The liberal economist tends to have little
faith in muddle kingdom governance, and encourages it to get out of most
sectors that can be better served by the private sector. Education is one of
such sectors. Take a leading liberal right-of-muddle economist, Arvind Panagariya, who has been drafted by the Modi government to head the NITI Aayog or National Institution for Transforming India, the phoenix-like reincarnation of the Planning
Commission (that itself has been consigned to the web archives). He advices that the
state should, instead of trying to run government schools for the masses, give cash vouchers so
that each family can exercise its own choice among the schools available, both
private and public (Panagariya, 2008). Presumably, this will also apply to
institutes of higher learning, where the principle is urged of the beneficiary paying the full cost of education (or borrowing to pay back later), and of deregulation
so that private entities (including foreign ones) can set up their own
institutions as a commercial undertaking.
On the other hand, it is inconceivable that
any popularly elected government is actually going to do some such thing. Indeed
it is the same Modi government that has proceeded briskly to set up the
additional IITs and IIMs and Central
Universities and so on.
There is no talk of government getting out of it, or of being less than
competent in running the school system, and other hard headed liberalistic
ideology.
Education has a certain almost spiritual
connotation for the average citizen of muddle kingdom, where the Word is
respected far beyond its material significance. India has for centuries (or even,
millennia) been known as a knowledge-based, even a knowledge-generating, civilization. Of course the sciences
developed in this civilization may not stand the test of modern western
positive methods, but in its day and age, represented some fairly important
achievements that contributed to the growth of world civilization. Works of
erudition and creativity in mathematics, linguistics, materials, medicine,
politics, fine arts, performing arts, aesthetics, philosophy, ethics, and so on
still fascinate and instruct us; our religious, spiritual and ethical
treatises, of course, have spread far and wide, at least in the east.
Another reason why the state sponsoring of
school and college education is such a sensitive issue is that sharing of
knowledge was restricted in that civilization, or rather denied to large
sections of the people. A huge effort is under way to change this situation,
and the state has a fundamental duty to actively sponsor this process on the
ground. Any attempt to wriggle out of this responsibility, under the good
intention of conforming to the economic efficiency principles of neo-liberal
economic ideology, may well be misinterpreted as a backhanded attempt to cheat
the traditionally discriminated-against of their constitutional rights.
Many of us who are senior citizens now,
must surely have availed of the benefits of government educational facilities
at different levels. In my own case, I had short stints in missionary schools,
but longer stints at the government ‘model’ schools at Trivandrum
and Trichur in Kerala, and in the Central
School at Madras (I am using all old names to show my
vintage and indicate the period this refers to!). It may be that one was
fortunate to be in Kerala since this state apparently invested more and earlier
on in public education and health, see Pulapre Balakrihnan’s recent article in
the EPW of 10 January 2015, http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2015_50/2/Kerala_and_the_Rest_of_India.pdf.
I then did a bachelor’s degree in a Jesuit college, but thereafter enjoyed the
benefit of one of the IITs for my Master’s. I think the tuition and hostel fees
were pretty low at that time (and even today, government institutions charge
much less than the private). Indeed private schools are much costlier than
getting a post-graduate degree in today’s dispensation. Now all of us, who got
our education and our fantastic degrees from these modest government
facilities, find ourselves so well-off that we can grandly declare them
redundant.
We should not ignore the fact, however,
that here are hundreds of millions who are still just entering the whole
process of becoming educated, and most of them will not be able to afford
costly private institutions, however well equipped The same goes for many other
public facilities, like mass transport, tourist facilities, hospitals, markets,
postage and communications, and so on. Except for cell phones, perhaps, people
do find government cheaper (if they can put up with the crowding, the ordinary
or run-down infrastructure, and not so customer-friendly procedures of muddle
kingdom). Most countries do still maintain the network of public (government) schools
as a basic responsibility of the state. We can well imagine the howls of
injured protest that will be set up by those upper middle-class people who
glibly say that government should get out of services, if for example the
police forces were to be withdrawn and citizens asked to arrange for their own
security and regulation of traffic. That is, we are selective in the things we
want government to do, and once we ourselves are not in need of a specific
service, somehow it becomes easy to make it not a part of the government’s
business, even when we ourselves have been beneficiaries and know that it has
been done fairly effectively in the recent past. That way, big magnates would
probably like to run their own little state on some island!
Notwithstanding the social obligation to
run the a school system, there is objective evidence about the very poor
performance of the students in the average government schools in the
countryside. Far from conceding defeat and quitting the sector, the 12th
Five Year Plan (we are not sure whether the plans are also scrapped along with
the Planning Commission) has now turned the spotlight on improving the quality,
now that the enrolment of children is close to a 100% in the elementary level. The
12th Plan document recounts in detail the various steps proposed to
improve the curriculum, the mode of imparting education, improving physical
infrastructure, teacher training and recruitment, and monitoring, evaluation
and governance (among other things). Also on the cards is increased involvement
of civil society, the corporate sector, local communities, and so on.
In the midst of all this, one factor that
does not seem to have been considered is the working conditions of the
teachers. There is a tendency to straightaway impute most of the responsibility
for the bleak standards to teacher incompetence or indifference. Much is made
of teacher absenteeism, for instance, and it is felt that until the local
communities are made the boss of the teachers, this bad state will persist. The
other side of this, however, is the need to deal with the teachers as an
honourable profession, just like doctors or engineers. From impressions
gathered, it would seem that there is a tendency to treat the teacher community
as a source of ready manpower for all sorts of tasks: data collection,
enumeration, census, elections, surveys, and so on. One wonders how many days
of the year are occupied with such laborious tasks. Surely none of our better-off
urban middle class youngsters would like to subject themselves to such
treatment in the government school system: they would rather join private
schools where there are no such onerous duties and no problem of transfers,
either.
Another issue is that of multi-age
multi-level single-teacher classrooms, which presumably are the ones portrayed
in popular media where the sole teacher hangs up his umbrella, delegates the
class to the older students, and disappears for the day. Obviously, there are better
chances of teaching and learning getting done if there are a certain number of
staff, a certain ‘minimum mass’ of manpower. One has to also understand that in
muddle kingdom, where personal problems are always taking people away from
their jobs, one has to carry at least, say, 20% more personnel than strictly
required. It may even be worse: if one believes in the reality of the 20:80
rule, 20% of the personnel are actually carrying 80% of the load, so this
implies that there are 4 underproductive members to each productive member of
the staff! To make sure that those 20% highly productive, self-motivated,
superior employees are available, the organization has to recruit some 4 to 5
times the number required! There is another principle called the rule of fives,
where of 5 persons, 2 may be very competent, but 2 may be dead weight; only the
person in the middle may have a chance of being motivated to better
performance. In this scenario, to have 3 reasonably competent staff members,
you need to enrol 5!
The complaint is frequently heard that
government employees are not highly motivated or even capable of being enthused!
We have to be a bit careful before jumping to such conclusions. My own
experience in the forest service has been that basically, most people would
like to have a sense of competence, a sense of self-worth and fulfilment, and
this usually comes in large part from the main job or profession. There may be
environmental factors, like the lack of recognition as a respected
professional, absence of minimum mass, etc. as mentioned above, that are coming
in the way of performance. Everybody appreciates a modicum of control and
autonomy in doing their jobs, and perhaps teachers get the worst deal as they
are sandwiched between demanding parents, recalcitrant students, uninteresting
curriculums, and overbearing administrations. I feel the British colonials knew
better than most administrators how to evoke a passionate involvement in the
job among state employees; one method was to establish high professional standards
and stick to them. In my own experience in the forest department, I found that
the concept of a ‘service’ or ‘corps’, especially of uniformed personnel
subjected to some sort of centralized training and building up of the ‘esprit
de corps’ makes quite a difference. Perhaps some such thing can be tried for
the teaching profession as well.
References
Balakrishnan, Pulapre. 2015. Kerala and the
Rest of India .
What We Can Learn from Each Other’s Development Experience. Economic
& Political Weekly, Vol. L No.2, 10 January 2015, pp.34-41. Accessed
November 2015 at http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2015_50/2/Kerala_and_the_Rest_of_India.pdf.
Panagariya, Arvind. 2008. India : The Emerging Giant. Oxford University
Press.