The access axis presents a simple and seemingly plausible case: “SSA provided money, schools were built, teachers were hired, and enrolments expanded” — since the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was a success the next logical step is an “SSA-like” programme for secondary schooling. Although SSA was a programme that was admirably led, well managed, and successfully implemented as designed, the argument by analogy of the extension to secondary is deeply flawed, for three reasons.

First, post hoc ergo propter hoc (this after that, therefore because of that) fallacies make for ad hoc (any old thing will do) policymaking. Suggesting that SSA had no enrolment impact might seem like denying facts: the government can count SSA financed schools and count the children in those schools. But evaluation of impacts is always about the counter-factual: not just what did happen but what would have happened without the programme.

A key test of whether SSA caused increases in enrolment is whether the share of primary school enrolment in government schools increased. Why is this important? SSA intended to increase the attractiveness of government schools (lowering travel costs by building schools, hiring more teachers to reduce class sizes, providing better materials to improve quality). If these improvements worked they should have not just attracted children from out of school but also drawn students from private schools into government schools. Alternatively, demand for schooling has been increasing at all levels of society as the result of India’s seismic social and economic shifts. If enrolment increases were caused by increased demand then both private and public should have increased — even if the SSA financing had no impact at all. What do the available data suggest?

... contd.