Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International

Education

ISSN: 0305-7925 (Print) 1469-3623 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20

One step forward, two steps back: transitions

between home, pre-primary and primary
education in rural India

Benjamin Alcott, Manjistha Banerji, Suman Bhattacharjea, Mansi Nanda &

Purnima Ramanujan

To cite this article: Benjamin Alcott, Manjistha Banerji, Suman Bhattacharjea, Mansi Nanda &
Purnima Ramanujan (2018): One step forward, two steps back: transitions between home, pre-
primary and primary education in rural India, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1527214

Published online: 22 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccom20
COMPARE, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1527214

One step forward, two steps back: transitions between

home, pre-primary and primary education in rural India
Benjamin Alcotta, Manjistha Banerjib, Suman Bhattacharjeac, Mansi Nandac
and Purnima Ramanujanc
a
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; bNational Council of Applied Economic
Research, New Delhi, India; cASER Centre, New Delhi, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
A growing evidence base highlights the value of high-quality early Early-childhood education;
childhood education (ECE) to children’s cognitive and social devel- participation; India; Assam;
opment. However, far less is known about how families and chil- Rajasthan; Telangana
dren, especially in developing countries, participate in ECE or how
these participation patterns reflect families’ thinking and decision-
making. This paper utilises a mixed-methods approach to analyse
longitudinal household survey and interview data (on 7336 and
180 children, respectively) from the India Early Childhood
Education Impact study. Our results indicate that children’s parti-
cipation trajectories in the early years (age four to eight) do not
reflect the age or grade norms specified by national educational
policies. And, far from being linear, children’s educational path-
ways entail considerable back and forth between home, preschool
and school. The authors argue that these trajectories reflect both
poor implementation of national norms as well as an inadequate
understanding among both parents and service providers of how
best to support young children’s cognitive development.

Introduction
The increasing emphasis on early childhood education (ECE) in educational policy
debates globally (UNESCO 2015, Goal 4, Target 2) is well founded (for a review, see
Woodhead et al. [2014]). Within the fields of neuroscience and psychology, there is
widespread agreement that the developmental period of infancy is crucial to brain
development (Karoly et al. 1998; Young and Richardson 2007) and the subsequent
acquisition of competencies (Kohlberg 1968; Ramey 1998), meaning that additional
learning during these stages can have long-lasting effects on cognitive and academic
development (Campbell et al. 2001; Shore 1997). Within the field of economics, a
common rationale, stemming from human capital theory (Becker 1980), is that early
cognitive development shapes subsequent opportunities throughout the lifespan
(Cunha et al. 2006; Heckman 2011).
These conceptualisations are backed by empirical evidence from developing coun-
tries, which show that high-quality ECE (e.g. through structured sessions delivered by

CONTACT Benjamin Alcott [email protected] Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, 184 Hills Road,
Cambridge, CB2 8PQ, UK
© 2018 British Association for International and Comparative Education
2 B. ALCOTT ET AL.

trained staff) can boost development not only in children’s cognitive and social skills,
but also long-term educational, health, economic and labour market outcomes (Engle
et al. 2011; Nonoyama Tarumi, Loaiza, and Engle 2009; Rao et al. 2013). But while there
is already clear evidence on the value of good ECE, and policy in many countries
reflects this knowledge, we know relatively little about the pathways young children in
developing contexts actually take between home, ECE and primary education through
the early years, and how these reflect families’ thinking about the importance of ECE.
While policy-makers may mandate clear transitions at specific developmental stages,
the extent to which such norms are manifested in households’ decision-making is less
clear.
This paper aims to inform research and policy debates on early childhood education
by shedding light on whether, when and why households in rural India make use of
ECE opportunities for their young children. We do this with mixed-methods analysis of
a unique longitudinal dataset conducted in three states: Assam; Rajasthan; and
Telangana. With access to both quantitative and qualitative data, we are able to both
identify distinctive patterns between states with regard to the pathways children take as
well as explore how these differences reflect families’ thinking and decision-making.

Prior evidence on early childhood education in India

A growing body of evidence from India makes clear that children’s learning outcomes
are far below expected levels, and have not improved over the past decade (ASER
Centre 2015). As with many countries, conditions are most severe amongst children
from disadvantaged households (see, for example, Borooah [2012]; Kingdon [2007];
Rolleston and James [2015]; Woodhead, Dornan, and Murray [2013]). Across rural
India, for example, fewer than 25% of poorer children aged 11–13 are in school and
have learnt the basics, just half the proportion of wealthier children (Rose et al. 2017).
Poor learning levels are apparent from the very first years of school: for example, in
third grade 58% of children are still unable to read a Grade 1 level text (ASER Centre
2017). Keeping up with the curriculum right from the start is important: only around
one in 10 children who lack basic literacy or numeracy skills are able to acquire them
after an additional year of schooling (Bhattacharjea, Banerji, and Wadhwa 2011;
Educational Initiatives 2010; Pritchett and Beatty 2015), and the gap between curricu-
lum expectations and children’s abilities only widens over time. The importance of the
early years is further corroborated by the fact that dropout rates in India have been
higher in Grades 1 and 2 than in later primary-school grades (Mehta 2007; Reddy and
Sinha 2010), indicating the precariousness of the transition from home/preschool to
Grades 1 and 2.
The Indian government has a long history of providing early childhood development
services at scale via the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), established in
1975. Globally, ICDS was among the world’s first attempts to provide a nationwide
early childhood development programme (Woodhead et al. 2014) and remains one of
the largest such programmes in the world. However, ICDS has tended to prioritise
nutrition, sanitation and health more broadly (Ali 2015; Programme Evaluation
Organisation (PEO) Planning Commission 2011), and the government has acknowl-
edged that the programme’s educational component is ‘particularly deficient in quality’
 COMPARE 3

in some parts of the country (Government of India 2013b, 16). In other words, ICDS
has focused more on establishing elements of wellbeing that are essential for children to
learn, rather than focusing explicitly on providing opportunities to learn.
Policy attention towards the education component of early childhood development
has increased in recent years, partly as the result of efforts from supranational agencies
to highlight its importance (UNESCO 2015). The National Policy on Early Childhood
Care and Education was approved in 2013 and a national curriculum for ECE was
released soon afterwards, although its implementation on the ground has been slow.
The policy framework in the domain of school education largely ignores children below
school-going age: the 2009 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE)
Act guarantees eight years of free education for children in the 6–14 age group,
recommending only that ‘the appropriate Government may make necessary arrange-
ment for providing free pre-school education’ for children until the age of six
(Government of India 2009, Art. 11). Hence, despite the recent policy changes, govern-
ment provision of ECE in India falls into a grey area between a focus on more
immediate health and nutrition priorities in early childhood development and a focus
on education that begins only from primary school entry.
According to data from the Ministry for Women and Child Development for 2014–
2015, ICDS anganwadis (‘courtyard centres’) reached over 100 million children aged
between zero and six (Government of India 2017), of which more than 36 million were
in the ECE age group of three to six years – more than a third of all children in this age
group (Registrar of India 2011). The true extent of ECE in India though is greater still,
as many children are served by a growing number of private preschool providers, many
of which offer English-medium classes imitating formal primary schooling (Streuli,
Vennam, and Woodhead 2011; Singh and Bangay 2014). Even in rural areas, while
most four-year olds attend anganwadis, a fifth attend private pre-primary centres
(ASER Centre 2017).
Despite the government’s stated intention of harmonising services across all ECE
providers (Government of India 2013a), no comprehensive list of all ECE providers
exists in India. Research evidence on Indian children’s participation in ECE and its
value is also limited. Much of the recent evidence available comes from cross-sectional
data from Jammu and Kashmir (Arora et al. 2006, 2007, Samridhi et al. 2011) and
longitudinal data from Andhra Pradesh (Vennam and Komanduri 2009; Streuli,
Vennam, and Woodhead 2011; Woodhead et al. 2009). Findings by Arora et al.
(2007), Samridhi et al. 2011) suggest that children who attend anganwadis in Jammu
and Kashmir may on average have greater levels of cognitive development than those
who do not, although this should not be misconstrued as a causal effect of anganwadi
attendance. Additionally, a few experimental studies have demonstrated the potential
for ECE participation to have substantial benefits for children’s cognitive development,
for example via parenting training (Nair et al. 2009), oracy programmes (Piramal and
Law 2001) or improved staff training and funding (Ade et al. 2010).
Research on conditions in Andhra Pradesh (now Andhra Pradesh and Telangana),
using data from the longitudinal Young Lives survey, has added to our understand-
ing of the non-uniform nature of ECE participation. Perhaps most importantly, they
find that not only ECE participation, but also the type of ECE provider attended, is
socially stratified (Streuli, Vennam, and Woodhead 2011). Simply put, surveyed
4 B. ALCOTT ET AL.

families perceived private providers as being of higher quality, especially those

purporting to offer English-medium instruction (Streuli, Vennam, and Woodhead
2011; Singh and Bangay 2014). And since private ECE providers tend to charge fees,
it is typically, though not exclusively, more advantaged families who send their
children to these providers, thus mirroring trends in primary and secondary school-
ing (Alcott and Rose 2015; Woodhead, Frost, and James 2013). Further, where
households only have the ability to send some children to private ECE providers,
boys tend to be favoured over girls (Streuli, Vennam, and Woodhead 2011). While
the Young Lives study has enabled important studies exploring parental choice and
perceptions in ECE, its insights on ECE are restricted to coverage of a single state in
India. Findings from a more recent multi-state longitudinal study corroborate the
importance of gender and socioeconomic status, while also emphasising geographic
differences in conditions (Kaul et al. 2017).

Focus of this paper

In summary, despite the recent development of a national policy and curriculum
framework, ECE in India is still far less regulated than the school system. India’s
government has ensured that almost all citizens have access to at least one government
ECE provider (anganwadi), and the proliferation of private provision has led to multi-
ple institutions operating even in rural areas (Ashley et al. 2014; Kaul et al. 2017). Yet,
little is known about how households navigate this highly unregulated environment.
And while we have some sense of the degree of inequality in ECE participation across
India, we know far less about the timing of enrolment at the different education stages
across different contexts in India.
Our analysis uses the datasets generated by the India Early Childhood Education
Impact (IECEI) study to offer a number of advancements on prior research. First,
we provide analysis based on data from three states in India – Assam, Rajasthan
and Telangana – which differ in terms of geographical conditions and socioeco-
nomic development indicators. This enables us to examine whether observed trends
reflect national-level patterns or are specific to individual states. Second, the ana-
lysis is based on data from a large sample of 7336 children, making it more
plausible that any patterns identified are representative of broader trends. Third,
the analysis is based on longitudinal data: sampled children were tracked in 11
waves of data collection over a four-year period, from age four to eight. These
factors enable us to consider participation in, and transitions across, ECE and
primary school as a process that is dynamic and varied, rather than static and
uniform, and to observe how households’ ECE opportunities and decision-making
evolve over time.
We make use of these strengths to explore the transitions that children make, both
within ECE and into primary-school grades. More specifically, we explore transitions in
terms of children’s progress. By progress, we mean the timing of children’s movements,
first into ECE facilities and then into primary schools, and the degree to which this
maps onto the timing mandated by national education policy, e.g. that at age five
children should be in some form of pre-primary provision (Government of India 2009).
We articulate these interests through the following research questions:
 COMPARE 5

(1) To what extent do children progress into pre-school and then primary school ‘on
time’, as per national policy norms?
(2) In what ways does the timing of these transitions reflect parents’ thinking about
early childhood education?

Methods
We use a mixed-methods approach to answer these research questions. More specifically,
we consider our analysis to represent a blended research design, wherein we afford two
different methods equal status to explore different aspects of the same phenomena (Greene
2007). To identify patterns in children’s progress into pre-primary and then primary school
(research question 1), we analyse a longitudinal household quantitative dataset. To explore
the thinking and decision-making at the household level that underpin these broader
patterns (research question 2), we use qualitative interview data from households purpo-
sively sampled to provide perspectives from a diversity of household conditions. The aim is
that by building on the distinctive strengths of each approach, the methods provide real
complementarity (Small 2011) in developing our knowledge of ECE participation in India.
For research question 1, we undertake descriptive quantitative analysis of 11 waves of
survey data from the India Early Childhood Education Impact (IECEI) study, which
followed a cohort of children in the states of Assam, Rajasthan and Telangana over a
four-year time frame (September 2011–December 2015). Our analysis focuses on the
7336 children for whom we have participation information for each of the 11 survey
waves. Summary statistics for this sample is presented in Table 1.
Our analysis of the survey data focuses on whether children were participating in an
educational institution on the day of each survey wave and, if participating, the level of the
educational institution (i.e. pre-primary or primary). Information on children’s participa-
tion was triangulated from three sources: parental reports; institutional records; and
surveyors’ direct observations. Thus ‘participation’ as defined in this study includes both
‘official’ or ‘formal’ enrolment as well as ‘unofficial’ or ‘informal’ participation because
children were often found to be going to an institution (ECE centre or school) without
being formally enrolled, and/or enrolled in one institution but attending another.
To explore household decision-making processes behind sampled children’s participa-
tion trajectories (research question 2), we analyse parent interviews undertaken within the
IECEI study at the completion of all 11 waves of the quantitative survey. Fieldwork for the
qualitative component was conducted in a total of 12 sampled villages (four per state),

Table 1. Summary statistics for study sample.

Assam Telangana Rajasthan
Percentage of children . . .
Whose home language is same as official state language 52 88 18
Whose mother has never been to school 33 47 58
Whose mother completed Grade 5 52 45 39
Who had reading material at home in survey wave 1 86 84 53
With at least one government ECE provider in village 100 100 100
With three or more government ECE providers in village 100 100 100
With at least one private ECE provider in village 82 76 64
With three or more private ECE providers in village 29 39 93
N= 2140 3074 2122
6 B. ALCOTT ET AL.

within which semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of 180 children who
took part in the quantitative survey: 60 in Assam; 58 in Telangana; and 62 in Rajasthan. In
cases where parents of sampled children were unavailable, the available primary caregiver
or guardian was interviewed. Data from the quantitative survey was used to inform the
selection of both villages and children, with the aim of ensuring a diverse sample in terms of
village, household and child characteristics.
Interviews focused largely on the reasons for sending the sampled child to the institution(s)
she or he attended over the previous five years, and what the parents felt the child had gained
from the experience. Given that the interviews addressed actions taken several years in the
past, the analytical approach sought primarily to identify the kinds of considerations parents
discussed – and, equally, those that were not mentioned. Interviews were conducted in either
the state language or the local dialect, as appropriate. All interviews were then recorded and
transcribed verbatim into English before analysis.
The embedding of the qualitative inquiry within preliminary findings from the
survey data allows us to generate insights that sharpen our understanding of household
decision-making and choice. We use the thematic analytical approach (Braun and
Clarke 2006) to analyse data from these interviews, focusing on two major areas of
inquiry: reasons for choice and experience in pre-primary and school. Interviews were
first coded inductively and thereafter relevant codes were clustered into mutually
compatible categories. This process was iterative and involved delimiting both the
themes as well as the codes up to a point of thematic and coding saturation.

Limitations
This study faces several limitations common to longitudinal research designs.
Regarding the quantitative analysis, as with most studies with multiple survey waves
(Allison 2012), IECEI is prone to considerable sample attrition. This occurred primarily
because enumerators could not locate a child during a particular wave, either because
the child was out of the village on the day of the survey or, in some cases, because the
family had migrated from the village for a certain period of time. Consequently,
whereas the first wave sampled 11,828 children, 7336 of these children participated in
all 11 survey waves. Given that our focus is on how children’s participation changed
during the full survey, for our analysis we concentrate on this restricted sample of 7336
children. By definition, it is not possible to know whether those participating in all 11
waves differed on unobservable characteristics. However, analysis on observable char-
acteristics from the first survey wave suggest at least a reasonable degree of compar-
ability between the groups: there was no statistically significant difference (at the 0.05
level) between the two samples in either caste or household wealth, indicating that
children from marginalised economic and social backgrounds were not more likely to
have been left out across survey waves.
Regarding the qualitative analysis, the retrospective nature of the interviews means
that parents could encounter difficulties in recalling their perspectives and decision-
making processes. Since interviews were conducted at the end of the study, in some
instances (i.e. those relating to survey wave 1) parents would have been asked about
their children’s participation four years earlier. In an effort to circumnavigate this
challenge, interviewers drew on information collected during the survey waves in
 COMPARE 7

order to prompt parents’ memories and focus the discussion on concrete events during
the past years. For example, in cases where children had jumped ahead a grade,
interviewers asked parents the following questions:

● After being in [institution name], [child] moved to [institution name] and joined
class [number]. Can you tell me about this change?
● Why did [child] shift grades when s/he changed school?
● Why did you select this particular school instead of the other options available to you
in the village?
● What has [child] experience been at the school? Does s/he like going to school? Did s/
he face any difficulties?

Beyond these methodological concerns, a more conceptual challenge relates to what

it means to progress through pre- and primary school in India ‘on time’. Since
education is a concurrent subject under the Indian constitution, state and national
policies can differ from one another. One such discrepancy relates to the school-starting
age: national policy dictates that at age five children should be in some form of pre-
primary provision (Government of India 2009), but Assam, Rajasthan and Telangana
all allow entry into Grade 1 at age 5, as do 27 of India’s 36 states and Union Territories
(Government of India 2014). Thus, it is possible for children to be both progressing ‘on
time’ according to national policy and not according to state policy, and vice versa.
As specified in our research questions, we focus on progress according to national
policy norms, though we will acknowledge instances of potential disparities with state
norms. We thus define progress according to the 2009 Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, which mandates a no-detention policy through the
elementary education stage (Grades 1 through 8) and defines age-based criteria for
enrolment in specific grades. At ages four and five, children should be in pre-primary
education. At age six children should be enrolled in Grade 1, and they then are expected
to progress into the next grade in each subsequent academic year, such that they are in
Grade 2 at age seven, Grade 3 at age eight, and so on.
Academic calendars add a further degree of complexity: Assam, Telangana and
Rajasthan begin the school year in January, June and July, respectively. This analysis
also accounts for the academic calendar in each state. We account for this in each state
by grouping children’s expected progress according to where their month of birth falls
in relation to the academic year; for example, since the school year in Assam begins in
January, those children born in December should enter school one school year before
those born a month later, in January.

Findings 1: To what extent do children progress into pre-school and then

primary school ‘on time’, as per national policy norms?
Only a third of children progress through pre-primary and early primary school
‘on time’
Figure 1 outlines the percentage of children in each state whose progress is ‘behind’,
appropriate or ‘ahead’ of track over time. For example, following the school year in
8 B. ALCOTT ET AL.

Figure 1. Proportion of children who are in the appropriate grade for age, by age and state.

which children turn six, those who are in Grade 1 are in the appropriate grade for age;
those who are not participating in any educational institution, are in anganwadi or
other ECE classes are ‘behind’; and those who are in Grade 2 or higher are ‘ahead’. The
following school year, children who are in Grade 2 are in the appropriate age for grade,
and so on. Survey waves are depicted in the graphs according to average child age at the
given survey point. The charts highlight that in each state a substantial percentage of
children are ‘behind’ or ‘ahead’ of track for most of the pre-primary and primary cycle.
At the first survey wave (average child age 4.2 years), almost 100% of children in
Assam are in the appropriate grade for age, meaning that they are attending ECE
centres, with Telangana also close to 100%. In contrast, nearly a quarter of children in
Rajasthan are ‘behind’ track, meaning they are not participating anywhere. Another
peculiarity is that around 20% of children in Rajasthan are ‘ahead’ of track, meaning
that they are already attending primary school at age four.
 COMPARE 9

Despite state laws permitting entry into primary school at age five, at an average age
of 5.2 years, almost all children in Assam remain in the appropriate grade for age with
respect to RTE norms, i.e. participating in ECE. In contrast, close to half of children in
both Telangana and Rajasthan are ‘ahead’, indicating that state norms permitting earlier
entry into primary school matter far more in these states.
The pattern in Assam changes considerably, though, during the purported pri-
mary-school years. At an average age of 6.2 years, when RTE norms expect children
to be in Grade 1, more than a quarter of children in Assam have fallen ‘behind’,
suggesting they are spending additional years in ECE; the proportion of ‘behind’
children increases further still, covering more than half of children by age 8.2 years.
In Telangana and Rajasthan, on the other hand, from age six onwards a substantial
percentage of children are present in each of the three categories: appropriate grade
for age; ‘behind’; and ‘ahead’. At an average child age of 8.2 years, in Rajasthan
approximately a third of children are in each of the three categories and in
Telangana a quarter are ‘behind’ track, roughly 30% ‘on’ track and the remaining
40% ‘ahead’ of track. While state norms of earlier school-entry age can explain why
a large proportion remain ‘ahead’, those who are behind are conforming neither to
national nor to state policy norms.
To summarise, between age four and eight only a minority of children progress
through pre-primary and primary education in the appropriate grade for age as
per national norms. However, the dynamics of these patterns vary across states. In
Assam, while children are in the appropriate grade for age early on, many fall
‘behind’ in later years. In other words, it appears that children in Assam are
attending ECE for longer than stipulated in RTE norms, leading to delayed entry
into primary education. In contrast, Rajasthan and Telangana are characterised by
many children entering primary school at an early age, as indicated by the large
proportion of children who are ‘ahead’ of track even by age five. Still, quite a
number of children in both states fall ‘behind’, suggesting prolonged stays in ECE
or slow movement through the primary grades, such that by age eight in both
states there are near equal shares of children in the appropriate grade for age,
‘behind’ and ‘ahead’.
These observations are confirmed in Table 2, which shows the proportion of
children who have participated in pre-primary and the proportion of children who
have already participated in primary at average age five (wave three). By this age, as
per RTE norms, all children should have had some pre-primary education but
should not yet have entered primary school. As Table 2 shows, these policy
norms are not followed in practice. In Rajasthan, a fifth of children have not
participated in pre-school by age five, while half have already begun primary
schooling. Telangana has a similar pattern, albeit with fewer children not having

Table 2. Participation categories at average age five (wave 3).

Assam Rajasthan Telangana
Have participated in pre-primary (%) 100 80 92
Have participated in primary school (%) 4 51 51
N= 2140 3074 2122
10 B. ALCOTT ET AL.

participated in pre-primary (8%). The trends in Rajasthan and Telangana reflect

state norms on age and school entry, which allow children to join primary school at
age five. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that in both states, substantial proportions of
children have no pre-primary education at age five. Of the three states, it is only in
Assam that most children are at the expected stage at age five (i.e. having had some
participation in pre-primary education, but none in primary).

Most children are either sent back, repeat or jump a grade

It is plausible that even if children enter primary school earlier or later than
recommended by RTE, they subsequently make smooth, linear progress across
grades (i.e. moving from Grade 1 to Grade 2 after a year, from Grade 2 to Grade
3 after another, and so on). RTE’s no-detention policy mandates that children
should make such progress, and, unlike school starting age, there are no conflicting
policy norms at the state level.
Figure 2 shows the proportion of children with at least one instance of non-linear
progress across all 11 survey waves after the first entry into primary school. We
categorise these movements as being sent back a grade, being held in a grade or
jumping forward an extra grade (e.g. from Grade 1 directly to Grade 3). Across all
three states, only a minority of children follow a linear trajectory (as shown by the
dotted white bar): at least three quarters experience at least one non-linear move-
ment after entering primary school (as shown by the blue bars). In Telangana,
roughly equal proportions of children are in each of the three non-linear categories.
In Rajasthan and Assam, children are more likely to have repeated a grade than
have either jumped a grade or been sent back.

Figure 2. First non-linear grade movement after first entry to primary school, by state.
Note: This figure depicts the first instance of non-linear grade movement after children transition to
primary school for the first time. Many of the children may have multiple instances of non-linear
grade movement.
 COMPARE 11

Table 3. Enrolment patterns among interviewed households.

Linear Repeat Sent back Jump grade Total
Ahead, i.e. early transition to primary school 13 38 25 25 101
On time transition to primary school 10 14 5 23 52
Behind, i.e. late transition to primary school 9 12 1 5 27
Total 32 64 31 53 180

Findings 2: In what ways do the timing of these transitions reflect parents’

thinking about early childhood education?
Between the ages four and eight then, few children are in the appropriate grade for age
as per RTE norms, and fewer still experience a linear progression from one grade to the
next. Similarly, among households interviewed for the study’s qualitative component,
only in a small minority (10 of 180) did the child enter in the appropriate age for grade
and make linear progress. As shown in Table 3, the alternative experiences identified in
the preceding section – being ahead, behind, sent back, repeating or jumping a grade –
were all represented. Through analysis of these interviews, this section helps explore the
parental perceptions and institutional factors behind these observed trajectories.

The idea that children below primary-school age should attend an educational
institution is almost universally accepted, though not necessarily ECE
Parental interviews across the three states find close to universal acceptance that young
children below primary-school-going age should be attending an educational institution
rather than just staying at home, corroborating our earlier finding on young children’s
participation trajectories. But parents vary considerably in what they consider the best
type of exposure for their young children.
Systematic governmental outreach initiatives emerge as important processes that
shape parental attitudes with regard to the importance of ECE. The majority of parents
interviewed in Telangana described participation in preschool as ‘the usual path for
young children’; all the parents who offered this explanation had sent their young
children to a government anganwadi as the first step in their educational trajectories,
and most explicitly mentioned the role of the ICDS anganwadi workers (AWWs) in
shaping their view that participation in anganwadi was a prerequisite for enrolment in
primary school. For example, outreach by the AWW tipped the balance for one mother
in Telangana, who explained: ‘He was small and I thought what he will do sitting in the
home . . . and teachers also had come to our house asking to send him to the anganwadi
centre, so I sent him.’ A similar pattern is seen in Assam, where about a third of parents
mentioned being informed by AWWs that children ought to be sent to their local
anganwadi centres. These parents often referred to the child’s preschool as the ‘allotted
centre’, indicating their awareness of the existence and purpose of the local anganwadi
centres in the village.
In Rajasthan, in contrast, several parents spoke of how ‘children [here] go directly to
[Grade] 1’, echoing our quantitative finding that many children participated in primary
school even at age four. No parent in Rajasthan mentioned being influenced by AWWs
or other kinds of outreach. On the contrary, many parents articulated a negative
12 B. ALCOTT ET AL.

perception of anganwadis in terms of poor infrastructure, unsanitary environments and

a perceived lack of ‘useful activities’ for young children. When private preschools were
not affordable, primary schools were often seen as better options for these young
children. This suggests that although the norm of young children’s institutional parti-
cipation is common across states, its expression varies.

Parents usually viewed ECE as a downward extension of primary school

Where differences between preschool-age and primary-school-age children were
discussed, these were commonly articulated in terms of children’s physical, rather
than age and developmentally appropriate cognitive, needs. For example, some
parents mentioned children’s health as a reason for limiting long-distance travel as
‘kids get some illness when they are sent far from the home . . . . I want him to study
here [in a preschool nearby] until he becomes little older.’ Similarly, in cases where
children went to an anganwadi, most parents described the importance of a space
where young children would be looked after while the parents worked. In the words
of a mother from Telangana: ‘He used to learn things there, sleep when he felt like
sleeping and the teacher used to look after him even if we are little late coming back
from the field.’
Beyond these physical and care-related factors, parents’ articulations of the desir-
able characteristics of preschools and primary schools were much the same. With the
exception of just two parents who mentioned the importance of play, no parent
mentioned characteristics of an ECE curriculum or teacher that were different from
those that they used to describe primary schools. Parents of children who had
attended private preschools often named, for example, factors such as: English
medium instruction; ‘better discipline’; ‘good quality teaching’; and ‘studies given
more importance’. More broadly, most parents mentioned strictly academic objec-
tives ‘to prepare for school’ and ‘to help with learning’. This is consistent with
findings from a range of contexts globally (for example, Fung and Cheng [2012];
Gamble, Ewing, and Wilhlem [2009]; Kabay, Wolf, and Yoshikawa [2017]; Qadiri
and Manhas [2009]; Xinyi and Tze-Peng [2015]), which find that parents, especially
those with lower education levels, prioritise academic and curricular preparation
over more child-centred, informal learning. It is worth noting though that the
exception to this trend occurred among recipients of targeted outreach activities:
some of those parents in Telangana who had contact with AWWs articulated
socialisation and habituation as distinct purposes for ECE, suggesting that parental
views are not immutable.
Even when the objectives of ECE and primary school were viewed as different, few
parents visualised the ECE phase as requiring an environment and set of inputs
distinct from those provided in primary school. The implications of this lack of
differentiation are visible in the participation trajectories outlined earlier in this
paper, and help explain why significant proportions of four to five year olds were
already in primary school, since parents often saw advantages rather than disadvan-
tages in this early exposure to what children would have to learn later anyway. Given
that policy documents’ concern for providing appropriate environments for young
children appears to be largely unfamiliar to parents in rural India, it is not surprising
 COMPARE 13

that parents’ main considerations are practical ones, to do with children’s physical
readiness on the one hand, and institutional willingness to allow their participation
on the other.

While the timing of a child’s first entry into an educational institution is parent-
dependent, progression through the system is not. Non-linear progression is
often the price of perceived ‘better quality’
The concept of ‘age-appropriate’ grades, so central to education policy, had little
traction among interviewed parents. Within the qualitative sub-sample there are
many cases of children going to anganwadi centres from age two onwards, although
these centres are intended to offer ECE services to children only in the three to six year
old age group. Similarly, many parents send their children to primary school even at age
four, either because the school is the most convenient option or because early entry to
school is perceived as getting a head start on learning.
Once in school, education policy mandates annual progress to the next grade with-
out repetition, all the way through to the end of primary school at Grade 8. In practice,
children’s trajectories in the early years of education often entail grade repetitions,
demotions or out-of-turn promotions, suggesting that not only parents but equally
educational institutions fail to follow the ‘age-appropriate grade’ norm.
Parental interviews reveal that in several cases children first progressed to primary
school only to be demoted again to preschool grades. For instance, in one case from
Telangana, a child joined an anganwadi at age three and after one year was enrolled
into a private preschool where he remained for three consecutive grades – nursery,
lower and upper kindergarten – thus only joining Grade 1 at age seven, one year later
than the RTE norm prescribes. In another case, the child first joined an anganwadi at
age three and after two years progressed to a local government primary school where he
studied for three years. However, his parents expressed dissatisfaction with the quality
of education provided in the government school, commenting that ‘although he did not
study at all they used to promote him to a higher class’. The child was subsequently sent
to a private school where he repeated two years of preschool before progressing to the
primary grades in the same school – thus repeating not only two years in preschool but
also the first three grades of primary school.
We find similar cases in the other two states as well. In Assam, the reason many
children remained in preschool for so long was due to changing centres at least once
and repeating preschool grades in successive institutions. Also in Assam, a child who
joined a government primary school was made to repeat Grade 1 for two consecutive
years after failing to pass the annual examinations at school, despite the official no-
detention policy. In Rajasthan, a child without any preschool exposure who joined a
private school at age four was given an out-of-turn promotion to Grade 2; according to
the mother of the child, this was done at the suggestion of the school principal who
believed that the child was a good student.
In several, if not all such cases, parents were aware of these non-linear trajectories
and cognisant of the child’s apparent learning difficulties or advantages; they usually
accepted the judgement of the school or teacher and their decision to hold back, demote
or promote the child. Changing schools, most often from government to private school,
14 B. ALCOTT ET AL.

but also on occasion from one private school to another, often involved grade repetition
for the child – but far from being viewed as a problem, parents often interpreted grade
repetition as an indicator of institutional quality, in the sense that a better-quality
school was providing remedial education to a child who was not performing to the
requisite level.

Discussion
Table 4 summarises our findings on ECE participation patterns and the key motivators
underlying parents’ decision-making in each state. These findings demonstrate the
differing ways in which families across rural India approach young children’s educa-
tional needs and their perspectives on early childhood education. In Telangana, for
instance, there was a positive perception among parents in the sub-sample regarding
the importance of preschool; preschool education was considered important not only to
habituate and socialise young children, but also to teach them critical skills for school.
These articulations are missing in the interviews with parents in Assam and Rajasthan.
In Rajasthan particularly, we find an absence of community awareness with respect to
ECE and its importance for young children as well as a poor perception of anganwadis
in general.
Perhaps the clearest implication of these findings is that federal mandates on participa-
tion in ECE and primary schooling are largely ignored in rural India, both by parents and
by educational institutions. Only a minority of children in our sample follow RTE norms on
the age at which children should move through ECE and early primary grades. This should
not be misconstrued, though, as households simply following state-policy mandates

Table 4. Summary of findings for each state.

Patterns (research question 1) Motivations (research question 2)
Telangana ● At age four, most children are in the appropri- ● Sending young children to preschool is a norm.
ate grade for age, with near universal partici- ● Strong community awareness systems through
pation in ECE. the efforts of anganwadi workers and school
● Many children enter primary school at age five, teachers contribute to this understanding.
thereby moving ‘ahead’ of track relative to ● Grade demotions and repetitions are accepted
national RTE norms. by parents as indicating appropriate institu-
● Once in primary school, about a quarter of tional concern for children’s learning.
children have at least one experience of being
sent back to a lower grade.
Assam ● Near universal enrolment in preschool at age ● Sending young children to preschool is a com-
four. munity norm.
● Children spend longer in preschool than stipu- ● This acceptance is aided by the community
lated by RTE norms, so most enter primary awareness work undertaken by anganwadi
school ‘late’ – at age seven or eight. workers.
● Close to half of children repeat a grade after ● Grade repetition in both ECE and primary
they make the first transition to primary school. school is an accepted practice when children
change institutions.
Rajasthan ● Many children do not participate in any institu- ● Community awareness of the importance of
tion at age four. ECE largely missing.
● Many children are attending primary school at ● Outreach by anganwadi workers infrequent or
age four. absent.
● Grade repetitions in primary school are quite ● Poor perception of anganwadi centres due to
common; 35% of children experienced at least poor infrastructure in centres.
one. ● Children able to participate in primary school
without prior ECE, even at age four.
 COMPARE 15

instead: in each state, there are both many children behind and many children ahead of
RTE norms, meaning that most are not following state norms either.
In terms of influencing household practices, a factor that appears more impactful
than central government mandates is outreach by local service providers. A strong
community awareness programme, stressing the importance and appropriateness of
early education for young children, can go a long way in creating understanding of and
‘demand’ for ECE among parents, whether in the government or private sector.
Telangana shows that this can be especially influential when the focus is not just
normalising ECE participation, but also disseminating awareness of its value to chil-
dren’s development. Of course, outreach alone is not sufficient: it is equally important
that anganwadis, the largest preschool network in India, are functional with staff and
appropriate infrastructure so that parents are convinced of the value of sending their
children to these institutions.
As shown, the causes of non-linear progress through the school grades are manifold.
Perhaps the most pertinent factor for policy and practice is that instances of non-linear
progress tend to be instigated by schools rather than parents. A common reason is the
reportedly higher standard followed by private schools that often require children to
repeat grades that they have already completed in a government institution. This raises
important questions about policy implementation on the ground, given that these
practices are not permitted by law. In most such cases, when parents accept the decision
of the schools and teachers, this is partly a reflection of the power imbalance between
parents and schools, but often also an expression of parents’ belief in the superiority of
private schools and consequent willingness to adhere to their decisions.
Elements of ECE programmes that are distinctive from primary-school education,
deemed by both international research and national policy to be important indicators of
high-quality ECE, are completely absent from parents’ conceptualisations of quality.
Moreover, the fact that in two of the three states large numbers of underage children
were participating in primary schools suggests that schools themselves may be know-
ingly or unknowingly complicit in contributing to parental perceptions that ECE is
merely a downward extension of primary school. Although mechanisms to regulate
what ECE providers offer to young children are important to put in place, the evidence
presented in this study suggests that without strong efforts to convince both service
providers and parents of the fact that teaching the 3Rs to young children is detrimental
to the latter’s development, regulation alone is unlikely to transform practice on the
ground.

Acknowledgements
All data used in this paper were collected as part of the India Early Childhood Education Impact
study (IECEI), which was conducted by ASER Centre, New Delhi, and the Centre for Early
Childhood Education and Development at Ambedkar University Delhi in partnership with
UNICEF. We are grateful to our reviewing editor, Germ Janmaat, and the three anonymous
referees whose comments helped improve this manuscript. We would like to thank the partners,
field investigators, families and children who made this study possible.
16 B. ALCOTT ET AL.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The writing of this paper was supported by the British Association for International and
Comparative Education’s (BAICE) Seedcorn Fund.

References
Ade, A., S. S. Gupta, C. Maliye, P. R. Deshmukh, and B. S. Garg. 2010. “Effect of
Improvement of Pre-School Education through Anganwadi Center on Intelligence and
Development Quotient of Children.” The Indian Journal of Pediatrics 77 (5): 541–546.
doi:10.1007/s12098-010-0056-7.
Alcott, B., and P. Rose. 2015. “Schools and Learning in Rural India and Pakistan: Who Goes
Where, and How Much are They Learning?” Prospects 45 (3): 345–363. doi:10.1007/s11125-
015-9350-5.
Ali, S. L. 2015. “Right to Education (RTE) in Context with Pre-Schooling (ECCE).” International
Journal of Innovative Research and Development 4: 10.
Allison, P. 2012. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Arora, S., S. Bharti, and S. Sharma. 2007. “Comparative Study of Cognitive Development of ICDS
and Non-ICDS Children (3–6 Years)”. Journal of Human Ecology 22 (3): 201–204.
Arora, S., S. Bharti, and A. Mahajan. 2006. “Evaluation of Non-formal Pre-school Educational
Services provided at Anganwadi Centres (Urban Slums of Jammu City).” Journal of Social
Sciences 12 (2): 135–137.
ASER Centre. 2015. Trends over Time 2006–2014; a Supplement to the Annual Status of
Education Report. New Delhi: ASER Centre.
ASER Centre. 2017. Annual Status of Education Report (Rural) 2016. New Delhi: ASER Centre.
Ashley, L. D., C. Mcloughlin, M. Aslam, J. Engel, J. Wales, S. Rawal, R. Batley, G. Kingdon, S.
Nicolai, and P. Rose. 2014. “The Role and Impact of Private Schools in Developing Countries.”
Rigorous Literature Review. London: UK Department for International Development.
Becker, G. 1980. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to
Education (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Bhattacharjea, S., R. Banerji, and W. Wadhwa. 2011. Inside Primary Schools: Teaching and
Learning in Rural India. New Delhi: ASER Centre.
Borooah, V. K. 2012. “Social Identity and Educational Attainment: The Role of Caste and
Religion in Explaining Differences between Children in India.” Journal of Development
Studies 48 (7): 887–903. doi:10.1080/00220388.2011.621945.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research
in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Campbell, F. A., E. P. Pungello, S. Miller-Johnson, M. Burchinal, and C. T. Ramey. 2001. “The
Development of Cognitive and Academic Abilities: Growth Curves from an Early Childhood
Educational Experiment.” Developmental Psychology 37 (2): 231. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.37.2.231.
Cunha, F., J. J. Heckman, L. Lochner, and D. V. Masterov. 2006. “Interpreting the Evidence on
Life Cycle Skill Formation.” Handbook of the Economics of Education 1: 697–812.
Educational Initiatives. 2010. Student Learning Study: Status of Student Learning across 18 States
of India in Urban and Rural Schools. Ahmedabad: Education Initiatives.
Engle, P. L., L. C. H. Fernald, H. Alderman, J. Behrman, C. O’Gara, A. Yousafzai, M. C. de Mello, M.
Hidrobo, N. Ulkuer, and I. Ertem. 2011. “Strategies for Reducing Inequalities and Improving
 COMPARE 17

Developmental Outcomes for Young Children in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries.”

The Lancet 378 (9799): 1339–1353. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60889-1.
Fung, C. K. H., and D. P. W. Cheng. 2012. “Consensus or Dissensus? Stakeholders’ Views on the
Role of Play in Learning.” Early Years 32 (1): 17–33. doi:10.1080/09575146.2011.599794.
Gamble, W. C., A. R. Ewing, and M. S. Wilhlem. 2009. “Parental Perceptions of Characteristics of
Non-Parental Child Care: Belief Dimensions, Family and Child Correlates.” Journal of Child
and Family Studies 18 (1): 70–82. doi:10.1007/s10826-008-9208-z.
Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. 2014. Selected Information on
School Education 2011-12. New Delhi: Government of India Press.
Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice. 2009. The Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act. New Delhi: Government of India Press.
Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development. 2013a. National Early
Childhood Care and Education Policy. New Delhi: Government of India.
Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development. 2013b. Potential Good
Practices: The ICDS Experience. New Delhi: Government of India.
Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development. 2017. “Integrated Child
Development Services (ICDS) Scheme.” Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme.
Accessed 29 June 2018. icds-wcd.nic.in/icds/icds.aspx
Greene, J. C. 2007. Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Heckman, J. J. 2011. “The Economics of Inequality: The Value of Early Childhood Education.”
American Educator 35 (1): 31.
Kabay, S., S. Wolf, and H. Yoshikawa. 2017. “‘So that His Mind Will Open’: Parental Perceptions
of Early Childhood Education in Urbanizing Ghana.” International Journal of Educational
Development 57: 44–53. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.08.013.
Karoly, L. A., P. W. Greenwood, S. S. Everingham, J. Hoube, M. R. Kilburn, C. P. Rydell, and J.
Chiesa. 1998. What We Know and Don’t Know about the Benefits of Early Childhood
Intervention. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Kaul, V., S. Bhattacharjea, A. B. Chaudhary, P. Ramanujan, M. Banerji, and M. Nanda. 2017. The
India Early Childhood Education Impact Study. New Delhi: UNICEF.
Kingdon, G. G. 2007. “The Progress of School Education in India.” Oxford Review of Economic
Policy 23 (2): 168–195. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grm015.
Kohlberg, L. 1968. “Early Education: A Cognitive-Developmental View.” Child Development 39:
1013–1062. doi:10.2307/1127272.
Mehta, A. C. 2007. Student Flow at Primary Level: A Study Based on DISE Data. New Delhi:
National University of Educational Planning and Administration.
Nair, M. K. C., E. Philip, L. Jeyaseelan, B. George, S. Mathews, and K. Padma. 2009. “Effect of
Child Development Centre Model Early Stimulation among at Risk Babies–A Randomized
Controlled Trial.” Indian Pediatrics 46: S20–S26.
Nonoyama Tarumi, Y., E. Loaiza, and P. Engle. 2009. “Inequalities in Attendance in Organized
Early Learning Programmes in Developing Societies: Findings from Household Surveys.”
Compare 39 (3): 385–409. doi:10.1080/03057920701712833.
Piramal, R., and J. Law. 2001. “Evaluating a Programme to Enhance Vocabulary Development in
Pre-Schoolers.” International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 36 (S1): 222–
227. doi:10.3109/13682820109177888.
Pritchett, L., and A. Beatty. 2015. “Slow Down, You’re Going Too Fast: Matching Curricula to
Student Skill Levels.” International Journal of Educational Development 40: 276–288.
doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.11.013.
Programme Evaluation Organisation (PEO) Planning Commission. 2011. Evaluation Report on
Integrated Child Development Services. New Delhi: Government of India.
Qadiri, F., and S. Manhas. 2009. “Parental Perception Towards Preschool Education Imparted at
Early Childhood Education Centers.” Studies on Home and Community Science 3 (1): 19–24.
doi:10.1080/09737189.2009.11885271.
Ramey, S. L. 1998. “Early Intervention and Early Experience.” American Psychologist 53 (2): 109–
120.
18 B. ALCOTT ET AL.

Rao, N., J. Sun, J. Wong, B. Weekes, P. Ip, S. Shaeffer, M. Young, M. Bray, E. Chen, and D. Lee.
2013. Early Childhood Development and Cognitive Development in Developing Countries: A
Rigorous Literature Review. London: DFID.
Reddy, A. N., and S. Sinha. 2010. School Dropouts or Pushouts? Overcoming Barriers for the
Right to Education. New Delhi: National University of Educational Planning and
Administration.
Registrar of India. 2011. “Census of India 2011.” Registrar of India. Accessed 29 June 2018. http://
censusindia.gov.in/
Rolleston, C., and Z. James. 2015. “After Access: Divergent Learning Profiles in Vietnam and
India.” Prospects 45 (3): 285–303. doi:10.1007/s11125-015-9361-2.
Rose, P. M., R. Sabates, B. M. Alcott, and I. S. Ilie. 2017. “Overcoming Inequalities within
Countries to Achieve Global Convergence in Learning.” Background paper for The
International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity. http://report.education
commission.org/download/829/
Samridhi, A., B. Madhu, and D. Jyothi. 2011. “An Assessment of Readiness among Children
Attending Anganwadi Centres in Kathua District (J&K).” Asian Journal of Home Science 6 (2):
127–130.
Shore, R. 1997. Rethinking the Brain: New Insights into Early development. New York, NY:
Families and Work Institute.
Singh, R., and C. Bangay. 2014. “Low Fee Private Schooling in India–More Questions than
Answers? Observations from the Young Lives Longitudinal Research in Andhra Pradesh.”
International Journal of Educational Development 39: 132–140. doi:10.1016/j.
ijedudev.2014.08.004.
Small, M. L. 2011. “How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly
Growing Literature.” Annual Review of Sociology 37: 57–86.
Streuli, N., U. Vennam, and M. Woodhead. 2011. Increasing Choice or Inequality? Pathways
through Early Education in Andhra Pradesh, India. The Hague: Bernard van Leer.
UNESCO. 2015. Thematic Indicators to Monitor the Education 2030 Agenda. Paris: UNESCO.
Vennam, U., and A. Komanduri. 2009. Young Lives Qualitative Research: Round 1–India.
Technical Note 21, Oxford: Young Lives.
Woodhead, M., I. Feathersone, L. Bolton, and P. Robertson. 2014. Early Childhood Development:
Delivering Inter-Sectoral Policies, Programmes and Services in Low-Resource Settings. Oxford:
Health & Education Advice & Resource Team (HEART).
Woodhead, M., M. Frost, and Z. James. 2013. “Does Growth in Private Schooling Contribute to
Education for All? Evidence from a Longitudinal, Two Cohort Study in Andhra Pradesh,
India.” International Journal of Educational Development 33 (1): 65–73. doi:10.1016/j.
ijedudev.2012.02.005.
Woodhead, M., P. Ames, U. Vennam, W. Abebe, and N. Streuli. 2009. Equity and Quality?
Challenges for Early Childhood and Primary Education in Ethiopia, India and Peru. The
Hague: Bernard van Leer.
Woodhead, M., P. Dornan, and H. Murray. 2013. What Inequality Means for Children: Evidence
from Young Lives. Oxford: Young Lives.
Xinyi, Y. D., and W. Tze-Peng. 2015. “Bridging the Research and Cultural-Practice Gap in Early
Language Intervention in Malaysia.” Jurnal Sains Kesihatan Malaysia (Malaysian Journal of
Health Sciences) 13 (2): 11–18.
Young, M. E., and L. M. Richardson. 2007. Early Child Development from Measurement to
Action: A Priority for Growth and Equity. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.