Connecting families with schools: the bureaucratised relations of ‘accountability’ in Indian elementary schooling

Figures & data

Table 1. Information about schools and respondents.

	Government	Private (LFPS)	NGO	Total
Number of schools
Rural	21	14	6	41
Urban	22	23	0	45
Total	43	37	6	86
Number of families
Rural	112	50	35	197
Urban	101	105	0	206
Total	213	155	35	403
Number of community leaders
Rural	38	0	7	45
Urban	25	0	0	25
Total	63	0	7	70

Note: Private schools include madrassas (Udaipur) and ‘aided’ as well as ‘unrecognised’ schools (Patna). See the text regarding the absence of community leader surveys for low fee private schools (LFPSs).

Table 2. Backgrounds of surveyed families.

Social group		Occupation
	Percentage		Percentage
Scheduled Tribe	32	Mainly farming	21
Scheduled Caste (Hindu)	16	Mainly wage labour	19
Other Backward Classes (Hindu)	21	Farming and wage labour	13
non-Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste /Other Backward Classes (Hindu)	14	Small business	18
Muslim	15	Salaried employment	18
Other	2	Other	11

Note: The information comes from surveys of 403 families chosen through modified clustered stratified random sampling, as described in the text.

Figure 1. Purpose of school visit by family.

Note: The pie chart summarises survey data from 402 families averaged across Udaipur and Patna. The bar chart is for the 350 families who report that they visit their child’s school (averaged across Udaipur and Patna); the sum of bar percentages exceeds 100 as the survey question allowed multiple responses.³

Figure 2. Topics of discussion between school and family.

Note: The bar chart represents the 193 families who reported that they discuss matters connected with their child (averaged across Udaipur and Patna); the sum of bar percentages exceeds 100 as the survey question allowed multiple responses. Missing bars indicate 0 respondents for that option (for instance, child’s mobile phone usage in government schools or NFEs).

Figure 3. Community support for government schools and NFEs.

Note: The pie chart summarises survey data from 70 community leaders in the location of the schools studied (averaged across Udaipur and Patna); DNK stands for ‘do not know’. The data presented are for government schools and NFEs alone; in all cases, LFPSs received no support. The bar chart represents the subset of respondents who said that the community provides ‘some support’ (averaged across Udaipur and Patna); the sum of bar percentages exceeds 100 as the survey question allowed multiple responses.