A recent report by the National Institute of Fiscal Policy and Research (NIFPR) released in July 2017 reveals that economically backward states like Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha spend less than half of the desired requirement for each student at the elementary level on an annual basis, when compared to more prosperous states like Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand.
The NIFPR report estimates requirements for twelve States using the set of norms defined in the RTE Act and other official documents. In the process of doing so, the report created a ‘normative’ frame of reference essential to judge financial adequacy.
There is clear evidence of substantial gaps and under-spending in per student resource requirements. “The obvious implication of these finding is the need for higher allocations with due consideration for equity aspect as the deficit is clearly concentrated in the poorer States of India”, the report reads.
The report sets out to calculate the gap between actual expenditures and ‘ideal’ expenditures on students at the elementary level to provide education for all and achieve the spirit of a right to free and compulsory education.
By calculating this gap, the report concludes that states like Bihar spend only 31 per cent of their what they ought to spend on each student per year. Similarly, Jharkhand and Odisha are spending 44 per cent of the funds they ought to divert to students. This deficit persists in most states such as Madhya Pradesh, which spends a little more than a half of its requirements at 52 per cent.
States with above average per student expenditure are Uttar Pradesh at 78 per cent and Uttarakhand at 91 per cent, yet the prize goes to Tamil Nadu which spends a whopping 108 per cent of its total requirement on students on an annual basis.
Uttar Pradesh performs better than expected, and this could be because of the relatively lower gap between actual and required expenditure due to the prevalence of children in the private unaided sector, which reduces public investment requirements. Another likely reason for the number is the higher pay scale for regular teachers in the state, which conflates the numbers.
The contour map represents the comparison between required and actual expenditure across States.
It can be seen that ‘per student actual expenditure’ lies well within the boundaries of per student requirements. The larger the distance between the red and blue lines, greater the gap. The green line shows the recurrent cost per student in Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs) in the year 2015-16. At Rs 32,698 expenditure per student in 2015-16, the green line lies outside the other two lines by a large margin , except for Uttarakhand.
Several researchers, according to the report, have noted that the Sarva Shiksha Abhyaan (SSA) treats the better-off States and the backward States equally except the north-eastern or special category States, and all States are to provide equal matching shares under the scheme.
Comparing the per-student expenditure, Geetha Rani notes, “Himachal Pradesh reported the highest per student expenditure of Rs 18,509 and Bihar spent Rs 2,684 in 2010-11. The increase in per-student cost additionally on account of SSA was Rs 2,668 in Himachal Pradesh, while the amount itself was the per student cost in Bihar! The additional per student cost that Bihar could reap was Rs 1,872.
The report concludes by saying that the issue of equalisation needs immediate attention within SSA as well as in the overall framework of Centre-State finances. And careful strategic planning is needed to prioritise public expenditure on elementary education and giving due consideration to equalisation.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.