Transcript PPT - Michigan State University
Michigan State University “Educational development in India: The role of the Azim Premji Foundation”
Azim Premji Foundation November 22, 2010
The context
2
The three global issues
Inequity Injustice Lack of Care Human Environmental
Our work arises out of our intense to desire to make this world better
3
India performance on key indicators (illustrative)
1. 16% of world’s population contributes to 5% of world’s GDP 2. 134 rank in Human Development Index out of 182 ranked 3. 44% of children under 4 malnourished, 56% women anemic 4. 130 Mln. without basic health – IMR much above the world average 5. 48% do not get electricity 6. Majority have either no or unsafe drinking water, 75% no tap water 7. Over 70% people have an income < US 1.5 per day
Loss due to wasted personpower – US# 3 Trillion
4
India - Education Policy Promise
1. Acculturate 2. Refine sensitivities and perceptions that contribute to national cohesion 3. Develop scientific temper 4. Independence of mind 5. Furthering the goals enshrined in the constitution of India 6. Develop manpower for different levels and purposes of economy 5
India – education reality - illustrative
• 1.3 Mln schools, 220 Mln children, 6
Mln teachers
• 97% villages have a primary school
within one kilometer
• Literacy 65% (M – 76%, F – 54%) – Global literacy – 80% • Girls and socially disadvantaged
backgrounds are 20 percentage points behind on literacy and drop out ratios Over 75% schools have unplanned multigrade teaching Only 10% schools have children learning as per expectations Quality of education: A serious concern!
1 out of 3 children in class 5 cannot read and write 6
The inefficient school education funnel
100 Children Enroll in 1 st Standard 52 Children Reach 8 th Std 39 Children Reach 10 th Std 19 Pass 10th 12 Children pursue higher education 7
Our work of about 8 years
1. Approach of engaging with the Government to contribute to systemic change 2. Team of about 300 professionals: work focussed on
•
Teacher development
• • •
Education Leadership Development Examination reforms Research
•
Education Technology 3. An outreach of 15 states, 25,000 schools, 50,000 teachers, 2.5 Mln children using digital learning resources, 4 Mln children assessed for learning competencies, 6000 education administrators engaged for development 4.
Largest developer of digital learning resources for school education in India – 18 languages including 4 tribal languages 5. State governments willing to assign significant budgets for joint programs with the Foundation – several states have reformed their examination system 8
Critical learning
1. Acute shortage of education professionals - absence of schools of education 2. Quality institutions of in-service education for education professionals 3. Quality research in education 4. Alternative and continued support to dysfunctional Government institutions 5. Demonstration of model schools at scale 6. Independent assessment and accreditation of educational institutions 7. Awareness of stakeholders on critical education issues 8. Concerted action by the players in education (Govt. + Non Govt.) 9
Azim Premji Foundation Response
10
Vision, Purpose, Mission Vision Facilitate a just, equitable, humane and sustainable society
Over-arching purpose Societal Change Enablers Education - both direct impact and a large positive multiplier Mission Have deep, at-scale and institutionalized impact on the quality of education in India 11
A comprehensive “end to end” strategy
1. Talent creation – Azim Premji University – Teaching programs + Continuing Ed 2. Knowledge creation– Research - well resourced, ground driven, well monitored 3. Ground level field Institutions - Continuing education + specific programs 4. Building bottom up pressure for better quality a. Own Schools – demonstration of good quality at reasonable cost b. Creation and Accreditation of Education standards – create a pull c. Network of like minded partners – impact at scale d. Communication and engagement with stake-holders 12
Details of Strategy
1 2 University What we will do …
Contribute significantly to social change in the near and long term, adopting a multidisciplinary approach combining teaching, research and practice ▪
What we will NOT do
Train quality teachers at scale ▪
1B
▪
1C
▪
1D
Have Degree programs primarily focus on change leaders and teacher educators, with a small batch of high quality teachers only as a model ▪ Build high quality research that can impact policy/ classroom practices Run in-service training as a multiplier of social change by building strong capabilities in current education and development sector professionals Conduct research with no line-of-sight to application in India
Field Resource Centers
▪
2B
▪
2C
Adopt an “architect mindset” of improving education in the district – – Integrated improvement, with a holistic view of district needs Strong role in overall program management, with depth in specific services and leveraging partners for others Ensure that the SRC, DRCs and Schools work together with a common state/district strategy, bringing unique and complementary roles Strive for strong, holistic engagement with the government; however, be open to entering the state with specific services with gradual increase in government support for holistic improvement ▪ ▪ ▪ Adopt a service provider mindset, i.e. provide only select services in the district Not coordinate across SRC, DRC and Schools Enter a state “only” if the government agrees to holistic improvement
13
Details of Strategy
3 Schools 4 Assessment & Accreditation What we will do … 3B
▪ The Schools strategy will be in line with the overall district strategy Set up a small number of own and adopted schools as models, and a much larger number of affiliated schools The affiliated schools will have different levels of support, based on need, with the ADC playing a strong role in determining this
What we will NOT do
▪ ▪ Think of schools independent of district strategy (there could be a few exceptional cases) Set up own schools at scale
4B
▪ an objective view of status, but with the mindset of improvement Focus primarily on system and institution assessment, with individual assessment being done more through partners ▪ Focus excessively on individual (student, teacher) assessments
5 Communication & Engagement 5B
▪ Work on three objectives: drive change in broader mindsets and behaviors related to key issues in education; influence specific stakeholders for relevant policy change; create awareness about the Foundation’s work ▪ ▪ Adopt a stance of “fact-based impact-focused advocacy”, on a select set of themes, based on the Foundation’s work Be narrowly focused on policy change alone Be involved in fact less propaganda
14
Integration of teaching, research, practice
Elements of distinction Multi disciplinarity Description
▪ Equal emphasis of degree programs in the fields of education and development, which are inherently multidisciplinary in nature ▪ Therefore, faculty for the university recruited from a wide range of backgrounds (e.g. humanities, basic sciences, social sciences, leadership and management, technical subjects etc)
Integration of teaching, research and practice
▪ Degree programs, research and in-service training as three important parts of the University ▪ Research and degree programs both having significant emphasis on practical
application
▪ All faculty required to choose one of three tracks combining teaching, research and practice, with different levels of emphasis: – – – Teaching track (65% teaching, 20% research, 15% practice) Research track (75% research, 15% teaching, 10% practice) Practice track (65% practice, 20% research, 15% teaching)
15
Five year ramp-up plan (2011 – 2016)
University Degree Programs University Research Centre University Resource Centre Field Resource Centres Schools Communication & Engagement Accreditation Centre
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Intake of 2500 students per year 250 faculty Nationally reputed for research in key thrust areas Some international acknowledgement 500,000 in-service functionaries covered ▪ ▪ ▪ 8 State Resource Centers 50 District Resource Centers 8-10 districts with “holistic improvement” in progress; 75% coverage of these districts ▪ 100+ own/adopted schools + 1500 affiliated schools across 8-10 districts ▪ Channels for communication identified and operational ▪ ▪ ▪ 2-3 state systems ▪ 70-100 significant institutions (in 8-10 districts with depth) 1000-2000 schools Robust framework in place
16