Bibek Debroy: Recognising the unrecognised

OFF THE RECORD

"Of the estimated population of 205 million in the age group of 6-14 years on March 1, 2002, nearly 82.5 per cent was enrolled in schools." This is a quote from Economic Survey 2004-05, the last we have. The survey doesn't give a figure on out-of-school children.

However, one can work out that the number of out-of-school children is 36 million. The Mid-Term Appraisal (MTA) of the Tenth Five-Year Plan was written after the survey. It was printed in June 2005. The MTA states, "The enrolment drive launched during the second year of [the] Tenth Plan to bring all children in the age group of 6-14 in schools has resulted in a reduction in the number of out-of-school children from 42 million at the beginning of [the] Plan period to 8.1 million in September 2004. Universal enrolment is expected to be achieved by 2005."

The original Tenth Plan target for universal enrolment was 2003. We have overshot this target. But only by two years and in 2005, all children will be in school. Retention and dropouts are different. When government sources like the survey or MTA provide data on enrolment, what schools form the database? There are government schools and private aided and private unaided schools.

Together, these constitute the category of recognised schools. But there are unrecognised schools as well. Presumably, official data are only for recognised schools. After all, neither the survey nor MTA mentions unrecognised schools.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence about unrecognised schools flourishing. James Tooley's figures suggest 40 per cent of schools in Andhra Pradesh are unrecognised. There is yet another estimate that there are 10,000 unrecognised schools in Andhra, with a student strength of 500,000.

For Delhi also, there is a figure of 10,000 unrecognised schools, with a student strength of 600,000. For Haryana, the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (Niepa) argues that if present trends continue, the number of unrecognised primary schools in Haryana will be 1.5 times or double the number of government or local body primary schools.

In four of Haryana's districts, primary enrolment in unrecognised schools is already 30 per cent of the enrolment in formal recognised schools. Niepa collects data on schools through the District Information System for Education (DISE), which is based on surveys rather than complete enumeration.

However, with data from 931,471 schools in 539 districts, the DISE is fairly representative. Except that the DISE is also about recognised schools. But to supplement the DISE, for 2004-05, Niepa has now come out with a survey of unrecognised schools in Punjab. Data are available for seven (Kapurthala, Jalandhar, Nawanshahr, Ludhiana, Muktsar, Bathinda, and Patiala) of Punjab's 17 districts. And data are for elementary education (Classes I-VIII).

We learn in these seven Punjab districts, 24.83 per cent of schools are unrecognised. Enrolment in unrecognised schools is 25.81 per cent of total primary school enrolment. NSS surveys also indicate increasing primary school enrolment in unrecognised schools. Not just for Punjab and Haryana, but also in states like UP and Bihar.

And this trend increased in the 1990s, confirmed by the Niepa study, since most unrecognised schools in Punjab were set up in the 1990s. Splicing the Punjab figure with the earlier anecdotal figures, at least for elementary education in most states, enrolment in unrecognised schools is probably 25-30 per cent of total enrolment.

Which means we have got our gross enrolment ratios (GERs), based on recognised schools, completely wrong. The survey reports gross enrolment ratios for 2002-03. The all-India figure is 82.51 per cent (Classes I-VIII), with low figures in Bihar, Jharkhand, and Nagaland. If you factor in unrecognised schools, which are of course not uniformly spread throughout the country, we probably already have GERs approaching, or even exceeding 100 per cent. Except in those three states mentioned. The MTA is probably right about universal enrolment in 2005.

But this still leaves a question. Since official data don't include unrecognised schools, what explains the figures? Thanks to the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and mid-day meals, are government schools inflating enrolment figures? After all, the BPL (below the poverty line) figure is also inflated.

Are children enrolled in more than one school, enrolment in government schools being explained by mid-day meals and free uniforms and textbooks, apart from the requirement of taking final exams through a recognised school? More importantly, the Niepa study demonstrates the obvious.

Subject to a pro-urban bias, unrecognised schools are better across a variety of indicators. They cater for demand and are more efficient in delivery. Ipso facto, they should be encouraged. And this leads to the most important question of all. Why aren't these schools recognised? Why don't they register themselves? The answer lies in transaction costs associated with registration""not just corruption and bribery linked to registration, but also controls on qualifications and pay of teachers, prescriptions on curriculum, medium of instruction and textbooks and physical infrastructure requirements.

The reluctance of small-scale industry to register, documented in the 3rd SSI Census, is not very different. Stated differently, the licence raj may have disappeared for manufacturing. But for school education, and for health, the licence raj and the inspector raj are alive and kicking. Unfortunately, neither the survey nor the MTA mentions this as a constraint.