Research Paper
Educational Technology
E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 6 | Issue : 7 | July 2020
REVIEWING THE 'REVISED ICT@SCHOOL' POLICY IN INDIA: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ON EDUCATIONAL ECOSYSTEMS Panchalee Tamulee Tata Trusts, India. ABSTRACT Drawing the importance of technology in 21st Century, India re-launched the ICT@School Scheme in 2010 to formalise computer education among government schools. However, this giant step in introducing and institutionalising digital education in India should not be seen in isolation from the larger political scenario. The article elaborates on how international and country politics influenced the formulation of this scheme. Further, the article explains how the scheme opened doors for new public management into Indian education system and thereby explaining unintentionally interruption in the existing eco-system at both micro (school) and meta (educational governance system) levels. It concludes with the call for an appropriate and context specified partnership for governance and implementation of holistic education including digital technology. KEYWORDS: Education technology, new public management, governance, India, government schools. ‘When we talk about 21st Century pedagogy, we have to consider many things – the objective, how assessment strategies work, the kind of technology infrastructure involved, and how leadership and policy facilitate attaining educational goals’ – Chris Dede (Morrison, 2004). What happens when the technology precedes policy, leadership and educational goals? Does the agenda of technology proliferation shape the 21st Century pedagogy? How does the overall political will of the Government accelerate the actualising of this technology driven policy? In doing so, how does the existing ecosystems of functioning get challenged in the name of digital innovation? The response to these queries is the article penned to critically investigate the decade long trajectory of the revised ICT@School Scheme in India introduced to enhance technical infrastructure, create e-learning resources and provide human resource to Government and Government-aided secondary and higher secondary schools throughout the country. Technology has penetrated every sphere of life, changing how we learn, work and be existent. The social being, human has evolved into a digital individual. The 21st century has seen a new kind of industrial revolution which has far reaching changes due to initiation of information and communication technologies (ICT). There is shift from industrial society to informative society (Manuel Castells, 2005). When it is inevitable to survive without technology, how could it not absorb the education system which is the transformative means of any society to create generations of advanced – social, emotional and productive beings. Drawing the importance of technology in 21st Century, the Government of India launched the revised ICT@School Scheme in 2010. The Scheme has four components: 1. Partnership with the Governments at the State and the Union Territories for providing computer aided education, 2. Establishment of Smart Schools demonstrating technology-led pedagogy, 3. Teacher related intervention and 4. Development of e-content (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2010). It was only of the early schemes of Indian Government to formalise computer education among government schools. The strategy paper for this scheme was a 36 pages long document explaining each component followed by the formulation of a National Policy on ICT in School Education in 2012 and the formulation of the ‘National ICT Curriculum’ in 2013 (Tata Trusts, 2018). These giant steps in introducing and institutionalising digital education in India should not be seen in isolation from the larger political scenario. The article elaborates on how international and country politics influenced the formulation of this scheme. The Scheme was embraced in every state and union territory considering the potentialities of technology to achieve educational outcomes in addition to the need of the students to learn computers for better job opportunities. However, the intentions have unintentionally interrupted the existing eco-system of the educational system at both micro (school) and meta (educational governance system) levels. The following sections would explain the consequences within and outside school environment which predominantly thrives to evolve the existing education system but persists to be far behind in the progression of a network society. Contextualisation the Politics of Digitisation: The end of 20th century saw a shift in the role of the nation state from a ‘'Keynesian Welfare State’ to a ‘Regulatory state’ identifying the urgency of addressing the market failures within countries. Nationalisation policies seemed to provide compelling evidence of the failure of the positive state. A new model of governance that included privatisation of many parts of the public sector, more compe-
tition throughout the economy, greater emphasis on supply-side economics and far-reaching reforms, demanded altered presence of the welfare state. The failure of the socialist experiment of President Mitterand in 1981-1982 reinforced the view that redistributive Keynesianism was no longer possible in countries which, like France, are closely integrated in the European and world economy (Majone, 1997). The advent of technology boom supported this transformation of governance where governments-initiated policy measures to bring in change in production processes, create competition and employment. Thereby, powerful technological forces provide an alternative means of existing regulation. By the beginning of 21st Century, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and The European Union Member states introduced technological innovations as one of the regulatory state mechanism to serve the dual purpose helping the individuals and collectives to become part of nation building and also, fulfil their needs and desires (Alestalo, 2001). The revolutionary wave of ‘regulatory state’ reached India resulting in the ‘economic reforms of LPG (liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation) policy in 1991. It meant deregulation of several public sector services, increase in foreign and private investment and disinvestment in public sector undertakings (PSU). This included privatization of 12 public sector comprising big ones such as Maruti Udyog, Hindustan Zinc, Bharat Aluminum, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (Dubey, 2019). Though India decided to disinvest in many public sector utilities, it did not want to lag in Information and Communications Technology. Agreeing with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), India gradually geared up to develop its ICT sector considering it as a tool to progress and leapfrog to the developed world. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the World Bank group continues to pursue integrate National Informatics Infrastructure with Global Informatics Infrastructure, further focusing on strategies to enhance human development (Bajwa, 2003). With aggressive international influences and lateral nation building consciousness, the National IT Task Force on Information Technology and Software Development in 1998, to prepare a blueprint envisaging the ICT sector in the country towards an economic development. As a continuation, the Ministry of Information Technology was established. The Information Technology Act was brought into force in 2000. But what remained latent for the longest time was the introduction of ICT in education though recommended by the National IT task force in 2000. This recommendation was further highlighted in the National Curriculum Framework of 2005 as ‘significant role’ of ICT in education. The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Schools was launched in December 2004; the MHRD re-launched the revised ICT@School Scheme in 2010 (Mahashevta, 2017). The scheme aims at bridging digital divide between various socio-economic, geographical and ethnic groups in the country by enhancing IT skills among students from Grade IX-XII making them 21st century productive individuals. However, with the Government inclination towards disinvestment, the Department of School Education and Literacy decentralised the implementation of the scheme through a third-party service provider, instead of direct operation by the government department. METHODOLOGY: The research methodology employed for this review is interpretative literature review of policy documents and technical review reports on ‘revised ICT scheme in Indian government schools’. The key findings are illustrated in the below sections.
Copyright© 2020, IERJ. This open-access article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License which permits Share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and Adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) under the Attribution-NonCommercial terms.
International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]
57
Research Paper
E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 6 | Issue : 7 | July 2020
RESULT AND DISCUSSION: Gateway for New Public Management into Education System: The revised ICT@School scheme launched by the Ministry of Human Resource Development through Department of School Education and Literacy, was one the few initial programmes of the country to follow the principles of decentralisation and privatisation. When governments around the world were leveraging on private sector in developing and sustaining infrastructure and service, India also joined the league by calling in collaborations through the ‘Public Private Partnership’ (PPP) model. The Government of India defines PPP as “an arrangement between a government / statutory entity / government owned entity on one side and a private sector entity on the other, for the provision of public assets and/or public services, through investments being made and/or management being undertaken by the private sector entity, for a specified period of time, where there is well defined allocation of risk between the private sector and the public entity and the private entity receives performance linked payments that conform (or are benchmarked) to specified and pre-determined performance standards, measurable by the public entity or its representative" (DEA, 2018). Following the trends in transport, telecommunication and many other public utilities, the Government of India extended the PPP model for implementation in education. Increased Use of ‘Arms-length' Regulation: The Central Department entrusted the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) of each State and UT as the implementing quasi-government agency for the revised ICT@School Scheme. Nevertheless, RMSAs were encouraged to implement the programme through a BOOT model under which the ‘supplier’ made available the ICT infrastructure and services for the duration of the contract period (normally five years) on the basis of a service level agreement and assurance of a periodic payment subject to satisfactory (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2010). The primary supplier for this National Scheme was Infrastructure, Leasing, and Financial Service (IL&FS) (India) reaching out to more 87,033 government and government aided secondary and higher secondary schools (MHRD D. o., 2016). The Asian Development Bank (ADB) identifies the revised IL&FS as one of the seven successful PPP initiatives in Asia and the Pacific region. The ADB brief emphasising establishment of this private partner as a result of a government tender process in 2010 (Jouko Sarvi, 2015). However, one must acknowledge that the revised ICT@School scheme changed the existing ecology of government departments and their regulation system. The change in implementation model was an attempt to actualise the benefits of decentralisation and privatisation establishing the specialized agencies, RMSA in this context to set and apply rules (Majone, 1997). In addition, this was also the phase of initiating New Public Management (NPM) in Indian Education where ICT infrastructure establishment and maintenance was contracted out. The RMSA & IL& FS tendered out the services to smaller private companies like M/S NIIT Ltd., M/S CMC Ltd. and M/S Educomp Solutions Ltd. This increased use of competition between providers of services for funding from purchasing authority (James, 2005). The systemic hierarchies were created to implement the revised ICT@School Scheme where the Central Department acted as the rulesetting body, RMSA as the monitoring authority in partnership with IL&FS and the contracted entity to provide utilities and services. Instead of within organisation inspection and audit, monitoring by multiple regulatory bodies was in rise to keep a close check on the quality of work done by the private party. This led to the increased use of ‘arms-length' regulation occurred alongside a reduction in administrative resources within public departments and PSUs which were split into corporate units as seen in the UK during 1980s (for example with the establishment of local corporate units in health as NHS (National Health Service) (James, 2005). The Scheme document emphasised that it shall be the responsibility of the third party (private company) to provide ICT infrastructure and maintenance, dedicate teacher and training to all teaching staff for the designated schools. Monitoring Cells were set up at state, district and school level to invigilate the work of the contracted out private organisation. Demarcation between Regulation and Implementation: There was a clear division of regulatory and the third-party operations. Where the Government body (RMSA) is responsible for the ICT provisions in schools, the concrete accountability of ICT infrastructure and services remain with the private party contracted. The revised ICT@School Scheme document facilitated the bureaucratisation of the NPM processes in Indian education system. The international upsurge of institutionalisation of NPM had entered Indian education system with the introduction of revised ICT@Schools Scheme. In Adam Smith’s (1776/1976) concept of the law of unintended consequences, there can be positive unintended consequences that advance human development; the individual “is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention” (Liff, 2014). Therefore, it is seen that Indian Government under the influence of international agencies and phenomenon introduced NPM in many sectors like transport, health continued to promote NPM in education. Nevertheless, NPM came with its own ‘surprises and paradoxes’ (Hood, 2004). Though the contract binds the third party with RMSA to be follow the instructions, it has the autonomy of operations which highly depends on professional discretion of the individuals on ground. In this case, it would be the technicians hired for installation who would follow the instruction of RMSA. There is a co-existence of NPM and bureaucratic processes which directly affected the administrative communication with the assigned school. On contrary situations of inefficiency, it creates systemic chaos of accountability where both bureaucratic system (RMSA) and the private parties (IL&FS) blame each other for inability to fulfil
58
the terms of the contract. Circumstances worsen when the installation and maintenance contracts ended with the third party without informing the school assigned. This was majorly because of the continued red-tape in the bureaucratic system. Questioning the Existing School Structures: With reference to the education ecosystem, schools are the primary and central unit forming a subsystem. Whether during the Indian gurukul system or the modern-day education system, school as a unit has been critical in its existences and functions. According to the systems theory (Banathy, 1991), school is a formally established institutional site functioning to fulfil intellectual purposes of the society. It operates under a series of, sometimes conflicting legal mandates rather than a social mandate that represents a consensus of the participants. Schools have rigid structures that tend to treat all elements similarly: class periods of fixed length, a single textbook for all students in a class, classes of the same size for different subjects, and so on. However, unlike the curricular rigidity, schools have a restricted hierarchy with relatively few levels of complexity (Betts, 1992). The revised ICT@School scheme aimed at tweaking this traditional functioning of school by creating network systems powered by digital assistive technologies in teaching and learning. Changing Ecologies within the School: In addition, it was observed that the school ecosystem underwent growing internal densities owing to the changed mode of implementation. The scheme document supported by the National ICT Curriculum challenged the existing pedagogy by allowing the schools to integrate, nourish, create and enhance a 360degree relationship with all stakeholders while keeping the student at the centre of the learning experience (Jha, 2016). On the contrary in practice, teaching of computer science was introduced as an elective subject to be opted by the students depending on their individual choice, mostly influenced by the availability of the ICT teacher and infrastructure. ICT as ‘computer science’ subject was introduced in all government and government-aided secondary and higher secondary schools post the revised ICT@School scheme. However, the essence of studying this subject positioned between students’ interest to learn or school privilege to conduct the subject. Despite the scheme and service to introduce ICT, schools complained of short-handed staff, inefficient infrastructure, tiny classrooms and lack of teachers. The private service provided ‘each school with 10 PCs or 10 nodes connected through a server, accessories like printers, projection system, customised keyboard along with generators for power back-up (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2010). Dedicated rooms were to be assigned for installation and therein continue to conduct computer science classes. If not available, the school administration would approach RMSA making special budgetary provision to construct. What emerged is the exclusive recognition of the ‘computer lab’; that being distinct from the main school building. Similar segregation is seen between the teachers. Convoluted Professional Identity of an ‘ICT’ teacher: The revised ICT@School scheme also identifies the need of an exclusive ICT teacher in each school along with the infrastructural provisions. Within the service contract, one of the clauses was to hire ICT teacher with appropriate qualifications with/without experience in education. The hired ICT teachers were qualified professionals in ICT who taught computer science. They were nevertheless strictly bonded by the contract document, set curricular requirement and standardised learning outcomes which limited the use of professional discretion of the so-called ICT experts within the schools. The need for better accountability through the revised ICT@School scheme virtually eliminated discretion (Brodkin, 2008) questioning the professional credibility of the ICT teachers. Moreover, these teachers constantly struggled with professional identity. They were neither listed on the service record book of the school nor on the pay-role. They were recruited through the contracted third party. In subsequent years, there were instances reported from various states like Haryana, Assam, Himachal Pradesh to name a few, where ICT teachers held protests to demand regularisation of their posts in the education system (Singhal, 2019; Kalita, 2019; tribune, 2018). The decade of implementation of the revised scheme gradually compartmentalised the subject ‘Computer science’ which is an absolute opposite of the primary intention of the scheme. In addition, what is more acute to the revised ICT@School scheme is that the ICT teachers being regarded as a tier II teaching staff within the school. The hired teachers formed a different cadre of staff. Though held responsible to conduct local trainings and classroom demonstrations for the other subjects modelling the use of ICT in these subjects, these ICT teachers had low acceptance from the teaching staff and administration. The subject teachers exhibited resistance to both the use of ICT and assistance of the ICT teacher (Mahashevta, 2017). Standalone ICT subject and its systemic conflicts : Contradicting to the primary objectives of the revised ICT@School scheme of using ICT in teaching and learning, the reality was grim where school administration equated learning of ICT as an isolated subject labelled ‘computer science’. The school beheld demarcations between core subject teaching and computer science teaching. Accordingly, school ecology exhibited levels of hierarchies within the teachers and staff in a school segmented by social origins, recruitment process, training and teaching level. This not only created complex relation of government school with the bureaucratic system but also complexities grew within the school (Avalos, 2004). The school performance with refer-
International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]
Research Paper
E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 6 | Issue : 7 | July 2020
ence to ICT implementation is largely dependent on the ICT teacher. The studies on ICT implementation in school point out the feedback of school administration on excessive dependency on contractual services for teaching ICT-computer science course (Sahoo, 2019 ). On the other hand, the pillar of successful operations is perceived by the school administration as a distinct individual belonging to the third party instead in part of in-staff. This distinction comes to power play during RMSA monitoring visits and recorded under-performances where both parties: school administration/teachers and the third-party ICT teacher throw allegation statements against each other. It is interesting to note how the scheme aiming at integrating ICT into teaching and learning created sub-systems within. There is also a constant dilemma from the school administration to integrate and mainstream ICT as the faculty provision is contractual. The envisioned network society through ICT created complexities and hierarchies of identity and power within the school; the school advanced from a simplified unit into polygonal functional entity. What continued to be a struggle was the accountability within the school system to introduce and include ICT in pedagogy, curriculum and administration. It is evident how advanced efforts to improve accountability by applying New Public Management (NPM) techniques of school performance and contracting, at times, may do more to provide the appearance of accountability than accountability-in-fact (Brodkin, 2008). The revised ICT@School scheme provided entry of third party, majorly a private organisation considering their expertise on ICT, into government schools under the pretext of introducing ICT and enhancing the teaching-learning process. This was a bold move of the Ministry which positively disrupted the otherwise stagnant school environment but conceded with it the unintended consequences on school functionality and accountability. CONCLUSION: The influence of Technology is not only in the regular life of individuals but dominates the political scenario internationally. At times when nations faced publicsectors failures (Majone, 1997), encouraging and establishing a successful ICT sector was promising step to maintain the status-quo of nation-building and development. India joined the expansion of ICT sector through legal recognition and institutionalising the sector. The Indian LPG policy opened doors for foreign powers and investment. The international scenario convinced Indian government to introduce ICT to remain in the race of power-nations. The role of private sector in the development of a diverse affordable and accessible information infrastructure in the country, was evident (Bajwa, 2003). Maximising on the market forces and expertise, the revised ICT@School scheme formalised private party contracting in rendering of ICT infrastructure and services within schools. The article resonates the complexities shaping the governance structure as well as the school. Though best of intentions guided each unit – RMSA, the private company, the school administration, subject teachers and ICT teacher to work together, every unit was guarded by independent principles resulting in distinct functioning. Decentralisation was at its peak through involvement of various agencies but the blame-game and dilution of responsibilities continued with flickering accountability. This contradicts the objective of developing an informative networked society. The revised ICT@School Scheme introduced privatisation and NPM in the education sector with the intention of creating accountability and efficiency in establishing ICT in schools. Ministry of Human Resource Development has continued NPM in providing special education services within school, mid-day meal programmes and teacher training to name a few. Nevertheless, the bureaucratic control cannot be eliminated in the delivering public services, it can be used in a way that leads to better and faster implementation of reforms (Liff, 2014). Thereby, ICT agenda set pathway to NPM in the education system; the decade of implementation has resulted in confused accountability structures and instead promoted relevance of bureaucracy. The findings of this article re-emphasises the role of school administration and subject teachers frozen by systemic limitation of curriculum, work load and regulatory agencies. School leaders and teachers must be provided with freedom of professional discretion between providing deeper learning and time consumed (Jha, 2016). They are to be involved to use ICT in subject learning through pedagogy and curriculum development and adequate ICT training. The draft New Education Policy (NPE) 2019 (MHRD, 2019) specifies the formal governance structure - a new independent collaborative governance body which would include representatives from school administration and teachers. The call of the hour is to have an appropriate and context specified partnership (Murphy, 2003) for governance and implementation of holistic education that integrates ICT in Indian education.
V.
Banathy, B. H. (1991). Systems Design of Education: A Journey to Create the Future. In N. Englewood Cliffs (Ed.), Systems Design of Education: A Journey to Create the Future. Educational Technology Publications.
VI.
Betts, F. (1992, November ). How Systems Thinking Applies to Education. Improving School Quality, pp. 38-41.
VII.
Brodkin, E. (2008). Accountability in Street-Level Organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(3), 317-336.
VIII.
DEA, D. o. (2018). Public Private Partnership in India. Retrieved December 8, 2019, from https://www.pppinindia.gov.in/overview
IX.
Department of School Education and Literacy, M. (2010). Revised ICT@Schools Scheme. Retrieved November 12, 2019 , from https://ictschools.ncert.gov.in/wpcontent/uploads/2017/08/ICTscheme.pdf
X.
DLN, d. N. (2008, August 1). MAGAZINEICT in School Education. Retrieved November 20 , 2019 , from https://digitallearning.eletsonline.com/2008/08/ict-inschool-education/
XI.
Dubey, J. (2019). Disinvestment got boost under Vajpayee-led NDA govt. Here’s how public sector companies fared post-privatisation. New Delhi : India Today .
XII.
Hood, C. &. (2004). The middle aging of new public management. Into the age of the paradox. Journal of Public Administration and Research, 14(3), 267–282.
XIII.
James, O. (2005). The Rise of Regulation of the Public Sector in the United Kingdom. Sociologie du Travail, , 47, 323–339.
XIV.
Jha, N. &. (2016). Digitization of Indian Education Process: A Hope or Hype. . IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 18 , 131-139.
XV.
Jouko Sarvi, V. B. (2015). PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY FOR EDUCATION. Phillipines: Asian Development Bank.
XVI.
Kalita, K. (2019). Over 40,000 contractual teachers protest education minister's 'driver' remark. Guwahati: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.
XVII.
Liff, R. (2014). Unintended Consequences of NPM Drive the “Bureaucracy”’. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(8 ), 474-483.
XVIII. Mahashevta. (2017). REVIEW OF ICT POLICIES IN INDIA. BHARTIYAM INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION & RESEARCH, 7(1). XIX.
Majone, G. (1997). From the Positive to the Regulatory State: Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance. . Journal of Public Policy, 17, 139167.
XX.
Manuel Castells, G. C. (2005). The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy (1 ed.). Washington D. C.: Johns Hopkins Center for.
XXI.
McTaggart, D. a. (2015). Public Sector Reform. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74, 13-22.
XXII.
MHRD. (2019). Draft National Education Policy 2019 . Retrieved November 17, 2 0 1 9 , f r o m h t t p s : / / m h r d . g o v. i n : https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_EN_Revised .pdf
XXIII. MHRD, D. o. (2016). Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Retrieved December 8, 2019, from https://mhrd.gov.in/ict_overview XXIV.
Morrison, J. a. (2004). The Future of Learning Technologies. Innovate , 1(1).
XXV.
Murphy, M. &. (2003). Partners in participation: Integrated approaches to widening access in higher education. European Journal of Education, 38(1), 25-39.
XXVI. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2010). Survey of ICTs for Education in India and South Asia, Country Studies . Retrieved November 16, 2019 , from http://www.infodev.org/infodev-files/resource/InfodevDocuments_879.pdf XXVII. Sahoo, R. (. (2019 ). Functioning of ICT@School Scheme at Secondary Level. New Delhi . XXVIII. Singhal, P. (2019, September 17). Computer teachers protesting for permanent jobs lathi-charged in Panchkula. Retrieved November 15, 2019, from https://indianexpress.com/article/chandigarh/computer-teachers-protesting-forpermanent-jobs-lathi-charged-in-pkula-6001649/ XXIX. Tata Trusts, I. f. (2018). ICT implementation in school education in India. Bengaluru: IT for Change. XXX.
tribune, t. (2018). Computer teachers hold march against state govt. Bhatinda : https://www.tribuneindia.com/.
REFERENCES: I.
Alestalo, M. .. (2001). Is knowledge based society a relevant strategy for civil society. Current Sociology, pp. 203–218.
II.
Avalos, B. (2004). Teacher regulatory forces and accountability policies in Chile: from public servants to accountable professionals. Research Papers in Education, 19(1), 67-85.
III.
Bajwa, G. S. (2003). ICT policy in India in the era of liberalisation: its impact and consequences . GBER.
IV.
Balachandran, M. (2015). Use of Information and Technology in Secondary schools. New Delhi : Education Quality Foundation of India.
International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]
59