Blog Post Year: 2018

Making Evidence-Based Policies a Reality

Recently, some colleagues and I at the Accountability Initiative conducted a day long workshop with a batch of development management students. The emphasis was on relaying the message that in order to become better development practitioners in the future they must use credible research findings to inform their decisions. After concluding the session, a student came to me with a set of questions which she was obviously feeling shy about posing.

She said she had understood the importance of looking at evidence to inform her practice, but had no idea where to begin looking for it! “Which journals should I look at? Where do I look for these journals? No one has ever taught me this,” said this young woman with a couple of years of experience of working closely with migrant labourers. I was struck by her comments. It made me think back to my own experiences of working with government officials, and reflect on how wide the gap is between development practitioners and researchers.

Today, calls for “evidence-based policy making,” “data driven policies” are increasingly getting louder in development circles. This is a positive sign. Policy making processes in the Government have been notoriously opaque. Often driven by political priorities of ruling parties, policies are shaped under imperfect conditions- administrators have very little time to formulate the policies; and they have to work with limited knowledge about the scale of the issues.  As a result, policies and programmes tend to leave a lot of questions unanswered for both frontline implementers and the public which is ultimately at the receiving end. So, more demands for sound policies backed by evidence are and should be welcomed by all.

That brings us to the next stage – supplying the evidence. This is where some big set of questions and challenges lie for everyone involved in policy making and implementation. Who is producing the evidence? How is it being produced? How is this evidence being treated and absorbed in the policy cycle?

Hunt for reliable evidence

We find ourselves in a predicament. On the one hand, there’s plenty of meaningful research going on in universities which can directly inform and enrich policy making and implementation. But this research is not always tailored to answer or solve particular policy related questions. This is because universities in general do not orient students to look at their projects in that light.

On the other hand, there’s a dearth of research, particularly on niche, sector specific issues, where policy planners could really use all the help. I will attribute this mainly to the fact that practitioners – people who are working in non-government and government organisations who plan and implement crucial programmes daily – simply don’t have the time to share their sectoral expertise. They cannot afford to spare a lot of time to weave in further research in their plan cycle, so important issues that merit further study don’t easily come to see the light of day.

Moreover, development practitioners – people who could really find it beneficial to dip into the pool of knowledge universities are sitting on – tend to scoff at trained researchers for being too theoretical, impractical or idealistic. Seeped in jargon, academic studies are quite often by and for academic consumption. This need not always be the case.

That the Government has several research bodies producing high quality research, which is used by national and state level planners to make plans, is unchallenged. But the dearth of high quality non-government sources of evidence is not healthy. Like in the case of any monopoly, when there is a dearth of competition, users don’t have an option but to go by what is on offer.

Absorption and application of evidence in the policy cycle

When practitioners are inclined to look for evidence, a simple Google search may not be very helpful to begin with since it may throw up hundreds of unverifiable results. In my experience, practitioners, more often than usual, don’t have the bandwidth to sift through all the research, and assess its quality.

So even while there is talk of incorporating evidence into the policy cycle, one must ask what is being done to build the capacity of planners to leverage what is already available. Where to begin looking for the evidence; how to assess credibility of the data; how to do basic interpretation of data and its application – these are areas that all development practitioners should get basic training on to help them discharge their duties better.

Need to bridge the gap between evidence builders and users

The onus of addressing these gaps lies with both practitioners and researchers. Both evidence builders and evidence users must reach out and create platforms to further the dialogue. The question then becomes – what can such platforms and formats for engagement look like? We need to urgently start asking and addressing these questions if we don’t want “evidence-based policy making” to remain empty rhetoric.

 

NAS 2017: A Much-Needed Move

The focus of education policymakers on outcomes, especially learning outcomes, is steadily rising. This is the first blog in a blog series to discuss paradigm shifts in the field of assessments in India’s public education system.

Today (13 November 2017) is a landmark day for India’s education sector as the largest ever learning assessment survey of students, formally known as the National Achievement Survey (NAS), is being rolled out across around 700 districts of the country. The move marks a paradigm shift in the public education policy of the country with the government attempting to focus on learning outcomes.

Why is NAS 2017 important?

Conducted by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), NAS 2017 will cover a sample of nearly 3.6 million children from 120,000 schools spread across all districts of India. Sample coverage of this magnitude thus makes it the largest ever sample survey conducted by the Indian government till date.

More importantly, the need for NAS 2017 has emerged from calls for a shift in the government’s role in education – away from the provision of school related inputs to improving the quality of learning. Measuring learning on a regular basis is the first step toward achieving this shift, and reflects the Ministry of Human Resource Development’s (MHRD) emphasis on ‘Learning for All’, not just ‘Education for All’.

NAS 2017 is unique in a number of ways. First, this is going to be an annual exercise starting from 2017 which is the first step in ensuring regular government monitoring of learning levels at the sub-national level. Second, learning level assessments will be done for three grades in the elementary level (III, V and VIII) every year on the same day unlike the previous rounds of NAS where a particular round used to focus on a single grade. Third, the sample of schools/students have been selected in such a manner that the findings will be representative at the district level, which will result in generation of district level reports on learning assessments. Fourth, NAS 2017 aims to ensure near real time data access. Answers to the tests will be captured through OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) sheets, which will be scanned and data will be captured in much lesser time. In fact, NCERT is expecting to generate district report cards within a month from now. Lastly, to derive an understanding of factors influencing learning, the survey is also going to capture some background indicators on students, teachers and schools through three questionnaires – Pupil Questionnaire (PQ), Teacher Questionnaire (TQ) and School Questionnaire (SQ).

How is the government planning to use NAS findings?

While earlier rounds of NAS broadly reflected learning levels for a state as whole, they did not provide enough ground level insights that could be utilised for diagnostic and feedback purposes to the local bureaucracy. As a result, these overall findings were not used for bringing improvement in the teaching-learning processes.This is precisely why NAS has been modified in 2017. NCERT has specifically mentioned in its guidelines that NAS findings will now be disseminated to the last mile (schools within each district) and different policy interventions would be taken up to improve the learning level of students, based on the NAS findings. To this end, NCERT has already conducted a national level workshop to finalise the guidelines for communicating the findings to the district level, and to identify ways to incorporate the required interventions in the annual district and state level education planning processes.

It is in this sense that NAS has the potential to move beyond being just a policy tool to also becoming a tool for accountability. Considering the role of ‘reliable, relevant, and regular’ data in impacting policies, there is thus hope that the NAS 2017 will be a game changer. However, for this to become reality, what must be guarded against is the danger that NAS is just another huge data collection exercise of the government.

For now, it is premature to know the exact impact of the NAS measures. However, in order to ensure its success,the government should put emphasis on making the NAS results accessible to the general public by focusing on increasing public awareness and publishing the findings and ideally also the raw data through different media (not only through an online portal as is the case till now). This will help ensure that the findings become a key information base for parents and the community members for demanding pedagogical accountability from education providers and the government.

In upcoming blogs, my colleagues Vincy and Taanya will discuss other recent developments in the field of assessments in education.

Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) 3 Years On

October 2 this year marked the third anniversary of the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), the Government of India’s (GoI) flagship programme to achieve the goal of total sanitation by 2019. In the discussion below, Avani Kapur and Devashish Deshpande give us a sense of the reality on the ground for Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin).

With only two more years to go to meet targets, what are we seeing as priorities for Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin)? Have they changed?

Devashish: Let us state upfront that there are in fact two ways of discerning priorities. The first is what the officially stated government priority is – available through the programme norms and guidelines. But there is also the priority that gets translated on the ground – what has been carried forth by implementers based on their own capacity and understanding. There is often a significant gap between the two. The recently released, updated implementation guidelines indicate that the priorities of the mission are witnessing a forceful reorientation towards the initial ideal of a community-led, sustainable movement. These revisions also seem to address several of the concerns raised by media and civil society and signal the right intentions.

More specifically, the guidelines include detailed instructions on the monitoring and verification protocol, as well as administrative capacity issues like manpower and trainings. They are also more focussed on the sustainability of the ODF (Open Defecation Free) status beyond mission activities , such as, what is being called ODF ++; issues related to toilet technology; and the need for greater attention to behaviour change with interpersonal communication as a means of bridging the access usage gap.

These are not new focal areas but a more explicit statement of principles the mission has always espoused. That they are reinforced three years into the five-year mission period suggests that the Centre sees the gaps in the programme, and is urging mid-term course correction. However, in the context of the current push to meet targets within a specified deadline, unless we find ways to strengthen implementation, there is a danger that these guidelines and principles will dissipate as they travel along the bureaucratic channels to the ground.

The government has consistently maintained that the objective of the mission is not only construction but behaviour change. With seven states already declared ODF and others striving for the status, do we have data available on toilet usage?

Devashish: This is the biggest gap in the existing monitoring framework of the sanitation sector. As we mentioned last year, collecting usage data is complicated, and quantitative data in this regard is often unreliable. At present the NSSO (National Sample Survey Office at the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation) is an important source of toilet usage numbers. However, their approach to capturing it is fraught with problems.

For example, the wording of the question itself is a concern. It asks whether ‘members are using latrine’. This comes across at once as leading and accusatory and is likely to bias the respondent into answering in the affirmative. Further, no attempt is made to talk to other members of the household and verify what the respondent answers on their behalf. As RICE institute also notes, how you ask the question, whom you ask, how many times you ask, all have implications on the answer. There are also seasonal variations – usage tends to change during the rainy seasons, for example. We ourselves faced this problem in our survey when we got different answers to the question – where do you normally go versus where did you go today!

Avani: The other, more current source of tracking usage is the Swachh Survekshan, conducted annually by the Quality Council of India on behalf of the central government.  Here too, however, the same shortcomings can be noted. Their approach is even more curtailed and they only ask the respondent ‘does any member (of the household) defecate in the open sometimes?’

The implications of this approach are evident from numerous stories on the gaps between access and usage. The concern that ODF Panchayats are not truly ODF has been flagged by AI and others previously. Recognising this, the guidelines have laid out a detailed monitoring and verification process and need for continued engagement with ODF Panchayats and villages after declaration, rewards for Panchayats that perform well, and other measures to ensure that official declarations do not become an end in themselves. Moreover, this time the guidelines focus on the use of independent qualitative studies in order to ascertain the status of usage. This is definitely a positive step. More focus needs to be given to collecting regular, independent data through different methods on tracking usage and compliance to policy.

For more on toilet construction under Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), the status of awareness raising for behaviour change, and challenges to the programme, visit: Centre for Policy Research. 

A social sector crusader

The break in blogging was because I was confused.

My last two blogs were about my colleague in the IAS, V.J. Kurien, who is now Managing Director of the Cochin International Airport Limited. I had documented Kurien’s singular contribution to the project of building and running the international airport at Kochi, now considered to be the fourth busiest airport in India. I had intended, drawing from Kurien’s example, to tease out some general points on what constitutes an enabling environment for IAS officers to perform effectively.

However, the bigger picture did not form clearly in my mind. A critical piece of the puzzle seemed to be missing. Kurien works in the space of providing public infrastructure that is largely meant for the educated and those aspiring to climb up the economic and social ladder. An airport is not merely a place where aircraft land and you can board them; they are symbols of national resurgence. They make us proud; they make us believe that our country is progressing. They catch the public eye, they are written about, and a thousand selfies are shot with them in the background. It hit me in a flash; in order to flesh out thoughts on what makes IAS officers tick, I needed to find some who are successful in vastly different sectors than the one in which Kurien operates.

For all practical purposes, Vijay’s career, in spite of his passion and his professional excellence, seemed to be going the way of many before him; a pawn in the hands of an administration that was indifferent and cynical at best, and hostile at worst.

That is when I thought about T. Vijaykumar, a colleague, friend and mentor for three decades.

If one meet’s Vijay, he strikes you as an affable senior officer, more accessible than many of his ilk. He is quick to smile and even quicker to laugh; there is little of the dour, sanctimonious air that most officers carry when they advance in their careers, burdened with  the weight of their responsibilities, real or assumed. He is not boastful; he does not bother you with countless stories of him waving the magic wand and transforming the world. But if one steps back and reflects upon Vijay’s career over three decades, there are few officers who have had such a direct impact on the lives of people as he has.

Vijay’s career went along a predictable path in the earlier years; his tenures as sub-Collector and Collector were standard ones, reserved for those belonging to the IAS. Yet, very early in his career, Vijay realised that his passions lay with working for the poor and the marginalised and that he was willing to pay the price for that. Assigned to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh in 1983, Vijay’s early years were spent in poverty stricken tribal areas. However, he only spent a year in a tribal sub division, as sub-Collector of Paderu, in Visakhapatnam district, (October 1985 – September 1986), before he ran afoul of powerful interests that wanted to subvert his work on restoration of land rights to tribal people in accordance with the prevailing law.

Yet, his Paderu stint was a defining one for him; his passion to work to improve the lot of tribal people knew no bounds. On his insistence with senior bureaucrats, he was once again posted to a tribal area, this time as the Project Officer of the Integrated Tribal Development Agency, in East Godavari district. This post was not without drama; Vijay was one of several officers who were kidnapped and held for ransom by left wing extremists who threatened to kill him if some of their colleagues were not released from jails. In spite of Vijay’s excellent work with tribal communities, he did not last too long in the post of Project Officer either. A year, and another run in with vested interests who opposed his moves to enforce the law with respect to tribal land rights, was sufficient to ensure his hasty exit.

In the intervening periods between these postings in tribal areas, Vijay served in the Social Welfare Department, then as a Deputy Commissioner in the Excise department where he lasted four months, and as a special officer for land acquisition and rehabilitation in Vishakhapatnam, for a period of 9 months.

For all practical purposes, Vijay’s career, in spite of his passion and his professional excellence, seemed to be going the way of many before him; a pawn in the hands of an administration that was indifferent and cynical at best, and hostile at worst. Frequent postings did not prevent him from quickly taking up several initiatives, but it was optimistic to presume that these were going to be sustained when he left.

Vijay was a stone, rolling through the corridors and by lanes of the administration, gathering no moss.

Then, the Girijan Cooperative Corporation happened to Vijay; or was it the other way around? Did Vijay happen to the Girijan Cooperative Corporation?

This blog is part of a series on leadership in the Indian bureaucracy. The views expressed are of the author only. 

स्वच्छता का आग्रह – स्वच्छ भारत मिशन की वास्तविकता

पिछले कई वर्षों से भारत में स्वच्छता से सम्बंधित अनेक योजनाओं को अमल में लाने की कोशिश की जा रही है। मौजूदा प्रधानमंत्री ने भी इस विषय की गंभीरता को देखते हुए 2 अक्टूबर 2014 को उसकी चुनौतियों के समाधान हेतु स्वच्छ भारत मिशन की शुरुआत की। केंद्र सरकार का यह प्रमुख कार्यक्रम महात्मा गांधी की 150वीं जयंती के उपलक्ष्य में स्वच्छ भारत का सपना साकार करना चाहता है।यह भारत सरकार का सबसे बड़ा स्वच्छता कार्यक्रम है अतः भारत की अधिकतर राज्य सरकारों ने इस कार्यक्रम को प्राथमिकता दी है यह कहना गलत नहीं होगा। कार्यक्रम की प्रगति से जुड़े अनेक विवाद देखने मिलते हैं, पर अधिकतर आकड़ों में ही उलझे रहते हैं। यदि इस महत्वाकांक्षा को संभव बनाना है तो इन संख्यात्मक तथ्यों के भीतर की वास्तविकता को समझना होगा।

इस उद्देश्य से, स्वच्छ भारत मिशन एवं उसकी क्रियान्वयन कि प्रक्रिया का अध्ययन करने के लिए हमने दिसम्बर 2015 को हिमाचल प्रदेश के 2 जिलों के 60 गाँव के कुल 1,500 घरों का सैंपल सर्वेक्षण आयोजित किया। सर्वे के बाद हमारे पास इस योजना से सम्बंधित कुछ चिंताजनक मुद्दे सामने आये।

दिसंबर 2015 तक सर्वे के लगभग 10% ही घरों में स्वच्छ भारत मिशन के अंतर्गत शौचालयों का निर्माण हुआ था। हैरानी वाली बात तो यह थी कि सर्वे के 50%पात्र घरों के अनुसार उन्होंने शौचालय अनुदान के लिए कभी आवेदन ही नहीं किया क्योंकि उनको इसके बारे में कोई जानकारी ही नहीं थी। 90% से अधिक लोगों का कहना था कि इस विषय पर पंचायत द्वारा न तो कोई जागरूकता शिविर लगाया गया और न ही कोई उनके घर पर जानकारी देने आये। इसके फलस्वरूप कई घरों में शौचालयों की कमी पाई गयी और लोग खुले में शौच कर रहे थे।

इन जाँच परिणामों को हम सरकार के साथ साझा करना चाहते थे ताकि योजना में चल रही कमियों को पूरा किया जा सके और इस सन्दर्भ में हमने एक जिले के उपायुक्त से चर्चा की। अपनी उत्सुकता दिखाते हुए जिला उपायुक्त ने सभी विभागों के अधिकारीयों की उपस्थिति में हमें अपने आंकड़े प्रस्तुत करने की अनुमति दी। सर्वे की विश्वसनीयता को सही ठहराते हुए इसके आधार पर सभी विकास खंड अधिकारियों को जल्दी से जल्दी काम पूरा करने के निर्देश दिए।

इस दौरान मीडिया के माध्यम से हिमाचल सरकार राज्य को बाह्य शौच मुक्त (ओडीएफ) बनाने की बात कह रही थी। जून 2016 में सरकार ने सभी जिलों को शेष शौचालयों को पूरा करने के निर्देश दिए और राज्य को 2 अक्टूबर 2016 तक ओडीएफ घोषित करने का लक्ष्य निर्धारित कर दिया, हालाँकि लक्ष्य पहले 31 मार्च 2017 तक का रखा गया था। राज्य से लेकर ब्लॉक स्तर तक समितियां बनायीं गयी और हर स्तर के सभी अधिकारी इस अभियान को सफल बनाने में जुट गए।

आखिरकार, 28 अक्टूबर 2016 को हिमाचल प्रदेश खुले में शौच मुक्त दूसरा प्रदेश बना। सरकार के मुताबिक़ हिमाचल प्रदेश के सभी 12 जिलों के सभी 78 विकास खंडों की 3,226 पंचायतों के सभी 18,465 गांव खुले में शौचमुक्त हैं। राज्य के कुल 14,83,562 घरों में शौचालय हैं, अर्थात हिमाचल में अब कोई भी व्यक्ति खुले में शौच नहीं कर रहा था।

हमने नवम्बर 2016 में दुबारा अपने सैंपल में से 10 गाँव में हुए परिवर्तन को जांचने का निर्णय लिया। बाह्य शौच मुक्त घोषित होने के बाद यह पाया गया कि अधिकतर गाँव में शौचालयों के निर्माण में बढ़ोत्तरी तो हुई मगर अभी भी कई शौचालय बने ही नहीं थे और कुछ तो बिलकुल अधूरे पड़े हुए थे।

जब हमने लोगों से इसके बारे में जानना चाहा तो उनका कहना था,“पंचायत ने कहा था कि कम से कम गढ्ढे खोद लो ताकि यह लगे कि शौचालय बन रहे हैं”। घोषणा के बाद जैसे ही सरकारी दबाव कम हुआ तो लोगों में भी शौचालय बनाने की कोई उत्सुकता नहीं दिखाई दी। किसी ने पैसे के आपूर्ति की दुहाई दी तो किसी ने पानी की कमी को दोषी ठहराया। उन्होंने हमें साफ़ बताया कि वे शौच के लिए अभी भी बाहर जा रहे थे। तो ऐसे में सवाल यह उठता है कि फिर किस बात का बाह्य शौच मुक्त राज्य?

अधिकारीयों से जब हमने इसके कारण समझने चाहे तो सरकार द्वारा उनके ऊपर भी दबाव साफ़ तौर पर दिखाई दिया। एक ब्लॉक अधिकारी का कहना था,“इस पूरे अभियान को जल्दबाजी से किया गया। यदि इसके लिए और समय होता तो इसे अच्छे तरीके से किया जा सकता था, सरकार ने अपने राजनितिक स्वार्थों की वजह से इसे हमारे ऊपर थोपा है”। कई अधिकारीयों का कहना था कि उनके पास पर्याप्त स्टाफ और साधन नहीं थे और साथ ही समय भी कम दिया गया।

एक सरपंच ने अपनी हताशा को जताते हुए कहा,“पता नहीं क्यों सरकार को ओडीएफघोषित करने की इतनी जल्दबाजी थी, अभी भी बहुत से गाँव ऐसे हैं जहाँ पर आधे से अधिक घरों में शौचालय बनने को शेष होंगे या फिर अधूरे होंगे।हमें बार-बार गाँव में जाकर शौचालय एवं सफाई का निरिक्षण करना पड़ेगा तभी इसका असर वास्तविक रूप में दिखेगा अन्यथा इस ओडीएफ होने का क्या औचित्य है”। ये समस्याएं केवल एक जिले या प्रदेश तक सीमित नहीं हैं। अन्य राज्यों से भी ऐसी ही जल्दबाजी और लापरवाही की कहानियां मीडिया में आती रहती हैं। ऐसे में कुछ महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उभरते हैं।

जाहिर है कि स्वच्छता को केवल गड्ढे खोदने से प्राप्त न हीं किया जा सकता और ऐसा व्यापक सामाजिक बदलाव दबाव और जल्दबाजी से संभव नहीं। राज्य को सबसे पहले बाह्य शौच मुक्त घोषित करने की होड़ में जमीनी स्तर पर बहुत सारी जो कमियां रह जाती हैं उनकी भरपाई किस तरह से हो पाएगी यह एक बड़ा प्रश्न आज भी है। ज्यादातर देखा गया है की ओडीएफ घोषणा के बाद स्वच्छता सम्बंधित काम रुक जाते हैं। इन्ही कारणों से एक और अनिवार्य प्रश्न यह भी उठता है की स्वछाग्रह का अर्थ क्या है? क्या हम यह आग्रह कर रहे हैं कि हमें स्वच्छ होना चाहिए या कि हम स्वच्छ हो चुके हैं? स्वच्छ भारत की परिभाषा और सम्भावना, दोनों ही इस उत्तर पर निर्भर है।

The ABC of Indian Bureaucracy- An Epilogue

Over the course of the last few weeks, through an alphabet series on the unique vocabulary of the Indian bureaucracy, we tried to present a satirical take on what it is that makes the Indian bureaucracy the formidable labyrinth that it appears to be to the common person. A language entirely of its own has in fact made the difference between the proverbial “insider” and “outsider” of the system much starker than it already was.

Reflecting on the numerous ways in which the same language is transmitted, absorbed and interpreted in the bureaucratic cog wheels makes one wonder about what is it that allows the perpetuation of such practices? While it is not untrue that each system develops certain codes and systems of meaning-making that are largely internal, for the bureaucracy this meaning-making has implications both in terms of how rules are understood as well as applied.

The subtext of the satire throughout this series was a commentary on the many systemic, long-pending and very difficult issues that plague the bureaucracy, which makes “normal” modes of working nearly impossible. From the rigid insistence on paperwork, mired in enduring red-tape; to the ever-present lack of staff, resources, funding; the strict hierarchies, the complex (perhaps even outmoded) systems of fixing responsibility-accountability; the use of fear and punishment as incentives for performance; and perplexingly the perseverance with which the bureaucracy appears to hold on to norms of bygone eras- each of these tendencies appear to give the bureaucracy a distinct character which is unique to itself.

A logic of its own

In fact, unlike governments, parties, corporates and even other private organisations, all of which are heavily dependent on, and can be steered in different directions by the leadership and management of different entities, the bureaucracy comes across as one of those unique systems- almost like markets, which have a logic of their own, shaped almost by an invisible hand. Much like the incomprehensible markets, the bureaucracy also appears to work on its own terms, no matter what one does from the inside or outside.

What we need first is an acknowledgement of the significant (if not most important) role that the bureaucracy plays any kind of “good governance”, of realising its needs, its difficulties.

The trait of the bureaucracy, of changing people to suit itself, rather than be modified through them and their actions, has resulted in ensuring that the system remains as it is no matter what happens outside. There appears to be an implicit understanding within the system that no matter who else comes or goes- governments, leaders, parties or policies, the bureaucracy alone is what will stay intact. This understanding, of governments being “replaceable” is at times so deep rooted within the mindset of those inside babudom, that it makes the concept of accountability to governments extremely complex. The idea of a “committed bureaucracy”- one that owes allegiance to the government (rather than the public) has also seen its fair share of debate over the decades, causing in fact the bureaucracy to be answerable more to itself than anyone else at the end of the day.

Bureaucracy and Governance

Nonetheless, no matter how such knowledge is absorbed by the bureaucratic system- knowing that it alone is what will remain intact once everything transient has gone, places the bureaucracy in a rather complex but interesting position within larger systems of governance. Given the pivotal role that the bureaucrats play in effecting everything- from policy design to policy implementation, being the mainstay of it all, a true transformation can only be achieved in any capacity once the bureaucracy adapts it and takes up the mantle of affecting change.

This unfortunately has not proven to be the case in general in a system which, unreformed from within, continues to be caught up in a colonial legacy and time warp of a bygone era- things move slowly here, at their own pace, and the long winding “due processes”, paying homage to hierarchies are considered more important than a focus on efficiency and/or speedy results. Many a times thus, the pulls and pushes of the system make it impossible for well-meaning interventions to be suitably adopted even when there may be the will to do so. This, coupled with the genuine systemic hurdles and extreme shortages that a chronically understaffed and over-pressurized system faces makes the task even harder- it is a wonder that the Indian bureaucracy has endured the way it has until now in such conditions!

But this is not to say that all hope is lost. The fact that the bureaucracy has endured in its ways is not to suggest that it has to, or must continue to do so. What we need first is an acknowledgement of the significant (if not most important) role that the bureaucracy plays any kind of “good governance”, of realising its needs, its difficulties, and its issues, and focusing on resolving those before expecting any magical turnaround through policies or reform measures which may appear great on paper but come close to nothing on fruition.

The bureaucracy is the backbone of this system, and it needs adequate care, so that its existing vocabulary, now rusty and ancient, can be revitalised in a way that effectively reflects the aspirations of a country longing for change. Any dreams of a “New India” rest surely but squarely on the collective efforts of all institutions of governance, and the embeddedness of such changes can only begin by strengthening the institution that perhaps bears the biggest brunt of it all- the bureaucracy.

Till such time as this happens, the current vocabulary would have to do- here’s hoping that this series helped explain some of those terms to you, albeit through a comic take.

Take a look at the blog series here and to share the blog series, click here. 

Teachers’ thoughts on teaching-learning

Over the past decade, our team at the Accountability Initiative has collectively interviewed several hundreds of teachers across states in India to understand their concerns, work environment and role perception. And year after year we have noted remarkably similar thought patterns emerge. On the occasion of Teacher’s Day, we connected with four senior teachers from four states for a free-wheeling discussion on similar topics, and once again, the outcome was the same.  In this blog I discuss two of the dominant narratives which occupy the average government school teacher’s mind.

Teaching continues to be viewed as a “noble vocation”, “a social service.” Teachers recognise and fully understand the importance of their role in shaping the future of the nation. Additionally, there is an increasing recognition of the importance of tailoring teaching methods to suit students’ learning levels. The image of the teacher as one who facilitates learning rather than one who purely transmits knowledge to students, is also slowly entering their imagination.

“A teacher’s role is to provide quality education to students which is in sync with their learning levels.”

“A teacher’s role is to teach according to the learning level of the students in a way that they (primary students in particular) understand concepts. It is also the teacher’s responsibility to identify and resolve issues that students may be facing in schools.”

“Teacher’s main roles are to provide education to students and create a healthy environment in schools wherein students are able to freely express themselves.”

This is encouraging. It indicates that the efforts being put in by the Central and state governments, and NGOs to create a paradigm shift in the way education is viewed have left an impression on government school teachers.

When asked about the big, positive changes they see around them in schools in the last decade, teachers are quick to point out that government schools provide services like mid-day meals which is a big draw for students coming from very humble backgrounds; and schools are generally better resourced now than ever before. When we ask about the negative changes in the last decade, the responses we hear almost certainly include the following – theintroduction of the No Detention Policy and the policy to ban corporal punishment are steps taken in the wrong direction.

Interestingly, when we ask teachers about the factors which affect teachers while teaching, and the factors which act as hindrances in the learning process, the list of reasons almost always includes the No Detention Policy and the ban on corporal punishment. A senior teacher sums up this reasoning:

“Earlier students feared us and took their lessons seriously. A few threats went a long way in making sure students remained focused on their studies. With the No Detention Policy and the move to end corporal punishment, students, and in some cases, teachers, have started taking studies lightly. They know there will not be any consequences if students score low marks since students are passed to the next standard regardless of what they actually know. Students in turn have become rowdy and don’t respect their teachers. They in fact threaten teachers because they (students) know they (teachers) cannot touch them.”

The intertwining of these two factors have created a twisted narrative which is deeply ingrained in many teachers’ minds.

Perhaps we are witnessing a system in transition. A paradigm shift is perhaps truly underway which is why we are seeing this paradox – on the one hand there is an increasing recognition of the need to change the way teaching-learning is viewed i.e. one where teaching is child-centric which means teaching is tailored to meet students’ learning needs and the teacher mainly acts as the facilitator. Yet there is a fervent desire to hold on to traditional methods of imparting education because they appear to work.

Change is hard. Even though there are normative shifts in the way policies around teaching-learning practices are being drafted and executed, implementers at the last and most important mile of implementation – the school – are taking much longer to catch up. This only tells us that the need to train teachers on innovative teaching methods, providing feedback and support post training sessions to clear up concerns and issues, is critical now more than ever.

With inputs from Senior PAISA Associates Swapna Ramtake, Vinod Verma and PAISA Associates Tajuddin Khan, Uday Shankar. 

Have something to add? Leave a comment below. 

Avani Kapur Accountability Initiative’s new Director

The Accountability Initiative, Centre for Policy Research (CPR) is delighted to announce Avani Kapur as the new Director of Accountability Initiative (AI). She takes over from Yamini Aiyar who founded the Initiative in 2008.

Avani will lead AI at a time when it is rapidly expanding its research portfolio in the areas of public finance and public administration. Projects include in-depth quantitative and qualitative studies on public health, education, governance institutions and budget flows across India. 

Avani is currently a Fellow at CPR and has been leading the Public Finance research at AI. She is the driving force behind most of AI’s flagship research products, including the annual Budget Briefs and the PAISA surveys.

Avani is an alumna of the London School of Economics and Smith College, USA.

Yamini will continue to play a supervisory role and remain engaged in some of AI’s research projects.

 

An eye for detail

This blog is a continuation of ‘Why the Bureaucracy Clicks, and Doesn’t’ posted last week. You can find it here.

What marked out Kurien’s approach to the development of Kochi International Airport was his close association with the people of the locality and a genuine concern for the welfare of those displaced by such a land-intensive project. I remembered meeting Kurien briefly during his first stint as Managing Director of the airport in the late nineties, when he told me that he was personally monitoring the resettlement and income generation plan for each of the 821 displaced families, who lost their lands to the airport project.

At that stage, the airport, while still a bustling one, was hardly using the entire land that had been acquired. Kurien’s farsightedness had driven him to acquire a large swathe of land when it was still available, for the airports future expansion as well, but plenty of that land was still lying vacant. Kurien had plans of using that land, by leasing it to women’s self help groups for floriculture, so that they could benefit from export opportunities. In total, upward of 8,000 local people work in the airport premises at present.

It is this eye for detail and an un-relenting desire to seek economy and efficiency that has set apart Kurien from most bureaucrats. The results are there for all to see.

Recently, Kochi airport was in the news as it became the first airport in the world to be fully powered by solar energy. An initial 12 megawatt capacity sufficed for the needs of the airport, but currently, the installed capacity is 23 megawatt and is being expanded to 30 megawatt. The entire car parking area in the airport has been roofed with solar panels of a capacity of 2.7 megawatt, making it the second biggest such facility in the world.

Did that astounding achievement satisfy Kurien’s appetite for innovation in efficiency? Not in the slightest bit. Not satisfied with breaking even on energy consumption, Kurien’s team planted vegetable creepers such as pumpkin, ash gourd, cucumber and cowpea in between the solar photvoltaic panels. This kept the growth of weeds down and reduced ambient temperature, which increased the efficiency of the panels. The water used to hose down the panels and keep them cleaned were sufficient to irrigate the creepers. In the first year that such an experiment was tried, the airport harvested 30 tons of vegetables from its solar- kitchen garden.

Consider some other facts about the recent expansion of the airport, and one can see the effect of tightening the belt and squeezing efficiency out of every rupee spent in the public sphere. The new international terminal in Kochi covers an area of 1.5 million square feet. Yet, it is not yet another anonymous steel and glass confection, but is unmistakably Kerala in style. The striking aesthetics has not been achieved at a higher cost, but on the other hand, has made plenty of economic sense. The additional area has cost just Rs. 6,250 per square foot, only about 20 percent of what it cost to build Delhi International Airport and 40 percent cheaper than Kolkata International Airport.

The economy in construction and the watchful eye on the finances has resulted in high profitability for the CIAL, the Company that owns and runs the Kochi International Airport. In 2016-17, on an equity capital of Rs. 386 crore, the Company made a profit after tax of Rs. 180 crore. The cumulative dividend pay-out was 203 percent and brought cheer to 18,600 shareholders, most of them belonging to the Malayali diaspora, living in 36 countries.

What is the secret of Kurien’s success? Speak to the man and he will say modestly that he was lucky. To some extent, that is true. At a superficial level, one can argue that Kurien had long stints as Managing Director of the CIAL, having held the post in three stints, during the inception and growth phases. In a system where tenures at postings are not assured, his long innings can be attributed at the first instance to luck. However, on reflection, clearly, Kurien crafted his own luck.

His diplomatic visage hides a frightening tenacity. I am sure he would have rubbed a few powerful people on the wrong side and they might have wanted him out of the airport project. However, the backing that he had from the shareholders of the company, mostly Malayalis who worked abroad and who stood to gain with a large and well-functioning airport in Kochi, would have turned away anybody with narrow interests from interfering with Kurien’s approach. Anybody who might have attempted to remove Kurien would have suffered serious political repercussions. Therefore, Kurien created his own political clout, as it were, by dint of simply being outstanding, and therefore indispensable, at his job.

Is that possible on a large scale for the bureaucracy, or is Kurien’s case a flash in the pan? I will explore that question in my next blog.