`

MID-TERM DISSEMINATION SEMINARNational 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 SessionChief Guest: Shri A. K. Rath, Secretary (SE&L), Government of IndiaChair: Professor Ved PrakashVice Chancellor, NUEPA

1115-1145 hrs : Tea Break

Session I Chair: Anil Bordia

1145-1315 hrs : Introduction to CREATE and RECOUPInternational - Keith Lewin and Christopher Colclough

Indian- R. Govinda and Claire Noronha

1415-1545 hrs : Lunch

Session II Chair: Shantha Sinha

1415-1545 hrs : 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 Chair: Shobhita Rajgopal

1615-1745 hrs : The School Governance Environment in UP Some Implications for Teacher Accountability- Geeta Kingdon and Mohd MuzammilDiscussant: Janaki Rajan

: Why Aid for Education to India?- Christopher Colclough and Anuradha DeDiscussant: A.K. Shiva Kumar

4th December 2008Session IV Chair: N.J. Kurian

0930 -1100 hrs : Variations in Labour Market Outcomes: Preliminary findings from a Household Survey- Anuradha De and Rajeev KumarDiscussant: Jeemol Unni

: Education, Training and Work Outcomes- Claire Noronha, Tanuka Endow and Aparajita BhargarhDiscussant: Elizabeth Hill

1100-1130 hrs : Tea Break

Session V Chair: Karuna Chanana

1130-1300 hrs : Exploring Gender and School Participation: Does Gender Really Matter? - Madhumita Bandyopadhyay

: Exploring Social Equity Issues in School Participation - Mona SedwalDiscussant: N. Jayaram

1300-1400 hrs : Lunch

2

`

Session VI Chair: P.M. Kulkarni

1400-1545 hrs : Exploring the Outcomes of Schooling for Young People with Disabilities

- Nidhi Singal, Roger Jeffery, Neeru Sood and Aanchal JainDiscussant: Meera Pillai

: Declining Fertility Rates – Is it an Outcome of Schooling?- Claire Noronha, Sharmishtha Basu,

Anuradha De and Roger JefferyDiscussant: Sreela Dasgupta

1545-1615 hrs : Tea Break

Session VII Chair: A. S. Seetharamu

1615- 1745 hrs : School Size and Patterns of Participation: Focus on Small Schools - Rashmi Diwan

: Head Teacher, Community Participation and Access to School- Aarti SrivastavaDiscussant: 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 Field-Based 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 : Panel Discussion. Chair: Andre Beteille. Access, Exclusion and OutcomesPanelists: Jean Dreze

Vimala Ramachandran Angela Little and

Ratna Sudarshan

: Concluding Session

1330 hrs : 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”.

InviteesThe 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 SessionThe 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 presentedSix 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.

DiscussionDiscussant: 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 3/4 th 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

`

DiscussionDiscussant: 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:

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

9

`

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.

DiscussionDiscussant: 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 around economic development, skills training, etc. There are a range of reasons why skill development in this area is tough.

10

`

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 byNidhi 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 time for focusing only on access to schooling was gone. It was time to look at access to work.

11

`

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.

DiscussionDiscussant: 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 societies, lies in marriage and children – even a woman who attends national and

13

`

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 LittleChair: 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 JhaCentre for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi -- 110067, INDIA.Telephone Numbers: Off: +91-11-26704449Res: +91-11-26741918, +91-11-26741052Fax: +91-11-26717586E-mail: praveenjha2005@gmail.com ;praveen@mail.jnu.ac.in

2. Farida KhanProfessorJamia Millia IslamiaD-1/43, Rabindra Nagar,New Delhi-110003.9868946414, 24636386 (R)Email: khan.farida@gmail.com

3. A.S.SeetharamuProfessorInstitute for Social and Economic ChangeNo. 500, 4th Main, 4th Cross, 2nd Stage, 9th Block, BDA LayoutNagarbhavi, Bangalore – 560072.Email: sitaram47@yahoo.com

4. Karuna ChananaProfessor, Sociology of Education & Gender,(Formerly with Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew Delhi, India)C-8/8256 Vasant KunjNew Delhi - 110 070Tel: +91-11-4176 8085Email: chananak@yahoo.com

5. Sharad Behar Formerly, Chief Secretary, Gov of Madhya PradeshE-4/12, Arera ColonyBhopal – 462016. Tel: 09425019425 Email: sharadbehar@yahoo.com

6. Nandini Manjrekar Associate ProfessorTata Institute of Social SciencesP.O. 8313, DeonarMumbai -400088Tel: 022-25525000Email: nandini@tiss.edunandini.manjrekar@gmail.com

7. Santosh MehrotraSenior Consultant and Adviser, Rural Developmentand Economic Adviser, Social Sectors,Planning Commission, Government of India,Yojana Bhavan, Parliament Street,New Delhi 110001Tel (and Fax) 91-11-2309 6749Website: www.santoshmehrotra.org, santosh.mehrotra@nic.in www.planningcommission.nic.in

8. John KurienCentre For Learning Resources (CLR)8 Deccan College RoadYerawadaPune - 411 006Tel. 91-20-65004191, 91-20-26692123Fax. 91-20-26693899clr@vsnl.com

9. Anita RampalProfessorDepartment of EducationC-6, 29-31 Chhatra MargDelhi UniversityDelhi 110007Email: anita.rampal@gmail.com

10. Michael WardDFID IndiaBritish High CommissionQutub Institutional Area, Tara CrescentNew Delhi – 110016.Tel: 26529123Email: MP-Ward@dfid.gov.uk

11. Shantha SinhaChairpersonNational Commission for Protection of Child RightsChandralok Building (5th Floor)JanpathNew Delhi – 11 00 01Tel: 23731583Email: shantha.sinha@nic.in

12. P M KulkarniProfessorCentre for the Study of Regional DevelopmentSchool of Social Sciences,Jawaharlal Nehru University,New Delhi – 110067.Tel: 9891985405 Email: pmkulkarni@mail.jnu.ac.in

13. SmitaAmerican India FoundationC-17 Green Park Extension New Delhi.110 016.Tel: +91-11-4611-8888Fax: +91-11-4611-8890Email: smita@aif.org

14. DayaramAga Khan FoundationSecond FloorBhagwan Dass RoadNew Delhi H.O.Delhi-110001Phone: 011-23386234Email: dayaram@akdn.org

15. Mohd. MiyanDepartment of Educational Studies Faculty of Education Jamia Millia Islamia

18

`

New Delhi-110025Ph. +91 (11) 26981717 Extn.- 2100Email: mm_cdol@yahoo.com

16. Shobhita RajagopalFellowInstitute of Development Studies (IDS)8B, Jhalana Institutional AreaPost Box- 636, Jaipur- 302 004 (India)Tel: (0141) 2705726, 2706457Fax: (0141) 2705348Email: shobhita@idsj.org

17. N. JayaramProfessor and DeanTata Institute of Social Sciences,Deonar, MumbaiEmail: njayaram2@rediffmail.com

18. Jean DrezeG.B. Pant Social Science Institute, Jusi, Allahabad, 211019Tel: 0532-2667204jaandaraz@gmail.com

19. Anil BordiaChairman & Managing TrusteeFoundation for Education and DevelopmentB-72, Devi PathKanote BaghJaipur.Tel: 0141-2620127ddashak@dataone.in

20. Shyam B. MenonProfessorDepartment of Education33 B, Chattra MargUniversity of DelhiDelhi – 110007.9968014432shyambmenon@gmail.com

21. Samphe LhalungpaEducation – ChiefUNICEF,73, Lodi Estate, New Delhi-1100039810170167, slhalungpa@unicef.org

22. M.S. YadavC-III, 3038 Vasant KunjNew Delhi – 110070Tel ( R): 26125718

23. A.B.L. SrivastavaChief Consultant, Edcil, Technical Support Group,10-B, IP Estate,New Delhi-2Res: B-41, Sector-14, Noida-201301. (U.P.)9810402951resu.edcil@gmail.com, abls50@hotmail.com

24. Md. ArifComputer Centre- DES & DPNCERTNew Delhi

9810621390arif_sadiq@hotmail.com

25. Keith LewinProfessor of Education, Arts E E314, School of Sussex Education, University of Sussex, Sussex, UKPh. 01273 678970, International: 44 1273 678970Email: k.m.lewin@sussex.ac.uk

26. Angela LittleProfessor of EducationInstitute of EducationUniversity of LondonArts D D202 Sussex Institutea.little@ioe.ac.uk

27. Geeta Gandhi Kingdon Chair in Education and International DevelopmentInstitute of Education, University of London,20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0ALPh: 020 3073 8316 Email: G.Kingdon@ioe.ac.uk

28. Christopher ColcloughDirector, Centre for Commonwealth Education, 184, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2PQ, UKTel: 00 44 1223 767602c.colclough@educ.cam.ac.uk

29. Jeemol UnniGujarat Institute of Development Research, Gota, Ahmedabad 380 060Ph-02717-242366-68, Fax: 02717-242365Email: jeemolunni@yahoo.co.in , jeemol_unni@yahoo.com

30. Reetika KheraIndependent EconomistEmail: reetika.khera@gmail.com

31. Kiran BhattyConsultant, UNICEF, 73, Lodi Estate, New Delhi- 110003 Ph: 24690404 9810273968Email: kiran.bhatty@gmail.com

32. Navsharan SinghInternational Development Research Centre, 208, Jor Bagh, New Delhi 110003Ph: 24619411Email: nsingh@idrc.org.in

33. Sadhna SaxenaCentral Institute of EducationUniversity of DelhiDelhi.Email: sadhna_saxena@rediffmail.com

34. Nargis PanchapakesanCIE, Delhi UniversityDelhiEmail: panchu@bol.net.in

35. Geetha B. NambissanSociology of Education,

19

`

Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi- 67Ph: 9810844575Email: geethadelhi@eth.net

36. Elizabeth HillDepartment 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

38. A K Shiva KumarUNICEF, 73, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 11000324690404, ext. 117Email: akshivakumar@gmail.com , forshiv@yahoo.com

39. Sreela DasguptaPopulation and Reproductive Health Specialist ARO, ICRW, C – 139 Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110024, IndiaPhone: 91-11-2465-4216, Fax: 91-11-2463-5142Email: sdasgupta@icrw.org

40. Meera PillaiSenior Consultant Institute of Social Studies Trust N-601, Manipal Centre 47 Dickenson Road Bangalore 560042 Ph: 91-80-25583701, Fax-91-8025583704 Mobile: 9448841811Email: mpillai65@yahoo.com , publications.isst@spectranet.com

41. Anita GhaiReader, Psychology Department, Jesus and Mary College,University of Delhi ChanakyapuriDelhi.Email: anitaghai@vsnl.com , anita.satyapal@gmail.com

42. Mona SedwalDepartment of Elementary EducationInstitute of Home EconomicsUniversity of Delhi Email: monased@gmail.com

43. Huma MasoodUNESCOB 5/29, Safdarjung EnclaveNew Delhi – 11002926713000

44. Shanti Jagannathan Team Leader, EducationEuropean UnionDelegation of the EC to India, Nepal and Bhutan65 Golf LinksNew Delhi – 110 003

Tel : 011 – 4629237 / 38Fax : 011 - 4629206Email: shanti.jagannathan@cec.eu.int

45. Ratna M. SudarshanDirectorInstitute of Social Studies TrustIndia Habitat Centre, UG FloorCore 6A, Lodhi RoadNew Delhi-110003Tel- 91-11-24647873, 24653780Fax- 91-1124648724Email-ratna@isst-india.org

46. N. J. KurianVisiting ProfessorCouncil for Social DevelopmentSangha Rachna,53, Lodi EstateNew Delhi - 110003.Phones: 91-11-24615383, 24611700, 24616061, 24693065, 24692655Fax: 91-11-24616061Email: njkurian@yahoo.com

47. A.K.Sharma(Former Director- NCERT)C-3, Sector-48Noida-201304Mobile: 9810195863

48. Sveta Dave ChakravartyConsultant in Education DevelopmentEmail: svetadave@gmail.com

49. Kokila Gulati/ F.A. JamiProgramme DirectorGirls’ Education ProgrammeCARE IndiaNew Delhi

50. Anuradha SenS N FoundationB- 302, Som Vihar R.K. Puram, Sector – 12 New Delhi – 110022e-mail: senanuradha@hotmail.com

51. Alok SharmaAssistant Professor (SIEMAT)State Centre for Educational Research and TrainingChattisgarh, Raipur0771-2443596, 2443297,

scert_raipur@yahoo.com

52. Susan ChampagneIndependent Educationist

53. Andre BetellieSenior Sociologist69, Jor BaghNew Delhi

54. Jason PennellesTraining CoordinatorIECEmail: jason@iec.ac.uk

55. Swati NarayanDevelopment Sector Professional

20

`

Mumbai

56. Neeru BalaEducation ConsultantNew Delhi

57. Rashi BhargavaEx- RECOUP ResearcherNew Delhi

58. Anupam PachauriResearch StudentSussex School of EducationSussexE-mail: A.Pachauri@sussex.ac.uk

59. Madhavi Kotwal SamsonManaging TrusteeAction Beyond Help And SupportNew Delhi

60. Manjir GhoshCapacity Building SpecialistEducation World IncDelhi

61. PrabhakarGrants Manager, EducationAmerican India FoundationNew Delhi

62. Yuko TsujitaResearch ScholarSussex School of EducationSussex

63. G. ArunimaAssociate ProfessorWomen’s Studies UnitSchool of Social SciencesJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew Delhie-mail: arunima.gopinath@gmail.com

64. Arun J. MullaACDS (NGO)Arunachal Pradesh

65. Monika Nayar

66. Dr. Mahesh

67. Shri M.M. Upadhyay/ Ramesh Patoda Principal Secretary – School EducationGovernment of Madhya PradeshMantralaya, Vallabh BhawanBhopal – 462 004

NUEPA

68. R. Govinda69. Prof. CPS Chauhan70. Neha Vakil71. Sudesh Mukhopadhyay72. Jandhyala B. G. Tilak73. Arun C. Mehta74. Nalini Juneja75. Neelam Sood76. A. K. Singh77. Rashmi Diwan

78. B. K. Panda79. A. N. Reddy80. S. R. Mahapatra81. Madhumita Bandyopadhyay82. Aarti Srivastava 83. Vandana Barik 84. Reeta Rajasekhar85. Pabitra Nayak86. Bakhtiyar Ahmed87. Harish Chandra Behera88. Imtiaz Ansari89. Diptanshu Pati90. Md. Mainuddin91. Banishree Das 92. Sudha Gopalkrishnan 93. Jyotsna Singh 94. Ajai Chaube

CORD

95. Anuradha De96. Claire Noronha97. Meera Samson98. Anomita Goswami99. Neeru Sood100. Rajeev Kumar101. Sanjeev Kumar102. Gargi Aleaz103. Samuel L. Chuaungo 104. Reema Govil105. Aparajita Bhargarh106. Pranjli Dev107. Sandeep Rai

Sourinder Mohan Ghosh

21