The paper analyses the varying meanings of quality in policy discourse since the term’s appearance as an operational element in planning programmes for educational reform, in the Indian context. It argues that the narrowness of meaning now associated with the term has its origins in the management–accountability approach of western donor agencies to third world education, especially as State provided education is increasingly seen as limited to the poor. Such a minimalist conception leads to limiting the possibility of fundamental reform in education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BehrmanJ. RBirdsallN. (1983). The quality of schooling: Quantity alone is misleading. American Economic Review, 73(5), 928-46.
2.
BrockUtneB. (2000). Whose education for all? The recolonisation of the African mind. NewYork: Falmer Press.
FullerB. (1994). Quality of education in developing nations: Policies for improving. In HusenT.PostlewaitheN. (Eds.), The International Encyclopaedia of Education. Oxford: Pergammon.
5.
FullerB.ClarkeP. (1994). Raising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and the influence of classroom tools, rules and pedagogy. Review of Education Research, 64(1), 119–157.
6.
GirouxH. (2004). Teachers as transformative intellectuals. In CanestrariA. S.MarloweB. A. (Eds.), Educational foundations: An anthology of critical readings (pp. 205–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
7.
Government of India. (1953). Report of the secondary education commission, (October 1952–June 1953). (The Mudaliar Commission). New Delhi: Ministry of Education and Social Wlefare.
8.
Government of India. (1966). Report of the education commission (1964–66): Education and national development. New Delhi: Ministry of Education, Government of India.
9.
Government of India. (1986a). National policy on education. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.
10.
Government of India. (1986b). Minimum levels of learning. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.
11.
Government of India. (1992). Learning without, burden: Report: of the National Advisory Committee. (Yashpal Committee Report). New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD).
12.
Government of India. (1995). District primary education programme guidelines. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.
MundyK. (2002). Retrospect and prospect: Education in a reforming World Bank. International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 483–508.
18.
National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) (2005). National curriculum framework 2005. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).
19.
National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (2009). Monitoring formats for quality management dimensions under SSA. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).
SarangapaniP. (2005). Quality in Education.: A view from the South of its history and debateable effects. Unpublished paper presented at the Conference on Expert Meeting on Researching Quality of Education for All in the South: : Main Research Issues and Current Gaps, University of Amsterdam, AMIDSt and Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Cultural Cooperation, Education and Research Department. August 29–30, 2005.
UNESCO. (2004). EFA Global monitoring report 2005: Education for all, the quality imperative. Paris: UNESCO.
24.
VenkateshS.(2009). Teacher incentives for improved learning outcomes — Evidence from Andhra Pradesh. Paper presented at the International Conference on Teacher Development and Management.Udaipur. Vidya Bhawan Society. February 22–24, 2009.
25.
WinchC. (1996). Quality and education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
