 |
| Education for all |
In the post-Independence period, girls’ and women’s education received much-needed comprehensive attention in the National Policy on Education (NPE) 1986 (Poonacha and Gopal 2004; National Focus Group 2007b). The persistent unequal participation of girls in schools, the pressure of rising women’s awareness and movements in India and international compulsions and commitments compelled national and the state governments to formulate compensatory schemes for enhancing girls’ participation in education. Some of these schemes cover all girls while others target girls of disadvantaged communities only. Such schemes may seem in contradiction to the equal educational opportunity and the meritocracy principle or doctrine that the 1966 Kothari Commission, and NPE 1986 had affi rmed. However, as “social classes do not come to the market as equals” (Halsey et al 1997: 257), mere equal
educational opportunities do not ensure a level playing fi eld. Compensatory policy decisions seem necessary for the pursuit of equality and justice. Such decisions are “grounded in an awareness of deep-rooted inequalities and injustices…stem from a history of oppression” (Velaskar 2010: 63). It is generally accepted that in a society like India, which is patriarchal and stratifi ed on caste, class, religious and ethnic basis, girls especially those from the subordinated groups, would require compensatory measures for inclusion in formal education. Briefly, the present compensatory schemes include distribution of free uniform and textbooks to all the girls up to elementary levels, various scholarships on a merit basis up to the secondary and higher secondary levels and special scholarships
for all scheduled caste (SC) and scheduled tribe (ST) girls. Additionally, there is mid-day meal scheme and free schooling up to elementary levels for all children. Madhya Pradesh and Bihar have been providing bicycles to SC and ST girls who have to travel long distances for their next level of schooling. Delhi state has also introduced a conditional cash transfer scheme called Ladli Yojna for the girls from below poverty line (BPL) families. A fi xed cash amount is deposited annually in the girl’s bank account. This scheme has been introduced to encourage higher education among girls and the amount is given on completion of schooling after the girl is 18 years old. In addition to all these schemes, the state governments also run hostels for SC and ST girls and boys. The Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBVs) which aim to offer quality education to girls from SC, ST, Other Backward
Classes (OBCs), minority and BPL communities of the educationally backward blocks (EBB) also comprise a significant central government scheme has and have generally been appreciated and hailed by educationists. The scheme was launched in 2004 and has been expanded to more than 3,000 blocks so far. The need for such a scheme has been justified on the basis of the lack of participation of girls from these communities in education, reflected in the below national average female literacy rates, high dropout rates and higher gender literacy gaps. However, since the scheme is only for EBB, and for not more than 100 girls per block within EBB, it raises concerns about the impact on the larger issue of low participation of girls in education at the national levels.
Policy Formulation and Translation
These state policies could be analysed from two perspectives: the implementation perspective, which is the transaction of policy at the field level, and by looking at the policy itself in a larger context. Drawing a distinction between policy formulation and actual “translation” at the ground level, Ball (Mainardes and Marcondes 2009) describes the negotiation from the “word” mode to the “action” mode, which is another level of policy analysis. Velaskar (2010) on the other hand, emphasises inadequacies in the field of policy research, which is largely confined to examining policy implementation and measuring its effects in terms of goals and targets set by the policymaker and financier, in other words, by the state. Typically, conventional policy research in India rarely engages with the articulation of the problem in the policy, the nature of the state, the political context and the policy framework as such. As Velaskar argues, policy discourses and processes are deeply political phenomena, “and hence the production of policy must be located within the dynamics of social structural power relations in specifi c historical contexts” (Olssen et al 2004, as quoted in Velaskar 2010: 60). This paper reviews the KGBV scheme, an important compensatory policy intervention from the above two perspectives – the translation of the policy and in the larger educational context, a critical engagement with the policy itself. Based on the Government of India (GOI) commissioned national evaluation reports (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan 2007, 2008b), a state-level United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2010) study, direct observation of KGBVs, and other writings on the subject; the fi rst part of the paper provides an insight into the translation of policy. It includes a review of the infrastructure
and other facilities such as human resources, the process for the selection of students, their positive experiences, alienation and problems of adjustment due to the clash of world views between the middle-class functionaries and girls’ own lives, quality of teaching and learning, working conditions
of residential teachers, issues related to their autonomy and their relationship with local authorities, etc. Also, the review underlines the need for deeper insight into classroom transactions, teachers’ academic preparedness and learning outcomes, given the quality thrust of the scheme. The second part of the paper reviews the contribution of this policy towards equality and equity within the context of debates on equal educational opportunity and substantive equality. This section briefly notes the debates on the dialectical relationship between education and social change and argues that such schemes further confirm the abandonment of equal educational opportunity, thus weakening the justice goal. It seeks to engage with questions such as the following: What has been the nature of policy shift in the last five-six decades, from the policy doctrine of equal educational opportunity and compensatory measures to special schemes for a few? Why have KGBV-type minimalist policy interventions not provoked
discussion about the government sidestepping its proclaimed and much-publicised aim of providing quality schooling to all the children? Why are facilities in all state-run schools, where the majority of girls go, not at par either with the Navodaya Vidyalayas or model schools or KGBV schools? Most
importantly, does the focus on and visibility of such special schemes camouflage the appalling condition of the majority of government schools?
1 Policy Implementation
The policy of opening residential schools and hostels has always been perceived as a solution to unequal access for potential rural students residing in remote areas. State tribal and social welfare (now social justice) departments run ashram shalas (residential schools) and SC/ST hostels for children of
these communities. Various SC/ST commissions, committee reports and research studies have provided crucial insight into the functioning of these schools and hostels. Detailed observations of ashram schools document the appalling living conditions, bad management, inefficiency, nepotism, corruption, and poor standards of education. The hostels are also afflicted by similar problems including overcrowding, unhygienic living conditions, poor quality of food, prevalence of diseases,
malnourishment and absence of medical facilities for the residents (National Focus Group 2007a). The UNICEF (2010) abridged report, based on a study of the status of girls’ education in Madhya Pradesh also documents lack of decent living conditions in seven randomly selected girls’ SC/ST hostels. The detailed report on the above study, Saxena et al (2009) reports that all the seven hostels had acute problems of overcrowding, dilapidated buildings, complete absence of sanitation, security and medical care. There were no proper cooking facilities and the quality of food was bad and quantity woefully inadequate. The abysmally low paid hostel staffs indulged in pilferage that further deteriorated the quality of food and other facilities. In almost all the seven hostels, there were 50-100 girls residing in one or two small rooms with leaking roofs, with only two or three shared bathrooms and toilets, without water and electricity. For example, in one of the hostels, the study reported that (Saxena et al 2009: 158): The roof of the building leaks and girls are protected only by tarpaulin during monsoons. There were buckets all over the room to collect rainwater from the leaking roof. There was only one bathroom for 100 girls. Since the hostel doesn’t have a boundary wall, drunken men often enter the hostel, abuse the girls and ask for money.
In another hostel (Saxena et al 2009: 158): For 77 girls, there was only one room. It was a dark and dingy room with girls’ luggage, mattresses, pillows and sheets scattered all over. The room had one bulb and one fan. … These girls were from 7 villages located 3-7 km away, all of them were from BPL families and belonged to ST, SC and OBC categories…There were only two functional latrines and two bathrooms… Ironically, many reports and studies have also documented that these hostels are in demand due to the shortage and inaccessibility of schools. However, the appalling living conditions are unconducive for a learning environment, defeating the very purpose. Against this backdrop, KGBV, a flagship scheme of the GOI, is perhaps a refreshing and welcome idea. Though the scheme was launched in 2004, in 2007, it was included in the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) programme as a separate component. The scheme claims to offer a second chance for mainstreaming rural girls from deprived backgrounds, in particular those who could not continue their education beyond class five or dropped out even earlier, and require extra academic support to return to formal education. Under this scheme, such girls are enrolled in class six and offered bridging courses to cope with the academic requirements of that class. The central government bears all the expenses for setting up and running the KGBVs, including living and educational expenses of students up to class eight.
There are three models for KGBVs – hostel cum school for 100 girls (Model I), hostel cum school for 50 girls (Model II) and hostel for 50 girls with teaching arrangements in a nearby middle school (Model III). The scheme provides for opening one school per selected block. The block selection is based on backwardness in terms of education indicators like below national level female literacy rates and adverse female school dropout rates. Funds are provided for the construction of the building and other infrastructure, furniture for classrooms, office, library and living rooms including pillows, mattresses, sheets and blankets, kitchen equipment including refrigerator, utensils, cookers, gas stoves, storage vessels, and for clothes, stationary and books for all the residents. Compared to ordinary government
schools and SC/ST hostels, KGBV schools are much better endowed though they are not at par with the Navodaya Vidyalayas.
Kumar and Gupta (2008) are critical of KGBVs’ secondary status compared to Navodaya Vidyalayas in terms of budgetary allocations, and express concern about the curriculum, content, pedagogy and the status of teachers appointed in KGBVs.
Infrastructure and Other Resources
The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD)-commissioned national evaluation reports (SSA 2007, 2008b) on the KGBV scheme, based on field visits to 12 states, are very informative. Though the reports seem laudatory and have commented only on the implementation aspects, without reflecting on the policy, they do throw light on the functioning of these institutions and underline the unevenness in operationalisation on the ground. The reports document issues regarding resources, facilities and infrastructure, that is living conditions and learning ambience, that range from excellent to appalling. For example, there are KGBVs with inadequate space for sleeping, cooking and teaching. The study records that sometimes three classes are held in the same room; girls sleep on the floor as either there are no beds or no space to keep beds. There is a shortage of bathrooms, toilets and water is reported from almost every KGBV, except Punjab. The reports also document the problem of girls’ alienation,
homesickness, breakdowns, hysteria and isolation. On the health front, the reports are disconcerting to say the least. During the visits, many girls were found to be suffering from scabies (skin) and gastrointestinal diseases due to shortage of space and water, unhygienic living conditions, and lack of
nutritious food. The situation was worsened because most KGBVs lack access to adequate medical and security facilities.
These reports also discuss issues related to lack of warden autonomy, routine teaching methods, untrained or inadequately trained teachers and reinforcement of gender stereotypes through extracurricular activities like sewing, picklemaking, embroidery, tailoring, etc. Some of the reports have
recorded evidence of the strengthening of gender stereotypes and Hinduisation through recitation of mantras before meals in some of the KGBVs.
Quality of Education
More importantly, there is no evidence that these KGBVs are providing quality education. The lack of thrust on academic aspects at policy levels is evident from the low or no priority given to teachers’ professional development to help them handle the multiple academic challenges that they encounter. The greatest challenge is to bring the girls, who left school a few years ago, up to class six level through a bridge course. Sometimes, the girls who come to KGBV have forgotten even the basic literacy skills, according to the National Evaluation Report. These reports and other documents that have been referred to have expressed serious concern about the curriculum, books and the routine pedagogy followed in the classrooms. Even excellent infrastructure and dedicated teachers and wardens could not ensure better teaching in the Rajasthan KGBVs. The class observations in the two KGBVs in Rajasthan clearly showed the teachers’ lack of academic competence as they were not able to handle classes six to eight social science, science and mathematics. They also seemed unsure while handling girls who had forgotten even their basic literacy skills. These preliminary observations clearly underline the urgent need for a systematic review of the teaching and learning processes in KGBVs.
Conclusions
When there is a policy that addresses the quality and access concern of a select few, excluding the majority, there are bound to be distortions. For quality improvement in schools, one cannot depend on selective criteria because they tend to take the focus away from the general state of affairs. Does that
mean that in principle, the state should never be formulating the schemes for setting up “model schools”? The answer is “yes” and “no”, depending on the long-term goals. If such schools are run with the objective of experimenting with innovative ideas and based on experience, mainstreaming these ideas, then may be, yes. No, if the objective is to run a few quality schools based on the principle of exclusion, which diffuses the larger reality. Additionally, the struggle for demanding quality government
schools with adequate infrastructure and qualified teachers for all has to be relentless and such starry policies/schemes diffuse the focus. Otherwise, there is the danger of a patronising narrative of at least some children receiving access to better facilities, overtaking the rights discourse.
This article is a part of Special Article by Sadhna Saxena (from decemBER 8, 2012 vol xlviI no 64 49 EPW Economic & Political Weekly)
About Unknown
0 comments:
Post a Comment