Just like with several other development parameters, primary school education in the state of Uttar Pradesh suffers from many drawbacks. According to the Annual State Education Report 2014, compiled by the NGO Pratham, 21 per cent of the boys and girls of the age group of 15-16 in the state are not in school. While 40.9 per cent of the schools have a toilet facility, it is not useable. Separate facilities for girls are now more prevalent but are often locked (20 per cent of the schools visited) and sometimes unusable (20 per cent). And, 25 per cent of the schools have no library and 96 per cent have a shed to cook the mid-day meal - one of the main reasons a number of smaller children find themselves attending to start with.
Talk to academicians, teachers, bureaucrats and students from rural and remote districts and the anecdotal picture is even grimmer. Besides an acute shortage of teaching staff (in 2013, 270,000 teaching posts across the state's 1.4 lakh government-run primary schools were lying vacant), schools in the more far-flung districts lack most of the basic infrastructure required to be called a school - be it pucca buildings, classrooms, study material, playgrounds or drinking water facilities. Several schools function out of open sheds and teaching staff often saunters in as and when it suits them. Accountability is rather low if existent.
The government schools are run by a board that come under the secretary of basic education. There's a ministry dealing with the subject. Despite large allocations from state budgets, these schools have seen steady deterioration in the quality of teaching outcomes and education imparted over the years. No one really seems to be interested.
Yet, one of the novel - and rather convoluted - attempts at improving the quality of basic primary education and government schools came recently from the Allahabad High Court. The High Court suddenly decreed that all officials whose salaries are paid by the exchequer must be forced to send their children to government schools. Those who failed to comply with this order would be penalised. This, according to the court, would help improve the quality of these schools since those who run the state would have a personal interest in improving the functioning of the schools. As things stand, government schools are neglected since those who can afford it, send their children to "semi-elite" and "elite" schools.
The High Court's solution to a pretty simple problem seems to me rather complicated and raises many questions. To start with, who will ensure that such a decree is followed? The state administration will be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to find those who are flouting the decree and then trying to penalise them. In a state where crimes of a more serious nature are hard to punish and where litigation can take a lifetime, it seems puerile to suggest something that will add to the burden for such a minor offence.
Second, wouldn't this be an infringement of one's basic rights? How can anyone dictate where an individual sends one's child to study? Parents - whether they are government servants or not - will act in their children's best interests. If despite the system offering a free education, they choose to pay and educate their child, it is their right to do so. Can the state interfere and insist that they do what the court desires? If education is a fundamental right, so is choice.
But above all, it is like an admission of failure and absolving those who are expected to run these schools of their duty - despite being paid for it. It's a bit like passing the buck. Why should the state police commissioner - who happens to be employed by the state - be forced to send his ward to a government-run school because the state education secretary and his flunkies have been failing to do their job?
Instead of trying to introduce accountability through conduits, it may be simpler to take the bull by its horns. Identify the culprits, hold them accountable and finally fire those who fail to deliver. Just the way the state system shies away from meritocracy, it fails to punish those directly responsible. The moment some senior heads roll, the rest of the pack may suddenly start to perform.
Talk to academicians, teachers, bureaucrats and students from rural and remote districts and the anecdotal picture is even grimmer. Besides an acute shortage of teaching staff (in 2013, 270,000 teaching posts across the state's 1.4 lakh government-run primary schools were lying vacant), schools in the more far-flung districts lack most of the basic infrastructure required to be called a school - be it pucca buildings, classrooms, study material, playgrounds or drinking water facilities. Several schools function out of open sheds and teaching staff often saunters in as and when it suits them. Accountability is rather low if existent.
The government schools are run by a board that come under the secretary of basic education. There's a ministry dealing with the subject. Despite large allocations from state budgets, these schools have seen steady deterioration in the quality of teaching outcomes and education imparted over the years. No one really seems to be interested.
Yet, one of the novel - and rather convoluted - attempts at improving the quality of basic primary education and government schools came recently from the Allahabad High Court. The High Court suddenly decreed that all officials whose salaries are paid by the exchequer must be forced to send their children to government schools. Those who failed to comply with this order would be penalised. This, according to the court, would help improve the quality of these schools since those who run the state would have a personal interest in improving the functioning of the schools. As things stand, government schools are neglected since those who can afford it, send their children to "semi-elite" and "elite" schools.
The High Court's solution to a pretty simple problem seems to me rather complicated and raises many questions. To start with, who will ensure that such a decree is followed? The state administration will be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to find those who are flouting the decree and then trying to penalise them. In a state where crimes of a more serious nature are hard to punish and where litigation can take a lifetime, it seems puerile to suggest something that will add to the burden for such a minor offence.
Second, wouldn't this be an infringement of one's basic rights? How can anyone dictate where an individual sends one's child to study? Parents - whether they are government servants or not - will act in their children's best interests. If despite the system offering a free education, they choose to pay and educate their child, it is their right to do so. Can the state interfere and insist that they do what the court desires? If education is a fundamental right, so is choice.
But above all, it is like an admission of failure and absolving those who are expected to run these schools of their duty - despite being paid for it. It's a bit like passing the buck. Why should the state police commissioner - who happens to be employed by the state - be forced to send his ward to a government-run school because the state education secretary and his flunkies have been failing to do their job?
Instead of trying to introduce accountability through conduits, it may be simpler to take the bull by its horns. Identify the culprits, hold them accountable and finally fire those who fail to deliver. Just the way the state system shies away from meritocracy, it fails to punish those directly responsible. The moment some senior heads roll, the rest of the pack may suddenly start to perform.