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.

No Sh*t!!

The Prime Minister has launched, with much fanfare, a programme to clean India over the next five years, just in time for the Mahatma's 150th birth anniversary.  A thoroughly laudable objective, but one that sadly runs the real risk of being reduced to tokenism and forgotten once the cameras have been put away. Already there are snickers in the media and cynical comments about the mess left behind after the inaugural ceremonies, proof if any were needed, that it will be difficult to change public perception in a hurry.

Along with the plans for building toilets in schools and villages, there has also been discussion about IEC programmes - information, education and communication - to create mass awareness about the importance of cleanliness and good sanitation.  And with good cause - nearly 53% Indians still defecate in the open, with 47% finding it "pleasurable and more convenient", and the less said about our cleanliness habits the better.  In many ways, the situation is reminiscent of 1950s America, where more homes then had television sets than bathrooms.  And yet, in the space of a few generations, that picture has changed completely.

In all the public debate resulting from the PM's initiative, it seems to me that an important component of IEC has been missed; or at least, has not found significant mention.  This is of course, the need for a comprehensive Water & Sanitation programme to be run in our schools.  If we are truly serious about ensuring a clean nation, we need to begin young.  And what better place to begin than in our schools?  The present generation may or may not be educatable, but a well designed programme implemented in school over the next five years could change the future of this country.

Many years ago, I used to run a joint Government of India and UN project called Janshala.  In Karnataka, where the project ran in a few blocks, we implemented a Water & Sanitation programme with the help of UNICEF that involved teaching children how to use the school toilets.  This included usage, cleaning and personal hygiene, and helping the children to understand how disease could spread due to poor sanitation habits.  The programme was a great success in improving attendance and retention rates in the schools, particularly of girls who are the most vulnerable to dropping out in the absence of toilets.

More interesting however, was the unintended fall out of the programme.  A longitudinal study taken up at the time showed that as the children got accustomed to using toilets in school, they began to demand them at home.  Over time, this led to the construction of toilets in village homes, and to families of these children also acquiring good sanitation habits.  The school programme ended up having a multiplier effect, impacting not just the children's cleanliness habits, but also their families.  It is precisely this kind of programme that we should be planning for the schools now.

Instead of prescribing Mr Dina Nath Batra's flights of fancy to young minds, wouldn't it be great if State governments worked out and included a WatSan module in the school curriculum?  Combined with the mass construction of toilets in schools by governments and companies undertaking CSR works, this could be the one thing that changes the India we know.

The Value of Early Childhood Education

The other day, I attended a talk in Delhi by the Nobel Laureate James J Heckman, Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago (he of the Heckman Equation).  Organised jointly by the University of Chicago and the Centre for Civil Society, Heckman's discussion focused on the value of investing in early childhood education, a proposition long recognised but sorely neglected not just in our country, but in many parts of the world.

 

It is almost universally accepted in theory that the early years of a child determine her progress and well-being in later life.  Good, wholesome nutrition, appropriate medication and supplements, and preparatory education are all equally important for development of the child.  Equally significant, a lack of appropriate stimulation in early childhood can have a lasting impact on the individual's mental and physical development.

 

Heckman’s work has shown that investing in early childhood education can lead to a 7-10 percent rate of return for society per annum, in terms of greater productivity, reduced health costs, lower crime rates, etc.  However, in his view, merely establishing preschool education centres is not always the most appropriate solution; he believes that a substantial part of early stimulation should originate through a closer bond with the parents, who need to be helped to play their role more effectively.

 

In India, it has frequently been observed that children who have had some form of preparatory education before the age of six years are more likely to continue on to elementary and secondary education, and less likely to drop out before completion.  The importance and impact of early education has been acknowledged by thinkers and policy makers, and finds mention in the major policy discourse; here too, the link between the pre-school and the family has been discussed and emphasised.  Acharya Vinoba Bhave described it best, stating that for effective learning, “home should enter the school and school should change into home”.

 

The 12th Five Year Plan also articulates the importance of preschool education, saying that “...research from around the world highlights the importance of early childhood education, and suggests that high-quality early childhood education may have the highest long-term returns in terms of improved human development.  The Twelfth Plan will therefore place a high priority on universalising pre-school education and improving school preparedness – especially for historically and economically disadvantaged children”.

 

The primary government vehicle for early childhood education remains the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) programme, launched in 1975 to address the problems of malnutrition and disease among young children, and to ensure their holistic development through preschool education.  However as a departmental committee examining this issue in 2004 noted, the number of children enrolled in preschool centres through ICDS and allied programmes was not more than 20 percent of the total eligible children in this age group; the rest were either enrolled in private preschools, or not enrolled at all.  This position has not changed substantially in the ten years since.

 

One of the problems is that ICDS tends to focus more on the nutritional aspects of the programme, to the detriment of the education component.  The government’s Allocation of Business Rules place education policy in the Ministry of HRD, and early childhood education in the Ministry of Women and Child Development; as a result, the latter often tends to fall between two stools, with neither department paying much attention to it.

 

The original Directive Principle under Article 45 of the Constitution enjoined the State to “endeavour to provide free and compulsory education to all children below the age of fourteen years”, thus accepting the importance of early stimulation before the beginning of formal education in Grade 1.  However when the Constitution was amended in 2002 to make elementary education a Fundamental Right, it was restricted to the age group of 6-14 years only.  This was largely due to financial reasons, but also perhaps because the sponsoring Ministry (HRD) was not directly concerned with the subject!

 

Although ICDS has now been “universalised”, its focus remains on the non-educational aspects of the programme.  As with other government schemes, it is plagued by allegations of mismanagement, leakages, and downright corruption.  And the preschool component remains weak.  Superficial universalisation, of the “mile-wide and inch-deep” kind so beloved of our politicians, carries with it more risk of damage than not doing anything at all.

 

Today, preschool education is largely in the hands of private managements; in itself, this may not be a bad thing, but it does limit the availability of preschool services to only those who can afford to pay for them.  No permissions are needed to start a preschool; as long as you have the necessary space, even if it is within your own home, you can start a preschool for children below six years.  Naturally this has implications, including those of safety, security and the quality of care and education delivered to the child.

 

Given the research of Heckman, Robert Lynch, and others, it is clear that the social, economic and financial benefits of government investing in early childhood education are extraordinary.  One can only hope that the next government will give this area the attention it so desperately needs.