糖心传媒

As an early career academic, I have navigated the evolving landscape of education in India with a keen eye on its socio-political dimensions, specifically exploring the broader shifts in the roles and responsibilities of teachers brought about by the rapid growth of EdTech in India. My PhD research investigated  how corporatisation and precarious work conditions have reshaped teachers’ subjectivities, highlighting the intricate ways in which they navigate the emerging landscape of educational technology. Building on this, my recent work continues to examine these transformations, providing a deeper understanding of the intersection between technology and education and its implications for the role of the state, teachers’ professional lives, and financing of education.

The EdTech Explosion and Teacher Precarity in India

In recent years, India has witnessed an unprecedented boom in the EdTech sector. According to Traxn data, by the end of March 2022, there were 10,936 EdTech companies in India, with 916 receiving venture capital funding. The sector attracted $10.5 billion in investments by 2021, with $7.2 billion coming in the years of 2020 and 2021 alone. This would not have been possible without the active support of the State, as the Indian State acted as an enabler by providing incentive to EdTech players in form of an exclusive start-up policy that provided them100% tax exemption for the first three years on profits (GoI, 2016b), to a Digital India policy that envisioned the transformation of India into a digitally empowered society and a knowledge economy (GoI, 2015b). These favourable policies helped the EdTech sector attract a large number of EdTech companies. This influx of capital and corporate interest has drastically reconfigured the education landscape in India.

My research employed critical discourse analysis and virtual/digital ethnography to understand how teachers’ roles were being reimagined within this corporatized educational regime. Drawing on conceptual categories such as 鈥榗orporatization鈥� (Moeller, 2014), 鈥榩recarity鈥� (Guy, 2011), and 鈥榰berification鈥� (Huws, 2003), I highlighted the new realities faced by educators. Part-time work, short-term contracts, and the hiring of unskilled employees at low wages were now characteristic of the gig economy that infiltrated education (Carter & Stevenson, 2012; Price, Mansfield, & McConney, 2012).

The discourse of the information age (Castells, 2010) and knowledge economy (Powell & Snellman, 2004) went on to place the onus of professional development and decision-making on teachers themselves. This shift led to an intensification and extensification of work, coupled with a pervasive surveillance and audit culture. Teachers were increasingly seen as “micro-entrepreneurs” (Hall, 2016), navigating the complexities of “technologies of the self” (Foucault, 1988) to adapt to these new demands.

Shifting Focus: Education, Philanthropy, and State Restructuring

Since the completion of my PhD, I have been closely involved with the Government of India on the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and  observed the implementation of foundational learning programmes across various states, including the North-East. Currently,, my research, titled “Education, Philanthropic Interests, and the Restructuring of the State: Investigating Educational Policymaking and Provisioning in the State of Jharkhand,” investigates  the complex interplay between education, philanthropy, and Indian State responsibility.

Jharkhand, being a Adivasi (tribal) state, and one of the most economically backward states in India, has seen the role of state getting diluted since its establishment in 2001. In Jharkhand, local NGOs that have long been pillars of educational initiatives are facing substantial funding cuts. Large philanthropic organizations and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) have shifted their focus to their initiatives, such as vocational training for tribal youth. While the state needs funding and support from private players to effectively implement educational policies, the increased private participation has not resulted in enhanced effectiveness.

The interventions by Niti Aayog, the highest policymaking body in India, in Jharkhand’s aspirational districts such as Dumka, Giridih, Godda, Gumla, Khunti, Lohardaga, Pakur, Ranchi, Sahibganj and Ramgarh, executed with the help of a coalition of various national and global non-governmental organizations (NGOs), consultancy firms, social impact organizations etc., have introduced a corporate style of functioning within the government schooling system. This new paradigm has led to the consolidation and merger of schools, significantly reducing their number. Jharkhand still has one of the highest number of single teacher schools, with serious under-capacity in the number of teachers and teacher-trainers. While state institutions have been defunded and de-professionalized, the emergence of Project Management Units (PMUs) and District Management Units (DMUs) has raised concerns over the accountability of public education.

Outsourcing educational policymaking and implementation to these coalitions has positioned the state as a “broker” or “compensatory state” (Roy, 2023), rather than a direct provider of public goods like education. This shift aligns with the concept of a “Techno-Patrimonial Welfare State” (Aiyer, 2024), where visions of education as competitive, deregulated, and profit-oriented prevail. The operating logic of profit maximization and resource optimization (Ball, 2007; Molnar, 2005) underscores the presence of parallel discourses of accountability, performativity, and efficiency.

Call to Action

The evolving educational landscape in India, marked by the intersection of EdTech advancements and philanthropic interests, necessitates a critical examination of the state’s role in ensuring equitable and quality education. I urge fellow academics, policymakers, and practitioners to engage in discussions on the following points:

1. Balancing Public and Private Interests: How can we ensure that increased private participation in education does not undermine the state’s responsibility to provide equitable and quality education?
2. Accountability and Transparency: What measures can be implemented to enhance the accountability and transparency of educational initiatives led by private entities and philanthropic organizations?
3. Sustaining Local NGOs: How can we support local NGOs that have a deep understanding of community needs and have been pivotal in educational initiatives for decades?
4. Inclusive Policymaking: How can we ensure that educational policies are inclusive and consider the diverse needs of all stakeholders, particularly marginalized communities?

References

Anurag Shukla

Anurag Shukla is currently a director- of policy and education with a policy organization and a CPID-ISDM fellow. He has completed his Ph.D. at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA) and an MPhil degree from Delhi University. He also has a master’s degree from Azim Premji University and has worked previously with organizations such as the Azim Premji Foundation, Pratham, the Centre for Advocacy and Research, Times Group, and Business Standard. He has also been a J-PAL Research for Impact (RFI) fellow and a Reimagining Migration fellow. His interests are in public policy and administration, the history of education, the use of technologies, the digital humanities, and the use of social theory in education.