Editorial 1 : Beyond apps & coaching class
Introduction: Pradip Saha’s recently released book The Learning Trap is instructive. It is about the limitations of technology to set the broken system right. It has the evidences of broken Indian education system.
The case-study of Byju’s
- The book ‘Learning Trap’ is about the rise and fall of edutech start-ups like Byju’s that claimed to focus on helping students understand concepts and principles rather than passing competitive examinations — the goal of tuition centers like Kota.
- A good idea, however, got lost in the greed to scale up through a brutal process of exploiting the anxiety of gullible parents.
- Technology enabled Raveendran Byju to teach math to 25,000 students in a stadium.
- But without Raveendran Byju as backup, the Byju’s tablets failed to deliver.
Limitations of edutech and technology in education
- The seminal truth is that technology and apps have their limitations.
- Without good teachers, they cannot guarantee outcomes.
- Technological fundamentalism driven more by the markets than student needs has resulted in curriculum revisions without the advice of experts.
- Such revisions do not recognise that much goes into the process of learning — fostering a hunger for knowledge and imbibing values of hard work and diligence for internalising lessons.
- This is an intense process which requires guidance.
- And all this is most vital at younger ages when habits set in and students do not have the capacity to self learn.
- That’s why China banned the use of edutech for Classes I-VI. And, that’s why it hasn’t deviated from approved school curricula to adopt remote teaching.
- India has not. Instead, loans and subsidies are being given for “technological innovations.”
The rapidly rising business of coaching classes
- Besides our inability to minimise the adverse impacts of technology on a child’s education, the rapidly increasing reach of the tuition industry is worrying.
- It is reportedly valued at over Rs 58 billion and is expected to double by 2028.
- Tuition centres have emerged as a result of a government policy that has consistently devalued high school examinations by making national exams the only gateway to professional careers.
- The industry consists of two categories —
- One focusing on cracking the UPSC and entrance exams for IIT, NEET and IIM,
- The second providing instruction to school children, something that schools ought to have provided in the first place.
- Parents have been paying crores to this parallel education system.
- While fees in the first category are as high as Rs 1,000 per subject per hour, the fees for school children at tuition centres could range from Rs 10-40,000 per month depending on the quality of the teacher and the paying capacity of parents.
- What should concern the government authorities is the increasing tendency among parents to prefer tuition centres to regular schools.
- Even as reputed schools are facing prospects of ghost classes in Grades XI and XII, the unregulated, unsupervised tuition centres function from morning to evening.
- Pressure and humiliation are resulting in stress-induced suicides and mental health problems, evident to anyone visiting a pediatric clinic.
The condition of schools in India
- India’s public sector accounts for about 15 lakh schools, an estimated 95 lakh teachers and about 26.5 crore enrolled children.
- There is no data on the number of private schools. Quality varies with the type of school, catering to different income segments.
- Barring the few kendriya vidyalayas and some other government-managed schools, government schools — once preferred by the elites — are attended by the poor because education is free.
- In private schools catering to the rich, school fees can range from Rs 50,000 to one lakh a month.
- The third category is the missionary schools, aided schools that get some government grants, and private schools catering to the lower and upper middle classes where fees vary between Rs 2,000-40,000 per month.
- Notwithstanding the fees, the quality of teaching is, by and large, poor in all categories.
- There is very little monitoring with the government preoccupied with running its own schools.
- Poorly trained and often poorly paid teachers are responsible for the poor quality of teaching resulting in the mushrooming of tuition centers and the use of apps.
- The divide between the “well-educated” (by and large from the already educated rich aspirational families) and the “less educated” (either first-generation learners or from modest backgrounds) is widening.
- Nothing can be more shameful for governments than the fact that a Class V student can read only a Class II text and is unable to construct a grammatically correct sentence in any language or that 79 per cent of the students of that class cannot do a simple division ( ASER Report 2023).
Solution to the School education crisis in India
- Social participation can be widened to include the energy and skill base of our senior citizens, engage civil society and seek out volunteerism, instead of profiteers.
- Ways can be found to make cash doles to women conditional to the school performance of children.
- Teachers (many of them with salaries three times that paid in private schools) could be made accountable for results.
- This could involve reducing governmentalism even as the state focuses on adherence to standards and outcomes.
- At the root of this change is the understanding that no growth or development is possible without educated people and a skilled workforce.
- For this, most importantly, governments have to double the budget and spend.
- Education urgently needs to be a priority in terms of political attention and fiscal resources.
- India spends too little — a mere 2.61 per cent of GDP as of 20-21. The spending has stagnated at an average of 3 per cent of GDP over the past two decades.
- As per the Education 2030 Framework for Action, countries are expected to spend at least 6 per cent of their GDPs on education.
Conclusion: Fixing school education requires making it the business of society. Government, too, must up its creativity quotient and double its spending.
Editorial 2 : Spectrum framework
Introduction: On Wednesday, the Lok Sabha passed the Telecommunication Bill, 2023. Once passed by the Upper House, it will replace the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933, and the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act 1950, some of which date to the colonial era.
Provisions in Telecommunication Bill, 2023
- The new Bill proposes significant and far-reaching changes in the regulatory architecture governing the telecom sector in India.
- It allows for the administrative allocation of spectrum for satellite broadband services.
- It has also sought to simplify the licencing regime, and streamline the processes.
- It has kept communication and OTT services outside the ambit of telecom regulations.
- The Bill also allows the Central government to take over control and management of telecommunication services in the interest of national security or in the event of a war, and for governments, both central and state, to take temporary possession of telecom services or networks in case of a public emergency.
Telecommunication Bill, 2023 and spectrum assignment
- Spectrum assignment is a contentious issue that has generated much debate in the past.
- Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2012, spectrum has been auctioned.
- In the case of spectrum for satellite broadband, the Bill paves the way for administrative allocation on the grounds that it would create the space for more players, particularly the start-up ecosystem in the space sector, and have a moderating influence on prices.
- The Bill has also brought clarity on the issue by clearly listing the areas where spectrum will be assigned by auction and where it will be allocated on an administrative basis; any addition to the list beyond the 19 areas specified in the Bill’s schedule where spectrum can be administratively allocated needs to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
- The Bill has also sought to provide clarity on the telecom services.
- While the 2022 draft had included services like WhatsApp and Telegram as telecommunication services, this Bill has stepped back.
- It also seeks to do away with the ambiguity regarding the regulation of OTT services — content OTTs are under I&B Ministry and apps like Whatsapp and Telegram with the MeitY.
- The distinction between the network layer and the application layer (in which OTTs lie) has been maintained.
- The Bill has also sought to merge many of the licences, registrations and permissions into a single authorisation process. This will ease the regulatory burden.
Telecommunication Bill, 2023 and power of TRAI
- Another area of departure from the earlier draft is on the issue of the regulator’s powers.
- There were concerns that the draft bill was whittling down the TRAI’s powers in areas such as tariffs and dispute resolution, and that amending Section 11 of the Trai Act, would be to the detriment of the sector.
- However, the Bill has kept the powers of Trai unchanged.
- It has also done away with certain tricky provisions related to the insolvency of telcos, and has also brought in a tiered structure for settling disputes.
Concerns with the Bill
- To curb fraud, entities are mandated to carry out biometric authentication of their users. This raises concerns related to the privacy of users.
- The new definition of ‘telecommunication services’ has been kept generic and is prone to wide interpretations. The specific reference to OTT communication services has been removed from the definition of ‘telecommunication services.’
- The Telecommunication Bill 2023 gives the government the authority to “take temporary possession” of the network. According to experts, the government needs to define “possession” and specify how long a “temporary” term would last.
- The Telecommunication Bill 2023 empowers the central and state governments to suspend communication during any ‘public emergency’ or ‘in the interest of public safety’. This power could be misused to curb dissenting voices.
Conclusion: New telecom Bill does away with earlier ambiguities, draws up new regulatory structures and clarifies several issues.