International Research Journal of Social Sciences______________________________________ ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(10), 54-61, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci. International Science Congress Association 54 Inter-State Educational Imbalance in India Tabassum Qamar Al-Barkaat Institute of Education, Aligarh, INDIAAvailable online at: www.isca.in Received 29th September 2015, revised 9th October 2015, accepted 14th October 2015 Abstract India is a developing country striving for achieving the status of developed country. But many factors are there due which our country could not achieve that status even after many years of independence. Among them the major factor is education on which all other factors like economic, social, political etc. depend. Our country is educationally backward; one of the reasons of this backwardness is that the level of education is not uniform across all the states. Some states are educationally developed and some are backward. Therefore, in the present research article the author made an attempt to analyze the educational imbalance existing among the state. Keywords: Education, developing country, educationally backward states, educationally developed states, educational imbalance.Introduction Imbalance is not a new problem to India as the whole world is facing the same. No country can evade from this problem. The problem of imbalance is not limited to any particular field, it covers the various fields like: urbanization, industrialization, distribution of income, education etc. But imbalance in any field more or less depends upon the education. Thus, it is needless to say that education is a pre-requisite of economic development as it increases the economic opportunities to masses and reduces social inequalities. So we can say that development in the field of education results development of the whole nation. Thus, government should take proper efforts for bringing the educational development in the country but the reality is that for a long time no proper efforts were taken by the government to minimize these imbalances. In the overall planning of the country little importance was given to education. The Commissions (Radhakrishnan Commission-1948 and Mudaliar Commission-1952) appointed by the government immediately after independence focused their attention only on a specific aspect of education; they did not considered the education as a whole. The University Education Commission (1948-49) put forward the numerous significant suggestions for the improvement of education at university level and Secondary Education Commission (1952-53) gave suggestion for the improvement and reorganization of education at secondary level. None of the Commissions gave suggestions for the wholesome development of education till 1964. Then Education Commission or Kothari Commission came in 1964 that considered the education as a composite whole and provided suggestions and recommendations for the development of education in all facets. The report of the Kothari Commission, presented in 1966, for the first time ever acknowledged the importance of education for the national development and emphasized the need for an educational revolution to meet the purposes of a democratic and socialistic society. The Commission noted the uneven development of educational facilities across the country that gave rise to glaring imbalance of educational development in different parts of the country. Wide differences of educational development in the states as well as in the districts were found. Therefore, Commission made a special study for the year 1960-61 with a view to highlight the problem of regional imbalances of educational development in the country in order to adopt measures to eliminate these imbalances or to reduce them to the minimum. Kothari Commission (1964-66) was the only Commission that reflected the entire spectrum of education, from its objectives to its financial aspects and submitted a detailed national educational plan for the next twenty years. That was the time when country was facing unfavorable socio-political and socio-economic climate. Thus, major changes given by Kothari Commission did not accepted by the government. That gave rise to many problems such as problems of access, quality, quantity, utility and financial outlay over the years. Then government adopted a new policy known as National Policy on Education-1986 to tackle such arising problems. One of the objectives of the policy was equalization of educational opportunity for the removal of educational imbalance. Since then government is making continuous efforts for educational development to reduce regional imbalances. No doubt, there has been a phenomenal expansion of educational facilities since independence; still there is a long way to go. In the following tables a glimpse of the glaring inter-state disparity has been presented in terms of the educational factors: Literacy Rate, Growth of Educational Institutions, Gross Enrolment Ratio, Pupil-Teacher Ratio, and Expenditure on Education as percentage of GDP. International Research Journal of Social Sciences____________________________________________________ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(10), 54-61, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci.International Science Congress Association 55 Analysis and InterpretationThe state-wise picture of literacy rates for the year 2011 (the latest available data) have been presented in table-1, which states that population of illiterates at state level, though reduced below forty, there still exists a wide variation in literacy rates across the states. The total literacy rate varies from 63.82 in Bihar to 93.91 in Kerala, whereas literacy rate for male varies from 73.39 in Bihar to 96.11 in Kerala and for female it varies from 53.33 in Bihar to 91.98 in Kerala. The bottom ranked states like Bihar, Arunachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Uttar Pradesh have more than thirty percent illiterates. On the other hand the top ranked states like Kerala, Lakshadweep and Mizoram are very close of achieving the 100 percent literacy as illiteracy among these states is 8 or less than 8 percent. These states also have the highest literacy among male and female. The male literacy rate among these states varies from 96.11 to 73.39 and for female it varies from 91.98 to 53.33. Bihar has little better in female literacy than Rajasthan, thus rank second from bottom after Rajasthan. The gender gap in literacy is also not same in all the states. It is lowest in Meghalaya (3.39) followed by Kerala (4.04) and Mizoram (4.32), it is largest in Rajasthan (27.85) followed by Jharkhand (22.24), Chhattisgarh (20.86), Dadra and Nagar Haveli (20.53), Madhya Pradesh (20.51), Jammu and Kashmir (20.25), and Bihar (20.06). Table-1 State-Wise Literacy Rate (2011)3 States/UTs Total Male Female Male-Female gap in Literacy Andhra Pradesh 67.66 75.56 59.74 15.82 Arunachal Pradesh 66.95 73.69 59.57 14.12 Assam 73.18 78.81 67.27 11.54 Bihar 63.82 73.39 53.33 20.06 Chhattisgarh 71.04 81.45 60.59 20.86 Goa 87.40 92.81 81.84 10.97 Gujarat 79.31 87.23 70.73 16.50 Haryana 76.64 85.38 66.77 18.61 Himachal Pradesh 83.78 90.83 76.60 14.23 Jammu and Kashmir 68.74 78.26 58.01 20.25 Jharkhand 67.63 78.45 56.21 22.24 Karnataka 75.60 82.85 68.13 14.72 Kerala 93.91 96.02 91.98 4.04 Madhya Pradesh 70.63 80.53 60.02 20.51 Maharashtra 82.91 89.82 75.48 14.34 Manipur 79.85 86.49 73.17 13.32 Meghalaya 75.48 77.17 73.78 3.39 Mizoram 91.58 93.72 89.40 4.32 Nagaland 80.11 83.29 76.69 6.60 Orissa 73.45 82.40 64.36 18.04 Punjab 76.68 81.48 71.34 10.14 Rajasthan 67.06 80.51 52.66 27.85 Sikkim 82.20 87.29 76.43 10.86 Tamil Nadu 80.33 86.81 73.86 12.95 Tripura 87.75 92.18 83.15 9.03 Uttar Pradesh 69.72 79.24 59.26 19.98 Uttaranchal 79.63 88.33 70.70 17.63 West Bengal 77.08 82.67 71.16 11.51 Andaman and Nicobar Is 86.27 90.11 81.84 8.27 Chandigarh 86.43 90.54 81.38 9.16 Dadra and Nagar Haveli 77.65 86.46 65.93 20.53 Daman and Diu 87.07 91.48 79.59 11.89 Delhi 86.34 91.03 80.93 10.10 Lakshadweep 92.28 96.11 88.25 7.86 Pondicherry 86.55 92.12 81.22 10.90 INDIA 74.04 82.14 65.46 16.68 International Research Journal of Social Sciences____________________________________________________ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(10), 54-61, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci.International Science Congress Association 56 Table-2 State-wise Growth of Recognized Educational Institutions (2009-10)4,5 States/UTs Total No. of Primary Schools Total No. of Upper Primary Schools Total No. of Sec. Schools Total No. of Sr. Sec. Schools Total No. of Colleges# Total No. of Universities# Andhra Pradesh 65932 15381 18163 4364 3985 39 Arunachal Pradesh 1841 871 190 117 16 2 Assam 31202 14133 5562 855 485 7 Bihar 43445 20696 2399 1837 642 17 Chhattisgarh 35344 15147 2104 2544 634 13 Goa 1252 444 376 82 54 1 Gujarat 17779 24366 5791 3508 1824 27 Haryana 13073 3439 3493 3278 850 16 Himachal Pradesh 11301 4921 1413 1674 313 11 Jammu and Kashmir 15446 8877 2216 889 328 9 Jharkhand 19818 9996 1429 225 231 10 Karnataka 26254 32041 12453 3644 2942 34 Kerala 6796 3062 3388 2380 967 11 Madhya Pradesh 97800 39227 6352 5161 2022 19 Maharashtra 49101 27271 19711 967 4303 41 Manipur 2579 792 704 120 76 2 Meghalaya 6618 2259 676 124 64 5 Mizoram 1782 1313 521 95 28 2 Nagaland 1662 465 337 69 55 3 Orissa 52972 22209 7799 1144 1086 14 Punjab 16954 9110 2741 2380 853 11 Rajasthan 49538 38889 12460 6675 2354 36 Sikkim 749 244 126 59 15 5 Tamil Nadu 27037 9966 3030 3518 2246 53 Tripura 2379 1139 454 316 33 2 Uttar Pradesh 132403 51948 7889 8547 3827 44 Uttaranchal 15644 4296 1087 1352 361 15 West Bengal 73100 4296 65 9391 850 20 Andaman and Nicobar Is* 207 67 45 53 6 - Chandigarh 25 18 64 61 25 2 Dadra and Nagar Haveli* 170 127 25 9 1 - Daman and Diu* 50 24 19 9 4 - Delhi 2586 583 474 1350 243 20 Lakshadweep* 23 10 3 12 3 - Pondicherry 300 118 167 108 86 2 INDIA 823162 367745 123726 66917 31812 493 * Figures were not available for the UTs International Research Journal of Social Sciences____________________________________________________ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(10), 54-61, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci.International Science Congress Association 57 State-wise growth of educational institutions is presented in Table 2. It is observed from the table that growth of educational institution is not uniform across the country; it varies from state to state. It is noticeable that only 5 states, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, out of 35 have more than 50 thousand primary schools, out which Uttar Pradesh is on the top having more than one hundred thousand primary schools. Among the remaining 30 states, about 16 states, which include the states such as Kerala, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Pondicherry etc., have less than seven thousand primary schools. All union territories are poor performer in the growth of primary schools. In case of upper primary schools, only Uttar Pradesh has more than 50 thousand schools. All the remaining states have less than forty thousand schools, among them about twenty four states, including the states such as Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Kerala, Mizoram etc., show less than ten thousand schools. The UTs, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Daman and Diu, Chandigarh and Lakshadweep show poor performance in the growth of upper primary schools as they have less than 70 upper primary schools in their region. The growth of secondary schools is similar to the growth of primary and upper primary school. There are only four states, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Karnataka that show the highest growth of secondary schools among all the states and in these states, the number of secondary schools varies from as high as 19711 to as low as 12453. All the remaining states have less than ten thousand schools at secondary level. Out of which about 16 states have less than hundred secondary schools. These states include Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Pondicherry and all the union territories. In case of senior secondary schools, no state shows more than ten thousand schools. The number of senior secondary varies from as high as 9391 to as low as 9. Seventeen out of 35 states have more than one thousand schools while among the remaining states 9 states have less than hundred senior secondary schools, these states includes Mizoram, Goa, Nagaland, Chandigarh, Sikkim, Andaman and Nicobar Island, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. In case of higher educational institutions, the number of colleges in the states varies from 4303 to 1 and number of universities varies from 53 to 1. The states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Orissa have more than one thousand colleges; while, in 26 states out 35 have less than 100 colleges in number. In the union territories, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep and Dadra and Nagar Haveli, it is less than ten in number. In case of universities, the states of Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Gujarat, West Bengal and Delhi are performing better in the growth of universities among all the states and union territories as there are more than twenty universities. Among the remaining states, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Chandigarh, Pondicherry and Arunachal Pradesh have only two universities in number, while Goa has only one university. Table 3 depicts that the performance of the states in getting more and more students to enroll is quite impressive. Majority of the states at all levels: primary, upper primary and sec/sr. secondary have achieved enrolment ratio above the national average. At primary level, most of the states have achieved 100 percent enrolment, among them Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh have enrolled more than 165 percent students at primary schools. Bihar, the poor performer in literacy rate, recorded the enrolment ratio above the national average (115.55) with gross enrolment ratio of 117.83, while Kerala, the best literacy performer, recorded the enrolment ratio below national average with gross enrolment ratio of 93.65. There are only 13 states out of 35 that recorded the enrolment ratio below the national average, the bottom five of them are Chandigarh (62.75), Andaman and Nicobar Island (73.67), Daman and Diu (79.28), Lakshadweep (82.32) and Haryana (90.10). They were also at the bottom (except Haryana) in the growth of primary schools. At upper primary level, majority of the states (22 out of 35) have registered enrolment ratio above the national average (81.52) and 8 of them have more than 100 percent enrolment. In these states Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Kerala and Uttaranchal are on the top with the values ranges from 113.41 to 104.33. The bottom most states at upper primary level that recorded enrolment ratio below 70 percent are Bihar (55.46), Nagaland (59.89), Jharkhand (60.65), Lakshadweep (63.67) and Chandigarh (64.96). In case of sec/sr.sec level, more than half of the states have enrolment ratio above the national average i.e. 49.26. The highest enrolment ratio at sec/sr.sec level observed is 79.11 by Himachal Pradesh (highest gross enrolment ratio at upper primary level too) followed by Lakshadweep (74.87), Kerala (73.89) and Pondicherry (72.99). While the lowest enrolment ratio is observed in the states: Jharkhand (17.64), Nagaland (22.85) and Bihar (25.46). In these states less than 30 percent students are enrolled. Table-4 gives the state-wise figures for pupil-teacher ratio in 2010. It is observed from the table that at primary level, most of the states (26 out of 35) are following the norms of having 40 or below 40 pupil-teacher ratio. Among such states, Sikkim, Andaman and Nicobar, Mizoram, and Karnataka show less than 20 students per teacher. These states also show 100 percent enrolment except Andaman and Nicobar Island. It means there are enough teachers. On the other hand, in four states Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, the ratio of pupil-teacher is more than 50. While in Bihar and Jharkhand (enrolment ratio above national average i.e. 115.47) it is more than 70. That gives rise to the need of recruiting more teachers to bring qualitative improvement in education. The situation at other levels, upper primary, secondary or senior secondary is not much different. Majority of the states at each level (29 at upper primary, 31 at secondary and 28 at senior secondary) have pupil-teacher ratio 40 or below 40. At upper primary level, 10 states out of 29 have pupil-teacher ratio below 20. These states are Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep, Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, Tripura, International Research Journal of Social Sciences____________________________________________________ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(10), 54-61, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci.International Science Congress Association 58 Meghalaya and Pondicherry. They all have 100 percent enrolment ratio except in Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep and Pondicherry where it is quite low. The remaining six states, at upper primary level, with high pupil-teacher ratio are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Chandigarh and Haryana. Among them Uttar Pradesh is the poor performer with pupil-teacher ratio of 78. It is also poor performer in enrolment ratio but is top performer in the growth of upper primary schools. Thus, in Uttar Pradesh there is a lack of teachers and number of upper primary schools that affect the quality of education in the state. At secondary level, all the states are performing well having pupil-teacher ratio below 40 except Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal where this ratio is above 50. In the well performing states Sikkim, Lakshadweep, Mizoram and Jammu and Kashmir have pupil teacher ratio less than 15. These states also have the same performance at senior secondary level except Lakshadweep where the ratio is 33. At senior secondary level, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Daman and Diu and Gujarat are the poor performing states. Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal are the worst among them with pupil-teacher ratio more than 60. Table-3 State-Wise Gross Enrolment Ratio (2009-2010)4 States/UTs Gross Enrolment Ratio of I-V class Gross Enrolment Ratio of VI-VIII class Gross Enrolment Ratio of IX-XII class Andhra Pradesh 98.16 77.65 55.41 Arunachal Pradesh 166.77 101.2 55.21 Assam 92.89 68.8 31.24 Bihar 117.83 55.46 25.46 Chhattisgarh 123.46 84.15 40.44 Goa 92.59 79.24 55.96 Gujarat 120.42 86.51 47.92 Haryana 90.10 78.86 62.56 Himachal Pradesh 107.69 113.41 79.11 Jammu and Kashmir 111.41 93.2 52.98 Jharkhand 157.83 60.65 17.64 Karnataka 104.71 89.34 57.06 Kerala 93.65 104.77 73.89 Madhya Pradesh 149.67 101.87 51.66 Maharashtra 103.66 89.32 64.02 Manipur 186.01 103.25 55.12 Meghalaya 172.01 85.92 30.06 Mizoram 168.15 97.93 55.25 Nagaland 99.27 59.89 22.85 Orissa 118.84 83.74 39.04 Punjab 108.09 91.84 48.94 Rajasthan 117.19 84.38 46.64 Sikkim 155.34 78.64 37.58 Tamil Nadu 114.79 113.22 65.65 Tripura 145.29 93.24 47.39 Uttar Pradesh 110.42 70.25 53.16 Uttaranchal 110.12 104.33 69.7 West Bengal 125.59 83.59 41.23 Andaman and Nicobar Is 73.67 75.41 55.62 Chandigarh 62.75 64.96 50.61 Dadra and Nagar Haveli 107.45 96.16 45.69 Daman and Diu 79.28 73.17 45.67 Delhi 121.1 109.01 69.63 Lakshadweep 82.32 63.67 74.87 Pondicherry 98.83 96.40 72.99 INDIA 115.47 81.52 49.26 International Research Journal of Social Sciences____________________________________________________ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(10), 54-61, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci.International Science Congress Association 59 Table-4 State-Wise Pupil-Teacher Ratio (2009-2010)4 States/UTs Pre-Primary/Primary/ Jr.Basic Schools Upper Primary Schools Secondary Schools Sr. Secondary Schools Andhra Pradesh 32 27 29 34 Arunachal Pradesh 21 23 21 27 Assam 28 21 22 26 Bihar 80 53 59 33 Chhattisgarh 29 23 39 21 Goa 26 29 18 20 Gujarat 30 36 29 41 Haryana 52 41 26 25 Himachal Pradesh 15 13 23 22 Jammu and Kashmir 23 15 14 14 Jharkhand 73 55 60 47 Karnataka 18 29 24 37 Kerala 30 26 27 27 Madhya Pradesh 41 32 32 24 Maharashtra 33 32 34 69 Manipur 33 22 27 23 Meghalaya 45 18 26 21 Mizoram 18 9 13 14 Nagaland 20 15 24 31 Orissa 33 27 22 16 Punjab 35 14 29 37 Rajasthan 44 28 22 29 Sikkim 14 15 8 15 Tamil Nadu 43 49 38 43 Tripura 25 16 25 26 Uttar Pradesh 67 78 57 64 Uttaranchal 24 27 18 15 West Bengal 34 33 51 62 Andaman and Nicobar Is 15 14 16 19 Chandigarh 23 45 38 26 Dadra and Nagar Haveli 40 33 19 29 Daman and Diu 44 27 18 45 Delhi 40 30 33 32 Lakshadweep 25 14 12 33 Pondicherry 21 19 23 27 INDIA 42 34 30 39 International Research Journal of Social Sciences____________________________________________________ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(10), 54-61, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci.International Science Congress Association 60 Table-5 State-Wise Expenditure on Education as percentage of GSDP (2010)6 States/UTs % of Education and Training Budget of Education and Other Department to Total GSDP Andhra Pradesh 2.62 Arunachal Pradesh 6.04 Assam 5.51 Bihar 5.47 Chhattisgarh 4.09 Goa 2.75 Gujarat 1.53 Haryana 2.86 Himachal Pradesh 5.25 Jammu and Kashmir 5.71 Jharkhand 3.97 Karnataka 2.92 Kerala 3.1 Madhya Pradesh 3.41 Maharashtra 2.45 Manipur 5.84 Meghalaya 4.9 Mizoram 8.49 Nagaland* - Orissa 3.84 Punjab 2.07 Rajasthan 3.68 Sikkim 11.02 Tamil Nadu 2.4 Tripura 5.95 Uttar Pradesh 3.79 Uttaranchal 5.98 West Bengal 2.82 Andaman and Nicobar Is 6.78 Chandigarh 1.87 Dadra and Nagar Haveli* - Daman and Diu* - Delhi 1.87 Lakshadweep* - Pondicherry 3.93 IINDIA 3.85 * Figures were not available for the states Table 5 presents state-wise expenditure on education for the year 2010. It is observed from the table that Sikkim is the only state that expands the highest on education among all the states. It expands about 11 percent of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP). The next is Mizoram that expand more than 8 percent of the GSDP followed by Andaman and Nicobar Islands (6.78) and Arunachal Pradesh (6.04). Rest of the states expand less than 6 percent on education out of which, Gujarat (1.53) is on the bottom followed by Chandigarh (1.87) and Delhi (1.87)ImplicationsGovernment has made several efforts for removing illiteracy in the country like: National Policy of Education -1986, that emphasized on eradicating illiteracy in the country particularly in the age group of 15-35, the National Literacy Mission (1988) making efforts to involve all sections of the community in the literacy strive, the Programme of Action (POA)-1992 under the Education Policy 1986 envisaged free and compulsory elementary education of satisfactory quality to all children up to the age of 14 years. Apart from this the “right to education” Act which was incorporated in the Indian Constitution as a fundamental right in 2000 and enacted on 4 August 2009 describes the modalities of the significance of free and compulsory education for 6-14 years age group children. So, not only the government (Central or State), but people themselves should come forward to perform this national duty for bringing literacy drive to the top in a mass movement. Central as well as state government should make efforts to control the quality of education. Though, government can’t alone fulfill the demand of education of the growing population, private enterprise helps in fulfilling this demand of the population but quality of education should be maintained by the government as well as private enterprise along with the quantity. The states where growth of educational institutions is low, more institutions (primary to higher as required) of quality education should be opened there in order to minimize the disparity between the states. High enrolment ratio does not mean better education because this enrolment may be on record but not in actual. In this respect government should enquire the success of such schemes like sarva siksha abhiyan, mid-day meal, residential schools for girls and boys, scheme of ICT at scheme, free ship, free uniform, free books etc which were initiated by the government for retaining the students in the schools and minimizing the dropout rate. As we know high pupil-teacher ratio deteriorates the quality of education, so government should appoint more teachers in to reduce the number of students per teachers. This appointment should not be only for advertisement but for actual appointment and for fulfilling the demand of teachers where it is lacking. International Research Journal of Social Sciences____________________________________________________ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(10), 54-61, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci.International Science Congress Association 61 More money should be expanded on education sector as education affect the all other sectors like economic, social, political etc. But government should keep check on the use of this money means how and where this money is going to be used by the schools. Conclusion India has made significant achievements in the field of education during the past few years. Despite substantial progress in the development of education, the education sector in India faces several challenges. The level of education across the states and UTs is not uniform. There is a significant disparity among the states on the measure of educational considered in the present study. Some states are performing well while others are still educationally backward. The states like Bihar, Arunachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh are not performing well in literacy rate; they also have the same performance on the measure of other educational variables. Though, they are showing good performance in the growth of educational institutions and gross enrolment ratio but they still come under the educationally backward states. The reason of high growth of educational institutions may be quantitative expansion of educational institutions by private enterprises but this quantitative expansion is deteriorating the quality of education in these states. And the reason of high gross enrolment ratio in these states may be the enrolment of underage and overage children and secondly after getting enrolled in the schools may leave the school before completing that level. On analyzing the pupil-teacher ratio it was found that most of the educationally backward states have high pupil-teacher ratio (i.e. more than 40 percent which is considered as standard PTR) which also adversely affect the quality of education. If we talk about the percentage of GDP expand on the education sector in all the states, it also not uniform across the states. The states performing well in literacy rate are receiving low GDP as compare to the poor performing states. This shows that the states receiving high GDP may not expand the money in the right way where it is required and remain poor performing states. References 1.Gupta R.C., Whither Indian Education (An Appraisal of Indian Education from the Vedic to the Present Day,New Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corp., (1988)2.Government of India, Report of the Education Commission 1964-66: Education and National Development, New Delhi: Ministry of Education, (1966)3.Government of India, Census of India 2011, New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, (2011)4.NUEPA, State Report Cards 2009-10, New Delhi: Department of School Education and Literacy, MHRD (2009-10), (2015) 5.UGC, Annual Report on Higher Education, New Delhi: MHRD, (2009-2010 and 2010-11), (2015)6.Government of India, Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education 2007-08 to 2009-10, New Delhi: Planning Monitoring and Statistics Bureau, MHRD, (2011)7.Central Government Schemes for School Education) from http://164.100.47.134/intranet/FinalGovernmentSchemesforSchoolEducation.pdf on 28/09/2015 (2015)