UNIVERSALISATION OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
9.1 In the NPERC's view, the most fundamental problem of our education system is the continued failure to fulfil the Constitutional directive of providing education to all children upto the age of 14 years. The NPERC attempted a comprehensive analysis of the failure to achieve universalisation of elementary education (UEE) and came to the conclusion that urgent and sweeping changes were required in the strategy for UEE. The basic premises of the analysis were that so far there was hesitation to acknowledge the reality that more than half of the children and two-thirds of the girls were outside the ambit of education and that it was never too late to give up the hesitancy and to frankly admit the facts so that an honest analysis of the causes of the problem may begin. Given these premises, it is but natural that the NPERC sought to distinguish its policy perspective and strategies from those of NPE/POA.
Constitutional Amendment 9.2 The NPERC suggested that the Right to Education should be examined for inclusion among the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution and that all necessary socioeconomic measures should be taken for realisation of this right (R.No.145). While the spirit underlining this recommendation is laudable, we feel that a legalistic approach to UEE would not be desirable. The Constitutional guarantee 33 can be effective only if the country is in a position, financially and politically, to take all measures necessary for enforcing the guarantee; otherwise, legislation would be cosmetic. We feel that what is needed is not so much a Constitutional amendment as the manifestation of a national will to achieve UEE. For reasons given in the Chapter "Adult and Continuing Education", UEE and adult literacy together have to be given the overriding priority in educational planning and administration. We call upon the Central and State Governments to bestow overriding priority to adult literacy and UEE and to provide programmes in these two areas total support -- financial, administrative and political -- a support to match with the priority assigned.
NPERC Perspective 9.3 The suggestions of the NPERC to remove the main lacunae of the present policy perspective and strategies are as follows:
i) NPE/POA should not have shifted the emphasis from enrolment to retention; the policy should stress a continuing concern for improving both enrolment and retention. Para 5.12 of NPE should be modified for this purpose [R.Nos.150 and 152(a)].
ii) Socio-economic and cultural factors have played only a marginal role in educational planning. The school
25
stands alienated from the community; there is no convergence of support services and education. Para 5.5 of NPE should therefore be modified so as to cover, what the NPERC referred to as, "concerns" about (a) convergence of services, (b) linkages between the school and the community, and (c) decentralised and participative mode of educational planning and management. It would also be necessary to amend Para 5.12 to provide for disaggregated target setting in a participative and decentralised mode [R.Nos. 146 and 152(b)].
iii) While giving due importance to the provisions of additional facilities to the schools, the Policy must also stress the role of teachers, the community and the social environment as key factors in improvement of the quality of school education (R.No. 149).
iv) Following NPE/POA, non-formal education (NFE) was enlarged into a significant parallel sector. NFE is some kind of second grade education for the poor; the solution lies in non-formalising the formal school over a period of time and in integrating the non-formal and formal education systems so that their cadres, infrastructure and management structures would form an organic whole [R.Nos. 152(c), 153, 154 155, 162 to 168, 170]. 33 v) NPE certainly did well by emphasising the child-centred approach to education but the approach enunciated in Para 5.5 of NPE has inconsistencies and lacunae and needs to be modified (R.No. 148).
Access, Enrolment and Retention 9.4 The NPERC's analysis of the problems of access and enrolment is very detailed; it rightly highlighted the deficiencies of the data on enrolment, and the disparities in enrolment -- gender, regional and SC/ST -- brought out even by the existing data which inflates enrolment. The analysis led the NPERC to the conclusion that access and enrolment continued unexceptionable but in trying to be different, the NPERC made an issue of the emphasis on retention by NPE/POA, allegedly at the expense of enrolment. Notwithstanding the averments of the NPERC to the contrary, we note that NPE/ POA did not belittle the importance of access and enrolment. Para 5.5 of NPE specifically enunciated that new thrusts in education would emphasise universal enrolment and universal retention upto 14 years of age. The POA, which was faulted by the NPERC for laying considerable faith in the success of the enrolment drive taken up in the seventies and eighties, was, in fact, sceptical of the enrolment data. This scepticism comes out very clearly in its assertion that "enrolment by itself is of little importance if children do not continue beyond one year, many of them not seeing the school
26
for more than a few days." It is because of this scepticism that the POA suggested shifting the emphasis from enrolment to retention and completion by all children of at least five years of education. It is inconceivable to think that all children can complete five years of schooling without being enrolled in the first instance. POA sought replacement of enrolment drives by participative planning in which the teachers and the villagers would formulate family-wise and child-wise design of action to ensure that every child regularly attends school or non-formal education centre and completes at least five years of schooling or its equivalent at the non-formal education centre. The legitimate NPE/POA position cannot be better expressed than by the UEE equation set out by the NPERC
"ENROLMENT # ATTENDANCE # RETENTION # ATTAINMENT."
9.5 The NPE/POA should be credited for trying to shift the policy away from a preoccupation with provision of inputs -more schools and more teachers -- towards outcomes, namely, completion by every child of five years of schooling or its equivalent. A plain reading of NPE and POA as a whole would make it clear that the concerns of the NPERC were anticipated in NPE/POA. The modalities of achieving universal enrolment and retention envisaged by NPE/POA include decentralisation, creation of a spirit of autonomy for educational institutions, a greater role for heads of institutions, community 33 mobilisation and ensuring a voice for women and disadvantaged sections of society. Therefore, our considered view on the recommendations of the NPERC relating to access, enrolment and "concerns" is that no further refinement of the policy is required; what needs to be done is large scale operationalisation of important components of the strategy outlined by NPE/POA such as community mobilisation, school mapping and micro-planning.
Levels of Learning 9.6 We wish that NPERC had bestowed adequate attention to the important issue of levels of learning. Till recently planning for UEE tended to be pre-occupied with the extension of school facilities and enrolment targets. Little attention was paid to the standards of attainment in school.. A recent study by NIEPA showed that in most schools covered by the study, children in class V could reach only mastery learning levels set for class II. UEE has, therefore, to be viewed as a composite programme comprising (i) access to education for all children upto 14 years of age, (ii) universal participation till they complete elementary education through formal or non-formal educational programmes, and (iii) universal achievement of minimum levels of learning (MLL). The endeavour has to be to delineate MLLs in terms of competencies in language, mathematics and environmental studies from class I to class V, MLLs to be determined with reference to the existing levels and corresponding over a period of time to nationally acceptable norms.
27
Non-Formal Education (NFE) 9.7 Another major area of difference between NPE/POA and the NPERC is NFE. The NPERC was right in recognising that it was for the first time, in 1986, that an education policy had admitted that the school may not reach all children, and had therefore envisaged a major role for the non-formal stream in moving towards UEE. NFE, as outlined by NPE/POA, would have enough flexibility to enable the learners to learn at their own pace and at the same time would have quality comparable with formal education. The NPERC listed the special features of the NFE, such as, relating of the curriculum to the needs of the learners and the local environment, development of learning material of high quality, learner-centred approach, continuous learner evaluation and appointment of local, motivated persons acceptable to the community as NFE instructors. While appreciating these special features, the NPERC was of the view that these special features were as much relevant to the formal schools as to NFE and that, in the ultimate analysis, the primary difference between the formal schools and the NFE was one of timing only. Consequently, the NPERC took the position that NPE/POA could have as well suggested introducing the special features of NFE into the formal school system itself so that the schools serve all categories of children, instead of setting up a parallel system generally considered to be second rate. The NPERC's preferred strategy was to non-formalise the schools, over a period of time, through measures such as shifting of school timing to suit the 3;3 majority of children, adjusting school calendar to the socioeconomic conditions in the village, adopting child centred approach with concomitant reduction in school hours but an increase in learning hours, introducing "ungraded class room" where children learn at their own pace and segregation of written and oral tradition into "morning" and "evening" schools. The NPERC recommended integration of non-formal and formal education system over a period of time so that their cadres, infrastructures and management structures would form an organic whole.
9.8 Having recommended that formal school should be non-formalised, the NPERC considered at length the changes necessary in the appointment, placement and training of teachers as well as in the location of schools. "Para schools" would be organised as an integral part of the local primary or middle school catering to unserved habitations and to children unable to come to school in the regular hours. Instruction imparted in para schools would be mostly by "para teachers" who would, however, be interchangeable with regular teachers in terms of teaching responsibilities. The head of the institution would have the power to recruit the para-teachers from the local community. Educational qualifications can be relaxed for the recruitment of the para-teacher. On appointment they would be placed on probation and paid one-third to one-half of the salary of a regular school teacher. They would be entitled for absorption as regular teachers as soon as they acquire the required educational qualifications and "ensure a concrete move towards enrolment and
28
retention of all children in the community who were earlier out of school." The training of para-teachers would be based on the internship model. Before a school is non-formalised, the effective control would be handed over to a coordinated management system involving the school, Village Education Committee and the Educational Complex.
9.9 Central to the NPERC's recommendations on NFE is the belief that the school system, after appropriate modifications, can effectively cater to the basic learning needs of all children upto the age of 14 years. This belief is notwithstanding the recognition by the NPERC that a mix of strategies would be required for achieving UEE. In its analysis of child-labour, the NPERC classified out-of-school children into three categories and suggested a separate strategy for each category. Thus all the out-of-school children in the age group of 6- 10 years who are not working on wages are to be brought into school system; out-of-school children in the 10-14 years age group who are in the labour market are to be imparted skills by "educationalising the work;" out-of-school children in the 10-14 years age group who are not in the labour market are not only to be imparted skills but are also equipped with minimum levels of knowledge. Juxtaposing this analysis with the recommendations on NFE, it could be inferred that the NPERC believed that a unitary model of a non-formal school can equally serve different strategies. In contrast, NPE had implicitly doubted the 3r3 practicality of a single structure (viz., school) serving multiple strategies and opted for a dual model comprising the formal school system and the alternative system of NFE encompassing several models. other things being equal, the basic questions that arise in the evaluation of the competing models would be --
i) which of the two models -- the unitary model or the dual model -- would be more effective and practicable?
ii) which of them can reach the "out-of-school" children better?
iii) which of them has greater flexibility and can better accommodate multiple strategies for, achieving UEE?
9.10. The NPERC had suggested large scale appointment of para- teachers in para-schools which would be an integral part of primary/middle schools. According to the NPERC, the concept of para- teacher is somewhat similar to the concept of Shiksha Karmis being tried in Rajasthan to reach out to unserved habitations. A close examination indicates that there are more of dissimilarities between the two concepts than of similarities. The only two common features are that. (i) the minimum qualifications for appointment can be lower than those for a regular teacher and (ii) the recruitment would be, as far as possible, from within the local community. Shiksha Karmis are appointed in villages where schools have been forced to close down because of teacher absenteeism. The Shiksha Karmi Unit is in lieu of a school and the instruction it imparts is essentially
29
non-formal in nature. In contrast, the para-teacher, would be located in the local primary or middle school. The head of the school would appoint, supervise and guide the para-teachers. The NPERC report does not explictly provide for involvement of the village community in the selection of para-teachers, which is a very important feature of the Shiksha Karmi Project. Parateachers are to be imparted training through the internship model. On the other hand, Shiksha Karmis are backed by a strong training system that provides supervision, support and periodic training of a kind that teachers of regular schools do not have.
9.11 Shiksha Karmi Unit is a good non-formal model which can be extended wherever conducive conditions exist such as community support and a strong training support system. However, appointment of Shiksha Karmi type para-teachers in the regular school system, as suggested by the NPERC, is more than likely to formalise a good non-formal model rather than non-formalise the formal school as the NPERC would have it. Once a para-teacher is appointed on probation in the school system, has a job interchangeable with a regular teacher, is subject to supervision and guidance of the head of the school, and has a specific assurance that he would be absorbed in due course as a regular teacher subject to fulfilment of certain conditions' it is 33 more likely that a para-teacher would consider himself to be a part of the formal school system. The service conditions suggested for para- teachers bristle with legal complications; experience all over the country of appointing lower paid instructors in the regular school system has not been happy. Such appointments had invariably led to extensive litigation on the plea that equal pay was being denied for equal work. Once the jobs are interchangeable, as those of the para- teacher and teacher, it is a moot point whether differential pay scales would be legally sustainable.
9.12 The NPERC has elaborated its views on the internship model of training in the chapter "Teachers and Students". We offer our detailed comments on the internship model in the corresponding chapter. Suffice it to say here that at the moment there are no well- documented experiences on the internship model and before it can be considered for large scale adoption, the practical aspects have to be considered by experts. The development of a proper training support system, without which the para-teachers would be dysfunctional, has to be gradual and evolutionary.
9.13 Though some of the suggestions of the NPERC to nonformalise school are vague (e.g., reduction in school hours but increase in learning hours) and some are of doubtful validity (e.g., "ungraded classroom" and segregating written and oral tradition into "morning" and "evening classes"), many are ideas which were under articulation for the last. forty years or more but have failed to take root largely because of practical problems. Making the school more flexible has very much been on the agenda of educational reforms all these years. Flexibility would necessitate decentralisation of educational administration,
30
empowering of local communities, building up of local level capabilities for teacher support and supervision of schools and major changes in teacher recruitment policy and in teacher motivation. It is imperative to persevere with these measures; however, one should not lose sight of the fact that making the school system more flexible -- not to speak of transforming, as the NPERC desired, the school into an institution with rather infinite flexibility, versatility and effectiveness -- is bound to be a long and arduous process; and while the process is on, one cannot ignore the educational needs of those children who cannot attend regular schools such as working children, migratory children, children pre-occupied with household chores, girls prevented by tradition-bound attitudes from attending regular schools and children who drop out due to socioeconomic compulsions. The NPERC had not come forth with any suggestions to tone up the NFE system. Since it cannot be said that the NPERC was oblivious to the educational needs of 'out of school' children, the logical conclusion is that in its view the process of non-formalising the school would be smooth and rapid. Given the present condition of the schools in general, the challenges before the school system are many, e.g., enrolling and retaining children who cannot afford to attend school 33 regularly; a harmonious interaction with the community around; improving the infrastructure, quality and the learning environment; and ensuring that every student acquires minimum level of learning. These challenges are daunting enough and it does not seem desirable to overload the school system with yet another formidable challenge of meeting the educational needs of children with severe para educational constraints. We are of the view that the NPE approach is more practical and realistic, viz., making the formal school flexible upto a point and beyond that relying on an alternative, more flexible NFE system. For a long time to come, there is no alternative but to have a large and systematic programme of first rate NFE. We cannot overstate the importance of ensuring that the quality of NFE is comparable with that of the formal system in all respects. Concrete measures in this regard brook no delay. We have been informed that the Department of Education is reviewing the scheme of NFE with a view to improving the management system and the learning environment. We strongly urge (i) expeditious and effective action in this area and (ii) continuous and close monitoring by the Centre and the States in concert to ensure the effectiveness of NFE programmes.