SHAKING off decades of stupor Bihar today seems to be on the move. Earlier, even as other states marched ahead, Bihar seemed gripped by inertia and kept slipping behind. To make good it must not only gather momentum but develop a sense of direction. More so because during its years of hibernation, the world around has changed. An era of globalization has been ushered in. India has moved on to a higher growth trajectory. Market forces have become strong and seemingly autonomous. There are visible signs of withdrawal of the state from many sectors. Policy-makers must, therefore, reflect before deciding on the direction the state should take.

Whether we consider growth-related indices or the composite human development index, Bihar today is at the bottom of the ladder. The per capita SDP in the state is the lowest in the country. The number of poor remains embarrassingly large. In 1999-2000 it was 42.60% while the national figure was 26.10%; for 2006-07 the respective figures are 43.18% and 19.34%. It was the only state in the country, according to the census of 2001, where illiterates still constituted a majority.

In 2004-05 gross enrolment ratios at the primary and upper primary levels were 83.75% and 32.43% respectively, while the national figures had reached 108.56% and 94.23%. Elementary education for children may have been conferred the status of a fundamental right by the 86th amendment in 2002, but more than two-thirds of the children in the age group 11-14 years were out of school in 2004-05. According to ASER 2006, a survey undertaken by a number of NGOs across rural India, Bihar has the dubious distinction of having the largest percentage of out of school children, 12.8% against the national average of 6.6%.

Even as Bihar grapples with the basic problem of bringing every child into school, it is simultaneously attempting to address issues of quality in education. Though quality is a term often reserved for the few achievers against many who toil and sweat and fail to make a mark, yet once in a while some people have thought of the possibility and need for universal quality. J.P. Naik once famously remarked that school education in India remained trapped in the elusive triangle of equality, quality and quantity. And though many social scientists foreground a trade-off between quality and numbers, as if the larger the numbers the lower is the possibility of achieving quality, Bihar despite its backwardness seems determined to try.

In fact, there is perhaps no better time than now to discuss the meaning and scope of quality because Bihar is yet not committed to any particular model of development. Will its model of development, or education for that matter, be based on the principles of equity and fairness? Quality is an elusive concept and yet if our expectations from education go beyond the individual and extend to a vision of the society we want, then quality cannot be understood merely in terms of efficiency or individual achievement parameters. Relevance to the context and principles of inclusion will be necessary, more so if we seek to transform a semi-feudal order into an egalitarian democratic society.

 

The colonial mode of school education placed an undue emphasis on language and communication skills to the general neglect of other skills or egalitarian values. Gandhi’s experiment of basic education, which incidentally was first initiated in Bihar, challenged this approach, though it never quite became the first choice of either parents or the government. In fact, till the 1980s there was no serious attempt for even making elementary education universal, far less to ensure quality for all. It was only in the nineties that the state initiated new strategies to ensure universal primary education as also strengthen the upper primary level through the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). Fortunately, both these programmes were seriously concerned with improving the quality of schooling.

In the early nineties the newly constituted Bihar Education Project adopted the Minimum Levels of Learning (MLL) strategy for ensuring quality of education. The orientation was, however, more imitative than critical, failing to take into account either the specific state level realities or building on earlier experiments in the state. After some years it was realized that the state needed strategies of its own to improve quality of education. A smaller programme, SPEED, was initiated in four districts – Nalanda, Patna, Saharsa and Supaul – focusing on training programmes as well as development of learning materials. Its training module was called Samajh (understanding) and was meant to empower the teachers. SPEED promoted libraries in 1900 schools, set up Anand Pathshalas for joyful learning and tried to improve the quality of education by various means.

Around the same period the East and West Educational Society started two magazines, Gyan Vigyan for school teachers, and Jhilmil Jugnu for children. Interestingly the April 2003 issue of Gyan Vigyan, guest edited by the General Secretary of Bihar Secondary Teachers Association, was devoted to the theme of quality education. Simultaneously, the state experienced a vigorous debate on larger issues like the Common School System or the Right to Education. With civil society organizations as active participants, educational policy is no longer seen as the exclusive domain of the government.

 

The advent of a new government in power which accords high priority to education in its scheme of interventions has opened up new possibilities. Systemic issues now occupy the centre-stage and serious efforts are being made in the field of pedagogy and curriculum development. The government has already initiated the process for recruiting more teachers and improving school infrastructure. It has also taken a few tentative steps towards transferring school management to Panchayati Raj Institutions. Real change in the form of restructuring for a Common School System (CSS) and introducing new curriculum, syllabi, textbooks and arrangements and practices for teacher education is, however, still some distance away.

These initiatives even if at a nascent stage do signify a departure in the thinking about quality. The nature of conceptual change proposed can be gleaned from the reports of the Expert Committee on Education and Common School System Commission as well as the draft Bihar curriculum framework and syllabi. If the CSS or involvement of PRIs seek to foreground systemic reforms in favour of the poor, the proposed Bihar curriculum framework makes similar promises in pedagogic terms.

 

The Expert Committee on Education recommended a state legislation on Right to Education based on the concept of Common School System. A commission was then constituted to suggest detailed modalities. If its report, now available, is actually implemented, then Bihar will become the first state in the country to introduce the CSS. It is worth remembering that the CSS was first recommended by the Kothari Commission way back in 1966, and though the policy was endorsed by the education policies of 1968 and 1986, it has so far remained at the level of a noble intention.

The Kothari Report defined the CSS as a system of public education which will be open to all children, irrespective of caste, creed, community, religion, economic conditions or social status; where access to good education will depend not on wealth or class but on talent; which will maintain adequate standards in all schools and provide at least a reasonable proportion of quality institutions; in which no tuition fees will be charged; and which will meet the needs of the average parent so that he will not ordinarily feel the need to send his children to expensive schools outside the system.

 

Despite repeated acceptance of CSS in various policy documents, our education system has tended to move in the opposite direction. The Acharya Ramamurti Committee, constituted in 1990 to review the progress of the 1986 policy, outlined several reasons for the common school system failing to gain ground. The disturbing trends noted by the Ramamurti Committee have only accelerated over the last fifteen years, a fact not unrelated to the new liberal economic policy pursued during this period. Acharya Ramamurti was quite candid in the preface to his report, arguing that ‘before we have a new pattern of education we must have a new model of development’.

While it is beyond the purview of curriculum planners or even policy-makers on education to lay down the framework of economic policy or development model for the national economy, yet there are clearly laid down constitutional principles which should constitute the governing principles for the kind of society we want to create. A common school system, rather than a hierarchy of educational institutions catering to different strata of the stratified Indian society, is decidedly the educational arrangement which is in consonance with our constitutional ideals. If education is meant to create a more just and democratic society then such a system is the most logical choice.

In a state like Bihar the introduction of a common school system is not as problematic as it might be in the metropolitan centres. Nearly ninety per cent of children still live in the villages where there are hardly any good private schools. Government schools are like common schools which can be strengthened to a level where private schools remain unnecessary. A handful of private schools which have come up in the towns may then be brought in the framework of the common school system through a suitable legislation or at least a well defined policy decision notified by the government under its existing powers.

The introduction of a common school system can be the most critical systemic reform which will have deep social implications. At one level, allowing the children of the privileged class to study in elite institutions, while leaving the children of mainly poor families to study in government schools, permits a continued neglect of the latter. Equally, ‘By segregating their children, such privileged parents prevent them from sharing the life and experiences of the children of the poor and coming into contact with the realities of life’ (Kothari report). The Kothari report had warned that, ‘In addition to weakening social cohesion, they also render the education of their own children anaemic and incomplete.’

 

A common school which encapsulates a larger experiential stock among its children not only multiplies the possibilities of learning, it is also more conducive to the creation of a harmonious and egalitarian value system among children and hence, in the future society. A school in the CSS framework must have an inclusive environment where all categories of children are welcome and feel at home, whether they are physically challenged or coming from the weaker sections of society. The Report of the CSS Commission argues that conventional notions of quality of education, meant for a school system rooted in inequality and exclusion, needs to be re-examined and reformulated.

The PROBE and other recent reports show that the failure of our existing government system to impart quality education is a major explanation for the high dropout rate of children from poorer families. Additionally, Bihar has neither enough schools nor teachers, a deficiency which is only now being corrected through large-scale recruitment. Curriculum, textbooks and teaching do not relate to their lives and needs. There are few facilities available in the school which may facilitate real learning. Overall thus, interventions are needed at every level if universalisation of elementary education is to be achieved.

 

A great deal more attention needs to be given to institutions and processes. Support institutions like SCERT, SIET, Bihar Text Book Corporation, DIETs and so on need radical restructuring in view of the changes that have taken place through new programmes and commitments in the domain of elementary education. The present level of investment or concern for professional capacity development is inadequate for quality improvement. However, before pronouncing a judgement on the state of affairs it is worthwhile to take note of some more promising developments.

The new Panchayati Raj Act under which elections were held in 2006, reserves 50 per cent of all seats for women. Consequently more than half the PRI representatives are now women, with many winning general seats as well. This development is likely to change the overall character of panchayats in the coming years, particularly in education since the government has already initiated the process of transferring many of the powers and functions of the education department to the panchayats.

Simultaneously, a large number of women self-help groups have come up in the villages, more NGO groups are active in the field of education and civil society is active both at the level of debate and intervention. All this should create a new environment in the times to come. Of course, the attitude and style of the government functionaries will have to change and the new processes watched carefully lest we end up with a corruption driven system negating the positive moves.

 

Bihar is also the first state in the country to design its own curriculum framework. As noted in the foreword to the draft BCF, ‘The curriculum debate is directly linked with the question of quality of education, which assumes greater importance as the system of school education moves further towards the goal of universalisation… A subcommittee of Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE) has made recommendations for universal secondary education and the idea has entered into the debates on the eleventh plan. A concurrent concern at this juncture is about what we teach in schools and how well we do it. Debates on curriculum have tended to be more thoughtful and serious as well as contentious in the recent years. Perhaps it is a sign of increasing realization of the importance of school education for democracy.’

The first chapter of BCF explains its rationale in the following words: ‘First and foremost, among the reasons, will be the issue of contextual relevance. Bihar may appear to be the microcosm of India in terms of its cultural diversity, yet its cultural specificity ought to be reflected in its curriculum. More significantly, the level of urbanization in the state, at just 10.47% (2001 Census), is well below the national average of 27.78% and documents like NCF 2005 seem to be designed with the urban middle class children in mind.’ But what really marks out the BCF is the chapter on Rural Education. Nine out of ten students in Bihar reside in villages and many of them are first generation learners. Thus, though Bihar shares many concerns taken up in the national policy on education, it has at the same time to grapple with its own problems and for that has to fall back upon its own resources – cultural and social – and devise its own techniques and strategies.

 

The BCF is guided by a premise that the curriculum acquires meaning only in the real setting of schools. Consequently it lays great emphasis not only on involving teachers, but also parents and community members – all of whom have a stake in the school and children. In this sense the BCF believes that the school can become the nucleus of larger societal change.

While what has been done is substantial and what is proposed revolutionary, yet what remains to be clearly formulated is no less daunting. There has been an impressive strengthening of school education with more teachers and schools and improved infrastructure. But the quality of teachers remains questionable, service conditions are ambiguous and training facilities remain deficient. Similarly, while it has been decided to introduce a common school system, its detailed structure is not clear. Nor is there sufficient clarity about the institutional changes that are needed to both re-energise old institutions and set up new ones. Unless the road map is delineated and consensus created, it will be difficult to ensure quality education.