Background

Shahjahanpur TLC Phase I, for 5 Blocks, was sanctioned in Jan. 1994. After preparations, T-L was started in Dec. 1995. Out of the surveyed target group of 1.13 lakhs(15-35 age group) non-literates, 1.05 lakhs were reported to have joined the learning centres and most of them are also claimed to have completed Primers I and II, but only 62,503 were said to have finished Primer III by the end of Aug. 1997. The rest, it is reported, would complete Primer III by the end of Dec. 1997.

TLC in Second Phase

TLC in the remaining 10 Blocks of Shahjahanpur is proposed to be taken up to cover 97,053 non-literates in the 9-14, and 3.61 lakhs in the 15-35 age group, as per the Survey conducted in Oct. 1996. The project proposes a two year period for implementation at a per learner cost of about Rs. 83. Shahjahanpur TLC II phase appears to have been deferred by

NLM at least twice earlier for not coming up after pre-appraisal. Pre-appraisal visit was made to Shahjahanpur on Sep. 17-18, along with a representative of the State Directorate of Adult Education.

Pre-appraisal Visit

During the visit, the Statistical Assistant of the Office of the District Adult Education who has worked with the TLC for the last one and half years provided the background information about TLC I Phase, and the Survey undertaken in respect of TLC in Second Phase. This was supplemented by an initial discussion with the District Development Officer and the PDO. Field visits were made to the second phase areas -- one Block HQ, Shidoli and two villages viz, Mudia Pamar and Murcha. In all the three places visited, we had face to face discussion with Panchayat Presidents, teachers and village people to gauge their perceptions and disposition towards the proposed literacy campaign. We also ascertained the veracity of the survey conducted in these villages. We participated in a meeting at the district HQ, especially convened for the purpose and attended by people involved in the First Phase - officials, educationists and officials of education and NFE departments. n the meeting with the DM in the evening, we shared our impressions gathered from the field visits and discussions.

Impressions

The meetings organised during field visit tended to give an impression of these being totally new, the first convened for the literacy subject. No mass contact so far. The proposed TLC has not been broached with them. There has been neither any official meeting nor any EB effort. But Survey has been completed in Oct. 1996 in the entire 10 Blocks proposed to be taken up in one go in the Second Phase! The wisdom of such an approach to pre-launch or pre-teaching-learning preparations raises doubts about the health of TLC phase I, or at least how the leadership seeks to harness lessons from experience of Phase I. In the absence of any other

pre-launch preparations for almost a year now, the only indicator of how well they deserve sanction of TLC Phase II is how good has been the TLC in Phase I, the approach to the programme, its mass character, the functioning of organisational structures, effectiveness of management system, including the frequency and reliability of monitoring, etc. Together, these have a bearing on the claims of target achievement. Given the fact that no one other other the Statistical Assistant seems to be in the know of TLC, it would appear that TLC review meetings at the district level, EC or Core Group meetings do not seem frequent, in spite of the fact that T-L still continues. Even though DDO(the Secretary of TLC), PDO, one BDO, and another Block in-charge and a previous TLC Secretary were there in the meeting on Sep. 18, which we attended, no one mentioned anything about the District level review meetings. In fact, may people, supposed to be in the ZSS-EC or Core Group were surpriksed to hear about claims of district level regular meetings because they did not know or not invited. Claims of cross representational TLC committees, their functionality, the health of the TLC management system and the veracity of claims about achievement -- all would seem not above an element of doubt. Therefore, what could one be naturally apprehensive about is whether this very same approach would be repeated in the second phase. It is easy to be critical about TLCs like Shahjahanpur, but there are many unanswered questions: (i) who is responsible for the fact that Survey has been completed in Phase II areas, not preceded by any of the pre-launch preparations? (ii) Survey was conducted in Oct. 1996, but the Proposal comes to NLM-PAC in Sept end 1997 - a full one year later? (iii) The NLM, State Directorate of Adult Education, the State Education Secretary in charge of Adult and NFE and above all, the Shahjahanpur ZSS, especially the Chairman or Secretary - each would find fault with other(s). Who should have taken the initiative to ensure II phase commencement without much delay? (iv) TLC, started in Jan. 1995, and T-L in Dec. 1995, but is still in progress: 24 months for T-L, and TLC for full three years! What is the guarantee that TLC in Phase II would not be any different?

To none of these questions could anyone in the District be held responsible - the DM, CDO, DDO, PDO, all in charge of the Project. 4 DMs, 4 CDOs, 4 TLC Secretaries changed in 3 years! There is no continuity of leadership and under the circumstances, perhaps no heart in TLC either. The average life expectancy of DM-ship in UP in 1996 is said to have been 54 days and so would have been the case of CDOs, etc. Priorities on DM and district administration change by the party in power whose life expectancy is also not very high . But with each regime, overriding the priorities of the predecessor regime and coming down heavily on the DM if failing on target fulfillment of its priority schemes - the Ambedkar Vikas Yojna illustrates the point --, DMS and district administrations have little option and little time for literacy. Therefore, all these may be true. The present team will openly share the concern about the lack of commitment of the previous team or the `cart before the horse' approach of predating Survey before the EB, f or the drag of TLC in Phase I and its lackluster performance, etc. Everyone argued, if the DM is not interested or is pre-occupied with other priorities, there is very little anyone can do anything about drifts and drags in TLC.

Whereas the ZSS, especially the district senior officials point out these reasons and their helplessness about the drift in the TLC momentum, no one has bothered to introspect what alternative strategies could have weathered the vagaries of DM and TLC top leadership instability. This is relevant in the context of sanction for II Phase TLC. What are the safeguards for TLC where political commitment of the State(Govt.) is non- existent and district administration's priority is less? Conditionality for TLC Sanction (I)Second Line of Command DM's commitment is undoubtedly and necessarily the first pre-requisite. Creation of Second Line of Command is the most pragmatic step now needed in the context of instability of tenure of DM and other top officials. This second line of command at the district and Block levels, should not be officials below the DM, but largely of people outside administration like educationists, serving and retired and persons from NGOs and voluntary agencies . The second line of command should go down to the village level, by the inclusion, in this case, of community based organisations(CBO), like women, youth, students , specially created for the purpose. It is different from popular committees, in that the implementation initiative, decision- making about use of TLC funds must rest with this second line of command. Committees may be cross representational, but without the power of implementation, including funds appropriation, they really do not become implementing agencies. Popular committees would be nominal and notional without the commitment of the leadership to make them functional. With a second line of command, from District Core Group down to the village, largely of non-govt people, with one nodal officer of the govt. as incharge, TLCs like Shahjahanpur would not have dragged on for three years with DM's transfers.

Explicit assurance to create and consciously foster a District Core of literacy activists and an empowered second line of command, with community based organisations(their creation being a mini campaign), should be the conditionality for sanction of II phase TLC. (ii) Regular and Credible Monitoring and MIS Today TLC in Phase I areas is said to be still in progress. But there is no official at the district level, save the Statistical Assistant, who could give an authentic view of the programme, its popular character, not so much from the composition of the committees, but from involvement and how active and efficient the management system is. It is doubtful if there is any such active monitoring and review system at all. Perhaps, Statistical figures are compiled as handed out by the BDOs as being ordered to, and to `manage' the programme as a "mass movement"! If this is not to happen again in the II Phase TLC, there should be assurance of the EC and Core Group meeting fortnightly or monthly. The Core Group should consist of literacy activists outside district administration as well as nodal officers of line departments. Assurance alone is not sufficient, but proof of at least 3-4 months of such regular functioning is essential, to carry conviction that assurances do not remain empty, as earlier.

Conclusion and Recommendation

In the context of U.P.'s perennial instability of DM's tenure and Shahjahanpur's track record of 3-year drag of TLC Phase I, does one go only by assurances offered when sanction for another phase of TLC is involved? Or does one also look for proofs of assurances honoured in actual practice on the ground a trial period before the final sanction is accorded? If it is not the latter, what is the guarantee that history of 3-year TLC drag will not be repeated in TLC Phase II as well?

Across the board generalisations about DM's lack of commitment is not fair. Genuine interest and commitment assured need to be respected and appreciated. That is most essential criterion for TLC sanction. But given the adverse effects on TLC with successor DM without the same level of commitment and given the chronic uncertainty about DM 's tenure, there is need to go beyond assurances of commitment and creation of empowered second line of command, Core Groups at District and Block levels, largely of non-officials and community based organisations at the village level. Here again, there is need to allow a period of 4- 6 months to see assurances put into practice.

TLC leadership's commitment must inform priority for TLC. Priority must be seen in the popular character of the committees with clear cut roles and functions and management efficiency as ensured by regular meetings, review and feedback. Charge of literacy, to officials, over and above their existing duties, rarely work unless the DM sets a personal example and ensures the same down the line. Where this level of commitment is less, a full-timer structure is some compensation. Shahjahanpur TLC Phase I had no full timers. Knowing how TLC derailed with changes in DMs, there is no way out except carefully selected full timers at District, and Block levels, and some nodal govt. functionary at the Panchayat Cluster level entrusted with the responsibility of implementation. There is need for assurance as well as proof that this is honoured in actual practice. Thus, a trial period seems essential.

Shahjahanpur TLC Phase I performance gives little confidence about the prospects of its TLC Phase II. Admittedly, the present DM should not be held responsible for the problems of previous DM's lack of commitment and neglect, nor should his assurance of commitment should be held in suspicion. However, since the project had run into problems earlier, and no preparations worth the name have been undertaken in respect of TLC II Phase, we think it fair to give them a mobilisation advance and a preparatory period of 4-6 months to ensure and ascertain if proper preparations, as indicated above, are actually made. Another appraisal may be necessary before Shahjahanpur TLC Phase II is accorded the final sanction.

TLC II PHASE IN BAREILLY: A PRE-APPRAISAL REPORT

Background

When Bareilly TLC was presented before NLM-PAC in March 1993, the project was for the entire district, covering 15 Blocks. The Action Plan proposed to implement the programme in 3 phases, covering 5 Blocks including the town areas, in each phase. NLM accorded sanction and funds for the first phase. The project started in 1993, but could not take off effectively for various reasons and dragged on till the end of 1995. The programme was re-started with a totally new set of strategies from Jan. 1996.

New Strategies of Re-Started TLC Phase

The main features of the new strategies included (i) re- organisation of the organisational structures from district to village level. The implementation responsibility was assigned to a nodal govt. functionary, identified for the purpose, at each level. (ii) Full time Coordinators were appointed at the 5 Block levels, the critical link in the district, and for the Bareilly city area, for the purpose of overall coordination. (iii) The cutting edge of TLC implementation is the village or the ward. A cluster of villages/wards, called the Naya Panchayat was placed under a district level officer with the charge of programme implementation. (iv) Weekly meetings at Naya Panchayat levels and monthly meetings - the 18th of the month - at district level enabled regular feed back about programme. The weekly Naya Panchayat meetings attended by the MTs, as Village Conveners, reviewed the programme progress and solved logistics related problems at that level. It was recognised that restoring the image of administration is the best credential to win public confidence and participation in a programme like TLC. Any VT could report to the Naya Panchayat officer, in the weekly TLC meetings, about problems related to the administration or their village and this would be discussed at the monthly district meetings and remedial measures were expeditiously taken.

The monthly district review meetings attended by the Naya Panchayat TLC incharge officials were always chaired by the DM. It is said that every single Naya Panchayat TLC progress would come under scrutiny and review, with the DM presiding, and all problems reported by the VTs would be taken up and sorted out. All the VTs were provided with Photo Identity Cards with clear instruction to all government depts./agencies to give him priority attention in respect of his personal problems which may require administration's help. VTs could approach any official including the DM and report about any problem related to the TLC in their areas. In case of misuse, the ID cards were liable to be seized.

The strict vigil about the functioning of administration, specially at the ground level, the prominence shown the VTs, the seriousness of review about programme implementation at Naya Panchayat levels, the effectiveness of Block Coordinators, and the personal commitment of the DM -- all these helped to restore seriousness of purpose of TLC and the tight leash on the TLC tempo.

As per the information provided by the ZZS, T-L was started for 1.6 lakhs surveyed non-literates in April 1996 and officiallyconcluded in Feb. 1997. It is reported that 1.02 lakhs have completed Primer III. A Concurrent Evaluation conducted by an external agency in Feb. 1997 found the programme exemplary in respect of its "mass movement" character, the hectic pace and tight leash on TLC tempo, an effective and credible monitoring and review and an all pervasive commitment, from the DM down to the village level govt. functionary. Some of the special efforts of Bareilly TLC has made it legendary, as one could hear from the cross sections of people.

TLC in II Phase: Preparations

In a change from the original proposal, the second phase now seeks to take up the remaining 10 Blocks together. A door-to- door survey was conducted in Nov. 1996, when TLC in Phase I was nearling completion. The survey indicated a target size of 2.31 lakhs. A systematic EB effort was deferred till formal NLM sanction and also the completion of certain special efforts aimed at securing an enduring place in the conscience of civil society.

Pre-appraisal Visit and Impressions Bareilly TLC was visited on Sept. 16-17, along with two representatives of the Directorate of Adult Education, Lucknow. Background information provided by the TLC District Coordinator and the CDO about TLC Phase I, documentation, including press cuttings and photos and the report of Concurrent Evaluation by an external agency gave a fair idea of TLC Phase I.

We visited one village and learnt about the TLC as actually implemented at the grassroots level. Formal teaching was over in Feb., but classes still continue; both learners and the VTs seem interested and the organisers not averse to it. Villages are the windows to the TLC. Even in the most meticulously planned and managed TLCs at the District level, one could see gaps in TLC monitoring and feedback at the village level. Such gaps apart, there was an attempt at serious and credible MIS.

There was a meeting of the people involved in TLC Phase I about 30, including the journalists and non-officials. The discussions put it beyond doubt about the enduring place that TLC made in the conscience and heart of civil society, not to speak of its management efficiency. Our meeting separately with journalists confirmed this point.

The DM was forthcoming to meet us, to learn about our impressions and suggestions and to assure that literacy would be one of his top priorities, and to tread in the path of his illustrious predecessor who retrieved almost a lost TLC and completed it.

Assessment

Teaching-Learning in Phase I was completed in Feb. 1997. There has also been changes in the DM twice since then. The one today is the third, within the last 8 months. What may indeed seem the most legendary TLC in UP to-date, Bareilly TLC Phase I was the contribution of one DM, who re-started in Dec. 1995 and steered it to completion by March 1997. The next DM had little interest in TLC. The present DM, less than 10 days old in the District now, has pledged to revive what he considers the truly great work of the DM between Dec. 1995-March 1997.

What position can NLM take in respect of Bareilly TLC Phase II considering that the previous DM did little to sustain and promote TLC between March-September 1997? If Bareilly TLC Phase II is sanctioned now, what is the guarantee that the present DM would be fortunate to continue there and complete it as was the case with the DM during 1995-97? If there is a change again and with a DM not interested in literacy, would not the April-Sept. 1997 or even the 1993-95 drag experience repeat itself? It is admitted that we go by the expressions of commitment by the DM in position now, and this would equally be true of the commitment of Director and Secretary of Education dealing with adult and non-formal education in the UP State Govt. Change of DMs and State Secretaries of Education and commitment of the next incumbent, it may be argued, are ifs and buts, not totally relevant, for the issue of sanction, except of the present ones. This may be true but only partially, if only, one goes by what happened to Bareilly itself, not to speak of UP as a whole. We treat the present commitment, although, as of now, expression of intent, as the basis. And as a safeguard against drifts and drags to TLC as happened during April-Sept. 97, or even between March 1993-Dec.1995, it would also be prudent to provide mechanisms and measures that will sustain TLC even when the DM may not be deeply committed and that DM's transfer does not plunge the TLC in crisis. One is the re-creation of the organisational structures and management systems that worked so well during Ja.1996-March 1997. The second relates to some of the qualitative measures - the prominence given to the VTs, the efforts to restore the image of administration in the eyes of the people and special efforts like the creation of 'Aao Bahano', registered women groups in the villages and such other measures taken up during 1996-97.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Very few exceptions apart, they drag and are no different from other govt. programme. Even then, these experiences are disregarded when sanction is sought for new TLCs or second phases for the same districts. Therefore, does one suggest an outright sanction or a conditional or provisional sanction, the final sanction being are actually translated into implementation in the pre-teaching- learning preparations. At least in cases of TLCs coming for II Phase, and which suffered a dormant interregnum owing to the DM's lack of commitment and also without mechanisms for uninterrupted TLC tempo, provisional sanction would be a fair decision. Yet, in the case of Bareilly TLC II Phase, we plead a different consideration.

In the prevailing political milieu, the ethos of priority for issues like literacy is not even nominal, and the DM's unpredictable and short tenures neither allows much space for concerns like literacy nor time for it as other priorities are thrust on them. In such an atmosphere, if some DMs pledge to devote time and take personal interest in literacy, this must be the first guarantee against predictions of history repeating itself.

The second, and the more important consideration in the case of Bareilly TLC II Phase, is the leadership's assurance of treading the path of TLC Phase I, winning public confidence and participation and an efficient TLC management and a credible monitoring and review system. These two considerations would merit NLM confidence and Bareilly TLC Phase II would seem to merit total sanction. But this could also be disputed in the light of UP TLCs' track record and the consequent injustice to the cause of literacy and the people, when assurances remain on paper and TLCs' slump and drags are explained away as due to 'factors beyond control'.

Given the DM's personal commitment to literacy, and assurance to revive all the good features of TLC Phase I, we would suggest total sanction. But if UP's TLC history does not inspire confidence in NLM by assurances, it could consider only one condition behind total sanction. That is that the release of II installment of funds could be subject to another visit to ascertain if the more promising ones like Bareilly TLC Phase II truly standout as promised.