Despite increased spending, educational outcomes have been less than satisfactory. To beat best-performing countries, India must spend money judiciously
Every discussion on Indian education boils down to one conclusion: The Government is not spending enough. It appears a foregone conclusion that the quality of education depends upon expenditure and as the Government is not spending six per cent of its GDP, quality will not improve (it is said that the Government must spend at least six per cent of its GDP on education but it never crosses more than four per cent). This calculation is not appropriate in the Indian context. In Western countries, parents don't spend much on children's education. School education is Government-funded, because of the size of the countries and small number of children. Quality, therefore, is managable. Though India must be spending more in overall public school education compared to better performing nations, due to the sheer size of the sector, quality becomes unmanageable and the money spent is, hence, wasted.
In the West, higher education (HE) is not for all. Only the deserving go for it and those who get a seat on merit are paid by the Government. Those who do not qualify on merit pay for themselves — this number is very low. If we add the money spent by the parents on education on their wards in private institutions, both in India and abroad, and the national budget on education, it will exceed the desired six per cent spending on this sector. The Government’s total spending and those of private partners as also the parents will be much more than six per cent of the GDP. However, as the Government spends, it also expects the institution to dance to its tunes. Governments keep asking institutions to admit more learners than what they can manage and also (mis)uses the staff, both teaching and non-teaching, for assignments not related to teaching-learning. This results in wastage.
We need to look at the process of spending as well. We must be an exceptional nation that constructs staff quarters and also maintains them at a subsidised price. If the Government reassesses house rent as a part of the Pay Commission every 10 years, all employees should be able to find decent accommodation within that amount in towns where they work. Our institutions become a liability because funds are spent more on construction of staff quarters and creating infrastructure which soon becomes unusable, than on teaching-learning activities. Even if we increase expenditure on education and use the Budget for the construction of staff quarters, how will it improve (directly) the quality of educationIJ All Government servants, in a period of four years, are paid for one home visit and one paid ‘leave travel' to any part of the country and even abroad. Employees and their family members are all paid for. It needs to be reassessed if such welfare measures need to be continued or stopped and money be spent on buying more books for the libraries, consumables for the laboratories and scholarships for the learners. This money could have been better utilised if the learners from the Scheduled communities were given lodging and good quality coaching during vacations. We need to re-examine our welfare measures in all sectors, especially in education.
A large portion of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Budget was spent on construction of school buildings and toilets which have already become unusable. Travel to any village and you can see the dilapidated school building where classroom teaching cannot be organised. Similarly, construction and maintenance of students' hostel consume a large portion of the Budget but the quality of service is pathetic because the students are not directly paying. learners feel they are getting subsidised services so they have forfeited the right to demand quality service. Whereas, teaching-learning and teachers' development should have been the main focus. We need to reassess the functioning of institutions and decide where to put our resources. At present, we don't seem to be spending on appropriate heads. There are more Indian students in the US and British universities than in other countries who are paid for by the parents. Parents who can afford to spend substantial amounts on education of their children prefer to send their children abroad than make them study in an Indian university as quality of education is poor. Most institutions in the US and the UK have large numbers of Indian, Chinese and East Asian countries because a substantial number of households from these regions can afford to pay for the education of their wards at best schools and colleges.
But, these poor nations are losing out to the rich and affluent countries. Governments keep doling out concessions to castes and communities for political reasons, which in turn, corrodes quality. Education must have just one objective: Better learning. All efforts and funding should be made with an aim: Quality education. It is true that good infrastructure and support services are needed but ultimately good learners and learned teachers are required for quality performance.
Government policies have put undeserving learners and unqualified teachers in all public institutions. Governments do it to hide their failure to design and implement policies which reach out to the less-privileged. If we want the Indian education to compete with the best-performing countries, we must change our method of spending. Best-performing learners must be paid and supported. Meritorious students should be paid and not the institutions. Organisations which can attract the most talented learners should be funded and not all just because the Government established them. There are employees — teaching as well as non-teaching — who also have to be sustained till their retirement. We must give attractive perks to attract the best of talent. Unfortunately, this has not happened. We need to re-examine our perks policy.
(The writer is Professor of Education at Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi. Views expressed are personal)
