Through a two-way process comprising text analysis of the policy framework of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme and analysis of empirical data collected through interaction with policy implementers, teachers, students, experts, etc, this article puts forth the argument that urban education system has failed partly because of the inability of the implementers to plan, manage and facilitate the programme.
Monika Banerjee (banerji...@gmail.com) is with the Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. http://www.epw.in/commentary/elementary-education-urban-poor.html This article is based on my MPhil Research Dissertation completed in 2009 from the Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Despite consistent emphasis on providing free and compulsory education to all children below the age of 14 years, policies and programmes designed to ensure universal elementary education have failed to capture the contextual reality and specific situation of urban children in India (Ramachandran 2006). This is because it is widely believed that urban areas are well-provided with educational facilities, and therefore, development of primary education need not be a matter of major concern for urban education planners (Govinda 1995). This assumption fails to capture the fact that urban areas present wide disparity in terms of the socio-ec0nomic status of its population (Govinda 1995), and, therefore, concerns and issues unique to an urban set-up are not taken into consideration when strategic interventions are planned for ensuring provision of quality education to the urban poor. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) is a flagship programme for promoting universal primary education, regarding the urban poor as a “special focused group”. However, within its Framework for Implementation (2008) it prescribes norms for both rural and urban areas on almost similar lines, not giving any weightage to the fact that the sociopolitical context of an urban area differs greatly from that of a rural area. This article is based on a study carried out in Delhi in 2009, for which empirical data was collected from policy implementers at various state levels, teachers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), parents and children. It focuses on the lacunae within the framework of the SSA programme and highlights the problem areas in its implementation in Delhi and the concerns that the existing policy gaps pose for the education development of the urban poor. SSA Programme in Delhi The SSA programme was launched in Delhi in 2002, almost two years later than other states. The annual report of SSA Delhi for 2003-04 noted that due to the unique nature of Delhi being a city-state, with a much higher population density than the national average, it was not possible to apply the SSA programme at habitation level. Hence the SSA Delhi had to evolve new concepts and modify some of the existing to make it more applicable to the city needs. In order to achieve the defined goals, the Universal Elementary Education Mission (UEEM) Delhi took up the following initiatives: • Initiation of a hassle free admission procedures; • Direct transfer from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to Delhi government school after Class V; • Mobile schools for out of schoolchildren; • Vidyalaya Kalyan Samitis (VKS) for encouraging community participation; • District urban resource centres (DURCs) and cluster resource centres (CRCs) as per SSA guidelines. However, it has still been critiqued on various grounds. The Appraisal Note (2008-09: 15) prepared by 111th Project Appraisal Board Meeting noted, Planning and management seem to be the weakest areas as far as SSA Delhi is concerned. The district and sub-district structures are non-existent, and even at the State level only a few persons are managing all the affairs.1 This report and the CAG Performance Audit Report 20062 criticised the state for: following a crude, inconsistent and ad hoc approach to run the programme; lack of specialised staff; not spending the sanctioned budget in terms of civil work; being dependent on external sources for technical inputs, which wasted a lot of time in coordination; skewed teacher recruitment and distribution across the state; diluting the role of the DURC and CRC coordinators to being mere administrative in nature and lacking in terms of interventions for special focused group as mentioned in the SSA framework. During the course of this study, empirically too, numerous issues in relation to implementation of SSA in Delhi got highlighted. These issues and concerns have been detailed out under the following broad themes. Lack of Ownership In Delhi it was seen that the sense of ownership and commitment towards the SSA programme was lacking. Stakeholders at all levels seemed unclear about the programme; its objectives, its core philosophy/idea, and most importantly, about the areas in which it was assisting the state education system. The SSA was treated as an external programme and not as an integral part of the state education system and policy implementers were of the opinion that it was meant for “out of school” children and not for those within the formal school system. This clearly came across when a representative of the Directorate of Education (DoE) stated, There is no problem in implementation of SSA programme in Delhi. In fact, it is a support for us, both financially and physically. But we also help them. We give admission to their children in our schools. The use of “us” and “them” in this comment is pertinent in understanding this lack of integration of the SSA programme within the state education system. It was also seen that the programme’s emphasis on providing a framework for implementation (and not guidelines) was interpreted by SSA Delhi officials as “complete freedom given to all states to do what they want”. The SSA programme emphasises on framework mainly to ensure that local specificity is taken into consideration within the plans made by the state governments, but, it clearly outlines the process of planning, managing, monitoring that has to be followed in the implementation of the SSA programme. Thus, SSA is flexible, when it comes to what will go into the plan, but rigid about the implementation process to be followed. However, in the context of Delhi, it was seen that this emphasis within SSA for providing a framework and not guidelines was interpreted as being given a free hand to carry out the implementation of the programme in a way that was suitable to the state. Amongst teachers too, it was found that there was a confusion regarding the SSA activities that were being run in their schools. When they were asked whether they go for trainings; if any construction work has taken place in their school recently or if children have been provided with free textbooks and uniform, they said that all these activities were being carried out in their schools, but were under the impression that all these activities were being carried out by DoE, Delhi. Some teachers also raised concern that current teachers were not involved in planning and strategising activities of SSA Delhi. A teacher from MCD school said, who are the members of SSA? People who have retired from the education system – retired education officers, principals, teachers, etc, what is the point? They should make members out of people who are still working and are part of the system because they know the true situation. A few teachers also expressed frustration about the fact that the practical problems that they face on an everyday basis are not taken into consideration by the policymakers. A principal of an MCD school stated, People who take these decisions are IAS officers sitting in AC rooms, way away from ground reality. A lot depends on the principal who has to manage everything. There are lots of things. You take mid-day meal. It’s a very good programme but in our area there is shortage of water. Where will the children wash their plates after eating? So we have now asked the children to get carry bags from home so that after they finish eating, they can carry their dirty plates back home and wash it there. If we allow them to wash their plates, there will be no water for toilets. The children and parents who were interviewed were also found to be unaware about the SSA programme. Only a few children could recollect seeing boards/hoarding with drawing of “two children sitting on a pencil”, but did not know what it was about. Overemphasis on Infrastructure Development of infrastructure was seen as one of the main spheres of “success” of the programme in Delhi. New school buildings had come up and older ones had been repaired. Some schools had been given portakabins to be used as makeshift classrooms and new toilets and drinking water facilities were added in many schools. The Building as Learning Aid (BaLA) project had also brought major changes in school environment. School buildings had become more colourful with board games being painted on walls and floors. In some schools, a room was allotted for BaLA activities. Teachers, especially of the Delhi government-run Sarvodaya schools, seemed extremely pleased with the infrastructural development in their schools. They stated that the environment had become cleaner; and that children take pride in the fact that their school has a beautiful and clean campus. A teacher said, “it motivates them to come to school”. However, some MCD schoolteachers and principals raised concern regarding overemphasis on infrastructural development amongst SSA officials. It was felt that quality aspect of education was not given enough importance by SSA Delhi. This could be because physical or infrastructural developments are less complicated to plan and implement with easily measurable achievement targets. Quality aspects related to education are far more difficult to comprehend, plan and strategise. A teacher from a MCD school said, I went for one meeting where everyone was praising how much SSA has achieved. I got up and said that you are all talking about number of schools, number of rooms built, but what about the quality of education. How will that improve? They all got very upset. They said that it is first important to see that all children are in school after that quality comes. They don’t understand. The experts who were interviewed also agreed to this situation. As one of them clearly stated, “although infrastructurally there has been a lot of improvement in Delhi schools, quality aspects are still missing. Overall, SSA has been a failure in Delhi.” This also highlighted the difference in perception of quality at each level of implementation. On one hand, the officials of SSA Delhi were quite pleased with their performance, but on the other, teachers gave importance to those aspects of quality in schooling which is beyond mere provisioning of basic facilities. The difference could be owing to the fact that teachers have to deal with problems arising from the gap in teaching learning process, on a daily basis. Weak Planning Although the SSA framework shows awareness regarding the fact that education-related problems in urban areas are different from those in rural areas, it does not specify any particular strategy to help the planning process in urban areas. Rather, it makes all norms specified for rural areas, applicable to urban areas. Also, the framework takes a step forward in making the policy more flexible and adaptive to different situations by emphasising on the importance of local specificity and contextual concerns of an area. However, this needs to be reflected upon, in terms of the level of abilities of state functionaries to come up with plans, which are not only in tune with the norms specified within the SSA framework, but are also specific to the needs of their particular context. In the context of Delhi, it was found that planning and management was considered to be one of its weakest areas. There is a shortage of adequate number of specialised staff to run the programme in the state. Most planning procedures were done in a centralised manner, without taking the processes informed by the SSA framework into consideration. It was also seen that SSA’s emphasis on providing a framework and not a set of guidelines, was misunderstood by Delhi SSA as “freedom for States to do what they want”. A representative of an NGO working in education stated, “In Delhi there are problems at both planning and the implementation level. Plans are made in a non-participative manner and the whole process is non-transparent.” It was also felt that there was a lack of seriousness amongst Delhi officials with respect to implementation of SSA. Some experts were of the opinion that Delhi was struggling because it did not have the past experience of District Primary Education Programme. The problem of lack of space in cities was also seen as a hindrance in carrying out some of the activities prescribed within the programme, such as, establishing DURCs and CRCs. Due to space constraint, in south district only 14 CRCs at the time of the study had been established. Additionally, some CRCs and DURCs coordinators had no assigned space to run their office. The SSA Delhi data showed that at the time of the study, out of the 136 CRCs which were established on paper, 10 had no building to run their office. The problem in planning for SSA in Delhi is seen to be created by both, lack of adequate strategies within the framework for planning for urban areas and lack of abilities in the staff to come up with a comprehensive plan that can reflect on the diverse educational needs of all poor and deprived children. Community Participation The SSA envisages the community to play a vital role in the implementation of the programme. Its framework emphasises that school level and habitation/village level committees must be formed in order to ensure community involvement in all aspects of programme implementation. For urban areas, it emphasises on community representation through “community leaders”. Keeping up with this norm, Delhi too constituted VKS in all its government schools. The DoE officials were found to be pleased with their achievement regarding VKS, as it enabled principals to get small maintenance work done on their own without any assistance from the department. The financial power provided to all schools through VKS for carrying out small repair and maintenance work brought in a sense of satisfaction amongst teachers and principals towards the VKS initiative. However, at the school level several discrepancies were found in its functioning. It was seen that the VKS did not meet on a monthly basis as stipulated by its guidelines. Barring one school out of the six that were visited, teachers from all the other schools said that VKS meetings were not regular in their schools. In fact, VKS in these schools met only once or twice a year. What came across as a serious concern was that while VKS was functional on paper, i e, bills were signed by members; the processes which were to inform the working of the community and build “school-community participation” were completely bypassed. One principal from an MCD school said, “When we need to get some work done, we send the bills to the VKS members at their residence for signatures.” Another teacher said that not a single meeting of VKS has been held in their school: “Yes we have constituted a VKS, but it is only on paper. We have never had a meeting. When we need to get some work done, we just get signatures of all the members.” Apart from repair and maintenance work, the guidelines also made a provision for every VKS to take up a broader role in the context of the school, in terms of teaching, curriculum, performance, co-curricular activities, etc. However, it was seen that in “practical terms”, its role had narrowed down to only supervising the spending of money sanctioned to schools for repair and maintenance. A teacher from an MCD school elaborated this point further, The fact is that VKS on paper has many objectives and roles, but in practical terms, its role narrows down only to supervising how money is being spent because money is most important. When audit takes place, no one is interested to know how VKS worked towards quality aspects of education; it is only interested to know where the Rs 50,000 given was spent. VKS on paper and VKS in reality are two very different things. Community leaders are not easily identifiable in an urban area. People who truly benefit from improvement in urban government schools are not in a position to negotiate for better quality education and it was felt that the expectation that individuals nominated on the board of the VKS would voluntarily leave their work and devote time to government schools was unrealistic. The VKS members were not the stakeholders in these schools, and therefore, the quality or lack of it in the everyday functioning of the school, did not make any difference in the lives of these important people or of their immediate family or friends. Community participation in Delhi, therefore, suffers from a two way problem – lack of clear strategies within the SSA Framework for identifying and involving community in urban areas and lack of commitment towards community participation at both, department and school level. Multiple Implementing Agencies In Delhi, multiple institutions are responsible for managing education. It, therefore, becomes important that there exists convergence between these multiple agencies in order to achieve the ultimate goal of universalisation of elementary education in the state. However, during field interaction, it was found that this multiplicity of institutions had made the system “utterly complicated and chaotic”. A representative of an NGO elaborated, Delhi has failed because of multiplicity of governing institutions. The fashion in which Delhi government function is utterly complicated and I believe that this chaos is deliberately maintained as it definitely benefits some. It was felt that the existence of multiple institutions responsible for providing different levels of education created problems in the overall development of an education system in the state. It was seen that all these multiple agencies function parallel to each other with only convergence point being, when a child moves from Class V to Class VI. This is because the process involves transferring the child from an MCD school to a DoE school. It was also seen that the various activities and programmes that are initiated in relation to education are more or less similar in all government schools, irrespective of whether they were being run by the DoE or the MCD. However, due to the implication of this lack of convergence, it was found that their performance differed in terms of meeting deadlines, achieving targets and the overall impact of the programme. Many reasons were attributed to this, in terms of the difference in norms, rules and authority that govern each of these schools. Conclusions Although the urban-deprived children have been identified as a “special focus group”, their context and the problems related to it have not been reflected upon well within the SSA framework. The framework though accepts that ensuring education of the urban deprived requires diverse set of strategies, it tends to look at urban-deprived mainly in terms of out of schoolchildren, involved in some work. Therefore, in terms of strategies, it only suggests residential and non-residential bridge courses as alternatives available for educating these children. Education-related problems of urban-deprived children are diverse and range from difficulty of access to schools, attitude problem of teachers, and low quality of schooling, to congested living conditions and lack of support at home. Apart from this, there are also problems of constant threats of demolition and resettlement, harassment from police and other authorities, and constant danger of exploitation and abuse. Thus, any policy, which is concerned with the education of the urban deprived, must look into these problems in order to ensure that its guidelines and strategies reflect the situation of these children. The SSA framework fails to take this context of the urban-deprived into consideration. However, what is worth appreciating is the fact that the SSA programme has acknowledged the need for separate planning for urban areas to tackle the educational needs of its deprived and neglected groups. With the Right to Education Act in place, in years to come, one may see more specific strategy-based interventions, like the 25% reservation for urban poor children in elite private schools, for tackling the educational concerns of the urban poor. Notes 1 111th Project Approval Board Meeting, “Appraisal Note 2008-09” on the Annual Work Plan and Budget, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Delhi, 3 April 2008. 2 Comptroller Auditor General of India, “Implementation of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in the NCT of Delhi”, Performance audit report on Government of NCT of Delhi, 2006. References Govinda, Rangachar (1995): “Status of Primary Education of the Urban Poor in India: An Analytical Review”, IIEP Research Report No 105, UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris. Ramachandran, Vimala (2006): “Urban Schooling: Mired in Apathy and Prejudice”, Economic & Political Weekly, 4 February. -- Avinash Shahi Doctoral student at Centre for Law and Governance JNU Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
