Chapter 4

Quantitative Assessment of the Quality of Primary Education: Univariate and Bivariate Analyses

The present chapter is aimed at the quantitative assessment of the quality of school education by

type of school management. This chapter presents the demand of schools by type of

management, enrolment trend of students in primary schools. The enrolment data was collected

for last 7 years from school records by the researcher. Quality of education measured in terms of

educational performance of students. An attempt was made to find drop out students or number

of student exits from school. Further, the performance of schools by type of management was

analysed using school and household factors. In addition, academic achievement of students was

analysed using household factors. The descriptive method of analysis such as

frequency/percentage charts or counts, Chi-square test, t test, one way analysis of variance have

been used.

4.1 Demand Analysis of School

In this segment demand of primary schools was studied for the period 2010-11. Table 4.1

presents the results derived from demand analysis of selected schools. The methodology of

demand analysis has already been presented in chapter 1 (paragraph 1.3.2.). The data was

collected from class 1 to class 7 consisting of three types of school management from 24 primary

schools (20% sample) of Navi Mumbai.

Table 4.1: Student - School Ratio by Type of School Management

Type of Management

Category ZP NMMC Private Total

No. of schools selected for study 10 7 7 24

No. of students (class 1-7) 2926 3806 4752 11484

Student - School Ratio 293 544 679 479

Score Poor Moderate Good

To examine the demand of school, a measure of demand has been calculated by taking into

account the students - schools ratio in terms of number of students per school.

4.1.1 Results and Discussion

Table 4.1 revealed that demand was more for private schools as compared to government/public

schools of NMMC and ZP. It seems, that majority of parents want to send their children/wards to

private schools. If we compare only government/public schools demand was more for NMMC

schools as compared to ZP schools. In rural areas, where existence of private schools was less,

parents preferred to send their wards to nearby ZP schools. During the discussions with parents,

researcher has also made an attempt to know why parents want to send their children to private

schools. The majority of parents felt that the overall development of child was better in private

schools. ‘Though the private school charge heavy fees but beside providing education they give

opportunities to learn art &craft; pursue their hobbies, participation in sports and debates which

may built child’s physique and improve critical thinking – the parents opined. Majority of the

parents were also of the view that private schools had better infrastructure and physical facilities

compared to NMMC and ZP schools.

Regarding ZP (no fees) schools, some of the parents said that ZP schools had smaller class sizes

(space/area wise), with no benches and the extracurricular activities. Public schools had longer

teaching hours compared to private schools. It was also pointed out by teachers that some of the

parents of PAP1 students had shifted their children especially male child, from ZP schools to

private schools because of availability of English medium in latter. Nonetheless, some teachers

had also told that quite a few of these students return to ZP schools because they could not cope

up with English medium schools.

4.2 Enrolment of Students from Class 1 to Class 7 1 PAP: Project Affected Person-whose land was taken for development of Navi Mumbai Project, in return, they got good compensation package and now economically better off compare to others in the village.

The class wise enrolment of students during the last 7 years (2004-05 to 2010-11) was collected

from 7 NMMC, 10 ZP and 7 Private schools. The data was collected from school enrolment

registers.

4.1.2 Results and Discussion

Figure 4.1 presents percent of enrolment of students in NMMC, ZP and private schools in last 7

years. The data revealed that on an average in Navi Mumbai, 24% students enrolled in ZP

schools, 37% in NMMC schools and 39% in Private schools at primary level of education. The

percent of student enrolled in 2010-11 was 33% (3806) in NMMC schools, 25% (2926) in ZP

schools and 41% (4752) in private schools. The growth rate of students enrolled in private

schools was 25% more as compare to NMMC schools and 62% more as compare to ZP schools

during the year 2010-11. Similar pattern was observed for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09

and 2009-2010. This showed that more students and their parents opted for private schools.

During the academic year 2005-06, the enrolment of students was same (38%) in each NMMC

and private schools. The enrolment of students in ZP schools was much lower as compare to

NMMC and private schools during the last 7 years.

Figure 4.1: Percent of Enrolment of Primary Students in Last 7 Years by Type of School Management

Source: Table 4.2

There was no consistency in enrolment data in all type of schools. Table 4.2 presents year wise

enrolment of students from class 1 to class 7 by type of management. As can be seen from the

3838 37 37 37 36 33

2624 23 23 23 25 25

36 38 39 40 40 3941

0

10

20

30

40

50

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Percentage

NMMC ZP Private

table that in NMMC schools, 546 students enrolled in 2004-05 in class1 and they were promoted

to class 2 in 2005-06. The data illustrated that there were 634 students in class 2. It seems 88 new

students were admitted in class 2 in 2005-06. In the year 2006-07 the cohort of students was

reduced to 540, showing a reduction of 94 students. Similarly in 2007-08, in class 4, the cohort

of student again increased and further decreased in 2008-09 and once again increased in 2010-

2011. Similar pattern was observed in case of ZP and private schools also. The reason for this

type of oscillation was discussed below.

Navi Mumbai had generated maximum jobs in real estate sector. There was a requirement of

construction workers not only for residential, commercial premises but also for construction of

physical infrastructure like roads, bridges, Industry, metro rail etc.. It has been observed that

construction worker in the city move from one place to another after completion of project.

Majority of children of these workers took admissions in nearby public school in mid of the

academic session and shifted to other location due to completion of construction work.

As per RTE Act, and universalization of free and compulsory primary education, all the

students over age or under age were supposed to be admitted to appropriate class by the public

school in that area. This could be one of the reasons for inconsistency in the enrolment data

recorded for last seven years from ZP and NMMC schools (Table 4.2).

Nearly 115 private schools were established in the last decade 2000-2009 in Navi Mumbai,

which implied that on an average 11 new schools added per year in Navi Mumbai. Many schools

got the sanction up to secondary or higher secondary level and each year school authority add

one or more standard to their school as per the demand and population growth. It was found that

some of the children shifted from CBSE syllabus to State Board School which was set up in their

locality. The reason for shifting from CBSE School to State Board School was that it is generally

believed that State Board curriculum is easier as compared to CBSE Board; hence their child

may score better in State Board School.

Table 4.2: Number of Students Enrolled in Class 1 to Class 7 from 2004-05 to 2010-11 by Type of Management

7 NMMC school

class1 class2 class3 class4 class5 class6 class7 Total Years N N N N N N N N

2004-05 546 688 584 665 705 709 680 4577 2005-06 585 634 554 634 620 719 690 4436 2006-07 561 662 540 602 591 654 627 4237 2007-08 552 681 537 600 570 602 578 4120 2008-09 538 615 544 585 555 625 600 4062 2009-10 491 643 533 610 540 592 568 3976 2010-11 479 589 529 565 572 547 525 3806

Total 3752 4512 3821 4260 4153 4448 4269 29214

10 ZP schools 2004-05 519 489 500 460 450 400 358 3176 2005-06 484 439 461 402 375 310 310 2781 2006-07 481 399 450 375 318 302 290 2615 2007-08 429 398 380 400 310 300 312 2529 2008-09 473 387 381 393 325 300 293 2552 2009-10 487 388 400 401 444 335 300 2755 2010-11 539 479 457 390 412 326 323 2926

Total 3412 2979 3029 2821 2634 2273 2186 19334

7 Private schools 2004-05 639 632 599 618 721 559 631 4399 2005-06 665 642 615 632 719 564 596 4433 2006-07 652 648 627 656 671 598 613 4465 2007-08 661 686 648 648 695 573 596 4507 2008-09 648 613 609 636 670 576 601 4353 2009-10 643 643 606 624 658 591 613 4378 2010-11 666 653 672 648 721 660 732 4752

Total 4574 4517 4376 4462 4855 4121 4382 31287

24 schools (NMMC+ ZP+ Private) 2004-05 1704 1809 1683 1743 1876 1668 1669 12152 2005-06 1734 1715 1630 1668 1714 1593 1596 11650 2006-07 1694 1709 1617 1633 1580 1554 1530 11317 2007-08 1642 1765 1565 1648 1575 1475 1486 11156 2008-09 1659 1615 1534 1614 1550 1501 1494 10967 2009-10 1621 1674 1539 1635 1642 1518 1481 11109 2010-11 1684 1721 1658 1603 1705 1533 1580 11484

Total 11738 12008 11226 11543 11642 10842 10837 79835

It was further learned that some of the children shifted from State Board School to CBSE School.

Because some parents believed that CBSE schools exist all over the country, this may help the

student not only in getting admission in good college (national level) for higher studies but also

in getting the good job in future. Therefore, there was no consistency in the enrolment data of

private schools too (Table 4.2).

There was need for the government to do more efforts to improve the enrolment in ZP schools.

Government should prepare systematic plans for the enrolment drive and review its efforts from

time to time to achieve desired results. The private schools have immense contribution in the

development and promotion of education in the city. Private education may be seen as

complementary to the government efforts to cope up with the ever growing demand for

education.

4.3 Performance of Students by Type of Management

The academic performance of students should be determined by the ‘grade system’ (RTE Act,

2009). This policy was adopted on advice of child development experts, who felt that it would

adversely impact the confidence of children, who may develop an inferiority complex, if they

were labelled as ‘failed’ at such a tender age. Therefore, all the students compulsorily promoted

to next grade. Further the overall grade should not be informed to students; only subject wise

grade should be calculated. The report card of students should contain subject wise grade and the

excellence of student should be written in a subjective manner. The academic grades are divided

in to nine categories as per government resolution namely A1, A2, B1, B2, D C1, C2, E1 and E2

(Table 4.3).

The data of academic performance of every student was collected from class 1 to class 7 from

each 24 schools through structured questionnaire. After obtaining the subject wise grade for each

student, the overall grade was calculated by the researcher. The data was collected for students

who appeared in exam, from 7 NMMC having 3699 students, 7 private schools having 4702

students and 10 ZP schools having 2677 students. The grade wise result by type of management

for the year 2010-11 is given in Table 4.3. The table presents that nearly 5% of each NMMC and

ZP students secured A1 grade while 15% students of private schools secured A1 grade. About

one fourth students of ZP (25%) and Private (22.9%) school got A2 grade and only 14% students

of NMMC got A2 grade. Not a single student got D, E1 and E2 grade in private school. About

2% of NMMC student and 0.4% of ZP school student got D, E1 and E2 grade (less than or equal

to 40% marks).

Table 4.3: Grade Wise Performance of Students from Class1 to Class 7 by Type of

Management

Grades NMMC Private ZP N % N % N % A1 (91%-100%) 187 5.1 728 15.5 124 4.6 A2 (81%-90%) 520 14.1 1078 22.9 669 25 B1 (71%-80%) 929 25.1 1083 23 997 37.2 B2 (61%-70%) 955 25.8 959 20.4 681 25.4 C1 (51%-60%) 806 21.8 531 11.3 174 6.5 C2 (41%-50%) 227 6.1 323 6.9 20 0.7 D (33%-40%) 24 0.6 0 0 0 0 E1 (21%-32%) 26 0.7 0 0 0 0 E2 (<21%) 25 0.7 0 0 12 0.4 TOTAL 3699 100 4702 100 2677 100

4.4 Students Exit from School by Type of School Management

How efficient are primary schools in retaining children and in bringing the child to the

appropriate level of educational attainment? Officially there will be no drop out in primary

schools because all the children are suppose to be promoted to next grade (as per RTE Act,

2009). Therefore, all children are able to reach class 8. An attempt was made to calculate the

number of students did not appear for exam or say exit from school during the academic year

2010-2011.

As mentioned above, performance (grade wise) of each and every student from class 1 to class 7

was collected from all the 24 schools. The data was analyzed and given in Table 4.4. It was

found there was a difference of 406 (4%) students between total enrolments (data of September

month-2010) and promoted to next class (data of April month-2011). It implied that 4% students

could not appear for exam or left the school due to some reasons.

The data was further divided by type of management. It was found that 249 students in ZP

schools, 107 in NMMC and 50 students in private schools were not available at the end of

academic session; therefore, they were not given any grades (report card). They have left the

school during the academic year 2010-11. Here these students were referred as ‘Exit from

School’ from schools. The result is given in table 4.4. About 4% students had left (dropout) the

primary school during the year 2010-11. There was dropout of 9% in ZP schools, 3% in NMMC

schools and 1% in Private schools.

Number of students exit from school = [Total number of students admitted - Total number of

students appeared for exam]

Table 4.4: Number of Students dropout from Schools by Type of School Management

Type of Management Category ZP NMMC Private Total

1. Total students enrolled 2926 3806 4752 11484

2. Appeared for exam 2677 3699 4702 11078

3. Difference (1)-(2) 249 107 50 406

4. Percent of students exit 9% 3% 1% 4% from school

The dropout rate at primary level was 4%; it needs to be checked, without which neither the goal

of universal primary education nor retention can be achieved. There may be many reasons for

leaving the school / dropout such as economic help, looking after siblings, unattractive school,

curriculum, not interested in learning and so on and so forth.

4. 5: Bivariate Analysis (Cross-Tabs)

Many questions were interconnected with other questions in the present study therefore to obtain

more meaningful results chi square test was applied. The Crosstabs procedure forms two-way

tables and provides a variety of tests and measures of association. Pearson chi-square test was

used to see the association and one way analysis of variance was used to test the statistical

significance. This section of the thesis presents the crosstab analysis, mean and standard

deviations of selected variables.

4.5.1 Performance of Schools by Type of Management

In the present study the performance of school was assessed by academic performance of

students in three type of school management. For this purpose academic grade, were categorize

into four categories.

Performance of school Score

A1+A2 >80% Schools having number of students who secured grade A1 or A2 (> 80% marks)

Very Good

B1+B2 -- (60.1% to 80%) Good

(Schools having number of students who secured grade B1 or B2 (60 % to 80% marks) C1+C2--(40.1% to 60%) Moderate

Schools having number of students who secured gradeC1 or C2 (40% to 60% marks) D+ E1+E2 < 40% Poor

Schools having number of students who secured grade D or E1 or E2 (< 40% marks)

The significance value for all the tests was taken as 0.05 (95% confidence level) or 0.01 (99%

confidence level), unless mentioned otherwise. This value was compared using p-values.

To know the association between performances of schools by type of school management, the

bivariate analysis was done using Chi square test. Performance of schools has been cross

tabulated with Types of School Management to find the significant relationship between them.

Ho: There exists no relationship between Performances of schools and Type of

Management

HA: There exists relationship between Performance of schools and Type

of Management

Table 4.5: Association between Performances of School by Type of School

Management

Cross tabulation

Performance of School Total

Type of school management Poor Moderate Good Very Good

ZP 12 194 1678 793 2677

NMMC 75 1033 1884 707 3699

Private 0 854 2042 1806 4702

Total 87 2081 5604 3306 11078

Chi-Square Tests

Value d.f.

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

852.23 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 912.64 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association

9.59 1 .002

N of Valid Cases 11078

a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 21.02

The calculated value of Chi square at 6 degrees of freedom and one percent level of significance

was 852.2. The calculate value of Chi square was higher than the tabulated value of Chi Square

16.8 at 1 percent level of significance. Therefore, null hypothesis was rejected. There was a

significant relationship between type of school management and performance of schools.

4.5.2 Gender Wise Students by Type of School Management

The gender composition of students was given in Table 4.6. It was observed that in public

schools namely ZP and NMMC girls were slightly more than that of boys while in private school

boys were more than girls. The overall percentage did not show any gender difference. Therefore

gender wise analysis was not done in further chapters.

Table 4.6: Gender-wise Average Percentage of Students by Type of School Management

Gender wise Students Boys Girls

Type of School Management

ZP 49.30% 50.70%

NMMC 49.00% 51.00%

Private 51.20% 48.80%

Total 50.00% 50.00%

In order to test the significance of association between two attributes namely gender wise

number of student enrolled and type of school management, Chi Square test was used.

Ho: There is no association between gender wise enrolment of students and type of

school management

HA: There is association between gender wise enrolment of students and type of school

management

Cross tabulation

Type of school management Boys Girls Total

ZP 1434 1492 2926

NMMC 1878 1928 3806

Private 2433 2319 4752

Total 5745 5739 11484

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

4.538(a) 2 .103

Likelihood Ratio 4.539 2 .103

Linear-by-Linear Association

3.152 1 .076

N of Valid Cases 11484

a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1462.24.

Chi square test has been run to test the statistical significance of relationship between gender

wise enrolments of students by type of school management. At 5 percent level of significance

the table value of Chi Square = 6.0 at two degrees of freedom, which was greater than calculated

value of Chi Square = 4.5. Hence we accept the null hypothesis and conclude that there was no

association between gender wise enrolment of students and type of school management.

4.5.3 Performance of Student by Type of Management

Type of school management has impact on quality of education. Table 4.7 revealed the average

score (grade =A1+ A2 +B1 + B2) of students securing 60% and above marks in final exam by

type of school management. The reason for adopting this cut off point was according to

education policy no student will fail up to 8th class. Hence quality of school was decided by

number of students securing first class. It was found that mean score of ZP schools was highest

92.41 which implied that among the students who secured first class and above, majority of

them were at higher end as compared to other two types of schools. The students of private

school management showed an average score of 81.5% and students of NMMC school

management recorded an average of 70.11%. This shows that NMMC school management had

lower quality of education among the three types of school management.

Table 4.7: Mean Score of Performance of students by Type of School Management

Performance of Student Mean S. D.

Type of School Management Score

ZP 92.41 6.07

NMMC 70.11 4.66

Private 81.50 5.19

Total 82.72 10.81

One way analysis of variance has been run to test the statistical significant difference between

the performance of student and type of school management

Ho: There is no difference between the performance (mean percentages) of student and type of

school management

HA: There is difference between the performance (mean percentages) of student and type of

school management

One Way ANOVA Table to Test the Statistical Significance

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Performance of

school * TYPE

Between

Groups

(Combined) 2060.790 2 1030.395 34.634 .000

Within Groups 624.774 21 29.751

Total 2685.564 23

The calculated value of F was 34.6 < tabulated value of F =5.8 at 1% level of significance with

degrees of freedom 2 and 21. Thus one way ANOVA did not support the null hypothesis. There

was difference between the performance (mean percentages) of student and type of school

management. We may therefore conclude that significant difference in mean score or

performance of student was due to type of school management.

4.5.4 Student - Teacher Ratio by Type of Management

The student-teacher ratio is the number of students in a school divided by the number of teachers

in the institution. A low student-teacher ratio benefits all students because of individual attention

from teachers. The student - teacher ratio was in favour of ZP school management. Table 4.8

revealed that the average student - teacher ratio was lowest in ZP schools and highest in NMMC

School. The combine average student - teacher ratio of public (ZP and NMMC) schools was

less than that of private school.

Table 4.8: Mean Student teacher Ratio by Type of School Management

Student - Teacher Ratio Mean S. D.

Type of School Management

ZP 30.57 2.61

NMMC 63.63 15.26

Private 46.13 4.44

Total 44.75 16.28

Ho: There is no difference between mean student-teacher ratio by type of school management

HA: There is significant difference between mean student-teacher ratio by type of school

management

One way analysis of variance has been run to test the statistical significant difference between

the average student - teacher ratio and type of school management.

One Way ANOVA Table to Test the Statistical Significance

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Student teacher ratio * TYPE

Between Groups

(Combined) 4520.974 2 2260.487 30.084 .000

Within Groups 1577.925 21 75.139

Total 6098.899 23

From the result of one way analysis of variance, it can be seen that the calculated value of F was

30.1 < tabulated value of F = 5.8 at 1% level of significance (p<0.01) with degrees of freedom

(d. f.) 2 and 21. Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected. We may conclude that there was

significant difference in average student – teacher ratio and type of school management.

4.5.5 Class size by Type of School Management

Class size is one of the many factors to be considered when evaluating quality of school. Small

class size plays an important role to ensure a good education. Table 4.9 presents that average

class size by type of school management. The result reveals that ZP schools had smaller class

size as compare to other school management. NMMC schools had the highest class size.

Table 4.9: Mean Class Size by Type of School Management

Average Class Size* Mean S. D.

Type of School Management ZP 26.81 2.65

NMMC 57.71 18.63

Private 44.14 5.36

Total 40.88 16.63

Ho: There is no difference between average class size and type of school management

HA: There is difference between average class size and type of school management

One Way ANOVA Table to Test the Statistical Significance

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

class size * TYPE

Between Groups

(Combined) 4040.739 2 2020.370 18.289 .000

Within Groups 2319.886 21 110.471

Total 6360.625 23

One way analysis of variance has been used to test the statistical significance difference between

average class sizes and type of school management. The calculated value of F was 18.3 <

tabulated value of F =5.8 at 1% level of significance (p<0.01) with degrees of freedom (d. f.) 2

and 21. Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected. It may be concluded that there was

significant difference between the average class size and type of school management.

4.5.6 Bivariate Analysis of Teacher Related Factors by Type of School Management

4.5.6.1 Trained Teacher

Table 4.10 presents mean and standard deviation of proportion of trained teachers by type of

school management. As can be seen from the Table 4.10 that in both NMMC and ZP schools, the

proportion of trained teacher was more than that of Private school. The data showed that in

NMMC and ZP schools 98.89% and 97.32% teachers were trained. The proportion of trained

teachers in private school was 88.86%, which was lowest among the three type of school

management. The results were supported by (Abbi, 2011b) that proportion of trained teachers

was more in public school than that of private school.

Table 4.10 Percent of Trained Teachers by Type of School Management

Average Percent of Trained Teachers Percent S. D.

Type of School Management

ZP 97.32 0.95

NMMC 98.89 0.4

Private 88.86 1.89

Total 95.31 4.44

4.5.6.2 Employment Status of Teachers

The status of employment of teachers was bifurcated in two categories of employment, namely,

‘Permanent’ and ‘Temporary/contract’. Table 4.11 explained the proportion of permanent

teachers by type of school management. As can be seen from the table that majority of teachers

(95%) were permanent in ZP schools. Nearly 82% teachers were working in permanent capacity

in NMMC school. Less than three fourth of the teachers were working in permanent capacity in

private schools. Generally in private schools as a cost cutting measure, the staff was kept on

temporary basis for a longer duration.

Table 4.11 Percent of Permanent Teachers by Type of School Management

Average Percent of Permanent Teachers Percent S. D.

Type of School Management

ZP 94.61 3.31

NMMC 82.29 2.63

Private 72.00 2.16

Total 84.41 10.03

4.5.6.3 Teaching Experience:

Teaching experience of teacher played an important role in academic performance of student.

There was difference when a student learns from a seasoned teacher or new teacher. The

average year of experience was higher (11 years) for the teachers in ZP schools than that of

NMMC School (6 years). Private school teacher had four years of teaching experience which

was lower than that of ZP and NMMC schools. Majority of private schools in Navi Mumbai

were established during the last decades, therefore bulk of the private schools were newer and

therefore less experienced as compare to other two public schools.

One way analysis of variance has been run to test the statistical significant difference between

the number of years of teaching experience of teacher and type of school management.

Ho: There is no difference between average number of years of teaching experience of teacher

and type of school management

HA: There is difference between average number of years of teaching experience of teacher and

type of school management

Table 4.12 Number of Years of Teaching Experience by Type of School Management

Type Mean N Std. Deviation

ZP 10.87 10 4.56

NMMC 6.38 7 3.22

Private 3.73 7 2.05

Total 7.48 24 4.65

One Way ANOVA Table to Test the Statistical Significance

Sum of Squares Df

Mean Square F Sig.

years of teaching experience * TYPE

Between Groups

(Combined) 222.155 2 111.077 8.496 .002

Within Groups 274.548 21 13.074

Total 496.703 23

From the result of one way analysis of variance, calculated value of F is 8.5 which was greater

than tabulated value of F=5.8 at 1% level of significance (p<0.01) with degrees of freedom 2 and

21. Therefore we reject the null hypothesis. We may therefore conclude that there was significant

difference in number of years of teaching experience of teachers due to school management.

4.5.7 Bivariate Analysis of Socioeconomic Factors by Type of Students

The socioeconomic data was collected only from those household whose ward has secured

highest marks or lowest marks in their class. Thus data was collected from households of

students studying in classes 1 to 7 in each of 24 schools. The socioeconomic data was obtained

from 336 household. The student who secure highest mark was labelled as ‘bright’ and who

got lowest marks was considered as ‘dull’ in the present analysis. Table 4.13 exhibits the

socioeconomic profile of households by type of student (Dull and Bright).

4.5.7.1 Family Size

The average family size was four in Navi Mumbai. Table 4.13 presented the average family size

of households by type of school management and also by type of student. The data showed that

average family size of bright students (3.9) was slightly less than that of dull students (4.1).

Among the three type of management, there was no difference in the family size of students.

Therefore family size was not considered for further analysis.

4.5.7.2 Father's Education

Father’s education is one of the important factors, which influences the academic achievement of

students. Table 4.13 revealed that the average years of education of father was higher for bright

student (11 years) than that of dull students (7 years). The mean year of education of father for

private school students was highest (15 years) as compare to public school students. Among the

public schools, father’s education was higher for students of NMMC (9 years) school than that of

ZP (4 years) school.

4.5.7.3 Mother's Education

Mothers are the foremost provider of primary care for their children. Their knowledge of basic

education and involvement in different dimensions affects the growth of children. Therefore

mother’s education influences the academic achievement of her child. Table 4.13 displayed the

average years of education of mother by type of student and type of school management. The

pattern of average year education of mother was same as father’s education. The mean year of

education of mother was 12 years for private school student, 6 year for NMMC school student

and 2 years for ZP school students. The average year of education of mother was higher for

bright student (8 years) than that of dull students (4 years).

4.5.7.4 Monthly Income of Households

There was a significant difference in the average monthly income of households by type of

school management. As can be seen from Table 4.13, the average monthly income of

households was reported as Rs. 28000 for private school students, Rs. 10,000 for NMMC and

Rs. 6500 for ZP school students. The household income of bright student (Rs. 15000) was

little higher than that of dull students (Rs. 13000).

Table 4.13 Bivariate Analysis of Household Factors by Type of Management

Type of Student 1 Family Size Dull (N=168) Bright (N=168) Total (N=336) Type of Management Mean Mean Mean

ZP 4.0 4.0 4.0

NMMC 4.2 3.9 4.0

Private 3.9 3.8 3.9

Total 4.1 3.9 3.9

2 Father's Completed Years of Education Dull Bright Total

Type of Management Mean Mean Mean

ZP 2.3 6.4 4.4

NMMC 2.7 10.6 9.0

Private 13.9 17.3 15.4

Total 7.1 10.8 9.0

3 Mother's Completed Years of Education Dull Bright Total

Type of Management Mean Mean Mean

ZP 0.1 3.5 1.8

NMMC 3.5 8.0 5.7

Private 9.2 15.2 12.2

Total 3.7 8.2 6.0

4

Average Monthly Income of Household (Rs.) Dull Bright Total

Type of Management Mean Mean Mean

ZP 6688 6464 6575

NMMC 9898 10234 10066

Private 25429 30629 28029

Total 13089 14611 13851

5 Built-up Area of House (sq. ft.) Dull Bright Total

Type of Management Mean Mean Mean

ZP 314 318 316

NMMC 318 344 331

Private 552 905 729

Total 384 496 440

Occupation: Job type White collar Total

Type of Management Dull (N, %) Bright (N, %) Total (N, %)

ZP 4 (7%) 2 (2%) 6(4%)

NMMC 17 (30%) 33 (40%) 50 (36%)

Private 36 (63%) 48 (57%) 84 (60%)

Total 57 (100%) 83 (100%) 140 (100%)

Blue collar Total

Type of Management Dull (N, %) Bright (N, %) Total (N, %)

ZP 66 (59%) 68(80%) 134 (68%)

NMMC 32 (29%) 16 (19%) 48 (24%)

Private 13(12%) 1(1%) 14 (7%)

Total 111 (100%) 85 (100%) 196 00%)

4.5.7.5 Built-up Area of House

Built-up area is another variable, which may be used as proxy to income or economic

condition of household. Keeping this in view, the results are analysed (Table 4.13). The

average built-up area of house of Private: NMMC: ZP school student was 906:344:318 sq. ft.

The pattern of built-up area of household was similar to household income. The average

built-up area of household of bright and dull student was nearly 500 sq. ft. and 400 sq. ft.

respectively.

4.5.7.6 Occupation of Father

The occupation of father was categorized in two categories, namely white collar job and blue

collar job. Table 4.13 revealed the frequency distribution of categories of job by type of

school management and by type of students (Bright and Dull). The result explained that

majority of father’s occupation was blue collar if students were in ZP schools and white

collar if students belonged to private schools. The occupation of fathers for NMMC student

was almost in equal proportion of white and blue collar jobs.