We often get asked two questions – why do you work with government anganwadis and schools? Why do you not train Anganwadi workers and teachers directly?

To answer the first question - Well, majority of India’ s children, especially from disadvantaged families, are dependent on government systems for the quality foundational care and education. Nationally, nearly 3 out of every four children in the age group of 6-14 years attend government schools (ASER 2022) i.e. more than 14 crore children across the country are served by the public education departments. Similarly, about 14 lakh government-operated anganwadis (child-care centres) across the country serve more than 10 crore children in the age group of 6 months to 6 years. Thus, the large majority of our country’s children depend on public systems for care and learning. In fact, most of the children from under-resourced populations that need good quality care and education the most, are served by government anganwadis and schools.

On the other hand, the National Education Policy has outlined an ambitious vision. It envisages that children will be enrolled in pre-schools from the age of 3 years; that children from 3-6 years will be given access to free, safe and high-quality early childhood care and education (ECCE) at Anganwadis, Balvatika, etc.; that Grade 1-2 (Ages 6-8) will be known as Foundational Stage where children will be given the opportunity of flexible activity based learning; that Grade 3-5 (Ages 8-11) will be known as Preparatory stage that includes discovery, activity-based and interactive classroom learning; that Grade 6-8 (Ages 11-14) will be known as Middle Stage where students will experience experiential learning; and that Grade 9-12 (Age 14-18) will be designated as Secondary Stage where emphasis will be given in multidisciplinary study, greater critical thinking and flexibility.

This brings us to the answer to the second question - To implement this policy in essence, will require that the government build large-scale systemic capacity, and not just focus on teacher and frontline worker skills.  It is necessary to recognise that anganwadis, government pre-schools and schools exist as part of a large-scale system. Therefore, any attempt at improving and sustaining the quality of care and education provided by anganwadis and schools is a systemic challenge. Not only is it a systemic challenge of sound pedagogical knowledge, but also a challenge of organisational capacities and culture.

1. The frontline workers/teachers, middle managers and officers who are part of this bureaucratic large-scale system are governed by rules and mandates, so much so that those become their purpose, losing sight of the real purpose – to nurture children. Often, therefore, the challenge lies in helping senior and mid-level officers and frontline workers to get in touch and keep in touch with this purpose.
2. The frontline workers and teachers are seldom equipped in the understanding of child development and pedagogy necessary to offer child centric care and education.
3. External experts who could provide the necessary capacity-building to the frontline workers and teachers are proportionately exceedingly few in number.
4. Frequently when one trains only the teachers or the Anganwadi workers to provide good quality care and education - on what children need, how to be with children; the system that they are nested in remains oblivious to this knowledge and skills. Their supervisors continue to monitor them on redundant indicators, and are not able to provide the expertise and support needed for day-to-day problem solving and collective learning.
5. The frontline workers can remain isolated, ignorant and unmotivated if their supervisors do not provide the expertise and support they need.
6. On the other hand, State-level officials to sub-district functionaries, see their role as primarily administrative, rather than as missionary leaders and enablers of effective nurturing care and education delivery.
7. The mid-level supervisors and officers can gradually perceive themselves to be disempowered cogs in a hierarchical administrative culture that renders them powerless. A study by Aiyar and Bhattacharya, 2016, found that mid-level education officers refer to their own roles and offices as “post offices,” used simply for doing the bidding of higher authorities and ferrying messages between the top and bottom of the education chain.
8. Lastly, the diversity of stakeholders and variables that such large systems work with is mind-boggling. Everyone in the system faces adaptive challenges. Solutions to adaptive challenges reside not in the Ministry or the Directorate but in the collective intelligence of officers, teachers, workers at all levels. Thus, the challenge here lies in inspiring all levels of the hierarchical system to do the work of leadership.

In conclusion, strengthening of the public system necessitates capacity building of not only the frontline workers and teachers but also the middle management - the district and block level officials. A system wide approach is critical because only when the whole hierarchical system aligns with the organisation’s mission - care and learning of children, and with each other, will it be possible to work together towards any sustainable meaningful change. A frontline worker/ teacher will be able to deliver good quality care and learning only if the managerial eco-system that she is nested in has the pedagogical and leadership capacities to support her. This is true of every level in the hierarchy - they need their supervisor to provide the leadership that inspires and enables them to perform their role towards nurturing care and learning of children.