If the Karnataka government is to be believed, the number of out-of-school children has dropped from a whopping 10.54 lakh to a mere 72,365. This is based on the children’s census conducted in 2008. The drop in number has been credited to the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyana – a nation-wide programme launched for universalisation of elementary education in the country.
According to the state SSA cell, Karnataka, compared to other states, has recorded an unprecedented success in attracting children to school. The number of out-of-school children has been reducing every year. The gap in the number of children enrolled in school and drop-outs has further reduced. Logically then, the number of children who continue in school has increased.
Going by the numbers, Karnataka can take pride in being perhaps one of very few states in the country to trigger and sustain an education revolution. It is true that more and more children are attending schools. But, what about the quality of learning that takes place in these schools? Or, for that matter, the reading and comprehension levels of children? If we are indeed priding about the drop in numbers, should we also not worry about the quality of teaching, the teachers that are churned out by the education system, the condition of teacher training institutions in the state, the working conditions of teachers vis-a-vis their contemporaries in private schools and the challenge of making teaching more relevant and contemporary than ever before?
It is a known fact that the infrastructure in government schools has improved drastically in the last decade or so. Equipping schools with adequate physical infrastructure continues to be a major problem but this problem can be addressed with community participation, growing income levels in society and corporate participation. What should bother us or worry us more is addressing social issues — how best can we convince parents, who struggle to provide two meals a day to their family, to send their children to school instead of seeing in them a means of livelihood.
How feasible is it then to expect parents to send their children to school when the entire family is starving? The mid-day meal scheme can at best be an excellent motivator but that will still leave the entire family, which is under abject poverty, to look out for daily wages. If the immediate geographical location does not offer any means of solace, the family is then forced to move to other “greener pastures.” This, then raises the issue of migrant labour. A substantial number of out-of-school children belong to migrant families and no scheme or programme can claim complete success unless it reaches out to and includes all segments of society.
Purely by numbers, the government seems to have won the first battle — that is to enroll children in school. But, the bigger battle is to ensure that these children remain in school and get quality education. This would then perhaps trigger the much needed social revolution and be the change agent to take education to the next level.
Argument well put. But statistic can be misleading.