karnataka vision draft position paper on school education … presentation... · 2016-03-11 ·...

PwC

Karnataka VisionDraft Position Paper on School EducationJanuary 2008

Agenda/ Contents

IntroductionStatus Report on School Education in KarnatakaRole of GovernmentKey issues and challenges facing School Education

Section 1


Position Paper on School EducationPricewaterhouseCoopers

January 2008

Background to the assignment

• Preparation of a Vision for the Karnataka in light of its current status• Study to facilitate objective sectoral allocations in the eleventh plan

keeping in view the change in GoI priorities and priorities of the state• Project started in September 2007• Analysis of the following Ten sectors

1. Healthcare2. Education – a) School & b) Higher3. Social Sector – Woman & Child; SC/ ST/ OBC/ Minorities etc. 4. Agriculture and Allied Services 5. Rural Development 6. Irrigation & Flood Control 7. Industry – Minerals, Construction & Manufacturing8. Urban Development 9. Transport and Infrastructure10.Energy


January 2008

KD 3: Macroeconomic Profile & Comparative Analysis

KD 4: Position Papers for various sectors

Agriculture

Industry & M

inerals

Irrigation

Transport &

Infrastructure

Energy

Healthcare

School Education

Social Sector

KD 2: Perspectives, Dimensions and Strategies Paper

KD 5 & 6: Enabling Strategy Paper

KD 7: Draft VisionKD 7: Draft Vision

Rural D

evelopment

Urban D

evelopment

Cross-Cutting Themes; Development Models and Case Studies

Sectors

KD 1: Inception Presentation

Higher Education

Assignment deliverables


January 2008

Methodology & consultations

• Both primary and secondary sources

• Primary: Interviews and focus group discussions

• Secondary: Primarily GoKpublications & documents, KDR, KHDR

• Framework: Growth Diagnostic Framework used by ADB to analyse the key binding constraints

We are grateful to the following people

• Shri T.M. Vijay Bhaskar, Secretary, Primary & Secondary Education

• Shri G. Kumar Naik, Commissioner of Public Instruction

• Dr A.S. Seetharamu, Consultant, GoK for Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan

• Ms Anita V Nazare, Fiscal Policy Analysis Cell

Section 2



January 2008

Introduction to School Education

•UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948: ‘everyone has a right to education’

•86th Constitutional Amendment 2002: ‘right to free and compulsory education is a fundamental right for all aged 6-14’

•Education Index (EI) uses 2 parametersPrimary, secondary enrolment ratioLiteracy rate

•EI risen: 0.60 (1991) to 0.71 (2001)

5th among 15 major states assessed in 2001•Regional disparity exists: districts in North Eastern Karnataka low in EI

•Stronger correlation b/w EI & HDI (0.93) than health (0.62) and income (0.86)

Map 1: Karnataka Education Index


January 2008

Status Report on School Education in Karnataka

• School Education assessed based on whether children (6-14 years) are able to exercise their ‘Right to Education’

• Five Parameters for assessment have been used1. Access to schools2. Enrolment of students3. Retention (Dropout) and Transition of students4. Quality of education5. Literacy


January 2008

1. Access to schools

• Parameters to assess accessPhysical access and Ability to pay

• 74% state enrolments & 88% enrolments in rural areas are in govt schools, where elementary education is free

• Habitation is used as unit for planning for physical access

• EMIS - Access to LPS good (>95%) in all districts, access to UPS not good only in Gulbarga (87.9%)

Access to lower primary schoolsIn Karnataka


99.6%99.1%

EMIS, GoK– 2006-07

78%88%UPS95%88%LPS

India avg– 2002

Ed. for all report ,GoK- 2002


January 2008

2. Enrolment of students

• In 2004-05, GER for LPS: 107.1, UPS: 85.5

• As per Child Census 2006, no. of out of school children (OOSC) in 7-14 age-group is 75,825 (<1% children in 7-14 age group).

• 67% of OOSC have dropped out, the rest having never enrolled

87.0 93.5 95.4 98.8 101.7 105.7 114.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

AP INDIA KER KAR GUJ MAH TN

Source: Selected Educational Statistics 2004-05

Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) (Class I - VIII)

0.98

0.950.94

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

Lower Primary Upper Primary Secondary/ HigherSecondary


Gender Parity Index (GPI)• GPI is high for primary schools, declines as we move to higher levels

• GPI for elementary education high at 0.97, comparable with other Southern States & Maharashtra & higher than India avg. (0.93)



January 2008

2. Enrolment of students

• State has done well to achieve high enrolment in SC & ST communities

• Gender Parity for elementary enrolments, SC at 0.97 and ST at 0.98 is high

GER of SC and ST communities


107.1

85.5

114.9

85.7

112.9

81.9

020406080

100120

LPS UPSGeneral SC ST

• Net enrolment rate (NER) indicates the enrolments of Class I-VIII students who are in the prescribed 6-14 age- group

• EMIS 2006-07 shows • For LPS, NER: 98.4 while GER: 108.3• For UPS, NER: 98.5 while GER: 107.3

• Large no. of students in elementary schools are under-age/ over-age



January 2008

3. Retention (Dropout) and Transition of students

• SES, GoI• 2004-05, dropout (Class I to VIII)

was as high as 50%• Dropouts till the LPS (class I to V)

are relatively low at 15.9%• EMIS: 2006-07, improvement with a much lower drop out (Class I to VIII) of 14.3%

0.0

24.029.0

46.3 50.0 50.859.4

010203040506070

KER TN MAH GUJ KAR INDIA AP


Dropout at elementary education

107.1

85.5

59.0

33.9

020406080

100120

LPS (6-11) UPS (11-14) Secondary (14-16) Higher Sec (16-18)


GER across levels of education• GER drops from 107.1 for LPS to 33.9 in higher secondary, indicating a low transition rate

• EMIS 2006-07 shows 10.1% of students dropout from VII to VIII

• Mean Years of Schooling (7-16 yrs) for state in 2001 was only 4.46 yrs; SC/ST (3.87 yrs) & Muslims (4.26 yrs) lag



January 2008

4. Quality of education

• National Curriculum Framework (NCF) emphasizes the need to move beyond scholastic competence to measure quality

• Karnataka pioneered assessment of attainments through KSQAO in 2005-06

• Attainments show a large no. of students in these classes do not match the required learning levels

Source: GoK, Department of Public Instruction, KSQAO (2006-07) Results

7460 63 6463 65 67

7968 66 7075

02040

6080

100

Class III Class V Class VII Overall

Kannada Urdu Marathi

KSQAO (2006-07) Language Medium wise Achievement



January 2008

5. Literacy

Literacy as per Census 2001• Census 2001 defines literacy as ‘ability of a person aged 7 and above to both read and write with understanding in any language’

• None of the districts had achieved 85% literacy as per Census 2001

• 5 of 7 districts with low literacy are located next to each other

60.5

64.8

66.6

69.1

73.5

76.9

90.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

APIND

KARGUJ

TNMAHKER

Source: Census 2001

Literacy Rate



January 2008

5. Literacy

41.1

48.7

61.0

87.9

90.4

90.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Bangladesh

Pakistan

India

Indonesia

Sri Lanka

China

Source: UN Human Development Report 2005

0.750.66

0.560.510.38

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001Source: Census 2001

Adult Literacy Rate (2003)


Gender Parity Index (GPI) in literacy

• UNESCO defines adult literacy from 15 years

• Estimated adult literacy of Karnataka: 60.4%

• Karnataka compares poorly with neighbouring countries

• Gender disparities declining at a constant pace

• Gender disparity for SC (0.65) and ST (0.61) lag behind the general population by over a decade

Section 3



January 2008

Role of Government

Government Policies

To provide for better organization, development, discipline and control of educational institutions.

Karnataka Education Act, 1983

Recognized education as fundamental to all-round development, has an acculturating role and important to develop manpower for different levels of economy.

NPE 1986

Envisaged that education be an instrument to promote a sense of common citizenship and cultureand to strengthen national integration.

NPE 1968 document

Mandated the government to ensure compulsory primary education to all children

Mysore Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1961

DescriptionPolicy


January 2008

Government Interventions

Government intervention has followed a 3 phase development:

Role of Government

Phase 1: Growth by investment in assets 68

61

17

45323234

404652

0

20

40

60

80

1951-1956

1956-1961

1961-1966

1966-1971

1971-1976

1976-1981

1981-1986

1986-1991

1991-1996

1996-2001

Thou

sand

s

Source: www.indiastat.com

• More than 50,000 schools constructed in India during first 3 plan periods.

• In Karnataka by 1978-79, about 83% habitations had access to LPS

Plan investments in primary schools in India

Phase 2: Consolidation by increasing utilization of assets

• Incentives such free text books, uniforms, bicycles, scholarships and mid-day meal scheme

4.994.783.51

5.907.58 8.22 8.42

0

2

4

6

8

10

1966-67 1977-78 1980-81 1986-87 1993-94 1997-98 2000-01Source: Karnataka Administrative Reforms Commission Report 2001

Enrolments in primary schools (Class 1-VII in millions) in Karnataka


January 2008

Government Interventions

Role of Government

Phase 3: Quality improvements 1988 1993 2000 2001 2005

OBB DPEP

MLL

SDMC

SSA

KSQAOKey Quality Interventions

Integrated Mission to achieve UEE: Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan

(SSA)

• Wide convergent framework• Some Important strategies

Improve efficiency of deliverySustainable financingEffective decentralizationCommunity based approach to planning with habitation as a unit Community based monitoring systems Development of women and special groups


January 2008

Government Achievements against Goals

Role of Government

S.No. Agency Area Target Year OutcomeUniversal Elementary Education

1 United Nations Millenium Development Goal (MDG) Elementary Universal Elementary Education 2015

2 Government of India Elementary Universal Elementary Education 2007

3 Department of Primary and Secondary Education, GoK Elementary Reduce percentage of out-of-

school children to 0 2006-07

Increase pass percentage in Class VII to 100% and Class X to 65% 2006-07

Increase Literacy

4 Government of India, National Literacy Mission Literacy Full literacy (Threshold value of

75%) 2007

Recent data for literacy rates are not available. As percensus 2001, the literacy rate for Karnataka was66.6%. In the decade 1991-2001, literacy grew at anannual rate of about 1.7%. Going by this rate, literacyis expected to have reached 74% in 2007, much lowerthan the targeted 85%.

Remove Gender Disparity

5 United Nations Millenium Development Goal (MDG) Primary/ Secondary Remove gender disparity 2005

Higher Remove gender disparity 2015

6 Government of India, Tenth Five Year Plan Literacy Reduce gender gap by half 2007

Provide better inputs

7 Government of India, Eleventh Five Year Plan Education Raise public spending to 6% of

GDP 2012

8 Department of Primary and Secondary Education, GoK Elementary

Increase proportion of non-salary expenditure on primary to 20% and secondary to 10%

2006-07

Gross enrolment rate in 2004-05 for elementaryeducation in Karnataka was high (98.8). However thehigh enrolment rate was accompanied by a high drop-out rate of 50% in elementary education . Thus,Karnataka still has a substantial distance to traverse toachieve UEE.

Gender disparity can be observed by assessing theratio of girls in primary schools. During the start of thetenth plan in 2002-03, Karnataka had 48.4% girls inLPS and 46.9% in UPS. This increased to 48.5% inLPS and 46.9%. Although there have beenimprovements in proportion of girls, going by the rateof increase, it is unlikely that Karnataka would havemet tenth plan target for reducing gender disparity.

Allocation for education in 2005-06 was 3% ofKarnataka’s GSDP for the year . This is far short of thetargeted expenditure of 6%

Section 4


1. Infrastructure2. Quality of service delivery3. Managing size and complexity of the education department4. Financing School Education5. Leverage of private sector and NGO participation


January 2008

1. Infrastructure

21%24%

31%44%

46%49%

68%83%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

LibraryDrinking Water

Gen. ToiletElectricity

Compound WallPlay Ground

Girls ToiletRamp

Source: EMIS Analysis Report 2006

Secondary Schools deficient in basic infrastructure

Elementary Schools deficient in basic infrastructure

• Provision of infrastructure has not kept pace with growth in schools

• There is lack of standards for minimum infrastructure required to setup a school

• No definition of assets which puts down minimum components and quality of components to make it effective

• Large deficiency in basic facilities essential for specific groups such as ramps for the disabled & girls toilets

• Information on infrastructure in private schools unavailable

21%23%

27%28%30%

46%64%

94%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

LibraryPlay Ground

Drinking WaterGen. ToiletElectricity

Compound WallGirls Toilet

Ramp

Source: EMIS Analysis Report 2006

Key Issues and Challenges


January 2008

1. Infrastructure

• Infrastructure index gives equal weight to 8 basic infrastructure

•Karnataka state has an infrastructure index of 0.58 i.e. average elementary school has only 4 basic infrastructure

•Kodagu is the only district where schools have on average 7/8 basic infrastructure

• Infrastructure in schools in Karnataka is inadequate.

•Poor infrastructure has been found to not only repel students but also teachers

Infrastructure Index for Elementary Schools



January 2008

2. Quality of Service Delivery

• World Development Report 2004 identifies classroom teaching as adiscretionary and transaction-intensive service

• School has multiple outputs with difficulty of attribution making it difficult to define parameters to assess performance of schools


57.6 60.3 64.471.0 73.1 75.1 77.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

MAH GUJ IND KAR AP KER TNSource: Selected Educational Statistics 2004-05

Pass Percentages (2005) in State Board Examinations

• Traditionally quality of education is measured by pass percentage in board examinations

• Limitations of this methodReduces output to answering questions on standardized examinationsLess effort is taken to retain students who are not performing


January 2008

2. Quality of Service Delivery: Demand Side

•Demand side measures are taken to enhance ability of the client to influence the quality of service provided

•School Development and Monitoring Committee (SDMC) institutionalized participation of parents and the panchayats in the management of elementary schools

•However, due to lack of adequate capacity building for parents/ PRIs they are not able to effectively manage responsibilities.

•Voucher system, under consideration by GoI, can be a tool to initiate competition between schools, both public and private



January 2008

2. Quality of Service Delivery: Supply Side

• With an overall PTR of 30.9 for elementary education, Karnataka fares well

• Imbalance in the distribution of teachers, education district Yadgir has a PTR of 56.3 while Hassan has 21.3

• Challenges in retaining teachers in certain districts


Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) in Elementary Schools


37

18

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

Lower Primary Upper Primary Secondary

AP GUJ KAR KER MAH TN IND

Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR)


January 2008

• In 2005-06, 16.9% of primary schools in Karnataka had single teachers

• Need to improve access in the dispersed habitation has resulted in many schools having a small number of children

• Improvements in transport facility will enable children to access distant schools

• Till then multi-grade teaching is here to stay, however, training needs are specific

• Problem of few teachers is accentuated by high teacher absenteeism

• Teaching is not considered a rewarding career option.

• Quality of service delivery in school education is thus a concern

2. Quality of Service Delivery: Supply Side


Primary Schools with single teachers


January 2008

3. Managing size and complexity of the education department

• An administrative challenge to manage over 40,000 elementary schools and over 2.5 lakh teachers

• Document that details roles and responsibilities of the teacher & head master is absent

• Data discrepancies in key indicators reported by different govt. agencies

• No dedicated agency to analyse data gathered from EMIS and KSQAO

• Need for a working cooperative framework where elected representatives, officials, teachers and parents together decide the development works of the school


Ministry (Primary & Secondary Education)

CPI SPD, SSA

Director, Primary Education

Ex Officio JDPIs C.T.E

Deputy Director, Administration

Deputy Director, Development

Block Education Officer

HM (High School)

BRC

SDMC

SRC

UPS/ LPSSDMC

Principal Secretary

DEPARTMENT

PROGRAMME

Organisational Structure


January 2008

PwC Study: Organisation Re-engineering: Elementary Education Delivery System - 2006

• No minimum guaranteed service delivery norms for the schools from Cluster/ Block/ District/ State level offices – Mostly person dependent services to lower levels

• Lack of clarity in interface points and roles for Education Department, enabling departments (DHFW, WCD, SWD) and PRIs (TP and ZP)

• Inadequate capacity building for SDMC / Community to manage education development / monitoring at local levels

• Inadequate capacity building for PRIs and facilitating Departments (DHFW, WCD, SWD) for better Education Delivery

• Need for improved performance management systems (goal setting ,review and career progression) and resource management (recruitment, deployment and transfers)

• Need to strengthen information management systems & align with planning

Elementary Education Focus: Convergence and Quality



January 2008

4. Financing School Education

•Budget Allocation (2005-06) 3% GSDP; Target is 6%

• In 2006-07, education accounted for 12.2% (~Rs. 5,100 crores) of budget

•Elementary and secondary accounted for 88% education expenditure

•Plan expenditure only 21% education budget expenditure, high proportion of expenditure in administration

•Per student expenditure (2005-06)Elementary: Rs. 4,150Secondary: Rs. 4,358

•Plan expenditure per student for secondary lower than elementary


Elementary58%

Secondary30%

General2%

Language Development

0.3%

Higher10%

Adult0.2%

Source: Budget Outlays 2006-07 from EMIS

Budgeted Outlays 2006-07

1095524

305538344150 4358

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Elementary SecondaryPlan Non Plan Total

Source: EMIS, “Performance Budget 2006-07”

Per student expenditure (2005-06) in govt. schools


January 2008

4. Financing School Education


54 19

34

1

10

1

2

11

8

13

938

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ninth

Tenth

Elementary Secondary Mass Vocational Higher/ Technical Others

Source: Planning and Statistics Dept, GoK ‘Draft Eleventh Five Year Plan’ and ‘Draft Tenth Five Year Plan’

9333

9539

71 62 66

289

050

100150200250300

Elementary Secondary

Thou

sand

lakh

s

Ninth Outlay (1996-97 Prices) Ninth Anticipated ExpenditureTenth Outlay (1996-97) Tenth Anticipated Expenditure

Source: Planning and Statistics Dept, GoK ‘Draft Eleventh Five Year Plan’ and ‘Draft Tenth Five Year Plan’

• State proportionate allocation for education dropped from 7.3% in the ninth plan to 4.3% in the tenth plan

• State plan (not indexed) on elementary education dropped sharply by 23%

• Nature of contributions from the centre needs to be assessed

State Plan Outlays for Education

Figure 21: Plan Outlays with Anticipated Expenditure

• Anticipated expenditure varied significantly (grew 204%) from outlay for elementary education in 10th plan

• Increased plan financing essential to meet the shortage of basic infrastructure in schools


January 2008

5. Private Sector and Civil Society participation



90

32 37

28

8

22

9 1941

73

39

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Primary Middle Secondary Pre-DegreeGovernment Local Bodies Private Aided Private Unaided

Ownership of Schools

Private Participation in Secondary Schools

• Private participation increases as we move to higher levels of education

• Large number of private aided schools in secondary education

• Private participation is lowest in two backward districts Gulbarga & Koppal


January 2008

5. Private Sector and Civil Society participation

• Students studying in private unaided schools are, in general, from better socio-economic backgrounds

• Still these schools perform only marginally better in proportion of schools above 80% pass

• It is thus important to get more information on private schools


Source: KSEEB March 2007 Examination Statistics

50% 52% 58%

29% 29% 21%15% 14% 11%6% 5% 9%

1%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Government Private Aided Private Unaided

80% and above 60-80% 40-60% 0-40% Exactly 0%

School Pass Percentage in KSEEB, March 2007

• Karnataka has seen the participation of a number of NGOs particularly in pre-school education, preparation of educational material, organization of bridge courses, provision of mid-day meals and testing for attainments

• However, the state lacks a policy statement for NGOs in education. • NGO participation not institutionalised, depends on initiative of presiding officials

© 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the network of member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US).

PwC

Thank you!

“The contribution of basic education to development in not confined to economic progressEducation has intrinsic importance; the capability to read and write can deeply influence one’s quality of life.Also, an educated population can make better use of democratic opportunities than an illiterate oneFurther, an ability to read documents can help subjugated women and other oppressed groups make use of their rights and demand more fairnessAnd, female literacy can enhance women’s voices in family affairs and reduce gender inequality in other fields, a benefit to men as well as women,Since women’s empowerment through literacy tends to reduce child mortality and very significantly decrease fertility rates”

- Amartya Sen

karnataka vision draft position paper on school education … presentation... · 2016-03-11 ·...

Documents