1. State of Municipal Education in Mumbai
December 2016

2. Total Students in Mumbai’s Municipal Schools 2011 - 2016
Year
Total Students
439,153
434,523
404,251
397,085
383,485
% Change in Total Students (Enrolments) Year on Year
0.3%
-1.1%
-7%
-2%
-3%
55,668 students have left municipal school system in last five years
A decrease of 44,632 students i.e. 38% has been observed in Marathi medium from to (down from 1,16,086 to 71,454)

3. Change in Total Students 2008 to 2016
Year
Total Students
% Change Year on Year
451,810 -
455,900
0.9
437,863
-4.0
439,153
0.3
434,523
-1.1
404,251
-7.0
397,085
-1.8
383,485
-3.4 *
368,500
-3.9 *
350,957
-4.8 *
330,856
-5.7 *
308,198
-6.8 *
282,982
-8.2
*Estimated using time-series regression.

4. No. of students enrolled in Class I
Percentage Change in Class I Enrolments 2008 to 2016
Year
No. of students enrolled in Class I
% Change Year on Year
63,392 -
67,477
6.4
62,587
-7.2
53,729
-14.2
46,913
-12.7
39,663
-15.5
39,214
-1.1
34,549
-11.9 *
29,199 *
22,583
-22.7 *
14,703
-34.9 *
5,558
-62.2
If 100 students enrolled in Class I in , in comparison only 34 students are likely to enrol in
Through a time series analysis, in our last year report, we had predicted that in the number of students in class 1 will be 38,329. The RTI (Right to Information) data reveals only 34,549 children.
Capacity under-utilisation
*Estimated using time-series regression.

5. Dropouts in Mumbai’s Municipal Schools 2011 - 2016
Year
Dropouts
32,580
40,011
47,218
51,741
57,788
Dropouts (per 100) 7 9 12 13 15
Total Dropouts in Semi-English schools
No. of Schools 11
183
363
575
Standards
1st
1st to 2nd
1st to 3rd
1st to 4th
No. of Students
576
7514
19427
39409
Dropouts 74
216
1149
3725
Dropouts per 100 13 3 6 9

6. Indicator : Schools with Infrastructure Facilities Available
Compliance with Infrastructure and other norms under RTE ( )
Indicator : Schools with Infrastructure Facilities Available
Govt. and Local bodies
Private Aided
Private Unaided
Unrecognised
Total Schools
1252
436
665 80
No. of Student
3,91,772
1,53,058
3,15,877
14401
No. of Teacher
12496
3600
6876
409
Building
Number %
100%
Office cum store cum HM room
1180
428
640 78
94.25%
98.17%
96.24%
97.50%
One class room for every teacher
1002
281
288 58
80.03%
64.45%
43.31%
72.50%
Ramp
1155
560 65
92.25%
93.81%
84.21%
81.25%
Separate Toilet for Boys
419
626
96.10%
94.14%
Separate Toilet for Girls
427
647 79
97.94%
97.29%
98.75%%
Drinking Water Facility
Kitchen Shed (Govt. &Aided Schools)
296 94
178 23
23.64%
21.56%
26.77%
28.75%
Boundary Wall
1177
410
610 72
94.01%
94.04%
91.73%
90%
Playground
1113
379
588 70
88.90%
86.93%
88.42%
80%
483,336 students & 10,885 teachers in Private Schools compared to 391,722 students and 12,496 teachers in MCGM schools

7. Particulars of Inspection Form
Teacher Inspection Reports
 Particulars of Inspection Form
D Ward
M/E Ward
P/S Ward
Dropout (Per 100) 20 24
Pass out (In %) 71 50 67
No. of teachers
100
1161
371
No. of teachers inspection reports provided 31
398 74 %
31%
34%
20%
Usage of examples, case study while teaching
Usage
94%
99%
97%
Usage of Teaching/Aids (Equipment/material)
Yes
64%
85%
Student Involvement
Good
92%
Formative Evaluation Technique Used
96%
Teacher Student Interaction
good
87%
81%
Entries in the daily lesson plan and actual teaching
Proper
83%
93%
Self-evaluation by the teacher
32%
21%
41%
Prepared test papered or question paper
Prepared
74%
98%
Teacher’s Portfolio
48%
68%
61%
Subject wise student’s response
77%
71%
91%

8. E2 (continuously absent)
Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE)
Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) refers to a system of school-based assessment of students that covers all aspects of students' development introduced under Right to Education Act.
Wards
4th Standard (No. of students in %)
7th Standard (No. of students in %)
Above 60% (A1, A2, B1, B2 grades)
60% to 40% (C1, C2 grades)
Less than 40%
(D, E1, grade)
E2 (continuously absent)
60% to 40% (C1, C2 grade)
D, M/E, P/S
51.3%
14.0%
3.6%
31.2%
54.9%
18.8%
3.7%
22.7%
E2 grade is given by MCGM to students who are continuously absent i.e. dropouts as earlier mentioned
If the CCE grades for only the regularly going students is taken, then 95% students are performing between A and C grades
Note: Above data has been compiled from two datasets, data on CCE reports and continuous absent students.

9. Comparison of SSC results between students of MCGM and Other Schools
Indicators
MCGM
Other Schools*
SSC Passout ( )
72%
86%
*Other Schools- Private aided, Private Unaided and Unrecognised Schools

10. Comparison of Scholarship exam results between students of MCGM and Private Schools
Year
MCGM School
Private School
Candidates Appeared
Scholarship Holders
Scholarship Holders in %
Middle School Scholarship Examination (4th Standard)
5,634 88
1.6%
19,351
1,889
9.8%
High School Scholarship Examination (7th Standard)
3,799 12
0.3%
18,284
1,605
8.8%
Note: The scholarship exam for the academic year has not been conducted.

11. Annual Municipal Budgets 2008-2017
Year
Total Annual Budget
(Rs. in crores)
Total Students
911
451,810
1,255
449,179
1,761
437,863
1,800
439,153
2,388
434,523
2,613
404,251
2,773
397,085
2,630
383,485
2,567
383,485*
(*): Total No. of Students for have been kept constant as of for estimation purpose

12. Per-child allocation (In Rs.Crore)
Account Head
Budget Estimates
Actual expenditure
Budget Estimates
Total Education Budget (Primary and Secondary)
2,630
1,779
2,567
Less: Grants to Private Primary aided School
256
254
300
Total
2,374
1,524
2,267
Total students
383,485
Per Child Allocation*
(in rupees)
52,326
36,807
49,835
(*): After deducting grants to private primary aided schools and capital expenses

13. Data from Household Survey
Praja Foundation had commissioned a household survey to Hansa Research. The survey was conducted in March-April 2016 across the city of Mumbai with a total sample size of 25,215 households. Of these, 2,676 households had children going to school. Hence, the education questionnaire was administered further with those (2,676) households only.

14. Reasons for not being happy with Municipal School (%)
Quality of education (55%), Future scope is very limited (46%), and Facilities provided to students (45%), form the three big reasons cited by parents for not being happy with municipal schools.

15. Respondent taking private tuitions/coaching classes:
All
Private School
Municipal School
Yes 63 66 49 No 37 34 51
Two-third parents send their child for private tuitions.
Details on source of Tuitions:
All
Private School
Municipal School
School Class teacher 7 6 13
Private tuitions 86 88 71
Coaching classes 5 4
Others 2 12
71% Municipal school students are taking private tuitions.

16. Deliberation by Councillors on Education
(April 2015 and March 2016)
193 questions were asked by MCGM councillors on education in all meeting of corporation
Only 8 councillors have asked more than 4 questions on education
158 councillors did not ask even a single question on education
Anil Trimbakkar has asked highest questions (37) in education committee
Total number of dropouts in academy year were 57,788 yet only one question has been asked on Drop out rates
In , vinod shelar asked maximum questions on education (9); in ajanta yadav and priyatama sawant (8 each)

17. Deliberation by Mumbai MLA’s on Education (Monsoon 15 and Winter 15 Sessions)
Highest number of questions on education was asked by Amin Patel (163)
Ramchandra Kadam, Ramesh Latke, and Selvan Tamil did not ask a single question on Education
Out of the total 534 questions asked by MLA’s on Education only 95 questions were asked related to Education in Mumbai
Only one question was asked on dropout rate and Syllabus/Curriculum by MLAs

18. What Needs to be Done Accountability in Education Department.
Appoint independent third party, to monitor and evaluate learning outcomes of students.
Empower and Strengthen School Management Committees (SMCs) to improve accountability at the school level.
Focus on teacher trainings, SMC trainings and capacity building; free teachers from unnecessary administrative duties
Rigorous filling out of Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) reports and Inspection reports. Link reports with performance appraisal of respective teachers.
Strengthen Data management systems especially the Research Officer’s wing, for better planning and implementation.
Providing quality education is the duty of the Corporation. Quality of education should be the only paramount focus of the Corporation.

19. THANK YOU