Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Geeta gandhi right to education contribution of private schools - copy

335 views

Published on



There is a deep malaise affecting education in India, and remedying it requires tackling the lack of teacher accountability in government schools. In 2014-15, 35% of government schools (i.e. 3.72 lakh out of the total 10.5 lakh schools across India) had 50 or fewer students, with an average of 29 students per school and 12.7 students per teacher! This is a huge waste of public funds on pedagogically enviable schools. The New Education Policy (NEP) is a golden opportunity to tackle this, if the government can take a principled stance in the face of opposition from powerful lobbies. The draft NEP’s vague accountability-raising promises – e.g. “Issues relating to… teacher accountability will be resolved with strong political consensus and will” – are simply insufficient. Instead, the government must take a leaf from the book of almost all good education systems internationally, by introducing incentives in the grant formula of funding for government and aided schools. A system of school vouchers to parents, or Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), improves accountability by empowering parents. With voucher funding, parents monitor the school; thus schools face accountability as parents can choose to withdraw their children and give their voucher to a different school. We urge the government in formulating the NEP to prioritize accountability and introduce a DBT system, in order to push India’s education system towards greatness.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Geeta gandhi right to education contribution of private schools - copy

  1. 1. The Right to Education Act 2009 and the Contribution of Private schools Professor Geeta Gandhi Kingdon Chair of Economics of Education & International Development University College London
  2. 2. Role & relevance of private sector in education in UP • Demonstrate the contribution of the private sector by showing the: • Size of the private sector • Growth of the private sector • Fee levels in the private sector • Learning levels of children in the private sector • Value for Money given by the private sector • Through these data you will see why the voice of the private sector is important, when formulating education policy
  3. 3. Age Rural Urban Total 6-10 38.1 69.2 48.8 11-14 41.5 61.6 48.4 15-18 42.8 47.3 44.3 Total 40.5 60.0 47.2 Table 1 % children studying in private unaided schools in Uttar Pradesh, by age and area, (NSS data 2014-15)
  4. 4. Temporal Change in Number of schools, Total enrolment and average enrolment per school, in Govt. and Private Schools (2010-15) STATE Number of schools Total Enrolment Absolute Change (2010-15) % Change Absolute Change (2010-15) % Change Govt Private Govt Private Govt Private Govt Private Andhra Pradesh* -4,269 3,932 -5 16.1 -223,489 294,412 -4 6 Assam 5,692 5,590 13 59 425,198 285,062 10 27 Bihar 3,206 7,659 5 1929 701,365 1,769,302 4 1810 Chhattisgarh 859 1,101 2 22 -377,980 293,815 -10 36 Gujarat 121 2,774 0 39 18,040 978,261 0 44 Haryana -377 1,977 -3 38 -103,416 663,742 -5 51 Himachal Pradesh 229 288 2 12 -145,950 69,231 -20 24 Jammu & Kashmir 1,198 251 5 5 -187,618 42,618 -15 5 Jharkhand -124 3,665 0 136 -779,208 831,535 -14 94 Karnataka -914 3,086 -2 24 -489,429 582,932 -11 19 Kerala** -527 4,520 -10 62 -290,984 872,547 -25 40 Madhya Pradesh 2,346 4,351 2 18 -1,941,935 87,262 -18 2 Maharashtra -1,590 1,449 -2 5 -1,236,274 955,608 -17 11 Odisha 1,329 2,737 2 39 -416,185 431,168 -7 60 Punjab -631 6,212 -3 194 -303,225 1,237,983 -14 135 Rajasthan -7,589 10,095 -10 39 -1,163,851 1,307,308 -16 27 Tamil Nadu 1,638 486 5 3 -153,910 -378,863 -4 -7 Uttarakhand 133 1,163 1 23 -152,974 257,393 -16 39 Uttar Pradesh 9,448 32,524 6 66 -2,593,508 7,474,389 -13 61 West Bengal 3,313 4,420 4 51 -1,912,764 465,199 -14 45 India (20 states) average 675 4,914 1 139 -566,405 926,045 -10 127 India (20 states) TOTAL 13,491 98,280 11 2,778 -1,13,28,097 1,85,20,904 Source: DISE state report card for each state for each year 2010-11 to 2014-15, downloaded from www.dise.in *( Data has been taken for year 2013-14 as the data of 2014-15 cannot be taken because of separation of Telangana.) **(Data has been taken for year 2009-10 and 2014-15 because the data for 2010-11 is not available in DISE)
  5. 5. Total No. of Govt. Schools Avg. School Size i.e. Avg. Total enrol- ment Govt. Schools with a Total Enrolment <=50 No. of small govt. schools % of small govt. schools No. of pupils in these schools Average No. of pupils per small school Average No. of pupils per class No. of Teachers in these small schools Pupil Teacher Ratio Total Expense on salary (crores) (a) (b) (c) (d=c/a*100) (e) (f = e/c) (g=f/5) (h) (i=e/h) (j) 2005-06 122,126 179 10,873 8.9 3,24,692 30.0 6.0 N/A N/A N/A 2010-11 150,295 129 22,410 14.9 7,26,084 32.4 6.4 50,871 14.3 N/A 2014-15 160,942 106 32,317 20.1 10,53,534 32.6 6.6 79,177 13.3 3,800 Increase in the number of ‘small’ govt. schools, UP (schools with 50 or fewer students)
  6. 6. Total No. of Govt. Schools Avg. School Size i.e. Avg. Total enrol- ment Govt. Schools with a Total Enrolment <=20 No. of small govt. schools % of small govt. schools No. of pupils in these schools Average No. of pupils per small school Average No. of pupils per class No. of Teachers in these small schools Pupil Teacher Ratio Per pupil teacher salary expense (Rs. pm) Total Expense on salary (crores) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f = e/c) (g=f/5) (h) (i=b/e) (j) 2005-06 122,126 179 2,846 2.3 26,639 9.4 1.9 -- -- -- -- 2010-11 150,295 129 4,151 2.8 52,093 12.5 2.5 7,569 6.9 -- -- 2014-15 160,942 106 5,135 3.2 69,220 13.5 2.7 11,204 6.2 6474 538 Increase in the number of ‘tiny’ govt. schools, UP (schools with 20 or fewer students)
  7. 7. SMALL Govt. schools with a total enrolment of: Number of small govt. schools Number of Pupils in these govt. schools Average school size (Number of kids) per 'small' govt. School Number of Teachers in these govt. schools Pupil Teacher Ratio Total Expense on salary (Rs. crores) 0 237 0 0.0 396 0.0 19 <= 5 514 1,044 2.0 941 1.1 45 <= 10 1316 7,738 5.9 2,619 2.9 126 <= 20 5,135 69,220 13.5 11,204 6.2 538 <= 50 32,317 10,53,534 32.6 79,177 13.3 3,800 Table 1B: Small govt. school phenomenon, UP 2014-15 Note: Avg. teacher salary Rs 40,000 pm in 2014-15, (NUEPA, 2015), with UP SCERT. Source: DISE data for UP, www.dise.in/statereportcards/raw In 2014-15, the Total number of Govt. elementary schools in UP was 160,942; and the Average school size in UP (Number of students) taking schools of ALL sizes, was 106.
  8. 8. Enrolment share of private schools, over time (ASER) SN States Private Share of total elementary enrolment 2005 2009 2014 Increase 2009 to 2014 1 Andhra Pradesh 19.2 29.4 36.7 7.3 2 Assam 13.7 14.5 17.3 2.8 3 Bihar 9.6 5.0 12.0 7.0 4 Chattisgarh 4.4 9.4 17.8 8.4 5 Gujarat 7.4 10.2 13.3 3.1 6 Haryana 34.4 40.9 54.2 13.3 7 Himachal Pradesh 7.1 22.0 35.2 13.2 8 Jammu & Kashmir 17.7 32.0 48.1 16.1 9 Jharkhand 10.8 10.0 18.0 8.0 10 Karnataka 9.5 16.8 25.5 8.7 11 Kerala 22.2 51.5 62.2 10.7 12 Madhya Pradesh 8.5 14.8 21.4 6.6 13 Maharashtra 18.2 28.2 36.9 8.7 14 Orissa 3.5 4.4 8.5 4.1 15 Punjab 25.5 30.3 49.5 19.2 16 Rajastan 21.9 30.4 42.1 11.7 17 Tamil Nadu 18.4 19.7 31.9 12.2 18 Uttarakhand 19.4 24.7 37.5 12.8 19 Uttar Pradesh 27.9 35.8 51.7 15.9 20 West Bengal 2.8 6.5 8.8 2.3 Average 15.1 21.8 31.4 9.6
  9. 9. Mean Median State Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total ANDHRA PRADESH 595 858 783 500 708 667 ASSAM 459 754 622 354 475 417 BIHAR 539 560 553 300 392 350 CHHATTISGARH 181 738 639 167 417 358 DELHI 800 2098 2017 667 1800 1563 GUJARAT 602 709 688 333 475 450 HARYANA 786 1118 1010 667 708 700 HIMACHAL PRADESH 709 800 738 520 700 558 JAMMU & KASHMIR 408 624 522 333 467 417 JHARKHAND 473 671 617 208 567 446 KARNATAKA 662 1011 926 583 750 683 KERALA 736 897 833 642 745 700 MADHYA PRADESH 355 548 485 250 375 308 MAHARASHTRA 775 1133 1053 563 750 667 NORTHEAST STATES* 513 714 616 361 599 507 ODISHA 299 632 503 250 417 333 PUNJAB 824 919 882 692 600 658 RAJASTHAN 413 632 535 333 417 375 TAMIL NADU 1006 1022 1016 885 900 900 TELENGANA 681 902 838 583 708 667 UTTAR PRADESH 189 525 342 117 250 150 UTTARANCHAL 704 792 768 333 650 600 WEST BENGAL 381 1384 1124 192 1000 596 Total 450 801 663 292 542 417 Mean & Median monthly Fee levels in Private Unaided Schools for children aged 6-14, by state (NSS data, 2014-15)
  10. 10. % of 6-14 year old Private Unaided School attendees who pay fee below given thresholds, by state, 2014-15 S.No . State <=100 per month <=200 per month <=500 per month <=750 per month <=1000 per month <=1500 per month <=2000 per month <=2500 per month Reimbur sement Amount % of pupils whose fee level is less than RTE reimb. level 1 Andhra Pradesh 1.9 5.3 38.9 61.1 73.6 92.0 96.9 98.5 2 Assam 5.7 15.7 58.5 74.8 87.4 93.7 95.6 98.1 3 Bihar 6.0 20.9 69.2 77.6 87.4 94.9 97.5 98.3 4 Chhattisgarh 7.6 30.8 64.7 74.8 81.3 87.9 90.9 97.5 5 Delhi 1.3 3.4 12.5 24.9 33.5 48.1 58.8 68.7 1190 35.2 6 Gujarat 4.9 21.9 61.2 74.2 85.9 90.5 93.2 96.3 7 Haryana 1.1 4.6 36.2 56.1 68.4 85.8 92.2 95.0 8 Himachal Pradesh 2.0 6.1 46.7 66.5 78.2 90.4 97.5 99.0 1593 91.9 9 Jammu & Kashmir 2.9 12.0 71.2 86.1 92.7 97.1 98.8 99.6 10 Jharkhand 6.9 22.6 53.8 70.2 81.2 94.9 98.9 99.3 11 Karnataka 3.4 10.0 38.6 53.9 71.0 82.1 90.0 95.1 987 66.0 12 Kerala 1.6 4.5 31.9 55.1 74.1 91.4 97.3 98.4 13 Madhya Pradesh 9.8 27.7 71.1 81.9 90.7 96.3 97.9 99.4 14 Maharashtra 6.7 13.0 42.1 53.9 67.0 80.2 85.8 90.7 15 Orissa 11.3 29.9 69.7 86.6 91.3 96.1 97.8 98.3 16 Punjab 2.5 7.8 41.2 58.2 72.3 85.9 91.4 96.4 17 Rajasthan 3.6 18.0 69.1 81.4 89.6 94.8 97.2 99.0 1383 92.8 18 Tamil Nadu 0.6 2.3 20.8 40.6 60.0 83.6 93.0 97.0 19 Uttar Pradesh 32.3 61.5 84.0 89.2 92.6 96.4 97.7 98.5 450 80.6 20 Uttarakhand 2.4 14.3 44.5 63.1 82.1 87.5 92.9 98.8 860 71.0 21 West Bengal 11.0 26.8 45.8 54.5 61.7 74.9 83.6 88.5 Source: Author's analysis of raw data from the National Sample Survey, 71st round NSS, 2014-15
  11. 11. ASER survey, Uttar Pradesh
  12. 12. ASER Survey (Uttar Pradesh)
  13. 13. Table 2a: Government and Private schools’ Value for Money Comparison (using data on children’s Literacy Outcomes) S. No. Variables Uttar Pradesh Bihar Gujarat Tamil Nadu Madhya Pradesh Kerala Punjab Odisa A Govt Per Pupil Expenditure (Rs.) 23012 3105 47044 33126 9384 39267 16166 8897 B Govt Achievement (Reading) 27 45 45 50 28 61 61 50 C Govt Expenditure per Achievement Units (Rs.) (c=a/b) 859 70 1055 664 338 641 265 178 D Private Per Pupil Expenditure (Rs.) 1800 4200 5400 10800 3700 8400 7900 7150 E Private Achievement (Reading) 61 88 64 40 58 71 74 77 F Private Expenditure per Achievement Units (Rs.) (f=d/e) 29 48 84 269 63 119 107 93 G Govt./ Private Per Pupil Expenditure Ratio (g=a/d) 12.8 0.7 8.7 3.1 2.5 4.7 2.0 1.2 H Govt./ Private Numeracy Ratio (g=b/e) 0.44 0.51 0.70 1.24 0.48 0.87 0.83 0.65 I Private/Government Efficiency Ratio ( g = c/f ) 29.3 1.5 12.5 2.5 5.3 5.4 2.5 1.9 PPE estimated from state budgets and SSA PAB data (excludes MDM exp)
  14. 14. State Primary Secondary Salary of new appointee Salary after 15 years Salary after 25 years Salary of new appointee Salary after 15 years Salary after 25 years Tamil Nadu 15,345 28,660 50,140 26,370 48,750 84,410 Karnataka (R) 18,794 26,098 33,672 24,272 34,618 44,762 Karnataka (U) 21,814 30,198 38,892 28,102 39,978 51,622 Jharkhand (R) 28,650 39,780 44,400 37,494 57,523 78,637 Jharkhand (U) 31,600 43,260 48,100 39,208 60,160 82,247 Odisha 14,031 26,659 27,347 25,625 37,806 43,034 Rajasthan 26,013 -- -- 28,331 -- -- Mizoram 16,504 -- -- -- -- -- Uttar Pradesh 29,293 39,683 44,783 37,226 47,716 52,996 Punjab^ (R) 35,936 59,113 79,288 40,602 66,868 89,699 Punjab^ (U) 36,588 60,194 80,742 41340 68,092 91,346 Simple Average 25,922 40,623 49,653 33,578 51,595 66,793 Table 6.3: Actual take home salaries of teachers (Rupees) July 2014 Source: State reports ; R – Rural; U – Urban # Actual take home salary includes basic pay, grade pay, dearness allowance, HRA, CCA, and other benefits and deductions
  15. 15. State Take home salary per month July 2014 Take home salary per annum July 2014 State Domestic Product SDP per capita (2014-15) Primary teacher salary as a multiple of state per capita income (a) (b) (c) (d) = b / c Tamil Nadu 28,660 343920 128366 2.7 Karnataka 28,148 337776 101594 3.3 Jharkhand 41,520 498240 52147 9.6 Odisha 26,659 319908 59229 5.4 Uttar Pradesh 39,683 476196 40373 11.8 Punjab 59,654 715848 99578 7.2 Simple mean 6.7 Govt. primary school teachers’ mean salary as a multiple of state per capita GDP, 2014-15 Source: For teacher salary data, Table 6.3 in Vimala Ramachandran, 2015, NUEPA. We have taken teacher salary after 15 years experience as the ‘mean teacher salary’ (Ramachandran reports teachers’ salary at 0 years, 15 years and 25 years experience, for the year 2014-15). For state pc SDP, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Also see the website http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-capita-of-indian-states.php accessed on 27 Nov 2015
  16. 16. State Take home salary per month July 2014 Take home salary per annum July 2014 State Domestic Product per capita (2014-15) Upper Primary teacher salary as a multiple of state per capita income (a) (b) (c) (d) = b/c Tamil Nadu 48,750 585000 128366 4.6 Karnataka 37,298 447576 101594 4.4 Jharkhand 58,842 706104 52147 13.5 Odisha 37,806 453672 59229 7.7 Uttar Pradesh 47,716 572592 40373 14.2 Punjab 67,480 809760 99578 8.1 Simple average 8.7 Govt. upper primary school teachers’ mean salary as a multiple of state per capita GDP, 2014-15 Source: For teacher salary data, Table 6.3 in Vimala Ramachandran, 2015, NUEPA. We have taken teacher salary after 15 years experience as the ‘mean teacher salary’ (Ramachandran reports teachers’ salary at 0 years, 15 years and 25 years experience, for the year 2014-15). For state pc SDP, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Also see the website http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-capita-of-indian-states.php accessed on 27 Nov 2015
  17. 17. Table 5 Estimates of primary-school teacher salaries as a multiple of per capita GDP Country/state Reference year Estimated ratio of teacher salary to: Per capita GDP Per capita SDP OECD average 2009 1.2 -- Asian countries China 2000 0.9 -- Indonesia 2009 0.5 -- Japan 2009 1.5 -- Bangladesh 2012 ~1.0 -- Pakistan 2012 ~1.9 -- India Nine Indian statesa 2004-5 3.0 4.9 Uttar Pradeshb 2006 6.4 15.4 Bihar 2012 5.9 17.5 Chattisgarh 2012 4.6 7.2 Source: Table 5.4 in Chapter 5 of Dreze, Jean and Amartya Sen (2013) “An Uncertain Glory: India and its Contradictions”. Allen Lane, London.
  18. 18. Conclusions • These data show the significant role of the private sector in education • Share of private enrolment has grown • Majority provider of education • The public is trusting the private school sector • Quality of education is better, i.e. learning is higher • They provide at lower cost, yield higher VFM • They have the moral authority to have their voice heard
  19. 19. RTE Act – Is it evidence based? • Free education • compulsory education • Children aged 6-14 • In a neighbourhood school
  20. 20. Problems • Section 6 – create public schools in every neighbourhood • Section 8 – duty to give education of good quality • Section 12(1)(c) – 25% seats of private schools to EWSD kids • Section 12(2) – calculation of reimbursement to private schools • Section 18 – Mandates recognition of private schools • No learning norm; 40 extra norms, PTR, training (inputs-focused, evid-based?), • Leading to school closures • Section 19 – Lays penalties for non-compliance with recog. Norms • No penalty for Govt. schools if they don’t comply • On s.12(1)(c) • Rules – definition of neighbourhood • s.2(c) – kids below age 6 • S.5(1) – no right of transfer to private schools • S.15 – Extended period of admission • Rules – Definition of ‘Disadvantaged Group’ – creamy layer – Definition of EWS (income level)
  21. 21. Conclusion • Clearly, flawed inputs emphasis • Not evidence based • Requires your voice at district, state, national level • Collectively asleep between 2005-2009 • New Education Policy being formulated now • Always room for reform • Seek out forums • Write opinion editorials • Because you care; because you have moral authority • When lots of voices raised, it will surely have effect
  22. 22. Thanks
  23. 23. The GO of 8th May 2013 infringes the autonomy of UP’s private unaided schools by imposing various conditions which militate against the judgment of the Eleven Judges Bench of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka and others as reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, and also against the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537. In these judgments, the Hon’ble SC has throughout maintained the autonomy of the private unaided schools in regard to their establishing, administering and charging fee to the extent of even creating surplus fund for the development of their educational institutions.
  24. 24. • Lakhs of low-fee private schools in U.P. run for livelihood of the entrepreneur • Requirement to run without gain/profit not provided in RTE Act, but included in UP RTE Rules 2011. • Such condition discourages private investment in educ by small entrepreneurs, and should be scrapped. • This condition assumes only rich philanthropists establish schools, who can buy costly land, buildings, furniture, etc. - to give it free, to run non-profit schools; there are few such philanthropists • If private schools close down, it would impose great burden on state govt - no financial capacity for that, esp. as per-pupil-cost in govt schools is high (as teacher salaries are about 20 times higher in govt schools in rural UP). Condition to run schools as non-profit
  25. 25. Condition to raise fee only once in 3 years • The norm that a private unaided school cannot raise its tuition fee for 3 years and then by a maximum of only 10% once in 3 years, contradicts the UP govt’s own condition (for granting NOC to private schools) which stipulates that private schools must pay their teachers the same salary and yearly increments and DA as those given in government and aided schools • This contradiction is because in govt and aided schools, DA increases by 15% every year (in the past 4 years) and there is, in addition, also a salary increment of 3 percent every year in UP • So, just as govt has to increase its revenue every year to raise DA & increments for its own teachers every year, in the same way, a private school has to raise fee revenue every year, to pay for increments and increase in DA for teacher salaries every year, in line with govt/aided schools. • While only a small fraction of private schools pay govt-prescribed salaries, but the teachers in even the remaining private schools expect annual pay increments. • Private school teachers will blame govt for imposing a rule which allows govt teachers to get a 15% increase in DA and 3% increment in basic each year, but restricts private school teachers’ salaries to rising only once every 3 years
  26. 26. The GO dated 8th May 2013 is destroying the autonomy of private schools, and negates the landmark Supreme Court judgment which says that the essence of a private school is its autonomy In the landmark judgment TMA Pai Foundation versus the State of Karnataka, the 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court had observed that “the essence of a private educational institution is the autonomy that the institution must have in its management and administration. There, necessarily, has to be a difference in the administration of private unaided institutions and the government aided institutions. Whereas in the latter case, the government will have greater say in the administration, including admissions and the fixing of fees, in the case of private unaided institutions, maximum autonomy in the day to day administration has to be with the private unaided institutions. Bureaucratic or governmental interference in the administration of such an institution will undermine its independence”. It goes on to say: “While an educational institution is not a business, in order to examine the degree of independence that can be given to a recognised educational institution, like any private entity that does not seek aid or assistance from the government, and that exists by virtue of the funds generated by it, including its loans and borrowings, it is important to note that the essential ingredients of the management of the private institution include the recruiting student and staff, and the quantum of the fee to be charged.” In another place in the same judgment the Supreme Court says that “the fixing of a rigid fee structure …. would be unacceptable restriction”.
  27. 27. • Further down in the same TMA Pai judgement the court observed that: “an educational institution is established for the purpose of imparting education of the type made available by the institution….One cannot lose sight of the fact that providing good amenities to the students in the form of competent teaching faculty and other infrastructure costs money. It has therefore to be left to the institution if it chooses not to seek any aid from the government, to determine the scale of the fee that it can charge from the students…. We have been given to understand that a large number of professional and other institutions have been started by private bodies who do not seek any governmental aid. In a sense, a prospective student has various options open to him or her where, therefore, normally economic forces have a role to play. The decision on the fee to be charged must necessarily be left to the private institution that does not seek, or is not dependent upon, any funds from the government.” • Since the number of private unaided schools is large, at least in urban and peri-urban areas, there is something close to a situation of ‘perfect competition’ among schools. i.e. no school can make ‘super-normal profits’ since parents will have the ability to abandon a school that is providing similar facilities and results compared to other schools in their neighbourhood but is charging higher fee than other schools. As the TMA Pai case judgement says, economic forces play a role to drive out schools that are not giving value for the fee they charge. See letter dated 14/.12.2015 against 8 May GO in folder C:UsersGeeta KingdonggkCMS and LucknowLegal & advocacyRTE writ petitionLetter to UP govt and authorities

×