- New moves in regulation of debt card payments, 4 July 2012.
- Transparency in the LPG subsidy, 2 July 2012.
- Developments on implementation of the GST, by Viral Shah and Ajay Shah, 23 April 2012.
- An election rally in Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, with Naman Pugalia and Ajay Shah, 12 February 2012.
- A fueling fable: Consumer protection issues in payments, with Naman Pugalia, 23 January 2012.
- Excitement in electronic payments, 18 January 2011.
- Interpreting the 4th fastest supercomputer in the world, 19 November 2007.
- Should IST be broken up into two? Should India do DST?, 23 August 2007.
Sunday, 22 January 2012
Author: Viral Shah
Posted on 19:44 by Unknown
Wednesday, 18 January 2012
Accountability in education
Posted on 09:12 by Unknown
by Jeff Hammer.
I was shocked
by Lant
Pritchett's note on the appalling performance of India's best
two states on the international PISA assessment. Actually, I was
not really shocked; I didn't expect anything else as I've been
listening to Lant for years now. By the same token, I agree with
Jishnu Das that
we really don't know much about what works in education (other than
that good teaching makes a difference) and that our bean-counting of
inputs into education may be completely wrong headed. From
conversations with him (also over years) I surmise that the only
thing we really know about what leads to more learning is that it is
correlated with how many years children stay in school. What that
suggests, though, is that attention be directed towards the choice
of parents and students to stay in school.
In my opinion people choose to do things if it is worth it to them.
This is a common assumption for economists. While challengeable in
some circumstances, does it make any sense to think that people send
their children to school if they don't think it's worth it? If it is
compulsory: sure. With compulsion, attention of policy makers and
carefully watchful observers such as Pratham should be to make sure
school is worth the year of children's attendance since people would
not be able to decide for themselves. Until we see compulsory
schooling enforced, though, years of education remain a family's
choice and we have to understand how and why people make that
choice.
Unless we think parents are utterly clueless about the value of
education and totally incapable of telling if teachers are doing
anything or their children are learning anything, the effectiveness of
teaching and the amount of knowledge imparted must be a major factor
in their decision as to whether school is worth it. Don't get me
wrong, I've met dozens of educators and education officials in India
who believe parents are, indeed, clueless and such decisions should be
out of their hands. But they are the very people who gave us the PISA
ratings and are indeed throwbacks to the License Raj where only
bureaucrats were assumed to know anything. Further, with the explosion
of private schools, even in rural areas, it is laughable to think that
there are so many parents who value education so little. They are
willing to forego free public education in order to pay for something
more worthwhile.
Which brings us to accountability.
What could parents be looking at, that makes them think school is
worth it? It must be based on performance: parents don't really see
the inputs, they mostly just see their children learn. Or not learn as
is the case. So how can they translate their concern for learning into
actual learning? They have to be free to pick the educational
context that they see is working for them or their
neighbors. That's where accountability comes in.
A provider of any good or service is likely to be most accountable
when their livelihood depends upon attracting customers. If what they
provide is worth it, people will take the service, and the provider
can make a living. If not, parents won't pay and teachers won't get
paid. As of now, there is no mechanism to allow families to make that
choice. There is no such compulsion for teachers to provide a service
worth paying for. No doubt there are many teachers (probably most) who
are doing the best they can regardless of how they are paid. But with
over 24% absenteeism, large numbers of teachers observed to be doing
anything but teaching, and many sub-contracting their position to
under-qualified replacements at a fraction of government salaries,
there is substantial room for improvement.
Further, if we are going to get more students (and, hence,
teachers) into classrooms, the dedicated teachers may be the ones who
are already on the job. People induced to enter the profession may not
be as dedicated and, hence, need some other way to hold them
accountable than internally felt professional ethics.
I am an educator (of sorts) but have no opinion about what the
bottleneck in children's learning really is. Jishnu says the most
successful headmasters all say different things (after good teachers -
but then, don't we judge the goodness of teachers by whether their
students actually learn? It's an output based judgment, too.) I know
little of pedagogical theory. But I know just as little about the
inner workings of most complex things I use -- computers and the
Internet, water systems, bicycles. I can tell when they work and when
they don't, though. Similarly, I know that my sons learned to read and
write, become responsible citizens and to develop and exercise
critical intellectual capacities (sometimes way too critical for my
taste) even though I have no idea how they learned them. I did know
that their teachers were in school almost every day and doing things
that sounded like teaching to me. I did not have to be an expert on
pedagogy to hold the schools completely accountable for my children's
education.
I was also fortunate enough to be able to take (or threaten to
take) them out of government schools if I thought otherwise. Funding
for government schools (in the U.S.) follows enrollment, if not so
directly and obviously as for private schools. So my threats about
shifting my children out of government school directly mattered to
their teachers.
There is no reason why Indian parents can't do the same. They, on
average, may not have my education but after talking to hundreds of
families in rural areas, tribal villages, urban slums and SC hamlets,
I hear no less concern for their children's future than I have for
mine and no less ability to tell if a teacher appears to be doing his
job. They may be more capable than me since they are more likely to
see the teachers themselves -- I needed to ask my children.
In many rich countries, the issue of vouchers to pay for schools is
emotionally charged. Historically, free compulsory public education
was a result of fights between church and State (even in Japan where
`church' doesn't quite fit -- but religion and State does). Children
were already attending school in high percentages and there was a
fight for their hearts and minds. In rich countries currently,
suggestions to provide vouchers instead of State-run schools re-kindle
this old antagonism against religious instruction.
India never had this fight nor this evolution of public
provision. Our view of schooling here in India was imposed based on
the final result of universal free education seen in rich countries
without the history from which that final result evolved.
India needn't go through the phase of fighting over who gets to
teach students who are already highly motivated to learn and have seen
learning take place. If India wants to see all children educated, she
can certainly pay for the cost of education (in fact, the job can be
done for much less per student is presently spent) so that families
don't have to. But the government doesn't have to provide it directly
(though government schools should be free to compete for this money if
it can). The fight is the State against society (families), not
against the church.
What the State can do is make as much information known to parents
as possible. What should children know after how many years of school?
How do you know if your child is keeping up? How do you know what
you're paying for is worth it? As of now, this information is
certainly not given to parents. Maybe State run schools don't want
parents to know (and, unfortunately, most Indian parents will not know
about PISA). And as of now, there is nothing parents (particularly
poor parents) can do about it anyway.
Sunday, 15 January 2012
The new world of computers
Posted on 11:23 by Unknown
I read a beautiful article,
software is eating the world by Marc Andreessen. It made me
reflect on how the world of computers and networks has evolved over
the last 20 years. It is comfortable for us to think that the world
has only evolved in incremental ways. But as I look around me, it
seems that the hard-driving pace of change on many fronts has added
up to fundamental change, to places far away from the comfort zone
of people of my vintage.
All the way till the 1980s, business computing was dominated by
databases. The basic story was one of capturing data, storing it, and
summoning it forth with queries.
At first, databases were the exclusive preserve of mainframes and
minicomputer. The PC revolution made it possible for small databases
to be held on the desktop. It's interesting to note that at first,
we got PCs without networks. We evolved from databases stored on
remote mainframes or minicomputers to databases stored on PCs. All
the way into the late 1980s, it was quite a cool thing to have a
standalone PC holding a database where certain queries could be
executed.
The first wave of change, of the early 1990s, was networks in the
form of TCP/IP (the universal communication protocol) and the
Internet (the universal network). Now, suddenly, the data centre
became more interesting. Instead of storing and manipulating data at
the desktop, we could do so many better things by storing and
manipulating data at a big central computer. The desktop diminished
from being the location of data and computation to being the
location of the user interaction.
Then came a series of surprises which have added up to a
qualitative shift.
1. The network got ubiquitous
First, the Internet went everywhere for the road warrior armed with
the laptop computer. Crashing prices of laptop computers and then
netbooks meant that essentially everyone had one. So workers started
spending much more time outside the office (with 100%
connectivity).
Software had to adapt itself to reach out on an Internet
scale. This killed off applications which worked on the scale of the
LAN. The software that the busy road warrier used was the software
that worked effortlessly on his laptop.
Today, 1 Mb/s wireless networks are common and 50 to 100 Mb/s
offerings are on the anvil. This is relentlessly shifting the
balance of convenience to mobility.
In a place like India, the low-end staff might not have netbooks
and/or Internet on the go. So for certain very low-end applications,
it might make sense to hug the desktop at the workplace. For any
modestly well paid person, laptops / netbooks coupled with 3g or CDMA
networks are the norm, and hence being tethered to the office network
is quite limiting.
2. The user interfaces got better
In the 1980s, software came with fat manuals. Users actually sat
down in training classes. A remarkable feature of the new world is
how the manuals and training are gone. Software is incredibly
capable but there are no manuals. Google maps or Amazon or Apple
Mail are very powerful programs, but the fundamental assumption is
that a reasonable person can just start tinkering with them and
learn more as he goes.
The modern office worker gets no formal training in software all
his life. The modern knowledge worker learns major tools (e.g. a
programming language) and often puts in enormous effort for these.
But for the rest, the ordinary flow of day to day life,
where new software systems come up all the time, is done without
formal training.
Once the modern office worker faces high quality UI design from
google and such like, where there is zero training and zero marketing,
it became much harder to accept training. Standards have changed; in
the olden days, people would actually try to learn. Today, knowledge
workers are willing to get training in programming languages (e.g. R
or Stata) but not in applications. The MBAs are generally
training-proof.
3. All of us got busy
There was a time when one purposedly went about the work day
systematically doing certain things with certain software
tools. Knowledge workers have become deluged with information and
with stimuli. We have gone from being an information scarce economy
to being an attention scarce economy.
Software and information systems are now competing for the
attention of the user. The scarce resource is now the mind share of
the user. This is linked to the problem of user interfaces. If
something has a complicated user interface, and there are a hundred
other tasks that need to be done, the user ignores the complicated
thing. Software systems that don't fly immediately just die.
4. Peers determine where attention is directed
In a world where the knowledge worker is bombarded with hundreds of
things every day, what does he do? He tends to direct his scarce
time into the things that come well recommended. The
recommendations of respected peers are supremely important in
determining what a person does.
High powered sales compaigns have lost power. The person just asks
his friends what they do. The impulses through the day coming into
each person - over email, IM, twitter, social networks, etc. - are
the de facto controllers of the persons' time.
Peers are thus the gatekeepers to the user. The stuff that is
striking and remarkable gets noticed and pointed to friends. What
gets pointed tends to get a high google pagerank.
The importance of high pressure sales dropped. Some of the most
successful firms got by with negligible sales departments. Their
stuff was intuitive and good, and got immediately picked up.
5. Network effects leading to user generated content
The old model was one of corporations producing information and
users consuming information. In that power structure, the user was
only a source of revenue.
In the new world, the critical story is about kicking off network
effects. The systems that win are those that get better because of
one more user interaction.
At the simplest, user interactions kick off impulses to peers which
brings in more customers (viral marketing). But very soon, user
interactions generate relevant data. Google watches what users click
and uses that to improve search. Amazon tells you that the people
who liked this book also liked that book. Amazon has user-generated
content in terms of reviews.
Good systems create a warm and supportive environment in which
users contribute bug fixes, feature suggestions. These systems ride
the power of user eyeballs and brains to get better. The power
structure has changed. IBM DB2 used to be designed in a temple and
then went out to the helpess masses. Google's world is critically
linked to the users at so many levels (a receptive environment for
bug reports, feature requests, user generated content, and usage
data being turned back into strengthening the system).
The bottom line: Successful designers found ways to harness every
single user and user interaction to build the quality, the content
and the footprint of the system. Stalinist structures, which
disempowered the user and treated him only as a source of revenue,
stand isolated and stagnant.
6. Loss of power of enterprise IT
In the old world, enterprise IT mattered more. Grave decisions were
made by enterprise IT managers and then thousands of users fell in
line. In the new world, users forge ahead with their laptops and
tablets and mobile phones, exercising enormous autonomous choice
about how they spend their time. Consumer considerations, and the
loyalty of each individual user, are far more important than they
used to be. The enterprise IT department is much less of a
gatekeeper. In the olden days, hardware and software was sold to
enterprise IT, which made decisions for everyone inside the
organisation. In the new world, usage is won one user at a time, and
it is contestable every day.
7. CPUs became too cheap to meter
In the old world, computation was something scarce. The money that
went into building data centres was carefully weighed. System
designers carefully did things that were parsimonious in the use of
CPU.
With the rise of parallel computation, bringing 1000 CPUs into a
problem became cheap. Successful designers were those that found
ways to deploy incredibly large amounts of computer power to do
things that delight users. Google and amazon are spending millions
of clock cycles in the back end, thinking about how to handle the
next move, as the mouse cursor moves! When faced with a choice
between doing something nice that users will like, versus doing
something that saves compute power, the former always won.
8. Unexpected revenue sources
Who would have imagined that an ad agency would become the most
powerful author of operating systems for mobile phones in the world?
When hardware got dramatically cheap, and the Internet generated
access to eyeballs on an unimaginable scale, new revenue models came
about which were surprisingly different from the way we used to
think earlier.
Interesting readings
Posted on 11:02 by Unknown
A nice pair on UIDAI from the Economist:
magic number and
Trampling on the individual in India:
Mishra on Firstpost.
Datta in the Business Standard.
Ila
Patnaik, in the Indian Express looks at Italy and
worries about India.
Kanika
Datta in the Business Standard on the Bombay Club.
Authoritarian India at its worst.
Patnaik in the Indian Express worries about the economic
consequences of NREGA.
Patnaik in the Indian Express on RBI's thinking about new
entry by private banks.
A great article on India's energy-fiscal mess
by Urjit
Patel, a rare person who understands both.
Bandyopadhyay in Mint, and
Patnaik in the Indian Express, on RBI's use of
controls to combat rupee depreciation.
In the Indian
Express, Ila
Patnaik reminds us to avoid adventurism in the use of reserves
for buying natural resources.
Shahan
Mufti has a great article in Business Week on the
supply chain problems that the US faces in Afghanistan.
I have often worried
that we
are not as bright as we used to
be. Mark
Pagel has an argument about why that might be.
progress on payments by Russ Jones. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a
fair guess that Square will be banned in India.
I just
re-read James
Buchanan's 1986 Nobel prize speech.
Once the public goods
of a
strong statistical system are in place, the real challenge
becomes the brainpower that is deployed into thinking about the
data. In India, we don't
have half
decent maps data in the public domain. But once high quality
maps data becomes freely available, things
change. Seth
Stevenson on Slate tells a story of a beautiful design
for a humble problem: a map.
Friday, 13 January 2012
Where did we go wrong?
Posted on 08:53 by Unknown
It is a time for deep thinking about what has gone wrong in
India. Here are a few excellent takes:
-
Padmanabhan in the Mint.
- Ila Patnaik in the
Express and in the
Express. Also see
2.0 by her.
-
Bhanu Mehta in the Business Standard.
As we watch many train wrecks in India unfold in slow motion,
Timothy
W. Ryback in the New York Times reminds us about that
ineffable substance of the human soul ... that shapes individual
decisions and ultimately determines the course of actions, both
large and small, that constitute the chain of events we know as
history.
Thursday, 12 January 2012
The resource curse of land ownership
Posted on 10:27 by Unknown
Land ownership in pre-modern India
In India, 50 or 100 years ago, land was a defining feature of
wealth. The stock of land generated a flow of income. The landless
were low-paid agricultural labour. The landed gentry of rural India
were the kings of their heap. They had power, prestige, position,
prosperity.
In the eyes of many, the initial conditions of high inequality of
land ownership were a key barrier that held India back. It was argued
that a one-time bout of bloodshed was essential, to expropriate the
rich, and to transfer land ownership into a more equitable distribution. In
India, this capacity for State-inflicted bloodshed was present in some
places only. In much of India, the unequal distribution of land
ownership found in 1947 was left intact.
Fast forwarding into the present, there has been a sea change in
the fortunes of the owners of agricultural land.
Agriculture is less important
Particularly after we escaped from the Hindu rate of growth (3.5%)
in 1979, the share of agriculture in GDP has dropped sharply. In
relative terms, the wealth created through firms in industry and
services has dwarfed the wealth of the landed gentry. The richest man
in India today is born of one who started out with no land. Government
interventions continued to stifle agriculture, but shifted to a
greater laissez faire approach in industry and services; this
helped accelerate the decline of agriculture.
The plight of those who stayed back
Rural to urban migration has unleashed new forces on the role and
status of the landed lords. Within rich families, high IQ children may
be going off to the city to a greater extent, e.g. based on the
filtration by competitive examinations where outcomes are correlated
with IQ. To the extent that such a process has been afoot, it has
given a selection bias where the low IQ children were the ones more
likely to stay back in the `idiocy of rural life' (as Marx
characterised it). Over a couple of generations, the interplay of nature and nurture can add up to substantial effects.
That there was an easy option - to live off the land - was a
`resource curse' which afflicted the households who had land. In
contrast, for landless households, there was no conflict of interest
in moving to cities (other than the recently introduced NREG, which
tries to perpetuate poverty by hindering rural to urban
migration).
The power and status of the landed lords was now twice
undermined. Their quick-witted cousins who established themselves in
the cities were connected into capitalism and getting ahead. Families
of the landless have tended to move to cities, connect into
capitalism, and get ahead. The erstwhile lords have started looking
nervously at both groups of escapees, wondering whether land ownership
was such a nice initial condition.
In a fascinating recent article, Devesh
Kapur, Chandra Bhan Prasad, Lant Pritchett and D. Shyam Babu
gave us some insights into these changing social structures. In
their survey data, in 2007, 98.3 per cent of Harijans were
contracting-out the work of tilling their fields to their
erstwhile lords, the upper-caste men who owned and operated
tractors. The upper tail of the Indian income distribution has, in
a few generations, been reduced to operators of agricultural
equipment.
The importance of engaging with the market
A defining issue of modern times, for an individual, is a continued
and deep engagement with the market. For insights into this idea, see
this interview
with Tom Sargent. The Ljungqvist/Sargent story matters even more
in India, when compared with what has happened in the West. At 7 per
cent GDP growth, every few years, far-reaching change comes about in
technology and processes. Each individual builds knowledge and human
networks by continually engaging with the market. If a person is cut
off from engagement with capitalism for even a few years, this
generates a lot of human capital depreciation. At that reduced human
capital, the person has to either accept an offer at a much reduced
wage, or stay unemployed (which further undermines human capital).
The Ljungqvist/Sargent story helps us understand the plight of adivasis in India, who have been away from the market economy, and are unable to plunge into it. It helps us understand the plight of the unemployed of Europe: the welfare state pays them dole to stay warm and well fed for many years of unemployment, but after this they are unable to come back into the labour market.
In this setting, consider the plight of a land owner, who has been
living off the land, and has never engaged with modern
India. Particularly in the post-1979 period, when India has
experienced relatively rapid growth, each year of being a country hick
owning land meant being further away from the skills required to
participate in the contemporary Indian economy. The landed gentry of India lacks the skills to participate in the market economy. Income from the land,
their resource curse, dulls their incentive to overcome the
barriers. They are often too proud to accept low wage assignments
which are the starting point through which the unskilled connect to
capitalism. These problems have come together to give a unique vicious
cycle of dis-engagement with modern India.
Sale of land in the outskirts of cities
At the edges of all cities, urbanisation is proceeding through
developers buying land from the local landed rich and transforming it
into the endless suburbs. In the short term, this has generated
immense windfalls of wealth for the landed rich. But in some ways,
this is a bit of a disaster for many of them. Lacking in knowledge
about the market economy, they are scammed by insurance salesmen and
such like. Much of this newfound wealth tends to get dissipated in a
few years.
Urbanisation and land development throws open vast opportunities
for trade and industry. But the erstwhile landed rich tend to be
uniquely ill equipped at harnessing these opportunities. They tend to
be too proud to work for someone else, and inadequately equipped to
stake out on their own. They experience a brief blaze of glory when
paid fabulous prices for their land, and then fade away into
insignificance.
Some politicians have been moved to advocate special legal
protections for the hapless rural rich who sell land to the modern
sector. It's quite a turnabout within a few generations: from landed
elite that oppress the others, to witless folk who need to be
protected by special laws that inhibit the sale of land.
The curse of land
A few decades ago, the left-of-centre view dominated the thinking
in India. It was felt that inequality of land was a major bottleneck
that held India back. Many argued that the failure of Indian democracy
to engage in a one-time bout of class warfare through `land reform' was a major mistake that
was holding India back. It was argued that the Chinese path was the
right one: to expropriate the landowners and then start a capitalist
economy under conditions where everyone is equal.
With the benefit of hindsight, things look different. I think this
story reiterates the dangers of social engineering. We are dealing
with enormously complex systems that we only dimly understand. As far
as possible, it is wise on our part to use the force of the State as
little as we can, and to always avoid treading on fundamental human
rights such as property rights.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to K. P. Krishnan, Suyash Rai and Mihir Thaker for insightful conversations.
Posted in entrepreneurship, labour market, migration, real estate, redistribution, socialism
|
No comments
Thursday, 5 January 2012
The first PISA results for India: The end of the beginning
Posted on 01:53 by Unknown
by Lant Pritchett.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning
of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Winston Churchill, November 1942
The PISA 2009+ results are the end of the beginning. For the last decade there has been a debate. Some argued the levels of learning inside Indian elementary schools (primary and upper primary) are a national scandal and a threat to the future of India's society, polity, and economy. Others appeared to believe that the main, if not only, problem with Indian schools was that not enough children attend them and that with more money and more of the same, all would be well. The last five years saw a relentless accumulation of evidence about the crisis of learning. The establishment has tried to deny, deflect, and dismiss the evidence on learning. Eventually the Government of India agreed to participate in the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) - but only for two states, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh - and both sides agreed PISA was the litmus test. The PISA 2009+ results, which are both official and are beyond gain-saying are unspeakably bad. They confirm the worst of what anyone has been saying about the levels of learning in India elementary education.
- In reading of the 74 regions participating in PISA 2009 or 2009+ these two states beat out only Kyrgyzstan.
- In mathematics of the 74 regions participating the two states finished again, second and third to last, again beating only Kyrgyzstan.
- In science the results were even worse, Himachal Pradesh came in dead last, behind Kyrgyzstan, while Tamil Nadu inched ahead to finish 72nd of 74.
But just coming in last (if we can dismiss as a relevant comparator for India a tiny Central Asian state) does not convey the enormity of how bad these results were, as not only was India last, it was far, far, behind its aspirations, both at the bottom and at the top levels of performance.
PISA expresses the levels of performance in two ways, an overall index number and the fraction of students achieving various "levels" of achievement. The PISA index numbers for each subject are scaled so that the typical OECD student is at 500 and the standard deviation across OECD students is 100. The testing of thousands of students allows the results to present not only the average but also the worst (5th percentile) and best (95th percentile) students do in each country/region. PISA also classifies student performance into "levels" that represent different degrees of mastery of the material.
Table 1 compares India's performance to three groups of countries. The economic superstars have successfully completed the transition from poor to rich economies in just two generations - Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea (China's only results are just for the city of Shanghai, which are the highest scores of any region tested, but this is too a typical to really be comparable) and India aspires to their sustained success economically. The current super powers are represented by the USA and the OECD average reflects India's aspirations as a superpower. The rising powers are represented by the BRIC countries of Russia and Brazil which reflect the rise of the emerging markets.
Compared to the economic superstars India is almost unfathomably far behind. The TN/HP average 15 year old is over 200 points behind. If a typical grade gain is 40 points a year Indian eighth graders are at the level of Korea third graders in their mathematics mastery. In fact the average TN/HP child is 40 to 50 points behind the worst students in the economic superstars. Equally worrisome is that the best performers in TN/HP - the top 5 percent who India will need in science and technology to complete globally - were almost 100 points behind the average child in Singapore and 83 points behind the average Korean - and a staggering 250 points behind the best in the best.
As the current superpowers are behind the East Asian economic superstars in learning performance the distance to India is not quite as far, but still the average TN/HP child is right at the level of the worst OECD or American students (only 1.5 or 7.5 points ahead). Indians often deride America's schools but the average child placed in an American school would be among the weakest students. Indians might have believed, with President Obama, that American schools were under threat from India but the best TN/HP students are 24 points behind the average American 15 year old.
Even among other "developing" nations that make up the BRICs India lags - from Russia by almost as much as the USA and only for Brazil, which like the rest of Latin America is infamous for lagging education performance does India even come close - and then not even that close.
To put these results in perspective, in the USA there has been huge
and continuous concern that has caused seismic shifts in the discourse
about education driven, in part, by the fact that the USA is lagging
the economic superstars like Korea. But the average US 15 year old is
59 points behind Koreans. TN/HP students are 41.5 points behind
Brazil, and twice as far behind Russia (123.5 points) as the US is
Korea, and almost four times further behind Singapore (217.5 vs 59)
that the US is behind Korea. Yet so far this disastrous performance
has yet to occasion a ripple in the education establishment.
Table 1: Comparing Indian (Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh) students mastery of mathematics to economic superstars, current superpowers, and rising superpowers | |||||||
| Country/Region | 5th | mean | 95th | HP+TN average to comparator average | HP+TN average to comparator 5th percentile | HP+TN best (95th) to comparator's average | HP+TN best (95th) to comparator's 95th |
| Points TN/HP is behind (-)/ahead(+) | |||||||
Economic Superstars | |||||||
| Singapore | 383 | 562 | 725 | -217.5 | -38.5 | -99 | -262 |
| Hong Kong | 390 | 555 | 703 | -210.5 | -45.5 | -92 | -240 |
| Korea | 397 | 546 | 689 | -201.5 | -52.5 | -83 | -226 |
| Current Superpower | |||||||
| OECD avg. | 343 | 496 | 643 | -151.5 | 1.5 | -33 | -180 |
| USA | 337 | 487 | 637 | -142.5 | 7.5 | -24 | -174 |
Rising Superpowers | |||||||
| Russia | 329 | 468 | 609 | -123.5 | 15.5 | -5 | -146 |
| Brazil | 261 | 386 | 531 | -41.5 | 83.5 | 77 | -68 |
Indian States | |||||||
| Tamil Nadu | 241 | 351 | 468 | ||||
| Himachal Pradesh | 223 | 338 | 458 | ||||
| Average of TN and HP | 232 | 344.5 | 463 | ||||
| Source: PISA 2009 Plus Results, Table B.3.1 for first three columns and author's calculations. | |||||||
I have emphasised Mathematics because many believed math was an
Indian strong suit. The results for reading and science are similarly
bad. Table 2 shows science results in a different format, which shows
the proportion of children in various categories of performance. There
are three points:
- "Below level 1" doesn't even have a description as it implies
that so little proficiency is demonstrated it is impossible to
distinguish from not knowing anything at all. In the USA, even with
its socio-economic and racial inequalities and language inequalities
and its failing inner city schools, only 4.2 percent are in this
category. In HP 57.9 percent of 15 year olds in school cannot be
distinguished from not having learned any science at all and in
TN 43.6 percent all in this category - ten times as many as the
USA.
- PISA considers "level 2" as the minimum level that
provides the science competencies that will enable them to
participate actively in life situations related to science and
technology. Since more than 80 percent of students in both HP and TN
are level 1 or below this most students in these states have reached
age 15 ill-equipped for the century they will face. - While a
thin elite that competes for the few highly selective technical
institutes are globally competitive, this is a tiny fraction of the
population. The estimate of the fraction of TN or HP students at level
6 in science proficiency was zero. Their estimate of the
fraction at level 5: also zero. Of course this does not mean there are
not such students in these states, of course there are, just that from
the samples available in the study the best estimate was so small as
to be indistinguishable from zero.
| Country/Region | Below level 1 | Level 1 1 | Level 5 5 | Level 6 6 |
| Singapore | 2.8 | 8.7 | 15.3 | 4.6 |
| Hong Kong | 1.4 | 5.2 | 14.2 | 2 |
| Korea | 1.1 | 5.2 | 10.5 | 1.1 |
| OECD avg. | 5 | 13 | 7.4 | 1.2 |
| USA | 4.2 | 13.9 | 7.9 | 1.3 |
| Russia | 5.5 | 16.5 | 3.9 | 0.4 |
| Brazil | 19.7 | 34.5 | 0.6 | 0 |
| Tamil Nadu | 43.6 | 40.9 | 0a | 0a |
| Himachal Pradesh | 57.9 | 30.9 | 0a | 0a |
| Source: PISA 2009 Plus Results. Description of levels Table 3.2, percentages Table B.3.4. 1) At Level 1, students have such a limited scientific knowledge that it can only be applied to a few, familiar situations. They can present scientific explanations that are obvious and follow explicitly from given evidence. 5) At Level 5, students can identify the scientific components of many complex life situations, apply both scientific concepts and knowledge about science to these situations, and can compare, select and evaluate appropriate scientific evidence for responding to life situations. Students at this level can use well-developed inquiry abilities, link knowledge appropriately and bring critical insights to situations. They can construct explanations based on evidence and arguments based on their critical analysis. 6) At Level 6, students can consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge and knowledge about science in a variety of complex life situations. They can link different information sources and explanations and use evidence from those sources to justify decisions. They clearly and consistently demonstrate advanced scientific thinking and reasoning, and they demonstrate willingness to use their scientific understanding in support of solutions to unfamiliar scientific and technological situations. Students at this level can use scientific knowledge and develop arguments in support of recommendations and decisions that centre on personal, social or global situations. a) In Table B.3.4 these are reported as blank but the estimated percentages in below 1 to level 4 sum to exactly 100 percent. Obviously this not imply that there are exactly zero students in all of these two states meeting these levels but that with the sample sizes assess students of 1616 in HP and 3210 in TN there was insufficient information to create a non-zero estimate. | ||||
These results on PISA 2009+, while tragic for what they imply for Indian youth and perhaps shocking to newcomers to this subject, come as no surprise to those who have been working on basic education in India:
- Das and Zajonc (2008) used results from Orissa and Rajasthan to create indices on mathematics performance similar to those of TIMSS (Trends in Mathematics and Science Study) and found these states near the bottom of the global rankings.
- Educational Initiatives carried out an 18 state study using sophisticated testing instruments and found levels of performance on TIMSS comparable items that were stunningly lower. For instance on the open ended question "Write a fraction larger than 2/7" less than 30 percent of Indian students in standard 8 could answer correctly compared to more than 70 percent internationally.
- The APRest study led by Karthik Muralidharan and Venkatesh Sundararaman in rural AP asked the same questions of students in grades 2 to 5 and found very slow rates of learning progress.
- The results year after year from the ASER [2010 2009] study supported by Pratham find that significant fractions of students in Standard 8 cannot master even Standard 2 curricular basics. In rural areas nationwide a third of children in grade 8 could not do a simple division problem and almost 20 percent could not read a level 2 text. The 2011 results, due out in a few weeks will show continued stagnation or even retrogress in learning.
- Numerous studies by MIT's JPAL, World Bank, NCAER/University of Maryland and other researchers found levels of performance that were shockingly low compared to curricular expectations.
These PISA 2009+ results are the end of the beginning. The debate is over. No one can still deny there is a deep crisis in the ability of the existing education system to produce child learning. India's education system is undermining India's legitimate aspirations to be at the global forefront as a prosperous economy, as a global great power, as an emulated polity, and as a fair and just society. As the beginning ends, the question now is: what is to be done?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
