A study on CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMME: AN IMPACT STUDY Prepared for PLANNING COMMISSION Government of India by Centre for Media Studies (CMS) Research House, Community Centre, Saket. New Delhi – 110 017 Phone # 011-2685 1660, 2686 4020, Fax # 91-011-2696 8282 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cmsindia.org 2004 CONTENTS PageNo. Acknowledgements i Abbreviations ii Findings iii-xiv Executive Summary Messages Directions Chapter 1. Continuing Education – Principles, Scheme, Centres, Programmes 1-4 Chapter 2. Methodology of the Study 5-13 2.1 Objectives of the study 2.2 Coverage 2.3 Criteria of selection 2.4 Identifying data requirements 2.5 Tools of the study Chapter 3. CECs and NCECs in Andhra Pradesh 14-31 3.1 Interface with opinion leaders, ZSS functionaries, gram Panchayats and others 3.2 CEC/NCEC Profile 3.3 Preraks’ Profile 3.4 Preraks’ functions and perceptions 3.5 Beneficiaries’ profile 3.6 Beneficiaries’ responses 3.7 A Cobweb and Force Field grading of Preraks and Beneficiaries perceptions on continuing education Chapter 4. CECs and NCECs in Gujarat 32-51 4.1 Interface with opinion leaders, ZSS functionaries, gram Panchayats and others 4.2 CEC/NCEC Profile 4.3 Preraks’ Profile 4.4 Preraks’ functions and perceptions 4.5 Beneficiaries’ profile 4.6 Beneficiaries’ responses 4.7 A Cobweb and Force Field grading of Preraks and Beneficiaries perceptions on continuing education Chapter 5. CECs and NCECs in Kerala 52-66 5.1 Interface with opinion leaders, ZSS functionaries, gram Panchayats and others 5.2 CEC/NCEC Profile 5.3 Preraks’ Profile 5.4 Preraks’ functions and perceptions 5.5 Beneficiaries’ profile 5.6 Beneficiaries’ responses 5.7 A Cobweb and Force Field grading of Preraks and Beneficiaries perceptions on continuing education Chapter 6. CECs and NCECs in Rajasthan 67-81 6.1 Interface with opinion leaders, ZSS functionaries, gram Panchayats and others 6.2 CEC/NCEC Profile 6.3 Preraks’ Profile 6.4 Preraks’ functions and perceptions 6.5 Beneficiaries’ profile 6.6 Beneficiaries’ responses 6.7 A Cobweb and Force Field grading of Preraks and Beneficiaries perceptions on continuing education Chapter 7. CECs and NCECs in West Bengal 82-105 7.1 Interface with opinion leaders, ZSS functionaries, gram Panchayats and others 7.2 CEC/NCEC Profile 7.3 Preraks’ Profile 7.4 Preraks’ functions and perceptions 7.5 Beneficiaries’ profile 7.6 Beneficiaries’ responses 7.7 A Cobweb and Force Field grading of Preraks and Beneficiaries perceptions on continuing education ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support from Planning Commission for conducting and completing this study is gratefully acknowledged. At CMS, study received continued guidance and support from the Chairman and Director. The study team acknowledges the same. We put on record the willing cooperation and effort rendered by the officers and functionaries at State Literacy Mission Authority/Directorate of Adult Education in the five states. The logistic support and prolonged discussions need special mention here. Appreciation is extended to Preraks and Nodal Preraks of all the forty CE centres across the five states who helped in conducting survey and interviews. Appreciation in equal measure is extended to the one hundred forty three beneficiaries whose perceptions proved immensely useful to the critical evaluation of the CE programme. STUDY TEAM Dr. Suresh Kulkarni : Project Director Ph.D (Econ) S.J. Chakrawarty Jitendra Kumar Singh : Research Associates-cum-Field Executives Rinku Kaushal Sundara Rao : Computer Assistants Shiv Singh Bisht A CMS Report for Planning Commission i ABBREVIATIONS CE CONTINUING EDUCATION CEC CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTRE CEC (R) CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTRE (RURAL) CEC (U) CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTRE (URBAN) CE SCHEME CONTINUING EDUCATION SCHEME GP GRAM PANCHAYAT JSS JAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN NCEC NODAL CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTRE NCEC (R) NODAL CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTRE (RURAL) NCEC (U) NODAL CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTRE (URBAN) EP EQUIVALENCE PROGRAMME IGP INCOME GENERATING PROGRAMME IIPP INDIVIDUAL INTEREST PROMOTION PROGRAMME QLIP QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME ZSS ZILLA SAKSHARATA SAMITI A CMS Report for Planning Commission ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINDINGS MESSAGES DIRECTIONS Summary of the findings on organization and facilities, sports and cultural facilities; performance of the surveyed CECs and Prerak’s (level of) social awareness; NCECs, Messages conveyed by the finding level of awareness on the four and directions for strengthening them towards programmes of continuing education. sustainability of CE process in the next two Learners’ attendance; frequency of decades appear in sections A, B and C. The interaction, say in a month, with findings and the directions emerged from community, functionaires of ZSS and empirical assessment of selected CECs and panchayats, the range of issues NCECs. Assessment included (a) survey, villagers bring to Prerak’s notice. structured interviews with beneficiaries and Learners level of awareness after the functionaries, (b) discussion with ZSS, completing the PLP/EP course, range JSS, GPS, officers of the SLMA/Directorate of of vocation selected for training, Adult Education, Opinion leaders in the number of beneficiaries availing the villages. (c) visual inspection of the centres skill building activities, income or and the surrounding settlements. The study employment effect on beneficiaries was conducted in five states: Andhra who were trained in any vocation and Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Rajasthan, West so on. Bengal during November 2003 – March 2004. The methodology of the entire study including CECs / NCECs selection of states, selection of districts, A.2 First finding first. The study could not selection of CECs and NCECs, selection of notice any difference between CEC beneficiaries and functionaries; scope and and NCEC either in their infrastructure coverage is described in Chapter 2. or in their Preraks’ capabilities and functioning or in the functioning of the FINDINGS two groups or in the implementation of A.I A number of indicators following NLM programmes. The purpose with which book of Guidelines were selected for government have conceived the two assessment. They included: levels of CE centres does not seem to Locational proximity of the centres for be met. the villagers. Extent of closeness of the CEC/NCEC to physical norms, norms of teaching, learning, library A CMS Report for Planning Commission iii A.3 In their organization, functioning and A.5 Neither CECs nor NCECs were outcomes the CECs and NCECs have promoting self help group (SHG) performed unevenly in the five states. concept. We did not come across or The CECs and NCECs in Kerala have could meet an SHG in the sample performed most satisfactiorily those in centres. Kerala has taken a lead but Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan were SHGs here too are yet to come up in only beginning accelerate their active way. activities. Between these two extremes, CECs of West Bengal and A.6 Neither CECs nor NCECs are at of Gujarat have preformed reasonably present financially sufficient, except in satisfactorily. Kerala where effort at least is being made fervently to enable them t25o A.4 Factors associating with unevenness generate financial resources. The were not easy to identify. For instance, NLM envisaged that after five years of allocation of fund is uniform across the their establishment CECs would be country; the approved staff strength is able to achieve sustainability. Kerala uniform; there is a criterion for uniform has acted on this instruction. It has establishing a CEC. Yet some CECs prepared 5 point action plan. The showed positive results, displayed CECs of Kollam and Idukki have encouraging achievements in begun the implementation. targetting the beneficiaries. In some districts CECs are located in spacious A.7 The least the centres can do is to rooms while CECs in other states were achieve convergence of resources found to be located in Prerak’s house. which act itself would help achieve To us, the factor which seemed to financial self-sufficiency. Neither count most was, enthusiasm and Preraks nor ZSS have worked for it. conscious effort at all levels that is They have not established rapport with from ZSS Secretary to CE agencies including DIET, SRC, JSS, functionaries. Enthusiasm at one level Health Care providers, Education and absence at another level, which is promoting institutions. what was apparent at some centres, notably in Rajasthan and Andhra A.8 Beneficiaries responses indicate that Pradesh, has kept their profile low. they have rated their CE centres at lower end of scale. A CMS Report for Planning Commission iv A.9 Except in Kerala CE centres, and a A13 Even while attendance in EP classes few in West Bengal centres, is low and irregular, learners have beneficiaries remain deprived of found it useful. It has brought to them vocational skill training. This indicates awareness on legal age at marriage, three things at least. The CECs nor importance of child immunization etc. NCECs are not self-oriented to Also they have raised their self- organize training, that CE centres esteem; they have interacted with have not received funds and / or that government offices. they have not worked for convergence of resources. A.I4 PL learning and teaching is being given on small scale because the A.10 The CE centres have not coordinated number of attending learners is low. with the JSS to work out arrangements The attendance register, an indicator to send learner to JSS’ continuing of PL activity, is low. However those vocational training rounds nor have who attend regularly are serious JSS, who are expected to coordinate learners. participation of CE learners, taken initiative. The Preraks A11 Except in Kerala and to a lesser extent A.15 Preraks at the CECs and NCECs in West Bengal, CE centres have not visited by the team were earlier implemented all the innovative Voluntary Trainers in the TL programmes. Only EP is in operation. compaign. All the Preraks were trained However this is not to be seen as non- before they started managing the performance.