Working with the government for educational change

Gubbachi’s stated vision is a world where every child develops their potential to lead a dignified life. In this is encompassed the dignity of every individual in the child’s life as well – their family and their communities. We understand dignity as the ability of an individual to be an equal part of society, and, therefore, to have a voice—a voice that can articulate needs and aspirations without fear. The dignity of a child is the fulcrum on which all decisions pertaining to our work in education rests.

Gubbachi entered the space of education for the marginalized out of school child in 2015. We saw that the problem was dire and time sensitive, as our surveys of the migrant labour settlements in the chosen area (Bengaluru peri-urban) revealed that every migrant labour settlement there had significant numbers of children. These were from families that had come from both inside and outside the state. The children were out of school and unable to access any school.

We decided to design an education intervention for the Out of School Child (OOSC). This was envisaged to allow children from migrant families to go to school in the city, and learn like any other child. We identified sibling care as one of the barriers for an older child to attend school. Therefore, we set up a bridge program with an Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) component. The curriculum sought to bring children up to speed in literacy and numeracy. The goal was also to help them integrate into a mainstream classroom of a government school by the end of a roughly one-year program.

A bottoms-up approach

Our strategy was explicitly to work with the public system. We felt that it was the public education system that would be sustainable for this child in the long run, no matter wherever the family moves to. We chose a bottoms-up approach. We felt that this would be the quickest path, and would also get traction with the players on the ground.

Our work started with the Cluster Resource Person (CRP) and headmaster (HM) of the chosen school – Kodathi GHPS – our host school. The issue of the OoSC was in sync with the Department of Education (DoE) directives and the Right to Education Act (RtE Act). These talk about integrating the OoSC into schools. The system recognized this as a critical issue. It also had a stated policy on this. However, it was clearly inadequate and put neither learning nor retention as a priority.

The acting HM of Kodathi was supportive and gave us access to rooms and mid-day meals for the children in our bridge program. Most importantly, the migrant child was accepted on the school premises. This was a huge step towards restoring dignity to the family.

While the school was accepting, as an NGO our credibility came into question with some families of children, or contractors (as stakeholders). When these challenges were shared after a year, with the Block Resource Coordinator (BRC) and the CRP, they gave us an ear. They also joined us on the field to speak to the communities and other stakeholders. It was a small win for us, as we felt that the functionaries were in our corner. We felt that a year’s work had not entirely gone unrecognized. We had hope.

Win-win works

Teacher shortage is a reality in Karnataka. In the Doddakannelli cluster where we work currently, there is a 48% shortage in the strength of teachers required. When our first batch of children “graduated” from our bridge program in 2016, we found that our host school was no exception to the problem. Only mainstreaming was not adequate, when the school did not have adequate number of teachers to teach.

After conversations with the HM and the school’s teachers, the writing on the wall was clear. We had to enter Grades 1-2-3, which we did. This also sat well with our central focus of foundational literacy and numeracy for all children. By converting a challenge felt by the school into a workable intervention we moved toward a win-win situation.

The CRP soon urged us to work with the government designed Nali Kali, Multi-GradeMulti-Level, activity–based curriculum. This was originally designed to meet the educational needs of a migrant child. We reached out to Azim Premji Foundation, Yadgir. It already had master trainers working with government teachers on the Nali Kali method. Two of our teachers, along with some of the founders, attended a training session in Yadgir.

Proof of the pudding (concept)

Our twin approach in the Kodathi GHPS – of a bridge program (with an ECCE component) along with a conduit to a strong Nali Kali approach, was by now operational in two schools in the cluster – Kodathi and Sulikunte (2017) This got noticed in the cluster and the block. The enrolments in these two schools had increased significantly in the two years of our intervention.

Retention of out of school migrant children after two years was also above 70%. The Block Education Officer (BEO) invited us to present the intervention and its challenges. He requested us to expand our Nali Kali intervention to other under-resourced schools in the cluster.

After more than two (2) years of our intervention, we met the DDPI and the SSA Project Director. We shared our outcomes and challenges, like inadequate classrooms for the growing numbers.

He presented the state education data with regards to schools, children and teachers and the inability of the Department to get into micro level issues (even though they were a direct result of macro policies – teacher shortage due to lack of adequate education budgets). By now we were well on a path of expanding our program to wherever there was a need in the cluster.

The family is our key beneficiary

Currently we run 23 Nali Kali classrooms across nine (9) government schools and three (3) bridge learning centres with preschool programs. There is also a School Adoption Program working in Kodathi, which was where it all started. All this has been possible because the families have felt our programs’ positive impact on their children, and have experienced legitimacy and dignity.

Our community program, Gubbachi Enable, works with the Health Department, Department of Women and Child Welfare, Labour Department, the local panchayat and other local governance bodies. It is an enabler that works with the other crucial half of the education equation – the families and their demand for Education. As families feel more empowered, they can engage better with the idea of education for their child.

Where policies fail the children

By 2018, we had also started education interventions for the pre-adolescent dropouts aged 10-14 years in Kannada and English medium. The out of school numbers in this age group were even more alarming.

According to DISE-2021 data, 14.7% of children drop out before secondary education. This is not including children in the age group who are currently out of school. This is a vulnerable age group where disaster is never too far away – close to dropping out, falling into negative social patterns, and getting into exploitative informal sectors.

We also knew well that it is this group that has the greatest potential to become a role model to younger children in the same communities. They can potentially help move the needle of change to a multiplier effect. However, there is no targeted policy to address this issue.

The policy also does not respond to the educational needs of an adolescent migrant child from out-of-state. These children often do not have the language skills to pick up the pieces in a government school.

Thus, starting as a very small but significant pilot program, the spin off program is now moving 160 children in the age group of 10-18 years towards Grade 10 certification, across two locations.

Another challenge we face is that of enrolments. The Supreme Court directive is clear that no child can be denied admissions for want of an identity document. In reality, however, HMs do not admit a child without an Aadhar Card. There are various reasons for a child not having an Aadhar Card. Denying admission based on this is against the Right to Education Act and is questionable.

The STS system assumes an Aadhar Card preventing the HM from completing the process. It is easier then, to circumvent the problem by not admitting a child! This is a matter of grave concern and an injustice to any child who is denied access to education on weak procedural grounds. Policies do not reflect ground realities; often ignoring or denying them. This then becomes a barrier to the implementation of programs on ground in their true spirit.

What of standards and regulation?

Government schools serve as a honey pot for well-intentioned agencies and individuals wanting to “do good.” However, when not thought-through, these can come at a huge cost.

In many schools, toilet blocks have been built with inadequate/no water supply or cleaning support. Shouldn’t have water supply and hygiene factors been parts of the toilet building plan?

Likewise, computer labs are set up with old desktops, no UPS supply, and no computer teacher support. And where there is a classroom shortage, an unused computer lab further exacerbates the space crunch. Shouldn’t the school or education department have minimal standards, like adequate classrooms for teaching, before allocating classrooms toward a computer lab with no computer teacher?

Another instance is when the Health Department comes in for a health screening with no prior intimation or planning. Measuring height, weight and temperature of children present on a particular day will not help identify any significant deficiencies or health issues. The impact of such an activity on the child’s development is questionable. What about the impact that such disruptions have on learning? Having children vaccinated without parental consent is a grave violation, which has happened in the recent past with Covid vaccinations.

Instances like the above make us think, if the right of the child to access equal opportunities for development is protected or even considered? Thoughtless disruptions to the functioning of a school have multiplier effects on the child, on learning, and on implementing teams like us.

Marketplace of NGOs in a school

Another negative fallout of allowing NGOs unregulated access, is the extent of duplication of efforts that regularly happens in a school as there are multiple uncoordinated actors. We are implementing an intervention that has recognition at the Block level. Our work is facilitated by an MOU. This document elaborates the focus, the objectives, and the activities of the intervention.

However, we have found duplication of similar activities in the same schools we work in by another organization with another MOU. This MoU has been signed at the state/district level. The HM is in a conundrum trying to balance out local interests and departmental directives from different levels (block, district and state). Most often, these clash with the needs on the ground.

We have seldom noticed any attempts at coherent communication between HMs and senior department officials where needs are discussed threadbare. In such a situation, we have also been called in to negotiate with other organizations, rather than the HM taking a decision on the matter. The perception that the HM cannot refuse is very strong.

Before an intervention is considered and brought on board, the school being a place for learning, clarity about the impact on learning at the level of the child, the mode of implementation, and resources being deployed, must be thought through. Are valid questions being asked of organizations by Department of Education before engaging with the intervention and signing an MoU?

Looking into the future

The bottoms-up approach of working with the teachers, the HMs, the CRP, and the BRC, has worked for us in bringing the school together. It has also allowed us to run our programs working toward upholding the dignity of the child.

There are spaces within the education department for translating good intent and of collaborations with NGOs and other stakeholders. Yet, there are bigger elephants in the room. These need to be addressed adequately for positive education change to happen.

Merely enrolling children is not adequate. Retention and positive learning outcomes, and the ability of an educated child to lead a meaningful and dignified life ought to be a common goal for everyone in this space. This is the purpose of education. It is when every government official, and all the stakeholders share this belief that the change that we dream of will become a reality.