DECENTRALISATION AND PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT
THE ARGUMENT 1.1 The overall approach of the NPERC to educational planning and management, which is set out in Chapter 2 of the Report, is avowedly guided by the following principal concerns:
- equity and social justice
- decentralisation of education management at all levels
- establishment of a participative education order
- inculcation of values indispensable for creation of an enlightened and humane society
- empowerment for work.
According to NPERC, these concerns were built into its recommendations.
1.2 The Preface and Chapter 2 of the Report set out the Committee's philosophical approach to decentralisation and the concept of participative education order. Implicitly paraphrasing Clausewitz the Committee proclaims the view that education is too important to be left to specialists alone. The Committee bemoans that the whole approach of Government activities is sectoral so that different policies and programmes do not relate to each other and are often mutually contradictory. Policies and programmes are designed to attain the objectives internal to their respective sectors. Life and its problems are interrelated; hence the need for holistic approach not only in education but in development
309
and democracy. The Committee expounds the vision of a troika of participatory education, participatory development and participatory democracy. Decentralisation in the true sense holds the key to the translation of the vision into a reality. Decentralisation is not mere devolution of certain functions from he Centre to the lower levels of administration. It would entail clear shifting of power from the State to the Society. Decentralisation should not be confined to governmental institutions; it should be all pervasive and should inform all educational institutions. Within the educational system, departments, faculties, heads of institutions and teachers should have autonomy in their respective areas of competence. The Committee recognises that the NPE, 1986 and the Kothari Commission Report earlier repeatedly referred to development and democracy in relation to education. The Committee also recognised that the problem is how to inter-relate them to programmes and deliver to the people as a package.
1.3 In the Chapter "Decentralisation and Participative Management" a specific reference is made to the formulations of NPE on the management of education (part X) It notes that NPE called for an overhaul of the system of planning and management of Education and that one of the corner stones of such overhaul is decentralisation and creation of a spirit of autonomy for educational institutions and giving pre-eminence to people's involvement including association of non-governmental agencies and voluntary efforts. While noting these formulations, the Committee puts forth the view that decentralisation is not a mere question
310
of creating structures at different tiers, but is a matter of devolving authority, function and resources all the way down the structural hierarchy - from the Centre to the States, from the States to the Districts and so on down to the villages/ habitations. These views were unexceptionable. However, the question is not so much of propounding a revised policy formulation as one of how, in what manner and at what pace can genuine decentralisation and participation be achieved.
ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Disaggregated Target Setting
(Recommendation Nos.301 to 304) 2.1 This cluster of recommendations has two points:
(i) Disaggregated target setting is to be preferred instead of centralised non-participatory target setting.
(ii) The concept of educationally backward States should give way to educationally backward areas identified at the district and sub-district level.
The Committee suggested disaggregated target setting in many other Chapters, e.g., recommendation No.16 (Education and Women's Equality), recommendation Nos.146(c) and 174 (Universalisation c Elementary Education). The prescription of disaggregated target setting reiterates a basic principle of educational planning and is related to the concept of microplanning which was conceived by NPE/POA as an essential element of the strategy for universalisation of elementary education and which is proposed to be operationalised on a large scale in the Eighth Plan. Micro-planning would be operationalised in a participatory mode
311
through village education committees with a conscious effort to enlist and sustain community participation and to build up local level capacity for management, planning and monitoring. The total literacy campaigns also adopt disaggregated target setting through a door to door survey and identification of all adult illiterates and volunteer instructors and linking a specific number of illiterates with a volunteer instructor.
2.2 The Committee suggests a review of educationally backward States. The Committee notes that it was in the Sixth Plan that States, which accounted for 75% of the children who were not enrolled for elementary education, were identified as educationally backward States. There has been no revision thereafter of the list of educationally backward States. The Committee observes that there are educationally backward districts even in "other States", (i.e., States which are not classified as educationally backward) and that even in an educationally backward State not all districts are backward. The Committee considers inter-district disparities to be more important in education than inter-State disparities and suggests that educationally backward areas should be identified at the district and sub-district levels.
2.3 The Eighth Plan Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Elementary Education carried out an exercise of classifying the districts in the country on the basis of a composite indicator which assigned equal weights to four parameters, viz. the literacy rate, the female literacy rate, the gross enrolment rates for primary level and the gross enrolments at primary level for girls.
312
Going by this composite indicator, all but two of the 100 most backward districts, all but four out of the first 150 most backward districts and all but nine out of the 200 most backward districts are from educationally backward States. Thus, the present categorisation of educationally backward States appears to have some validity. However, the Working Group feels that even in "other States" there are districts which are educationally backward and need special attention.
2.4 In the Eighth Plan, it is proposed to adopt a strategy for universalisation of elementary education which envisages classification of districts into four categories:
(i) Educationally advanced districts.
(ii) Districts where total literacy campaigns have been taken up or are proposed to be taken up.
(iii) Educationally backward States where total literacy campaigns cannot be taken up because of the objective conditions.
(iv) Extremely backward districts which are predominently inhabited by tribals.
Each category would have a distinct strategy for promoting universalisation of elementary education.
Recommendations reflect existing provisions of NPE.
Disaggregated target setting and participatory micro- planning have to be given more emphasis Educationally backward districts wherever located need to be given more attention.
Educational Complexes
(Recommendation No.307) 2.5 The NPERC assigns a very important role to Educational Complexes in the planning and implementation of different education programmes. In many Chapters, such a pivotal role has been assigned to educational complexes, e.g., Recommendation Nos.15, 28, 35, 39 (Education and Women's Equality), Nos.62 and 68 (Education for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Educationally Backward Minorities), No.132 (Early Childhood Care and Education), Nos.155(a), 158, 169, 171, 173 and 175 (Universalisation of Elementary Education) and Nos.284 and 290 (Teachers and Students).
2.6 The NPERC notes that the NPE and POA had reiterated the idea of school complexes first mooted by the Education Commission 1964-66. Taking this as the point of departure, the Committee suggests a larger networking of institutions in a district so as to cover colleges also. A role has also been envisaged for the university serving the region; the university could help development of the complex through its faculty, students and technical resources.A memorandum of understanding is proposed between the complex and the university. Noting that the idea may rouse cynicism, the Committee pleads that the innovation be given a reasonable chance for trial and suggests setting up of educational complexes at the rate of at least one in a district. The Committee vests the education complex with almost the entire responsibility of management of education in the area falling in its jurisdiction.
314
2.7 The feasibility of enlarging the networking of institutions in a school complex by inducting colleges and universities does not seem to be realistic. In actuality, colleges and universities themselves have not been satisfactorily discharging their innate responsibilities. There are indeed rare cases where universities and colleges have evinced sustained interest in extension services, community development and educational improvement of schools in their vicinity. However, such interest has been the exception rather than the rule. The Mass Programme for Functional Literacy (MPFL) is a case in point. MPFL has, by and large, remained confined to school students. Universities and colleges have practically taken little interest in the programme. Going by this experience, to think of a leading role for colleges and universities in the educational complex seems to be far fetched.
2.8 Further, there appears to be a certain degree of inconsistency in the Committee's approach to Educational Complexes. Taking note of the practical difficulties, recommendation No.307 in Chapter 14 advocates that on a pilot basis, at least one Educational Complex may be established in every district during the Eighth Five Year Plan so as to develop a functional model. However, in Chapter 6 (Universalisation of Elementary Education), the educational complex is not conceived to be an-innovative idea which is to be tested and tried out, but a model which should be universally adopted straightaway and which should play a key role in universalisation of elementary education. It is recommended that all decision making powers in respect of Operation Black Board should be devolved on the
315
Educational Complex (Recommendation No.158). According to the Committee, the goal of UEE may be viewed in two phases - the first phase of Universalisation of Primary Education (UPE) and the second phase of UEE, The school is expected by the Committee to undertake micro-planning for UPE in association with the Educational Complex (Recommendation No.173). Monitoring of the move towards UEE is also linked with Educational Complex (Recommendation No.175). it is suggested in Recommendation No.307 that the Eighth Plan would witness the development of a functional model of Educational Complex; going by that recommendation Recommendation Nos.158, 173 and 175 can be implemented on a full scale only in the Ninth Plan. The Committee could not have expected Operation Black Board, UPE and monitoring to wait till then. Strategies for UEE cannot await the establishment or operationalisation of these complexes.
2.9 However, the vision of a school complex as conceived by the Kothari Commission and articulated in NPE (para 10.7) needs to be operationalised on a large scale. In the educational management system there is indeed a void which can be filled by an institution like the school complex. As articulated by NPE, School Complex should have in-built flexibility. As the institutional resource endowment varies from place to place, there can be no single model. If there is a good university or college in an area with capabilities of providing inputs in school education, an Educational Complex on the lines suggested by NPERC can be tried out.
2.10 The NPERC vests the Education Complex with, inter alia, the
316
'powers' to prepare and implement the action plans for universalisation of education, for those who come within the area of the complex. Decentralisation and participative management, in the true sense, would suggest that 'powers' should vest with the village community itself. The village community, particularly women, should be empowered to demand educational services and accountability from the educational system. It is in this background that participative microplanning outlined in NPE (para 5. 12) and POA acquires importance. Microplanning could occupy the centre stage in the strategy in the Eighth Plan for UEE.
2.11 The NPERC suggests that the State Government may interact with Educational Complex through District Board of Education (DBE).NPE (para 10.6) envisages a, very important role for DBEs in the management of education up to the secondary level. DBE would be a tripartite body with the participation of district officials, elected representatives of the district and teachers. It would be necessary to expeditiously implement this seminal idea which would go a long way in toning up the management of the education system in the district in a decentralised and participative manner.
Educational complexes a variant of school complexes envisaged in NPE.
May be tried on an experimental basis in selected areas Large scale adoption seems not feasible.
District Boards of Education need to be set up and operationalised expeditiously.
317
Indian Education Service
(Recommendation No.308) 2.12 NPE advocated the establishment of an Indian Education service, as an all India service, with a view to bring about a national perspective to the management and administration of education. However, the NPERC came to the conclusion that the creation of the Indian Education Service is not practicable, on the following grounds:
* There is no unanimity of opinion on the same
* Some States have objected to the same for administrative reasons
* The Education Commission 1964-66 recommended a slightly different service
* The service runs contrary to the concept of decentralisation.
Instead, it has suggested cadres of Educational Advisory Services to be created in the States on the model of the Government of India.
2.13 Establishment of Indian Education Service has been recommended by different forums from tine to tine - National Integration Conference (1961) , National Education Commission (1964- 66), Rajya Sabha (1965), Chief Minister's Conference (1965), Ninth Education Ministers, Conference, Madras (1966), National Commission on Teachers (1984), Estimates Committee of the 7th Lok Sabha (1983-84), Sarkaria Commission (1983-84) and National Policy on Education (1986).
318
2.14 Constitution of the Indian Education Service has a long historical basis, as indicated in para 2.13. Just to cite a few viewpoints, the 77th Report of Estimates Committee (1983-84) of the Seventh Lok Sabha on the Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Personnel & A.R.) made the following recommendation:
"The Committee considered that All India-Service in the field of education which is now a subject in the Concurrent List should be of immediate help in bringing about uniformity in approach to education and in educational standards all over the country. It would also be a firm step in the common endeavour to bring about national integration. The Committee, therefore, desired that the Central Government should commence the process of consultations of the IES for which the Rajya Sabha had already passed a Resolution in March, 1965"
2.15 The National Commission on Teachers-I (1984) also recommended the constitution of the IES without further delay. While making this recommendation the Commission had observed that "the IES will be a healthy check on the narrow parochialism and divisive tendencies within the national system of education. The Commission is convinced that the process of education may at all levels would be speeded up considerably with the help of the IES". The Commission further noted that "the institution of Indian Education Service will contribute materially to national integration. Since the Service would be common to the Centre and States there would be movement of officers -between then and this mobility and inter-change of experience would be of advantage both
319
to the Centre as well as the State Administrations.
2.16 NPE (para 10.3) had pointed out that a proper management structure in education will entail the establishment of the Indian Education Service as an All India Service which would bring a national perspective to this vital sector. The idea of an Indian Education Service is no less relevant now and needs to be pursued and the process of consultation with States hastened. As the process of consultation is not complete it is premature to give up the idea of Indian Education Service. An All India Service for Education has the potential to recruit the best talent to education; many bright youngsters who joined other all India services would have opted to remain in the education field had there been an Indian Education Service. Allotment of a certain percentage of the recruits to States other than those to which they belong promotes national integration and national outlook in the management of education. In States, such a service would promote establishment of good norms, professionalism and continuity. Such a service would also further better Centre-State relations in the field of education and bring the much needed State perspective in the management of education by the Government of India. The educational advisory service suggested by NPERC is no substitute for an All India Service.