BUCK STOPS HERE
Education is still the preserve of those who can pay for it
Subodh Varma | TIMES INSIGHT GROUP
If the economic structure of our society seems like a pyramid with a large base of low-income people, educational levels are a mirror image — the lower the income, the less educated people are. Conversely, high incomes invariably mean a much higher level of education. Even after 60 years of Independence, the equation between poverty and lack of education is chillingly stark.
Consider the poorest third of the rural adult population, made up of over 105 million people, earning about Rs 11 per day — 61% of them have had no education and a minuscule 0.7% were graduates or technical qualifiers. Compare this to the richest one-third — 33% were illiterate and 7% were graduates or technically qualified.
The remaining one third of the population, called ‘middle’ for convenience and not to be confused with what is generally called the ‘middle class’, has monthly expenditure between Rs 365-580 in rural areas and Rs 580-1100 in urban areas. Its educational level is somewhere midway between the two extremes.
A similar divide exists in urban areas. Here, the poorest one third, numbering some 45 million, are those with monthly spending of less than Rs 20 per day. Among them, 38% were illiterate, and just 3% were graduates or other diploma holders. On the other hand, among the richest onethird, with monthly spending of more than Rs 1,100, just 6% were illiterate, and 35% were graduates. These are results from a National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) survey in 2004-05.
In case you are thinking that this is a legacy of an ill-managed past, think again. Tracking current attendance in educational institutions, the survey found that nearly 29% children between 5 and 14 years of age of the poorest families were out of school in rural areas. In the next age group of 15 to 19, 75% were not attending. For the richest families, the situation was different — only about 8% in the first age group and 45% in the next age group were not attending school. In urban areas, 20% of the 5-14 age group from poorest families were out of school, increasing to over 64% for the next age group. In the richest section, these shares of children not studying were only 2% and 16%.
What is the reason for this mass abandonment of education by the poor? It cannot be that education is seen as irrelevant to future income. A graduate can earn anything from three to ten times more than an illiterate person, as another NSSO survey found. This is also true of agricultural work. So it is not as if the poor want to remain uneducated, for they well know that education may provide a way out of their present misery.
The main reason is that they are poor. A family of five, earning Rs 1,175 per month, can ill afford to send its kids to school for 12 years, not to mention college. As soon as the children grow up, they start contributing to family income. The survey found that over 35% persons said that they were not attending an educational institution to supplement the family income, while another 16% said they were helping in domestic work, which includes economic activities like looking after cattle.
Rising costs are also a barrier to spread of education at all levels. Between 1999-2000 and 2004-2005, family spending on tuition and other fees went up by an astounding 188% in rural areas and 153% in urban areas. The general price rise in this period was about 30%, showing that education demanded a very high premium.
Quality of education also varies among institutions, with higher quality schools and colleges usually demanding much higher costs. So the less privileged sections have to make do with poorer quality.
Consider the poorest third of the rural adult population, made up of over 105 million people, earning about Rs 11 per day — 61% of them have had no education and a minuscule 0.7% were graduates or technical qualifiers. Compare this to the richest one-third — 33% were illiterate and 7% were graduates or technically qualified.
The remaining one third of the population, called ‘middle’ for convenience and not to be confused with what is generally called the ‘middle class’, has monthly expenditure between Rs 365-580 in rural areas and Rs 580-1100 in urban areas. Its educational level is somewhere midway between the two extremes.
A similar divide exists in urban areas. Here, the poorest one third, numbering some 45 million, are those with monthly spending of less than Rs 20 per day. Among them, 38% were illiterate, and just 3% were graduates or other diploma holders. On the other hand, among the richest onethird, with monthly spending of more than Rs 1,100, just 6% were illiterate, and 35% were graduates. These are results from a National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) survey in 2004-05.
In case you are thinking that this is a legacy of an ill-managed past, think again. Tracking current attendance in educational institutions, the survey found that nearly 29% children between 5 and 14 years of age of the poorest families were out of school in rural areas. In the next age group of 15 to 19, 75% were not attending. For the richest families, the situation was different — only about 8% in the first age group and 45% in the next age group were not attending school. In urban areas, 20% of the 5-14 age group from poorest families were out of school, increasing to over 64% for the next age group. In the richest section, these shares of children not studying were only 2% and 16%.
What is the reason for this mass abandonment of education by the poor? It cannot be that education is seen as irrelevant to future income. A graduate can earn anything from three to ten times more than an illiterate person, as another NSSO survey found. This is also true of agricultural work. So it is not as if the poor want to remain uneducated, for they well know that education may provide a way out of their present misery.
The main reason is that they are poor. A family of five, earning Rs 1,175 per month, can ill afford to send its kids to school for 12 years, not to mention college. As soon as the children grow up, they start contributing to family income. The survey found that over 35% persons said that they were not attending an educational institution to supplement the family income, while another 16% said they were helping in domestic work, which includes economic activities like looking after cattle.
Rising costs are also a barrier to spread of education at all levels. Between 1999-2000 and 2004-2005, family spending on tuition and other fees went up by an astounding 188% in rural areas and 153% in urban areas. The general price rise in this period was about 30%, showing that education demanded a very high premium.
Quality of education also varies among institutions, with higher quality schools and colleges usually demanding much higher costs. So the less privileged sections have to make do with poorer quality.
OBSTACLE COURSE: Students in a Bengal village have to carry the blackboard home as their school is just a tent
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment