Keywords

Introduction

“Those were the Days” is the title of a lesson in the Hindi language textbook for the fifth grade in India, published first in 2007 by the National Council of Educational Research and Training. This Hindi adaptation of a science fiction by Isaac Asimov visualizes children’s lives in the year 2155 when schooling is entirely in front of a “machine,” and is thrilled to see a printed book that they accidently discover. The book was from their grandparents’ time. This, however, became a reality much sooner than 2155, in 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic suddenly advanced and widened the use of technology in education in many parts of the globe, making the notion of virtual schooling far more common than anyone could have anticipated. This also led to the realization of both the potential and limitations of open and virtual learning in diverse contexts, including developing countries.

This chapter uses the research evidence from India to argue that the success of the open and virtual education initiatives or systems at the level of school education is dependent upon the presence of a number of structural, locational, educational and technological thresholds, especially in contexts that are highly socio-cultural-linguistically diverse and economically unequal. It argues that, in absence of these thresholds related to literacy and literate environment of the learner, affordability of the resources such as internet accessibility and the associated hardware, technological connectivity, and freedoms regarding time-use and access to phone or other tools, the reach and potential of open and virtual schools remain limited. What is true for India is likely to be true for a majority of developing countries in general, and for South Asia in particular. Therefore, this chapter provides an illustrative case for understanding the limitations and potential of Open and Distance Learning (ODL)-based school education in the developing world.

Using the Indian case as an illustration, it goes on to argue that exclusive open or virtual schools cannot and should not replace physical schools at the school-education stage because the learner in most cases is still not an adult and therefore does not have freedoms that one needs to access open schools, although the open-school approach and practices have something critical to offer to make the physical school system a less rigid, inclusive, and creative spaces for learning. Open and virtual schooling practices can play a complementary role by widening the experience range of the learner in addition to its potential for certification of those who cannot or do not want to be part of the regular schooling system.

The rest of the chapter is divided into three main sections. The following section discusses the evidence regarding the experience of virtual schooling during the pandemic and the next section uses the available evidence and feedback on the established system of ODL-based schooling structures and experiences. The final section presents the conclusions and prerequisites for making virtual and open schooling-based education more responsive and inclusive in developing countries.

The COVID-19 Pandemic Experience

As the world turned toward online education hailed as the only option left for education in this crisis, so did India, when it went into a sudden and complete lockdown from 24th March 2020 to curb the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The lockdown was a measure to protect an already fragile health infrastructure, causing the educational setup to go into an overwhelming shock when all schools were abruptly closed. It has been well documented that school closures and periods of long holidays tend not only to negatively affect learning and school attendance but also can push children to labor, trafficking, and long-term dropouts from the school (Dove, Wong, Gustafson, & Corneil, 2020; Denney, Gordon, & Ibrahim 2015; Selverbik, 2020; Santos & Novelli, 2017; United Nations Development Programme, 2015). Therefore, an unprecedented, long and sudden closure of schools witnessed during this pandemic is already showing clear signs of adverse impact on learning levels and increased rate of drop outs at the time of writing this chapter. UNESCO estimates that about 140 million students in primary and 130 million in secondary schools have been affected by the lockdown in India alone (UNESCO, 2020).

The New Education Policy (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2020) in India had laid down the intentions toward greater use of online education into the regular teaching learning practices but the pandemic situation peddled online education as the “only solution.” Almost overnight, it was expected that the entire school education system would be able to convert itself into a digital, distanced-based system ready to serve the masses, with no preparation, no infrastructure, no social motivation or culture for self-directed learning. While ODL-based education or virtual schooling provides a viable option for continuing education in times of crisis like these, especially because of its potential for avoiding crowding, it also calls for training and adequate preparation. Although India has a well-established ODL-based education delivery system through its network of National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and state-specific State Open Schools (SOS), the mainstream schooling system has rarely taken advantage of it in terms of learning from its processes and experiences. Hence, when the challenge of suddenly shifting from physical to virtual came, most of the schooling systems in India stumbled, as evidenced from diverse feedbacks that have emerged from the field. Before discussing this experience, it is important to understand the kind and range of virtual schooling options that have been available in the country.

A perusal of the literature suggests that there are four kinds of online media and tools that are currently at use in India. The first is digital ed-tech content platforms like Byjus, Vedantu, and Topper. These platforms offer technologically assisted coaching, content delivery and assessments to learners at a moderate to high cost depending on the package purchased. The second kind are social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, which offer content through videos, blogs, and links to papers that learners can access free of cost as per their need. Virtual meeting spaces are the third kind of medium used by learners which offers a community space for interaction between learners, teachers, and other stakeholders. The most widely used virtual meeting platforms like Zoom, Google Meet, WebEx, and Microsoft teams are mostly free or come at a nominal charge. The fourth kind, and probably the most accessible because of its low-tech nature and cost, are broadcasts of lessons for relevant classes in television by national and various state governments and portals like DIKSHA E-Vidya (Sharma, 2021). These mediums offer a combination of synchronous and asynchronous platforms for learning. There has been an unprecedented jump in the number of users for these media and tools during the lockdown (Mathivanan et al., 2021).

The flexibility of learning in the comfort of one’s home and the option to learn at a time most convenient for the learner serve as the biggest advantages of online learning. Added advantage is that the learners can stay connected 24 h a day and have the flexibility to choose from a variety of content available online and also to explore various teaching aids such as videos, graphics, posters, recorded lessons, as per their learning needs. Therefore, it offers learners the autonomy and freedom to learn anytime and anywhere as per their own pace and requirements. These freedoms are also extended to the teachers who can choose from different kinds of content, course structures, teaching aids, and materials available online. Teachers can also opt for different kinds of innovative assessment systems that are easily available online to suit their teaching requirements and assessment parameters (Cojocariu, Lazar, Nedeff, & Lazar, 2014; Muthuprasad, Aiswarya, Aditya, & Jha, 2020).

Modern technology allows for a variety of customization that enables collaborative work and an interactive learning environment (Dhawan, 2020), giving rise to blended and flipped classrooms. Technological innovation in Educational Technology (EdTech) has now allowed for real life simulations that replicate multiple features of a classroom allowing for an alternate learning space that was hard to imagine a few years ago (Kumar, 2021). The neoliberal market structure also allows for greater competition between the various online platforms and helps keep prices in check. But in all this, to assume that the mere availability of reliable internet connectivity and a laptop or a smart phone would ensure schooling and continued learning for all has been proven wrong in a country like India, whether examined from the perspectives of physical or social access, or viewed from the angle of pedagogy and learning.

Access to Virtual Schooling

India is a country where diversity and disparity go hand in hand. With over 250 million learners who are currently in school and many more who are of school age but outside the schooling system, India has one of the largest school-going populations in the world (Statista, 2020; Unified District Information System for Education Plus, 2020). This population is spread across diverse landscapes, regions, ethnicities, and cultures. When intersected with multiple social structures of caste, class, region, religion, and gender clubbed with high regional disparities and disproportionate access to resources, online learning becomes not only unequal but also difficult to either execute or access. Access to virtual schooling can be divided into two broad categories – firstly, physical access to digital infrastructure – like computers, smart phones, and internet connectivity, and secondly, social access to online education like having the time, space, and negotiating power to learn. A perusal of various data sets and surveys conducted pre- and post-pandemic clearly shows that both kinds of access are available only to a small section of the population and those coming from the most marginalized sections remain excluded from virtual schooling.

The 75th round of the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) in 2020 on social consumption of education conducted in 2017/18 pointed toward the persistent digital divide in India. The data showed that only 9% of the students within the age group of 5 to 35 who were surveyed had a computer with internet access. About 11% of the students reported having a computer at home, while 25% said that they had access to internet facilities. The data also showed a vast rural-urban divide where only 4% of students in rural India claimed having access to a computer with internet as compared to 21% of students in urban areas. Regional disparities in access were also stark especially when seen in connection with rurality. Only 1% of students from rural areas had access to digital infrastructure in five Indian states: Jharkhand, Karnataka, Odisha, Tripura, and Telangana. The presence of Karnataka in this list, which has relatively better economic and social indicators with its capital Bangalore known as IT capital of India, shows that the access to online media does not always follow a linear pattern of regional deprivation (Reddy, Jose, & Vaidehi, 2020).

The digital divide, nevertheless, strongly intersects with economic and social divide in a society. The students belonging to the top income quintile had the highest access to computers with internet in India. As per NSSO (2020), about 45% of students belonging to the richest 10% income quintile reported having essential digital infrastructure as compared to only 2% of students from the lowest income quintile reporting the same. This trend holds true for the socially marginalized sections of Scheduled Tribe (ST), Scheduled Castes (SC), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and Muslim students who reported having very limited access to computers with internet (4% for SC and STs, 8% for Muslims, and 7% for OBC). These groups have traditionally been at the lowest end of educational development and are officially recognized as the same. These numbers, when compared to students from other categories where 21% reported access to digital infrastructure, reveal that the digital divide is deeply rooted in socioeconomic deprivation. These four groups form more than 70% of the population in India, and therefore it will not be wrong to assume that, without access to essential digital infrastructure, learners from these populations would largely remain outside the gambit of virtual schooling and would have been left behind in continuing their education during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The interconnectedness of gender with other social and economic marginalization makes girls and women the least favorable group when it comes to accessing online mediums of education. Social norms strictly guided by patriarchal practices prevent women from not just owning technology, but social idioms of nature versus nurture and values attached to women’s domesticity makes access to technology and online learning almost impossible for women in general, but especially for those who belong to the most marginalized populations in India. India has the highest gender gap in access to technology of any country (Devara, 2020).

A survey conducted by the Centre for Budget and Policy Studies (Ghatak, Yareseeme, & Jha, 2020) to assess the impact of the pandemic on the lives and education of children where one child in the age group of 10–18 years and one adult was interviewed from 3176 households across four Indian states found that in more than 70% of the households, the phone belonged to a male member. The gendered access to technology was revealed when only 26% of the girls who responded to the survey said that they had unhindered access to phones at home in comparison to 37% of the boys. The number of children who reported unhindered access went up when the phone belonged to a female member of the family, possibly because the male members usually ventured outside for work, hence further restricting access. This access declined further with economic deprivation, where children from households reporting economic difficulties reported less access to phones in comparisons to households that were relatively better placed economically. Children from such households could not afford to recharge internet packages even if a phone was accessible to them.

Several studies conducted in the pandemic period showed similar results. For example, two studies reported that only 11% of the children watched educational programs tele/broadcasted by state or union government; this was despite the fact that more than half of the households had a television set at home (Ghatak et al., 2020; Rajgopal & Gupta, 2020). Furthermore, girls spent disproportionality longer hours on domestic chores as compared to boys, and as a result, they had less time for studies and found it difficult to match the time for television broadcasts of educational programs which often coincided with their domestic responsibilities.

The results of another survey conducted to gauge the early impact of the pandemic on children in 23 Indian states by interviewing school going children from classes 1 to 12 also showed that access to digital infrastructure was limited with only 43.9% of children having access to smart phones (Bahl, Bassi, & Arora, 2021). Only 30% of students enrolled in public schools from the state of Maharashtra used the government’s digital online platform. Less than 1% of the students had a laptop or a computer at home. Further, the students came from backgrounds with limited online learning environment where more than 70% of the parents reported having no digital skills (Bahl et al., 2021). An online learning environment also requires a private space for learning which is often absent for children coming from marginalized sections as they mostly live in modest living conditions with shared spaces amongst multiple siblings and relatives. Private space for learning is a luxury in India available only to a small proportion of socioeconomically privileged populations (Shah, 2020).

What is clearly evident from these studies is that online education or virtual schooling, when seen as the only viable option for continuing education during situations of crisis like the current pandemic, led to further widening of the already existing inequality in access to schooling. These studies established three facts: firstly, the physical access to devices necessary for virtual schooling is very restricted; secondly, the mere presence of physical devises in the household does not guarantee real access; and thirdly, social structures posed major barriers to unhindered access to virtual schooling.

Challenges of Online Pedagogy

Online pedagogy in many ways is qualitatively different from pedagogies followed in regular face-to-face interaction-based classrooms and therefore requires alterations in teaching and learning processes. The nature of technologically mediated platforms demands that teachers and learners have a certain ease with technology, going beyond rudimentary technological literacy. Grasping the interest of the learner and maintaining it for the length of the classes in which learners and teachers interface through a small screen, and face constant interruptions due to power cuts and inconsistent internet are some of the most challenging aspects of online teaching and learning (Cherian, 2020; Dhawan, 2020; Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004). In addition to these challenges, one must also note that the issues of access that the students face are true for teachers as well, especially female teachers.

Even though online virtual classrooms try to replicate features of regular physical classrooms, it could lead to various levels of alienation for the teachers and the students. With the collapsing of spaces, where there is no difference between the place of work with one’s private space at home, female teachers are often faced with situation where they are expected to be attentive toward domestic responsibilities and work around the clock (Chandy, 2020; Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean & UNESCO, 2020; United Nations, 2020). Thus, trapped into a chain of unending work exasperated by the challenges of using a medium for which most of them have received very little training and therefore seemingly foreign, it is understandable that the teachers themselves can feel quite alienated.

Under such circumstances, it is not unusual for transactional distance to be high. In simple words, transactional distance is a psychological and communication space between what was taught by the teacher and what the learner perceived and understood (Moore, 1997). Therefore, high transactional distance could add to a sense of alienation between teacher and student, which is multiplied by the physical distance between them. A survey based on the experiences of 212 teachers from rural and urban India found that most teachers perceived high transactional distances in online teaching, where they found themselves to be untrained to handle situations in dealing with students from varied learning capabilities (Singh, Satyavada, Goel, Sarangapani, & Jayendran, 2020). From the learner’s perspective, another level of alienation is the limited space provided for peer learning, interactions, relationship building, and expression of feelings through online mediums of education. Unlike the physical classroom space, the online space provides very limited avenues for the students to laugh, fight, question, and develop a sense of comradery and community (Bhattacharya, 2020).

Studies trying to see if children have been able to retain their learnings that they had achieved prior to school closure reported significant “learning losses” during the pandemic despite potential access to virtual schooling. A study covering 16,067 children in 1137 public schools in India across classes 2 to 6 reported learning-loss for more than 90% of children in language and more than 80% in Mathematics for selected foundational abilities that are critical for further learning (Azim Premji University, 2021).

It is hence clear that virtual schooling experiences were not successful in sustaining the learning, which could be a result of both access and pedagogy related challenges, and the unpreparedness of all: institutions, teachers, and students. But what happens when there is a preparedness? The existing ODL-based schooling system delivered through the NIOS and SOS have evolved over a long period of time and should have developed mechanisms to address some of these access and pedagogy-related challenges that they too are likely to have faced. The next section discusses this in detail.

The ODL-Based Schooling System in India

Unlike virtual schooling that suddenly came into practice during the pandemic, the ODL-based schooling in India uses a combination of other modes in addition to technology such as printed learning resources as self-learning materials and contact classes with teachers. With more than three million enrolments, India’s ODL-based schooling facilities are considered one of the largest in the world. This is something that the literature from the community of ODL professionals always like to highlight in the context of scale (Ferreira, Kanwar, & Daniel, 2008; Kanwar & Ferreira, 2012). However, the formal ODL-based education covers only 2 to 3% of the school going population in India. Although not meant for only the school going population age group, an overwhelming majority of the NIOS and SOS learners at secondary and senior secondary, especially the latter, come from the same age group that also attends regular schools.

The NIOS works through state-specific regional centers which manage all the local functions including conducting face-to-face contact classes and examinations. The NIOS system provides flexibility that the regular schooling system usually does not provide. This includes the provision for (i) a five-year time period to complete the courses such as secondary (grade 10) or senior secondary (grade 12), (ii) no maximum age specified, making it easy for older people who could either not attend or complete their schooling, and (iii) twice a year public examination with an additional provision for on-demand examinations. The question then is whether these provisions and flexibilities help those in accessing education who have otherwise remained excluded from school education? The existing research shows a mixed response to this question: while it is true that many individuals who have studied using this mode would not have accessed schooling in absence of the ODL system, it is also true that the representation of rural or educationally backward groups remains low (Jha, Ghatak, Minni, Rajagopal, & Mahendiran, 2020).

The three officially acknowledged, educationally backward social groups, rural areas, and remote locations that are relatively poorly provided with schooling facilities and girls remain under-represented in the NIOS as well. The SCs, STs, OBCs, occupying about 70% of the population have had only about 29–33% representation at the secondary stage, and 25–29% at the senior secondary stage, which also does not seem to be improving over time (NIOS Statistical Reports, Different Years). The same is true for girls; they represent only about 30–31% of total NIOS admissions at both stages and their shares have remained almost static during 2008–2015 (National Institute of Open Schooling, Different Years).

The question that arises in this context is why it is so? The available evidence shows that only a small section has been able to use the flexible elements successfully and the groups that are the most natural targets of the ODL system have not benefitted as much. The specific analyses leading to this inference are discussed below.

Using the multi-nominal logit regression to estimate the probability of completion where the dependent variables represent completion at varying time periods since enrolment (say 1 year, 1.5 years, and so on) and no completion and the independent variables included sex, age, caste, mother’s and father’s education, income level, while using the NIOS student’s data for 5 years (2008–2013), Jha, Ghatak, Minni, Rajagopal, and Mahendiran (2020) estimated the probability of completion over the course of the stipulated 5 years and concluded that

….an average learner faced a higher probability of non-completion, of about 45%, even with the five-year flexibility. The probability of successful completion is highest in the first year of enrolment (about 25%). After that, the probability decreases to 17% at the one-and-a-half-year stage of enrolment and falls alarmingly to 7% in the second year of enrolment and then to 2% thereafter. In other words, the majority of those who are likely to complete the course do so in the first two years, implying that the use of the five-year time frame has been very low. (p. 146)

This implies that majority of learners who complete the courses do so in the very first year or at most the second year. The probability of those of completing who do not complete in 2 years is low. Could this indicate the presence of more of those who are substituting regular school with ODL just for certification rather than adding to the existing pool of in-school students? This question becomes important, as many view ODL-based education as an alternate mode to reach a higher number of out-of-school children as well as to provide an opportunity to those who have missed the bus (Ferreira et al., 2008; Kanwar & Ferreira, 2012).

Based on an in-depth study of the ODL system and experiences including an analysis of student data and a tracer study, (Jha et al., 2020) conclude that this is indeed the case. This argument is based on several evidence bases including the fact that: (i) the majority of the institutions for contact classes are located in urban and per-urban areas; (ii) technology that plays a major role in admissions, accessing learning resources and examination, remains inaccessible to most learners from marginalized backgrounds, aided by structural barriers faced by girls, as discussed in the earlier section; and (iii) information/literacy gaps including poor English language skills necessary for accessing technology-enabled resources and services make learners more vulnerable to exploitation by middlemen, which also makes the cost of accessing the system unaffordable. Consequently, they argue that ODL-based education, which also serves as an examination board, is being used largely for certification alone rather than learning. The users include: (i) experimental schools and NGOs that are either looking for creative combinations and flexible arrangements, not offered by the regular school boards; (ii) “high-performing” institutions that push students who are not likely to be high achievers in the regular examination boards; and (iii) institutions which primarily coach students for entrance to engineering and medicine courses, alongside providing senior secondary stage education.

What emerges is that while each learner is treated as an individual learner by the NIOS, in reality, a good proportion is using it only for certification while their learning is mediated by other institutions. This means that these learners do not depend upon the NIOS resources and services for their learning, performance, and completion. The available statistics, however, do not tell us about the distribution of NIOS learners across different kinds of learners. Research also indicates that there are wide deviations in the NIOS delivery “as envisaged” and “as practiced” at all stages: pre-admission, admission, academic support, and examination. Awareness drives about ODL-based education and assistance for technology rarely take place in rural and remote locations; contact classes are infrequent or nil in certain states and facilities like examination on-demand are available only in regional centers located in the state capital or other prominent cities (Minni, Pancharatnam, Rajagopal, & Jha, 2016). In absence of any support and mediation, it is difficult for the individual learners facing various constraints and living in remote areas to learn on their own. Even though online spaces can potentially allow collaborative learning, the absence of access to facilities coupled with lack of agency and freedom of learners makes it almost impossible for this to be practiced (Jha et al., 2020).

What becomes apparent is that the barriers to virtual schooling that have recently been exposed on the face of the pandemic have also been at play in limiting the reach of the already-existing ODL-based schooling systems. While many, including those who faced individual barriers such as early marriage or early labor market entry have used the system to further their schooling (Mahendiran, Ghatak, & Jha, 2016), those who are at the margin do not make it to thresholds needed to access the open schooling. Only better-informed and more privileged take advantage of the openness and flexibilities to get away from the otherwise rigid system of schooling. The final section discusses how the ODL-based system can be made less distant for the vulnerable, and how the rigid schooling system would benefit by borrowing a few principles and processes from the ODL system of education.

Inclusive ODL-Based Education and Flexible Schools: Developing Countries Potential Pathway

The discussion so far clearly reveals that while ODL-based education needs to be become more inclusive and accessible, the mainstream system of schools that push away students who do not completely “fit,” needs to become more flexible. Developing countries need to make all learning spaces, either based on ODL or face-to-face schools, more open, inclusive, and creative. The lack of flexibility and preparedness of the existing schooling systems was a major reason for the near failure of virtual schooling in helping children from marginalized groups access learning opportunities that otherwise should have been accessible to them. Here, the ODL system has a lot to offer. However, the ODL system itself needs to be more aware of the needs the learners form educationally disadvantaged groups and the barriers they face to be able to make its delivery more inclusive and meaningful.

The above discussion can be summarized in the form of three kinds of threshold that the success of the ODL-based school level education is dependent on: access, learning, and system-related thresholds (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Constraints that learners need to overcome for reaching the access threshold required for ODL

Full size image

Threshold 1: Issues of Access

The following diagram presents the access related constraints faced by learners to reach a threshold allowing them to access ODL-based education in its present form. These are somewhat similar yet distinct from what one faces to access the regular school. For instance, knowledge of particular levels of reading-writing skills, practice of self-learning, and high motivation are not as essential in a physical classroom, as the teacher is expected to mediate the process and help in filling these gaps. Similarly, girls face even greater restrictions as at times the choice itself is determined by the fact that the family does not want them to be mobile, and they even restrict their access to devices such as phones (Ghatak et al., 2020; Jha et al., 2016). Greater dependence on technology in the ODL system makes the issue of connectivity and affordability far more important there.

Threshold 2: Issues of Learning Support

The effectiveness of learning through virtual means is highly dependent on the presence and effectiveness of the access related thresholds discussed earlier. While economic, socio-structural, and technological thresholds are critical for accessing the process of teaching, individual barriers are crucial for using the process for learning to happen. In other words, the delivery design and system need to take all these constraints into account. For instance, if both connectivity and affordability are a major issue for a group of children in accessing internet/computer-based virtual classes, it is important to think of and include alternatives such as textual learning resources. Similarly, if girls are known to be engaged in household chores during morning hours in their households, the TV/radio broadcasts can be scheduled for the afternoon, when a higher number is likely to attend.

However, even when all these barriers are overcome, individual barriers may continue to play a major role in learning: the learner may still be unable to make sense of the connections between what is being taught and shared learning resources because of the absence of mechanisms that allow teacher-learner interactions, mediation, questioning, and a deeper engagement through peer interactions. The literature on the ODL-based education has been engaging with this issue and a “Self and Strength” based learner support approach (Simpson, 2008) seems to be particularly relevant in developing countries where children from marginalized groups face poverty, low self-image, absence of a literate, and supportive home environment and gender-based discrimination.

A learner support system that uses elements of Dweck’s Self Theory to help students believe in their own innate ability to learn, and also from the Strength Approach by having a continuous relationship with students through proactive means such as phone (or letters if phone and internet are not available) to ask about their well-being, strengths, and need for support shows evidence of having a positive impact on learning levels of ODL learners coming from marginalized backgrounds (Simpson, 2008). The schooling system, which continues to be heavily dependent on virtual means due to the pandemic, can pay attention to these elements not only now but also for building its general preparedness for any such shocks in the future as well as for better integration of children from disadvantaged backgrounds in regular schools. For ODL systems this would mean a shift from the current approach where the learner rather than the system is supposed to be proactive; the near absence of a “teacher” or an advisor or mentor in ODL systems at school-education stage prevents any kind of learning from becoming central as learners are still largely young and hence not necessarily highly independent, motivated, and skilled.

Threshold 3: Issues of Systems

The evidence from Indian case clearly shows that the current system of ODL-based school education is working well for those learners who are self-motivated and proactive, especially for certification. This means that, though the flexibilities (number of years, on-demand examination, combination of subjects/discipline to be selected) have been very useful for those who had learned enough to complete the stage and get a certification, this is something that the regular systems normally fail to accommodate. However, the ODL-based system has neither been successful in having contextual and diverse approaches to be able to expand the reach for educationally disadvantaged groups nor in enabling learning for those who are not supported by other institutions as mediators.

Conclusion

The above analysis points toward the need for three critical shifts to make the ODL-based school education inclusive, flexible, and effective for those learners who come from disadvantaged contexts. Although drawn from the analysis of its experience in India, these are likely to be a common issue across the nations at similar stages of economic development and having similar levels of heterogeneous or unequal societies. These are: (i) ODL systems adopting more inclusive measures for better access, for example, using diverse means to reach potential learners taking specific disadvantages into account; (ii) encouraging the mainstream systems of schooling – schools and the examination boards, to think of adopting a few flexible measures by learning from the ODL systems, such as allowing for a flexible time frame for completing a level without any stigma of completing it over a longer time-frame, and making space for creative combinations in subjects in schools using hybrid modes if teachers are not available for all subjects; and (iii) both the regular school system and the ODL-based school education systems need to pay much greater attention to adopting layered and responsive approaches for supporting learners proactively in any virtual learning space.