Vibhuti patel economics of eduation


Published on

Discussion on economic aspects of education has acquired great significance in education research during the new millennium earmarked as Knowledge Economy. Education for the Knowledge Economy (EKE) refers to efforts at production of the highly skilled and flexible human capital needed to compete effectively in today’s dynamic global markets. Experiences of last one decade in the IT enabled BPO sector has proved India’s ability to produce and use knowledge as a major factor in economic development and has proved to be critical to India’s comparative advantage. Economists have recognized importance of EKE to develop a workforce that is well-trained and capable of generating knowledge-driven economic growth.
Economics of Education analyzes both what determines or creates education and what impact education has on individuals and the societies and economies in which they live. Historically a great deal of emphasis has been placed on determining outcomes to educational investment and the creation of human capital. The primary mission of the economics of education group is to identify opportunities for improved efficiency, equity, and quality of education and promote effective education reform processes, to enhance knowledge of what drives education outcomes and results; to better understanding how to strengthen the links of education systems with the labour market; and to build and support a network of education economists for education policy planning and evolve structures and mechanisms for implementation.

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Vibhuti patel economics of eduation

  1. 1. Economics of Education: Crucial Concerns Vibhuti PatelDr. Vibhuti Patel, Director, Post Graduate Studies and Research, Prof. &Head, PG, dept. Dept. of Economics, SNDT Women’s University, Mumbai-400020 is a social scientist with multi disciplinary concerns. In this paper shediscusses the issue of poverty and education that provides crucial backgroundfor understanding and utilizing Right to Education Act, 2010.AbstractDiscussion on economic aspects of education has acquired great significancein education research during the new millennium earmarked as KnowledgeEconomy. Education for the Knowledge Economy (EKE) refers to efforts atproduction of the highly skilled and flexible human capital needed to competeeffectively in today’s dynamic global markets. Experiences of last one decadein the IT enabled BPO sector has proved India’s ability to produce and useknowledge as a major factor in economic development and has proved to becritical to India’s comparative advantage. Economists have recognizedimportance of EKE to develop a workforce that is well-trained and capable ofgenerating knowledge-driven economic growth.Economics of Education analyzes both what determines or creates educationand what impact education has on individuals and the societies and economiesin which they live. Historically a great deal of emphasis has been placed ondetermining outcomes to educational investment and the creation of humancapital. The primary mission of the economics of education group is to identifyopportunities for improved efficiency, equity, and quality of education andpromote effective education reform processes, to enhance knowledge of whatdrives education outcomes and results; to better understanding how tostrengthen the links of education systems with the labour market; and to buildand support a network of education economists for education policy planningand evolve structures and mechanisms for implementation.IntroductionThe prevalent view that public resources for education in developing countriesshould be reallocated from higher to lower levels of education is backed bymassive budgetary allocation for universalisation of primary education. There 1
  2. 2. may be a case for maintaining and even increasing spending on highereducation, as long as public funds can be directed to research and other “publicgood” functions of institutions of higher education. Current measures of socialreturns to primary, secondary and higher education do not reflect unmeasuredsocial benefits at each level; since we do not know the relative size of thesebenefits across levels, we do not know the true ranking of social returns acrossprimary, secondary and higher education. The true social rate of return tocertain components of higher education, such as research and postgraduatetraining in science and technology, and creation of other skills where socialreturns probably exceed private returns (such as public administration) isprobably high, and in some settings, may now be as high or higher than thesocial rate of return to primary and secondary education. Moreover, achievingand sustaining adequate levels of quality to capture these social returnsrequires minimal stability in public financing, arguing against majorreallocations away from higher education. But this does not argue for morepublic spending on all higher education programs. On the contrary; within theenvelope of total public spending on higher education, reallocation away frompublic spending on undergraduate training makes sense, since such trainingprobably has low cost compared to private returns, and can be accomplishedby greater reliance on private universities and by increasing tuition and otherfees in public universities, while ensuring equitable access through loan andscholarship programs.A Knowledge Economy FrameworkA Knowledge Economy is one that utilises knowledge to develop and sustainlong-term economic growth, thus the Knowledge Economy framework focuseson four pillars which it suggests are needed to support a successful knowledgeeconomy.The first pillar of the framework is an economic and institutional regime thatis conducive to the creation, diffusion, and utilisation of knowledge. A regimethat provides incentives that encourage the use and allocation of existing andnew knowledge efficiently will help to foster policy change. The economicenvironment must have good policies and be favourable to market transactions,such as being open to free trade and foreign direct investment. The governmentshould protect property rights to encourage entrepreneurship and knowledgeinvestment. 2
  3. 3. The second pillar is a well-educated and skilled population that creates,shares, and uses knowledge efficiently. Education, especially in the scientificand engineering fields, is necessary to achieve technological growth. A moreeducated society tends to be more technologically sophisticated, generatinghigher demand for knowledge.The third pillar is a dynamic information infrastructure that facilitates thecommunication, dissemination, and processing of information and technology.The increased flow of information and knowledge worldwide reducestransactions costs, leading to greater communication, productivity and output.The final pillar is an efficient innovation system of firms, research centres,universities, think tanks, consultants, and other organisations that applies andadapts global knowledge to local needs to create new technology. Thegeneration of technical knowledge leads to productivity growth.The Knowledge Economy framework suggests that to be effective knowledgeeconomies in which knowledge is created, disseminated and used well,economies have to have four pillars in place. Policy advice would focusattention on which of the pillars is in particular need, in terms of appropriatepolicies, institutions, investments and coordination so that countries candevelop a knowledge economy and sustain long-term economic growth.Education-Economy InterdependenciesThe 1986 education policy had resolved to raise investment in education suchthat it will reach at least 6% of GDP by the year 2000. This unfulfilled resolvewas incorporated in the UPA’s Common Minimum Programme in May 2004.Yet, as percentage of GDP, India spent less on education in 2005-06 (less than3.5% of GDP) than what it spent in 1985-86 when the policy was passed by theParliament. This is despite the fact that the Government had levied 2%Education Cess and raised almost 35% of the resources for Sarva ShikshaAbhiyan from international funding agencies.What the country needed in 1991 – five years after the 1986 policy – was afirm resolve to first rapidly fill up the cumulative gap resulting fromcontinued underinvestment and then maintain the elusive investment level of6% of GDP in the following decades. Nothing short of a radical departure waslong awaited in order to energise and restructure the entire education 3
  4. 4. system along with its curriculum. Yet, what the global market forcespersuaded the Indian State to do in the 1990s was precisely the opposite ofwhat was directed by the Constitution and resolved by the Parliament in the1986 policy. The undeclared but operative strategy was to “let the vastgovernment education system (from schools to universities) starve of fundsand, consequently, deteriorate in quality.” As the quality would decline,resulting in low learning levels, the parents, even the poor among them, wouldbegin to withdraw their children from the system. A sense of desperation andexclusion from the socio-economic and political space in the country wouldprevail. More importantly, the people’s faith in the Constitution and thecapability of the State to fulfill its obligations will be shaken up, therebyleading to a cynical view of the nation-state. This will lay the groundwork forappreciation of market as a means of solving people’s problems. The neo-liberal economist and advocates have long striven for precisely this goal:measured weakening of the State and increasing credibility and power of themarket.Economic Analysis of Education Interventions: Equity, Equality &Efficiency DimensionsIn mainstream economic analysis, education is seen as a production process inwhich inputs (e.g., students, teachers, and textbooks) are combined to yielddesired outputs (e.g., student learning) within the education sector, and largersocietal outcomes outside the sector (e.g., increased earnings in the workplaceor greater social equality), under the prevailing educational technology(encompassing pedagogy, curriculum, and school organization) and inputprices. A major application of economic analysis is to inform decision-makingin education in order to improve efficiency in educational production; that is,producing more desired education outputs and outcomes given educationalresources. Analytically, educational efficiency can be distinguished as internalefficiency and external efficiency. Internal efficiency relates educationaloutputs to educational inputs, while external efficiency relates educationaloutcomes to educational inputs. Analysis of educational efficiency is notconfined to economic concerns only, since educational outputs and outcomesalso pertain to social and political dimensions of national development.The internal efficiency of education is improved when more education outputsare produced at given education resources or fewer education resources areused in producing the same amount of education outputs. Thus educational 4
  5. 5. economic analysis is centrally concerned with the production of educationoutputs and with education costs.There have been different views on whether increased economic growth andimproved social equity could coexist. Using the experience of eight East Asianeconomies, the World Bank concluded in a 1993 publication that growth withequity was possible. This study made a guarded but positive assessment of therole of education: education was only one of many contributing factors togrowth with equity but appropriate education policy did matter, especially interms of adequate investment in education and the focus of government policyon lower levels of education. The financial crisis that began in 1997, however,underscored the importance of non-education factors that could affect thehealth of the economy in these nations.Earlier efforts in promoting education for poverty reduction have beenaccompanied by high hope and disillusionment. The urgent need for povertyreduction in the developing world is reflected by the World Banks redefiningitself as a poverty-reduction organization. There is common understanding inthe early twenty-first century that "quality basic education for all" is animportant part of the overall strategy for poverty reduction. But educationalone is not sufficient; rather a multisectoral approach involving relatedinterventions in agriculture, education, health (including addressing the AIDSepidemic), credit market for small producers, and other social sectors, isneeded. Poverty reduction also requires targeted interventions. Women are oneof the most important targeted groups because they are often subject tomultiple disadvantages in the developing world. Increasing educational accessand improving quality for girls could have profound economic, social, andpolitical benefits for women and for societySince mid sixties (Kothari commission), Economists have recommendedserious consideration of vocational education through imparting skills inpartnership with industry. (Pethe, 2008).Education as consumption and as investment education as a private andsocial investment a. Human Capital FormationReturns to investment in education based on human capital theory have beenestimated since the late 1950s. In the 40-plus year history of estimates of 5
  6. 6. returns to investment in education, there have been several reviews of theempirical results in attempts to establish patterns. Many more estimates froma wide variety of countries, including over-time evidence, and estimates basedon new econometric techniques, reaffirm the importance of human capitaltheory.According to human capital theory, education is a form of human capital thatcould raise the productive capacity of individuals in economic production.Empirical studies in agriculture found a positive and significant relationshipbetween productivity and education. At the macro level, education was alsoassociated with economic growth. Spending on education can be seen as aninvestment activity with both costs and benefits, and thus subject to a cost–benefit analysis. (Kamdar, 2006). A review of rate of returns studies, such asthe 1994 study of George Psacharopoulos, found that in developing nationseducation had a high rate of return and that the return was higher at lowereducation levels. Paul Bennell, however, has criticized these studies, in termsof appropriateness of method and quality of data. Some analysts, such asRonald Dore, point out that educational expansion in a depressed economycould lead to unemployment of the educated or over-education. Nevertheless,there is increasing consensus across nations that human capital, particularly interms of problem-solving skills, communication skills in a diverse setting, andthe ability to adapt to change, can enhance economic competitiveness in theglobal economy of the twenty-first century. There is also increasing attentionto investment in preschool education and in education for sustainabledevelopment. b. Human Development ApproachThe human development approach emphasizes that peoples ability to read andwrite, be knowledgeable, capable and healthy should be considered as ends inthemselves, with positive effects on labor productivity, physical environmentand reduced poverty as welcomed consequences. It further indicates thathuman development sees education as a value in itself and as a means. As avalue in itself, education counts for developing human personality, self-learning ability, objectivity, tolerance and the willingness to participate in allaspects of human development. As a means, education is a powerfulinstrument of achieving and sustaining economic growth, reducing poverty andenhancing equity. (UNDP, 2001). 6
  7. 7. • Education, human development and the capability approach Developing children to be self governing adults • Developing economic participation • Developing human flourishing • Developing citizens with a sense of justice and reciprocity • Putting human beings at the centre as ends not means, enlarging choices c. Education as Social InfrastructureA comprehension of infrastructure spans not only these public works facilities,but also the operating procedures, management practices, and developmentpolicies that interact together with societal demand. (Ghanghas, 2008). TheSocial Infrastructure in India includes the education system in India, healthcare, the management of the education and health services in India that formthe basic social infrastructure definition. This priority aims to improve theinfrastructure for skill-based education and lifelong learning. The activitiesprovide support for developing infrastructure related to formal and non-formaleducation, including ICT development in schools, development of highereducation institutions, non-formal learning spaces and multi-functionalcommunity centres.Economics of Inequality in EducationThe costs of education refer to resources utilized in the education productionprocess; they include not only government expenditure on education, but alsohousehold spending on education and the foregone opportunities of schooling(e.g., gainful employment). Education cost studies range from macro-analysisof national educational expenditures across nations to microanalysis ofeducational decision-making by individuals and households. Cross-nationalstudies have found that government spending on education (as a percentage ofnational output) has declined in the developing nations since the 1980s, after arising trend in the 1960s and 1970s. Studies in a number of developing nationshave shown that private spending on education is a significant part of the totalspending on education, and that private costs are an important source ofeducational inequality and inequity in these nations. In addition, householdeducation costs could be a heavy economic burden on poor and ruralhouseholds, resulting in negative educational consequences such as droppingout. Financial assistance targeted at poor and rural populations should be partof the overall strategy to improve school attendance for marginalized 7
  8. 8. population groups. There is a need to carefully estimate the costs ofeducational inclusion of marginalized groups because such costs tend to bequite different from those for nonmarginalized groups.There is little denying the fact that investing in human capital is one of themost effective means of reducing poverty and encouraging sustainabledevelopment. Yet, women in developing countries usually receive lesseducation than men. More so, women in general enjoy far less employmentopportunities than men the world over.Any claims and efforts then, to remove poverty, can show results only if theyaddress the issue of gender inequality. In recent decades, there have been largegains, no doubt on comparable levels, in basic rights and opportunities, in lifeexpectancy and enrolment ratios for women. But despite these gains, the starkreality has not changed. There still are large gender disparities in basic humanrights, resources, and economic opportunity, and in political rights- the worldover.The foremost factor limiting female education is poverty. Economics plays akey role when it comes to coping with directs costs such as tuition fees, cost oftextbooks, uniforms, transportation and other expenses. Wherever, especiallyin families with many children, these costs exceed the income of the family,girls are the first to be denied schooling.All this despite the fact that educating girls is one of the best investments asociety can make. An educated woman has the skills, the self-confidence andthe information she needs to become a better parent, worker and citizen.Inequality in EducationThe parallel streams included Alternative Schools, Education GuaranteeScheme (EGS) centres and Multi-Grade Teaching - the so-called `innovationsdesigned under the canvass of the World Bank-sponsored District PrimaryEducation Programme (DPEP), during the 1990s. In violation of our NationalPolicy on Education, 1986, upper primary education (Grades VI to VIII) wasessentially forgotten, presumably to please external aid agencies committed tothe Dakar Framework of primary education of only five years. Also, theregular teacher was replaced by a para-teacher who is an under-qualified,untrained and under-paid local youth appointed on the basis of a short-termcontract. (Sadgopal, 2008) 8
  9. 9. a. Discrimination against DalitsUN Shadow Report (2007) in response to India’s submission to the UnitedNations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD),which monitors implementation of the International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Dalits enduresegregation in housing, schools, and access to public services. Entrencheddiscrimination violates Dalits’ rights to education, health, housing, property,freedom of religion, free choice of employment, and equal treatment before thelaw (Thorat, 2009). Dalits also suffer routine violations of their right to life andsecurity of person through state-sponsored or -sanctioned acts of violence,including torture (Mungekar, 2007). The government was not perturbed that itspolicy stance was tantamount to institutionalising discrimination against thepoor, a majority of whom would be Dalits, the tribal people and religious orcultural minorities, two-thirds of each segment being girls. Most of thedisabled children will also fall in this category, earmarked for discrimination a. Marginalisation of MuslimsSachar committee (2006) has put a lot of analysis about the Indian Muslimwith "statistical reports" based on information from government agencies,banks, Indian Minority Commission, different state governments and itsagencies. In the field of literacy the Committee has found that the rate amongMuslims is very much below than the national average. The gap betweenMuslims and the general average is greater in urban areas and women. 25 percent of children of Muslim parents in the 6-14 year age group have either neverattended school or have dropped out. Muslim parents are not averse tomainstream education or to send their children to affordable Governmentschools. The access to government schools for children of Muslim parents islimited.The Government of Bihar constituted Common School System Commission(2007) which submitted its report recently to the Government of BiharGender BiasThe foremost factor limiting women education is poverty. Economics plays akey role when it comes to coping with directs costs such as tuition fees, cost oftextbooks, uniforms, transportation and other expenses. Wherever, especially 9
  10. 10. in families with many children, these costs exceed the income of the family,girls are the first to be denied schooling. (Vacha & SETU, 2005).The Indian education system has seven million students attending institutes ofhigher education, making the country second to only the United States ofAmerica. However, when the population of India is taken into account, only asmall percentage is actually in higher education (this is to some degree notsurprising given the lack of children with a primary education). In comparisonwith other countries, this is appalling, as it even falls short of the 7 per centaverage for developing nations, not to mention the 47 per cent average fordeveloped nations.Education is a necessity for all and not just a luxury for those who can affordit. Therefore, it must be a top concern for India as she ventures into the future,since without a solid educational spine, her economy will no longer be able tostand the test of time.Yet as valuable as education is to a country’s development, there is much lessuse to excellent schooling if health problems still afflict the population. Whilethere are some excellent hospitals in India, they are accessible only to a selectfew, as the private healthcare system disentitles a large number of people fromeffective treatment. As a result, the population still struggles with illnessesthat, given modern medicine, should no longer present a problem. This meansthat individual productivity is unnecessarily reduced and consequently theproductive capacities of the whole nation are severely limited. If India is everto become fully developed, serious attention needs to be paid to the generalhealth of the entire population and not just of small segments of society.Finance and Expenditures in EducationEducational finance is an important domain in education economics since itdeals with the mobilization and allocation of resources in the production ofeducation. For many nations in the developing world, especially poor ones,external resources, in terms of bilateral or multilateral assistance, are a keysource of funding for educational development. However, internationalfunding is becoming more problematic over time because of a combination offactors, including declining financial support from advanced industrializednations, the increasing demand and competition among receiving nations, andthe imposition of more stringent conditions for receiving aid. Economic 10
  11. 11. reforms pushed by the International Monetary Fund in developing nationsoften impose strong limits on government spending. Such a policy wasassociated with negative effects on the education sector in much of the 1970sand 1980s. Since the 1990s international development agencies have becomemore vocal in calling for more spending on the social sectors, includingeducation. The ability of developing nations to finance educationaldevelopment has also been hampered by the need of each government to makeinterest payments on international and domestic debts. Increasingly, there is acall that debt relief for developing nations and for international developmentagencies be in the form of grants instead of loans to these nations, especially inthe social sectors. As the leadership of the World Bank pointed out in 1995,however, debt relief is only part of the solution; what is also needed is theopening up of agricultural and other markets in advanced industrialized nationsto products from developing nations.Public Expenditure analysis: • How much is spent on education and what is the share of the governments expenditure? • How do governments finance the education sector and what do they finance? • Is there equitable distribution of the public resources? • Is the public getting its moneys worth? • Is the spending adequate and sustainable?Public-Private Partnerships in the Education SectorThe provision of schooling is largely provided and financed by governments;however unmet demand for education coupled with shrinking governmentbudgets is obliging the public sector to develop innovative partnerships withthe private sector. Private education encompasses a wide range of providersincluding for-profit schools (that operate as enterprises), religious schools,non-profit schools run by NGOs, publicly funded schools operated by privateboards, and community owned schools. In other words, there is a market foreducation.The main rationale for Public-Private Partnership (PPP) programs is thepotential role of the private sector for expanding equitable access and 11
  12. 12. improving learning outcomes. In low income countries excess demand forschooling results in private supply when the state cannot afford schooling forall. In high income countries, however, "differentiated" demand leads to ademand for private schooling, as a sophisticated clientele demands differentkinds of schools. By providing demand-side financing and contracting privateorganizations to provide support services, governments can provide betterchoices to parents and grant them an opportunity to fully participate in theirchildren’s schooling. The education market highlights the importance ofeffective regulatory frameworks and contractual instruments to ensure qualityand effective use of public resources.Planning and Management of Education for Inclusive GrowthFalling education spending in states and its implications for economicdevelopment of the region has been an important area of research in India inthe millennium focused on economic growth thro’ expansion of knowledgeeconomy. (Ahuja, 2008) Augmenting expenditure on education as well asbetter utilisation of allocated funds is an essential component of thedevelopmental strategy of the state in order to fulfill its long-term priorities ofdevelopmentEducation Research during 2001-2009:In India, 83 percent of all children of primary school age (6-10 years) attendprimary school, as described in a previous article on this site. Primary schoolnet attendance rates (NAR) are highest in urban areas and among children fromthe richest households (NFHS III, 2007).Access to education services has been major concern of education research.Bandopadhyay (2006) reveals that most of the children from socially andeconomically deprived communities in rural and urban India are ‘workingchildren’ who get very little chance to acquire even a minimum level ofeducation. This process is called ‘hierarchy of access’ which is quantified by 1.Identifying proportion of children from marginalized population (SC, ST,minorities) in primary education to the total children in primary education, 2.Gender Parity Index (GPI) to assess access of young girls to education, 3. Pupilto teacher Ratio 4. Student-classroom ratio. (Nanda, 2009).Fewer children continue their education at the secondary level. Data from anationally representative Demographic and Health Survey (called National 12
  13. 13. Family Health Survey in India) conducted in 2005 and 2006 shows that only54 percent of all children of secondary school age (11-17 years) attendsecondary school. In addition, there are large disparities between differentgroups of children. Boys and children from urban areas are more likely to be insecondary school than girls and children from rural areas. (Patel, 2002).Education is one of the dominant sectors of the Indian economy in terms ofenrolment of children, employment of adults and investment of financialresources. While school education has a broad base, higher education suffersfrom a narrow base covering only about 7% of the relevant age grouppopulation. (Tilak, 2003a). With the expansion of school education, thepressure on the higher education system to expand is expected to continue inIndia (Tilak, 2003 b). In this context, two criteria of efficiency andmobilization of resources are put forward in justification of privatization ofhigher education. When higher education is left to the market forces, it resultsin ‘elitisation’ of a basic need; it puts higher education firmly out of reach ofthe millions of under-privileged of India who dream of going to the universityone day (Tilak, 2003 c). It firmly makes higher education a “commercialcommodity’’ that is available only to those who can afford the price which,going by today’s rate of a seat in a professional college, could be anywherebetween $5000 and $ 75000 (Patel, 2008). India spent 2.8 per cent of its GDPon higher education in 2007-08 which is much less than the recommendationof Kothari Commission that demanded 6% of GDP to be invested in GDP onhigher education. Even this meager amount is now sought to be depleted in thename of reducing the “burden” on the government. (Joshi, 2007). Since,educational institutions form the very soul of a society and typically create thespace for both creativity and social introspection, downplaying these importantfeatures of education can have an adverse effect upon society. (Srikanthan &Dalrymple, 2002)Universalisation of Education (UE)UE was launched in 2000 with the primary objective of achievingUniversalization of elementary education before 2010 with time boundintegrated approach in participation with the states. The project aimed atcompletion of five years of primary schooling for all children by 2007 andcompletion of eight years of schooling by 2010 along with reduction of genderand social gaps. The expenditure was to be shared in the basis of 85:15 in theninth plan and 75:25 from the tenth plan onwards. The SSA wanted to bringabout the change in the following areas: Teacher training, improvement in 13
  14. 14. quality of education, provision of teacher training materials, establishment ofcluster groups for support and education guarantee centers. (Kaptan &Moorthy, 2006).Inequality in EducationThe parallel streams included Alternative Schools, Education GuaranteeScheme (EGS) centres and Multi-Grade Teaching - the so-called `innovationsdesigned under the canvass of the World Bank-sponsored District PrimaryEducation Programme (DPEP), during the 1990s. In violation of our NationalPolicy on Education, 1986, upper primary education (Grades VI to VIII) wasessentially forgotten, presumably to please external aid agencies committed tothe Dakar Framework of primary education of only five years. Also, theregular teacher was replaced by a para-teacher who is an under-qualified,untrained and under-paid local youth appointed on the basis of a short-termcontract. (Sadgopal, 2008).Mehta (2006) provided analysis of Population-School Ratio of all the millionplus cities of India and shown that in almost all of them large proportion ofchildren were not enrolled in school. There was no secular trend either byurbanization, population, or region, indicating the need to make efforts in allurban areas, without prejudice and preference to any region or city to increaseenrollment of children in schools. The research report further showed that incities like Kolkata, Mumbai and Delhi, children from marginalizedcommunities (SCs/STs, who were also relatively poorer) formed a very smallproportion of students in primary education. On the other hand, in smallermillion-plus cities like Nagpur, Lucknow and Kanpur were doing better inproviding access to primary education among marginalized communities.Gender Differential ImpactDistrict Report Cards (Mehta, 2006) also revealed that there was no seculartrend in Gender Parity index. Cities like Ahmedabad, Delhi, Mumbai,Banglore and Chennai had GPI below unity, while cities like Bhopal,Lucknow, Indore and Kolkata showed a positive GPI. Male-female disparitiesin terms of educational provision and utilization have attracted considerableattention in education research. (Wazir, 2002).Common School System and Its Relationship with Right to EducationMeasures to improve school education: 14
  15. 15. Teachers should be adequately trained in English teaching. There must bebilingual teaching for three years until children cope with English teaching.The objective should be making children proficient in English by the time theyleave school. Adequate class rooms should be built, and proper text booksshould be made available immediately. Our education system needs at least100,000 more teachers. This need will be even greater if English mediumsections are introduced. They have to be recruited and trained adequately Introduction of the CBSE syllabus and affiliation with CBSE only for Englishmedium classes and following a different syllabus for other medium studentswill result in there being two classes of students. The distinction is bothunsustainable and unacceptable. Instead, even Telugu medium classes may beaffiliated with the CBSE. They can be a common syllabus for both Englishand Telugu medium students, although the textbooks are in Telugu. In thealternative, the State syllabus can be retained in certain subjects or chaptersand an integrated common syllabus be prepared for both Telugu and Englishmedium students. The Intermediate Board should be abolished and Classes XI and XII madepart of school education. Throughout the world and in most States of India,high school education ends with Class XII. Corporatisation of Intermediateeducation and treating education as a profit centre is playing havoc withstudents growth and finances of lakhs of poor families. Primary schools shouldbe integrated into larger, viable units with 300 children 10 teachers andinfrastructure. 2-teacher primary schools are wholly inadequate. Such schoolsshould be converted into pre-schools where children are taught games,cognitive skills and spoken language and provided wholesome nutrition.Knowledge in school curriculum and pedagogy has to be concomitant with thestruggle for improvement of school infrastructure, teacher quality, pupil-teacher ratio, financing, management and other parameters of education ofequitable quality.Financing EducationAnalysis of educational finances assumes crucial importance in educationalpolicy, planning, and administration, as finances form a necessary, though nota sufficient condition, for the success of education development plans andprogrammes. Of late, issues relating to financing of education are gainingattention, essentially because of dwindling resource base on the one hand andincreasing financial needs of the education sector on the other. Various 15
  16. 16. alternative mechanisms of funding and mobilisation of resources are beingexplored in India and in many developing countries. Presenting a rich flavourof current issues and emerging perspectives on financing education in India,the book by Tilak (2003) provides a detailed review of the pattern of financingeducation at the centre and in different states and critically examines the prosand cons of the changing approaches to financing education. It makes asignificant contribution to a wider discussion on several issues on financingeducation, and contributes to sound and effective policy making in educationPrivate Education for Poor in IndiaIntroduction of 4 bills in 2010 concerning Setting up of Educational Tribunalin the National, Regional and State levels; the setting up of NationalAccreditation Authority to Assess the Educational Institutions; the ForeignEducation Provider’s Bill and the Bill on Educational Malpractices introducedby the Ministry of Human Resource Development, GoI have posed mind-boggling issues. What will be the ramifications of this initiative in the contextof commercialization of higher education in the name of privatizationcontrolled by the politicians? For one, it will deepen the class divide betweenthe already fragmented societies of ours. Money becomes merit in this schemeof things since only the rich and the better-off will be able to access highereducation. The poor will be further deprived.Evaluation of EGS:Education Guarantee Scheme and Alternative and Innovative Education (EGSand AIE) are an important component of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) tobring out-of-school children in the fold of Elementary Education. The schemeenvisages that child-wise planning is undertaken for each out-of-schoolchildren. EGS addresses the inaccessible habitation where there is no formalschool within the radius of one km and at least 15-25 children of 6-14 yearsage group who are not going to school are available. In exceptional casesremote habitations in hilly areas even for 10 children an EGS school can beopened. Alternative Education interventions for specific categories of verydeprived children e.g., child labour, street children, migrating children,working children, children living in difficult circumstances and older childrenin the 9+ age group especially adolescent girls are being supported under EGSand AIE all over the country. 16
  17. 17. A sizeable number of out-of-school children are in the habitations whereschooling facility is available but these children either did not join the schoolor dropped out before completing their schooling. These children may not fitinto the rigid formal system. To bring such children back to school; back toschool camp and Bridge Courses strategies have been implemented. Bridgecourses and Back to school camps can be residential or non-residentialdepending upon the need of children.ConclusionKnowledge for Development (K4D) is based on the following frameworkconsisting of four pillars to help countries articulate strategies for theirtransition to a knowledge economy: • An economic and institutional regime that provides incentives for the efficient use of existing and new knowledge and the flourishing of entrepreneurship. • Educated and skilled populations that can create, share, and use knowledge well. • A dynamic information infrastructure that can facilitate the effective communication, dissemination, and processing of information. • An efficient innovation system of firms, research centers, universities, think tanks, consultants, and other organizations that can tap into the growing stock of global knowledge, assimilate and adapt it to local needs, and create new technology.Making effective use of knowledge in any country requires developingappropriate policies, institutions, investments, and coordination across theabove four functional areas.Education has been a major influence on economic growth. Greater efficiencyin the use of resources would increase the rate of return to investment ineducation. During the closing decades of the twentieth century, emphasis indeveloping nations regarding educational development was placed on threebroad outcomes of education: contribution to economic growth andcompetitiveness, improvement in social equity, and poverty alleviation.While dealing with privatization of higher education, we need to address somecrucial mind-boggling issues regarding role of higher education per se. Is it tocreate a concerned and informed citizenry? Or to meet the expected future 17
  18. 18. needs of economic and social development in the country? Or simply to meetthe labour requirements of international capitalism? Can a balance be achievedbetween these aims?ReferencesAhmed, Nighat. 2005. Social Sector Expenditures on Education Sen, RajKumar (Ed.) Social Sector Development in India. New Delhi: Deep and Deep.Aprain, P.J. 2000. Economics, Education and Security-An IntegratedApproach. Ph.D. Economics, Kolhapur: Shivaji University.Aggarwal, Yash. 2001. Progress towards Universal Access and Retention,Analytical Report. Delhi: NIEPA.Ahuja, Shobha. 2008. Falling Education Spending in States. Delhi: PHDChamber of Commerce and Industry.Arumugam, P. 2003. Role of state and local bodies in financing education inTamilnadu, in Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education in India:Current Issues and Changing Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.Azad, J.L. 2003. Criteria based funding of higher education, in Tilak,Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education in India: Current Issues andChanging Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.Bandopadhyaya. M. 2006. Education of the Marginalised Groups in India:From the Perspective of Social Justice. Social Change, 26(2): 98-113.Chakrabarty, V. 2002. Education of Urban disadvantaged Children, in R.Govinda (ed.) Indian Education Report: A Profile of Basic Education. NewDelhi: Oxford University Press.Chugh, S. 2005. Schooling for the Urban Poor: Insights from a Slum Study.Delhi: Social Change, 35(1): 1-12.Debi, Sailabala. 2003 Financing of Elementary Education: Reviewing theExperiences of Orissa, in Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education inIndia: Current Issues and Changing Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books. 18
  19. 19. Duraisamy, Malathy.2003. Financing Technical Education in India, in Tilak,Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education in India: Current Issues andChanging Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.Duraisamy, P. and T.P. Subramanian. 2003. Costs Financing and Efficiency ofPublic and Private Schools in Tamilnadu, in Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.)Financing Education in India: Current Issues and Changing Perspectives.Delhi: Ravi Books.Fuller, C.J. and Narasimhan, H. 2006. ‘Engineering Colleges, Exposure’ andInformation Technology-Professionals in Tamilnadu. Mumbai: Economic andPolitical Weekly, Mumbai, 21st January.Garg, V.P. 2003. Grants-in-aid and Level of Educational Expenditure of LocalBodies, in Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education in India: CurrentIssues and Changing Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.Ghanghas, Meenakshi. 2008. Introduction to Infrastructre. Faridabad: Dept ofManangement studies B.S. Ananpuria Institute of Technology andManagement.Govinda, R. 2002. Indian Education Report: A Profile of Basic Education.New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Government of India. 2001. Human Development Report, Delhi: Planningcommission of India.Government of India. 2002. Report of the Second Labour Conmmission, Delhi:Ministry of Labour.Government of India. 2006. Rajendra Sachar Committee Report on Social,Economic and Educational Status of Muslim Community in India. Delhi:Prime minister’s High Level Committee, Cabinet Secretariat.Gupta, K. R. 2005. Economic Development in India and China, in K.R. Gupta(ed.) Studies in Indian Economy. Delhi: Atlantic Publishers. 19
  20. 20. Jetli, Narinar, K. and Sethi, Vishal 2007. Infrastructure Development inIndia: Post-liberalisation Initiatives and Challenges. Delhi: New CenturyPublications. Elementary EducationJha, Tara Kant. 2005. Women literacy in rural India, in Sen, Raj Kumar (Ed.)Social Sector Development in India. New Delhi: Deep and Deep.Joshi, K.M. 2007. An Exploration of Private Sector Financing of Higher in thePhilippines and Its Policy Implications for India. Bhavnagar: Department ofEconomics.Kaptan, S.S. and Lata S. Moorthy. 2006. Primary Education in India, in MacroEconomic Policies and the Millennium Development Goals. Delhi. GyanPublications.Kamdar, Sangita. 2005. Building Capabilities in Women: The HumanDevelopment Perspective, Kerala: Samyukta, Vol. V (1), pp. 47-61.Kamdar, Sangita. 2006. MDG 2: Achieving Universal Primary Education, inVibhuti Patel and Manisha Karne (ed.s) Macro Economic Policies and theMillennium Development Goals. Delhi. Gyan Publications.Kothari, V.N. 2003. State Versus Market in Financing Education in India, inTilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education in India: Current Issues andChanging Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.Lakshmanasamy, T. 2003. Household Costs and Willingness to Pay for HigherEducation, in Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education in India:Current Issues and Changing Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.Mazumdar, Manabi 2003. Financing of Basic Education: Private Solution toPublic Deficiency, in Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education inIndia: Current Issues and Changing Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.McCowan, Tristan.2004. The Growth of Private Higher Education in Brazil:Implications for Equity and Quality. Brazil: Journal of Education Policy, pp.453-471. 20
  21. 21. Mehta, Aashish, Jesus Felipe, Pilipinas Quising, and Shiela Camingue. 2007.Changing Patterns In Mincerian Returns To Education And EmploymentStructure In Three Asian Countries (November 8, 2007). Center for GlobalStudies. Paper 06, USA: University of California.Mehta, A.C. 2006. Elementary Education in India: where Do We Stand?District Report Cards 2005-06, Vol. I & II. New Delhi: National University ofEducational Planning and Administration.Mondal, Nandita.2009. Social Work Education in Ushering Social Change inIndia in Patel, Vibhuti (Ed.) Discourse on Women & Empowerment, Delhi:The Women Press.Mugisha, Frederick. 2006. School Enrolment among Urban Non-slum, Slumand rural Children in Kenya: Is Urban Advantage Eroding? InternationalJournal of Educational Development, 26:471-82.Mungekar, B.L. 2007. Inequality & Development: Some Urgent Concerns,Presidential Address at XXXI Indian social Science Congress organised inMumbai by SNDT Women’s University and Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Socialand Economic Change.Muzammil, M. 2003. Political Economy of Grants-in-aid to Education in UttarPradesh, in Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education in India: CurrentIssues and Changing Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.Mythili, N. 2001. Cost Mix for Achieving Higher Quality Schooling.Vadodara: Perspectives in Education, Vol. 17(3), pp. 155-164.NFHS. 2007. National Family Health Survey-III. Mumbai: InternationalInstitute of Population Sciences.Nanda, Amulya Ratna (2009) Access of the Urban Poor to Health andEducation Services, in India: Urban Poverty Report-2009, Ministry ofHousing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, government of India. Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press. 21
  22. 22. Panchamukhi, P.R. 2003. Contribution of Private Sector to Financing ofEducation, in Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education in India:Current Issues and Changing Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.Parmar, Jai Singh. 2005. Social Sectors in Himachal Pradesh Education in Sen,Raj Kumar (Ed.) Social Sector Development in India. New Delhi: Deep andDeep.Patel, Vibhuti. (2002) Women’s Challenges of the New Millennium, Delhi:Gyan Publications.Patel, Vibhuti & Karne, Manisha. (Ed.). 2006. Macro Economic Policies andthe Millennium Development Goals. Delhi. Gyan Publications.Patel, Vibhuti. 2008. Private Higher Education in India-Changing Scenario,website:, P. James Daniel. 2001. Selectivity Bias in Schooling Choice. Mumbai:The Indian Economic Journal, Vol. 48 (4), 92-94.Pethe, Abhay. 2008. Some Essays on higher Education in India, Dr. VibhootiShukla Unit in Urban Economics & Regional Development, Working PaperNo. 26, Department of Economics, Mumbai: University of Mumbai.Prasad, Narendra. 2005. Social Sector: Educational Development, in Sen, RajKumar (Ed.) Social Sector Development in India. New Delhi: Deep and Deep.Raju, K. D. 2004 Barriers to Trade in Education Services Under the GATS: AnIndian Experience, Kharagpur: Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual PropertyLaw, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT).Rena, Ravinder (2008), Financing Education and Development in Eritrea –Some Implications, New Delhi: Manpower Journal, 43(1): pp.73-97Report. 2007. The Common School System Commission, Patna: Government ofBihar.Riechi, A.R. O. (2003). Revenue Diversification in Keynya’s Public Universities and Implications for Efficiency and Equity: An Analysis of 22
  23. 23. Educational fiancne in the African Context. Ph.D. Economics of Education, Delhi: Zakir Hussain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.Sadgopal, Anil. 2008. Common School System and the Future of India, Faculty of Education. Delhi: Delhi University.Sahani, R. and Sumita Kale. 2004. GATS and Higher Education-The Journeyso Far, Department of Sociology, Pune: University of Pune.Sen, Raj Kumar. 2005. Social Sector Development in India. New Delhi: Deepand Deep, 2005Sengupta, Keya. 2005. Public Expenditure on Education and EconomicReforms, in Sen, Raj Kumar (Ed.) Social Sector Development in India. NewDelhi: Deep and Deep.Shah, K.R. 2003. University-industry relations in financing higher education:some issues in Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education in India:Current Issues and Changing Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.Shah, Partha J. and Vipin P.Veetil. 2006. Private Education for the Poor inIndia. New Delhi: Centre for Civil Society.Sinha, Shanta. 2002. Child Labour and Education, in Rekha Wazir (ed.) TheGender Gap in Basic Education, Delhi: Sage Publications.Srikanthan,G. & Dalrymple, J.F. (2002) Developing a Holistic Model forQuality in Higher Education. London: Quality in Higher Education, 8 (3),215-225.Subbaraman, Subhashini and Harald von Witzke. 2006. Determinants ofWages and Returns to Education in Rural India, Chair InternationalAgricultural Trade and Development, Berlin: Humboldt University of Berlin.Sujaya, C.P. 2006. Climbing a Long Road. Chennai: M.S. SwaminathanResearch Foundation. 23
  24. 24. Sundararaman, T. 2008. The Educational Institution as a Health Facility.Delhi: National Health Systems Resource Center.Thorat, Sukhadeo (assisted by Prashant Negi, Motilal Mahamallik andChittaranjan Senapati). 2009. Dalits in India: Search for a Common Destin.New Delhi: Sage Publications.Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. 2003.a. Public Expenditure on Education in India: areview of trends and emerging issues, in Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) FinancingEducation in India: Current Issues and Changing Perspectives. Delhi: RaviBooks.Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. 2003. b. Determinants of Household Expenditure onEducation in India, in Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education inIndia: Current Issues and Changing Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. 2003.c. Higher Education and Development in Asia.Delhi: Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, Vol. XVII (2), pp.151-173.Tarujyoti, A. Shariff and Ghosh. P.K. 2003. Household Expenditure onElementary education: implications of cost recovery mechanisms, in Tilak,Jandhyala B.G. (ed.) Financing Education in India: Current Issues andChanging Perspectives. Delhi: Ravi Books.UNDP. (2001). Human Development Report, New York: Oxford UniversityPress.UN Shadow Report. 2007. Hidden Apartheid: Caste Discrimination againstIndia’s ‘Untouchables’,” and & SETU. 2005. Gender Context of Girls in Primary Schools in Mumbaiand Ahmedabad, Delhi: IDPAD-ICSSR Project No. 5.4.52.Wazir, Rekha (ed.). 2002. The Gender Gap in Basic Education. Delhi: SagePublications. 24