FIVE years ago, the report of the working group on elementary education for the 11th Plan carried a brief section on public-private partnership in SSA (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan). The document noted the increasing and important role of NGOs – voluntary organizations and foundations – in the education sector. Further, it acknowledged that the ‘voluntary and the overall private sector can bring with it dedicated people, expertise and skills that are much needed in order to improve the status of education, particularly the quality of education in India.’ The document clearly recognized the growing importance and need for non-state actors in strengthening government delivery systems, outlined several areas of work where the non-governmental sector can make a significant contribution and pointed to areas where government systems are weak.

The report went on to frankly and boldly identify the nature of the problems that constrain partnerships:

‘There are several procedural hurdles in the way of creating partnerships which vary with context. Some of these are due to the very nature of the voluntary organizations and others are due to the way governments function. Very often, lack of a common understanding, lack of continuity, delays in decisionmaking, delays in payments, mutual distrust or disrespect, refusal to find a common ground and different work styles are hurdles that come in the way.

‘Creating transparent systems that ensure quick decisionmaking, timely reporting and payments, and achieving goals is one way of removing the hurdles. The voluntary sector has limited manpower which has to be engaged in work that is supported by different donors under projects. If this manpower is to be useful to SSA, it cannot be kept waiting for decisions or payments when it is at work.’

In the years since the 11th Plan working group report was prepared, it would be fair to say that there has been little systematic nationwide progress in removing the hurdles that constrain collaboration between non-state actors and governments in elementary education. During this period, by and large, civil society-government partnerships in elementary education have remained asymmetric and hierarchical, ad hoc, non-transparent, relatively short-term and non-durable. Delays like signing MOUs or late payments remain common. Funded relationships are usually more sub-contractual arrangements for implementation of specific services rather than partnerships. Non-funded partnerships are often viewed with suspicion and seen as an intrusion. Often with shifts in priorities and, more importantly, changes in personnel, partnerships fall apart.

 

It is not as if all partnerships are a failure. For example, the creation of the National Curriculum Framework 2005 is a good case in point. During the process of preparing this document, active participation was publicly sought. A wide range of individuals and groups, civil society organizations, university professors, experts and others collaborated with the government to create the comprehensive framework. However, in translating the NCF into practice and taking it to the ground, active participation and large-scale partnerships were missing. There was no clear road map, strategy and mechanism to take the matter forward, even among those who participated in its creation.

In March 2011, the Ministry of Human Resource Development released an important policy document, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan: Framework for Implementation, based on the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009. The existing Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan planning guidelines were revised to take into account the implications of the Right to Education Act. This document makes a compelling argument about the participation and role of community and civil society. At the same time, it acknowledges problems in partnership, just like the 11th Plan working group report. It states:

Extract from 5.1.2: ‘Community participation would be a central and overarching factor in planning, implementation and monitoring interventions for universal elementary education.’

Extract from 5.2.1: ‘The importance of the role of civil society organizations with relevant and demonstrated experience at different levels and different locations, in translating RTE from a legal framework to a vibrant movement on the ground cannot be overstated. This becomes even more critical in the face of the scale of the task and the myriad challenges that are envisaged in ensuring the proper implementation of the act.’

Extract from 5.2.2: ‘The relationship between civil society and the state is complex and partnerships have not always been a smooth sailing. Over the years, the space for NGO/civil society interaction has tended to get limited to taking on implementation of particular projects. Partnerships have tended to be short-term and ad hoc rather than holistic and ongoing engagement.’

Extract from 5.2.3: ‘For SSA to be effectively implemented, the space for genuine long-term partnerships based on mutual respect must be evolved. Critical to ensuring this would be to legitimize and institutionalize the different roles of NGOs, within the institutional and other mechanisms that will be put in place. In other words, the engagement of civil society needs to be systemic and not project driven. Partnerships should be comprehensive, with scope for NGOs to take overall responsibility for ensuring implementation of the act.’

To translate such far-reaching and deep policy statements into meaningful practice, a massive paradigm shift is needed in the design, implementation structure and mechanisms of how governments work with a wide range of non-state actors. Incremental or marginal changes or ‘business as usual’ will be inadequate for the task that has been envisaged in the RTE Act in the next few years. Reading the past policy documents, it is clear that it is not ‘what needs to be done’ that is getting in the way. Rather, the major constraint continues to be the lack of a clear road map of ‘how it is to be done and who should do it.’

 

The preparations for the 12th Plan period, the new and emerging context of RTE and the revamping of the framework for implementation of SSA, the challenges of providing universal secondary education – all provide a timely opportunity to reflect on the current situation. Even without bringing in the issue of participation of and partnerships with non-state actors, it is clear that there are difficulties and rigidities within the government’s own mode of functioning. The ‘government’ is not a monolith. It operates in a federal structure with its associated ‘push’ and ‘pull’ between state and central governments. Within the state government structures there are differences in decentralization of and transparency in decisionmaking across states. In most states, elementary education is designed and implemented in a hierarchical top-down manner. The annual planning process, except in rare cases, is not a bottom-up approach. Units below the state or district levels are not autonomous; nor are they accustomed to taking decisions or designing their own local context specific interventions.

 

It is worth remembering that the history of partnerships within the government is fairly shallow. Often, while there is rhetoric around ‘convergence’, governments find it difficult to partner across departments or across locations. For instance, unlike state-Centre linkages, joint lateral collaborations between state or district governments are rare. Similarly, barring alliances and networks for advocacy, there are few examples of NGOs partnering for implementation. Given limited experience and expertise of collaboration and partnership ‘within the family’, on either side, mindsets and mechanisms will have to be built both within the government and civil society groups to collaborate with groups ‘outside the family.’

Inputs or access/enrolment are domains where targets are easy to measure and allocations relatively simple to utilize. But when discussing effective processes or outcomes, there is a lack of clear understanding in the education system of what these key concepts mean. For example, take a basic requirement of RTE – ‘elementary education of equitable quality.’ What does this mean in practice? A common understanding will have to be built within the government machinery and outside before effective steps can be taken to design action.

Other than periodic joint review missions coordinated at the national level, there is no tradition of rigorous evaluation and review for improving implementation at different levels. Evidence is rarely used to inform policy.

For meeting the massive challenges thrown up by the RTE, we will need a fundamental shift in approach and operating processes within the government; the integration of community and civil society into these changed processes is only one dimension of urgently needed essential changes.

 

There are fundamental structural issues that need to be addressed in order to create a new platform. These issues cut across all components of the SSA:

* Three to five-year set of goals/targets need to be clearly articulated for inputs, processes and outcomes across all components. It is into this larger vision that all efforts – planning, provisioning, practice, participation and partnership can be aligned. We need to move away from a year on year focus to a longer cycle of planning and implementation.

* Gaps need to be clearly identified in different domains in terms of capacities and resources of the government. Within the government machinery, strengths and weaknesses need to be clearly outlined at each level. Transparent and accountable mechanisms for how these gaps can be met need to be clearly spelt out.

* Independent evaluations of proposed processes and outcomes must be conducted. This is essential for understanding progress towards goals.

* Vision, plans, provisions and gaps have to be widely shared to enable this process to evolve and become stronger.

* Appropriate participation and partnerships can be designed once the road map is clear.

Let us now look at some building blocks that will enable effective participation of non-government actors. We need to ensure wide dissemination of plans and priorities, goals, allocations and expenditures, gaps and needs, so that citizens are made aware of annual work plans and thus able to send in suggestions and inputs for mid-course corrections for formulation of future plans. Such information should also include the non-state actors currently in partnership with the elementary education department and SSA.

Rather than limiting the definition of non-state or non-government actors to only civil society organizations/NGOs, it should be widened to include research organizations, universities, individuals, organizations and institutions with demonstrated technical expertise and experience. Appropriate criteria need to be worked out at different levels for selection of the right set of non-government actors depending on the domain and nature of partnership required.

The current SSA implementation framework document (as well as the 11th Plan working group report) identifies a variety of possible domains for partnership and also indicates the need for exploring other newer areas that are emerging.¹

 

There are several broad streams for partnership between government and non-state actors. (i) Idea and design stage: This may include conceptual inputs, experiences from other sectors/locations. (ii) Implementation stage: This may include technical expertise as well as help with mass mobilization and ground level partnering in implementation in many aspects of SSA functioning. (iii) Innovation stage: This may include seeding of new ideas and interventions. (iv) Impact evaluation and review stage: This may include participation in monitoring and review as well as independent evaluations of the functioning of programmes and interventions.

 

Developing durable and transparent mechanisms for partnership with non-state actors in a sustained fashion² involves building in allocations and provisions to fund joint work across work plans in elementary education. Such participation and partnership should be enabled at many different levels from the school level upwards. For example, imagine that there is an individual in a village who is known to be a good maths teacher. He wants to use his expertise to benefit children in the village school. What mechanisms are needed at the school level for the school to effectively utilize this local talent and resource? Flexible but rigorous and transparent selection norms, operating processes and financial provisions have to be made publicly known and need to be drawn up for every level of the school system.

Equally, it is possible to stipulate that five per cent of each district’s allocation be spent in partnership with non-state actor(s) on a critical need/gap facing the district. Review of such expenditures and understanding of the impact of such efforts can pave the way for a concrete strategy for building and sustaining productive partnerships.

Designing and implementing an arms-length independent evaluation of the functioning of the education system requires indicators on inputs, processes and outcomes (this is especially important in light of the likelihood of increased expenditures due to RTE). Such evaluations could also study partnerships. Well-done review and evaluations provide evidence that can guide the way forward effectively.

 

New vehicles are needed for driving participation and partnership in SSA in the 12th Plan period. Some suggestions for possible new vehicles are – An independent fund: This vehicle from conception to execution would have a built-in partnership structure. A separate fund should be created which is at ‘arms length’ from both the Ministry of Human Resource Development as well as the Planning Commission. This fund should also invite resources from industry, philanthropy and other sources with government putting in matching funds. This could start with a Rs 400 or 500 crore fund to be managed by a board that includes both government and non-government people. Resource agencies, NGOs, voluntary organizations, research groups, individuals and even government departments could apply to be empanelled as ‘partners’, offering specific capacities and experiences. The selection of agencies and groups would be subject to strict methods and would be transparent.

Three different options could be available for those who apply for use of these funds in elementary education: (a) joint proposals from government and non-governmental actors to jointly execute a programme, (b) governments alone and (c) non-government actors alone. Panels of experienced people with expertise both from government and outside would review proposals. An independent evaluation will be done of every project that is approved regardless of who is the implementing agency. It is the evaluation mechanism that provides the rigour to figure out ‘what works’.³

The formation of a technical resource working groups with a consortium of NGOs: Currently, institutions such as EdCil or NCERT recruit individual consultants or faculty to provide technical assistance to states and districts. Similarly, each NGO tries to strike out on its own and forge independent relationships with governments. To create a new vehicle, we need working groups or a consortium of NGOs and other organizations with technical expertise in a specific field. Groups working together towards common goals rather than individual organizational links and efforts are more likely to succeed.

Innovation funds: Under SSA implementation guidelines, approximately Rs 50 lakh is put aside for each district for ‘innovation’. To create a new vehicle for change, a new guideline needs be prepared which makes it mandatory to use these funds only in partnership with an external group. Mechanisms at the district level will have to be created to enable such initiatives to move forward. This effort will not only seed new ideas but also build up the practice of partnership across all districts. Here too, there must be a strong role for independent evaluation to ensure that the funds are being effectively spent.

 

New contexts and new challenges require new thinking and action. As the working group for the 12th Plan finalizes its approach, it is essential that we put the hurdles and problems of the past behind us and think of new vehicles that will fuel, drive and energize the system. Participation and partnership of committed and experienced people and organizations across the country will be an essential element in the coming years for ensuring equitable quality education for all.

 

* This piece has benefited greatly from discussions with a wide range of individuals and organizations working in elementary education in India today. It was originally written as a background paper for the 12th Plan approach paper.

Footnotes:

1. In order to get feedback and inputs from a wide set of NGOs and voluntary organizations, emails were sent out and a query was posted on Solutions Exchange. A majority of the responses received focus on domains where NGO/civil society expertise is strong.

2. The new SSA framework for implementation mentions that there are examples of effective collaboration. Analysis of such existing effective models would be useful from the point of view of the government and non-government actors to understand the underlying elements that made these collaborations successful.

3. RMSA is in the process of creating the architecture of such a fund. SSA would do well to learn from that initiative.