Download - 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.
-
8/7/2019 001 Pratham Case A v3 19Dec2010
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.
-
8/7/2019 001 Pratham Case A v3 19Dec2010
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.
-
8/7/2019 001 Pratham Case A v3 19Dec2010
4/10
-
8/7/2019 001 Pratham Case A v3 19Dec2010
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.
-
8/7/2019 001 Pratham Case A v3 19Dec2010
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
-
8/7/2019 001 Pratham Case A v3 19Dec2010
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.
-
8/7/2019 001 Pratham Case A v3 19Dec2010
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
-
8/7/2019 001 Pratham Case A v3 19Dec2010
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%
-
8/7/2019 001 Pratham Case A v3 19Dec2010
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.
3Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award
(2001), p. 6. Downloaded on October 6, 2008.
4Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award
(2001), p. 7. Downloaded on October 6, 2008.
5Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award
(2001), p. 8. 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.
10Banerji, R., Chavan, M., Vaish, P., and A. Varadachary (2001) A Point of Light in Bombay McKinsey
Quarterly, p. 162
11Banerji, R., Chavan, M., Vaish, P., and A. Varadachary (2001) A Point of Light in Bombay McKinsey
Quarterly, p. 158 & p. 161.
12Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award
(2001), p. 6. Downloaded on October 6, 2008.
13Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award
(2001), p. 6. Downloaded on October 6, 2008.
14Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award
(2001), p. 11. Downloaded on October 6, 2008.
15Tatke (2000) p. 16
16Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award
(2001), p. 6. Downloaded on October 6, 2008.
17Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award
(2001), p. 10. Downloaded on October 6, 2008.
18Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award
(2001), p. 3. Downloaded on October 6, 2008.
19Pratham Application to Global Development Network for Most Innovative Development Project Award
(2001), p. 10. Downloaded on October 6, 2008.