Working with the government as a nobody

The last decade has seen a shift in government priorities in education with the focus shifting toward quality instead of just access. This has given the system the necessary nudge toward processes, accountability, and delivery. Remote and adverse geographies like Bastar’s Sukma, have been positively affected by this shift in mindsets and priorities. Bastar division in Chhattisgarh, comprising seven aspirational districts with some of the poorest HDIs, has been lagging behind in learning outcomes, as compared to the state and national averages over the past many years, as per the NAS and ASER reports.

With a few days on the field in the region, anybody would realize that the problem is complex. These relate to demographic, cultural, and socio-political factors. It needs a multidimensional approach, instead of an assembly-line, problem solving one. Despite all the intent, even the administration struggles on multiple fronts. These relate to aspects such as access to human capital (almost 40% of the positions are vacant), infrastructure, and contextually relevant programs.

Shiksharth is a start-up focusing on children in an adverse and conflict-ridden geography. We have worked toward designing contextual solutions, leading to serving 50,000+ children and 500+ schools. This includes supporting 300 schools re-opened after more than a decade, after being destroyed during conflicts. We have also collaborated with the administration over multiple institutional partnerships. The experience has strengthened our belief in: i) being in proximity to the problem; ii) a bottom-up approach for sustainable change and iii) immersion over projects. In the last decade, we have worked with the government system at all levels from support staff of schools to secretaries in the state’s Department of Education. We have had different experiences of hostility, encouragement, partnership, collaboration, and criticism. However, there have been a few things, which have been there all throughout – nurtured relationships, persistence, perseverance, and transparency.

Our journey of the last decade can be broadly classified in three stages. The first was about getting introduced to the system, actively listening, and building credibility. The second stage involved proving commitment, creating shared paths, and building hyperlocal partnerships. The third stage has been about collaborating with a shared vision and becoming partners in the journey.

Introductions, active listening and building credibility

The first phase of our work with the government involved the first three years. We started working in Sukma with the goal of creating solutions based on multilingual education and contextual pedagogy without any references, introduction, or financial support. However, the first response that we received was – “Who are you?” We pitched all the vocabulary that we would usually write on our resumes. However, it didn’t really make any difference. Because, if we were so competent, what were we doing in Sukma?

So, the first thing we had to do was to build our credibility in ways and areas the local administration understood. We started listening without any authority. And the administrative staff came up with very interesting problem statements that we had not really thought of. The first one was how do we bring in optimized resources and processes and set up centers of excellence to cater to children in difficult circumstances.

The district collector (an IAS officer) was interested in promoting STEM education. He could see that the region was struggling to get good science educators. The children were not having much career opportunities to pursue after matriculation. Thus, he believed that we need to invest in STEM education.

While we had set out to work on multi-lingual education, we did have prior experience of working in STEM. However, as a team, it wasn’t a priority at that moment. There was a dilemma of whether to go with our original plan or to work as per the administration. We were just four people in the team in the beginning. We couldn’t afford to work in multiple projects. There was also a threat of delayed deliverables. However, another argument based on our conversations with teachers and administration was that they didn’t think of foundational literacy and numeracy (FLN) as an issue. However, we humbly acknowledged the gaps in STEM education and availability of science teachers in the region.

Another point of discussion within the team, was that multi-lingual education will be a time-taking process in delivering the expected results. On the other hand, STEM parks and providing technical support to the administration could be a good opportunity for us to build credibility and relationships by delivering short-term, tangible goals. That’s where Shiksharth pursued the opportunity and designed Chhattisgarh’s first STEM Park.

Later, we contributed to designing the Education City-cum-Hub Model. This was later identified as one of the “Top 10 Innovations in Public Administration” by Government of India. The model is an example of institutionalizing collaboration with the government. It has served more than 30,000 children so far. It is going to be a crucial contributor for generations to come.

The experience gave us three primary lessons. We share them here.

• Observation along with active listening is a crucial first step to build relationships with the administration. Instead of proposing an idea, just spend time on the ground observing things and listening to the issues. And then come up with ideas around what can be done together.
• Building credibility and proving competency is critical. It is important to build your credibility first in a way that is relevant for the partners.
• Co-defining the problem, and code signing the solution, are important. Shared partnership should be, from day one, a space where we listen, observe, and define the problem statement together.

Proving commitment, walking on shared paths, and building hyper-local partnerships

The second phase (lasting between the 4th and 7th years of our existence) was primarily about building our core body of work, developing replicable products, and building a team of local community youth. We scaled up our operations from one school to 100+ schools. All this was done without a formal MoU. It involved just relationship building at the school and district levels.

In 2016, we launched the Shiksharth Rural Fellowship. We placed fellows in residential schools of Sukma, as Action Researchers. These fellows would teach in classrooms, design solutions, and contribute toward the school operations. The caution to be practised was to not become a watchdog and intimidate the school staff as representatives of the district leadership. Instead, the fellows tried to become collaborators with them.

This helped us forge relationships at the ground, instead of being dependent on permissions from the administration for everything. It opened up multiple doors to try innovative ideas in pedagogy, library, art-based approaches, and community engagement. This led to building a holistic perspective toward supporting children.

This process had government stakeholder engagement at three levels. At the school-level, we worked with school leaders and staff. We hoped that this would ensure we could operate with freedom and contribute to making the schools better.

At the district level, we worked with the district collector and the education department. Our innovations and models in schools were often represented as innovations at the district level. This gave us access to replicate the work with different clusters and teachers. This also provided opportunities for multiple collaborative interventions with the district administration. These included training teachers and cluster level academic coordinators, representing the district at multiple platforms, and helping with annual work plans. Initially we used to sit in the Education Department. After 18 months or so, we started working from our own office. However, we would meet the officials formally and informally every alternate day.

At the state level, we were in constant contact with government officials sharing updates about our work. We met them at least once a quarter. This led to opportunities for us to present our work at multiple state-level conferences and gatherings. Here, we represented the region’s issues with authentic, on-the-ground experiences.

By 2018, we had already completed three years in Sukma. Suddenly, everyone in the schools, and in the administration, was asking us about our exit from the district. We were often faced with questions like – “Where are you going now?” and “Where is the next project?” They had not anticipated that we are here without an exit plan, and that we were willing for long-term engagement. The assumption was that we are funded by somebody and doing a two-year project like most prior nonprofit interventions in the district, and then we would walk out.

While we are building relationships, and doing interventions together, somewhere in the back of the mind of some of the stakeholders there were doubts over our commitment to Sukma and its children. For them, we were just a regular NGO, which was trying to execute some project and then go back. It was by the end of the second phase when the administration started taking us seriously as a genuinely interested organization. That’s when we started getting acknowledged. We slowly became an unsaid part of the team.

An officer once told us, “If you really want to see any social change, you have to stay longer.” And that kind of stuck with us. This opened many opportunities for us, not just in the district, but also in the Bastar division and with the state’s education department. We started getting noticed at the state level.

In 2017, we also got into a situation where the leadership turned hostile against all the CSOs in the region. We were asked to go back. However, the second line of leadership was willing to have us in the schools. In such a situation, while we continued to work in the schools for almost two years, we didn’t get much administrative support. We were very clear, however, that it is a long-term engagement. We had also come to realize that the graph is going to be low and high, and hence going out was not an option.

Being there, and working with the communities in any way possible, helped us. Persistence and perseverance were the key. We continued operating in the schools with little or no support from district leadership for a while. It was after some time that the district leadership noticed us, and we were back to contributing at all levels.

This persistence gave us the opportunity to support 97 reopened schools, which were earlier destroyed because of conflicts. We pitched in with field support, pedagogy, and school operations. To our surprise, we received positive remarks about our intervention purely because we were there, walking the talk. We were there working with the administrative officers and cluster coordinators, going on the field in the most difficult geographies in this country, passing by the actual line of fire, often facing multiple security threats. We started receiving kind words of appreciation for our work. Shiksharth started being perceived as a CSO that has gone on working in the field with the government or without the government.

This phase was all about dealing with uncertainty and adverse situations, reinforcing five key lessons. We share these below.

• A bottom-up approach is a difficult, time taking, but sustainable way to make the needle shift. The top-down approach will create some ripples and give initial momentum. However, it involves work that is authoritative in nature. The work is more sustainable, if it adopts a bottom-up approach.
• Dignity is the key at all levels. In a system where most of the things are done based on orders, it is important to express respect in actions rather than words. Just sharing the journey, being part of the emotions, acknowledging and sharing ones’ vulnerabilities, and a human-to human engagement beyond professional conversations, can be game changing.
• Communication and transparency at all levels is important. Any data, information, and analysis should simultaneously be shared with stakeholders at all levels, instead of just at the top. Communication channels should be bi-directional. In fact, CSOs can play a crucial role in facilitating relationships among multiple stakeholders in the system.
• Over-dependence on the top leadership may hamper the sustainability of the interventions. Usually, an IAS officer gets transferred every two years at any level in the system. And with the district leadership changing frequently, priorities also change. Then it becomes difficult to keep up. Designing the program with the second line of leadership can help in the long run. Keeping the core work independent is also important.
• Nurturing relationships with the second and third line of leadership is as important as with the top tier. Most CSOs follow the top-down approach. We learnt that it is important to have a stronger relationship with second line of leadership in the department. In 2017, we faced hostility from the administration, where most of the NGOs were not being entertained. We were being asked to move out. That’s when we realized the importance of relationship building at all levels of the system. Because of this, we were able to continue our work. We survived despite all the hostilities because of our strong relationship on the ground with school leaders and with the second line of leadership. The work got slowed down and became difficult. However, we sailed through.

Collaborating with a shared vision and becoming partners in the journey

The third phase of our work with the government (from the 8th year of our existence onward) has been around collaborations for developing a shared vision and not for projects. Anyone from Shiksharth can now go and engage with the administration, depending on the requirement. The founders alone are not sharing the burden of building and maintaining relationships with the government.

School closures during the Covid-19 pandemic helped take the relationship to more stakeholders. This led to invitations from schools to work with us. When the administration was looking for ideas as online mediums were not accessible, our offline learning solutions opened multiple doors. We shared our offline learning solutions as a collaborative intervention.

From our experiences and continuous engagement with children in the armed conflict affected area, we realized that continuity of education is the most efficient medium for reducing the risks arising out of armed conflicts and community distress. As a response to the breakdown in children’s education in the jungles and villages of Sukma, Shiksharth came up with the idea of designing and developing a mechanism for effective offline learning involving learning kits.

The overall vision of these kits is to ensure that children practice key literacy and numeracy skills in a personalized and engaging manner. The goal is to minimize the widening learning gaps created by school closures. The initiative didn’t intend to teach any new concepts, as it would not have been possible without the help of a teacher/ facilitator. These kits comprise of both pedagogic content and resources developed in–house, and different resources created by various organizations available on the internet. Providing stimulus to children to become independent self-learners was a key part of the strategy. The kits comprised of foundation skills, project-based learning, stories, and material on STEM education, all printed in the form of engaging worksheets.

The intervention was pitched as an innovation by the administration to NITI Ayog and got recognized. And that built the momentum around collaborating for shared vision. We became part of the District Foundational Literacy and Numeracy Committee, and of many other teams. As of now, we are the go-to team for anything the education department needs help with technically. This has also given us opportunities to replicate our work in nearby districts, with a collective reach to more than 350 schools and 16,000 children directly. The administration appreciates our grassroot efforts. The relationship with the Sukma administration has also strengthened our credibility when we reach out to other districts.

We continue to gain insights from the third phase. Some of the key, relevant insights are the following.

Keeping a good balance between products and programs is critical. This gives the advantage of aligning to changing priorities, both in the short-term and in the long-term.

Proximity to the problem and the grassroots helps in the long run. This is important in developing understanding. It also helps in proving one’s commitment for the cause.

During all these years, there have been multiple situations where we had to say no, and got into some difficult phases in our relationship with the administration as well. Because of our relationship, we were often invited to pick up initiatives which were not in alignment with what we wanted to focus on. For example – running shelter homes, doing livelihood or health-related interventions, and often, working on a horticulture project. We had to say no to many such opportunities.

Often, while collaborating on a district-level initiative, we would be asked to close all our existing interventions and place the entire team on the existing administrative priorities. Our message was clear – “Please don’t disturb our core work in the schools. The leadership team would put in extra time. But please don’t disturb the team on the ground.” Initially, this led to some frictions. However, eventually, this brought everyone on the same page about how Shiksharth could contribute to the district and the region in the long run.

In conclusion

We are starting the next phase of our journey. We look forward toward serving one million children in conflict and adverse geographies, with positive childhood experiences. We understand that transforming the system without collaborations with governments is impossible. However, we believe that one needs to be mindful of having a balanced approach.

A top-down approach gives quick results. It is also low-cost, and gives a large-scale reach. However, it lacks connections, conviction, and grounding in lived experiences. On the other hand, a bottom-up approach of working with the government is slow. Therefore, it is also cost intensive. However, it is based on trust. This makes it sustainable and independent of uncertainties related to the leadership.

A balanced approach does not show fast results. Initially, it is also resource intensive. But it is sustainable and also allows you to explore pathways for creating deep and meaningful impact.