Q. One can see many non-governmental organisations and philanthropic Foundations (including some as part of Corporate Social Responsibility) active in India’s school education. How do you see the role of these organisations?

A: We should start with a clear idea. It is the government which owns the primary responsibility for school education. In my view, this role should include owning schools in most cases and financially supporting poorer parents. The government should regulate education in all schools, irrespective of ownership. It should also be the dominant actor in preparing policies and frameworks in education (such as the National Curriculum Framework). However, this does not mean that there cannot be any role for NGOs and philanthropic Foundations. Given the nature of the government’s work, it is less likely to be innovative. (Its systems are rigid and not receptive to innovations.). It is also less likely to address the challenges of specific sets of children; it may not be sensitive to the emotional and intangible aspects of education. On the other hand, non-government organisations (NGOs) may have an advantage in these respects. Hence, NGOs and Foundations can play a complementary role in the education system. However, this requires a partnership between the government and NGOs. 

One can see Foundations, NGOs or trusts starting one or a set of schools. These are less likely to be useful. This is because many such organisations may not have the financial resources to run a school (or schools) on a sustainable basis, and if they depend on student fees, it can have a negative impact on the social benefits of this type of education. Secondly, even the most endowed foundation in the country is not capable of running more than, say, one thousand schools in the country, a relatively small number which may not make any difference to the access or quality of education in India. (Of course, some of these schools may try out innovative practices, and these can be looked into and scaled up in government schools wherever possible.)

There can also be a difference between NGOs and Foundations. The latter has its own resources, whereas the former may depend on one or more funding agencies. This may make the actions of the former less sustainable. 

Foundations have certain advantages. These may have endowments and hence may not face ups and downs in financial resources. When governments take up a project, the interest may decline when a new official comes to the position or when there is a change in government. Foundations can pursue a longer-term agenda; however, they may not have a connection with the people they wish to serve or the major stakeholders, such as school teachers. 

There can be another role for NGOs — to raise (or enable/​encourage civil society to raise) their voice against the acts and omissions on the part of the government which are harmful to the education system. This is a useful task, but the role of Foundations in this regard may not be that pronounced. One can also see NGOs and Foundations playing an important role in policymaking, which has its merits and demerits (we may take this up in a later discussion).

Q: What can be the different ways of partnering with government schools?

A: It may be possible for an NGO or foundation to work with a school or a set of teachers without a formal partnership with the government. However, these may depend on the personal interests of a set of teachers, head-teachers and other functionaries. If they leave, say, are transferred, then the collaborative activities may not continue. Moreover, the impact of innovative practices, which are initiated by the NGO/​foundation, will be limited to a few schools or teachers. If these practices have to make any impact on the public education system, there is a need to scale up interaction with government schools. Such an interaction may require a formal partnership with the government or the education department. (There could be challenges even with such a formal partnership, and we may consider these later.) 

There are different ways to partner with the government. In one sense, aided schools are an outcome of a public-private partnership, and we have discussed the challenges in another Q&A note. Foundations may be interested in co-financing certain government education programmes, but such instances are rare. However, the basic model is an NGO or foundation interacting with specific schools or teachers. In this case, money comes from a funding agency, which can be a Foundation. The resource persons of NGOs may interact with schools and may facilitate or collaborate with, or even carry out, a variety of activities which may enhance access to or quality of education. In some cases, the activities of the collaborating organisations may be complementary, that is, these may support volunteers in reducing the dropping out of children or providing additional academic support to children in their communities, or may hire extra teachers, etc. In certain cases, these external organisations may help teachers in carrying out certain functions, like the organisation of school management committees (SMCs) or facilitating the community connect of schools. There can also be situations where external organisations provide in-service training (formally or informally) to teachers. There can be other capacity-development programmes for teachers apart from training. 

There are external organisations which may collaborate with the education system at higher levels and not at the level of schools. These days, one can see the government ​‘outsourcing’ district- or state-level training. Or there can be support from external NGOs (including Foundations) for data-collection and analysis, or for improving human resource management in the school system or teacher education programmes.

Q: What could be the major challenges for philanthropic Foundations in this area?

A: Foundations may have certain goals regarding education, which may be shaped by the vision of the founder and consultants, etc. To achieve those goals, one strategy is to fund other organisations, such as NGOs. However, there are many challenges in this regard. NGOs which are trying out useful practices may not get sustainable funding. There can be changes in the priorities of funders. There can be power asymmetry between Foundations and NGOs, and this may mean that the latter may become implementers of the agenda of the former. This can have a negative impact on the intrinsic motivation of the latter. There are challenges for the foundation, too. It is not easy to align the objectives of the principal (in this case, the foundation) and those of agents (that is, organisations which receive the grant). This may require a higher level of monitoring and evaluation of the work of the latter. It can reduce their autonomy and may not be liked. This can strain the relationship between the foundation and the NGO. These tensions may encourage Foundations to have their own operating units (and employees). We have seen such a change in the case of prominent Foundations in India and elsewhere. Such a step may reduce the misalignment between the goals and actions of Foundations. (This need not necessarily increase the effectiveness of their actions since there can be factors which are beyond the control of Foundations, which may impact their effectiveness). 

The other major challenge is working with the government. Even if there is a formal memorandum of understanding with top officials of the government, that may not ensure cooperation on the ground level, say in schools and with school teachers. There can be changes in persons holding specific positions in government, or a change in agenda, which will then reflect in the relationship with partners. The major challenge is to see that the innovative practices, which are tried by the NGO or the foundation, get accepted in the public education system. Governments in India do not have a formal mechanism to evaluate a practice and scale it up or integrate it with the public education system if it is found to be useful. Most often, such good practices are neglected and hence not scaled up, or the scaling up depends on the interest of specific officials. We have not seen many government officials willing to learn from the successes and failures of others (including their predecessors) and use these lessons in the planning and implementation of new programmes. There is a view that the incentives for government officials to learn and use these lessons are limited (and instead there may be an incentive to come out with newer programmes which have their own footprint). This may lead to the discontinuation of useful strategies, which may work against desirable and sustainable changes in the public education system.

Q: What are the challenges in the relationship between NGOs and governments?

A: There is a tendency among governments to outsource some activities that they are expected to do to NGOs. This could be based on an understanding of the advantages of the latter in certain areas. For example, connecting with disadvantaged families and encouraging their children to attend school may be entrusted to NGOs which have better contacts with such communities. But in most cases, the outsourcing to NGOs may be seen as a cheaper option. For example, providing additional academic attention to children who lag may become costlier if this is carried out by teachers who are appointed by the government. This job may be handed over to NGOs, who may hire temporary employees or volunteers who may be willing to accept lower compensation. 

We have noted that funding to NGOs by Foundations can be unreliable. There can be similar problems when the funding is provided by the government, also. The power relationship between government officials and NGOs can be unequal. The latter may not have much autonomy and may confront even inconsistent demands on the part of different government officials. There may be political contexts which can be against the effective functioning of these organisations. We have noted such a situation in those parts of India where Maoists are active. District officials may use NGOs for specific activities in education, but they have to strike a delicate balance between the government and the Maoists. Each may think that the NGO is a collaborator of the other and can have an adversarial position, which can have a negative impact on the functioning of these organisations. 

The relationship between government school teachers and NGO functionaries can also be difficult. There may be a few teachers who collaborate with the external organisation to make an improvement in educational outcomes. There can be another section of teachers who may not like the intrusion of outsiders. There can be organised opposition by teachers’ unions to the interventions by outsiders. Hence, NGOs have to overcome these challenges to be effective in their interactions in the public education system.

Q: We have discussed that government officials may not have an incentive to learn correct lessons and scale up the changes initiated by NGOs and Foundations?  What are the other challenges in scaling up?

A:  It is incorrect to presume that NGOs and Foundations have the appropriate incentives to learn correct lessons. There is an incentive for these organisations to exaggerate the success or their contribution to programmes. This is part of what is called attribution error. There can be a positive change in terms of the goal, but there could be an error in attributing the whole change to the actions of the external interventionist. Ideally, there is a need to compare the situation with and without the intervention. (There could be some positive change even without the intervention due to the impact of other socioeconomic factors.) This may require rigorous data collection on several socioeconomic variables and their analysis, or control experiments. However, social interventions of NGOs and Foundations may not always be conducive to such experiments. All these may work against the learning of appropriate lessons from the actions of NGOs and Foundations.

Q: NGOs and philanthropic Foundations collaborate with governments in shaping the education policies of the government? How do you see this?

A: There are examples of such collaborations. The passing of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) was an important example. Several NGOs were working to ban child labour and bring these children back to school. The National Literacy Mission was a major initiative wherein NGOs and the government worked together. These experiences played a role in creating a demand on the part of sections of NGO activists to make school education a right of children. In that sense, RTI is an important legislation. It compels education functionaries to act whenever a child is denied school education. However, there are other aspects of RTI, which, in my view, are not useful. The reservation of a share of seats in private schools for children from economically disadvantaged families without charging fees, was problematic in different ways: It takes away the responsibility of school education from governments; governments may not be able to assess and compensate private schools for the education that the latter provide to children from poorer families; even when these children are admitted, they may be given different or inferior facilities in private schools; they may face difficulties in interacting equally with other children who come from financially better off families, etc. 

There was a collaboration between the government and Foundations (and NGOs) in the shaping of the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) and also the consequent National Curricular Framework (NCF). We have discussed the features of the NEP-2020 in another Q&A note. However, there can be objections to the participation of Foundations in the shaping of government policies. It is also possible that a specific government may not include all NGOs in committees which prepare policy documents, and there could be a preference for some. These problems cannot be avoided. However, my view is that NGOs and Foundations which are active in the education domain need to be a lot more active in communicating with the public at large. There should be a higher level of participation and a shaping of public discourse. These discussions should lead to policy changes. That will be a meaningful and sustainable way of making desirable changes in the domain of education. 

Q: Based on your experience, what could be some useful ways by which NGOs and Foundations can attempt to improve school education in India?

A: Let me list down a few desirable activities:

1. Ensure that Early Childhood Education (ECE) centres work and cater to all children of the relevant age group.
2. Work independently and jointly with school teachers to enrol all children (especially those with disabilities) in schools.
3. Help prevent children from dropping out of school. This may require working with families, communities and schools.
4. Ensure that different social security schemes (such as PDS, pensions, NREGA, etc.) are effective so that parents can send their children to school.
5. Ensure that other public programmes (like micro-finance) do not work against the education of children.
6. Help the government to tighten the enforcement of laws against child marriage and labour.
7. Organise additional academic attention for those children who may not get such support in their families. This can be carried out at the residential localities with the collaboration of communities and schools.
8. Facilitate voluntary forums of teachers so that they are empowered to overcome the challenges of school education.
9. Use technology and other innovative solutions to support government school teachers.
10. Create public awareness on different challenges of school education; empower civil society and the public at large to demand good quality education from the government.
11. Help with the preparation of learning materials for language minorities, like tribal communities.
12. Support the preparation of good-quality learning materials (possibly in Indian languages) for teacher education.
13. Develop innovative practices and conduct pilot experiments in the domain of education. 
14. Develop models of multi-cultural and intercultural education in India. 

Santhakumar V is a former Professor, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru

Featured photo credit: Purusottam Singh Thakur, Azim Premji Foundation

Primary reading material

V Santhakumar & Rema Devi. The Efforts of NGOs to Improve Public Education: Lessons from Anandshala, Samastipur, Bihar. University Practice Connect https://​azim​premji​u​ni​ver​si​ty​.edu​.in/​l​e​s​s​o​n​s​-​f​r​o​m​-​p​r​a​c​t​i​c​e​-​s​e​r​i​e​s​/​t​h​e​-​e​f​f​o​r​t​s​-​o​f​-​n​g​o​s​-​t​o​-​i​m​p​r​o​v​e​-​p​u​b​l​i​c​-​e​d​u​c​a​t​i​o​n​-​l​e​s​s​o​n​s​-​f​r​o​m​-​a​n​a​n​d​s​h​a​l​a​-​s​a​m​a​s​t​i​p​u​r​-​bihar

V Santhakumar. Philanthropic Foundations and NGOs: Challenges in the Relationship. University Practice Connect.  
https://​prac​tice​con​nect​.azim​premji​u​ni​ver​si​ty​.edu​.in/​p​h​i​l​a​n​t​h​r​o​p​i​c​-​f​o​u​n​d​a​t​i​o​n​s​-​a​n​d​-​n​g​o​s​-​c​h​a​l​l​e​n​g​e​s​-​i​n​-​t​h​e​-​r​e​l​a​t​i​o​n​ship/

V Santhakumar. Philanthropic Foundations and the Government: Challenges in the Relationship. University PracticeConnect.
https://​azim​premji​u​ni​ver​si​ty​.edu​.in/​n​o​t​e​s​-​o​n​-​s​t​r​a​t​e​g​y​-​s​e​r​i​e​s​/​p​h​i​l​a​n​t​h​r​o​p​i​c​-​f​o​u​n​d​a​t​i​o​n​s​-​a​n​d​-​n​g​o​s​-​c​h​a​l​l​e​n​g​e​s​-​i​n​-​t​h​e​-​r​e​l​a​t​i​o​nship

S C Behar interviewed by V Santhakumar. Partnership Between Government and NGOs to Improve Public Education. University Practice Connect.
https://​azim​premji​u​ni​ver​si​ty​.edu​.in/​p​e​r​s​o​n​a​l​-​r​e​f​l​e​c​t​i​o​n​s​-​o​n​-​p​r​a​c​t​i​c​e​/​p​a​r​t​n​e​r​s​h​i​p​-​b​e​t​w​e​e​n​-​g​o​v​e​r​n​m​e​n​t​-​a​n​d​-​n​g​o​s​-​t​o​-​i​m​p​r​o​v​e​-​p​u​b​l​i​c​-​e​d​u​c​ation

V Santhakumar & Subrat Kumar Mishra. Supporting Children Who Struggle with Learning, Utthan Project, Adani Foundation, Mundra, Gujarat. University Practice Connect. https://​azim​premji​u​ni​ver​si​ty​.edu​.in/​l​e​s​s​o​n​s​-​f​r​o​m​-​p​r​a​c​t​i​c​e​-​s​e​r​i​e​s​/​s​u​p​p​o​r​t​i​n​g​-​c​h​i​l​d​r​e​n​-​w​h​o​-​s​t​r​u​g​g​l​e​-​w​i​t​h​-​l​e​a​rning

V Santhakumar & Subrat Kumar Mishra. Digital Learning Materials Empower Teachers and Improve Educational Achievements, Gyanodaya Project, Adani Foundation, Godda, Jharkhand. https://​azim​premji​u​ni​ver​si​ty​.edu​.in/​l​e​s​s​o​n​s​-​f​r​o​m​-​p​r​a​c​t​i​c​e​-​s​e​r​i​e​s​/​d​i​g​i​t​a​l​-​l​e​a​r​n​i​n​g​-​m​a​t​e​r​i​a​l​s​-​e​m​p​o​w​e​r​-​t​e​a​c​h​e​r​s​-​a​n​d​-​i​m​p​r​o​v​e​-​e​d​u​c​a​t​i​o​n​a​l​-​a​c​h​i​e​v​e​ments