Economic Highlight
New Delhi, 10 August 2020
‘New’ Education Funding
HUGE, NOT CONSIDERED
By Shivaji Sarkar
The National Education Policy has a vision of
the education standards in the country for the next many decades. It falters on
the fundamental question of how to fund it in an era of high costs, high
inflation and the most expensive education envisioned. It is a surprise that
the crucial question of funding not only for educating the coming generations
but also paying the most important resource, the teachers in schools and faculty
in higher education, has apparently not been mulled over.
The nation has been cribbing over the last
two decades that it is unable to fund education. It is not only the government
but even the private sector has failed to raise funds. The dream of NEP of 1968
was to invest 6 per cent of GDP in education. The GDP for 2019-20 is estimated
at Rs 145.66 lakh crore. The education at 6 per cent of it needs over Rs 8 lakh
crore. The Central budget has allocated Rs 99311 crore. It is assumed that the
private sector, paid as fees by parents is raising another Rs 1 lakh crore.
Let us assume the nation is spending about Rs
2 lakh crore annually, just 25 per cent of what was estimated requirement in
1968. During these 52 years cost of living has galloped. Consumer price index
has been revised a number of times. Public expenditure in education has
increased by 2.7 per cent in 2017-18 – far away from the target.
The comparison has some incongruence. The 6
per cent expense on education was estimated for a population of 45.96 crore.
Today the population is three times more at 130 crore. By sheer logic the
number of students has increased by the same proportion. The lag in
infrastructure and faculty quality is a telling problem of today’s education. The
NEP may have taken these aspects in their assessments but it is not reflected
in the document.
So what was estimated as need for over Rs 8
lakh crore as per 6 per cent of GDP should practically at least double (Rs 16
lakh crore) if not treble if the nation wants to give holistic and wholesome
education to its burgeoning young population.
The NEP though has gone through an arduous
process it is missing on practical approach on resources. The premise is that
the funding instead from public accounts would come through private sector and
the possible foreign investments. It is a nice dream but may finally lead to
widening the existing gaps in deliveries. This premise has been raising
continuously tuition fees of public institutions like IIT, IIM and IIMC since
2007.
The policy has not studied the problems that
private universities or institutions, with some exceptions, have added to this
sector since 2003. Many have turned into degree mills a la the US pattern. They
are awarding degrees and diplomas with substandard deliveries. There are
serious allegations against some.
The quality of faculty and infrastructure is
usually below the standards of a public university. The number of faculty and
other resources are always less than the requirement.
Most private universities suffer from serious
fund crunches as their only source of earning is tuition fee. The sustenance
depends on the number of students joining the institutions. It simply means if
the numbers are high, the chances of survival are better. It is no guarantee for
quality. Often the faculty is under severe stress. Apart salaries are pittance
compared to any state-funded university. The least, if at all, is spent for
faculty development or research. These are pre-covid19 problems.
The policy makers apparently have not
considered these problems. Had it been taken into account, the policy could
have been more practical.
The private institutions were planned to meet
the funding gap since 1991 economic liberalisation. A 2015-16 survey finds that
78 per cent of colleges are privately managed and 68 per cent do not get
government aid. The policy makers still view education as non-profit venture
and the gaps are to be filled up with philanthropic contributions as the term
“public philanthropic participation” suggests.
It does not consider that with higher number
of private institutions most institutions are competing to slash their fees to
attract numbers. Most are in poor financial health and compromising further on
quality.
In such situation a cocktail education system
that is aimed at opening doors to foreign universities and introducing a
four-year, instead of three years, undergraduate programme adds to the cost of
education. It should have considered having a one-year post-graduate programme
too. The reduction of two years in higher education reduces many unnecessary
costs and saves the nation tonnes.
The savings benefit not only the institutions
but also the student community – in other words the society, by reducing their
expenses, precious time and allowing them to go for jobs early. The argument
that reduction in term affects quality is humbug. In the last six months of the
under graduate course in the name of dissertation or internship, nothing is
taught. In many post-graduate courses an 11-month syllabus is extended to 18
months with last semester for nothing. These rarely add to skills or knowledge.
Post COVID-19 the economic crunch
philanthropy or CSR is difficult. Even otherwise not many could attract such
doles. The admissions are shrinking due to the pandemic panic and job losses by
parents. Even private secondary schools in 2019 had fewer admissions. Many
parents are yet to pay the fees of the last academic session.
The NEP has a long wish-list. The stress on
‘learning outcomes’ disadvantages what it calls the socio-economically
disadvantaged groups (SEDG). Mere mention of terms like creativity, critical
thinking, multi-disciplinary without manpower or financial support may further
affect the quality.
It had a simple model to study 5000 RSS Vidya
Bharati schools, having over 3 million students, which have emerged as quality
centres apart from missionary schools. These also work on part-philanthropic
model. But the document should have stressed on changes in tax system prowling
on any ‘income’.
The NEP will become model for decades. It has
to redo its math and approaches. Populist proposals of doing away with Class 10
and 12 board exams or cut in curriculum is not a solution to achieve UN’s SDG
goals for inclusive and equitable education.
If the nation has to compete with China or
the west it has to provide the finances and make education affordable for
producing quality generations. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|