[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Prof. Asher's points.

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 ecsasher@nus.edu.sg wrote:

> While there are many abuses in the system, thinking that NGO based system is
> a solution may overlook the fact that unless social-poltical coalitions
> and/or their self interest(brought about by demands for greater
> accountabilty and transparency, particularly from the middle classes)
> changing the form may not bring about as much of a change as one may think.

Well: the system we have proposed so far is very sketchy. The incentives
have to be further refined to ensure that the participants perform
optimally. But I would dare suggest that its form is actually going to
make a difference. By officially handing over ALL responsibility for
appointing and retaining their teachers to the people, we are making a
statement whose purport cannot go unnoticed.
> Also, decentralised solutions are likely to be more efficient in the Indian
> case. So setting one type of arrangement as THE model may not be entirely
> appropriate.Question of what the education is for also needs to be
> addressed. In general, changes will be increamental, and not radical in the
> Indian case.

Decentralization can mean a variety in language, syllabus, etc. But
perhaps not in form. I as a taxpayer want to see my funds used properly.
The best possible system to do that must be selected. Either it could be a
corporation, or a cooperative, or a society. Perhaps the last is the most

About radical change vs. incremental one. Big bang therapy has generally
proved more valuable (Polish case). But without building institutions we
might fail in a nation the size of India. So, the manifesto is only a very
very preliminary first step. Acceptance of these ideas will take years,
implementing will take more. So it will turn out to be incremental,


This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/