i) universal enrolment and universal retention of children upto 14 years of age, and

ii) a substantial improvement in the quality of education.

The Committee concurs that the issue of enrolment and retention can not be delinked from the issue of quality improvement as far as UEE is concerend. However, the above list of aspects to be emphasised is incomplete as it does not take into account certain areas of concern which have a critical bearing on the capability of the school to attract and retain children. These additional thrust areas proposed by the Committee are :

a) Convergence of services in a habitation/village/ mohalla, as has been envisaged, for instance, for ensuring girls, access to school education. In this case, it implies that holistic day care for children in the 0-6 age group and water, fuel and fodder services need coverage in all those habitations or bastis where girls' participation in education is low. Without this convergence, a significant section of the girls' population may not find it possible to respond to the school at all, no matter how much of any one of these services is provided singly.

155

b) Linkage between the school and the community, as discussed earlier has an organic role in UEE. The school, being a part of a vast Government machinery, stands alienated from the community whose children it attempts to teach. For this reason the school becomes totally dependent on Government financing and infrastructural support. Whatever support the general public was providing to the school at the beginning of this century, or even at the time of independence, has sharply declined.

c) Decentralised and participative mode of planning and managing school education are generally talked about but rarely brought into practice. This has unfortunately reduced the status of the teacher, acclaimed as the pivot of our educational system, to the level of, at best, a glorified clerk. Neither the concerned voluntary agencies and community groups nor the general public have any effective say in moulding the course of action in education. The entire initiative and decision-making powers have become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands over the past few decades. The Constitutional amendment of 1976, bringing education into the Concurrent List, has further added to this trend, with the initiative as well as accountability fast slipping out of the hands of the State Governments, not to speak of the Panchayati Raj institutions at village, block or district levels.

Recommendations

i) The Policy Statement in para 5.5 of NPE should be modified to incorporate the following three areas of concern as thrust areas':-

(a) Convergence of services,

(b) Linkage between the school and the community, and

ii). Formulation of strategies for UEE must take into account the three thrust areas listed above along with the two areas already included in para 5.5.

156

6. 3 . 3 The policy has certainly done well by emphasising child- centred approach to education and by pointing out that it is the 'best motivation for the child to attend school and learn, (Para 5.6). The Committee's perspective in this regard is presented below :

i) Although implied in the warm, welcoming and encouraging approach' mentioned in NPE, it would be better if the policy would explicitly refer to the elements of joy, fun, exploration and play as integral to learning in the early stages of primary education. This explicit mention is required because the prevailing educational practice in the school system not only excludes these elements, but seems to consciously resist their introduction in the learning process.

ii) Similarly, the policy statement should emphasise the role of singing, drawing, clay- modelling, games and particularly all forms of folk art and folk lore in enriching the learning process.

iii) It is not clear why the benefit of being 'allowed to set their own pace and be given supplementary remedial instruction, is restricted only to the first generation learners. By implication, the policy would deny the other children the advantage of setting their own pace.

iv) The policy emphasises the need to increase cognitive learning and the skill component with the growth of the child. In the same spirit, the policy should have emphasised the role of the affective domain and psychomotor skills at the earlier stages.

v) Whereas the Committee endorses the declaration of retaining the policy of non- detention at the primary stage, it is presented in the negative framework of detention versus non- detention. Instead, a positive concept of continuous, disaggregated and comprehensive evaluation as a means of improving the quality of learning should have been emphasised, with a clear understanding that the concept of a terminal examination has no place in child-centred education (the widespread antagonism amongst the teachers to the non-detention policy in vogue in several States probably has its roots in this negative presentation and teachers' lack of appreciation of the tool of continuous evaluation for quality improvement).

vi) The policy declares that 'corporal punishment will be firmly excluded'. While welcoming this assertion, it may be noted that corporal punishment is already excluded on paper in most of the States/UTs. Yet it persists in most parts of the country. Therefore, the policy would have done well by emphasising measures to

157

control the socio-cultural, psychological and educational factors that justify corporal punishment in the minds of the teachers.

vii) Similarly the policy declaration to adjust school timings as well as vacations to 'the convenience of children' has been made time and again from several public for a. The policy should have, instead, spelt out its strategy to mitigate the reasons that have not allowed this to happen so far.

Recommendation

The Policy Statement on 'Child-Centred Approach' in para 5.6 of NPE should be modified in order to remove the inconsistencies and/or lacunae, as pointed out above.

6.3.4 A close reading of the POA reveals that in its view the rapid expansion, which was not accompanied by sufficient investment of resources', is responsible for 'a deterioration in academic standards' (Para 1, Chapter II). This seems to be rather over-simplification of a fairly complex situation. Many other factors are acknowledged as determinants of the quality of learning in the schools. The Review Committee regards the teachers, the community and the social environment as the key factors for moving towards child centred approach and better standards in education. Provision of additional facilities to the schools (e.g. Operation Blackboard) must be made but it should never be construed to imply that this alone would bring about the desired change in the schools.

6.3.5 The POA lays a great deal of emphasis on decentralisation off planning and educational management. gives a call to political parties and their 'local level constructive workers' to play an important role in bringing about an upsurge towards UEE (Para 9). It further intends to give an 'effective voice' to women, youth, and the sections of society who have remained deprived of educational opportunities'. While these proposals are welcome, they lose their meaning since the policy adopts strategies and measures that concentrate initiative and decision-making in a few hands and discourage participation. The highly centralised conceptualisation, planning and execution of the two focal strategies adopted by NPE for UEE- i.e. Operation Blackboard and Non-Formal Education- are cases in point.

6.3.6 As was shown earlier, the reliability of enrolment data is in question. Depending upon the local variables, it is inflated by a factor of two or more. Yet the POA appears to lay

158

considerable faith in the success of the enrolment drive taken up in the seventies and eighties, as indicated by the Gross Enrolment Ratios rising to the level of almost 98% in 1987-88. Consequently, the POA recommends a 'shift from enrolment to retention' (Para 13, Chapter II). What is required here is not a shift but a contiunation of concern for the dismally low rate of 'genuine' enrolment as well as for improving retention.

6.3.7 The POA recommends that an attempt should be made to switch over to 5+3+2 pattern by 1995 so that it coincides with the target year for UEE'. It is not at all clear what relationship between the 5+3+2 pattern and UEE is envisaged by the POA. This is, however, a significant matter. According to the Review Committee, the present mode of curriculum development and content planning in the primary and middle schools is determined by what is planned at the +2 level. This results in unnecessarily burdening the child in the elementary school and, at the same time, in not allowing the growth of a holistic and self-sufficient view of the first five and eight years of schooling respectively. In the present stage of social development in most parts of India, a large majority of children, even with improved strategies of universalisation, would quit schooling after either Class V or Class VIII. It is, therefore, crucial that the curriculum development at these two levels is aimed to provide for a self- sufficient model of knowledge, skills and attitudes within the elementary system such that the majority of children can go out into the 'world of work' and continue self-learning throughout life. It is not being suggested that the +2 level is unnecessary for the majority of our children. As education is a sub-system of the social system, the +2 level is to become both accessible and important in the life of the majority of the children, as the country moves into a higher stage of social development. To be sure, this would not come about without a drastic overhaul of the present development policy and a clear tilt towards equity and social justice innational life. Until this happens the +2 level shall remain outside the purview of universalisation.

Recommendations

i) While giving due importance to the provision of additional facilities to the schools, the policy must also stress the role of the teacher, the community and the social environment as key factors in improvement of the quality of school education.

ii) since the present enrolment data are not reliable the policy should stress a continuing concern for improving both enrolment and retention, as distinct from enrolment to retention.

iii) The curriculum at the +2 level should not be allowed

159

to determine the content and process of education at the primary and middle school levels. The curriculum development for the primary and middle school stages should aim at evolving a self-sufficient model of knowledge, skills and attitudes so that the majority of children who would not proceed to the high schools would be fully equipped to enter the 'world of work' and continue self-learning throughout life.

Reviewing the Resolve

6.4.1 In Para 5.12, the NPE has stated its 'Resolve' for UEE in the following words :

"The New Education Policy will give the highest priority to solving the problem of children dropping out of school and will adopt an array of meticulously formulated strategies based on micro-planning, and applied at the grass-roots level all over the country, to ensure children's retention at school. This effort will be fully coordinated with the network of nonformal education. It shall be ensured that all children who attain the age of about 11 years by 1990 will have had five years of schooling, or its equivalent through the non-formal stream. Likewise, by 1995 all children will be provided free and compulsory education upto 14 years of age".

The Committee wishes to offer the following comments on the above statement.

6.4.2 While appreciating the emphasis in 'Resolve' on solving the problem of drop-outs and on ensuring retention, it may be noted that no strategy, howsoever 'meticulously formulated' it may be, can be effective as long as enrolment is not similarly stressed. Under today's conditions, if all of the children attending Class I are retained upto Class VIII, it may still amount to provision of schooling tomerely 50% of the children and one-thirds of the girls in the relevant age group. 'Obviously this was not intended by the policy.

9.4.3 The, latter half of the 'Resolve' statement is significant as it makes the following fresh proposals for universalisation for the first time in an official document - a) It views the goal of UEE in two phases provision of primary education for all children who attain the age of 11 years by 1990, and of elementary education for all children upto 14 years of age by 1995.

b) It is the first time that a policy admits that the

160 school may not be able to reach all children. The NPE, therefore, envisages a major role for the non-formal stream in moving towards UEE. This is clearly reflected in the reference to 'five years of schooling, or its equivalent through the non-formal stream'.

6.4.4 The phasing of UEE into two stages- Universalisation of Primary Education (UPE) in the first phase and UEE in the second phase- has been interpreted by some as a step towards dilution of the nation's commitment to the Constitutional directive. This negative interpretation is mainly because of the continued failure in moving towards universalisation since independence. Here, even the NPE's 'Resolve' does not remedy the situation. It may be noted that the policy formulated as it was around mid1986 would begin to be implemented only in the academic year of 1987. This left only three years for schooling until 1990 for children who would have by then attained the age of about 11 years. How did then the NPE expect to provide them with 'five years of schooling'? Apparently, NPE was fitted in the timeframe of the Seventh Five Year Plan. In this light, the Resolve' to 'meticulously formulated strategies based on micro- planning' seems rather over ambitious.

6.4.5 It could be argued that the intention instead was to achieve the stated goal through the non-formal system which would lead to educational attainments equivalent to those in the primary schools within a period of three years. The Committee has not been able to lead itself to accepting such a line of thinking.

In this context the Committee went into the question whether any reliable data regarding attainments emerging from pre NPE years of implementation of NFE programme was available. Based on interactions with the authorities of the Department as well as others, the Committee came to the finding that no such data were available at the time of formulation of NPE. (The evaluation study conducted by NCERT in 1985-86 on the efficacy of NFE was still in progress at the time of NPE formulation and hence the Policy could not have been informed by this study. The presentation made by the officers of the Department of Education before the Committee was mainly in terms of inputs and without information on attainment outputs). Yet the NPE's 'Resolve' enlarged NFE into a significant parallel sector.

6.4.6 Regarding the new programme of non-formal education (NFE), the following features envisaged by NPE/POA are being highlighted- below:

i) NFE shall strive to reach 'school drop-outs, (for) children from habitations without schools, working children and girls who cannot attend whole-day schools' (NPE, Para 5.8).

ii) The curriculum framework of NFE, though patterned on the lines of the national core curriculum, will be

161

based on the needs of the learners and related to the local environment' (NPE, Para 5.10)

iii) Learning material of high quality will be developed' (NPE, Para 5.10).

iv) The NFE shall promote 'a learner-centred approach' emphasis on learning rather than teaching', continuous learner evaluation', 'creation of participatory learning environment' and 'joyful extra-curricular activities' (POA, Para 26).

v) The NFE shall organise activities to 'enable learners to progress at their own pace' and to 'learn from each other' (POA, Para 26).