Introduction

Adult Education, all the world over, includes three stages viz., the initial literacy, post literacy and continuing education. A learning society is contingent upon the recognition and provision of life long education in which literacy, post literacy and continuing education are distinct, but overlapping stages in a learning continuum. After the initial literacy phase to the adult non-literates, post literacy is seen as the second segment along the continuum of life long education, playing the vital role of preventing regression and enabling the neo- literates to continue learning self-reliantly.

The PL stage is viewed as "an integrating learning process to assist literates to retain, improve and apply their basic knowledge, attitudes and skills to satisfy their needs and permit them to continue education through a self-directed process to improve their quality of life, personal and social"[1]. Three overlapping elements of PLC are unmistakable viz., retention and stabilization of literacy acquired; continuation beyond institutional structures(in Indian context, dependence on the learning centre and the VTs); and application and improvement of previously acquired literacy. Through continued learning(as autonomous learners) and through application of the literacy skills and knowledge acquired to reflect and improve life, personal, social, cultural, and vocational -- this is the purpose of PLC.

Post Literacy Campaigns, envisaged by the NLM, as a sequel to, and next stage after the initial literacy phase(the TLC phase), is designed to serve this very purpose. Continuing Education, in NLM's understanding, represents the third stage.

Problems and Constraints

Needed a multifaceted literacy consolidation-upgradation-continuation/ improvement programme suited to the inclinations and literacy competency of the heterogeneous semi/neo-literates.

Whereas PLCs are mostly mopping up and PL I teaching programmes, glossing over differences in learning interests and levels of literacy competency. What is the case in the PLC under study? How has the PLC been conceived vis-a-vis the three-fold objectives viz., (i) remediation, consolidation upgradation and continuation of literacy learning; (ii) awareness regarding policies, programmes, constitutional and legal rights and national values; and (iii) organisation and participation in development programmes for improvement(personal and collective). In the strategies delineated and actually implemented, has there been any decisive tilt in favour of any one or two, to the neglect of other objective(s)? What were the considerations/compulsions for such tilts? What learning strategies and learning materials have been designed, developed, reached out and learner use ensured as regards the heterogeneous learner needs? How adequate has learning materials supply and how effective has been its use, in terms of VT training, for the purpose? How adequate has been the learning strategy; whether it is over dependent on the printed word? What other learning strategies been used?

Within print material based learning strategy, other than PL 1 and other(what) graded materials, what other supplementary learning materials have been provided, reached and use at centre ensured(showing outsiders posters, neo-literates newsletters, broadsheets is not proof enough o f reach out and use by learners at PL centres). What weightage do/did the organisers attach to the three sets of objectives? What is their level of understanding about the potential of liteacy-awareness-participation as leading to neo-literates' development and improvement in their well being? In implementing learning strategies, what is the level of organisers' role delineation and clarity of the different segments of PLC functionaries -, VTs, VLC, full timers, administration from village to district level vis-a-vis the different programme components like learner motivation and mobilization; logistics at learning centres, materials supply, quality of teaching-learning, quality of organisation and nature of issues informing group activities; VT training, materials design, production and distribution; monitoring and supervision, etc. What is the level of involvement of other department functionaries in PL programmes(literacy integration in programmes of development/welfare/extension)? How high is literacy on the continued agenda of district administration(administration's priority to PLC as reflected in emphasis accorded and insisted on interdepartmentalism and convergence, favouring literacy? Aside from PL teaching-learning, what is the strategy and mode of organising neo-literates? What kind of organisation/group formation attempted at grassroots level and with what long term objectives? How well balanced or tilted is th e organisation/group formation vis-a-vis the heterogeneous neo-literates universe? ARe the different groups taken care? Or is there a overriding priority in favour of one or other group e.g. women, male youth, etc.? PLCs have just about 1/4 to 1/5th of TLC attendance. This drastic reduction in learner participation raises many issues:

1) Learner Disinterest:

2) (i) Is it due to lack of 'utility-relevance' of literacy message and content as perceived by learners(semi/neo-literates); (ii) organisers' failute to transmit the literacy- development and well being linkages(both their own perception

deficiency as well as ineffectiveness of training strategy, including transmission dilution in KRP-RP-MT-VT training stages). (2) Unenviable Ambience Social disadvantage and poverty as well as lack of literate/learning ambience at home, accentuating learner disinterest;

Deliberate(academic playing) steps to tackle this problem: What deliberate learning strategies/campaigns to create and sustain reading interest among neo-literates? Whether reading/learning materials and learning strategies are based on leaners' need-interest assessment? In designing learning materials and learning strategies, neo-literates' own experiences, knowledge and involvement are inter-woven or left out?

(3) VTs Drop-out

(i)limits to voluntarism(inherently, shot lived); (ii) failure to perceive VT development and well being, as vital as semi/neo-literates', to sustain voluntarism(VTs when perceive no returns(social esteem, own development/well being) to voluntarism dropout; (iii) perfunctory training (iv) transfer and left to fend for one self the entire load of motivation, mobilization, teaching-learning, organisation of neo-literates, organising grassroots development/welfare functionaries/ programme services for PLC; (v) lack of morale sustaining support at village level from VLC, Panchayats, teachers, govt./semi-govt. functionaries.

(4) Constraints Faced by PLC Workers

Where administration has become lukewarm towards PLC, and with less/least committed Collector and in subdued PLC(after high profile and energy sapping TLC stage), what major problems PLC organisers face? How does Collector disinterest affect PLC activities or what areas of PLC activities get affected the most? How does Collector disinterest lead to administration's indifference especially in respect of line departments'(development and welfare and local self-govt - Panchayats - involvement, and how do these affect PLC programme

tum and thrust? Even where Collector and administration continue to take interest, why PLC continues to be subdued, and what the organisers' and organisational deficiencies? is it a case of adequacy(vis-a-vis the learning needs of heterogeneous neo-literates) of programme package failure? Is it a failure of the combination of literacy-awareness- improvement oriented activities? Is the learner disinterest, a symptom of their urge for, and organisers' failure to conceive, devise and actively pursue, learner group solidarity fostering approaches and activities? What is the degree of priority for grassroots neo-literates organisation/network creation and systematic capability building to transfer literacy pursuit beyond PLC? What are the efforts, if any, to strengthen the organisational nucleus, to be self-reliant, empowered that it can decide its own learning, development, improvement programmes. Has this been a conscious policy or is the VLC dominated by the powerful local elements which would marginalise neo-literates network?

Duration of Study 6 months

Process of the Study

tep 1: (June 1-15)

Discussion of Study Proposal with Experts and finalistion of the aspects to be covered, research methodology and instruments/modalities of data collection, interview at field level. Step 2: (June 15-30)

Fist visit to the district under study by resplective NIAE faculty team;initial discussion with PLC organisers about the study, required information, modalities of its collection, personnel requirement, etc.Step 3: (July-Aug.)Training of filed investigators; Conduct of the study by NIAE faculty team.Step 4: (Sep. Oct.)Preparation of Draft report.Step 5: (Oct. 15-30)Presentation of draft study at meeting of expers and study district representatives.Step 6: (Nov.) Preparation of Final draft of study Step 7: (Dec.) Submission to NLM: (i) final study report; (ii) Collaborative Study Plan(with SRCs) for a more comprehensive study with a larger number of districts; (iii) HRD in PL/CE: Training Strategy for senior PL functionaries and related Development/Welfare Department functionaries;(iv) Capacity Building programme for SRCs, DRUs, Financial Estimate:Approximately Rs. 3 lakhs (Rs. 50,000 for study of each of the five districts proposed, and Rs. 50,000 for other expenses in preparation of the study and organising two meetings).