Right to Education - my thoughts

Education for all is a noble idea. There is merit in giving every child the right to demand free education so that he can become Human capital for the country. In this post, I’ll concentrate on the contentious aspect of 25% reservation in all schools including Private unaided schools. This I think is misdirected and not well thought through. The reason why 18 crore children of school going age are out of school has to do with both supply side and demand side economics.

· On the demand side, economically disadvantaged sections have more imminent needs (food, clothing & shelter) to worry about education. Reservation is not going to fix that part of the problem. We need separate poverty alleviation and vocational education programs for this end.

· On the supply side, there are close to 10.75 lakh schools in India (1 million Government schools, about 30 thousand private aided schools and 45 thousand private unaided schools). But most of the Government schools are just primary schools and majority are in bad shape without roofs and toilets. India needs about 25 crore seats for children between classes 1 to 8^th. But our capacity is not more than 19 crore seats. We need to focus on increasing capacity, not on shifting the occupancy in the existing schools by reserving seats for some. Where will the existing children go?

What’s more, there are critical implementation questions for the 25% reservation :

1. First, Who are the economically weaker sections? In a country where the Black economy is as big if not bigger than the formal economy, is there a proven way of identifying who is economically weak? When all our reservations are based on caste (principle of affirmative action), wouldn’t having this bill implemented on the basis of economic status cause a problem?

2. The 2^nd question is what right does the Government have to mandate 25% reservation in schools which are private and unaided. This is akin to forcing reservation in the private sector. The Government can drive reservation in Govt and Private aided schools but the risk is that it will tamper with the only part of schooling in this country where there is some quality existing – the private unaided schools.

3. The 3^rd one is who will compensate the Private Unaided schools for reserving 25% of their seats as free and how will this compensation be arrived at? Will the Government re-imburse the school on fee lost or just cover the expenses incurred on the 25% students? Will schools pass on the higher cost of operations to the remaining 75% thereby escalating already high fees?

Lastly, there is the question of assimilation. Mixing children from economically backward sections with those from richer families might cause inferiority complex or even resentment. Private unaided schools have various ‘opt-in’ programs such as study tours, sports, classes for extra-curriculars which economically backward section students will not be able to afford. Even simple things such as the quality of uniform, the difference in pencil boxes, bags and notebooks will unnecessarily affect the tender psyche of a young 7 year old child. There are enough studies I have come across which detail the impact of assimilation of a wide spectrum of economic backgrounds at a very early age. We need to tread carefully here, lest we harm more than we help.

I hope the Government focuses on investing the funds in building capacity to provide Access to Quality Education to everyone. This can be done through Public Private partnership but for that we’ll have to lose the moralistic, ‘not-for-profit’ expectation from the Private sector.

why can't cricket go the soccer way?

English Football has 5 leagues starting from Premier League to Championship, League 1, 2 and Conference. Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Holland - all have leagues too, where different clubs compete. For the better part of the year, clubs compete in their respective leagues for the honor of being the League winner. The League winner (or Top 3 depending on the country you compete in) goes on to the Champions League. Players belong to clubs and are paid massive salaries by their clubs. These clubs have physical presence and very loyal city based following. Sometimes, the following of clubs such as ManU, Real Madrin, Barcelona and Milan transcend their cities or countries.

Players also turn up to play for their country. These occasions are few and far between. Every 2 years, there is a big tournament - either a World Cup or a Continental Cup (European Championship, Copa America etc). Once or twice a year, countries play an International game and sometimes they play friendlies as practice matches for these big tournaments.

Why can't Mumbai Indians, Kings XI Punjab, NSW, Bushrangers, Trinidad & Tobago become the equivalent of ManU, Real Madrid and Barca? They can have teams for the Test, One Day and T20 formats.

Why can't there be a Premier League in each country a la EPL, Serie A, Primera Liga & Bundesliga? Why can't there be other secondary league with a very clear ascendancy mechanism for clubs to higher leagues?

Why can't the primary support and following be for the club? Why can't countries play less no. of times among each other? Maybe even restrict this to a World Test Cup, World 50 over Cup and World T20 Cup?

Why does IPL need to have a window? Infact, international matches and World Cups (or Continental Cups such as Asia Cup, Commonwealth Cup etc) should have a window! Every 4 years.

Wouldn't having these clubs as the primary building block of cricket facilitate talent development better? Wouldn't it force all these clubs to become more rooted in the cities they claim to represent? In fact they could then invest in stadiums, training facilities, academies, scouts, trainers etc and become real clubs then the once-a-year 60 day circus they currently are.

Why can't cricket be more like soccer?

Leadership

Leadership is a funny thing. There are tons of books written on the topic and still it remains an enigma. I'm trying my hand at making sense of the beast.

In very simple terms, a Leader is responsible for developing a vision of what's possible, gathering a bunch of people towards realising that vision, keeping them motivated through the journey, making course corrections wherever necessary and watching the progress till the vision is achieved. In fact, the vision is rarely achieved because it is a moving target, but more on that later!

In theory this sounds simple. However, there are differences in how people do each of the above, thereby creating different Leadership styles. I feel it is as important to understand why these differences arise as it is to categorize the differences themselves.

In my pov, there are three main factors that determine a person's Leadership style - Character, Situation, People.

Character is the intrinsic core of a person. It is an amalgamation of a person's ego, his self-perception, his degree of security, esteem and assurance. It directly manifests in a person's behavior. Some Leaders are therefore very authoritarian, others are more receptive. Some think position grants them the right to violate others' dignity, others steer from making this assumption. Some like a following, others a healthy debate. Some like to talk, others like to listen. But character only dictates the starting point. And often Leaders veer far away from the starting point depending on the situation and people involved.

Some situations lend themselves to more Transformative behaviors. Others need more transactional stuff. A crisis, for example, would need all hands on the deck. A steady state business on the other hand, would mean the Leader can 'let go' and focus elsewhere.

Ditto for people. Some people inspire confidence in a Leader to 'let go'. Others send signals that spark panic. Leaders respond differently to different people. If they know what to expect, they don't typically ask. If they know that promises made are usually kept, they won't peer over your shoulder. If they know that they'll get the bad news as fast as the good news, they won't second guess. In that sense, a Leader is as good as the person or team he is leading.

All being said, Leadership is a contract between the Leader and the Led. This contract depends to a larget extent on the kind of person that the Leader is (therefore pray that you are not stuck with an insecure person who derives his self-worth through others' affirmation). However, it also varies with the situation and can be influenced by the person who is being led.

This thought is very empowering. It transfers the Locus of Control to the 'Led'. It says that while you can't choose your Leader, you can choose his Leadership style for him!

The Problem with autonomy

Recently, I have met a fair amount of people who want 'autonomy' in their work. I don't understand it. Autonomy, I believe has to be commanded, not demanded.

Whoever you are......you're answerable to someone. If no one else, at least your wife!

Rather than asking someone to leave you alone, isn't it better to make a follow-up unnecessary?! If you don't want to have someone give advice to you, ask for suggestions ahead of time. If you don't want people interfering, give them a heads up.

The best way I have found of keeping your managers from interfering in your business is to set the right expectations and exceed those expectations. That's not all, continuously keep them informed of the progress because some managers are impatient and they assume the worst if they are not told otherwise. And in case you realise that you are going to miss the commitment made, it is better to share the bad news early than your manager hearing it from someone else.

Lastly, having a reason for your failure is not as important as having a Plan B. The reason will get you past a tough discussion but the alternative plan will get you the results. Where you focus, pretty much determines how far you'll go.