From Financial Express, July 26, 2012

Demographic dividend or disaster?

India’s demographic trends could lead to a dividend of higher growth, as the working age population bulges. Two things have to happen for this dividend to be realised. If they don’t, the possible alternative is demographic disaster, and social unrest. First, India has to create more jobs across the board. In a previous column (Entrepreneurship and jobs, FE, November 28, 2011, http://goo.gl/ PYEdk), I discussed this side of the equation. Second, India has to give its people skills to work at jobs productively. In this column, I want to look at the basics of India’s education policy.

There are serious problems with Indian higher education. These include a shortage of high quality faculty, poor incentive structures, lack of good regulation (which would promote competition and transparency, rather than defending a dismal status quo), and artificial constraints on supply of educational services. I have often argued that allowing much more foreign entry in higher education would be a good solution to these problems.

As bad as Indian higher education is, the worst problems are in primary education. After all, without a good foundation, subsequent education cannot happen easily and effectively. This is true even for vocational training, not just elite education for the advantaged and talented. At the primary level, there are also serious problems with health and nutrition that impact the effectiveness of education and the capacity for learning, but let us set those aside and focus on the education sector, government-provided primary education in particular.

A large amount of empirical research has been done on this subject in the last decade. We now know much more than we did a few years ago. Karthik Muralidharan, a major contributor to this research programme, has recently summarised what we know, and drawn out the policy implications. There is a large gap between what we know and what policymakers are saying and doing. If policymaking and implementation do not respond quickly to the latest lessons, India’s youth will be poorly prepared for productive participation in the economy.

What does Muralidharan’s survey (presented at the recent India Policy Forum) teach us? The following is my own interpretation. First, many kinds of school inputs do not translate into improved learning outcomes. This includes toilets, electricity, computers, mid-day meals, student grants, more teachers and better-trained teachers. This does not imply that these measures are bad, just that they are not enough. On the other hand, certain kinds of incentives linking teachers’ rewards to performance do work. These incentives may be monetary or non-monetary, small or large, positive or negative. The best mix can be context-dependent and subtle. One important example of incentives is that contract teachers do better than those who are tenured government bureaucrats, even when paid much less. But even regular teachers do better when their rewards are linked to performance, which can include showing up to teach as well as having their students do better on tests.
The implication of all the studies is that education policymakers are focusing on the wrong things. Muralidharan notes that the ministry of human resource development’s central policy document, while discussing access, equity, quality and departmental processes, has “no mention of learning outcomes.” Quality is just about improved inputs, not outcomes. Certainly, just changing this mindset would be a start towards reform of educational policy. Muralidharan acknowledges the political and institutional difficulties, even as he discusses possible reforms of curricula, organisations and governance.

My own take on the current situation is that change from within will come too slowly for India. A disruptive, radical solution is needed. A clue to where to look comes from the reported research which shows that remedial instruction actually does improve learning. My guess is that the key feature is that this instruction is targeted, individualised, and has a quick and clear feedback loop. Apparently, computer remedial programmes do better than teachers, but cost more. This differs from research that computers alone are useless. I think the problem is with the way digital technology is used. Computers are not needed to teach basic reading and mathematics skills. Very cheap specialised devices for playing educational games, with preloaded software that allows students to move up levels by answering problems or recognising words, and to compete with each other, can combine low cost with strong learning incentives.

This is a far cry from elaborate textbooks and curricula, and will outrage most professional educators as debasing education. But it will work, and will not need to wait for massive institutional reform. Children have to get hooked on learning. They have to get quick rewards for achieving small learning outcomes, with continual progress. They have to be able to measure themselves against their peers. This can all be done with simple software and cheap dedicated devices. Once a start is made, more sophisticated tools can be developed for older children and higher learning, even ones for teachers. Educational computer games can be the first step towards reaping the demographic dividend.