Early childhood education in rural India: how do parents navigate an unregulated system, and what implications does this have for equity?

Session Submission Type: Group Panel

Description of Session

Early childhood education (ECE) has received increasing attention in educational policy debates, such that the Sustainable Development Goals target the provision of quality ECE for all children globally (SDG Goal 4, Target 2). While the SDGs’ focus on quality and equity is laudable, achieving this will require greater understanding of how the most marginalised children currently navigate ECE opportunities in comparison to their more advantaged peers.

The purpose of this panel is to inform policy debates by sharing findings from a rich longitudinal study of ECE participation. The India Early Childhood Education Impact (IECEI) study is a collaborative, three-tier research study that brings together elements of quantitative and qualitative inquiry to the understanding of ECE in rural India. Conceived as a five-year longitudinal study (2011-2016) of a cohort of approximately 11,000 four year olds across three major Indian states (Assam, Rajasthan, and Telangana), the study explores the links between early learning, socialisation and school readiness experiences in preschool settings with educational and behavioural outcomes along the primary stages.

There is public outcry in India over its education system: over the past decade, the number of children learning foundational literacy and numeracy skills has fallen (ASER Centre, 2015). And, as with so many countries, conditions are most severe amongst children from disadvantaged households. This is apparent from early in the lifespan: by age 5, poorer children have already fallen well behind their wealthier peers (Rose & Alcott, 2015).

Early childhood education (ECE) has become a key priority area to rectify this (for a review, see Woodhead, 2014). A common rationale, stemming from human capital theory (Becker, 1980), is that early cognitive development shapes subsequent opportunities throughout the lifespan (Cunha et al., 2006). Research from developing countries show that high quality ECE (e.g. through structured sessions delivered by trained staff) can boost development not only in children’s cognitive and social skills, but also long-term educational, health, economic and labour market outcomes (Engle et al., 2011; Rao et al., 2013).

However, several past studies indicate that dropout rates in India have been higher in Grades 1 and 2 as compared to later grades at the primary stage (Mehta 2007; Reddy & Sinha 2010), suggesting that the transition from home/preschool to Grades 1 and 2 is a vulnerable one. And while India’s government has ensured that almost all citizens have access to at least one government ECE provider (anganwadi), little is known about other ECE opportunities available or how households navigate between them.

This panel’s component papers will aim to make a distinctive contribution to research and policy on this topic.
• Paper 1 will provide details of the IECEI project, the data collected, and its potential applications
• Paper 2 will share analysis of the project’s quantitative data to depict and contrast broader trends in ECE participation between more and less advantaged households
• Paper 3 will extend the analysis shared in paper 2 by using the project’s qualitative data to explore the mechanisms through which more and less advantaged households participate differently in ECE.

References
ASER Centre (2015). Trends over time 2006–2014; a supplement to the Annual Status of Education Report. New Delhi: ASER Centre.
Becker, G. S. (1980). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Cunha, F., Heckman, J. J., Lochner, L., &Masterov, D. V. (2006). Interpreting the evidence on life cycle skill formation. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 1, 697-812.
Engle, P. L., Fernald, L. C., Alderman, H., Behrman, J., O'Gara, C., and Yousafzai, A., (2011). Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries.The Lancet, 378(9799), 1339–1353.
Mehta, A (2007). Student Flow at Primary Level: A Study based on DISE Data. National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi.
Rao, N., Sun, J., Wong, J., Weekes, B., Ip, P., Shaeffer, S., Young, M., Bray, M., Chen, E. & Lee, D. (2013). Early Childhood Development and Cognitive Development in Developing Countries: A Rigorous Literature Review. London: DFID.
Reddy, N.A. & Sinha, S. (2010). School Dropouts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the Right to Education. National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi.
Woodhead, M. (2014). Early Childhood Development Delivering inter‐sectoral policies, programmes and services in low‐resource settings. Report prepared for UK Department for International Development. Oxford, UK: Health & Education Advice and Resource Team.

Sub Unit

• SIG: Early Childhood Development

Chair

• Ben Alcott, University of Cambridge

Individual Presentations

• India Early Childhood Education Impact Study: A review of the framework and methodology of the three tier, multi-method study. - Manjistha Banerji, ASER Centre; Suman Bhattacharjea, ASER Centre; Purnima Ramanujan, ASER Centre; Mansi Nanda, ASER Centre

• Prescription and practice: ECE participation, transitions into primary school, and back - Ben Alcott, University of Cambridge; Suman Bhattacharjea, ASER Centre; Purnima Ramanujan, ASER Centre; Manjistha Banerji, ASER Centre; Mansi Nanda, ASER Centre

• Strategies, choice, and control: Understanding parental decision-making with respect to children’s ECE participation - Purnima Ramanujan, ASER Centre; Suman Bhattacharjea, ASER Centre; Manjistha Banerji, ASER Centre; Mansi Nanda, ASER Centre; Ben Alcott, University of Cambridge

Discussant

• Caine Rolleston, University College London Institute of Education