Diversity in Teacher Education A Global Perspective

Diversity in Teacher EducationA Global Perspective

Edited by Dr. D. Parimala

KANISHKA PUBLISHERS, DISTRIBUTORS NEW DELHI 110 002

University of Delhi, Dr. Parimala V. Rao, Zakhir Hussain Centre, Jawaharlal University; Prof. Bharati Baveja, Faculty of Education, University of Delhi, Dr. Renu Singh, National Manager, Education, Save the Children, New Delhi, beside others on various dimensions o f ‘diversity’

Editor

Contents

Foreword vAcknowledgements viiPreface ixList o f Contributors xiiiIntroduction xv

1. Teacher Education Programme with a Difference; 1Diversity EducationD. Parimala

2. Dialogue across Contexts: Exploring Canadian 22and Indian Perspectives on Diversity Educationfor Beginning Teachers Mira Raj Gambhir

3. The Art of Teaching and Crafting Personalities 54Gouri Srivastava

4. Educating Teachers for Diversity: The Reality 62of Teacher EducationGirish Choudhary

5. Reaching out to the Children from Diverse 74Backgrounds: Some Pedagogical ConcernsRenu Malaviya

^ Increasing Disparities among Diversified 92Groups in Education in India Yazali Josephine

7. Addressing Diversity in Classroom: A Government 108School Experience Ruchi Anand

8. Role o f Education with Reference to 129Diversified CulturesDhananjay Joshi <& Amit Ahuja

9. Successful Equitable Educational Programmes 133in Andhra Pradesh.M Ubaidullah

10. Educational Equity; Issues of Exclusion 142\nd Inclusion in Policy

Pankaj Das

11. Equity and Education; Issues, Social Realities 151and Policy ImplicationsNeelima Asihana

12. Equitable Justice in Nepal 186Savilree T Gurung

Index 202

List of Contributors

M ira Raj Gambhir} OISE/ University of Toronto, Canada.

Gouri Srivastava, Department o f Women’s Studies, NCERT, New Delhi.

Girish Choudhai^i'Department of Education, Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi, Delhi.

Renu M alayiya, Department of Education, Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi, Delhi.

Yazali Josephine, National University of Educational Planning and Administration (Under Ministry of HRD), New Delhi.

Ruchi Anand, Central Institute of Education, University of Delhi, Delhi.

Dhananjay Joshi and Amit Ahuja, University School of Education, GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi.

M. UbaiduIIah, Department of Population Studies and Social Work, Tirupati.

Pankaj Das, National University o f Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi.

Neelima Asthana, Department of Education, Lkiy Irwin College, Delhi.

Savitrc'e T. G urung , Research Scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University,New Delhi.

Increasing Disparities among Diversified Groups in Education in India

Yazali Josephine

Introduction

Globalization has come to stay with wide variety o f impact and implications in different walks o f life. Education and globalization seem to be more intricately related to each other. On the one hand, globalization impacts education, on the other education •facilitates globalization. Such relationships vary among countries depending upon their level o f development. Whereas developed countries derive signific^t benefit out of globalization, developing countries perceiye it as a significant thrust for out-flow of resources and increasing gap between the developed and developing countries. Globalization is raising the stake in terms o f opportunities for poverty reduction and the potential cost of policy mistakes. There is a genuine concern that inequalities have been rising both between and within countries during the globalization period. This indicates the danger that the benefits o f globalization will accrue only to a narrow range o f people with superior access to education, skills, markets, technology and resources. In this context how the globalization is impacting the marginalized groups o f India in the process of development is focus o f the paper.

The forces o f globalization have engulfed most countries in i‘he present world. Globalization is reinforcing and perpetuating the

existingunequal relationships of power and income between the first world and the rest o f the world, and qreating massive upheavals in communities. Globalization is also sparking a revolution in information and communication technolo^ (ICT) which is ushering in an Information Age that promises to'bring about new levels of global interconnectedness. Yet this is also creating new challenges. A widening of the gap between the ‘information-rich’ and the information-deprived’ is taking place at the international, national and local levels.

Also, the rapid changes that are now occurring in all '^ountries are requiring that

Knowledge and Skills be updated continuously

In India, the impact o f globalization is now beginr >ng to be fell. With the economic restructuring, fast developing changes are bringing about important transformations at various levels. Signs of marginalization of vast sections of the Indian population in terms of growing disparities in income, health care facilities, and other measures of well-being, are becoming increasingly visible. Overcoming this process o f marginalization requirejs concerfed efforts on many fronts: political, social, economic and educational fields.

In this context the present paper is divided into four sections: in introduction the concept of diversity, difference between diversity and disparity, the data used in the paper is discussed. In the second section on globalization and education focus increasing disparities among diversified groups is discussed. In the third section we have discussed on disparities of participation of diversified groups in higher educarion with the help of NSS data of 6 lth round. In the last section we have discussed the need for strategic HRPM in education as a response to the challenges o f globalization.

Data

For the present research paper we have used secondary data from published articles, unpublished research papers appeared in the website and other documents.

Some o f the data tables o f Ravi Srivastav (Jawaharlal Nehru U niversity & N ationa l C om m ission f o r U norganized Enterprises) paper on “Disparities in Access to Higher Education in India”.

C oncept o f Diversity

Diversity can be differences in race, heritage, customs, belief systems, physical appearance, mental capabilities, etc. (see below image 1). Diversity should be respected and valued because nobody is completely the same as anyone else, even within the categories above. People tend to reject what is different. Our differences/diversities can lead to growth as a society or it can lead tc violence and hatred. We must value our diversity in order to work together for the common good o f our society/world. Diversity provides options in life and helps thwart hard times and circumstances by allowing a person to b6'flexible in how to overcome obstacles instead of staying in the same trench without the ability to move out of it.

Diversity means differences such as different religious beliefs, different cultural traditions, music, art, dancing etc.

In the context of society, religious, ethnic and cultural, diversity is usually mentioned in discussing multicultural societies. What do people from other cultures contribute when they migrate and become part o f a new society?

Why should these different traditions and customs be valued?

They enrich a society because they allow people to experience different thinking processes, to see that there is more than one way o f approaching issues or living one*s life.

Diversity is imperative to note that the basic concept of managing diversity accepts that the workforce consists o f a diverse population o f people. The diversity consists o f people o f visible and non*visibIe differences which will include factors such as

age, gender* religion, political background, race, language' disability and marital status. Inequity may also be termed as disparity. Diversity is welcome but disparity is harmful. Inequality is a natural phenomenon. Inequalities inherent by nature (among human beings) are necessary for smooth fiinctipning o f the society; Inequity is a man-made phenomenon as we are all responsible to create inequities. Inequities are harmful for society and should be removed at all costs. Society can be distributed horizontally and this horizontal distribution o f society leadis to the concept of diversity.

In brief types of inequalities or disparities are:

• Gender disparities i.e. male-female disparities

• Social disparities i.e. disparities between various ethnic/ social groups

• Regional disparities i.e. disparities between various regions

• Spatial disparities i.e. rural-urban disparities

• Disparities in education can be seen in terms of:1. Enrolment

2. : Access to education

3. Provision of infrastructure in schools

4. Availability of teachers

5. Participation of children in education

6. Quality of education imparted in various types and location o f schools

Disparities during the Era o f Globalization

Globalization refers to the accelerated international flows of goods, capital, labour, services and information which have occurred in response to improved transport, the seemingly limitless revolution in communication technologies, and the deregulatory policies adopted in many countries during the past two decades. The Income gap between poor and rich is

growing, nationally and interijationally. Btit while income is perhaps the most visible manifestation o f inequality and income poverty the most visible form ,of deprivation. Education is a force for social apd economic change as people become more empowered and ipore productive. The poorest countries and the poorest people are those with the least access to educational opportunity. In future, the linkages between education and other ■forms o f deprivation w ill be further increased due to the globalization if the reforms are not towards equity and equality Thus, education and globalization seem to be more intricately related to each other. On one hand, globalization impacts education negatively and on the other, facilitates globalization. Such relationships var>' among countries depending upon their level o f education development. W he;eas developed countries derive significant benefit out o f globalization, developing countries perceive it as a significant'thrust for out-flow of resources and increasing gap between the developed and developing countries.

in c re ase o f new Types o f Exclusion

There are a great many manifestations of these new types of exclusion i.e. like dislocation, fragmented labour, educational opportunities, deprivations.

Dislocation

Exclusion may be the result o f social uprooting by the state, as has been happening to tribal peoples due to development projects, special econom ic zones and displacem ent from traditional occupations caused by economic liberalization (read g lo b a liz a tio n ) . W hile such ex c lu s io n is not new , the “development project” as part o f the globalization mission has accelerated the processes involved. The Sachar Committee dwelt at length on this in the context o f economic liberalization and livelihoods^

Dism antled and Replaced L abour

Exclusion may also be the result o f the disappearance of well- organized industrial structures. Multinational corporations and their compradors in globalization have dismantled and replaced much local industry witli business process outsourcing. In the process they have fragmented industrial labour and weakened the organizational ability and bargaining power o f the working class.

Educational Deflcits

Exclusion also results from denial o f access to education and employment, as in traditional-lndian society, or lack of access to the education system and occupational structures for various reasons, especially the state’s failure to provide free or affordable education and generate adequate employment opportunities in contemporary India. Whether in the traditional sense, in the context of globalization, or both, the need for universal higher education is a social imperative.-While lack of access to education facilities in itself is a major exclusion of Indian youth from participating in and benefiting.

The result is a remaking and redefining o f the social landscape. The growing number o f unemployed young people and the lack o f opportunities for the improvement o f their condition is leading to an even greater social, political, cultural, and environmental crisis. Segregation in the Indian context is complex, widespread and multi-layered in diversified groups. Inequality in access to education within country takes many forms: differences between men and women, urban and rural areas, ethnic groups, and more or less favoured regions can be found in most countries. These inequalities do not exist in isolation-often, they are overlapping and self-reinforcing. Transmitting across generations, they shape the distribution of opportunity. Inequalities in education help to perpetuate the w ider s truc tu res which consign people to poverty and marginalization.

Rural-Urban Disparities

The rural-urbaii disparity in education is pronounced. In developihg countries, men living in rural areas are twice as likely to be illiterate as those living in urban areas. Differences between rural and urban women arc only slightly less extreme.

Such disparities reflect differences in access to basic education. Poor educational opportunities are caused by a combination of factors, ranging from the administrative cost and difficulty o f providing services to more remote areas with scattered populations, to the unwillingness of teachers to live in isolated regions, and to demands for child labour. Public-spending priorities which concentrate resources on urban areas add to the problems of rural people.

Gender Disparities

Inequalities in education between men and women extend from literacy to access to school and to prospects for completing school. Cultural, social, and economic factors combine to place young girls and women at a serious disadvantage.

Regional Disparities

Uneven progress in providing access to education has resulted in deep regional disparities within countries-disparities which, in some cases, rival those between the North and the South. Educational disadvantage tends to be concentrated in regions with the highest levels o f poverty.

Ethnic and Indigenous Disparities

Inequalities relating to ethnic minorities and indigenous people are strongly linked to regional disparities and to the distribution o f poverty. They are am ong the most pronounced o f all inequalities, with particularly wide gender disparity within the most disadvantaged groups. Table 1 depicts the variations in OER o f graduates and above levels among different states and gender. The lowest are Orissa (male 10.81% and female 5 .34^) followed Assam and Bihar.

Table 1

GER o f Graduates and above (18-22 Years) in Major States (Male and Female in Percentage)

State Total .Male Female Total

Andhra Pradesh 20.36 12.53 16.38Assam 11.70 8.74 • 10.34Bihar 12.74 3.40 8.28Gujarat 14.43 13.30 13.92Haryana 18.10 18.69 ■ 18.36

Himachal Pradesh 19.85 ■ 24.40 22.08J&K 17.02 15.57 16.40Karnataka 14.66 10.25 12.52Kerala 21.59 28.71 ■ 25.17

Madhya Pradesh 12.25 6.46 ■ 9.56Maharashtra 19.89 15.13 17.76Orissa 10.81 5.34 7.90Punjab 13.65 22.05 17.47Rajasthan 13.66 ' 7.26 10.69Tamilnadu 20.87 16.71 18.82

Uttar Pradesh 15.26 10.28 12.94

West BengaJ 15.49 10.14 12.82

Jharkhand 13.65 9.II 11.39Chhatisgarh 16.29 10.02 13.47

Uttaranchal 19.03 22.43 20.61Delhi 25.35 40.38 30.76Total 16.18 11.98 14.19

Source: Ravi Srivastav. Disparities in Access to Higher Education in India, Jawaharlal Nehru University & National' Commission for Unorganised Enterprise.

Income Disparity

Deprivation in education is one o f the main causes of pover^ and inequality . But this is a two*way relationship: povei^ and iniequaUty are also among the main causes of educational deprivation. Children from.poor households face far more severe problems than .those

from wealthier households in gaining access to school, and in progressing through school.

Disparities among Different Religious Gommunities

Going by India’s Census 2001, the overall share o f graduates in the 20-24 age group is only about 8 per cent. O f the six categories into which the Census 2001 classified the Indian population, degree holders inthe 20-24 age group account for only 2.3 per cent o f the total population in this age group among the STs, -3.6 percent among the SCs, 4 per cent among the Muslims, 7.4 per cent among the Buddhists, 7.6 per cent among the Sikhs, 9.8 per cent among the caste-Hindus (Hindus excluding SCs and STs), and 11 per cent among the Christians.

Given this'dismal- scenario, and the fact that 54 per cent of India’s population is below age 25, it is only too obvious that the state has failed to grapple with the enormous task o f educating India's rising generation in socially equitable and globally competitive ways. The problems o f Indian education center on financing, equity and excellence/As these problems have been confounded by rapid globalization that requires only educated manpower, the traditionally excluded social groups, which are way behind the advanced groups in their access to education, are now victims o f a double whammy. Their traditional deprivation keeps them away from education, and the demands of a knowledge-driven society under globalization leave them out o f the mainstream because of their lack of education.

In support o f the argument the NSS 61 round data is analyzed and interpreted. Table 2 depicts the GER o f graduate at all levels. It is clearly showing the male/female differentiation. The lowest are he Sikh SC5 (18.5%) followed b> Sikh SC female (12.70%). The discussion is an attempt to present various facets of the educational development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes vis-a-vis other sections o f the community. The per cent population enrolled at different levels o f higher education by various social groups is examined by gender, region and household type by both rural and urban. The purpose to examine social group by such categories was to analyze the enrolment for different social groups

at various levels of higher education, and the extent of disparity if it exists. Disparity, measured in terms of enrolment in higher education by age group, gives the representation by social group; not only that it also gives an insight into the result of existing affirmative policies. Again there are intra and inter-group disparities.

Table 2

Disparities across Socio-religious Groups GER o f all Graduates and above (18-22 years) (per cent)

Socio-religiousGroup

Total

Male Female Total

Hindu ST 65.38 65.04 65.25

Hindu SC 56.58 52.50 54.99

Hindu OBC 57.90 47.56 53.&4

Hindu Others 60.11 56.26 58.38

Islam OBC 65.51 43.11 54.69

Islam Others 64.58 48.32 57.19

Christianity ST 58.57 66.61 63.21

Chrisfiariity Others 59.40 60.26 59.80

Sikh SC 18.95 12.70 J5.30

Sikh Others 43.86 51.15 47.63

Others 58.04 50.06 54.49

Non-reporting 15.92 82.76 70.44

Total 59.12 52.58 56.31

Source: Ravi Srivastav Paper on: Disparities in Access to Higher Education in India, Jawaharlal Nehru University & National Commission for Unorganised Enterprises (The tables are from his paper-Computed usingNSS unit level data 61 st Round on Employment- Unemployment, 2004-2005 and adjusted for census population.)

The expansion in the field of higher education prov/ded great access to all sections of the society in India. However, owing to a number of constraints, and socio-economic factors, the benefits of esqjansion of educational facilities have not fully reached to many people who belong to the lower communities like Hindu Sv. heduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), OBC Muslims, Hindu, SC Sikhs and

SC Christians.The 2004-05 education data shows that the GER (Gross Enrolment Rate) was about 10.84 per cent at overall l evels, the GER among the SC’s (6.30%X the ST’s (6.33%), and the OBC (16.60%). Thus the GER for the SC/STs was three times less than of the OBCs. It was about two times lower as compared with the Others. Between the SC/ST’s and the OBC’s, however the GER was lower among the former by two per cent points. (Sukhadeo Thorat, 2008).To cope up with this situation achange in educational planning is necessary according to the demands of global needs.

Why Change in Educational Planning is Essential

The benefits of globalization accrue to the countries with highly skilled human capital and it is a curse for the countries without such specialized human capital. Developing and transition countries are further challenged in a highly competitive world economy because their higher education systems are not adequately developed for the creation and use of knowfedge. Converting the challenges into opportunities depends on the rapidity at which they adapt to the changing environment.

India is also following the global phenomenon. As part of globalization, the economic reform packages were introducednn India in the beginning of 1991. These reform packages imposed a heavy compression on the public budgets on education sector, more specifically so on higher education. This has trickled down to public expenditure on education in general, and higher education in particular.

But globalization has a multi-dimensional positive impact on the system of education; It promotes new tools and techniques in this area like e-learning,'flexible learning, distance education programmes and over.‘5ea{> training. Globalization will mean many different things for education. In the near future, “it will mean a more competitive and deregulated educational system modeled after free-market but with more pressure on it to assure that the next generation of workers is prepared for some amorphous ‘job market o f 21st century’.”

Knowledge is the driving force in the rapidly changing globalized economy and society. Quantily and quality of specialized human resources determine their competence jn the global market. Emergence of knowledge as driving factor resulte in both challenges and opportunities. It is well known that the growth of the global economy has increased oppo^nities for those countries with good levels of education. Since “life-long jobs have been converted into yearly contracts there is still possibility o f even short duration jobs. Our education system should deliver such education and training- so that professionals can adjust them selves as per market expectations. It has underlined the need for reforms in the educational system with particular reference to the wider utilization' o f information technology, giving productivity dimension to education and emphasis on its research and development activities for this astrategic educational planning is essential.

Strategic Educational Planning for Human Capital Formation

One o f the noteworthy features g f the Indian workplace is demographic uniqueness. It is estimated that both China and India, will have a population of 1.45 billion people by 2030, however, India. will have a larger workforce than China. Indeed,, it is likely h idia will, have 986 million people of working age in 2030, which well probably be about 300 million more tiian in 2007. And by 2050, it is expected India will have 230 million more workers than China and about 500 million more than the United States of America (U.S.)- It may be noted that half of India’s current population of 1.1 billion people is under 25 years o f age (Chatterjee, 2006). While this fact is a demographic dividend for the economy, it is also a danger sign for the country’s ability to create new jobs at an unprecedented rate.

When India’s young demographic bubble begins to reach' working age, India will need far mote jobs than .currently exist to keep living standards &om declining. India today doesn’t have enougli good jobs for its existing workers, much less for millions of new ones. If it cannot better educate its children and create jobs for them once they reach working age, India faces a population

time bbmb. The nation will grow poorer and not richer, with hundred of millions o f people stuck in poverty. An .emerging dominant perspective is the influence o f globalization on technological advancements, business management education and communication infrastructure is leading-to a converging effect on managerial mindsets and business behaviours. And when India embraced liberalization and economic reform in the early 1990s, dramatic changes were set in motion in terms o f corporate mindsets and HRM practices*as a result o f global impemtives and accompanying changes in societal priorities. Indeed, the onset of a burgeoning competitive service sector compelled a demographic shift in worker educational status and heightened the demand for job relevant skills as well as regional diversity. Expectedly^ there has been a marked shift towards valuing human resources (HR) in Indian organizations as they become increasingly strategy driven as opposed to the culture o f the status qup.

With 21st-century India burdened with the world’s largest- population o f illiterate citizens, an estimated 59 million children in the six-14 age u p out of school, ^ d huge number o f job-seekers across the country having swollen to 41 milUbn - not because there aren’t sufficient jobs, but because youth streaming out o f the obsolete education system are unemployable - alarm sirens are wailing in all sections o f Indian society. As the new millennium challenges are for the quality education, a strategic educational planning is the best social leveler and passport to gainful employment affluence and social respect. Hence despite the rig our government permit system, there’s a flurry of activity in terms of promotion of new schools, colleges and institutes o f professional education. In higher education the bar is continuously being raised given the steadily rismg demand for quality higher - especially professional study programmes.

Concluding Remarks

Globalization is an extremely powerful ideology. It is repeatedly being total that there zs no alternative to it. Even Amartya Sen has taken this position. There is a feeling o f helplessness when

globalization is represented as being the inevitable outcome of technological development. If globalization is here to stay then serious measures have to be adopted to bridge the divide, which could increase the inequalities like ineijualities among people, even inequalities among sectors o f education etc.

The Dakar World Education Forum also recommended with particular to enhancing access and improving the relevance, effectiveness and equity in education which are-very utmost important in this era of globaiization. They also recommended that there should be a policy dialogue on education reforms. Particular emphasis was placed on selected key issues, notably those of equity in and access to secondary education (especially with regard to gender and marginalized groups), the renewal o f content and teaching/learning processes (es|>ecially science/technology-related subjects), harmonizing youth programmes and policies witli the provision o f secondary education, and the promotion o f life skills and counseling programmes.

Other issues will include the roie of teachers, the involvement of new education actors, school . management and the learning environment. The use o f art and cultural activities will also be promoted as effective approaches to facilitate the development of learners* creativity and critical thinking. Best practices should be drawn from a variety o f social and cultural contexts and, disseminated and promoted, with a particular focus on alternative access routes into education, education for responsible behaviours, approaches to counseling adolescents, the participation o f new education actors and partners, and the renewal of secondary education contents, methods and management (both at central and school levels). Policy dialogue and. ne^vorking will be promoted through inter-agency collaboration and cooperation with NGOs students’ groups and parents’ associations should work oi Secondary Education Reforms. Advocacy efforts, strategic educational planning in building human capital should be undertake; to promote a new vision o f education among decision-makers.

REFERENCES

Dreze, J. and Sen, A. (eds.) 1998. Indian Development: Selected Regional Perspectives. Delhi: Oxford UniversiQ' Press.

Giddens, A. 1994. B eyond Left an d Right. Polity Press: Cambridge.

Harris, J. 2001. Globalization and W orld’s Poor Institutions, Inequality andJustice. Economic a n d PoU iical Weekly. June 9-J5, 2001, Vol. XXXVI, No. :u .

Jamcb, E. 1987. Tiic I'ublic/Privaie Division o f Responsibiiiiy for Educaiion, Aji Ituernational Camparison. Econom ics o f Education Review. Vol. 6(1), 1-14.

Jha, U.S., and Pujari, P. (eds.) 1996. Indian Women Today: Tradition, Modernity and Challenge. N ew Delhi: Kanishka Publishers.

Kelkar, V.lv. and Rao, V .V .B. 1996. India Development Policy Imperatives. New Delhi; Tata McGraw Hill.

Landes,.D. 1998. The wealth an d po ver ty o f Nations: Why some are so rich and some so poor. London: Little, Brown and Co.

Nair, R.G. and D. Ajit 1984. Parellel Colleges in Kerala: Enrolment, Costs and Employment, Economic and Political Weekly, 19(42 & 43), Oct 20-27.

Rao, K.S. and S in ^ , M, 2002. Self-Financed Courses in Universities and Colleges.University N ew i, Vol. 40 (43).

Sethi, R.M. (cd.) 1999. Globalization, Culture and Women's Development."New Delhi; Rawai Publications.

Tilak, J.B.G. 1991. The Privatisation o f Higher Education, P rospects,V ol. XXL

(2).

Tinker, I. 1990. Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development, N ew York: Oxford University Press.

UNDP (United Nations Developm ent Programme) 1999. Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.

UNDP 1997. Human Development Report. N ew York: Oxford University Press.

UNDP 2001. Human D evelopm en t R eport. N ew York; Oxford U niversity Press.

Sarvekshana, Vol. XX X(3) 2000. National Sample Survey Organisation. Ministry o f Statistics & Programme Impl.

Armstrong, Michael. A H andbook o f Human Resource Management Practice.Kogan Page Limited, 1999.

Burstiner, Irving. The Sm all Business Handbook, Prentice Hall, 1988.

Green, Paul C. Building Robust Competencies: Linking Human Resource Systems to Organizational Strategies. Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Gubman, Edward L. “The Gauntlet is Down.” Journal o f Business Strategy. Novcmbcr-Dcccmbcr 1996.

Johnston, John. “Time to Rebuild Human Resources.” Business Quarterly. Winter 1996.

Reece, B any L., and Rhonda Brandt. Effective Human Relations in Organizations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993.

Roberts, Gary, Gary Seldon , and Carlotta Roberts. Human R esources Management. Washington, D.C.: Small Business Administialion, i

. -Kossilcr, Jill A. Unman Resources: M ustering Your'S.nall liusiness. I J p i t ; . Publishing, 1996.

Solomon, Charlene Manner. “Working Smarter: How HR Can Help.” Personnel Journal, June 1993.

Ulrich, Dave. Delivering Results: A New Mandate fo r HR Professionals. Harvard Business School Press, 1998.

Ravi Srivastav paper on: D isparities in Access to Higher Education in India,- Jawaharlal Nehru University & National Commission for Unorganised Enterprises.