Laveesh Bhandari: Let children stay at home

No one can deny that the government has been successful in getting most children enrolled in school. Surveys suggest that the attendance too has increased "" it was in the 80 per cent-range in the late 1990s/early 2000.

But that is where the successes end. Most children end up dropping out before they complete upper primary education. According to government (administrative) statistics, 42 per cent children will drop out before completing primary schooling. If one were to estimate the same figure from survey-based data that is less prone to over-reporting by overzealous functionaries, the drop out rates would turn out to be in the 50 per cent range.

In other words, of the 10 students who are enrolled in primary school, four or five will drop out even before completing the the first four of five years of education. Another 2 will drop out before completing grade 8. The problem is worse among females, scheduled castes and tribes, poor and rural residents. Most experts assign the blame to poor quality of education, teaching, and the problem of infrastructure. Many, if not most, will also partly lay the blame on unaware parents.

But there is a different assessment. Among the underprivileged such as the poorest 20-30 per cent of the population, the SC and STs and so on, only the irrational or the overly optimistic should continue with studies after primary schooling. In other words, there is enough evidence to show that the most aware and rational parents from the underprivileged sections should encourage their children to drop out. But why and how can one make such a claim? There are two related factors "" one, the quality of education the underprivileged can expect to get, and two, the incomes they can expect to derive from this education.

Many studies have shown that children who are in the process of completing primary schooling, cannot even read, understand, and write a paragraph. The quality of schooling being so poor, children don't learn much in terms of either complex mathematical calculations or the written word. Our education system is also not oriented towards skill development. So, keeping the child in school does not help much in terms of learning. And it does not help in getting jobs later either.

Since children know so little in their primary classes, they obviously can't pick up things fast enough in higher classes. They will fail the board exams at middle, secondary and higher secondary levels (different states have different systems). This is a certainty for those from the underprivileged sections as their near and dear ones, who are uneducated in the formal system, will be unable to help them either.

That leaves just one potential benefit. If a child studies for a longer period, employers will perhaps offer higher wages. Studies have also shown that for every extra year of schooling in the primary level, incomes rise by about 3 per cent. This is well below any decent time discount factor.

It is therefore, pointless, to get children in school if we cannot promise them quality delivery. It is unfair to the children and their parents. It asks them to put in effort, promises them a reward that they will not get. It therefore harms them.

The author is director, Indicus Analytics, an economics research firm.