We shall delve into the matter of collection, storage and use of data or information in a democratic manner or in a democratic society. We shall limit that into data in the world of school education and the development sector.
I was reading a book by Yuval Noah Harrari where he refers to certain fundamental principles of democracies that must be respected and followed in the digital age for democracies to survive and flourish! Even a small ray of optimism in these trying times is welcome.
I could not find the source of these principles, and even Yuval refers to them as universal, open, known for millenia kind of principles. He articulates these simple and almost spiritual sounding principles and juxtaposes them against AI (what else you expect in these times in a book called Nexus!). He details how these principles must be honoured and offers a few solutions as well.
Now, let’s talk about them in the context of school education in general and that of India in particular.
Benovolence: The first principle has to be that the data or information, so painstakingly collected, managed, analysed, visualised and presented has to help the person from (or about) whom the data is being collected. Yuval gives a simple example of our physician collecting information from us with the primary motive of healing us. Schools are almost invariably the primary source of all data that we later see analysed and presented at different levels related to access and quality of school education. School information systems such as the U-DISE+ collect information on almost all aspects of schools - enrollment, teachers, physical resources, funds and other details. The principle of benevolence is met only when the information collected is not just for reporting and statistical publication but also as a planning and resourcing tool. So, when use of U-DISE data was mandated for SSA, RMSA and later SmSA planning and budgeting exercise, the schools understood that reporting of accurate data ensures that adequate resources in form of additional classrooms, toilets, drinking water facility, boundary walls, labs, assistive devices for CwSN etc. could be provisioned for the school subject to availability of budget. While the planning, budgeting and resourcing is a long process from school to block to district and further to state and centre, it starts from the schools providing timely and accurate data with an expectation that it will benefit from the process.
Extending the argument to learning data, we must keep this in mind that all information collected on learning of children must come back to benefit & help the child ultimately!
Decentalisation: There is a great temptation of centralised systems and structures. The design is usually neat, efficient, has to be understood once, allows for control and correction at one place etc. The cons predictably are extreme dependence on the central system and architecture and privacy concerns. But, the larger concern is that of the central system being the only source of data or truth and then it being subject to manipulation. No information system is infallible and each would have its own incentives and disincentives to report data in a way that suits their narrative.
I loved this line “for the survival of democracy, some inefficiency is a feature, not a bug”. Having multiple databases and information channels (government, courts, media, academia, private, NGOs) are essential to have self-correcting mechanisms where they balance each other out and act as almost fact-checks.
Starting from a child, who often asks his elder sibling to sign the report card if not happy with the results to private schools and their ways of reporting fees and expenses to the government schools, under and over-reporting resources and performance respectively, each have their own reasons to report data that suits them. Hence, multiple reporting of the same data, say learning levels of children is not a bad thing! We must welcome government, private and community assessing and reporting data about their children.
Mutuality or mutual accountability: This principle is easy to understand but hard to implement in the hierarchical world that we live in. Put simply, there should be flow of information both ways and not just bottom to top. Accountability, similarly, should also be a two way street.
In our context, if a school has provided information on the number of children accurately it has the right to demand that the basic entitlements such as textbooks, uniforms and mid-day-meals it receives are adequate and timely.
To extend this to learning, the “long route of accountability” that RISE study refers to starts with the citizen electing a government and holding them accountable for quality education of their children, the government then has an extensive system of ministry, education department and frontline workers such as teachers who are engaged by the government to ensure this promise of learning is met back to the parent-citizen.
Change and rest: Yuval goes on to articulate that any democratic data system or government for that matter should allow both - the opportunity to change and the option of rest. He elucidates the necessity of the first concept by taking an example of a system that doesn’t allow humans the option to change by any means - of action or opportunity such as the Hindu caste system. While several hundred years ago, the caste system was tightly coupled to the occupation and was even more binding, even today, the caste of the Hindu person can not change. Any democratic society must allow the citizens the opportunity to change and for that provide data, information and if needed, appropriate resources to do so. That is the basis of the social and political contract that defines a democratic rule.
At the other end of the spectrum, there have been sovereigns and heads of government that consider their citizens as mere clay toys that they can mould and change as they wish and as many times as they wish. Such absolute denial of the agency of the individual and participation has been met with strong individual and collective protest leading to violent revolutions across geographies and at different points of time in history.
There has to be a balance between the amount of data and information needed for the basic (and the first here) principle of benevolence which the state and the citizen agree using principles of mutuality (second principle here) to bring about the desired change. Democracies and systems evolve and there might be a need to change the existing norms and practices but yet again the same principles should be applied.
There is another beautiful line from the book that would sum this write up and my feelings “human life is a balance act between endeavouring to improve ourselves and accepting who we are”.
