In my previous blog post (which can be found here) I made the argument that a community which is directly contributing to the school’s functioning, in some way or the other, would be more likely to hold School Monitoring Committees (henceforth SMCs) accountable. This would lead to better functioning SMCs, and therefore better overall school planning, in terms of utilization of funds, and school performance, in terms of teacher and student attendance and total enrolments. To analyse if such a relationship exists, we would need data on SMCs functioning and community participation. In the PAISA survey conducted in 2011[1], we had collected data on community contribution and how often the SMCs meet (among many other things). Using the frequency of SMC meetings as a proxy for its functioning, I carried out some basic data analysis with the two variables. The correlation analysis between them showed no significant relationship between the two (correlation resulted in a very low negative value). Interestingly, if we cross tabulate the two variables (shown in the table below), we find a larger percentage of SMCs conducting monthly meetings amongst those who did not receive any form of community contribution(69.78%) as compared to those who did receive community contribution (56.86%). The main message that came out from this analysis was that we cannot really draw any conclusions from our current dataset. There does not seem to be a strong relationship between SMC meeting frequency and contributions by the community.

However, there are some problems with using frequency of SMC meeting as a proxy for SMC performance. Firstly, it is based on recall rather than physical data so it may not be too accurate. This data was collected by asking the head master of the school to recall how frequently the SMCs met, rather than by collecting it from a physical source like a register with the SMC meeting dates. Secondly, a meeting does not always imply better functioning; it is possible that only the HM is voicing his/her opinion while the others are unable to exert any influence. It also does not tell us anything about how well the planning process works, or the topics of discussion taken up in these meetings. In fact, an earlier blog post alludes to these set of issues.[2] Furthermore, in its present form, the question on community contribution does not answer questions like who contributed, how many people contributed, how the money was used, whether the people took an interest in the utilization? And so on.

Taking a cue from an earlier post by Anirvan[3], we could construct a holistic index, which measures all the above stated aspects for both cases, as that might be a better indicator. For example, ‘SMC functioning index’ will need to look not only at the frequency with which they meet but also at the participatory nature of the meeting and the level of planning discussed. We will also need to look into the powers SMCs have[4] i.e. whether the plan that is suggested by the SMC is actually implemented, how detailed the plans are, is the implementation followed up by the SMC members or just the HM? etc. Similarly, a ‘Community Contribution and Awareness index’ would compose of the number of contributions, the amount of contribution, the background of people contributing, the forms of contribution, whether the community monitors how the money is spent, and the general awareness level of the community with regard to the school and student performance. This index would only include contributions which are not institutionalized, for example parental participation in SMCs is a part of the SMC mandate, and so it will not constitute a part of Community Contribution. Rather, this aspect will be covered in SMC functioning index; a better functioning SMC is expected to be participative and will include parents.

Such indices would allow us to gain a deeper understanding of how community contributions work. For example, in the table given above, we saw that the percentage of SMCs meeting monthly was slightly higher for those with no community contribution. Could this possibly be because the money contributed is by one powerful household and this household could be directing how funds in the school are used, thereby undermining the SMCs? This would also mean that the community contribution is not participative or widespread. The indices would account for these and other scenarios, and help us understand them better.

Another aspect, which I think might be interesting in the context of this discussion, would be to see how aware and involved the parents of private schooled children in rural areas are. We have seen that the number of children who are taking up low cost private schooling is on the rise[5] particularly in North India. Many parents are choosing to pay some amount for what is perceived to be higher quality private education rather than taking the free education provided by government schools. Therefore, the parents are contributing to the school- do they then demand better outcomes from the education? Does this expenditure lead to more awareness and involvement of the parent in the child’s learning? (Of course, from the private school’s perspective, it would be more inclined to utilize the money better as that is its only source of income, as opposed to government schools that have a steady fund, and any community contribution would be an additional source) There are a few studies which document the rise of private schooling in rural India and analyse whether this leads to better learning outcomes as compared to public schooling, and they have found that this is the case[6]. However, an analysis of whether the parent motivation and involvement is higher for those who send their children to private schools has not been conducted. This aspect has only been alluded to in anecdotal form in some studies[7].

To conclude, these questions and their answers would contribute to a larger discussion about how free, quality education is and whether quality education can really be provided free of charge. If meaningful and widely participative contributions by the community are necessary to improve the quality of education or if better quality education is being demanded of private schools by the parents, then some form of community contribution may be imperative for improving quality of education delivery.

[1] http://www.accountabilityindia.in/paisa_states

[2] http://www.accountabilityindia.in/accountabilityblog/2263-school-management-committees-smcs-guardian-institution-elementary-education-

[3] http://www.accountabilityindia.in/accountabilityblog/2530-assessing-status-schools-through-composite-indices

[4] Specific functions for SMCs are laid out in RTE guidelines, these include (i) monitor school activities and its working, (ii) prepare and recommend school development plan, (iii) monitor grant utilization, (iv) monitor teachers’ and students’ attendance, (v) monitor MDM, (vi) ensure 100% enrolment of children in the age group of 6-14 years

[5] http://www.pratham.org/NewsDetails.aspx?newsID=122

[6] http://www.isid.ac.in/~pu/conference/dec_10_conf/Papers/RobertFrench.pdf and http://www.dise.in/Downloads/Use%20of%20Dise%20Data/Geeta%20Gandhi%20Kingdon_1.pdf

[7] http://www.ernape.net/ejournal/index.php/IJPE/article/viewFile/114/74  and http://www.isid.ac.in/~pu/conference/dec_10_conf/Papers/RobertFrench.pdf