Opinion

The TM Krishna column: It was not just NEET that drove Anitha to suicide, we all did

Our privilege-based education system, casteist and classist society, incompetent state, bullying Centre, uncaring Supreme Court – all failed her.

Dreams shattered, aspiration extinguished, a young girl filled with hopelessness relinquishes nature’s most precious gift: life. In such a situation, it is near impossible to contemplate the reasons that may have led to S Anitha’s suicide.

Anitha, a Dalit (yes, her caste is important) fought a valiant battle against the unfairness of her birth, and if only she had succeeded we would have celebrated her spirit. Before I venture to de-thread the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test imbroglio, it is vital that I first express anguish at the insensitivity shown by a large section of upper caste, upper class India. They have hurled at this girl and her family aspersions of bad parenting and asked why she did not change her vocational path when she failed. This is a motherless child whose father toiled everyday as a labourer. She wanted a chance to be a doctor, her passion an obsession, and she hoped the system would understand her predicament. There is no doubt that the hysterical opposition to NEET in Tamil Nadu played a role in Anitha’s suicide but we cannot deny that the system failed her. The system unfortunately never cares. When there was no shoulder to lean on, she gave up.

For us, options always exist. Our thinking is driven by the variety of choices: if not this, there is always something else; even a compromise is a choice. When chance is rare, there is only one string to hold on to, one reason for living and one ambition that makes living palatable in the face of oppression. This was Anitha’s life. Upper caste India needs to realise that social and cultural privilege is a huge advantage. When young girls and boys from lower-middle class Brahmin families speak about how they too had to struggle to move ahead, I respect their point, yet they should be aware of the huge head start the accident of their birth awarded them.

Caste is the bedrock of this problem, and it starts at school. School education in India is based on an unwritten, rarely discussed segregation. Most children educated in private CBSE and ICSE schools belong to the forward castes or the top tier of the Other Backward Classes. Inevitably, state board schools, government and private, educate mostly lower caste Indians. Upper caste India rarely sends its children to government schools and for the lower castes upward mobility means moving their children to private convents (under state boards).

There is no doubt that the general standard of education in many government schools and private state board schools in Tamil Nadu accessed by the lower castes is terrible. I am sure there are exceptions where a dynamic principal inspires learning. The state board syllabus itself does not match up to the requirements of higher education. In some subjects, there is an enormous gap between the syllabus, teaching abilities and comprehension, and this is rarely bridged. There is widespread disinterest and incompetence, not to forget abysmal infrastructure, especially in rural schools.

In spite of my critique, it is important to acknowledge that Tamil Nadu’s government schools have done far better than those of most states in educating a diverse population because of the Dravidian movement. It is also true that many children enrol in colleges or skill development institutes. But the reality of Tamil Nadu’s low educational standards cannot be wished away. Numbers and statistics do not give us the complete picture.

Unequal country

There is a deeper malaise that lurks in our minds. Most of us from upper castes and class do not want our children to mingle with “that” strata of our society. We have stereotyped these schools as being unsafe and do not want our children to come under the influence of “those” unclean, unruly, crass children from the slums! Many parents are labourers, daily wage workers, farmers, shop vendors, auto drivers. They may not have the leisure to participate in parent-teacher associations, and this suits the schools. In a casteist society like ours this also means the parents in such schools have little power to demand better facilities or education. Parents are forced to accept whatever is offered; after all, they must be beholden to the state for even providing this. There was a time when standards of state boards were far better, a time when even forward caste boys and girls attended Tamil-medium state board schools. This makes us wonder if the shift in caste demography affected state board school education. In other words, would the Tamil Nadu government have been so careless if its schools were filled with upper caste and powerful OBC students? I think we all know the answer.

But CBSE and ICSE schools are no havens. They are sweatshops, successfully driving children to compete in and pass professional entrance exams. The standard of CBSE and ICSE syllabi demands a high level of tutoring and these schools fulfil that need. Their success is built around this numerical achievement, which includes the number of children who join the Indian Institutes of Technology. Students are treated like robots programmed to fulfil examination criteria. Most private tuition teachers come from such schools and convert their tuition centers into marks manufacturing shops. We cannot underestimate the pressure put on these schools by middle class upper caste parents who judge success in terms of marks and how equipped their children are to take entrance exams.

Government schools too love to show off their achievements in terms of the number of students who pass the Class 12 exam, and Tamil Nadu’s education department revels in displaying extraordinarily high pass percentage. This usually means that correction is lenient. Many teachers will tell you that in state board schools, learning is almost entirely by rote and that the exam can be aced by memorising the questions and answers in the textbooks. Consequently, the students are duped by both sides. They are taught little, but looking at their marks they are deluded into believing they have learnt.

Adding to this is the huge chasm between state board schools in cities and in rural areas. The neglect of rural children is far more and you can be sure that no CBSE or ICSE school is interested in opening a branch in such areas. At least children in cities have some chance of upgrading their skills through private learning. For those from small villages and towns, even this opportunity is unavailable.

It must be mentioned here that the Right to Education Act requires private schools to reserve 25% seats (in the earliest class they offer) to children from marginalised sections of the society. Unfortunately, in Tamil Nadu, there is ambiguity about the rules enabling this process and the government has not actively pushed for what is an important social initiative. A state that champions social equality and inclusiveness seems disinterested. On the other hand, many private schools have circumvented this condition by remaining below the radar or using various legal loopholes to avoid admitting students from weaker sections of the society. Caste and class bias continue to prevail.

Oppressive system

Indeed, the entire education system in India is warped and does not contribute to the making of sensitive, creative, productive human beings. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. Anitha’s suicide is connected to this lacuna in Indian education. People who grow beyond the limitations imposed by their education do so of their own accord or due to other influences.

NEET has to be assessed with this in mind.

Considering the varying standards of state education in the country, it seems unfair to have a compulsory national exam based on syllabi of boards that cater mostly to upper caste and upper class India. The discrimination is not only in the syllabus, however, but also form. The entire NEET structure is based on the CBSE model, which does not take into consideration the diversity in ways of learning across the country. Right now, in the way it is being imposed, NEET is homogenising, discriminating and infringes upon federalism.

This is where the Supreme Court failed Anitha. It should have asked for a more participatory approach in the framing of NEET and pushed states like Tamil Nadu to raise the bar. Without this sensitivity, the court forced this test on under-prepared, scared students. Such a test becomes a terrorising experience.

It is not right, though, to put the blame entirely on the central government and the courts. We must hold the Tamil Nadu government equally, if not more, responsible, for they have been unconcerned about their schools, infrastructure, quality of teaching and well-being of students. While they fight NEET, they show scant interest in helping the children. The opposition to NEET in Tamil Nadu may also have to do with the number of private colleges that dot our landscape. Many such institutions have political backing and I wonder if a centralised selection process will adversely affect personal profitability. It is interesting that Kerala, our neighbouring state, did not oppose NEET. This gives us something more to think about education, politics and economy.

But do we need a central exam? This is a debatable point. I would argue that if such an exam improves the standard of learning then it is welcome. But it cannot be conducted unless students have been helped on the way up, and the states must shape this change. Some in Tamil Nadu argue that we are a state with one of the best healthcare systems in the country, where great doctors have emerged without having to write NEET. While this is true, it would have been an enormous struggle for many medical students to make that jump from school to college education. Upgrading class 11 and class 12 learning to aid NEET preparedness will only help improve college education. I do not see why we must reject the idea of a central exam entirely.

Anitha was trapped between an incompetent state and an uncaring Supreme Court and a bullying central government. We cannot allow this debate to be caught in a for-against mode. We must work towards improving the quality of government schooling, creating teacher training institutes and tightening evaluation standards. Should education be a state or concurrent subject is also on the table for discussion. However, irrespective of the constitutional placement of education, unless the political class, in the state and at the Centre, shows intent and objectivity, nothing will change.

Beyond this singular discussion, we must re-evaluate the idea of education. Anitha’s death was not only a result of the NEET mess, it was as much caused by education being reduced to marks, admissions and professional success. If we do not want more Anithas to die, this needs to change urgently. Hence, I hold all of us collectively responsible for her death.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

What hospitals can do to drive entrepreneurship and enhance patient experience

Hospitals can perform better by partnering with entrepreneurs and encouraging a culture of intrapreneurship focused on customer centricity.

At the Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, visitors don’t have to worry about navigating their way across the complex hospital premises. All they need to do is download wayfinding tools from the installed digital signage onto their smartphone and get step by step directions. Other hospitals have digital signage in surgical waiting rooms that share surgery updates with the anxious families waiting outside, or offer general information to visitors in waiting rooms. Many others use digital registration tools to reduce check-in time or have Smart TVs in patient rooms that serve educational and anxiety alleviating content.

Most of these tech enabled solutions have emerged as hospitals look for better ways to enhance patient experience – one of the top criteria in evaluating hospital performance. Patient experience accounts for 25% of a hospital’s Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) score as per the US government’s Centres for Medicare and Mediaid Services (CMS) programme. As a Mckinsey report says, hospitals need to break down a patient’s journey into various aspects, clinical and non-clinical, and seek ways of improving every touch point in the journey. As hospitals also need to focus on delivering quality healthcare, they are increasingly collaborating with entrepreneurs who offer such patient centric solutions or encouraging innovative intrapreneurship within the organization.

At the Hospital Leadership Summit hosted by Abbott, some of the speakers from diverse industry backgrounds brought up the role of entrepreneurship in order to deliver on patient experience.

Getting the best from collaborations

Speakers such as Dr Naresh Trehan, Chairman and Managing Director - Medanta Hospitals, and Meena Ganesh, CEO and MD - Portea Medical, who spoke at the panel discussion on “Are we fit for the world of new consumers?”, highlighted the importance of collaborating with entrepreneurs to fill the gaps in the patient experience eco system. As Dr Trehan says, “As healthcare service providers we are too steeped in our own work. So even though we may realize there are gaps in customer experience delivery, we don’t want to get distracted from our core job, which is healthcare delivery. We would rather leave the job of filling those gaps to an outsider who can do it well.”

Meena Ganesh shares a similar view when she says that entrepreneurs offer an outsider’s fresh perspective on the existing gaps in healthcare. They are therefore better equipped to offer disruptive technology solutions that put the customer right at the center. Her own venture, Portea Medical, was born out of a need in the hitherto unaddressed area of patient experience – quality home care.

There are enough examples of hospitals that have gained significantly by partnering with or investing in such ventures. For example, the Children’s Medical Centre in Dallas actively invests in tech startups to offer better care to its patients. One such startup produces sensors smaller than a grain of sand, that can be embedded in pills to alert caregivers if a medication has been taken or not. Another app delivers care givers at customers’ door step for check-ups. Providence St Joseph’s Health, that has medical centres across the U.S., has invested in a range of startups that address different patient needs – from patient feedback and wearable monitoring devices to remote video interpretation and surgical blood loss monitoring. UNC Hospital in North Carolina uses a change management platform developed by a startup in order to improve patient experience at its Emergency and Dermatology departments. The platform essentially comes with a friendly and non-intrusive way to gather patient feedback.

When intrapreneurship can lead to patient centric innovation

Hospitals can also encourage a culture of intrapreneurship within the organization. According to Meena Ganesh, this would mean building a ‘listening organization’ because as she says, listening and being open to new ideas leads to innovation. Santosh Desai, MD& CEO - Future Brands Ltd, who was also part of the panel discussion, feels that most innovations are a result of looking at “large cultural shifts, outside the frame of narrow business”. So hospitals will need to encourage enterprising professionals in the organization to observe behavior trends as part of the ideation process. Also, as Dr Ram Narain, Executive Director, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, points out, they will need to tell the employees who have the potential to drive innovative initiatives, “Do not fail, but if you fail, we still back you.” Innovative companies such as Google actively follow this practice, allowing employees to pick projects they are passionate about and work on them to deliver fresh solutions.

Realizing the need to encourage new ideas among employees to enhance patient experience, many healthcare enterprises are instituting innovative strategies. Henry Ford System, for example, began a system of rewarding great employee ideas. One internal contest was around clinical applications for wearable technology. The incentive was particularly attractive – a cash prize of $ 10,000 to the winners. Not surprisingly, the employees came up with some very innovative ideas that included: a system to record mobility of acute care patients through wearable trackers, health reminder system for elderly patients and mobile game interface with activity trackers to encourage children towards exercising. The employees admitted later that the exercise was so interesting that they would have participated in it even without a cash prize incentive.

Another example is Penn Medicine in Philadelphia which launched an ‘innovation tournament’ across the organization as part of its efforts to improve patient care. Participants worked with professors from Wharton Business School to prepare for the ideas challenge. More than 1,750 ideas were submitted by 1,400 participants, out of which 10 were selected. The focus was on getting ideas around the front end and some of the submitted ideas included:

  • Check-out management: Exclusive waiting rooms with TV, Internet and other facilities for patients waiting to be discharged so as to reduce space congestion and make their waiting time more comfortable.
  • Space for emotional privacy: An exclusive and friendly space for individuals and families to mourn the loss of dear ones in private.
  • Online patient organizer: A web based app that helps first time patients prepare better for their appointment by providing check lists for documents, medicines, etc to be carried and giving information regarding the hospital navigation, the consulting doctor etc.
  • Help for non-English speakers: Iconography cards to help non-English speaking patients express themselves and seek help in case of emergencies or other situations.

As Arlen Meyers, MD, President and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs, says in a report, although many good ideas come from the front line, physicians must also be encouraged to think innovatively about patient experience. An academic study also builds a strong case to encourage intrapreneurship among nurses. Given they comprise a large part of the front-line staff for healthcare delivery, nurses should also be given the freedom to create and design innovative systems for improving patient experience.

According to a Harvard Business Review article quoted in a university study, employees who have the potential to be intrapreneurs, show some marked characteristics. These include a sense of ownership, perseverance, emotional intelligence and the ability to look at the big picture along with the desire, and ideas, to improve it. But trust and support of the management is essential to bringing out and taking the ideas forward.

Creating an environment conducive to innovation is the first step to bringing about innovation-driven outcomes. These were just some of the insights on healthcare management gleaned from the Hospital Leadership Summit hosted by Abbott. In over 150 countries, Abbott, which is among the top 100 global innovator companies, is working with hospitals and healthcare professionals to improve the quality of health services.

To read more content on best practices for hospital leaders, visit Abbott’s Bringing Health to Life portal here.

This article was produced on behalf of Abbott by the Scroll.in marketing team and not by the Scroll.in editorial staff.