Asia

Educating India: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

By Dweep Chanana ⋅ February 19, 2009 ⋅  Email this post ⋅  Print This Post ⋅ Post a comment

In a recent op-ed for the Hindu, Dreze et all comment on the state of India’s elementary education, as noted by their Public Report on Basic Education (PROBE). Their article is a captivating summary of the good, the bad, and the ugly about India’s public education system.

The promising news is that much has improved. Appearently, school infrastructure has improved tremendously since the first PROBE survey in 1996-97. Disparities in enrollment have reduced, and mid-day meals now supplement education with nutrition. Most of all, school enrollment has improved to the point where “the goal of universal school participation is within reach.”

The bad news is that just as much has not improved. While the framework conditions might have improved, schools continue to fail in the actual delivery of education. Indeed,  “in rural north India, on an average day, there is no teaching activity in about half of the primary schools.” And where their is teaching, it is of an extremely poor quality.

And the ugly truth seems to be that there are no quick fixes – and few seem to care. Contract teacher and local empowerment have largely failed. But the most damming evidence is against the solution proposed by liberal economists of a wholesale privatization of education:

The proliferation of private schools in both urban and rural areas often creates an impression that this is the solution. A closer look at the evidence, however, does not support these expectations. The quality of private schools varies a great deal, and the ’cheaper’ ones (those that are accessible to poor families) are not very different from government schools. Their success in attracting children is not always a reflection of better teaching standards; some of them also take advantage of the ignorance of parents, for example, with misleading claims of being “English medium.” Further, a privatised schooling system is inherently inequitable, as schooling opportunities depend on one’s ability to pay. It also puts girls at a disadvantage: boys accounted for 74 per cent of all children enrolled in private schools in the 2006 survey (compared with 51 per cent of children enrolled in government schools). Private schooling therefore defeats one of the main purposes of ’universal elementary education’ – breaking the old barriers of class, caste, and gender in Indian society.

The evidence of the PROBE team directly contradicts other studies that suggest private schools to be better than government ones (evidence for private schools here, against here). It also seems to bear out the fear of most social scientists that private schools undermine social inequity. Therefore, it is likely to only energize the debate on which system is better. But PROBE provides a final argument for improving government schools that has seldom been considered before.

Despite the recent mushrooming of private schools, about 80 per cent of school-going children were enrolled in government schools in 2006 – the same as in 1996. This situation is likely to continue in the foreseeable future, which makes it imperative to do something about classroom activity levels in government schools, instead of giving up on them.

Clearly, private education has a role to play in educating India’s masses. But the last 10 years show that given the right pressures on government education can improve. So rather than give up on 80% of our schools, this report should be treated as a call to action to achieve the remaining change that is still necessary.

For an overview of recent discussions on this debate and further references, see a prior post Rebuttal: Education and the State. For a more comprehensive assessment, see the Annual Status of Education  Report (ASER).

Note: The PROBE report itself seems not to be freely available – curious given its intended purpose and title. Anyone know if it is available online?

Tags: Education, governance, privatization, South Asia