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, undoable announcements made such speeches meaningless. But this time, his concentrating on 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 the year end. Strengthening the educational system is a universally acknowledged priority to leverage our demographic divident, create employment, inculcate relevant skills, deepen our global footprint and optimise the one area where we have comparative advantage.
In summary, the Prime Minister promises 6,000 new, high-quality schools ? one in each block, 370 new colleges in low-enrolment districts, 30 new central universities, five new Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, eight new Indian Institutes of Technology, seven new Indian Institutes of Management, 20 new Indian 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, giving operational content to many of these announcements will be a daunting challenge. The archaic and regulatory mindset of the education ministry has been widely debated. In some ways they are caught in the quagmire of swadeshi versus foreign, commercial fees versus market-related payments, public-private partnership but with emphasis on philanthropy, protecting identity from foreign onslaught versus improving educational excellence to global benchmarking.
Some near term issues need quick resolution.
Universalising primary education, minimising drop-out ratios and improving teacher training is high priority. While schools are being expanded, teacher quality is coming down significantly. Besides the proposed new funding pattern of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) on a 50:50 formula casts serious burden on poor states. They also happen to be the very states where the challenge of primary education is the highest.
The regional variations are too glaring to be wished away. Illustratively, the per capita HRD expenditure in Bihar, Rajasthan and Orissa are Rs 1.87, Rs 2.59 and Rs 4.07 compared to Rs 177 in Delhi, Rs 105 in Uttaranchal, Rs 33 in Himachal and Rs 28.10 in West Bengal. These divides need to be bridged to fulfil the other commitment made by the Prime Minister, namely to address the growing regional development and income divides.
Determining an appropriate fee structure for educational institutes even with respect to higher education is marred by multiple controversies. Currently, fees constitute less than 10% of the total expenditure of universities. The National Knowledge Commission recommendation for fees to meet at least 20% 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, and through consultancy and research need to be pursued. However, archaic regulations inhibit garnering the philanthropic contributions. Their contribution in total expenditure on higher education has declined from 12% in the 50s to just 3% in the 90s. Universities securing such sources have been penalised through matching deductions in grants-in-aid by the University Grants Commission!
An appropriate balance should be maintained between the market-determined fees to harness private capital and social equity. This will ensure that meritorious low-income students have easy access to a 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 of these institutes would entail a rising subsidy bill. We must work towards a progressively self-financing model. This is equally true of the Industrial Training Institutes and vocational schools. Many state governments have fixed their fees so low that it compromises seriously on faculty quality and attract teachers who can barely impart the needed skills.
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 which in some way enables private entrepreneurs to realise the opportunity cost of investment. The existing restrictions on foreign investments in higher education have an inherent bias against economically weaker sections which cannot afford to go abroad and acquire foreign degrees. Critics of the Private Universities Bill need to consider in whose interest the Bill is 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%, despite the target of 6% set as far back as 1968 by the Kothari Commission. Additionally, higher education, which should receive 2% of GDP, secures only 0.7% in India. Universalising elementary education is a priority goal, but cannot be pursued to the detriment of the 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 the complexities of India?s educational system go well beyond adequacy of resources. The embedded social and equity considerations need to be resolved in a manner which harmonises excellence with the compulsions of social inclusiveness. The
Prime Minister?s announcement needs an implementation strategy.