Context

• The contradictory results on learning surveys of ASER and NAS in intriguing Rajasthan Case study has raised question on the reliability of dataset being gathered.
• According to Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2019 data, Rajasthan was among the bottom five States in learning levels, while in National Achievement Survey (NAS) 2017, Rajasthan was among the top performers.

About ASER and NAS

• Survey agency: ASER is led by the non­governmental organisation, NGO Pratham and NAS is led by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).
• Test administration: ASER is a household survey, NAS is a school based survey.
• Coordination: ASER is conducted each year by surveyors from partner organizations in each district like District Institute of Education & Training (DIETs), teacher training colleges, universities, NGOs and others, while NAS is being coordinated by state agencies like SCERTs and State Institute Of Education (SIEs).
• Evaluation: While ASER conducts its assessment one-on-one in oral format , NAS is a pen-paper test administered to a group of students in school.
• Extent: ASER is aimed at a representative sample of all children (whether in school or out of school), NAS takes into account the children enrolled in government schools.
• Skills: ASER focuses on foundational skills such as reading and math, while NAS looks at wider verity of skills.
• Coverage: ASER aims to cover all rural districts each year and NAS aims to cover all 36 states and Union Territories.

Importance of education data

• Given that educational planning has been recognized as an integral part of socio-economic planning, reliable and elaborate statistical base in education is necessary.
• Educational statistics assume greater significance today in view of the structural and systematic changes that are rapidly taking place in the social and economic sectors in India
• The availability of timely, relevant and reliable information on education at all levels (national, state, district, sub-district and school levels) makes a critical input for  effective educational planning, administration, monitoring and evaluation.

Limitations of the data collection

• Limited resonance with parents: Despite wide consensus among policymakers recognizing that end-users (parents) are one of the key constituencies of school data, and intense efforts to disseminate data among them, it is rarely used by poor parents.
• The end users of data are mostly school administrators, government agencies, researchers, and civil society activists.
• No sub-categorization: A national level policy is just one form of an inspiring education vision. Presently, there is no vision of education below the national level, least of all at those which engage the marginalized like village, block level.
• Varied objectives: For parents, schooling is about examination outcome, which is a proxy for learning English language skills and a chance for secondary and graduate level degrees.
• Mere bureaucratic practice: The district and school development plans introduced in national level programmes such as the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) have largely remained administrative practices.
• Feedbacks: Data on school education is collected to measure and monitor, fix flaws and reward achievements at the State and the national levels. The data is descriptor of the way things are in a government school and there is no input methodology for feedbacks on data collected and actions taken henceforth.
• Limited transformation: Gathering data on enrolments, retention, learning, infrastructure, and teacher training to understand the state of our public school system may not be enough to inspire transformative change.

Need for unified vision

• Data linkages: To inspire transformation, data has to be linked with a vision of school education which addresses the anxieties and aspirations of parents. The poor will speak when the data speaks to them and they can speak to the authorities empowered to act.
• Grievance redressal: The actions on data inputs need to be taken at the level of governance closest to the parents of government school children, i.e. the local administrative and political system.
• Holistic policy: A national­level policy ideally should encompass the essence of the vision of the people which will manifest itself differently at the national, State, district and local levels and exist in both policy and non­policy forms, thus engaging the marginalized fully.
• Demonstration: For example, in the workings of panchayat schools, focus needs to be on learning and personality development among migrant children, or non-governmental organisation programmes strengthening teacher capacity for multilingual classrooms.
• Consensus: The district and school development plans need to represent the parent­school consensus on what schooling means rather than decided by school management committees.

Balancing objectives

• Comprehensive foresight: The vision of schooling needs to balance the immediate, tangible, popularly understandable objectives such as reading, writing as well as livelihood relevant skills and knowledge as well as include long term objectives such as peer connections, negotiating social diversity, and curiosity for new knowledge and experiences.
• Steering agenda: This vision has to be led by the skill and dynamics of local politicians and politics, respectively to ensure its implementation through contestation.The central part of local politics involves both formal actors such as political party workers, and non­formal ones such as community leaders.
• Beyond activism: It is only when data is connected with a locally developed and politically owned vision of school education that it will move beyond the administrator and the activist.
• Local concord: A locally rooted education vision is one that emerges from social and political consensus on why a child needs a school education, for example, either to reach college, get a job after school, for personality development or to be an active citizen.

If the right systems of governance and authority are designed and tools to engage with them are made available, the poor will speak up. What we lack and need is data which can hold the local vision of education and local actors accountable as much as the one we have right now, which focuses on the national one.