001 pratham case a v3 19dec2010

8/7/2019 001 Pratham Case A v3 19Dec2010

1/10

1

Pratham: Every Child in School, Every Child Learning (A)a

Pratham was established in 1994 with the goal of putting every child in Mumbai in school. By 2000,

Pratham had come a long way- in the academic year 1999-2000, Pratham served almost 100,000

children in Mumbai through different programmes, and had nearly 5,000 staff and volunteers. The

programmes were well-regarded leading to requests from administrators to replicate them in other

states. Pratham was being considered for prestigious development awards, and had attracted theinterest and involvement of McKinsey & Company, a leading consulting firm.

Yet, there were questions about the extent ofPrathams accomplishments, whether its achievements

in Mumbai were sustainable and scalable, and whether it would be possible to replicate its

programmes in other parts of the country.

The Indian Education System

Historical Context

At the time of independence, India was plagued by large-scale illiteracy and a lack of access to

schooling. The 1951 census noted that only 9% of women and 27% of men were literate. Education

was seen as an important enabler for developing the country, and accordingly, the Directive Principles

in the Indian Constitution included the right to education (Article 41). The Government passed a

resolution endeavouring to provide free and compulsory education to all children under 14 by 1960.

While there was progress in literacy rates, and access to education, by 1991, the literacy rate reached

just 52% (see Exhibit 1).

National Education Policy

The Indian Constitution envisaged primary and secondary education as a State subject, with the

individual states controlling the education systemsb. The Central Government formulated national

policies for education, and provided budgetary support for special initiatives. The individual states

were responsible for implementing the policies and regulating their individual systems.

The first National Policy for Education (NPE), announced in 1968, laid down the structural

framework for the education system, and developed a new curriculum to advance the national goals of

promot(ing) national progress, a sense of common citizenship and culture... strengthen(ing) national

a 2010 Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. This case has been written by Rishikesha T. Krishnan,

Professor of Corporate Strategy, IIM Bangalore, and Swarna Kumar Vallabhaneni based on (1) talks by

Prathams management team at the Read India Conference held at the University of Pennsylvania on October3-4, 2008 and (2) published information (see list of references/notes at the end of the case).b

Tertiary education graduate and above was a Central subject.


2/10

2

integration. The new 10+2+3 structure was subsequently adopted by all states. The new curriculum,

which for the first time was common for boys and girls, and included mandatory science and

mathematics in the first 10 years of schooling was also adopted widely.

The policy, however, did not address the infrastructural issues related to education. The status of

public finances did not help in either increasing access to education or decreasing illiteracy at a fasterrate. NPE68 expected at least 6% of the national budget to be devoted to education, while the actual

spending rarely exceeded 2%. The Constitution was amended in 1976, including education in the

Concurrent List, allowing the Central Government a greater say in matters related to education.

A new Education Policy was announced in 1986, along with a detailed Programme of Action (POA).

Besides curriculum and regulatory superstructurec, the policy focused on improving the access to

education. There was a renewed emphasis on elementary education. In addition to expanding

scholarships, and giving incentives to poor families to send their children to school, a number of

initiatives were launched to improve schools. A notable initiative was Operation Blackboard, which

provided funds to primary schools to build classrooms and improve the general school infrastructure.

The programme stressed a child-centred approach, with first-generation learners setting their own

pace, and supplementary remedial instruction provided for these children. Day-care centres and other

support systems were also to be set up to ensure easier access. The programme targeted free and

compulsory education for all children under 14 by 1995.

From a governance standpoint, NPE 1986 laid new ground, creating a framework to decentralize

planning and management of education, and to involve non-government agencies. It was envisaged

that local communities would play a major role in school development. The policy, also for the first

time, allowed involvement of NGOs and private parties in fund-raising and management of public

education. A revised policy was announced in 1992 with minor modifications. This approach was

reinforced by the Governments District Primary Education Planning (DPEP) programme launched in1994. A major thrust of this programme was decentralized management with involvement of all major

stakeholders, especially community participation and NGO engagement.

International Developments

The importance of education in developing economies was recognized internationally as well. The

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, incorporated the

right to education for all. But literacy levels remained low across developing countries, and by the

1980s, education occupied a primary position in the global effort against poverty.

In 1990, UN organized a global conference in Jomtien to address issues related to universal access toeducation. The Conference passed the World Declaration on Education for All (Jomtien Declaration),

laying down an expanded vision and a renewed commitment to universal access to education. The

Jomtien Declaration recognized the organizational limitations of Governments, and focussed on

strengthening partnerships between stakeholders and the role of NGOs in transferring knowledge and

practices. Following the Jomtien Declaration, UN launched a number of projects across the world

focussing on NGO-Government partnerships.

c

The National Council for Education Research and Training (NCERT) was formed as a nodal body for

formulating curriculum and textbooks, while the Central Board for Secondary Education (CBSE) was formed toregulate secondary education. A new body All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) was formed to

govern the tertiary education in the country.


3/10

3

Pratham and The Mumbai Education Initiative1

Origin

As a part of the Jomtien Mandate, UNICEF initiated a programme called United Primary Education

for All (UPEFA) in 1991, in collaboration with the Government of Maharashtra and the Municipal

Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The programme, however, failed to take off. By 1993,

UNICEF was looking to launch a model programme, which would be owned and run by the residents

of Mumbai, which could then be replicated across the country. UNICEF would provide the initial

funding and facilitate the set-up process, but expected the programme to become independent.

Madhav Chavan and Farida Lambay were among those contacted by UNICEF to run the new

programme.

Madhav Chavan was an unlikely candidate to be the leader of a nationwide primary education

movement. A chemist by training, he had done his Ph.D. at Ohio State University and a post-doctoral

fellowship abroad before returning to India to work at Bombay Universitys University Department of

Chemical Technology, one of Indias leading centres for the chemical sciences. His father was a tradeunion leader, and, soon, Chavan was leading University researchers in an agitation against the

government. This brought him into contact with senior education administrators who urged him to

contribute more positively to the education challenges facing the country.

Chavan, by then, was producing films on literacy for Doordarshand, and Lambay was a faculty

member at the Nirmala Niketan School of Social Work. Pratham was born out of discussions between

Chavan, Lambay, UNICEF, senior officers in the state Education Department and the Commissioner

of the MCGM. In addition to Chavan and Lambay, the board of trustees included the MCGM

Commissioner, the Education Secretary of Maharashtra and the state representative of the UNICEF.

The MCGM ran all the public schools in the city (Exhibit 2). Both Chavan and Lambay had been

involved in literacy-related work through other non-governmental organizations with Lambays

involvement with the Education department of the MCGM going back as far as 1970. They diagnosed

the failure of earlier attempts (including UPEFA) to achieve universal primary education to the failure

of society to take ownership of and commit to such a goal. The responsibility of the task was to be

shouldered by all sections of the society, and a mass movement needed to mobilize resources, both

human and financial. At the same time, they believed that the city of Mumbai had the people,

resources, and determination to achieve the goal if an appropriate framework could be created for

them to do so. And Pratham would create that framework.

Prathams Mumbai Education Initiative launched in 1995 had as its goal putting every child in thecity in school and learning there by December 2000. The cause attracted social work graduates and

idealistic young professionals. The prior involvement of Lambay and Chavan with social work,

education and NGO/literacy activity helped create the initial core group.

Prathams early efforts to design its initiative included conducting a survey on health and hygiene of

students in municipal schools. This project enabled Pratham to demonstrate its execution abilities.

Subsequently, Pratham organized 300 summer classes on behalf of the MCGM. Pratham

experimented with different ways of using games to learn arithmetic and improve reading skills in

order to make classroom learning a fun experience for kids. Pratham decided to restrict its initial

activities to 6 of the 23 municipal wards in Mumbai with which it had greater familiarity.

dDoordarshan is Indias public TV channel. This was also the only TV channel in India until the early 1990s.


4/10


5/10

5

Other Initiatives

Other initiatives emerged from the objective of providing access and enabling learning:

- Bridge courses were started to bring into school kids who had dropped out of school (becauseof migration or other reasons) or who had never attended school. Bridge courses were also

launched in 1998. The bridge programme was inspired by an existing programme run by the

M.V. Foundation in Hyderabad.3

Teachers were paid Rs. 500-800 per month. No fees were

charged to students.4

- Computer classes were started for primary school children using computers donated bycorporations, and space provided by the MCMG at municipal schools. After school hours,

these computers could be used for adult education and the revenue generated used for the

upkeep of the computers.5

- Health camps were launched in 1999 to monitor height and weight, and to administer VitaminA, folic acid and de-worming medicines

Prathams Involvement with the MCGM

Pratham worked closely with the MCGM from its inception; in fact, MCGM members were part of

the board of trustees. Pratham saw itself as complementing rather than supplanting the MCGMs

efforts in primary education. The early support received from UNICEF helped Pratham be seen by

MCGM staff as an organization working for the same cause. Teachers from MCGM schools were

invited to participate in brainstorming workshops in the early days of Pratham.

MCGM schools were the venue for about 10% of the balavadis. All the remedial and bridge courses

were run out of the municipal schools operated by the MCGM. Pratham was involved in efforts to

create a Management Information System for the MCGM, repair and maintain MCGM municipal

school facilities, and provide training programmes for municipal school teachers. The MCGM

Commissioner and the Education Officer (head of the MCGM Education department) were on

Prathams Executive Committee and consulted often by Prathams senior management. At the

operational level also, there was frequent communication between Pratham volunteers and ward-level

education officers.

Pratham tried to get greater involvement from parents in the education process by activating school

committees in MCGM schools. However, the school committees were not active and most principals

seemed reluctant to change this.

Corporate Involvement

Funding was critical because Mumbai is a large sprawling metropolis with a population of more than

11 million people. UNICEFs seed funding was a good start, but sustained financial support was

necessary to continue the campaign. A well-wisher suggested inviting N. Vaghul, the head of ICICI, a

prominent development finance institution on to the Pratham board. Vaghul was reputed as highly

influential in Bombay industry circles and his presence was expected to help Pratham access a

number of industry contacts. Chavan wrote to Mr. Vaghul who had already informally given his

consent to being on the board and was shocked to receive a response from him regretting his inability

due to prior commitments. Puzzled over this, Chavan at first shrugged it off as just another setback,

then decided to meet Mr. Vaghul in person to thank him for considering his request. To Chavans

delight, Mr. Vaghul was surprised when Chavan told him that he had received such a letter, andimmediately consented to be on the board the regret letter had been sent mistakenly by his office.


6/10

6

Soon after, ICICI became the largest supporter ofPratham and inherited the mantle of being the

organisations parent from UNICEF.6

ICICI and other donors paid the salary of core staff members

of Pratham and provided office space as well.

Other senior corporate executives from Mumbai were also invited to be a part of the Pratham

Executive Committee. These corporate executives brought ideas, money and talented individuals tosupport Prathams efforts. Some companies even allowed selected staff to work for Pratham though

they were being paid by the company. At one time in 1999, three prominent Mumbai industrialists

Ratan Tata, Keshub Mahindra, and A.S. Ganguly made a joint appeal to the corporate community

for support to Pratham.7

Companies were encouraged to adopt wards and were provided with photos and other supporting

documentation to indicate the progress of the campaign in the adopted ward. Company executives

were encouraged to visit the wards to see for themselves. Individuals from within the donor

companies were also encouraged to get involved in the campaign in different ways. Sponsors were

also encouraged to create and organize programmes which contributed to achieving Prathams

objectives. Health camps were born out of one such initiative.

Organizational Structure & Systems

Prathams operating organization was hierarchically structured with 10 balavadi instructors under the

supervision of one supervisor. 30 supervisors reported to a unit-in-charge, and these heads of units to

a Programme director. Separate groups were set up for training and monitoring, managing donor

relationships, and for production of teaching materials and games. Separate teams were also set up for

unrelated tasks such as creation of the MIS for the MCGM.8

At the apex level, responsibilities were

more diffused, with the founders and other members of the core team involved in planning,

monitoring, managing key relationships, looking for new ideas and trouble-shooting in addition to

their functional responsibilities.

While the organization believed in flexibility in terms of adapting to local conditions, administrative

and accounting processes were considered sacrosanct. The organization was highly performance

oriented with staff and volunteers expected to use their initiative to overcome constraints. Good

performance was rewarded with additional responsibilities while non-performers tended to leave of

their own accord.

As of May 2000, there were 24 training and monitoring groups. In addition to training, these groups

visited balavadis and measure the performance of instructors based on how the children perform in the

class. The progress of children in terms of learning outcomes was measured and report cards given.

9

At the encouragement of Pratham, balavadi instructors, in groups of 50, had formed mahila mandals

that were registered as separate NGOs.10

Achievements in Mumbai

In the 1999-2000 academic year ending in May 2000, Prathams programmes in Mumbai served more

than 100,000 children:11

2,970 balavadis covered 50,000 children in the age group of 3-5. For the growth of theBalavadi network in Mumbai, see Exhibit 1.

997 remedial classes conducted by balsakhis for about 35,000 students


7/10

7

805 bridge courses covered about 12,000 out of school children. Of these, 4,800 children hadbeen enrolled in municipal schools by July 2000.

12Pratham estimated that there were about

30,000 children in the age group of 6-10 in Mumbai who had never been to school or dropped

out.13

13 computer-assisted learning centres covering about 8,000 children Pratham was served by about 5,000 staff and volunteers (balavadi teachers + balsakhis +other volunteers)

In achieving the above, Pratham was able to control costs to 1% of the government budget on primary

education against a targeted outer limit of 2%.14

The cost of one balavadi was just Rs. 6000 per year

covering the instructors stipend, cost of teaching material, training, and all administrative costs.15

The

health programme cost Pratham less than Rs. 25 per child per year.16

Each balsakhi or bridge course

cost Rs. 10,000 per year and each computer-assisted learning centre cost Pratham Rs. 200 per child

per annum.17

Pratham was able to raise about Rs. 40 million in 1999-2000 to support these programmes.18

Between

1994 and 1999, Pratham sourced its funds from ICICI (31%), donors in the USA (29%), othercompanies and individuals (27%), UNICEF/British Airways Change for Good programme (10%) and

UNICEF (3%). From 1999-2000, Pratham started receiving financial assistance from the government

of India (Rs. 7 million in 1999-2000).19

Prathams Impact and Future Outlook

Prathams achievements were tempered by some sobering numbers. While Pratham itself estimated

that 30-40,000 children in the age group of 6-10 were out of school, other studies suggested that as

many as 240,000 children (30% of population in the 6-14 years age group) were not in school.

Further, enrollment rates rates in Mumbai schools were falling (see Exhibits 5 & 6) and drop-out rates

remained high. Several explanations were advanced for the steadiness of drop-out rates. One was the

lack of academic progress of students, which discouraged them from further attending school.

Another was linked to distance of schools from childrens homes.

Questions were also raised on the scalability of the Pratham model, and whether Prathams model was

the best option available. One competing model was the Doorstep school, also in Mumbai. A large

portion of children falling through the cracks of the education system was those of migrant families.

Many such children dont even enrol in school, and were busy with domestic work. They needed non-

formal classes and reminders to attend classes. Doorsteps teachers or co-ordinators would spend time

everyday going to childrens homes to call them to class. This model was found useful to address such

groups as migrant workers, homeless children and pavement dwellers.

While Pratham was being encouraged to extend its model to other parts of India, questions remained

about Prathams ability to successfully replicate its engagement with the political and municipal

authorities in other cities. The involvement of influential corporate leaders in Mumbai lent Pratham a

degree of visibility and engagement with political leaders, which could be difficult to replicate.

Questions also arose about what role Pratham should play at the national level. Pratham could

continue to run its programmes and expand across India or limit itself to an advisory and hand-

holding role in other geographies. In keeping with its original vision, Pratham also saw opportunities

in improving quality of education across the country, e.g., collecting and publishing information about

education quality, re-designing curricula and textbooks, etc.


8/10

8

EXHIBIT 1: INDIAN LITERACY RATES

Rural Urban Total

1951 12.1 34.6 18.33

1961 22.5 54.4 28.31971 27.9 60.2 34.45

1981 36 67.2 43.57

1991 44.7 73.1 52.2

EXHIBIT 2: MCGM'S EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE (2000)

# Municipal Wards 23

Total population 12mn (Approximately)

Total Children (6 to 14 years) 800,000 (estimated)

# Education Posts 450 (Each covering apopulation of

about 20000)

# Primary Schools 1,234 (In 8 languages)

# School Buildings 500 (approximately)

# Primary School Teachers 15,788

# Children in Primary Schools 6,78,451

MCGM Annual Budget for Education Rs. 4.1bn (1999-2000)

EXHIBIT 3: BALAVADI LOCATIONS IN 2000

Private Homes 1750

Community Centers 612

Municipal Schools 365

Donated Commercial Space 116

Religious Buildings 62

Others 65

EXHIBIT 4: GROWTH IN BALAVADIS1994-95 118

1995-96 238

1996-97 456

1997-98 1664

1998-99 2650

1999-2000 2970


9/10

9

EXHIBIT 5: ENROLLED STUDENTS IN EACH CLASS

1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99

Class I 2,55,107 2,47,135 2,51,520 2,35,230 2,26,941

II 2,32,086 2,29,607 2,34,468 2,28,275 2,15,359

III 2,30,978 2,21,872 2,27,549 2,17,288 2,14,942

IV 2,51,632 2,32,370 2,32,469 2,20,388 2,11,417

V 2,48,647 2,52,667 2,47,776 2,40,119 2,38,536

VI 2,14,006 2,20,924 2,24,178 2,18,803 2,20,083

VII 1,87,038 2,03,885 2,05,863 2,07,471 2,00,524

VIII 1,79,335 1,84,002 1,94,533 1,96,702 2,03,911

EXHIBIT 6: ENROLMENT PERCENTAGES

I-IV V-VII

1994-95 107.1% 81.1%

1995-96 102.2% 83.7%

1996-97 105.2% 101.1%

1997-98 98.7% 98.9%

1998-99 94.0% 97.5%

Note: Enrolment percentage is calculated by students enrolled as a proportion of all children in the

expected age-group. So children enrolling school later than normal or re-entering the system tend topush the enrolment percentage above 100%


10/10

10

Notes

1For details of the Mumbai initiative, I have drawn extensively on Tatke, V. (2000) Pratham Mumbai

Education Initiative Case Study, Civil Society and Governance Project, Pune: GreenEarth Consulting. My

thanks to Dr. Tatke for sending me her comprehensive and well-documented case study.

2Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award

(2001), p. 6. Downloaded on October 6, 2008.







6

Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award(2001), p. 3. Downloaded on October 6, 2008.

7Tatke (2000) p. 25.

8Tatke (2000) pp. 15-16.

9Banerji, R., Chavan, M., Vaish, P., and A. Varadachary (2001) A Point of Light in Bombay McKinsey

Quarterly, p. 163.


Quarterly, p. 162


Quarterly, p. 158 & p. 161.







15Tatke (2000) p. 16









001 pratham case a v3 19dec2010

Documents