If the quality of pre-primary education determines the ‘success’ of the child, then, should not all children have the right to access a uniform pre-school education?
Access, retention and success, which mean bringing children to school, retaining them for at least eight years (up to 14 years of age) till they pass grade VIII or ideally for 12 years till they pass the senior secondary level, have been the mantra of the education sector since the Jomtien Conference was held in 1990.
Ever since, our educational planners as well as the Government have done a stupendous job in improving the quality of education in schools. Today, India can boast of great achievements for having expanded school access to children in outlying areas. Several policies and initiative have been launched and they have only grown sharper and tighter in details with the passage of time. But a closer look will reveal that at the grassroot level, little has changed. Students from low-income families and first generation school-goers continue to face complex challenges. While for the first time India was able to bring the school dropout rate to less than three per cent, a large majority of the children still remains out of school. We can claim advancements in school infrastructure and the provision of mid-day meals to our students but why is it that learning levels among the severely disadvantaged and first generation children have not changed? Why is it that a majority of drop-outs continue to belong to the poor and less-privileged families?
A major reason for children dropping out of school is unpreparedness. Children who do not live with their immediate families find it difficult to adjust to the school environment. They also do not understand the importance of schooling and there is no one back home to convince the child why he/she must attend classes. It is not that our educationists or policy-makers are not aware of this fact. It was, perhaps, this realisation that prompted them to launch programmes like the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) and Anganwadi centres. But clearly they have not been able to reap desired results. The schemes were expected to support the mother by way of providing crucial information and medicine during pregnancy and prepare her child for school. Instead, centres providing such services have remained low-quality child minding centres.
The need of the hour is to bifurcate the lower primary from the elementary school and conjoin it with the pre-school so as to provide quality language and life skills training to all children aged between three and eight. Many children, who suffer from various types of disabilities, do not receive the attention of Anganwadi teachers as also primary teachers as they lack the required training to detect disabilities. Detection should be an essential component of the teachers’ training process so that they know how to deal with such situations and refer them to the appropriate agencies.
Further, it is often said that children have the capacity to learn many languages between ages three and eight. So, it is essential that teachers are proficient in at least three languages.
The absence of a professional agency for the design, development and implementation of a well-conceptualised scheme is also one major reason why programmes are arbitrary in nature. Pre-school to lower primary education ie, institutions for children aged between three and eight years, should be seen as a continuum. Life skills training as well as literacy and numeracy skills should be provided in the mother tongue and within the institutions. Any national body, ideally the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT), should be designated as the nodal agency for designing a plan for complete development of the child.
Adequately, for the teachers, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) must design and develop training norms and decide on the standards required to be appointed a shikshak at these centres. And this, without much formal intervention.
It goes without saying that the Right to Education Act, 2009, did not do much good to this age group of students. In fact, it worked against their interest. By giving scant attention to early childhood education, the nation has deprived the poor and the less-privileged children of their right to education. The non-formal schools, which were run by voluntary organisations like the Ekal Vidyalaya, and who have been doing great service to children in far-flung areas, have been declared illegal/unlawful. Perhaps, we need to re-examine if this sector can be covered under the RTE or be made free for NGOs, the philanthropists and others to contribute.
Traditionally, education of this age group has always been seen as a dharm and the society contributed towards making it possible. We should rely more on the local community for running these schools. Mothers of children studying in these centres and other volunteers should be roped in to run them smoothly and ensure a check and balance system born of participation, not of imposition. They should not be seen as a Government establishment but as a community centre of the society.
So where did we go wrong and what needs to change? We have to emphasise that mother and child care centres are not just about health but also about literacy/education of both. The major reason behind the poor performance of these centres and schemes is the involvement of inappropriately trained personnel to manage them. The nodal Ministry for these centres should be the Ministry of Human Resources Development alone with experts from areas of medicine, nutrition, psychiatry and so on. If the quality of pre-primary education determines the “success” of the child, then, should not all children have the right to access a uniform pre-school education?
(The writer is professor of education at the Indira Gandhi Open University. Views expressed are personal)
