“Educational development in India:

The role of the Azim Premji Foundation”

Azim Premji Foundation

November 22, 2010

Michigan State University

2

The context

The three global issues

Inequity

Injustice

HumanLack of Care

Environmental

3Our work arises out of our intense to desire to make this world better

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

India performance on key indicators (illustrative)

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 out of 3 children in class 5 cannot read

and write

• 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

Only 10% schools have children

learning as per expectations

Quality of education: A serious concern!

6

Over 75% schools have unplanned

multigrade teaching

100 ChildrenEnroll in 1st Standard

52 ChildrenReach 8th Std

39 ChildrenReach 10th Std

19 Pass10th

12 Children pursue higher education

12%

Effi

cie

ncy o

f Ed

ucati

on

Fu

nn

el

The inefficient school education funnel

7

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

Our work of about 8 years

8

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.)

Critical learning

9

10

Azim Premji Foundation Response

Vision, Purpose, Mission

Vision

Facilitate a just, equitable, humane and sustainable society

Over-arching purpose

Societal Change

Mission

Have deep, at-scale and

institutionalized impact on the

quality of education in India

Enablers

Education - both direct impact and a large positive

multiplier

11

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

A comprehensive “end to end” strategy

12

13

Details of Strategy

What we will do … What we will NOT do

▪ Contribute significantly to social change in the near and long term, adopting a multidisciplinary approach combining teaching, research and practice

▪ 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

▪ Train quality teachers at scale

▪ Conduct research with no line-of-sight to application in India

University

1

▪ 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

Field Resource Centers

2

1A

1B

1C

1D

2A

2B

2C

14

▪ Focus excessively on individual (student, teacher) assessments

▪ Help establish standards of excellence in education, and provide 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

Assessment & Accreditation

4

▪ 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

▪ Think of schools independent of district strategy (there could be a few exceptional cases)

▪ Set up own schools at scale

Schools

3

▪ 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

Communication

& Engagement

5

3A

3B

3C

5A

5B

4A

4B

What we will do … What we will NOT do

Details of Strategy

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)

Multi-disciplinarity

Multi-disciplinarity

Elements of distinction

Integration of teaching, research and practice

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)

Integration of teaching, research, practice

15

16

Five year ramp-up plan (2011 – 2016)

University Degree Programs

▪ Intake of 2500 students per year▪ 250 faculty

University Research Centre

▪ Nationally reputed for research in key thrust areas▪ Some international acknowledgement

University Resource Centre

▪ 500,000 in-service functionaries covered

Field Resource Centres

▪ 8 State Resource Centers▪ 50 District Resource Centers▪ 8-10 districts with “holistic improvement” in progress; 75% coverage of these districts

Schools▪ 100+ own/adopted schools + 1500

affiliated schools across 8-10 districts

Communication & Engagement

▪ Channels for communication identified and operational

Accreditation Centre▪ 2-3 state systems▪ 70-100 significant institutions (in 8-10 districts with depth)▪ 1000-2000 schools▪ Robust framework in place

A Dream of a Just, Equitable, Humane and Sustainable Society

Thank You