Abstract
Abstract
Sixty years of policymaking in the arena of elementary educational reforms in India and global focus through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have seen progress along with persisting inequality in access to education especially for socioeconomic and marginalized sections across the regions. This article focuses on analysis of two goals of MDGs which is related to universalization of education and reducing gender inequality in access to elementary education after introduction of policy interventions such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and Right to Education (RTE) Act in India through Gender Equity Index (GEI) and Disparity Index (DI) in Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER). Results are still consistent with the fact that even after incentives such as SSA and RTE, the scenario of elementary education has not changed much for the deprived sections, even it has shown a declining trend after 2009 for Scheduled Tribes (ST) children. The social reproduction of inequality is being manifested now in the quality of elementary education in India.
Introduction
The importance of human resource in achieving economic, political, and social development for any nation is now empirically evidenced in literature. Apart from judicious use of natural and physical capital, skilling of human resource in the form of human capital has captured the attention of policymakers and prominently featured at the various global agenda related to sustainable development. The global target of sustainable economic development is not possible to achieve without substantial investment in human capital. Investment in human capital can enjoy rates of return that are at least as high as the returns of conventional investments (Ojo, 1998). Evidences from many countries have shown that strong education systems are vital to economic growth and prosperity (Asian Development Bank, 1997; The World Bank, 1993). As Kuznet (1955) exactly asserts, ‘The major capital stock of an industrially advanced country is not its physical equipment. It is the body of knowledge amassed from tested findings and discoveries of empirical studies and the capacity and training of its population to use this knowledge’. Discussing about the role of education in promoting and developing the human capital, it is commonly presumed that formal schooling is one of the several important contributors to the skills of an individual and to human capital per se. Most of the studies over the past 30 years have shown uniformly by focusing on value of schooling in terms of economic returns to different levels of school attainment for individuals. More schooling is associated with higher individual earnings. The rate of return to schooling appears higher for low-income countries for lower levels of schooling and frequently for women (Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2004). Overall, the rates of return are highest in primary education, followed by secondary and then university levels. Therefore, for the poorest countries, perhaps the safest strategy is to increase primary education coverage for children aged 6–14. Such investment has the highest social rate of return, and unless a population is literate, other (physical) investment projects may fail (Tan & Mingat, 1987).
While considering the literature supporting the rationale of having a robust primary education system in underdeveloped and developing nations, idea of Millennium Development Goals from the United Nations has always been a central point for policymakers. The Millennium Development Goals adopted by member states of the United Nations in September 2000 are evidence of an international consensus regarding human development. Among the eight major goals, the second goal was to achieve universal primary education which manifest into the target of ensuring that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling while third goal is related to promote gender equality with the target of eliminating the gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015 (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2001).
In accordance with MDGs, and to realize the target of universalization of primary education while promoting gender equality across the Indian states, Government of India started swift policy intervention in area of education by launching the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) in 2000–2001 and thereafter a more pronounced initiative by introducing Right to Education (RTE) Act in 2010. These interventions are not only meant for achieving enrollment, but also destined to achieve equity in access of education for the children particularly belonging to socially and economically marginalized section of society, that is, Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), minorities (especially Muslims), girls, and the poor. While traversing into this objective of government in consonance with globally acclaimed initiative of MDGs, this article is a preliminary attempt to enquire the question whether India has achieved these two goals (universalization of education and gender equality in education) of MDGs under the aegis of SSA and RTE as major policy intervention so far any government has done. Premise of gender equality under the third goal considers multidimensional gender equality and thereby limitation of the present study is to deal with educational aspect only. This article seeks to answer this question by investigating the gender differences in probability of finishing school tutoring during pre-era of SSA and RTE and post-SSA and RTE Act in India. To address the first question regarding the second goal, we used Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER), literacy rate, and dropout rate separately for girls and boys, and for the third goal, we used Sopher’s Disparity Index and index of gender equality, calculated on the basis of population census and District Information System for Education (DISE) data for all social groups across the India.
Literature Review
The dependability of education in facilitating socioeconomic development of any nation is widely discussed and accepted in economic theories. Classical political economists such as Adam Smith in his monumental work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations (1776), had already referred to expenditure on education as a form of investment expenditure. Neoclassical models put forward education merely as a form of investment in human capital. In this approach, the disbursement on education is seen as an investment in person which is encouraged by the philosophy of methodological individualism. They considered investment in education quite similar to investment in industrial production having an anticipated rate of return. The recognition for explaining education at the core of policymaking goes to Gary Becker who introduced the term ‘human capital’ in the 1960s. His Nobel Prize winning work Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education (1964) considered education as a form of investment in human resource which transforms it into human capital by growing the individual’s intellectual ability which eventually leads to individual’s capability to perform. The income-generating ability and further proficiency in production get enhanced, which ultimately contributes to economic growth of a nation. Paul. M. Romer (1994) introduced new growth models (endogenous growth theories) whereby labor was considered as nonuniform entity but as something whose productivity varies with formation of skills and acquaintance.
Therefore, the idea of straightforward labor was replaced with the much broader term of ‘human capital’. Recently some more theories prominent among them, capability and social choice approach of Sen, have tried to establish the link between educational attainment and other socioeconomic indicators used for measuring quality of life. Psacharopoulos identifies external efficiency of education as interlinkage of an individual from school to the labor market. This interlinkage is widely discussed in economic literature concerning education. On the other hand, he describes the internal efficiency which is observed from family background of child to schooling and learning outcomes and mostly finds its place among the discourses of sociologists and psychologists (Psacharopoulos, 1988). While directing the argument in economic domain, it has been observed that for primary education, unit costs are small relative to the extra lifetime income or productivity associated with literacy. For university education, the opposite is true. The Marxist school of radical economics puts a completely different interpretation on the education–earnings relationship. It sees education as a means by which the dominant social class perpetuates the status quo from generation to generation (Bowles, 1972). By providing schooling to its offspring, the income-earning power and economic dominance of that class will be sustained. Schools also enhance certain qualities of docility that are rewarded by employers; they do not impart productivity-boosting skills (Bowles & Gintis, 1975). In addition to direct economic returns, primary education is associated with larger externalities than any other social investment.
Equality and Education
Before analyzing the goal of equality, the aspect of equity needs discussion. Equity in education can be defined in many different ways. Building on the conceptual framework as defined in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report No More Failures, equity in education can be seen through two dimensions: fairness and inclusion (Field, Kuczera, & Pont, 2007). Equity as inclusion means ensuring that all students reach at least a basic minimum level of skills. In this frame of reference, we can define that an equitable education system will be fair and inclusive and support their students to reach their learning potential without either formally or informally presetting any barriers or lowering expectations. The second aspect about equity is fairness, which implies that personal or socioeconomic circumstances, such as, gender, ethnic origin, or family background, should not create obstacles to educational access. Therefore, it can be inferred that an equitable education system can redress the effect of broader social and economic inequalities. In context of learning, an equitable education system allows individuals to take full advantage of education and training irrespective of their background (Faubert, 2012; Field et al., 2007; Woessmann & Schütz, 2006).
Further, it has been observed that there is a higher rate of return on female education in comparison with male education in India (Unni, 2009). In economic theory, the reason could be explained that economic returns may create a positive substitution effect or a negative income effect. Positive substitution effect means greater participation in schooling and negative income effect due to higher opportunity cost of labor in the current period which indicates households are not willing to spend the extra income on children education. Therefore, ‘higher economic returns had a positive substitution effect for girls and negative effect was stronger for boys in poorer households’ (Unni, 2009). This indicates that girl’s education was substituted by household work and boys participated more in income-earning activities. But the gap in literacy levels between men and women is still high in India especially in rural areas. In the last two decades, there was a significant acceleration in the growth of literacy, but there was no significant decline in the literacy gap between men and women. This also raises the question about how can India benefit from the demographic dividend. It also shows that education system requires some changes or new programs which can capture the literacy gap in India.
India’s Tryst with Education Policy
After the first education policy in British era by Macaulay (which is known as ‘Macaulay Minute’), which emphasized the value of English education, independent India formulated various committees and policies to educate people. Mudaliar Committee in 1952 emphasized on exclusion of girl from education on the basis of sex. However, no extraordinary deliberation or any substantial acknowledgement is witnessed concerning the segment of population belonging to the socially and economically weaker communities (Bhatty, 2014). The long era of ignorance of education in universal and the marginalized section in particular has sown the seeds for the huge backlog that exists in the universalization of elementary education even today. Discussion over the importance of human capital by Gary Becker during the 1960s and the 1970s and after emergence of endogenous growth models in the 1990s has fuelled the policy debates over the educated mass and their contribution to the productivity of nation. Aligning itself to this point, Government of India also initiated programs of education but adopted segmented approach in education policy to provide the equal opportunity for marginalized section of society to improve their education and join the mainstream of social and economic life. To bring the dimension of quality, government established model school such as Sarvodaya, Navodaya, and so on. Government followed a splintered and gradual approach with an inconsistent reliance on ‘incentives’ to attract children from neglected sections of society into the fold of formal primary education. During the 1970s, Indian policymaker presumed primary education is driver of economic and social development. After that Indian education policy focuses on universalization of primary and secondary education. For ensuring free and compulsory elementary education to all children in between the age of 6 years and 14 years, the National Democratic Alliance government launched the SSA in 2001 and brought a constitutional amendment in 2002 making elementary education a fundamental right. In principle, government has tried to go with right-based and need-based approaches in ensuring the accessibility of education. But this demarcation promoted an exclusionary step by establishing model schools whereby the quality aspect of education came to the picture. But again these models have violated the principle of inclusion; most of the children in these schools are from moderate section of the society like government employee or somehow socially economically better section. This somewhat reinforces the theory of social reproduction of inequality across the various subgroups.
Database and Methodology
The study is based primarily on secondary sources of data and is mainly focused to disparity and equality in elementary level of education (which is cumulative of primary and upper primary level) in all India. Secondary data are taken from different sources, such as, DISE, Population Census 2011, and Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India. To meet the above objectives, different statistical tools/techniques have been employed. For the estimation of gender inequality, the simple inequality measure has been used. Sopher Disparity Index has been estimated to examine the hypothesis that gender disparity is smaller in the post-RTE and SSA, compared to the pre-RTE and SSA at all India level. Present study compares disparity among two groups, that is, male and female; therefore, Sopher Disparity Index has been used.
Results and Discussion
Universalization of Education (Dropout and GER)
Universalization of education in terms of pattern of GER for primary, upper primary, and at the overall level of elementary education has seen a considerable evolution in the study period of 2000–2001 to 2013–2014 (Table 1).
Pattern of Gross Enrollment Ratio in Primary, Upper Primary, and Elementary Education (2000–2001 to 2013–2014)
Between 2000–2001 and 2013–2014, enrollment in elementary education increased particularly, at the upper primary level. But this trend has declined from 2010 onwards for primary education and at the overall level of elementary education for both male and female child. The GER increased at the primary stage by approximately 6 percentage points from 96 per cent in 2000–2001 to 101 per cent in 2013–2014. But the GER decreased by 5 percentage points for boys from 104.9 in 2000–2001 to 100.2 per cent in 2013–2014, while the GER for girls increased by 17 percentage points from 85.9 per cent to 102 per cent during this period. During the study period, growth rate of GER in case of girl has been faster than boys. As per the report of MHRD and National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA) (Government of India, 2012), this decline in boys’ GER in primary school is attributed to the declining child population (the child population in the age group 0–6 years declined by 5.05 million during 2001 to 2011), overall improvement in child sex ratio (population census 2011), decline in repetition rates due to non-detention policy, and reduction in age-appropriate enrollments. The GER increased at the upper primary stage by 30 percentage points from 59 per cent in 2000–2001 to 89 per cent in 2013–2014. The GER increased by
20 percentage points for boys from 68 in 2000–2001 to 86 per cent in 2013–2014, while the GER for girls increased by 43 percentage points from 49.9 per cent to 92.8 per cent during this period. The same pattern can be observed for overall elementary education which is taken as whole of primary and upper primary level. In all the three categories of education, compound annual growth rate of GER is higher in case of girl child as compared to boys.
Bridging the gap of social category into participation in elementary and education has been one of the major goals of the SSA. The approaches to ensuring enclosure of all children in elementary education include extraordinary initiatives for intensifying educational access for disadvantaged and weaker sections of the community such as the SC, ST, children belonging to Muslim community, and children with special needs (differently abled children). School enrollment of children from SC has registered considerable enlargement during the past decade. Between 2000–2001 and 2013–2014, enrollment of SC children in elementary education increased considerably, both at the primary (Classes I–V) and upper primary (VI–VIII) stages of education (Table 2). The GER for SC children at the primary stage increased by 16 percentage points from 97 per cent in 2000–2001 to 113 per cent in 2013–2014. The GER increased by 5 percentage points for boys from 107 per cent in 2000–2001 to 112 per cent in 2013–2014, while the GER for girls increased by 28 percentage points from 86 per cent to 114 per cent during this period. The GER for SC children at the elementary stage increased by 21 percentage points from 86.8 per cent in 2000–2001 to 108 per cent in 2013–2014. The GER increased by 9 percentage points for boys from 97.3 per cent in 2000–2001 to 106 per cent in 2013–2014, while the GER for girls increased by 24 percentage points from 75.5 per cent to 110 per cent during this period.
Pattern of Gross Enrollment Ratio in Primary, Upper Primary, and Elementary Education (SC Children) (2000–2001 to 2013–2014)
For ST students, the enrollments in primary, upper primary, and at all levels of elementary education are not better than the SC students. It has been observed that in girls’ enrollment, the varying trend is observed. The disparity in enrollment is more visible in this section (refer to Table 3). Some important observations are about the percentage change of GER for girls which is more than the boys except in case of ST students group, where the GER is more for boys than the girls. What is more observable is enrollment has started decreasing after 2009–2010 (year of RTE), for ST in primary education, and in overall elementary education except at upper primary level for both boy and girl ST child. The same is observed for SC and in overall category. The gender gap still remains in case of ST students in primary as well as elementary education.
Pattern of Gross Enrolment Ratio in Primary, Upper Primary, and Elementary Education (ST Children) (2000–2001 to 2013–2014)
During the academic year 2009–2010, 9.1 per cent of pupils at the primary stage of education (Classes I–V) dropped out, the annual dropout rate being relatively higher in Class I (10.2%) and in Class V (15.9%; Table 4).
Annual Dropout Rates at Primary Level (2009–2010)
Gender Equality and Disparity
Disparity simply refers to differences in the outcome under consideration (wages, mortality rates, educational attainments, or any such indicator). Such disparities may be caused by differences in socioeconomic characteristics. We focus specifically on education because of its importance in human development and a determinant of the quality of life. The article measures gender equality and disparity in education using Gender Education Equity Index (GEEI) and Sopher Disparity Index, respectively. The article uses Disparity Index (DI) suggested by Sopher (1980) and modified by Kundu and Rao (1986). The index measures disparity between two groups in their possession of a particular property (in this case, enrollment in school education). Present study measures male female disparity in GER, the female GER is taken as X1, and male GER is taken as X2, because male GER is more than female GER. 1
In the case if female GER is more than male GER, then X2 is considered for female GER and X1 for male GER.
where Q = 100 and X2 ≥ X1.
The objective of taking log is to reduce the levelling off effect (states with high levels of attainments may show a lower level of disparity than states with low levels of attainments even though the gender gap is the same for both states; Sopher, 1980). Kundu and Rao (1986) have shown that the above index fails to satisfy the additive monotonicity axiom. 1
The additive monotonocity axiom specifies that if a constant is added to all observations in a non-negative series, ceteris paribus, the inequality index must report a decline.
where Q = 200 and X2 ≥ X1.
Sopher’s index falls in negative trap if GER is more than 100, so present study has used modified Sopher’s index that is modified by Kundu and Rao (1986; see Table 5).
Result of Modified Sopher’s Index of Disparity in GER in India
Sopher’s index is used to measure the gender disparity at primary, upper primary, and all elementary levels of education. At all groups, gender disparity is high at upper primary in 2002 and 2013–2014 also. In contrast, disparity is high at primary level in ST for both the years. It is also observed that disparity has declined over period of time. This has significant decline in ST at all three sections (primary, upper primary, and elementary level). However, disparity was high in ST at all sections in comparison with other groups. The decline in the gender disparity in education is because of high increment in girl enrollment with implementation of various educational programs to achieve the goal of universal education under SSA and RTE Act. Table 6 shows the pattern of girls enrollment as percentage of total enrollment and ratio to boys enrollment, which is in line with the demographic pattern whereby half of the young age population is of female.
Pattern of Girls Enrolled as Percentage of Total Enrollment and Ratio of Girls’ Enrollment to Boys’ Enrollment (2000–2001 to 2013–2014)
Gender Equality Index (GEI)
GEEI is used to measure the gender equality in both enrollment and literacy point of view. GEI can be calculated as follows:
Concluding Remarks
It has been argued that amidst the unprecedented rate of economic growth and after more than 60 years of implementing policies aimed at restoring imbalance in educational inequalities, the gap still remains wide (Desai & Kulkarni, 2008). The historical baggage of social and economic inequalities reinforcing educational disparities has been commented upon for over 50 years now. There is also a realization that extant macro-data, however, make it difficult to capture these gaps. More specifically, researchers and administrators have pointed out that we need to be careful about relying on gross enrollment data, particularly from schools and the education department, since they have a tendency to overreport. Instead, they stress the need to look at net enrollment, retention, and transition and average years of schooling data disaggregated by gender, social grouping, and type of school to assess the affectivity of different policies (Ramachandran, 2010).
The incidence of gender inequality and discrimination in the form of social exclusion, especially among the SCs and STs, has continued to be persistent and differed across the states (Table 7). Analysis of given data revealed that for ST children, the overall enrollment has in fact decreased after 2009–2010. This observation is more pronounced in upper primary level. As an alternative of focusing on getting better quality of government schooling for all which would have provided children the equality of opportunity from all walks of life, the government followed a fractured and gradual approach with an unbalanced dependence upon ‘incentives’ to attract children from neglected sections of society into the fold of formal education. Since the SSA affects the education of the marginalized and economically weaker sections the most, the poor quality education it delivers adds to their burden of inequality. The final plunge to universalization that has been given in the form of the RTE Act languishes for want of resources, both financial and administrative. Nevertheless, India’s official statistics in terms of GER shows steady increase in school enrollment—for both girls and boys—across the socioeconomic sections of the society, yet the functioning of the schools remains seriously deficient (Dreze & Sen, 2013). The Public Report on Basic Education (PROBE) 3
As per the PROBE report (2011), India is far from ensuring nondiscriminatory access to quality education even though enrollment in primary schools is nearly universal. Inadequate attention is being paid to the education of children belonging to deprived, disadvantaged, and discriminated groups in society. Differently abled children in particular still remain neglected. Imparting quality education to these children as a priority does not appear to be of concern to India’s elite or, for that matter, to the educational bureaucracy.
Concluding Remarks
It has been argued that amidst the unprecedented rate of economic growth and after more than 60 years of implementing policies aimed at restoring imbalance in educational inequalities, the gap still remains wide (Desai & Kulkarni, 2008). The historical baggage of social and economic inequalities reinforcing educational disparities has been commented upon for over 50 years now. There is also a realization that extant macro-data, however, make it difficult to capture these gaps. More specifically, researchers and administrators have pointed out that we need to be careful about relying on gross enrollment data, particularly from schools and the education department, since they have a tendency to overreport. Instead, they stress the need to look at net enrollment, retention, and transition and average years of schooling data disaggregated by gender, social grouping, and type of school to assess the affectivity of different policies (Ramachandran, 2010).
The incidence of gender inequality and discrimination in the form of social exclusion, especially among the SCs and STs, has continued to be persistent and differed across the states (Table 7). Analysis of given data revealed that for ST children, the overall enrollment has in fact decreased after 2009–2010. This observation is more pronounced in upper primary level. As an alternative of focusing on getting better quality of government schooling for all which would have provided children the equality of opportunity from all walks of life, the government followed a fractured and gradual approach with an unbalanced dependence upon ‘incentives’ to attract children from neglected sections of society into the fold of formal education. Since the SSA affects the education of the marginalized and economically weaker sections the most, the poor quality education it delivers adds to their burden of inequality. The final plunge to universalization that has been given in the form of the RTE Act languishes for want of resources, both financial and administrative. Nevertheless, India’s official statistics in terms of GER shows steady increase in school enrollment—for both girls and boys—across the socioeconomic sections of the society, yet the functioning of the schools remains seriously deficient (Dreze & Sen, 2013). The Public Report on Basic Education (PROBE) 3
As per the PROBE report (2011), India is far from ensuring nondiscriminatory access to quality education even though enrollment in primary schools is nearly universal. Inadequate attention is being paid to the education of children belonging to deprived, disadvantaged, and discriminated groups in society. Differently abled children in particular still remain neglected. Imparting quality education to these children as a priority does not appear to be of concern to India’s elite or, for that matter, to the educational bureaucracy.
Gender Equity Index (GEI) for All
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.