Backpage

WITH substantial increase in the outlay for elementary education, in part a result of a two per cent cess introduced by UPA-I to enhance inputs into government schools, as also the passage of the Right to Education Act during UPA-2, it is not unreasonable to expect significant improvements in the learning levels of our children. Unfortunately, as the latest Annual Survey of Education Report (ASER), released in mid January 2014 makes clear, those looking for heartening news are likely to be disappointed. Even as the enrolment of children, ages 6-14, in primary schools has gone up to 96% and school infrastructure and facilities have undoubtedly improved, learning levels of children continue to remain depressing low.

Even today, close to 60% children in class V cannot solve a simple division sum and a shocking 40-60% find it difficult to read a class II text. Hardly surprising, since between 20-40% of all children, depending upon whether they are in private or government schools, cannot even read simple words or recognize numbers between 10 and 99 despite being in class III. It’s worth noting that over the nine years that the ASER surveys have been conducted, these proportions have barely changed.

Among others, ASER surveys highlight two major issues demanding urgent attention. The first relates to a dramatic shift towards private school enrolment in rural areas. When the first ASER survey was released in 2005, the all India rural private primary school enrolment was about 17%, a figure which has currently risen to around 29%. This figure varies from a low of 6.6% in Tripura to a staggering 70.5% in Manipur. The trend is similar across the country – in richer and poorer states as also states with low or high private enrolment. Equally startling are the figures related to paid private tuition – from a low of 5.4% in Rajasthan to a high of 72.4% in West Bengal. And this tendency remains common, whether the children are enrolled in public or private schools. The second issue concerns the crisis in learning, affecting both government and private schools, though more the former, on which large numbers of low income families rely.

So why is it that despite higher outlays and improvements in infrastructure and facilities (from building to higher paid teachers), as also the RTE Act legislating free and compulsory education to all children, both parents and children are deserting the public provision system? In part, it is because our society is changing. Growing urbanization, increased wealth and better access to the external world and information, a result of mobile telephony and TV, has altered expectations and aspirations. Clearly the clients believe, rightly or wrongly, that government schools are unsatisfactory and cannot deliver desired outcomes.

Why should this be so, particularly when rural private schools compare unfavourably with government schools on all input criteria – better facilities, including midday meals, textbooks, no fees, and more and better qualified teachers? Is it because government teachers are less accountable, a reflections of fixed tenures? Or is it also because, specially after the passage of the RTE Act, the focus remains on completing a specified curricula, whether or not the children are learning. Also, the fact that no children can be held back in the same class further reduces the pressure to ensure learning. Note that the end of grade tests to decide on promotion have been dispensed with and replaced by an ill-understood comprehensive, continuous evaluation.

There is another problem that our planners refuse to recognize. The mandatory requirement to have a primary school within a specified distance of any habitation implies that school size remains small. Most of these schools with few children ipso facto become multigrade classrooms, thereby adversely impacting learning given the high rate of teacher absenteeism. Yet, suggestions to merge these small schools into a larger institution to enable better utilization of resources, continue to be ignored. Incidentally, the average size of a private school is larger than the government one. Should we, therefore, be surprised when an ill-designed provisioning system results in poor outcomes?

Unfortunately, the government continues to plan schemes without factoring in this shift towards private provisioning and demand for better learning outcomes. Any proposal that the government should focus on students rather than the school, for instance, by experimenting with a voucher system or extending support to private producers raises hackles, charges that the government is abrogating its responsibility. Surely, continuing with a situation in which the public provisioning system remains afflicted with deep dysfunctionality and resistant to reform and the private providers face hostility will only result in our children experiencing a stultifying environment, incapable of improving their learning levels and skills.

Harsh Sethi