The problem
ELEMENTARY education in India has over the years witnessed a steady growth in enrolment of children from all sections of the society. Significantly, a large part of the increase in enrolment has been from the historically marginalized and excluded sections of the society such as girls, the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). As data from the recent report by the National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA) on Elementary Education in Rural India for the year 2010-11 indicates, percentages of boys’ and girls’ enrolment at the elementary level in rural areas are 51.36 and 48.64 respectively. Similarly, percentages of SC and ST enrolment to total enrolment are 20.19 and 12.48 respectively. For the Other Backward Castes (OBCs) and Muslims, these percentages are 41.91 and 11.85 respectively.1 These data suggest that the proportion of enrolment of children from various social categories more or less corresponds with their proportion in the total population of the country.
Studies of government primary schools in rural areas reveal that the households of these children also vary widely in terms of their socio-economic characteristics. According to a recent study by ASER of a sample of about 30,000 children in Stds. II and IV in five states, almost 40 per cent of children came from homes where the father had never been to school, and two thirds had mothers who had never been to school.2 In terms of the availability of print materials in the household, about 40 per cent of sampled children came from homes where none of the items like calendars, religious texts, newspapers, magazines, or books were available, and another 40 per cent from homes which were observed to have a single print item – almost invariably a calendar. About 20 per cent of children came from households which had no literacy/numeracy material for children other than their textbooks. Significant variations within states as well as across states were also observed by the study in the economic status of households in terms of the physical structure of the house, water and electricity connections, and ownership of assets like television, telephone, fan, refrigerator, scooter and car.
Another recent study of a sample of 8,903 children in Stds. I to V in government primary and primary with upper primary schools in two districts of Bihar, indicates more or less similar trends in the socio-economic characteristics of children’s households.3 The study reveals that 41.62 per cent of the children were from households where the father had never been enrolled in a school, and more than two third had mothers who had never been to a school. In terms of landownership, one of the most important economic assets in rural areas, 60.07 per cent of the children came from landless households, and in terms of occupational background of parents, more than half of the children came from households where the father was a casual wage labourer. This study also shows a clear trend in variations in socio-economic characteristics according to the social category of the children. For instance, 61.96 per cent of SC children and around 52 per cent of ST and Muslim children belonged to households where the father had never been to a school, whereas only 10.17 per cent of the upper caste children were from such households. On the other hand, 65.26 per cent of the upper caste children were from homes where the father had completed Std. X or above, and 15.76 per cent of the upper caste children had fathers with education up to graduation or above level. Similarly, while 84.45 per cent of the SC, 62.73 per cent of the ST and 66.25 per cent of the Muslim children were from landless households, the percentage of such children from upper caste households was only 24.92. In terms of occupation of parents, almost three fourth of SC children, more than four fifth of ST children, and about two third of Muslim children were from homes where the father was a casual wage labourer. On the other hand, 40.17 per cent of the upper caste children had fathers who were cultivators.
The variations in the socio-economic characteristics of children’s households discussed above are found to be significantly correlated with the learning outcomes of the children. The level of learning of children in primary classes, as reported in the studies, is generally well below the grade appropriate level expected from them. According to the ASER study, out of the more than 11,500 children of Std. II, less than 30 per cent were able to read simple words. A year later, when the same batch of children was tested in Std. III, about 40 per cent of them were able to do so. However, children are expected to read simple words from Std. I onwards. Only three out of every 10 children tested early in Std. V were able to comfortably and fluently read a Std. III level text. Thus, even after four years of schooling, close to 70 per cent of the children could not easily navigate a text meant for children two grade levels below. Even in high performing states, both Std. II and Std. IV children had difficulty writing simple words correctly which they are expected to be able to do by the end of Std. I. The Deshkal study in Bihar also found that only 20.64 per cent of the Std. II children could read simple two letter words, while 37.19 per cent could not even correctly recognize alphabets. More than half (57.57 per cent) of the Std. III and 37.37 per cent of the Std. IV children were not able to correctly read simple two letter words which they should have been able to do by the end of Std. I. Further, only one fourth of the Std. IV children could comfortably read a text appropriate for children two grades below them, and 53.35 per cent of them could not read a simple paragraph of the text of Std. I level.
Similarly, as indicated by both the studies, learning levels of children in mathematics are also very low. In the ASER study, 75 per cent of the sampled children were found to be able to solve numerical one digit addition problems by Std. III, a level they are expected to achieve by the time they finish Std. I. However, less than 20 per cent could solve a one digit addition word problem. In Std. IV, most children were able to recognize numbers under 100, but less than 30 per cent could recognize numbers above 1000. Further, while children at this level could comfortably solve basic arithmetic operations, they struggled with word problems which required them to apply this knowledge. According to the Deshkal study, more than two third of the Std. II children had difficulty in recognizing two digit numbers between 11 to 99. Even in Std. IV, 28.29 per cent children were still facing this difficulty. Further, 53.88 per cent of the Std. IV children were not able to correctly solve two digit subtraction problems with borrowing; and even in Std. V, 38.17 per cent children were able to solve simple division problems.
As discussed above, the overall learning levels of children in primary classes in government schools in rural areas are found to be much below the grade appropriate learning levels expected of them. However, these learning levels are also found to be significantly correlated with variations in the socio-economic characteristics of children’s households. The ASER study found that higher economic status was highly correlated with higher attendance and better learning level of children, both in Std. II and Std. IV. Children were also more likely to have regular attendance in school when either parent had completed primary school or more.
In terms of learning outcomes, the education level of parents was positively correlated with children’s learning, but the relationship of children’s learning was much stronger with mothers’ education than with the father’s. Availability of more literacy and numeracy materials for children other than textbooks, and other print materials in the household, was positively correlated with higher attendance and better learning outcomes of children, especially in Std. II.
In general, the home support of either parent appears to increase the likelihood of children attending school more often and learning better. In the Deshkal study too, learning outcomes of children were found to be related to variations in their socio-economic characteristics. Only 10.64 per cent of the Std. II children from households where the father had never been to school were able to comfortably read two-letter simple words whereas the proportion of such children from households where the father had completed education up to Std. X was 22.9 per cent. In arithmetic, 32.20 per cent of the Std. IV children whose fathers had never been to school were able to solve two-digit subtraction problems with borrowing whereas this proportion for children coming from households where the father was educated up to Std. X was 65.62 per cent. Similarly, there were significant patterns in variations in learning level of children according to the education of mother, household landownership and occupation of parents.
The findings of the studies also suggest that learning outcomes of children vary by gender and social category. The ASER study did not find any evidence of a systematic variation in learning outcomes by gender, and its report suggests that the gender-wise variations in learning may become more visible in later years as children progress through higher classes and social norms restricting girls’ mobility, social interactions, and educational aspirations come into play. However, the Deshkal study found a systematic gap between the learning levels of boys and girls. For instance, while 23.13 per cent of the boys in Std. II could read simple two-letter words, only 18.20 per cent of the girls in Std. II were able to do so. Of the number of boys in Std. IV, 49.30 per cent were able to comfortably read a paragraph of Std. I level text. The percentage of girls in Std. IV who could do this was 44.02 only. Further, while 48.46 per cent of the boys in Std. V could read Std. II level text of a small story, only 42.01 per cent of the girls in Std. V were able to do it comfortably.
Variations in learning outcomes in both the studies were also found to be associated with social and religious category of the children. In the ASER study, percentage of children who regularly attended school was the highest among the general category, followed closely by children from the SC. A much smaller proportion of OBC and ST children appeared to have regular attendance. Learning outcomes appeared to reflect this difference in attendance. In both Std. II and IV, the percentage point improvement over a period of one year was highest among the general and SC children and substantially lower for ST and OBC children.
Attendance and learning outcome data for the sample as a whole also indicates substantial differences between children from Muslim families and those from other religious backgrounds. Both in Std. II and Std. IV, Muslim children had lower attendance as well as learning levels than that of children from families with other religious backgrounds. However, enormous variations were found across the five states that constituted the sample. Perhaps, differences in the relative socio-economic position of social categories in different states could account for these variations. The study suggests that issues of social category seem to be embedded in their own contextual and highly location-specific realities.
The Deshkal study found a systematic pattern in variations in learning level of children according to their social category. Upper caste children had the highest learning levels followed by OBC and Muslim children, and the SC and ST children were at the bottom. For instance, the percentages of ST, SC, Muslim, OBC and upper caste children in Std. II who could fluently read simple two-letter words were 8.33, 14.72, 18.07, 29.23 and 33.59 respectively; while 62.71 per cent of upper caste children and 58.17 per cent of OBC children in Std. IV were able to read a simple paragraph of Std. I level text, only 44.87 per cent of Muslim children, 35.21 per cent of SC children and 30.30 per cent of ST children were able to do so comfortably. Similarly, the proportion of children from different social categories in Std. V who could read a small story of Std. II level text were 63.93 per cent for upper caste, 48.54 per cent for OBC, 43.51 per cent for Muslim, 37.17 per cent for SC and 33.33 per cent for ST.
A basic point emerging from the above discussion is that while, on the one hand, elementary education in India has achieved considerable progress in terms of enrolment of children from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, especially from the historically marginalized and excluded sections like girls, SCs, STs and minorities, on the other hand, the performance of government primary schools, particularly in rural areas, has been dismal in ensuring even a minimum level of learning among these children. The significant growth in the number of private schools in rural and semi-urban area also points to the lack of trust among parents in the quality of education being provided by government schools.
Recent ethnographic studies on government primary schools and classrooms indicate that the school curriculum and teaching-learning practices and processes are not sensitive towards addressing the learning needs and concerns of children from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, and that prejudiced and discriminatory practices towards children from certain socio-economic backgrounds still operate in classroom practices and processes. Children are often perceived as having ascribed learning potential and abilities based on their socio-cultural and economic backgrounds. On the other hand, the school community also claims in public discourse to treat all children as ‘equal’, and views them in terms of a universal category. While the first notion is based on the ideology of caste hierarchy, the second denies children their individual identity and strengths as well as their identities and consciousness formed as part of growing up as members of collectives.
These notions can be traced back in the world view of European enlightenment that propagated the myth of context and value free universal reasoning which is not contaminated by social concern and human subjectivity. Standard based education was considered as panacea for all kinds of problems faced by the society. Differences in educational achievement were interpreted as an inherent deficiency of the group leading to the stereotype that some groups are more capable than the others. Paradoxically, the image of reasoning as an individual trait became so sacrosanct that group specific characteristics, if differing from the ideal image of a human being as per the norms of enlightenment, were sought to be removed through education. In this scheme of education, social diversity was looked at as an obstacle in the development of society and homogenization became a legitimate goal of education. It is difficult to imagine an inclusive classroom if the goal of education is to make a homogeneous society, and social diversity is considered a problem rather than a resource.
Classrooms can be truly inclusive only when children from different socio-economic backgrounds are welcomed and valued for who they are, and curriculum, teaching methods and teaching-learning materials are sensitive to their diverse cultures and socio-economic circumstances, and responsive to their diverse learning needs and interests. The elementary education system, therefore, needs to continuously adapt itself to the changing needs of the society instead of waiting for the society to change itself according to some fixed notion of education.
These are all issues of serious concern for educational planners, policymakers and practitioners. In order to realize the aims of inclusive classrooms and enhancement of meaningful school participation and learning level of children from diverse socio-economic backgrounds – the aims cherished by the major policy documents like the National Curriculum Framework, the National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education, and the Right to Compulsory Education Act – the contemporary government school system, therefore, needs to confront and address the following critical questions.
1. How to develop teaching-learning practices and teaching-learning materials that are sensitive to the diverse cultures and socio-economic circumstances of children, and are capable of addressing their different learning needs and constraints?
2. How to develop a school curriculum that could relate to the life experiences of children and the socio-cultural and economic contexts in which they live and learn?
3. How to develop teaching methods that build upon the knowledge, experience and skills already acquired by children in their home and community environment?
4. How to use the diverse cultural and socio-economic contexts of children as a resource base for enhancing learning achievement all children?
5. How to orient and improve school and classroom practices in a way that reduces children’s dependence on home support for their academic performance?
6. How to build up a context specific teacher development programme that could enable teachers to enhance their understanding of the issues of social diversity and differentiation within the classrooms, and improve their professional skills for implementing this understanding in teaching-learning practices in actual classroom situations.
SANJAY KUMAR and P.D. SINGH
Footnotes:
1. National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA), Elementary Education in Rural India: Where Do We Stand? Analytical Tables, 2010-11. New Delhi, 2012. Available at http://www.dise.in/
2. Suman Bhattacharjea, Wilima Wadhwa and Rukmini Banerji, Inside Primary Schools: A Study of Teaching and Learning in Rural India. ASER, 2011. Available at http://www.asercentre.org/
3. Deshkal Society, Findings of Household Survey and Baseline Learning Assessment of Children in Government Primary and Primary With Upper Primary Schools in Bihar (mimeo). Deshkal Society, Delhi, 2012.
