By Dr Mankhrawbor Dunai
The recent Meghalaya Education Grant (MEG) scheme has generated much discussions and will continue to do so in its attempt to bring about much needed changes in the education system in the state. The fact that we have “discussions,” let alone a discussion paper, is commendable though it also reveals that as well-intentioned as initiatives may be, they may run foul if they have not been properly analysed. All of us love the idea of a new year and a new “me” only to realize that giving up on things to achieve the new “me” is easier said than done. Gyms however will not complain about February dropouts as they always look forward to the annual spike in new year memberships. I believe this MEG proposal may suffer from a similar dilemma. Since the document has been discussed and shared in various platforms, including this esteemed paper, I will restrict myself to comments that look at the assumptions made by the MEG discussion paper critically and not repeat by summarising the main points of the paper.
In its enthusiasm to bring about positive changes, the MEG runs the risk of misunderstanding the problems of education completely by assuming that it is only a problem of redirecting the money and the problem will likely get fixed. Redirecting the money thrown, I believe will not work. Chief among the problems of this discussion document is a generalisation of the issues faced by the education sector at different levels. The proposals seem akin to a general sledgehammer approach when a customized scalpel is required to address the problems unique to the various levels of education.
Though many commentators will come up with various reasons to defend or rebut this paper (there are many..data being used in a fallacious manner being one of the glaring issues), I choose to take a different approach on the matter. The discussion paper seems to imply that the biggest problem facing the education in Meghalaya can be addressed by fixing the financial problems. The conclusion being made is that education has failed because the money has not been properly utilized. Though that certainly is a factor, the paper seems to imply that this is the root of the problem. I don’t think the state government has the moral high ground to use the argument of under-utilisation of funds as a stick to beat down aided institutions. We are a state that has not properly utilized the money allotted to it through various schemes provided by the Central Government in various departments. We see well-intentioned projects lying incomplete or in shambles or failing to achieve their intended purpose. I do not mean to throw dirt at the ISBT terminal but its important to call a spade’s a spade.
Money certainly is important but it is only a means to an end. My personal take is that the real problem in our education sector is not financial but one of human resources. Of people. A great academician once told me that money is secondary. The people are what define or redefine an institution, educational or otherwise. If you have the right people in an organization, it will grow. It will be seen for what it is, not for what it promises. Trust is the chiefest of currencies anywhere. Once that has been established, the promises and handshakes that are made at the beginning are not reduced merely to photo ops-sessions to be gloated over in the news or on social media but rather, we can trust the outcomes that will more than likely be actualised. The money should eventually flow to such institutions with a reputation of being trustworthy. Many can testify to the great teachers that have shaped and inspired students to be their best. And that is what we ought to inspire in our students and our children. I believe that every student that leaves a school or a college will be drawn to the memories of the people associated with the institution and their place in it, not the fancy buildings and expensive instruments but the teachers and staff who brought life and meaning through those tools. Ultimately it is the people that matter.
An organization may have buildings and infrastructure but when the right people are not there, they will not serve their intended purposes. Even if a gifted teacher is given the bare minimum, they can still do wonders despite the limitations. It is no surprise that we have such problems as zero enrollment and single digit enrollments in the statistics found in the MEG discussion paper. Why did this come about? Though each situation will have specific reasons for its failures, ultimately these were decisions made by people who, one can argue, did not “correctly” diagnose the problem. Blanket solutions to perceived problems have resulted in sanctioning of funds for thousands of institutions that were not functioning at their intended capacity. Instead, money and funds have been thrown into the metaphorical bin while someone has gleefully picked up the literal cash credited into their accounts. Does the MEG risk doing the same through its proposal? Quite likely if the problems are not correctly identified and understood. The amount of mis-categorisation and the way data has been thrown around in the discussion paper makes me quiver with trepidation.
Education should be the backbone of every nation that truly seeks to grow. And proper education can come through the right educators. Without them, we will only learn to parrot the opinions thrown to us by the ones that control the narrative. And the best way to counter that is to have individuals and people who will teach the next generation to think critically and to grow as individuals to serve their nation and their communities. Credit should go where credit is due. The private educational institutions have done a commendable job in stepping up when government institutions have been unable to meet the educational needs of the state. And the government should be given credit for doing its part in helping to aid these institutions through various grants. If the government is truly interested in improving education, I believe that it should change the entire optics in its approach through the MEG. Instead of making it a challenge of financial mismanagement, make it a challenge of human resource availability where the best and brightest minds have not been incentivized to serve the public sector through education.
Though there needs to be accountability, it seems odd for the MEG to imply that there is no accountability in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) as the existence of accreditation institutions such as National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), the National Board of Accreditation (NBA), and the University Grants Commission (UGC) ensure standards are met and institutions are incentivized to meet the criteria stipulated by these accreditation institutions.
The government therefore should not fret about funding private institutions. Instead, it should be happy that these accredited institutions will do the work of ensuring quality in those institutions in accordance with national aspirations. But if the government is only using the guise of improving education through the proposed MEG as a smokescreen to sift funds and move them around to more useful or productive “priorities”, whatever they may be, then I believe the problem of education will always persist in our state. More empty buildings and no funds to pay the teachers at the different levels as a result of the persistent fund crunch? I sure hope not.