|
COMMENT
Alternatives To Government
Primary schools are within reach of most children; they’ll learn more if they can go to a secondary school
ASHOK V. DESAI
13 Feb 2009
I am disillusioned with governments. I am not the only one. There are some, like me, who proclaim their disillusionment; there are others who do something about it. They start or join non-government organisations. India is known to be the home of NGOs; there are thousands. Why does it spawn so many? I had always assumed that this was a supply response — that there are many Indians who feel strongly about something and who feel moved to do something for the community or the nation.
Recently, however, I came across an alternative view — that NGOs’ proliferation was due to government failure. One only has to read reports of planning commissions to see that the government wants to do good for the people. It collects huge amounts from the people and spends them, but achieves little good. The view is that government itself realised this in the 1980s and started to subsidise NGOs instead. Donor agencies agreed and followed. It was the resulting supply of funds that led to the rise of NGOs.
If one thinks about it, the government is also an NGO; why cannot it do as well as an NGO? My answer would have been that it is because the government has a monopoly: whether it delivers the services it has engaged itself to deliver or not, it will survive and grow because its income is independent of its performance. If an NGO does not perform, its donors will sooner or later realise that it is wasting their money and stop funding it. So unless it performs, it will die.
But recently I came across another answer: that in the government, those who decide what is to be done cannot make those who are to do it perform: that the superiors have no control on the work of their subordinates. And I can attest to this. When I was briefly in the government, I had an enormous department of 300 people under me. Hardly a quarter of them did any work. I tried to make the rest work, but could find no way to do so. I particularly remember a young woman who I thought was promising, and I tried to encourage her. But she would not turn up for work; I never knew when I would find her next. I asked her why she did not come to office; she said she had a young child. That was for her a sufficient cause for not working. There were, on the other hand, many who worked conscientiously. But there was no way I could reward them.
I expect that this is what also explains the poor performance of government schools. It is well known that a substantial proportion of government school teachers do not turn up; many who turn up teach nothing, and spend their time instead in more interesting activities such as knitting. Here too, I presume, they do anything but teach because there are no rewards and punishments attached to teaching. And whether they teach or not, there is nothing the headmaster can do to them.
But unlike the North Block where I worked, government schools do face competition; and a rapidly rising proportion of children is forsaking them and going to private schools. A child that goes to a private school is lost to the public school system; so surely government schools must be losing students. Would that not lead to their contraction? It may, but it need not lead to a fall in their cost. Only last year, P. Chidambaram put a 2 per cent education surcharge on income tax. Revenue from that tax will be delivered to state education boards and passed on to government schools. It does not matter whether they have students or not; they will continue to grow richer.
And is it good for children to go to private schools? Do they really teach better than public schools? They achieve better results, but comparing test results is not good enough; private schools may get better results because they attract children of richer and more literate parents. Wilima Wadhwa has, however, done a study of the difference between the achievement of students of private and public schools. It is summarised in Pratham's latest report on the state of education — ASER 2008.
According to her, household characteristics — income, literacy (especially of the mother), a pucca house, electricity, a telephone — explain most of the variation. But there is one variable other than household characteristics which is important, namely the presence of a secondary school in the village. Wilima thinks this may be because a primary school that is housed with a secondary school would have better infrastructure; I think it may also be because the chance of promotion to a secondary school gives children and their parents an incentive for doing better. Ambition also matters.
The author is Consultant Editor of Businessworld.
ashok(dot)desai(at)gmail(dot)com
(Businessworld Issue 17-23 Feb 2009)
|
Sensex rises 61 points in opening trade 
