`
MID-TERM DISSEMINATION SEMINAR
National Seminar on Education: Access, Exclusion and Outcomes
CREATE-NUEPA, RECOUP-CORD
3-5 th December 2008
Venue: India Habitat Centre, Day 1 – Silver Oak I, Day 2 and 3 – Jacaranda II
Agenda
3rd December 2008
0930-1000 hrs
:
Registration
1000-1115 hrs
:
Opening Session
Chief Guest: Shri A. K. Rath,
Secretary (SE&L), Government of India
Chair: Professor Ved Prakash
Vice Chancellor, NUEPA
1115-1145 hrs
:
Tea Break
Session I
1145-1315 hrs
:
Chair: Anil Bordia
Introduction to CREATE and RECOUP
International
- Keith Lewin and Christopher Colclough
Indian
- R. Govinda and Claire Noronha
1415-1545
hrs
:
Lunch
Session II
1415-1545 hrs
Chair: Shantha Sinha
:
School Quality and Participation: Exploring
the Phenomenon of Silent Exclusion
- R. Govinda
:
Teachers and School Participation with
Special Reference to Tribal Children
- B.K. Panda
Discussant: Shyam B. Menon
1545-1615 hrs
:
Tea Break
1
`
Session III
1615-1745 hrs
Chair: Shobhita Rajgopal
:
The School Governance Environment in UP
Some
Implications
for
Teacher
Accountability
- Geeta Kingdon and Mohd Muzammil
Discussant: Janaki Rajan
:
Why Aid for Education to India?
- Christopher Colclough and Anuradha De
Discussant: A.K. Shiva Kumar
4th December 2008
Session IV
0930 -1100 hrs
1100-1130 hrs
:
Variations in Labour Market Outcomes:
Preliminary findings from a Household Survey
- Anuradha De and Rajeev Kumar
Discussant: Jeemol Unni
:
Education, Training and Work Outcomes
- Claire Noronha, Tanuka Endow and
Aparajita Bhargarh
Discussant: Elizabeth Hill
:
Tea Break
Session V
1130-1300 hrs
1300-1400 hrs
Chair: N.J. Kurian
Chair: Karuna Chanana
:
Exploring Gender and School Participation:
Does Gender Really Matter?
- Madhumita Bandyopadhyay
:
Exploring Social Equity Issues in School
Participation
- Mona Sedwal
Discussant: N. Jayaram
:
Lunch
2
`
Session VI
1400-1545 hrs
1545-1615 hrs
:
Exploring the Outcomes of Schooling for
Young People with Disabilities
- Nidhi Singal, Roger Jeffery, Neeru Sood
and Aanchal Jain
Discussant: Meera Pillai
:
Declining Fertility Rates – Is it an Outcome
of Schooling?
- Claire Noronha, Sharmishtha Basu,
Anuradha De and Roger Jeffery
Discussant: Sreela Dasgupta
:
Tea Break
Session VII
1615- 1745 hrs
Chair: P.M. Kulkarni
:
Chair: A. S. Seetharamu
School Size and Patterns of Participation:
Focus on Small Schools
- Rashmi Diwan
: Head Teacher, Community Participation
and Access to School
- Aarti Srivastava
Discussant: John Kurien
1745-1845 hrs
:
CREATE - NRG Meeting
1900 hrs
:
Dinner
5th December 2008
Session VIII Chair: A.K. Sharma
0930-1015 hrs
:
Revisiting PROBE: Findings from a FieldBased Study on Elementary Education
- Meera Samson
1015-1100 hrs
:
Are Schools Changing? Comparing Schools and
School Quality between 1990 and 2008
- R. Govinda
1100-1130 hrs
:
Tea Break
3
`
1130-1330 hrs
1330 hrs
:
Panel Discussion. Chair: Andre Beteille.
Access, Exclusion and Outcomes
Panelists: Jean Dreze
Vimala Ramachandran
Angela Little and
Ratna Sudarshan
:
Concluding Session
:
Lunch
4
`
Workshop report
The mid-term dissemination event of RECOUP India, the National Seminar on
Education: Access, Exclusion and Outcomes, was held at the India Habitat Centre on 3-5
December 2008. The seminar was planned jointly with CREATE India, the education
Research Project Consortium of the DFID on Access to Education, based at the National
University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA), Delhi.
The objective of the event was to disseminate the preliminary findings of RECOUP
research in India among stakeholders in the education community, the civil society and
policy makers. The event was planned as a joint dissemination so as to forge a link
between the Access and the Outcomes RPCs in India by sharing the findings on a
common platform.
The two-and-a-half day workshop was divided into 10 sessions, including the inaugural,
with 2 presentations per session. Typically, CREATE and RECOUP sessions were
alternated in a day. The concluding session was a panel discussion on “Access,
Exclusion and Outcomes”.
Invitees
The list of invitees included representatives of national and international NGOs working
in the fields related to RECOUP research, representatives of the relevant state and central
government departments, members of the planning commission and the national
commission on the unorganized sector, members of educational research and training
institutes, researchers and experts in the field, and students and faculty from some of the
major universities and research institutes and representatives of donor agencies.
A total of nearly 70 participants (excluding CORD and NUEPA members) attended the
workshop over the three-day period. However, representation from the central or state
government departments was minimal. All other target groups were well represented.
Inaugural and Introductory Session
The inaugural session was chaired by Prof Ved Prakash, Vice Chancellor of NUEPA.
The workshop was inaugurated by A K Rath, Secretary, School Education and Literacy,
Government of India. Mr Rath drew attention to the fact that out of the states chosen for
the two RPCs, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chattisgarh (a CREATE state) are states
with the least developmental progress. Therefore, extrapolations based on findings in
these states would not constitute a fair assessment of the status in the country. He was
curious to see how the research captured the ever-changing ground realities and the wide
variance based on location, community and state. He was hopeful that once the Right to
Free and Compulsory Education bill is passed, the entire elementary education scenario
will change.
The overviews of CREATE and RECOUP were presented by Keith Lewin and R.
Govinda, and Christopher Colclough and Claire Noronha, respectively. While
Christopher focused on the research questions and objectives of RECOUP, Claire
5
`
delineated the key aspects of RECOUP research in India. Some of the points that came
out in the discussion on the overview were: Do we need UK to guide us in such research?
Research is not ideology neutral – will that be taken into account? Poverty and
deprivation are two different things that seem to be used interchangeably.
The presenters responded to the questions, assuring that the ideological perspectives and
socio-political dimensions would be kept in mind.
Papers presented
Six presentations from RECOUP and seven from CREATE were made at the seminar. In
addition, on the last day, the findings of another CORD project, Revisiting Education for
All, were presented, as this presentation complemented a CREATE paper on revisiting
schools after 18 years. This report focuses on the RECOUP presentations made at the
seminar and a summary of the discussions and feedback on them.
Day 1
1. The School Governance Environment in Uttar Pradesh: Implications on Educational
Outcomes by Geeta Gandhi Kingdon
This paper examined the school governance environment in Uttar Pradesh, exploring in
particular the extent to which this was influenced by teacher unions and teacher
politicians. It attempts to investigate the implications for teacher salaries, teacher
accountability, teacher effort and student achievement.
Discussion
Discussant: Janaki Rajan, Professor, Department of Education, Jamia Milia Islamia
Janaki Rajan started by saying that the paper was of enormous interest to her, though her
views might be on the other side of the spectrum. She shared some
suggestions/comments:
 She questioned the relevance of an empirical statistical method to look at the
complex and intricate relationship between a teacher’s political activity and their
participation in a public institution, the school.
 The paper mentioned that of the two categories of teachers in government
schools, para teachers and regular teachers, it dealt with the latter. Therefore, it
might be better, she felt, to separate the data in these two categories.
 Another point made was that the reasons why teachers would approach Members
of the Legislative Councils were missing – often these are legitimate activities
that relate to demanding their rights. So, to treat all such activities as
‘politicization’ may be misleading.
 It was also not clear from the paper why pay rise for the teacher is to be regarded
as a problem. Linking salary increase to voting a politician into power is a point
that could be reconsidered – pay increase is determined by the pay commission
and not the central government.
6
`

The terms ‘politicization’ and ‘engagement in political activities’ were perhaps
used interchangeably.
 Some disaggregations might be useful – gender and caste – to get a more
complete picture. Are women teachers a part of the teachers unions? If so, what
has been their experience?
The discussant said she did agree with the conclusions and that teachers should not be
doing polling booth duty, but teaching.
Questions/Comments
Women are much less likely to have political connections or be part of unions. So data on
unionization and political participation here is unlikely to include women.
When talking about issues of teacher accountability one needs to also look at teacher
education, professionalization, etc.
Geeta Kingdon’s response:
High pay for teachers is not the problem – the problem is despite being highly paid, they
do not teach. Also, in UP, pay revisions are not clear-cut and are accompanied with
agitations and political manipulations.
2. Why Aid for Education to India? By Christopher Colclough and Anuradha De
The paper argues that aid to education in India provides a classic paradox of aid practice,
and an example of a central dilemma presently facing the international aid community.
India remains a country with a predominantly low-quality primary education system, and
high rates of non-attendance. The government has assigned high priority to securing
universal enrolment and better quality in the primary sector over the next few years. The
paper shows that domestic policy and international priorities in education are thus
strongly aligned. India is also a country which scores highly on aid effectiveness criteria,
making it, in the context of the new aid modalities, a preferred target for aid support.
However, India’s continued wish to accept aid for education – and for other sectors – is
more puzzling, given its small proportionate size relative to government spending. The
paper argues that it is because India has been able to use aid to serve its own objectives
that the relationship with donor agencies continues to be a productive one. Yet,
notwithstanding the high incidence of poverty and shared policy objectives, India’s
strong economic growth is set to reduce its attraction to donors sharply, and the flow of
external aid will fall over coming years. There is the paradox: the interests of both
donors and recipient suggest that aid should continue, but India’s skewed development
pattern (which maximises growth but so far has not made great inroads into poverty)
provides the reason why it will end.
Discussion
Discussant: AK Shiva Kumar, Development Economist and Advisor, UNICEF
- If one were to look at the amount of aid, along with the per capita income in the country,
instead of absolute figures or percentages, then it would show a substantial decline.
7
`
- The paper talked about a lot of benefits from aid. However the shortcomings of aid have
not been focused upon.
- The two perspectives that might be important are – the perspective of the child, and that
of the tax payers in donor countries.
- He suggested five evaluative questions/points in relation to aid to India for education – 1)
to what extent has aid helped in making progress on the EFA declaration? The emphasis
has been more on essential learning less on values outlined in the MDG. 2) Early childhood
education is another neglected area 3) To what extent has aid been able to bring in global
knowledge and expertise? 4) Has aid been able to enrich India’s education policy? 5) Are
donor agencies substituting domestic resources or augmenting them?
Therefore, aid agencies need to ask themselves what are their comparative advantages and
what is it that they are doing or want to do in India.
Questions/comments:
Though the national component of aid has gone up, the state component has decreased,
which has not been discussed. Anuradha explained that the earlier background paper has
looked into this, which has not been integrated into the present paper.
Day 2
1.Variations in Labour Market Outcomes: Preliminary Findings from the RECOUP
Household Survey.
This presentation from the quantitative survey was based on the analysis of the differences
in education levels, learning achievements and labour market outcomes of education for
different groups, e.g. rural vs. urban, male vs. female, across social groups and economic
classes. The paper also attempted to explore linkages between labour outcomes and
education, and between labour outcomes and cognitive achievements. This was an initial
exercise where analysis was confined to wage/salary earners.
This very preliminary analysis suggests several findings of interest: The majority of rural
females are either unpaid family labour or out of the labour force, and almost 3/4th of urban
females are out of the labour force. (Thus when we talk of labour market outcomes we
must remember we are talking largely about males). In addition, wages for females are
much lower than those for males. Second, in terms of returns to type of cognitive skills
acquired, earnings are sensitive to numeracy, knowledge of English and literacy in
decreasing order. Third, the rate of return is quite low for primary education and starts
increasing at above middle level, more so for urban areas. Fourth, disparities in returns for
different levels of education are much higher in urban areas; in rural areas even regular jobs
are quite low paying. Finally, in terms of work status as well as wages, returns to the same
level of education are far higher for Other Castes than for SCs thus suggesting different
education quality/access channels.
8
`
Discussion
Discussant: Jeemol Unni, Professor of Economics, Gujarat Institute of Development
Research
 She questioned the apparent low returns. A part of the explanation lies in the sample
characteristics and the choice of the region. Both states are low-performing in terms of
GSDP. The environment and the demand factor do play a role for outcomes.
 The sample has an unusually large proportion of muslims, particularly in the urban
areas, who tend to be more self employed and hence skilled – this may have a bearing
on their rates of return but may not be an outcome of education.
 The different rates need to be compared against national rates or overall rates of
Rajasthan and MP.
 There is a methodological issue while taking a big age group of 15-60 years. It might be
useful to break them up in smaller age-cohorts.
 Learning skills need to be separated by self-employed and wage-employed, since
learning achievements are affected by choices available.
 Regarding the Mincerian earning functions, the calculations have been done only for
wages; incomes for the self-employed also should have been used. Moreover, it could
be further categorised by the different types of activities that these persons are
performing.
 Questioned using learning outcomes – can it be run on a mincerian scale? Also, wanted
details about occupations in these areas.
Questions/Comments
 There is a problem in comparing returns to years of schooling versus returns to literacy,
Numeracy skills. A direct comparison would not be an appropriate one.
 The finding that the majority of the population attains literacy at grade 8, numeracy at
grade 10, is a major finding of this study. One should further investigate into this.
 The paper has used dummy variables for literacy, numeracy and English skills on the
basis of a cutoff score – what was the basis to set the cut-offs?
 If the majority of the population gets literate by grade 8, a large chunk would have
already dropped out, presumably illiterate. This may have influenced the results.
 Not using a particular skill can lead to forgetting it. Thus not having literacy, numeracy
or English skills does not necessarily mean that the person had never achieved it.
 Presence of the rural rich among the never enrolled is another important point to be
noted and looked into.
 Between test scores and earning, there can be correlation, rather than causation, as
those with high test scores and high earnings may be concentrated in better off
households.
 It would be interesting to separate out the explanatory factors for earning, like
education and demand for labour.
The presenters responded as follows:
9
`
 Rajasthan and M.P were chosen because of the governments’ proactive role in
education in the recent years. Areas for the study fall on the Mumbai-Delhi-Ahmedabad
Highway, thus giving them scope for economic activity. So, stronger education
employment linkages were expected.
 That the poor were at the lower education level and the richer at the higher education
level was quite expected. The class VIII cut-off worked quite well, though quite
preliminary.
 Age-group wise analysis on education-learning linkages has been made though not
presented. Surprisingly, the younger age groups show weaker linkage than the older
ones. The quality of education may be one of the factors behind this. Though very
preliminary, there wasn’t any sharp trend found between different age-groups.
2. Education, Training and Work Outcomes by Claire Noronha, Tanuka Endow and
Aparajita Bhargarh. Presented by Claire Noronha and Tanuka Endow.
The work histories of the 76 young people all from our 4 qualitative research sites in
Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan reflected their struggles to negotiate a universe in which
training opportunities and work opportunities were limited and erratic, and financial
returns were low. Both financial resources and social networks were important even to
access on-the-job training. Gender norms worked against women when it came to job
training. Skills training appeared to offer more scope for diversifying family earnings
than as a way of ‘escaping’ poverty. Even those at the highest levels of
schooling/education and formal training – were getting low returns and were unable to
transfer to ‘permanent’ employment in the formal sector.
Globalization and casualisation as well as over supply of skilled workers appeared to be
important factors affecting employment.
Policy implications included the need to have a greatly augmented and supply-demand
adjusted system of skills training, with different skill levels and certification mechanisms.
At the same time, there was an enormous need for other changes in the ‘enabling
environment’ including better provisioning of loans and more transparency in the training
and job market. Social security for the informal sector in which almost all respondents
worked is another major concern. Many of these issues are already in the policy makers’
field of vision and the research is a small and, it is hoped, useful contribution.
Discussion
Discussant: Elizabeth Hill, Lecturer, Department of Political Economy, University of
Sydney.
The discussant said that the paper left her highly skeptical of the draft national policy on
skills development. While the policy acknowledges many of the difficulties in improving
skills development and training for the work force, it needs suggestions, and there are
lacunae along the lines discussed in the paper. History shows that workers in the informal
sectors, especially women, have been historically neglected by mainstream unions. Due
to this lack of unionization of the informal sector, workers have no voice in the debates
10
`
around economic development, skills training, etc. There are a range of reasons why skill
development in this area is tough.
Some of the highlights brought out in the paper:





The paper challenged the orthodox notions of pathways to economic development.
The paper tells that the pathways are not neat and smooth for a variety of reasons.
The other interesting finding was that even though decent work was not available,
respondents and their parents maintained a positive attitude towards education.
The length of training and apprenticeship was another interesting point. New workers
are locked out of the work market for a considerably long time during training.
Does poor education and training lead to a diversified livelihood strategy or a mixed
strategy is what makes workers tolerate lower quality training and apprenticeship
conditions – important for training policies.
Finally, the comment on age and access to decent work. What is worrying here is the
length of the transition period from low income to a decent income for a trained
worker.
Questions/Comments
Is unemployment rare amongst the skilled youth, as the nature of the demand is
segmented? Is it that those who are trained and cannot find employment migrate?
Tanuka Endow said there was an over supply, specially in case of drivers. Training is not
a choice for them.
CN’s reply to the unemployment question was that many of the respondents marry early
and have children early, so they have to put up with low returns. Unemployment is seen
more in the case of the ITI graduates as they have more aspiration and expectations from
their training.
3. Exploring the Outcomes of Schooling for Young People with Disabilities by
Nidhi Singal, Roger Jeffery, Neeru Sood and Aanchal Jain. Presented by Neeru Sood.
The paper focused on the advantages of schooling as experienced by the visually
impaired, the physically impaired and the hearing impaired respondents, 30 in all,
belonging to the 18-30 age group. The presentation focused particularly on the economic
benefits in terms of improved livelihoods, and the social and cultural capital acquired
through schooling.
Although most respondents placed high value on being able to work, only 4 of the 30
respondents were able to secure employment. Another 9 had been able to go into small
self employment. While the little schooled (0-7 years of schooling) felt that society
placed little faith in their capacity to pick up skills, those with more schooling tended to
blame a corrupt system for their predicament. It was interesting that in all cases the
family was the main support in getting employment. One respondent pointed out that the
11
`
time for focusing only on access to schooling was gone. It was time to look at access to
work.
Even though the schooling-livelihood transition was not smooth, respondents did say that
schooling increased status, enabled them to make friends and gave them a support group
in the form of teachers who helped them access their rights. However, although the more
schooled showed greater awareness of rights and benefits due to them, even they could
not access all their rights.
The research suggested that policy should ensure that there was a smooth transition to the
workplace for our respondents and procedures for accessing livelihoods were transparent.
In changing times it was no longer wise to be dependent on family networks alone.
Discussion
Discussant: Meera Pillai, Senior Consultant, Institute of Social Studies Trust, Bangalore
For any issue involving exclusion or any groups that have been marginalized, invisibility
is a major issue. This was especially true of young people with disabilities. In that
context, the efforts of the kind that the RECOUP researchers have undertaken are
particularly valuable.
The children that are studied here are really those who somehow made it into the system.
But, our official, formal systems of gatekeeping are such that very few of them would
even make it into the system.
The big question this paper needs to focus upon is the nature of the schooling these
children received of which these were the outcomes. Inclusive education is the only
context in which we can hope to reach any significant number of young people.
Questions/Comments



There are still serious issues of exclusion and access for the disabled. How are we
going to really make them inclusive?
Education’s important outcome is to reshape the self concept of these children so
that they feel they are actually capable of doing things. This needs to be
highlighted.
Often disabled children in private schools feel neglected despite the facilities, but
those in government schools feel warmth and attention.
4. Declining Fertility Rates – Is it an Outcome of Schooling? By Claire Noronha,
Sharmishtha Basu, Anuradha De and Roger Jeffery. Presented by Claire Noronha and
Anuradha De
In this paper, the findings from the qualitative research work have been triangulated with
the data from the quantitative household survey. Health and fertility data from NFHS 3
for Rajasthan and MP was also studied.
12
`
The RECOUP quantitative data showed that 80% of the young mothers in the sample
with over 10 years of schooling belonged to the highest wealth quintile in both rural and
urban areas. This suggests that education is not the only factor at work for these young
mothers. Other similarities with the qualitative sample included 1) little say in choice of
spouse, though with more schooling there is a greater chance that girls will at least be
consulted and 2) preference for small families whether among the more schooled or the
less schooled. However, again with more schooling, the family size reduced till it fell
below replacement level for the most schooled (1.88). An important insight from
quantitative data was that young married women with little schooling tended to rely on
health workers and on relatives and friends for information about contraceptives. With
more schooling there was exposure to multiple sources of information particularly
newspaper and TV. When it came to contraceptive use for starting or spacing a family 2/3
of the least schooled used no method at all as compared to around half of the most
schooled. Again, of those who did use contraceptive methods there was most reliance on
female sterilization for the least schooled and more varied use of different contraceptives
with more and more schooling.
The quantitative data for child immunization showed that the record was poor for all
levels of schooling but poorest for those with the least schooling and somewhat better for
those with increased levels of schooling. Among the least schooled 42% had immunized
their child less than 3 times as against 14% for those with over 10 years of schooling.
The situation reverses for those who had given all 6 immunisations with 44% for those
with over 10 years of schooling as against 18 % for those with least.
The greater success with which female sterilization has been pushed for those with least
schooling and the lack of success with which child immunization has been pushed on the
whole and particularly for the least schooled shows up important directions for the health
care programmes for the disadvantaged. Public health propaganda needs to target the
wider family and the community and ensure that the accent moves away from a female
sterilization focus to a family welfare focus in fact as well as in name.
Discussion
Discussant: Sreela Dasgupta, Population and Reproductive Health Specialist,
International Council for Research on Women
Ms. Dasgupta stated that she would like to discuss the issue from an interventionist
perspective. The relationship between education and fertility she explained was well
established. The richness of the study lies in that while reiterating this understanding, it
echoes the voices of the people. There are a number of factors that are not only
complexly intertwined but are also in a linear continuum. Ms Dasgupta then quoted the
findings of several other studies, all of whom have highlighted the positive correlation
that exists between schooling and higher access to health education. The question
remains as to whether or not we have the resources to replicate such interventions and
what is the critical mass required to do so. When looking at choices related to fertility,
marriage, etc, one needs to bear in mind that women’s ultimate identity in patriarchal
13
`
societies, lies in marriage and children – even a woman who attends national and
international universities, who may have other identities sees herself as settling down
with children. Even when discussing conditional cash transfers, she urged, it was
important to ask questions regarding whether exploring livelihood identities results in
differing identities. In conclusion, she emphasised the need to focus on good education,
and to ask questions regarding whether schools are imparting reproductive health
education.
Questions/Comments
 Was the issue of reproductive health analysed from the angle of son preference? It
would be an interesting way to triangulate data.
 Was the relation between education and reproductive health analysed from the
perspective of class, did class have any role to play.
 Did the study analyse the role of spouses to isolate the role of women’s
education?
 From the tables presented, it seems that the study found very little difference
between the schooled and the less schooled. Therefore, the conclusions need to be
clearly stated.
 It is important to keep in mind cultural specificity; in Rajasthani society they
follow village exogamy, whereas in the south they practice endogamy.
 Was any disabled women (or men) included in the sample?
 It seems that there is a trend emerging that more schooled are opting for
institutional deliveries? Could it be an impact of the government scheme for safe
motherhood?
Response:
Anuradha De: ‘In our quantitative sample there is not so much as an economic or class
bias as far as the more schooled are concerned, but there could be an urban bias and thus
an impact of easier access to schooling. Health and contraceptive knowledge – not
significantly more in the more schooled.
Claire Naronha: ‘With respect to the disability question, we did not have any disabled
respondents because we only took up one theme with one family. However, if we have
the time, we would like to do some disabled mothers, though it is difficult to get
respondents.
We did not investigate the role of spouse’s education.
The conclusion is that it is a nuanced picture. The more schooled have better
maneuverability and are respected more within the family. However, as far as decision
making is concerned, there seemed to be not much difference.
14
`
Day 3
1. CORD presentation on Revisiting PROBE: Findings from a Field-Based Study on
Elementary Education by Meera Samson
This was a presentation based on the findings of the study on elementary education
conducted in 2006 by CORD in collaboration with the Institute of Social Studies Trust
(ISST). The present study covered the same schools that were covered in the PROBE
study of 1996 in the pre-divided states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and in
Rajasthan. The study reviews the changes in the state of primary education in the 10
years that elapsed between the two studies. (The final report is expected later in the year)
2. Panel Discussion on Access, Exclusion and Outcomes
Panelists: Jean Dreze,
Ratna Sudarshan
Angela Little
Chair: Andre Beteille
The first panelist, Jean Dreze focused primarily on the presentations made by R Govinda
and Meera Samson on the schooling situation in the areas revisited in the course of their
studies. He emphasized that the picture in the surveyed states may not depict that in
other states or in India as a whole, which may even be more positive. He also emphasized
the need to acknowledge the improvements that are visible in certain aspects of the
government schooling system especially in rural areas, which have come about through
government reforms and through government officials who have delivered. The time has
not come yet to give up on the public sector. Instead, make efforts to push for change in
other areas.
The action points suggested were: 1) effort to improve classroom activity by improving
systems of inspection and incentives for teachers 2) Push for 6% of GDP for education,
which now would translate to substantial resource for bringing about improvements in the
required areas 3) special incentives and facilities for marginalized groups like the tribal
communities 4) passing of the right to education bill – which will create new standards
and expectations. 5) focus on children under six as part of universalizing education.
The second panelist, Ratna Sudarshan, started her presentation by emphasizing the need
for using mixed methods in research, and not relying entirely on a quantitative analysis,
based on official data. More than a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, she
stressed on the need to look at the social environment and norms that affect education as
well as its outcomes. Norms have indeed changed vis-a-vis schooling, especially for girls.
But social norms that have not changed. There is, therefore, a need to look outside of
education at the sociological aspects, the complex social factors that govern people’s
choices.
The third panelist, Angela Little started by mentioning that she was an “outsider”, as her
own field based research has been largely in Sri Lanka. She felt that the conference
15
`
provided a “broad brush” picture of the education situation, clearly bringing out the
positives and the areas of concern. She was surprised by the difference in the picture that
the policy-makers paint and that which is clear from the field based research done by the
presenters at this conference. She expressed concern about teacher inactivity, low
attendance and declining achievement. She felt that the lack of teaching activity is a
waste of human and material resources. There was a need to focus on this issue and ask
what kind of training are they receiving? What kind of curriculums are being developed
and what are the authorities doing to equip them with the right resources and training.
She emphasized the need to focus on the need for the right pedagogy, which can benefit
both small and large schools.
Angela pointed out some of the positive aspects of the research designs of the two
programmes. In RECOUP, testing achievement and not relying on years of schooling was
an element she appreciated. The focus on non-cognitive outcomes is a very significant
aspect of the research. Also, the emphasis on context and contingency enriches the
design.
To conclude, Angela mentioned that there was a need to look at the patterns of exclusion.
Also, if we were to connect Access and Outcomes, it is not enough to look at skills but
also qualifications – and the institution called examination and certification – which is
what links the education received to what one is able to achieve with it at the formal
labour market, the sector everyone seem to aspire for.
Angela ended her presentation with a question… why has it taken so long for the right to
education bill to come about?
Discussion: The question that arose from these sharings is one on methodology. The
limitations of rigid questionnaires in capturing the full picture, while being aware of the
implications of loose-ended ones on data analysis. Also, what indeed constituted data?
It is not enough to collect data outside of the official machinery, but there is a need to
engage with the problem of unreliability of official data by finding ways to embed our
research within that.
There was a considerable discussion and concern over teacher accountability and
classroom activity. Why do teachers not teach?
There was a question and a brief discussion on Sri Lanka and its high achievements in the
field of education. The state has a strong commitment to education and allocates
substantially towards it. However, education is highly stratified and there are three
mediums that run in parallel – English and the two vernaculars. Private coaching is also
widespread across class, as is political interference in selection, recruitment and transfer
of teachers.
The new policy on reserving seats in private schools for low-income students is
something that needs some attention and deliberation.
16
`
Advices for the future – Write up the studies
Formulate sharp messages and disseminate not only to policy
makers, but also to communities and all others working along
these issues
Some focus should move to more positive states, in order to
draw a less dismal picture
Focus on classroom activities and teaching/learning as it impacts
both access and outcomes
More voices of junior researchers
Concluding remarks
R Govinda closed the conference with a vote of thanks to all participants. He expressed
his gratitude to all participants for attending this rather different seminar whereby they
were invited only to listen and comment. He thanked them for their rich inputs and
feedback. He mentioned how fruitful the collaboration between NUEPA and CORD has
been. He also thanked the discussants, chairs and panelists for taking time out for the
conference – he acknowledged that this was a seminar where there were no defaulters in
this regard, which was very special! He also mentioned the hard work put in by the
RECOUP and CREATE researchers, and those who were involved in organizing the
workshop. He concluded by saying that the conference ends on an encouraging note that
all is not lost by way of education in India – one needs to focus on the positives and
direct effort towards similar improvement in other areas.
17
`
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
1.
Praveen Jha
Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
School of Social Sciences,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi -- 110067, INDIA.
Telephone Numbers: Off: +91-11-26704449
Res: +91-11-26741918, +91-11-26741052
Fax: +91-11-26717586
E-mail: praveenjha2005@gmail.com ;
praveen@mail.jnu.ac.in
2.
Farida Khan
Professor
Jamia Millia Islamia
D-1/43, Rabindra Nagar,
New Delhi-110003.
9868946414, 24636386 (R)
Email: khan.farida@gmail.com
3.
A.S.Seetharamu
Professor
Institute for Social and Economic Change
No. 500, 4th Main, 4th Cross,
2nd Stage, 9th Block, BDA Layout
Nagarbhavi,
Bangalore – 560072.
Email: sitaram47@yahoo.com
4.
Sharad Behar
Formerly, Chief Secretary, Gov of Madhya
Pradesh
E-4/12, Arera Colony
Bhopal – 462016. Tel: 09425019425
Email: sharadbehar@yahoo.com
6.
Nandini Manjrekar
Associate Professor
Tata Institute of Social Sciences
P.O. 8313, Deonar
Mumbai -400088
Tel: 022-25525000
Email: nandini@tiss.edu
nandini.manjrekar@gmail.com
7.
Santosh Mehrotra
Senior Consultant and Adviser, Rural
Development
and Economic Adviser, Social Sectors,
Planning Commission, Government of India,
Yojana Bhavan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi 110001
Tel (and Fax) 91-11-2309 6749
Website: www.santoshmehrotra.org,
santosh.mehrotra@nic.in
www.planningcommission.nic.in
John Kurien
Centre For Learning Resources (CLR)
8 Deccan College Road
Yerawada
Pune - 411 006
Tel. 91-20-65004191, 91-20-26692123
Fax. 91-20-26693899
clr@vsnl.com
9.
Anita Rampal
Professor
Department of Education
C-6, 29-31 Chhatra Marg
Delhi University
Delhi 110007
Email: anita.rampal@gmail.com
10. Michael Ward
DFID India
British High Commission
Qutub Institutional Area, Tara Crescent
New Delhi – 110016.
Tel: 26529123
Email: MP-Ward@dfid.gov.uk
11. Shantha Sinha
Chairperson
National Commission for Protection of Child
Rights
Chandralok Building (5th Floor)
Janpath
New Delhi – 11 00 01
Tel: 23731583
Email: shantha.sinha@nic.in
Karuna Chanana
Professor, Sociology of Education & Gender,
(Formerly with Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi, India)
C-8/8256 Vasant Kunj
New Delhi - 110 070
Tel: +91-11-4176 8085
Email: chananak@yahoo.com
5.
8.
12. P M Kulkarni
Professor
Centre for the Study of Regional Development
School of Social Sciences,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi – 110067.
Tel: 9891985405 Email:
pmkulkarni@mail.jnu.ac.in
13. Smita
American India Foundation
C-17 Green Park Extension
New Delhi.
110 016.
Tel: +91-11-4611-8888
Fax: +91-11-4611-8890
Email: smita@aif.org
14. Dayaram
Aga Khan Foundation
Second Floor
Bhagwan Dass Road
New Delhi H.O.
Delhi-110001
Phone: 011-23386234
Email: dayaram@akdn.org
15. Mohd. Miyan
Department of Educational Studies
Faculty of Education
Jamia Millia Islamia
18
`
New Delhi-110025
Ph. +91 (11) 26981717 Extn.- 2100
Email: mm_cdol@yahoo.com
9810621390
arif_sadiq@hotmail.com
25. Keith Lewin
Professor of Education, Arts E E314,
School of Sussex Education,
University of Sussex, Sussex, UK
Ph. 01273 678970, International: 44 1273 678970
Email: k.m.lewin@sussex.ac.uk
16. Shobhita Rajagopal
Fellow
Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
8B, Jhalana Institutional Area
Post Box- 636, Jaipur- 302 004 (India)
Tel: (0141) 2705726, 2706457
Fax: (0141) 2705348
Email: shobhita@idsj.org
26. Angela Little
Professor of Education
Institute of Education
University of London
Arts D D202 Sussex Institute
a.little@ioe.ac.uk
17. N. Jayaram
Professor and Dean
Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
Deonar,
Mumbai
Email: njayaram2@rediffmail.com
27. Geeta Gandhi Kingdon
Chair in Education and International Development
Institute of Education, University of London,
20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL
Ph: 020 3073 8316
Email: G.Kingdon@ioe.ac.uk
18. Jean Dreze
G.B. Pant Social Science Institute,
Jusi, Allahabad,
211019
Tel: 0532-2667204
jaandaraz@gmail.com
28. Christopher Colclough
Director, Centre for Commonwealth Education,
184, Hills Road,
Cambridge CB2 2PQ,
UK
Tel: 00 44 1223 767602
c.colclough@educ.cam.ac.uk
19. Anil Bordia
Chairman & Managing Trustee
Foundation for Education and Development
B-72, Devi Path
Kanote Bagh
Jaipur.
Tel: 0141-2620127
ddashak@dataone.in
29. Jeemol Unni
Gujarat Institute of Development Research,
Gota, Ahmedabad 380 060
Ph-02717-242366-68, Fax: 02717-242365
Email: jeemolunni@yahoo.co.in ,
jeemol_unni@yahoo.com
20. Shyam B. Menon
Professor
Department of Education
33 B, Chattra Marg
University of Delhi
Delhi – 110007.
9968014432
shyambmenon@gmail.com
30. Reetika Khera
Independent Economist
Email: reetika.khera@gmail.com
31. Kiran Bhatty
Consultant,
UNICEF, 73, Lodi Estate,
New Delhi- 110003
Ph: 24690404
9810273968
Email: kiran.bhatty@gmail.com
21. Samphe Lhalungpa
Education – Chief
UNICEF,
73, Lodi Estate, New Delhi-110003
9810170167, slhalungpa@unicef.org
22. M.S. Yadav
C-III, 3038 Vasant Kunj
New Delhi – 110070
Tel ( R): 26125718
32. Navsharan Singh
International Development Research Centre,
208, Jor Bagh, New Delhi 110003
Ph: 24619411
Email: nsingh@idrc.org.in
23. A.B.L. Srivastava
Chief Consultant, Edcil,
Technical Support Group,
10-B, IP Estate,
New Delhi-2
Res: B-41, Sector-14,
Noida-201301. (U.P.)
9810402951
resu.edcil@gmail.com, abls50@hotmail.com
33. Sadhna Saxena
Central Institute of Education
University of Delhi
Delhi.
Email: sadhna_saxena@rediffmail.com
34. Nargis Panchapakesan
CIE, Delhi University
Delhi
Email: panchu@bol.net.in
24. Md. Arif
Computer Centre- DES & DP
NCERT
New Delhi
35. Geetha B. Nambissan
Sociology of Education,
19
`
Tel : 011 – 4629237 / 38
Fax : 011 - 4629206
Email: shanti.jagannathan@cec.eu.int
Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi- 67
Ph: 9810844575
Email: geethadelhi@eth.net
45. Ratna M. Sudarshan
Director
Institute of Social Studies Trust
India Habitat Centre, UG Floor
Core 6A, Lodhi Road
New Delhi-110003
Tel- 91-11-24647873, 24653780
Fax- 91-1124648724
Email-ratna@isst-india.org
36. Elizabeth Hill
Department of Political
Economy, Faculty of Arts
University of Sydney, Australia
Ph. 61 2 93516616, Fax: 61 2 93518596
Email: e.hill@usyd.edu.au
37. Tanuka Endow
Independent Economist
2501, ATS Greens 2,
Sector 50, NOIDA 201307
Email: tanukano1@yahoo.com
46. N. J. Kurian
Visiting Professor
Council for Social Development
Sangha Rachna,
53, Lodi Estate
New Delhi - 110003.
Phones: 91-11-24615383, 24611700, 24616061,
24693065, 24692655
Fax: 91-11-24616061
Email: njkurian@yahoo.com
38. A K Shiva Kumar
UNICEF, 73, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003
24690404, ext. 117
Email: akshivakumar@gmail.com ,
forshiv@yahoo.com
39. Sreela Dasgupta
Population and Reproductive Health Specialist
ARO, ICRW,
C – 139 Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110024,
India
Phone: 91-11-2465-4216, Fax: 91-11-2463-5142
Email: sdasgupta@icrw.org
47. A.K.Sharma
(Former Director- NCERT)
C-3, Sector-48
Noida-201304
Mobile: 9810195863
48. Sveta Dave Chakravarty
Consultant in Education Development
Email: svetadave@gmail.com
40. Meera Pillai
Senior Consultant
Institute of Social Studies Trust
N-601, Manipal Centre
47 Dickenson Road
Bangalore 560042
Ph: 91-80-25583701, Fax-91-8025583704
Mobile: 9448841811
Email: mpillai65@yahoo.com ,
publications.isst@spectranet.com
49. Kokila Gulati/ F.A. Jami
Programme Director
Girls’ Education Programme
CARE India
New Delhi
50. Anuradha Sen
S N Foundation
B- 302, Som Vihar R.K. Puram, Sector – 12
New Delhi – 110022
e-mail: senanuradha@hotmail.com
41. Anita Ghai
Reader, Psychology Department,
Jesus and Mary College,
University of Delhi
Chanakyapuri
Delhi.
Email: anitaghai@vsnl.com ,
anita.satyapal@gmail.com
42. Mona Sedwal
Department of Elementary Education
Institute of Home Economics
University of Delhi
Email: monased@gmail.com
51. Alok Sharma
Assistant Professor (SIEMAT)
State Centre for Educational Research and
Training
Chattisgarh, Raipur
0771-2443596, 2443297,
scert_raipur@yahoo.com
52. Susan Champagne
Independent Educationist
53. Andre Betellie
Senior Sociologist
69, Jor Bagh
New Delhi
43. Huma Masood
UNESCO
B 5/29, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi – 110029
26713000
54. Jason Pennelles
Training Coordinator
IEC
Email: jason@iec.ac.uk
44. Shanti Jagannathan
Team Leader, Education
European Union
Delegation of the EC to India, Nepal and Bhutan
65 Golf Links
New Delhi – 110 003
55. Swati Narayan
Development Sector Professional
20
`
Mumbai
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
56. Neeru Bala
Education Consultant
New Delhi
57. Rashi Bhargava
Ex- RECOUP Researcher
New Delhi
58. Anupam Pachauri
Research Student
Sussex School of Education
Sussex
E-mail: A.Pachauri@sussex.ac.uk
59. Madhavi Kotwal Samson
Managing Trustee
Action Beyond Help And Support
New Delhi
CORD
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
60. Manjir Ghosh
Capacity Building Specialist
Education World Inc
Delhi
61. Prabhakar
Grants Manager, Education
American India Foundation
New Delhi
62. Yuko Tsujita
Research Scholar
Sussex School of Education
Sussex
63. G. Arunima
Associate Professor
Women’s Studies Unit
School of Social Sciences
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi
e-mail: arunima.gopinath@gmail.com
64.
Arun J. Mulla
ACDS (NGO)
Arunachal Pradesh
65. Monika Nayar
66. Dr. Mahesh
67. Shri M.M. Upadhyay/ Ramesh Patoda
Principal Secretary – School Education
Government of Madhya Pradesh
Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan
Bhopal – 462 004
NUEPA
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
B. K. Panda
A. N. Reddy
S. R. Mahapatra
Madhumita Bandyopadhyay
Aarti Srivastava
Vandana Barik
Reeta Rajasekhar
Pabitra Nayak
Bakhtiyar Ahmed
Harish Chandra Behera
Imtiaz Ansari
Diptanshu Pati
Md. Mainuddin
Banishree Das
Sudha Gopalkrishnan
Jyotsna Singh
Ajai Chaube
R. Govinda
Prof. CPS Chauhan
Neha Vakil
Sudesh Mukhopadhyay
Jandhyala B. G. Tilak
Arun C. Mehta
Nalini Juneja
Neelam Sood
A. K. Singh
Rashmi Diwan
21
Anuradha De
Claire Noronha
Meera Samson
Anomita Goswami
Neeru Sood
Rajeev Kumar
Sanjeev Kumar
Gargi Aleaz
Samuel L. Chuaungo
Reema Govil
Aparajita Bhargarh
Pranjli Dev
Sandeep Rai
Sourinder Mohan Ghosh