Redefining Access

The debate about school education in India has focused on many things – enrolment, retention, learning outcomes, teacher preparedness, vocational training, etc, but over the last few decades, we seem to have taken one thing for granted.  This is our definition of the term “access”, i.e., the availability of a school to every child.  Since the 1970s, when the 2^nd All India Education Survey took place, this concept has been defined in terms of physical proximity; in other words, the measure of a school’s availability to a child lies in its distance from her home, with the idea being that a school should be provided within the immediate neighbourhood.  Every government policy or law thus prescribes access in such language – a primary school within 1 kilometre of the residence of a child, an upper primary school within 3 kilometres, and a secondary school within 5 kilometres.

In a soon-to-be-published NUEPA/World Bank study on teachers in the Indian education system, Vimala Ramachandran et al[1] analyse DISE data to show that about one-third of all elementary schools have less than 50 children enrolled, while 11 percent of primary and 14 percent of secondary schools have two teachers or less.  At secondary level, only 3.3 percent schools have all the five subject teachers and head teacher prescribed.  Worse, fully a quarter of all government secondary schools operate out of two classrooms or less.

The exponential increase in the number of schools over the last decade as a result of the impact of programmes like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, has led to an increase in the number of schools with less than optimal infrastructure or numbers of children and/or teachers.  What the foregoing numbers indicate is that the rapid expansion of the school system in the last few years has not been fully efficient on the ground.

Additionally, learning outcomes continue to remain a matter of concern despite the substantial increase in infrastructure, teacher appointments and enrolment.  Each succeeding ASER[2] report has highlighted the continued decline in learning levels and the increasing shift to private schools in rural areas, notwithstanding the opening of many more State schools.  Worryingly, the number of children in Class 5 unable to read a Class 2 text has actually increased from 47 percent in 2006 to 52 percent in 2014, even though the number of elementary schools increased from 1 million to 1.45 million during the same period!

This single minded expansion of school infrastructure has also contributed directly to the non-availability of enough trained and qualified teachers for all the schools and classes being opened under various programmes.  At the elementary school level alone, there are 500,000 teacher vacancies, with another 500,000 being needed to meet the norms stipulated by the Right to Education Act; existing teacher training colleges are simply unable to produce the required number of graduates.  Subject teachers are increasingly hard to find.  When combined with the well-known issues of teacher absenteeism, sub-contracting, etc, this effectively means that enough skilled teachers are simply not available to children in the classroom.

For the teachers themselves, this unprecedented expansion of the school system has not been without grief.  Apart from the personal difficulties of being posted to remote and inaccessible areas, those posted to single or two-teacher schools find themselves deprived of any opportunity for peer learning and thus, professional and personal growth.  And taking leave, attending training programmes away from school, or being deputed for several miscellaneous government duties, nearly always means leaving students without a teacher, further impacting already poor learning outcomes in the classroom.

All things considered, it appears that in practice the concept of access has been reduced to the ability to access a building instead a fully functional school.  This implies the need to re-examine our fundamental definition of access, and define it instead as the ability to attend a school with appropriate infrastructure and adequate numbers of qualified teachers, and to be enabled to achieve predefined learning outcomes, even if such a school is not within the existing norms for distance. Such a definition would compel us to look beyond availability of mere infrastructure, and focus on all the additional conditions that are essential to improve learning outcomes, thus changing the focus of the debate from mere physical proximity to school provisioning, empowerment of staff and administrators, and learning achievements.

Such a discussion is neither new nor unknown; in a policy brief published in 2009, the DFID-supported Consortium for Research on Education, Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE) had defined “meaningful access” as “…access (that) requires high attendance rates, progression through grades with little or no repetition, and learning outcomes that confirm that basic skills are being mastered”^[3].  Writing in 2012, Rashmi Diwan of NUEPA pointed out how “…poor connectivity, lack of interaction with peer group of teachers and lack of need-based training to teachers coupled with inadequate and poor quality of school facilities”[4] made teaching in such schools far more complex.

If a new parameter of access is accepted, it would be possible to consolidate scattered existing schools into whole and viable institutions that are fully staffed and infrastructurally complete, yielding economies of scale as well as gains in efficiency.  In cases where the school is located beyond distances as currently understood, transport facilities or transport vouchers could be provided to eliminate associated costs.  Clearly this is not an option that would be appropriate for very young children – it may still be relevant to retain the 1 km norm for primary school.  However for children enrolled in classes 6 onwards, when the need for specialised subject teachers kicks in, it could potentially change the nature of schooling, while significantly impacting learning outcomes.

At the same time, while government accounts for just over three-fourths of all elementary schools, at secondary and higher secondary level, schools under private management are 37 percent and 40 percent respectively.  In other words, there are far more secondary schools available outside the government system, accounting for nearly 40 percent of all students enrolled.  It may also be possible to explore the use of these schools to admit children who would otherwise have accessed ill-equipped government schools, through the use of government-issued vouchers that cover the cost of tuition, books, uniforms, etc.  Some pilots involving such vouchers have been tried in India, notably by the Centre for Civil Society (www.ccsindia.org), with some success.

The ongoing review of the National Education Policy by the Ministry of HRD offers an opportunity to reconsider some of these issues. In a country that aspires to take its place on the world stage, education remains one of the most important sectors and needs immediate attention; we cannot continue to plan on the basis of concepts and philosophies that were relevant four decades ago.

---

[1] Vimala Ramachandran, Prerna Goel Chatterjee, Nikhil Mathur, NUEPA; Aparna Ravi, CLPR; Toby Linden, Tara Beteille, Sangeeta Dey, Sangeeta Goel, Chiraag Mehta, The World Bank.

[2] Annual Status of Education Report, brought out by the NGO, Pratham. www.asercentre.org

[3] http://tinyurl.com/oorz25a, accessed 28.04.2015

[4] Diwan, Rashmi (2012), Indian Small Schools -  A Review of Issues and Related Concerns, NUEPA Occasional Paper 40, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi.

Education Challenges for AAP

As the new AAP government looks forward to taking power in Delhi again, this may be a good time to consider some of the challenges the new Chief Minister is likely to face when he turns to the subject of school education.  More than anything else, I pray that he and his team, with the benefit of the overwhelming mandate of the people behind them and a full five year term to serve, will take the time to understand the situation before jumping to conclusions or hasty decisions.

It is heartening to note that unlike most other parties, the AAP manifesto for the Delhi elections made specific mention of education, although I find it hard to understand how much of what was included will actually be implemented.  What is particularly worrisome is the implicit belligerence on display towards private schools - proposals to "monitor private schools fees" for instance, indicate an especially narrow understanding of the issues involved.

One of the first documents I would recommend Mr Kejriwal reads is the magnificent report prepared by the committee set up to review the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, chaired by the redoubtable Ms Shailaja Chandra, former Chief Secretary of Delhi.  The committee, over a period of eight months in 2011, reviewed the existing situation and related documents, and met with a cross-section of stakeholders in the sector before making some very far reaching recommendations.  These include, among other things, a proposal to remove the dreaded "Essentiality Certificate" that every school management must obtain before it can even think of starting a school, allowing private companies to start schools, and considering the recognition of unrecognised budget schools that perform well.

There are nearly 5000 schools in Delhi, of varying shapes, sizes, and types.  The situation is complicated further by the fact that several agencies are responsible for overseeing their functioning - there are MCD schools, NDMC schools, Cantonment Board schools, and State government schools.  (With the trifurcation of MCD, the erstwhile MCD schools have now been divided between the three new bodies.)  Then there are the Kendriya Vidyalayas, the Pratibha Pathshalas, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, and others.  All these are government run; private schools are divided into minority and non-minority categories, and further into aided and unaided schools.  Some schools are run by NGOs and charities, such as the Deepalaya school that has recently been threatened with closure because it cannot meet the yardsticks specified by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.  And last, but not least, are the unrecognised budget schools that often run from one or two rooms in someone's house, and certainly meet none of the prescribed norms.

In terms of enrolment, roughly 50-55 percent children in Delhi attend some form of government school, while 40 percent go to private school.  According to an MCD estimate (referred to in the committee report mentioned above), unrecognised schools accounted for about 1.64 lakh children; if correct, this comes to about 4 percent of total enrolments.

Every admission season reinforces that fact that there are not enough good schools available, although it is difficult to believe, as the media and some activists would like you to, that all schools under private management are exploitative, expensive and non-transparent.  The truth is that many of them struggle to comply with very harsh regulations, including having to pay teachers salaries that match the exorbitant ones paid to government school teachers, and still provide a decent education.  And because government schools tend to be a second choice for many parents, the supply of places in private schools is unable to meet the demand.

Unlike other States, government schools in Delhi do relatively well on the education quality front; initiatives taken by the SCERT some years ago have borne fruit, and the general rate of scholastic achievement has been encouraging. However, they too are unable to admit all the children who apply, and often function with overcrowded classrooms and not enough teaching staff.  Infrastructure continues to remain a serious problem; new schools need to be built, while existing ones need immediate investment in facilities like blackboards, furniture, electricity, toilets, water facilities, and the like.

Land of course, remains a scarce resource in Delhi, both for government and private schools, and that makes it harder to plan for new schools, however much they might be needed.  AAP's plan to build 500 new schools is likely to run into this obstacle very soon, which will make it important to come up with some out-of-the-box solutions.  For private schools, the cost of land is so prohibitive that most are unable to consider expansion, so perhaps the new government can consider double shift schools, shorter school hours, etc. for some of the existing schools.

While the requirements of government schools need to be addressed, it is also important to accept that private schools are here to stay, and view them as partners in the process of educating our young.  In addition to increasing and improving infrastructure, and teacher availability, ability and accountability on the government side, there is an equally pressing need to encourage the opening of more private schools to meet demand.  In the new climate of supporting reduction of bureaucracy, it is possible to consider, for example, simplification of the approvals process for schools?  By some estimates, a private school operator needs 27 different clearances from various departments of government before it is possible to begin operation in Delhi - surely there must be some way to reduce those to a more manageable number?

We need innovative and creative ways of looking at the whole school education situation in Delhi.  Business as usual will not do, nor will an antagonistic approach.  The people of Delhi have spoken very clearly - they want change, and they want it across the board, in health, education, security, and employment.  I look forward to seeing that change in the way the new government plans to educate our children.

The History of the Right to Education Act

Speaking to a group of young professionals and interns at the Planning Commission a couple of months ago, at the invitation of my old friend and colleague, Pawan Agarwal, I realised that many of us are unaware of the background to the Right to Education Act.  Why indeed, did Parliament find it necessary to consider making education a Fundamental Right, much before it considered a Right to Food or a Right to Livelihood?  Here’s the full story.

From the earliest times, education in India had always been exclusive; only the Brahmins and some very rich families had opportunities for their children to be educated.  The rest managed by acquiring the skills they needed to earn their livelihood.  It was only towards the end of the nineteenth century, as the Freedom Movement began to pick up momentum, that a demand for mass education began to be articulated.  Among other things, leaders of the time realised that education was a tool that could be used to mobilise the masses, thereby increasing the pressure on the British to consider leaving.  For instance, one of the earliest political steps initiated in Gujarat in the 1920s by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel involved taking over the management of local municipal schools.

The first formal demand for compulsory primary education was raised in 1910 by Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who introduced a Bill for the purpose in the Legislative Council, based on Britain’s own Compulsory Education Act of 1870.  Not surprisingly, it saw no progress.  Mahatma Gandhi called for universal primary education in the 1930s; an apocryphal tale says that he was told by the wise men that primary education could only be universalised by imposing a cess on liquor sales, thus forcing him to choose between two deeply held beliefs.  Gandhi, being the man he was, is reported to have retorted that if the only way to educate India’s children was through a cess on liquor revenues, it was better for them to stay uneducated!  His articulation of Nai Talim in 1937 was thus at least partially in response to those who believed that education was not for the masses.

The debates in the Constituent Assembly link the question of education intimately to the very foundation of our democracy.  When the issue of suffrage was debated, one school of thought held that only educated citizens should be allowed to vote.  Nehru, Ambedkar and others differed, holding that it would be unacceptable to fritter away freedom hard won from the British by creating yet another society that differentiated between its citizens.  They believed, and said so forcefully, that every citizen of the fledgling democracy then being fashioned should be treated as an equal, such equality being translated into universal adult suffrage, or the right of every citizen to participate in our democracy.

What a powerful vision of the future our founding fathers had, and what a leap of faith they took!  To be so forward thinking in the late 1940s as to imagine a country in which everyone, high or low, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, could participate in was unbelievably hopeful.  Remember that these were people who had themselves grown up in a country ruled by foreigners, and in a world order that took things like caste and social stratification for granted.  The reach and scope of their forethought is almost dizzying in its audacity.

And yet, though they wished to make education the bedrock of our democracy, sadly they were unable to overcome the constraints of resources.  Despite its best efforts, the sub-committee set up by the Constituent Assembly reluctantly concluded that it would not be possible for the newly independent India to fund universal primary education as a Fundamental Right; as a compromise, the Assembly agreed to include reference to free and compulsory education as a Directive Principle of State Policy in Article 45[1] of the new Constitution.  And in a nod to the importance of this provision, the Article was the only one that came with a time frame of ten years for its implementation.

Unfortunately the time frame of ten years was never respected, and even though an attempt was made to articulate a vision for education through the National Policy on Education in 1968, it remained largely forgotten till the early eighties.  The declaration of a new National Policy on Education in 1986 marked a revival of interest in the subject, and was accompanied by international commitments made in the nineties (Education for All, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc), as well as greater civil society and governmental action.

The judiciary also played an important role in steering the country towards a universal right to education.  In the case of Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka & Ors in 1992, the Supreme Court held that the right to education is concomitant to the right to life, that every citizen had a right to education, and significantly, that the very act of recognition by government of a privately managed institution created an instrument of State that could be used to deliver the obligations of the State.  Reviewing this decision in 1993, the Supreme Court, in the case of J P Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, held that the right to education is implicit in and flows from the right to life guaranteed under Art 21, and that every child has a right to free education until she completes the age of 14 years; thereafter her right is circumscribed by the economic capacity of the State.

Both these judgments were significant in bringing about the right to education.  It was as a result of the latter judgment that the Constitution was amended through the Constitution (86^th Amendment) Act of 2002, which introduced a new Article 21A providing that “the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine”.

The Amendment Act also modified the original Article 45, to now provide that “the State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years".  And finally, it modified Article 51, to stipulate that it would be a Fundamental Duty of every parent/guardian to provide opportunities for the education of their children/wards.

Unlike other Fundamental Rights in the Constitution however, this one was worded in a manner that made the enactment of a specific legislation essential for its operationalisation (the critical words being “in such manner as the State may, by law, determine”).  Thus it was that several versions of the Central law were drafted and discussed between 2003 and 2009, before the law was finally passed as The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

So there you have it – the story of the Fundamental Right to Education guaranteed by our Constitution.  A right that is deeply linked to our identity as citizens, and to the quality of our participation in the democracy that is India.

---

[1] “The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.”