Is education for all a chimera?
S.S.RAJAGOPALAN
|
Offers insight into the primary education schene in the whole country.
|
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IN INDIA — Where Do We Stand? District Report Cards 2005, Two Volumes: Arun C. Mehta — Editor; National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, 17-B, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-100016. Price not stated.
The two-volume report under review is a compendium of the District Report Cards (DRC), prepared by the District Primary Education (DPEP) and later Sarva Shikshan Abhiyan (SSA) administrators of the various states. This is a part of the Educational Management Information System (EMIS) which has been in vogue since the implementation of the Education for All (EFA) Programme.
The DRCs are intended not only to take stock of achievements but also to identify areas of weaknesses and shortcomings so that necessary remedial and corrective interventions are undertaken to keep SSA on a sound track. The format of the DRC has been well-drawn with all details of census data as well as other indicators to study the status of SSA.
The demographic data like population, sex ratio, school age-going children and number of SC/ST children are followed by details of provision of access to education, the quantum and quality of the infrastructure provided. The quality indicators include the rates of dropouts, repeaters and promotion, as well as percentage of students scoring above 60% in tests. Data with regard to vulnerable sections like SC/ST, girls with regard to all indicators are furnished side by side. In short, the format has been well-designed to obtain relevant materials.
Education scene
The report provides insight into the educational scene in the whole country. While there are positive achievements like provision of at least two classrooms for every primary school, the report also reveals the various failures in achieving the SSA targets. Single-teacher schools continue to exist in substantial numbers and it is not difficult to surmise that they cater to the poorest of the poor.
The introduction to the report admits that many district reports suffer from incompleteness. A cursory glance will show that most district-level officers have not taken care to furnish correct and complete details. The indifference and lack of application of mind can be seen throughout the report.
There are sufficient indications that many investigators had not fully understood the terms and nomenclatures used in the report. For example, the common term `medium of instruction' has been interpreted differently. Some appear to have taken it for mother tongue while some others have given details of languages taught. Sanskrit is given as medium of instruction by several districts, especially in Rajasthan and in Uttar Pradesh. It was strange to find, among other media, Kashmir, Manipuri, Assamese and Marathi mentioned as media in the rural parts of Tamil Nadu!
The reviewer wonders whether any of these languages are taught at all in any of the primary schools in Tamil Nadu. Likewise, while some districts have furnished the absolute number of students studying the languages, a few had given it as percentages. Many districts had left it blank or given 0 as the number of students learning their own mother tongue or state language. Some districts have given figures for a five-year period commencing from 2000-01. Many had confined themselves to three years or less, thereby making it difficult to find out the growth pattern.
The entries relating to single-teacher schools are baffling. Some of the secondary schools with upper primary classes are reported as single teacher schools. If they had taken it to mean the number of teachers in the primary sections attached to the secondary school, it should have been specified clearly. In the absence of definition of terms, it is very difficult to subject the data to any meaningful analysis.
Distant dream?
The three primary objectives of EFA and SSA are 100 per cent access, 100 per cent retention and 100 per cent attainment of minimum standards. The report reveals that we are far, far away from achieving any of these objectives, for the data furnished reveal that not all those enrolled in standard I enter even standard II and most children do not complete primary education. If such be the case, it is to be wondered whether the constitutional Right to Education up to the age of 14 years will ever be realised in the near future. The DRC also points out that all the states offer one or more incentives to children in the form of free textbooks and noon meals. It is a moot question why these incentives have failed to retain the children in the system.
It is surprising that NIEPA has published the reports as they were with all the flaws and omissions. It is expected that NIEPA would set matters right before embarking on the next ventures, namely, State Report Cards and the Analytical Report 2005, if only these are to be valuable inputs in decision-making.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Book Review
