UNIVERSALISATION OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION
 

The Argument:

1.1 The Chapter on UEE begins with on acknowledgement that the country is nowhere near universalisation of elementary education, and a compact, comprehensive as well as indepth analysis of the problems and issues that confront this goal. This analysis leads the Committee to the conclusion that urgent and wide-sweeping changes are required in the strategy for UEE. Beginning with the premise that so far - the NPE and POA included - policy and planning have only looked at the systemic factors relating to UEE, and has ignored at great cost the important "socio-economic and cultural factors" that make up the universe in which the system for UEE must operate, the Committee presents an overview of the major issues relating to the problem of universalisation - both from within and without the education sector. The within-school factors examined relate to access, enrolment, drop- outs, disparities, facilities, curriculum, teachers and administration. The without-school issues Concern child labour and regional disparities in the size of the out-of-school population.

1.2. Although wide in its sweep, this analysis leaves out several relevant issues, as a result of which the strategy it recommends appears insufficient and sometimes contradictory. Some of these issues are discussed below:

Learning Achievements

1.3 it is only in recent years that it has been

157

acknowledged that universalisation cannot be accepted to have been achieved unless children passing out of school acquire a minimum level of learning achievement. Planners and implementers have so far been so absorbed in expanding school facilities to keep pace with the growth in population and habitations, and in opening new schools to reach the targets of enrolment, that they have spared very little time to consider the poor standards of attainment in schools. The grim reality is that in the vast majority of government and local bodies schools children can barely road their own textbooks even after spending as much as 5 years in school. A recently concluded study carried out by NIEPA shows that children in class V are only able to reach mastery learning levels set for class II. Small wonder that parents are cynical about the usefulness of education, and think nothing of withdrawing their wards at the slightest provocation.

1.4 It is felt that this all important issue of learning achievements.have not been taken into consideration in making a study of the existing situation, the strategy proposed by the committee lacks sufficient emphasis consequently upon retention, quality of schools and facilities, and clear direction in regard to improving Learner Attainment.

Curriculum:

1.5 The issue of curriculum is closely related to the problem of learning attainments. The Committee has indeed dealt with "several lacunae" in the curriculum, but the deficiencies it has pointed out are mainly

158

pedantic. As, or oven more, important are issues relating to the non- availability of textbooks in schools and the non-availability of textbooks and syllabus with school teachers. Whatever the content, if textbooks could be printed and distributed in time to reach the students before the beginning of the academic session, some kind of transaction of learning might be expected to take place.

1.6 Another equally important curriculum related issue that has been overlooked is the lack of emphasis on classroom evaluation. One of the important weaknesses of the prevailing system is the archaic system of examination of students. A significant reform planned to be implemented during the VIII Plan relates to this aspect by introducing continuous comprehensive classroom evaluation. A revision of the syllabus to remove irrelevant content, laying down minimum levels of learning to ensure the attainment of skills and competencies to mastery level, and their continuous and comprehensive evaluation are aspects of curriculum development that also need consideration.

Disparities and disaggregated strategy formulation:

1.7 In discussing disparities the committee has mainly dwelt upon urban-rural and inter State disparities. While these are vali-d, it must be emphasised that they do not tell the whole story. Infact the study of the Statewide position and urban-rural profile still give an aggregated overview, and hide considerable variations. Such a consideration of disparities may not help in

159

moving away from the existing strategy of classifying States as educationally backward and educationally advanced and evolving disaggregated strategies. Infact the Committee's example that Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar are the worst off States does not present anything new. It is similarly seen that even in the rural-urban classification given by the Committee there is large scope for further disaggregated strategising. For instance, among urban areas, urban slums, which are growing at an alarmingly fast pace, require the formulation of specific and urgent strategies. Likewise within rural areas specific plans are needed for hilly, tribal, mountainous, desert areas where population is scattered and difficult to reach.

1.8 It is felt that a districtwise look at disparities would be more to the point. District profiles, show that even within educationally advanced States there are districts which are still quite backward, even as within the educationally backward ones, there are some districts which are doing fairly well. The VIII Plan working Group Report infact had already recommended disaggregation to the district level and in this respect its analysis leads much more logically to an area-based model of educational planning then the Committee's.

1.9 Gender disparities have been discussed by the Committee but the gravity of the position is lost in a consideration of enrolment figures only. The fact, already highlighted in several publications, is that the absolute number of girls not attending schools has

160

been increasing. This is happening not only because enrolment continues to lag behind but because the dropout rate is also persistently higher.

Dropout Rates 1987-88

Class I-V Class I-VIII

Boys 43.28 58.80 Girls 49.42 67.55

The dropouts among girls belonging to the disadvantaged groups is even higher :

Dropout Rtaes 1987-88

1.10 Taking these disparities into account the VIII Plan Working Group Report has disaggregated target groups on the basis of existing disparities into (i) girls; (ii) SC/ST; (iii) handicapped; and (iv) child labour. This has helped in formulating target group oriented strategies. A similar consideration of disparities might have helped the Committee obtain greater specificity to its recommendations.

Access and Enrolment:

1.11 By and large, the Committee has correctly viewed the problem of Access and Enrolment. However, it appearst have highlighted it somewhat out of proportion. In understanding the problem in perspective, the following points need to be taken into accounts:-

i) it is true that gross ratios show a better position than exists. However, reliability cannot be placed upon

66

the census data either* as this does not reflect the enrolment position.. Census figures are collected in February-March, by which time drop out during the year have taken place, while departmental figures are collected in September of the year, when enrolments are still being kept alive in the hope that children will join school at the end of the agricultural season. The census figures must be taken as reflecting the problem of both enrolment and retention.

(ii) In seeing how we stand viz-a-viz the target of universalisation, the correct indicator is the net enrolment ratio. While the gross ratio reflects the number of children enrolled in the class, the net ratio gives the number of children of the relevant age-group 6-11 years and 11-14 years enrolled in the class. The difference between gross and net ratio at the primary stage (according to the Fifth All India Educational Survey) is 17%.

(iii) Another set of data which seem to have led to the Committee's giving priority to widening of access is the statistics regarding the availability of schools and teachers, and the conclusion drawn therein that population is expanding faster than the rate of growth of these facilities. Firstly, the data itself is incorrect. According to the figures given in the Fifth All India Education survey the number of teachers in 1986 was 1816000 and not 1493000. The growth rate per 10,000 persons was therefore 23 and not 19 - this is significantly more than the per 10,000 number for 1973 or 1978. Secondly,

162

the opinion given in this study is alarmist. A more balanced opinion may be had from the "Education for All by 2000s: Indian Perspective". This has analyzed that for the decade of the 80s growth rates registered an increase over the previous two decadel figures for all types of educational institutions except primary level institutions. However, the comparatively slower growth rate at the primary stage could be ascribed to a virtual saturation of habitations according to the norm with schooling facility. Another reassuring factor was that the expansion that did take place was mainly in the educationally backward States. Thus, though the position is far from satisfactory, and an increase in teacher-pupil ratio is clearly called for, the situation is not so alarming as to require measures on a war footing. Indeed measures have already been launched to provide additional teachers to the worst of primary schools under the programme of Operation Blackboard. It may be noted that the statistics discussed above are based upon figures till 1987- 88 only and do not reflect the impact of increased financial allocation of the schemes after the NPE.

(iv) These points are noted as it is felt that they had led the Committee to its thrust on Access and Enrolment. Infact, Access is now a problem only with regard to the habitations that do not fall within the norm for establishing a primary school (viz. within one km. walking distance of all habitations of population of 300 or more (200 in the case of SC and ST habitations). if the Fifth All India Educational Survey figures be studied carefully, it will be seen that the 49% habitations without primary

163

schools are mainly those which do not qualify for a primary school according to the norm. Only 6.08% of the habitation that quality according to the norm or approx. 3.2% of total habitations are still to be given a primary school. This number is likely to be about 32000. While this number may not be quite accurate, it is approximate enough to show that the problem is no longer of expansion of facilities. Opening of more schools to cover more habitations car) not any longer be the main strategy for UEE. The main emphasis in universalisation of effective Access has now to fall upon reaching those children who despite the availability of school do not enrol or attend. regularly. In other words, the main strategies concern school mapping, participation and retention.

Dropouts;

1.12 Seen in this light, the discussion on retentions is rather brief. This is surprising, also considering that the Committee wishes to draw attention to the socioeconomic and cultural factors that affect elementary education. It is a recognised fact that retentions are as much a factor of these socio-economic and cultural conditions as they are of poor school quality.

1.13 Although retentions have been improving with time -

Retentions

Year Classes I-V Classes I-VIII Boys Girls Boys Girls

1967-68 35 31 24.2 18.2 1987-88 56.7 50.5 41.2 32.45

the dropout rates are still unacceptably high. Among the important factors for continuing high drop-outs must

164

be identified problem. As pointed out earlier, the attention given to increasing the spread of the elementary education system has so engaged the attention and finances of State Governments that sufficient attention has not been spared to improving its quality. This general apathy is reflected even in the monitoring of dropout rates. Proper dropout data is not being compiled. There is no cohort wise follow up of students to map out how and why dropouts takes place; infact, even a 'fictitious' cohort analysis as done elsewhere in the world, taking classwise enrolment and repetitions into account, is not being done. The present method is based upon figures of enrolments for class I and class V and yield only approximate indicators, since inaccuracies in enrolments get reflected in dropout rates making them considerably higher than they are. Moreover, the pattern of dropouts between classes does not get reflected. Research studies show that about 50% of the dropouts at the primary stage take place immediately after classes I and II.

1.14 The Committee's analysis and proposed strategy carry the danger of continuing neglect of this problem. The scent attention that has been paid to facilities in schools and quality of the school environment are a reflection of this. While schools and teachers are basically important to providing access to all

children, it is equally essential to recognise that sufficiency of instructional material, satisfactory

165

condition of buildings and a positive school environment are basic to increasing retentions and dropouts. In working out strategies for getting out of school children to participate and attend regularly in schooling programmes it is imperative that we provide them with a quality of education that ensures willingness to continue till completion and to learn. Thus, retention and the factors affecting retention deserve a more serious consideration than the overview and strategy of the Committee permits.

Child Labour:

1.15 The Committee has been right in identifying the problem of child labour as one of the major facing programme of UEE. Infect, it is not just a question of child labour, but a larger one of working children children who work to assist the families and without receiving any remunerations, in household chores, in fetching fuel, fodder and water, looking after sibling, caring for cattle, working in household industries or on farm lands, etc. Whatever, the work may be, these children cannot spare the time to attend full day school. For them the Education Commission 1964-66 and Policies thereafter have suggested the option for part-time education, which the NPE has concretised as a programme of part time non-formal education of quality comparable to formal school.

1.16 Unfortunately, however, even though the Committee has analysed the problems correctly. It has not come out, with a concise and clear planning indications towards strategies to tackle it.

166

Strategy:

1.17 in advancing an alternative strategy, the committee goes by its belief that the school has to be the only vehicle with which to reach education to all children. if in its present shape, it cannot do no, the Committee's firmed contention is that it should be made to adapt itself till it can. The Committee therefore, proposes for wide spread and uniform adoption a model that can make this adaptation, a model of a 'non-formalised formal school' As a concession to its emphasis upon the "hard social realities" that it feels has been ignored all along, the Committee broadens the meaning of a 'non-formalised school' to include a para-school which may be appended to it wherever it cannot directly provide effective excess. This fluidly flexible non-formal school, with extended arms of para schools, is expected to provide universal education to all children irrespective of their age, occupation or habitation.

1.18 There is a major inconsistency here. In discussing problems of child labour, the Committee has come to the conclusion that only a mixed off strategy can meet the need of three kind of children who now remained to be covered:-

a) Out of school children between the age 6 and ten years, most of whom are not working for wages;

b) Out of school children in the 10-14 age-group who are in the labour market; and

c) Out of school children in the 10-14 age-group who are not in the labour market.

167

For each of these it has recorded a different strategy the first category to be brought back to school with improvement in the quality of education the second to be put through a programme to promote skill formation and the third to be given skills as well as a minimum level knowledge. Yet, having said this, the Committee criticises the NPE for acknowledging that "the school may not be able to reach all children" and then proceeds to recommend one sort of institution for all children, a non-formalised formal school, with "Para schools" attached to it, and a curriculum that emphesises vocationalisation through the entire educational process up to class VIII level.

1.19 One is struck by the rigidity a recommendation that supports only one sort of educational model for all even while talking of the need for flexibility, and the inconsistency between analysis and solution. Much more logical would have been a recommendation that encouraged innovation end alternatives to the existing systems for education, and instead of trying to impose one model upon the entire country makes space for various strategies that reached children with different needs through different paths to the same goal. Seen in this light, its condemnation of the NPE for setting up a "parallel sector" or alternative system seems out of step with its own logic.

1.20 The criticism of NFE seems to flow from the assump- tions that - (i) that the scheme was devised to support an otherwise unrealistic target and was never

168

considered seriously even by the POA itself; (ii) that in the ultimate analysis it differs from the school only in respect of its timings, and cannot meet the needs of its target group.

1.21 At a later stage the argument against NPE has been discussed at length. For the meantime, only two broad points need be made - one, that the recommendations of "Para schools" is on the lines of the existing NFE project of Shiksha Karmi centres. The recommendation is defense enough of NFE. Two, that in recommending a nonformalisation of the formal school it has actually endorsed the concept of NFE programme. As far as the implementation goes, it the one has not proved to be a success so far, by the same yardstick the other is likely to be an ever, greater failure. A non- formalised formal school, with flexibility in timings and vacation periods, with locally recruited teachers who recognise the needs of the children and adopts a child- centres lace and methodology of teaching, has remained for 40 years the tantalising hope of all educationists workig in the elementary education sector. if past history be examined, it will be seen that lack of conceptualisation has not been among the reasons why the idea has not taken concrete shape. Advancing it once again without examining the real issues or finding solutions for them, is not likely to get it any nearer successful implementation. There is real danger in this recommendation that the formal system will not become flexible enough to meet the needs of the out of school children, but it will dismiss as a failure a

169

potentially useful and conceptually sound programme without replacing it by anything else. The working children, girls, and disadvantaged groups, the real targets of a programme of education for equity, social justice will be left out in the cold.

170

ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION NO. 145

2.1 This recommendation suggests that education should be made a fundamental right and all socioeconomic measures for its realisation should be taken. 2.2 There can be no objection to the spirit behind this recommendation, but it must be observed that it is not a lack of Constitutional guarantee that has come in the way of universalisation of elementary education. The problem lies in taking "all the socioeconomic measures for its realisation. Indeed, if the recommendation to take such measures is translated into action, it would not be necessary to give constitutional guarantees in the matter. Conversely, Constitutional guarantee without Socio-economic measures for its realisation would be ineffective. One is only to look at the position with regard to child labour to understand how little legislative and constitutional guarantees can achieve until the country is in a position to take all the necessary socioeconomic measures. This requires, foremost, political will and enhanced financial allocations.

Summary: