The problem of educating India
N K Singh
Posted online: Sunday, August 19, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print Email
Last week I wrote on the 60 years of our Independence. This week I intend to comment on the prime minister’s Independence Day speech. I do not share the views expressed by some analysts that his speech lacks vision. In the past, un-doable announcements made such speeches meaningless. But concentrating on the core theme of education is quite sensible.
The prime minister’s emphasis on education is in line with the XIth Five Year Plan, which we hope the Planning Commission would finalise before year-end.
In summary, the prime minister promises 6,000 new high-quality schools — one in each block, 370 new colleges in low-enrollment districts, 30 new central universities, five new Indian Institutes of Science Education & Research, eight new Indian Institutes of Technology, seven new Indian Institutes of Management, 20 new Institutes of Information Technology, as well as 10,000 new vocational schools and 50,000 new skill development centres.
Many of these are also in line with the useful recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission. However, making them operational will be a daunting challenge.
The archaic and regulatory mindset of the education ministry has been widely debated. In some ways it’s caught in the quagmire of swadeshi versus foreign, commercial fee versus market related payments, protecting identity from foreign onslaught versus improving educational excellence to global bench-marking.
Some near-term issues need quick resolution:
• Universalising primary education, minimising dropout rates and improving teacher training is high priority. While schools are being expanded, teacher quality is coming down significantly. Besides, the proposed new funding of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) on a 50:50 formula casts serious burden on the poorer states.
• The regional variations are too glaring to be wished away. Illustratively, the per capita HRD expenditures in Bihar, Rajasthan and Orissa are Rs 1.87, Rs 2.59 and Rs 4.07 respectively, compared to Rs 177 in Delhi, Rs 105 in Uttaranchal, Rs 33 in Himachal Pradesh and Rs 28.10 in West Bengal.
• Determining an appropriate fee structure for educational institutes even in respect of higher education is embedded in multiple controversies. Fees constitute less than 10 per cent of the total expenditure of universities. The National Knowledge Commission recommendation for fees to meet at least 20 per cent of the expenditure is sensible “since low fees confer unintended benefits for unintended beneficiaries.” Enhancing income from other sources through endowments, utilisation of surplus land, consultancy and research need to be pursued. However, archaic regulations inhibit garnering philanthropic contributions. Universities securing such sources have been penalised through matching deductions in grants-in-aid by the University Grants Commission!
• An appropriate balance must be evolved between the market-determined fees to harness private capital with social equity in ensuring that meritorious low-income students have easy and affordable access to a more broad based scholarship system .
• A substantial part of the capital expenditure for the proposed major expansion programme would no doubt be met by the state. However, the day-to-day expenses would entail a rising subsidy bill. We must work towards a progressively self-financing model.
• Attracting private capital through public private partnership is inescapable but not easy. While commercialisation of education must be avoided, there is need for innovative financing mechanisms.
• The existing restrictions on foreign investments in higher education has an inherent bias against economically weaker sections which can not afford to go abroad and acquire foreign degrees. Critics of the private universities bill need to consider in whose interest is the bill being blocked even while in its present form it remains cluttered with too many restrictions. While foreign universities must not exploit and commercialise education the current regulatory regime needs a fresh look to at least attract well-recognised centres of educational excellence.
• The government’s educational expenditure as a percentage of GDP has never risen above 4.3 per cent despite the six per cent target set as far back as 1968 by the Kothari Commission. Additionally, higher education, which should receive two per cent of GDP, secures only 0.7 per cent in India. Universalising elementary education cannot be pursued to the detriment of higher education sector.
Expanding educational infrastructure, creating more centres of educational excellence and tapping into India’s rural economy is an obvious way forward. But in India the complexities go well beyond adequacy of resources. The embedded social and equity considerations need to be resolved in a way that harmonises excellence with the compulsions of social inclusiveness.
The prime minister’s announcement needs an implementation strategy.