According to the ‘EFA Global Monitoring
Report 2010’ (UNESCO), India’s rank was 105
among 128 countries. And it continues to
figure, along with a bunch of African and
one or two Asian countries, such as Pakistan
and Bangladesh, in the group of countries
with a low educational development index
(EDI). In 2001 also India ranked 105 among
127 countries. In 2007 India was behind not
only countries such as Norway, Japan and
Germany that figure at the top, but also
several Latin American, African and Asian
developing countries. These countries, which
are economically poorer than India, include
Zambia, Kenya, Ghana, Bhutan, Maldives and
Cambodia. Only a score of countries such as
Madagascar, Laos, Malawi, Burundi,
Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Niger are
behind India.
All this would be quite puzzling to those
who also read at the same time that there
has been tremendous progress in India in
recent years. That there are variations in
the methodology adopted over the years by
UNESCO, or that there are problems relating
to data, or that there are certain inherent
weaknesses in interpreting international
rankings of this kind, do not, and should
not, console serious policy-makers.
The enrolment ratio in primary education —
both gross and net enrolment ratios — has
improved over the years. The ‘adjusted’ net
enrolment ratio in primary education is 94
per cent in 2007 (this includes children of
the relevant age group enrolled in primary
or secondary schools), according to the
Global Monitoring Report. National data
reports present a similar estimate. This
figure is much higher than that in Sweden,
Switzerland, and many countries that belong
to the groups that have high and medium EDI
figures. It represents substantial progress
over the years.
But India’s performance with respect to all
the other three components of EDI, namely,
adult literacy, gender-specific EFA
(Education for All) index, and “survival
rate” to Grade V, is indeed appalling. The
gender index is only 0.84 in India, compared
to figures above 0.9 in all countries of
high and medium EDI countries (except
Zambia); only 66 per cent of adults in India
are literate, compared to above 80 per cent
in most countries that figure among the high
and medium EDI groups.
Perhaps the most worrisome of all is the
poor survival rate. Only 66 per cent of the
children enrolled in Grade I survive to
Grade V in India, that is, as much as 34 per
cent of the children enrolled in Grade I
drop out before reaching Grade V. In all
probability they drop out without acquiring
any level of progress with respect to the
basic three R’s, contributing to the numbers
of out-of-school children, to child labour
and to the mass of the illiterate
population. The survival rate is above 0.9
in most countries with medium and high EDI.
A 90 to 95 per cent net enrolment ratio will
have no meaning if there is also a 34 per
cent dropout rate. Rapid progress in net
enrolment ratio is possible, but a more
important challenge is to ensure that the
children enrolled in schools progress
through the system to complete the given
cycle of schooling and even beyond.
Earlier research has shown that children
drop out of school for three kinds of
reasons. The first reason given is that
schools are not attractive. A second reason
involves economic constraints (poverty,
direct costs of schooling and child labour)
that do not allow continuation in schools.
Thirdly, there are reasons including the
lack of a tradition of going to or
continuing in schools.
Unattractive school facilities represent the
most important reason that pushes children
out of schools. Economic constraints also
matter very much, though they matter more
for enrolment of children in schools than
for their continuation in schools. ‘Other’
reasons are not that important.
How attractive are the primary schools?
According to the latest statistics available
from the Flash Statistics and Analytical
Reports on Elementary Education in India
(District Information System for Education,
published by the National University of
Educational Planning and Administration in
2009-10), on an average there are only three
classrooms per primary school in India, and
there are only three teachers per school.
About 14 per cent of the schools have a
single classroom each, and single-teacher
schools constitute a similar proportion.
While the national norm is one teacher for
every 40 students in primary schools, 30 per
cent of the schools have a ratio above this
norm. In some States like Bihar the ratio at
the State level is 1:59, where there are 92
students on average per classroom. Only 85
per cent of the schools in the country have
drinking water facilities; 37 per cent do
not have toilets; only 44 per cent have
separate toilet facilities for girls. Hardly
one-fourth have electricity connection; only
5.7 per cent have a computer. Hardly half
the schools have any medical facilities.
About 32 per cent of the primary schools
require major or minor repairs to buildings
and so on. Many of these figures are
national averages. The actual picture at
disaggregated levels — regional and by
social and economic groups of population —
could be more disturbing.
The picture is indeed disturbing as much
progress is claimed in the recent years. For
example, after the launch in 2002 of the
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) by the
Government of India, which was preceded by
investment in elementary education under the
World Bank-funded project of the DPEP
(District Primary Education Project) for
about a decade, it is often reported that
impressive progress has been made in
elementary education in India. This progress
is in terms of enrolments, buildings
constructed, teachers appointed, amount of
grant released/utilised, and so on. Where
has all the progress gone?
It may not be altogether correct to state
that SSA and other programmes of the
Government of India have had no significant
impact on the EDI of UNESCO and that they
could not change India’s disgraceful
relative rank position even by one point.
But such a criticism may not look shallow
either. Certainly there is a lot to do with
respect to improvement of schooling
facilities — both physical and human
(teacher), and the overall functioning of
the system — in order to improve the
survival rate. This is necessary to build a
strong and meaningful educational edifice in
India.
Two statements will be relevant in this
context. First, the survival rate of
children to the final grade of primary
education (sometimes beyond Grade 5) in most
of the North American and Western European
countries is 99 to 100 per cent; and in
these countries the pupil-teacher ratio is
below 20. In contrast, the pupil-teacher
ratio in Sub-Saharan Africa is 44: it ranges
between 24 in Botswana and 90 in the Central
African Republic and survival rates hardly
touch 70 per cent. Similarly, in India and
Pakistan the pupil-teacher ratio is 40 and
the survival rates are 67 and 72 per cent
respectively. The implication should be
clear: a pupil-teacher ratio of around 20
may be taken up as a desirable goal. We need
good quality teachers in sufficient numbers.
This is a basic prerequisite for quality
primary education.
Secondly, when virtually every petroleum
outlet in the country, including many in the
remote rural areas, could be modernised to
international standards, why cannot every
primary school be made to match
international standards? Operation
Blackboard launched after 1986 might have
provided basic minimum facilities in most
schools, but it has not made schools
sufficiently functional and attractive. We
may need another such programme to equip
schools with beyond the basic minimum level
of facilities.
(Jandhyala B.G. Tilak is Professor at the
National University of Educational Planning
and Administration, New Delhi. e-mail:
jtilak@nuepa.org)
|