Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Education for All in India: Financing India's Elementary Education
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Education for All in India: Financing India's Elementary Education

1,598
views

Published on

India's Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (Education for All) Scheme is the biggest education financing programme of its kind in the world. This presentation addresses the major problems currently facing the …

India's Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (Education for All) Scheme is the biggest education financing programme of its kind in the world. This presentation addresses the major problems currently facing the financing of the system's, and proposes a new "grand bargain" to make the system work better for all Indians.

Published in: Education, Business

1 Comment
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,598
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • OverviewArgument/evidence re problemArgument/evidence re consequencesArgument/evidence re potential solutionsArgument/evidence re preferred optionArgument/evidence re constraints and risksReform prognosisAppendix: references
  • Gaps in infrastructure and teachers are identified at the village/block level, inform the District Annual Plan (DAP) and then the Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP&B) for the state.
  • Results (removed 1/4/11):1,60,000 primary and upper primary schools have been opened, more than 6,50,000 additional classrooms have been constructed and 500,000 additional teachers have been appointed. independent surveys show that nearly 92 per-cent of India’s elementary school-age children are currently enrolled.
  • Gaps in infrastructure and teachers are identified at the village/block level, inform the District Annual Plan (DAP) and then the Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP&B) for the state.
  • Source:http://www.worldbank.org.in/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/INDIAEXTN/0,,print:Y~isCURL:Y~contentMDK:22504167~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:295584,00.html
  • OverviewArgument/evidence re problemArgument/evidence re consequencesArgument/evidence re potential solutionsArgument/evidence re preferred optionArgument/evidence re constraints and risksReform prognosisAppendix: references
  • Objectives for instruction and expected results and/or skills developed from learning.
  • SSA expenditures are based on a centre-statesharing ratio. At the start of the IXth Five Year Plan, the centre-state funding pattern for SSA was 85:15. By FY 2009-10, statecontributions increased significantly up to 40% of the total allocation. Under the newRight to Education Act, the funding pattern has once again changed to 65:35 with the centre bearing the bulk of the financial responsibility. For the North-eastern states, the centre-state ratio is 90:10.
  • SSA expenditures are based on a centre-statesharing ratio. At the start of the IXth Five Year Plan, the centre-state funding pattern for SSA was 85:15. By FY 2009-10, statecontributions increased significantly up to 40% of the total allocation. Under the newRight to Education Act, the funding pattern has once again changed to 65:35 with the centre bearing the bulk of the financial responsibility. For the North-eastern states, the centre-state ratio is 90:10.
  • SSA expenditures are based on a centre-statesharing ratio. At the start of the IXth Five Year Plan, the centre-state funding pattern for SSA was 85:15. By FY 2009-10, statecontributions increased significantly up to 40% of the total allocation. Under the newRight to Education Act, the funding pattern has once again changed to 65:35 with the centre bearing the bulk of the financial responsibility. For the North-eastern states, the centre-state ratio is 90:10.
  • CONTRA: (Bangchi and Chakravobtry) “Thus, the reasons that call for equalisation for efficiency call for them also on horizontal equity grounds. However, equalisation is not an instrument for redistributing income. It is an instrument for "facilitating equal treatment of equals by the overall public sector" (Boadway, 1998). Equalisation also serves to secure a level playing field for intergovernmental competition which it is strongly believed, makes for efficiency in the public sector (Breton, 1995).
  • OverviewArgument/evidence re problemArgument/evidence re consequencesArgument/evidence re potential solutionsArgument/evidence re preferred optionArgument/evidence re constraints and risksReform prognosisAppendix: references
  • Macro consequences
  • OverviewArgument/evidence re problemArgument/evidence re consequencesArgument/evidence re potential solutionsArgument/evidence re preferred optionArgument/evidence re constraints and risksReform prognosisAppendix: references
  • OverviewArgument/evidence re problemArgument/evidence re consequencesArgument/evidence re potential solutionsArgument/evidence re preferred optionArgument/evidence re constraints and risksReform prognosisAppendix: references
  • Basically three parameters can cause a SSA fiscal shortfall: (capacity – need), fiscal effort, and fiscal priority.Fiscal capacity can use: per capita level of personal income, Gross Regional Product (GRP), Total Taxable Resources (TTR)Equalisation grants may induce negative incentives for revenue mobilisation by subnational governments, or inefficient spending.We can discuss the exact ways you can evaluate fiscal capacity in Q & A.
  • No necessarily a conflict between equity and efficiency, as commonly levelled against equalisation grants.CONTRA: B & C – Case for horizontal equity: - “If states apply the same fiscal effort, education outcomes should be comparable.”
  • Objectives of an education voucher systemPromote competition within the education system.Allow students from low-income families access to education.Can be made Arguments for voucherVouchers arrangements link public subsidies to service demandImprove standards and efficiencyImproves choice & equityReaches unenrolled children.
  • OverviewArgument/evidence re problemArgument/evidence re consequencesArgument/evidence re potential solutionsArgument/evidence re preferred optionArgument/evidence re constraints and risksReform prognosisAppendix: references
  • Who really benefits?Number of educational providersImpact on funding & enrolmentOverall costs may increaseWeakened accountability & quality controlPolicy options to cushion potential adverse effects of voucher schemeSetting minimum standards Providers must accept any users Maintaining sub-central autonomy
  • OverviewArgument/evidence re problemArgument/evidence re consequencesArgument/evidence re potential solutionsArgument/evidence re preferred optionArgument/evidence re constraints and risksReform prognosisAppendix: references
  • Conclusion to course, lecture, et al.
  • ×