in six out of the 14 districts of Kerala; the first phase introduced in three districts viz. Kasargod, Wayanad and Malappuram in 1994 and the second phase in the remaining three districts of Palakkad, Idukki and Thiruvananthapuram in the year 1997. The DPEP was a Centrally sponsored programme which aimed at comprehensive development of primary education in the State.
Description: 293p. Coloured. Contains pictures, tables, charts and diagrams.
URI:
Appears in Collections:

Items in NIEPA Digital Archives are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. : NIEPA Digital Archives JSPUI
View complete answer

When did district primary education Programme start?

In 1994, the District Primary Education Programme was started with the objective of universalisation of primary education.
View complete answer

What is the current education system in Kerala?

Education System In Kerala – PhilaIndia.info Education in Kerala has been promoted during British rule in India by Catholic and Christian missionaries who were keen on providing education to all sections of society and strengthening of women, without any kind of discrimination.

The contributions of Catholic priests and nuns are very crucial and has played a major role in educating women and people belonging to lower strata of society surpassing many social hurdles.His work has resulted in promoting education for girls and is notable for becoming a good model for educational system in kerala after independence.Kerala’s high literacy rate is attributed to high girl literacy rate as it says when a woman is educated she will make sure that her children are well educated.

Kerala has the highest literacy rate among the states of India. State topped the Education Development Index (EDI) among 21 major states in India in year 2006-2007. More than 94% of the rural population has access to primary school within 1 km, while 98% of population benefits one school within a distance of 2 km.An upper primary school within a distance of 3 km is available for more than 96% of the people, whose 98% benefit the facility for secondary education within 8 km.

  1. The access for rural students to higher educational institutions in cities is facilitated by widely subsidised transport fares.
  2. Erala’s educational system has been developed by institutions owned or aided by the government.In the educational system prevailed in the state schooling is for 10 years which is subdivided into lower primary, upper primary and high school, After 10 years of secondary schooling, students typically enroll in Higher Secondary Schooling in one of the three major streams-liberal arts, commerce or science.

Upon completing the required coursework, students can enroll in general or professional under graduate programmes. Schools and colleges are run by the government, private trusts, or individuals. Many of the schools owned by private sector are aided by government.

Majority of the public schools are affiliated to Kerala State Education Board. Other familiar educational boards are Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE), the Central Board for Secondary Education (CBSE), or the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS). English is the language of instruction in most self financing schools, while government and government aided schools offer English or Malayalam.

No fees (or a nominal fees) are required in schools run by or aided by government. Fees concerning the higher and technical education are very low; the ratio of recovery of government’s revenue expenditure was 2.6% in 2006-2007.However, the lacking of fees or low fees does not imply low educational cost, as the students incur other costs of several types (examination fees, special fees, material costs, clothing travelling, private tuition).

In fact, according to the 61st round of National Sample Survey (2004-2005), per capita spending on education by the rural households resulted to be more than twice the national average (INR 41 for Kerala, INR 18 for India). Urban India spending, on the contrary, resulted to be greater than Kerala’s (INR 74 for India, INR 66 for Kerala).

However, the survey reveals that the rural-urban difference in expenditure on education by households was much less in Kerala than in the rest of India. A few universities in Kerala are Kannur University, Mahatma Gandhi University, University of Calicut, University of Kerala, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kerala Agricultural University, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit.

  1. Premiere educational institutions in Kerala are Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, one of the thirteen Indian Institutes of Management, National Institute of Technology Calicut (NITC), Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology (IIST).
  2. Erala also has a National law school which is known as the National University of Advanced Legal Studies.

The Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics flourished between the 14th and 16th centuries. In attempting to solve astronomical problems, the Kerala school independently created a number of important mathematics concepts including results series expansion for trigonometric functions.

MES KEVEEYAM COLLEGE, VALANCHERRY. MAR THEOPHILUS TRAINING COLLEGE TITUS II TEACHERS COLLEGE, THIRUVALLA

: Education System In Kerala – PhilaIndia.info
View complete answer