“Educational development in India: The role of the Azim Premji Foundation”

1. Michigan State University “Educational development in India: The role of the Azim Premji Foundation” Azim Premji Foundation November 22, 2010

2. The context 2

3. The three global issues Inequity Injustice Human Lack of Care Environmental 3 Our work arises out of our intense to desire to make this world better

4. India performance on key indicators (illustrative) • 16% of world’s population contributes to 5% of world’s GDP • 134 rank in Human Development Index out of 182 ranked • 44% of children under 4 malnourished, 56% women anemic • 130 Mln. without basic health – IMR much above the world average • 48% do not get electricity • Majority have either no or unsafe drinking water, 75% no tap water • Over 70% people have an income < US 1.5 per day Loss due to wasted personpower – US# 3 Trillion 4

5. India - Education Policy Promise Acculturate Refine sensitivities and perceptions that contribute to national cohesion Develop scientific temper Independence of mind Furthering the goals enshrined in the constitution of India Develop manpower for different levels and purposes of economy 5

6. India – education reality - illustrative • 1.3 Mln schools, 220 Mln children, 6 Mln teachers • 97% villages have a primary school within one kilometer • Literacy 65% (M – 76%, F – 54%) • Global literacy – 80% • Girls and socially disadvantaged backgrounds are 20 percentage points behind on literacy and drop out ratios Over 75% schools have unplanned multigrade teaching Only 10% schools have children learning as per expectations 1 out of 3 children in class 5 cannot read and write Quality of education: A serious concern! 6

7. The inefficient school education funnel 100 Children Enroll in 1st Standard 52 Children Reach 8th Std 39 Children Reach 10th Std 12% Efficiency of Education Funnel 19 Pass 10th 12 Children pursue higher education 7

8. Our work of about 8 years • Approach of engaging with the Government to contribute to systemic change • Team of about 300 professionals: work focussed on • Teacher development • Education Leadership Development • Examination reforms • Research • Education Technology • An outreach of 15 states, 25,000 schools, 50,000 teachers, 2.5 Mln children using digital learning resources, 4 Mln children assessed for learning competencies, 6000 education administrators engaged for development • Largest developer of digital learning resources for school education in India – 18 languages including 4 tribal languages • State governments willing to assign significant budgets for joint programs with the Foundation – several states have reformed their examination system 8

9. Critical learning • Acute shortage of education professionals - absence of schools of education • Quality institutions of in-service education for education professionals • Quality research in education • Alternative and continued support to dysfunctional Government institutions • Demonstration of model schools at scale • Independent assessment and accreditation of educational institutions • Awareness of stakeholders on critical education issues • Concerted action by the players in education (Govt. + Non Govt.) 9

10. Azim Premji Foundation Response 10

11. Vision, Purpose, Mission Vision Facilitate a just, equitable, humane and sustainable society Mission Over-archingpurpose Enablers Education - both direct impact and a large positive multiplier Have deep, at-scale and institutionalized impact on the quality of education in India Societal Change 11

12. A comprehensive “end to end” strategy • Talent creation – Azim Premji University – Teaching programs + Continuing Ed • Knowledge creation– Research - well resourced, ground driven, well monitored • Ground level field Institutions - Continuing education + specific programs • Building bottom up pressure for better quality • Own Schools – demonstration of good quality at reasonable cost • Creation and Accreditation of Education standards – create a pull • Network of like minded partners – impact at scale • Communication and engagement with stake-holders 12

13. 2 1 1A 1B 1C 2B 2A 2C 1D Field Resource Centers University Details of Strategy What we will do … What we will NOT do • Contribute significantly to social change in the near and long term, adopting a multidisciplinary approach combining teaching, research and practice • Have Degree programs primarily focus on change leaders and teacher educators, with a small batch of high quality teachers only as a model • Build high quality research that can impact policy/ classroom practices • Run in-service training as a multiplier of social change by building strong capabilities in current education and development sector professionals • Train quality teachers at scale • Conduct research with no line-of-sight to application in India • Adopt an “architect mindset”of improving education in the district • Integrated improvement, with a holistic view of district needs • Strong role in overall program management, with depth in specific services and leveraging partners for others • Ensure that the SRC, DRCs and Schools work together with a common state/district strategy, bringing unique and complementary roles • Strive for strong, holistic engagement with the government; however, be open to entering the state with specific services with gradual increase in government support for holistic improvement • Adopt a service provider mindset, i.e. provide only select services in the district • Not coordinate across SRC, DRC and Schools • Enter a state “only” if the government agrees to holistic improvement

14. 3 5 4 4B 4A 5B 5A 3C 3B 3A Assessment & Accreditation Communication & Engagement Schools Details of Strategy What we will do … What we will NOT do • The Schools strategy will be in line with the overall district strategy • Set up a small number of own and adopted schools as models, and a much larger number of affiliated schools • The affiliated schools will have different levels of support, based on need, with the ADC playing a strong role in determining this • Think of schools independent of district strategy (there could be a few exceptional cases) • Set up own schools at scale • Help establish standards of excellence in education, and provide an objective view of status, but with the mindset of improvement • Focus primarily on system and institution assessment, with individual assessment being done more through partners • Focus excessively on individual (student, teacher) assessments • Work on three objectives: drive change in broader mindsets and behaviors related to key issues in education; influence specific stakeholders for relevant policy change; create awareness about the Foundation’s work • Adopt a stance of “fact-based impact-focused advocacy”, on a select set of themes, based on the Foundation’s work • Be narrowly focused on policy change alone • Be involved in fact-less propaganda

15. Integration of teaching, research, practice Elements of distinction Description Multi-disciplinarity • Equal emphasis of degree programs in the fields of education and development, which are inherently multidisciplinary in nature • Therefore, faculty for the university recruited from a wide range of backgrounds (e.g. humanities, basic sciences, social sciences, leadership and management, technical subjects etc) Integration of teaching, research and practice • Degree programs, research and in-service training as three important parts of the University • Research and degree programs both having significant emphasis on practical application • All faculty required to choose one of three tracks combining teaching, research and practice, with different levels of emphasis: • Teaching track (65% teaching, 20% research, 15% practice) • Research track (75% research, 15% teaching, 10% practice) • Practice track (65% practice, 20% research, 15% teaching) 15

16. Five year ramp-up plan (2011 – 2016)

17. A Dream of a Just, Equitable, Humane and Sustainable Society Thank You