35
Table No. 1B
Provision of Middle Schools in Rural Areas, 1965
Distance No. of Population
(in Miles) habitations (millions)
0 69,424 100.146
(25.45)
0.1-1.0 232,015 82,488
(24.80)
1.1-2.0 243,699 87,207
(21.90)
2.1-3.0 167,756 55,574
(14.01)
3.1-4.0 90,527 26,950
(6.80)
4.1-5.0 57,578 14.184
(3.50)
More than 5 127,312 29,231
(7.37)
Total 782,251 396,580
(100.00)
Source : Second All-India Education Survey, 1965 (NCERT) Table Nos. 8 and 63.
N.B.-(1) Figures in parantheses denote percentages to total.
(2) Statistics of rural areas only have been given because all urban areas were necessarily provided with primary and middle schools.
36
(3) The data does not give any idea, about the adequacy of the provision. For instance, even if a village needed ten teachers and only had a single teacher school, it has Still been shown as having been provided with facilities for primary education.
2.16 Universal Enrolment : The mere establishment of a school in a given locality does not imply that it is availed of by all the children therein. In fact, the school is generally availed of by the children from the educated and well-to do families only in the first instance. It takes a long time, and needs many special measures, for the school to reach the poor and deprived sections of the community. This is why enrolment must be considered as a separate issue and we must try to carol all children in the age-group 6- 11 in primary schools (classes I-V) and all children in the age-groups 11-14 in middle schools (classes VI-VIII).
2.17 The following table gives the population of children in the age-group 6-11 and 11-14 between 1950-51 and 1965-66.
Table No. 2
Population of Children (1950-51 to 1965-66)
(in millions)
Age-group 6-11 Age-group 11-14
Year
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
1950-51 22.029 21.083 43.112 12.806 11.955 24.761
1960-61 28.629 27.588 56.217 15.314 14.575 29.829
1965-66 33.342 32.124 65.466 7.350 16.675 34.025
2.18 The Actual enrolment of children in classes I-V was 19.160 millions in 1950-51, and that in classes VI-VIII was 3.120 millions. it is, therefore, obvious that if we wanted to provide, universal elementary education by 1960-61, we should have enrolled 37.057 million additional children (or roughly about 3.7 million a year) in classes I-V and 26.709 million additional children (or roughly about 2.7 million a year in classes VI-VIII. If, on the other hand, we had to reach this objective by
37
1965-66, we should have enrolled 46.306 million additional children (or about 3.1 million a year) in classes I-V and 30.905 million additional children (or roughly about 2.1 million children a year) in classes VI-VIII. But in fact, our actual performance fell far too short of these targets as the following table shows -
Table No. 3
Enrolments In Elementary Education (1950-51 to 1965-66)
(in millions)
Enrolments in Classes Enrolments in Classes
I-V VI- VIII
Year
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
1950-51 13.77 5.39 19.16 2.59 0.53 3.12
(60.6) (24.8) (43.1) (20.6) (4.6) (12.9)
1960-61 23.59 11.40 34.99 5.07 1.43 6.70
(82.5) (41.4) (62.4) (33.2) (11.3) (22.5)
1965-66 32.18 18.29 50.47 7.68 2.85 10.53
(96.3) (56.5) (76.4) (44.2) (17.6) (30.8)
N.B. (1) Figures in parantheses denote percentages to the total population of the age-groups 6-11 and 11-14.
(2) It is necessary to point out that a fairly large proportion of the children actually enrolled in classes I-VIII is outside the usual age-limits (6 14); they are either below six or above fourteen. To (his extent, the number of non-enrolled children is larger than that indicated by the above, data. This factor is, however. ignored in this discussion because it is possible to argue It we can refuse admission to all such children below and above the prescribe ages and admit an equivalent number of children from within the age group 6-14.
38
(3) The above data gives no indication of adequacy of buildings equipment or teachers. In some cases we may have surplus teachers and partially filled class-room. In others, the situation may be just the opposite. These factors do not however cancel each other out. On the whole, the inadequacies are very large and are increasing with time.
2.19 The exact shortfall in our achievements can be seen in the following data -
Between Between
1950-51 and 1960-61 1950-51 and 1965-66
(in 000s) (in 000s)
1. Actual average annual
increase in enrolment
in Classes IV 1,583 2,090
Classes VI-VIII 358 494
Total 1,941 2,584
2. Average annual increase
in enrolment needed if
the goal of universal
education was to be
reached by 1960-61 in
Classes
I-V 3,706
Classes VI-VIII 2,671
Total 6,377
3. Average annual incre-
ase in enrolment
needed if the goal was
to be reached by 1965-
66 in Classes I-V 3,087
Classes VI-III 2,063
Total 5,150
39
In other words, our achievement was only about 30 per cent of the expected if we had to reach the goal by 1960-61 and only about 50 per cent of the expected if we had to reach the goal by 1965-66.
2.20 Universal Retention : This failure was due, not so much to the non-enrolment of children in Class I (in fact, there was evidence to show that more than two-thirds of the children in the age-group 6-7 mere actually enrolled in Class I) but mainly to the failure to retain children in schools till they complete elementary education. More than sixty per cent of the children enrolled left the schools prematurely, mainly because they had to work for or within the family. Since the economic conditions of the poor did not improve materially and since no special educational measures were also adopted to meet the needs of economically handicapped children (e.g. part-time education), the wastage rates in elementary education continued to be high throughout the period under review; and these constituted the most difficult hurdle in the progress of universal elementary education.1
2.21 In 1965-66, therefore, the situation was that we had failed to provide universal primary education as adumbrated in Art. 45 of the Constitution, There was also no revised plait prepared on the subject so that we did not know when and how the goal indicated in this Article would ever be reached.
Basic Education 2.22 On the qualitative side, the target-in elementary education was equally clear : to convert every elementary school to the basic pattern. This was also a very major commitment of the pre- independence period. But for various reasons, it was not possible to realize this target also which, it must be admitted, was even more difficult than the quantitative targets.
2.23 The scheme of basic education as originally conceived by Mahatma Gandhi visualized an education of seven years (age-group 7-14) to be provided to every child. The scheme made socially useful productive work the medium of education so that children learnt as they worked and the work became, not a mere subject in the curriculum, but
40
the very medium round which every other item in the curriculum was closely integrated. Gandhiji also did not want any English to be taught at this stage and was therefore of the view that it should be possible to provide, during this period of seven years, a level of education equal to that of the matriculation, minus English plus craft. He also felt that the articles produced by the children should be able to make a profit which should meet all the expenses of the school including the salaries of the teachers; and he was sure that this would be possible if the State took over the entire produce of the school. In fact, he attached the highest significance to this self-sufficiency aspect of the scheme which he described as its acid test. It was only this financial independence said Gandhiji, that would give education its autonomy and free it from State control or interference.
2.24 The scheme of basic education as it came to be finally accepted by the country was a very different cup of tea and compromised with many fundamental features of the programme. For instance, the scheme as visualised by Mahatma Gandhi was a non-formal system unconnected with the State. The scheme as accepted by the country was equivalent only to the introduction of socially useful productive work as an integral part of the formal school system supported by the State. Gandhiji's scheme was to be financially self- sufficient. But in the scheme as adopted, this aspect of self- sufficiency was totally abandoned. All that was expected was that the children would either produce some articles for their own use or the receipts from the sales of articles produced by the children would be able to meet the cost of raw-materials and leave some profit which could be given to the students or used for their welfare. While enough time was allotted to the learning of the craft, it was no longer necessary to correlate all items of the curriculum with it : correlation was desirable, wherever possible, but not mandatory. Each basic school, however, was expected to function as a community and engage itself in some meaningful programmes of service to the local people. It was also decided that English could be taught in basic schools. In fact, a luminary of basic education observed that the principles of basic education were best practised in some of the English-medium special schools.
2.25 In implementation, the programme ran into many difficulties. The experiment did not become popular in urban areas or with the upper and middle classes who did not want their children to work with their hands and who felt that the standards of education would suffer because of the heavy time reserved for craft work. It did not have much relevance to the life of the children from poor families because it was tried out only
41
in full-time schools which these working children could not and did not attend. The attitudes of the State Government showed great variations; some evinced a firm commitment and many were almost totally indifferent. The top leadership paid lip sympathy to the programme but preferred to send their own children to English-medium schools so that basic education came to be defined as the best education for other people's children. The Government of Uttar Pradesh converted all its primary schools to the basic pattern overnight. But in other States where space, equipment and materials, trained teachers, etc. were considered essential, the progress of the experiment was very slow. On the one hand, the State Governments; could not or did not provide the needed trends. On the other, it was, found that, while good work was done in schools where competent and; dedicated teachers were available, any large scale expansion of the proramme did not work satisfactorily. It was also found that basic education would not help the programme of universalisation of elementary education. For one thing, the basic schools proved to be costlier than the non-basic schools and not cheaper as was originally expected. Besides, the basic schools were not popular with the parents and did not show that they had any greater power, to attract and hold children than the non-basic schools. As time passed, there was also an increasing opposition to the idea that elementary schools should be divided into two types-the basic and the non-basic and a demand was put forward that all elementary schools should provide a uniform education to all children-an education which would be- the best the country can afford. Two main lines of thought thus emerged in the light of the experience of nearly 30 years of the working of the scheme (1937-66) : (1) the first was that a reformulation of the scheme itself was called for; and (2) secondly whatever the formulation of the scheme, its implementation had to be much better.
2.26 There were three principal gains on the pedagogic side. The salaries of the elementary school teachers (which were, in many areas, extremely low) were considerably improved; more extensive arrangements were made for the training of teachers whose quality was also improved and there was a general improvement in curricula and text-books. But even these were counterbalanced by two main losses. In 1950-51, the expenditure on teachers' salaries formed 80.3 per cent of the total direct expenditure on primary schools and the corresponding figure for middle school was 75.8 per cent. In 1965-66, however, these proportions rose to 90.7 per cent for primary schools and 89.2 per cent for middle schools, thus showing that other qualitative inputs in elementary education was
42
considerably declining.1 Secondly, because of the comparative neglect of elementary education, its share in total educational expenditure declined from 38.7 per cent in 1950-51 to 34.4 per cent in, 1965-66.
2.27 One important issue needs analysis before we close this discussion. Throughout the period under review, the political leadership at the national, State and district levels laid great emphasis on the largest possible expansion of elementary education that could be secured within the resources available which, of course is quite different from a commitment to the goal of providing universal education. Incidentally, it may be pointed out that the policy of the British administrators was very similar; they also wanted the largest possible expansion of elementary education but ruled out the provision of compulsory education on administrative and financial grounds of decisive weight (Govt. of India Resolution on Educational Policy, 1913). The way in which we are developing the programme of elementary education since 1950 implies that we strive for the-largest possible expansion of elementary education and only 'endeavour' to provide free and compulsory education at some distant and undefined date ! Comments on the 'distinction' between these two policies, if any, are needless. But it is necessary to understand why even this emphasis on the largest possible expansion of elementary education was so consistently laid by the leadership at all levels. My analysis is that the political leadership welcomed the expansion of elementary education for two main reasons : (1) it boosted their political capital if they opened schools in schoolless areas; and (2) the expansion of elementary education Save them the largest single avenue to provide employment to secondary school teachers (the completion of the secondary course now became the minimum qualification for elementary teachers). Let us not forget that between 1950-51 and 1965-66, the enrolment in elementary education increased roughly at 25.84 lakhs a year and that this implied the appointment of about 100,000 teachers a year (including replacements). With the large expansion that was taking place, the system of secondary education would have collapsed if these employment opportunities were not available. I am confirmed in this analysis by long discussion I have had with political leaders at various levels. I always found that they were interested in the programme only until a school was opened, a teacher or teachers were appointed and their political and patronage interests were satisfied. But as soon as this was done, they lost all further interest in elementary
1. The target in this regard has been that the teachers salaries should form 60 to 70 p.c. of the total expenditure to provide adequate services like better equipment, better teaching materials, free books or free meals.
43
education and never bothered whether the teachers went to the schools or not or whether children learnt anything at all. These were matters of no consequence to them; and this is one of the main reasons why it is so difficult to control teacher-truancy or to lay adequate emphasis on improved attendance or reduction of wastage or raising of standards.
Adult Education 2.28 The cause of adult education or of liquidating mass illiteracy fared far worse and, as stated earlier, the problem was shelved altogether. The main argument was that, in the long run, the provision of universal elementary education was the surest way to liquidate illiteracy and that, if we were to achieve the goal of universal education for children in the age-group 6-14 within ten years, it would be unnecessary to mount up a massive programme of adult education in addition.
2.29 The programme of adult education, which was designated as social education to emphasize the fundamental and social aspects of the programme, was kept going in a small way, mainly in relation to the community development programme in which the integral role of social education was recognized. The following data speak for themselves:
Table No. 4
Adult (Social Education 1950-51 to 1965-66)
Year No. of institutions Enrolment Expenditure (Rs.)
1950-51 48,556 1,256,011 7,218,126
1955-56 46,091 1,282,710 7,196,186
1960-61 62,815 1,494,794 7,927,765
1965-66 2,17,912 1,637,541 5,548,466