public financing of school education

Public Financing of

School Education

in India: A Fact Sheet

2016

This document is for private circulation and is not a priced publication. Reproduction of this publication for educational and other non-commercial purposes is authorised, without prior written permission, provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Copyright @2016 Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA) and Child Rights and You (CRY)

Study Team:

Protiva Kundu, Surajita Rout, Gaurav Singh, Khwaja Mobeen Ur Rehman

For more information about the study, please contact: [email protected]

Designed by:

Common Sans, 1729, Sector 31, Gurgaon, Haryana

Published by:

Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA)

B-7 Extn./110A (Ground Floor), Harsukh Marg, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110029

Tel: +91-11-49200 400/ 401/ 402; Email: [email protected];

Web: www.cbgaindia.org

and

Child Rights and You (CRY)

189/A, Anand Estate, Sane Guruji Marg, Mumbai – 400011

Web: www.cry.org

Financial support for the study:

This study has been carried out with financial support from CRY and IDRC-Think Tank Initiative (from the institutional support provided to CBGA).

Views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the positions of CRY or IDRC.

Public Financing of School Education in India: A Fact Sheet

1

Table of Contents

Abbreviations 2

List of Figures 3

List of Tables 3

Message from CBGA 4

Message from CRY 5

Acknowledgments 6

I. Context and Scope of the Analysis 7

II. Methodology 9

III. Public Expenditure on School Education as Percent of GDP 11

IV. School Education Budget as Percent of GSDP 13

V. School Education Budget as Percent of Total State budget 15

VI. Per Child Spending on School Education 17

VII. Per Child Spending vis-à-vis Per Student Spending 19

VIII. Preliminary Evidence on the Impact of 14th FC Recommendations 21

IX. Key Findings 23

References 24

2

Abbreviations

A Actuals

BE Budget Estimates

CABE Central Advisory Board of Education

CBGA Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability

CRY Child Rights and You

DDGs Detailed Demand for Grants

FFC Fourteenth Finance Commission

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GER Gross Enrolment Rate

GNP Gross National Product

GSDP Gross State Domestic Product

MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development

NUEPA National University of Educational Planning and Administration

RE Revised Estimates

RMSA Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan

RTE Right to Education

SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan


3

List of Figures

Figure 1 Trends in Public Expenditure on School Education as Percent of GDP 11

Figure 2 Public Expenditure on School Education as Percent of GDP by Level of Education 12

Figure 3 School Education Budget as Percent of GSDP: General Category States 13

Figure 4 School Education Budget as Percent of GSDP: Special Category 14

Figure 5 School Education Budget as Percent of State Budget: General Category States 15

Figure 6 School Education Budget as Percent of State Budget: Special Category States 16

Figure 7 Per Child Spending on School Education (Rs.): General Category States 17

Figure 8 Per Child Spending on School Education (Rs.): Special Category States 18

Figure 9 Per Student Spending (Rs.) vs. Per Child Spending (Rs.): General Category States (2014-15) 19

Figure 10 Per Student Spending vis-à-vis Per Child Spending: Special Category States (2014-15) 20

Figure 11 Budget for Education Sector as Percent of Total State Budget: General Category States 21

Figure 12 Extent of increase in the Total State Budget and the Allocation for ‘Education’ Sector from 2014-15 to 2016-17(BE) 22

List of Table

Table 1 Per Student Spending on School Education (Rs.) 20

4

Message from CBGAOver the last couple of decades, a lot of substantive research has been done on public financing of education in India. In recent years, we have also seen some insightful and pertinent research on the gaps in implementation of prominent Central schemes for school education. Yet, in the policy debates on the issue of adequacy of public resources for school education in the country, the evidence cited with regard to quantum of budgetary spending has largely been at the aggregate levels. We, at CBGA, have felt that the intense debates on government financing of school education in India have happened with a somewhat limited set of evidence; the evidence used in these important discussions has been especially narrow with respect to the composition of school education budgets in different states.

This could have been due to the limited attention paid to questions like: how different states are designing the quantum of budget available for school education – in terms of the priorities across different components – and the implications of the design of school education budgets on different parameters including quality of teaching and learning in government schools. In such a context, CBGA and CRY have taken an initiative to analyse the budgets for school education across all states, covering all those departments that spend on school education related services or interventions, and at a disaggregated level of spending.

We are presenting the findings of this study in the form of this Fact Sheet, which shares some of the key trends and numbers for all states, and a Study Report (“How Have States Designed Their School-Education Budgets”), which unpacks the composition of the budget for school education across ten selected states. These two study outputs address only a few of the questions in the domain of government financing of school education in India; but they point towards a number of other pertinent issues that require deeper scrutiny and discussion.

However, the findings of this study do indicate clearly that India’s prevailing quantum of budgetary spending on education is inadequate not just because it falls short of the benchmark recommended decades ago by the Kothari Commission but also because the paucity of funds for almost all important areas of public provisioning of school education – be it availability of teachers, their training, their monitoring, the interventions for children from marginalised sections or those for strengthening community engagement with schools – is glaring in most of the poorer states. The overall deficiency in public financing of school education could not only be held responsible for gaps in coverage and quality of the outputs and services being delivered through government schools, but it could also be a major causal factor underlying the weak linkages between outlays, outputs and outcomes in this sector.

A mere re-prioritization of the existing quantum of budgets for school education would certainly not help most of the states address the deficiencies in their government schools system; there is clearly a need for a significant enhancement of the overall resource envelope for this sector. But when a state does move towards an expanded budget for school education, it would need to allocate the additional resources across the various components / areas of provisioning in a manner that addresses the requirements more comprehensively.

We sincerely hope the study report and this fact sheet would provide some useful evidence for deepening the policy discourse in the country on school education. We will be grateful for suggestions on how we can add more value through our work in the coming years.

With regards,

Subrat DasExecutive Director,

Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability


5

Message from CRYThis year, India completes 25 years of the New Economic Policy whose stated purpose was to improve our country's fiscal health towards growth and

progress for all including our most vulnerable citizens; children. The budget, both at the national and state level, is a concrete expression of the

government's intentions and performance towards its citizens. Children comprising 40 percent of the total population gets mere 4 per cent of nation's

gross domestic product (GDP) to themselves. India's Education budget has been stagnant for over last 5 years except a relative boost brought about by

the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE), 2009. It is a matter of grave concern where we have lakhs of children still out of the fold of

education, and, of those in school, only 33 children out of every 100 children enrolled tend to complete Class XII. Along with addressing various socio-

cultural aspects related to education, it is equally important to make adequate budgetary allocation for ensuring all children are in school and availing

quality education. The recognition of child as a distinct stakeholder in the public discourse on budgeting as well as measure of state accountability

started only a decade ago and it still remains a significant area of inquiry as change for children has been incremental and resource deficiency has been

central to the debate.

The year 2015-16 has been significant for the country with policy measures that have changed the fiscal architecture of India. These are likely to have a

direct impact on public provisioning of education at the state level. It is pertinent at this juncture to examine how states are prioritising their budgets in

terms of allocations, estimations and revisions for school education.

We, at CRY, strongly believe adequacy of resources, including sufficient budgetary investments for 333 million children (6 to 18 years) has tremendous

potential in shaping India's children. In fact, when CRY was started in 1979, by Rippan Kapur, the very first project it supported was on teacher

training and education. Ever since, CRY has spread its mission to enable the realization of rights of more than 20 lakh under privileged children across

23 states in India. The learning from these experiences has only strengthened our conviction that Education helps in creating a sound foundation and

is, therefore, crucial for a happy, healthy and creative childhood.

CRY is pleased to initiate a study series with CBGA that examines public expenditure on School Education in the post RTE era. It is interesting to note

that all government departments administering funds for education are scrutinized in this study, which I am sure will shed new light on the way the

state is planning and allocating financial resources towards ensuring the rights of its great citizens, our children.

With Faith and Goodwill,

Puja Marwaha

Chief Executive,

CRY- Child Rights and You

6

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mr. Basanta Nayak, Mr. Daya Ram, Dr. Nesar Ahmad, Ms. Pooja Parvati, Mr. Prasanta Pradhan, Prof. Praveen Jha,

Prof. R. Govinda, Mr. Ravi Duggal, Prof. Tapas Sen and Mr. Vikash Singh for their valuable comments on the draft version of the report.

Their insightful comments and suggestions on the draft report, in the discussion held on October 19, 2016, have helped us immensely in

addressing some of the lacunae in our analysis. However, we have not been able to incorporate a number of very substantive suggestions

made by them, which we will pursue as important ideas for deepening our research in this field in the coming years.

We extend our gratitude to Ms. Puja Marwaha, Ms. Rajni Bakshi, Ms. Vijayalakshmi Arora, and a number of other colleagues from CRY for

their very helpful inputs and suggestions over the course of this study.

We would like to thank Mr. Abdul Muiz, Mr. Adnan Ul Hasan, Mr. Apoorv Jain, Ms. Devyani Singh, Mr. Imran Ansari, Mr. Khwaja Mohd.

Wamiq, Mr. Khwaja Mohd. Zaid, Mr. Mohammad Arsalam, Ms. Nomy Katta, Mr. Rajkumar Byahut and Mr. Ramgati Singh for their

invaluable contribution towards compilation of data for this study.

We convey our special acknowledgement to the library of NIPFP.

We would remain ever grateful to Dr. Komal Ganotra, Ms. Anuja Shah and Ms. Sangeeta M. from CRY for their constant guidance, support

and encouragement.

Finally, we would like to thank all our colleagues at CBGA for their rich insights and suggestions, which have helped us a lot in deepening

our analysis.

However, any errors or omissions are solely our responsibility.

Study Team


7

I. Context and Scope of the Analysis

In the Constitution of India, education appears in the concurrent list; accordingly, provisioning of resources for the same is a shared

responsibility of the Union and State Governments. Public financing of education, to a large extent, depends on the policy and budgetary

priorities for education. In order to assess the adequacy of the prevailing quantum of public financing for the sector, it is useful to have a

rough estimate of how much the government should spend on financing quality education, taking into account the existing policy

framework for public provisioning of education.

Such a process of estimation had started with the Kothari Commission (1964); it had recommended six percent of Gross National Product

(GNP) per year as the total public expenditure on education in the country to be reached by 1985-86. The Commission had recommended

for at least two-third of the allocation to be prioritised for school education at least for the first two to three decades. Subsequently, the

National Policy on Education (1986)also reiterated the need to increase public expenditure on education till it reaches 6 percent of Gross

Domestic Product (GDP). Later, Tapas Majumdar Committee (1999) estimated the amount of resources needed, in addition to the

prevailing magnitude of public expenditure on education, during a ten-year period from 1998-99 to 2007-08 for universalising elementary

education by 2007-08. CABE Committee (2005) opined that due to persistent under funding in elementary education, around 1.1 percent

to 1.5 percent of GDP in addition to the existing allocation was needed to achieve universalisation of elementary education by 2011-12. In

the context of the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) legislation in 2009, NUEPA (2009)

estimated the amount of resource required for successful implementation of RTE by 2015.That the country's total public expenditure on

education needs to be increased to the level of six percent of GDP has been reiterated by a number of political parties in their election

manifestos over the last few decades and it has also been the most popular benchmark for assessing public spending on the sector as

referred to in the policy discourse in the country.

On the other hand, a number of economists have also questioned the sufficiency of six percent of GNP (or six percent of GDP) as a

benchmark to assess adequacy of government spending on education now, given the large cumulative resource gap for the sector from

1985-86 (Jain and Dholakia, 2009).Also, in view of the constraints in resource mobilisation by the Centre as well as the State Governments

and the concerns with the fiscal deficit (i.e. government borrowing), suggestions also have been made for alternative measures like

seeking external sources of finance, private-public partnership or corpus dedicated for education for financing RTE (Mehrotra, 2012).

Though available literature throws light on the quantum of public resources required for education, relevant data on how much the Union

and State Governments are spending on education is not available in a timely manner. The Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on

8

Education, an annual publication of the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) provides a lot of useful information on

government expenditure on the sector by levels of education. It also provides state wise information on the budgetary expenditure or

allocations for education for three consecutive years. However, this publication is brought out with a time lag; the latest years for which

the publication is available presently are 2011-12 to 2013-14 (BE). Besides this, there is no other publication with comprehensive statistics

on government financing of the overall education sector or that for school education in India.

In the context of such a gap in the database for financial statistics on education, this Fact Sheet is an attempt to provide a holistic picture of

public spending on school education across 30 states of India and for the country as a whole. A macro picture of public financing of school

education in the country has been sketched with the help of three basic indicators, which are:

1) Expenditure on school education as percent of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP);

2) Expenditure on school education as percent of total state budget; and

3) Per child spending on school education, and, Per child versus Per student spending on school education in a state.

Given the differences between states in terms of a number of parameters like their resource base, hilly and difficult terrain, population

density etc., the states have been categorised into 'General' category and 'Special' category states (following the standard classification in

this regard). Eight north-eastern states, viz. Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Sikkim,

and, three Himalayan states, viz. Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand, fall under 'Special' category while the rest of

the states are considered under 'General' category. In this fact sheet, each of the indicators has been presented separately for 'General' and

'Special' category states.


1 The name of the Education Department varies with state.

9

II. Methodology

Public expenditure on school education covers expenditure at the elementary level and expenditure at the secondary and senior

secondary level. The sources include expenditure by the Union Government, the State Governments, the local bodies, and foreign aid

which is transferred primarily through Union Budget.

Both at the Union and the state level, besides the Department of School Education, several other departments incur sizable amounts of

expenditure on education. The present analysis covers all such departments that report expenditure on school education in their budgets.

These departments include Department of Women and Child Development, Department of Social Security and Welfare, Department of

Minority Welfare, Department of Tribal Welfare, Department of Rural Development, Department of Urban Development, Panchayati Raj

Department, Department of Public Works, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, and Department of Planning (the names of these

departments differ slightly across states).

After the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, along with the Union and State Governments, both rural and urban local bodies are

also responsible for providing elementary education. The expenditure on elementary education by the local bodies could be financed by

any of three possible sources – (a) the funds disbursed to them by the Union Government or State Government departments (i.e. funds

meant specifically for elementary education, (b) expenditure financed from the untied funds devolved to the local bodies, and (c)

expenditure financed from their own sources of revenue mobilised by the local bodies. The analysis presented here includes the first

source [i.e. (a) completely], but it does not cover expenditures that may be financed from the other two sources. However, both the level of

devolution of untied funds to local bodies and the level of revenue mobilised by them from their own sources differ widely across states,

and, except for a few states, these are low in most cases. Hence, the analysis has not excluded any significant proportion of public

spending on education at the level of local bodies.

1The Ministry of Human Resource Development at the Union level and the Department of Education at the state level together financed

more than 80 percent of the school education budget (elementary and secondary together), in the years covered in our analysis. There is

some expenditure by states’ Education Departments, which is not meant exclusively for elementary or secondary education; it is spent on

the schools as a whole or for school administration or education secretariat. The analysis presented here does include these amounts in the

figures for total expenditure on school education.

2 http://ssa.nic.in/financial-management/audit-reports3 http://mhrd.gov.in/rmsa_recent_releases

10

The expenditure incurred by other departments is also designed mostly to cater to children studying in classes I to X, or post matric

students, or to students of classes I-XII altogether. Due to this sizable amount of government expenditure on schools and students overall,

the figures (presented in this fact sheet) for the budgetary expenditure specifically at the elementary level or that at the secondary level are

underestimations. Nonetheless, the figures for the total budgetary expenditure on school education are far more comprehensive as

explained earlier.

In order to capture the total budgetary spending on school education, both Union Budget and states’ budgets have been analysed at the

most disaggregated level. Hence, the Detailed Demand for Grants (DDGs) of all the departments mentioned above have been analysed for

the data pertaining to four years: 2012-13 (Actuals), 2013-14 (Actuals), 2014-15 (Budget Estimates), 2014-15 (Revised Estimates) and

2015-16 (Budget Estimates, including the supplementary budgets that states presented throughout 2015-16). It was important to capture

the information from the supplementary budgets presented by states in 2015-16, since, following the changes in Union-State sharing of

resources (as per the Fourteenth Finance Commission recommendations and the NITI Aayog’s sub-group of Chief Ministers in 2015), most

states depended on supplementary budgets to adapt to the new fiscal arrangements that started in 2015-16.

Until 2013-14, the State Budgets did not report the Union Government’s share of funds for two major centrally sponsored schemes in

school education, viz. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA); because, the central shares of

funds for these two schemes was directly flowing from the Union Government to the SSA and RMSA society bypassing the state budgets

and state treasury. From 2014-15, however, the fund flow mechanism has changed in all central schemes including SSA and RMSA, and,

Union Government support for SSA and RMSA is reflected in the state budgets. In such a situation, in order to capture the total SSA and

RMSA expenditure in a state (i.e. both the Union and State shares combined) for 2012-13 and 2013-14, the data on funds released to 2 3

different states for SSA and RMSA by the Union Government were collected from the SSA portal and the MHRD portal ; and, the states’

budgetary expenditure on SSA and RMSA (reflected in State Budgets)were added to the Union Government releases to arrive at the total

SSA and RMSA expenditure figures. Thus, for 2012-13 and 2013-14, there is some amount of approximation in arriving at the total ‘actual’

expenditure figures for SSA and RMSA, since the state share of the expenditure is actual while the Union share of the expenditure is funds

‘released’. However, for 2014-15 and 2015-16, the figures are entirely from the State Budget documents and hence no such approximation

is involved there. The analysis does not cover budgets for Union Territories.


III. Public Expenditure on School Education as Percent of GDP

Total expenditure by the government in any country, when presented as a proportion of the size of its economy (i.e. the GDP of the

country), reflects the scope of government’s fiscal policy interventions in the economy. Accordingly, international comparisons of public

expenditure, at the aggregate level or for specific sectors, are usually facilitated by figures of public spending by a country as proportions

of GDP of the country.

2.1 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.32.5 2.6 2.7

3.13.3

2.7 2.59 2.53 2.68

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

2010

-11

2011

-12

2012

-13

(RE

)

2013

-14

(BE

)

2012

-13

(Act

ual

)

2013

-14

(Act

ual

)

2014

-15

(RE

)

2015

-16

(BE

)

Figure 1: Trends in Public Expenditure on School Education as Percent of GDP

Note: RE Revised Estimate; BE- Budgeted Estimate, GDP figures are at current market price with 2011-12 as base year; Budgets of UTs are

not covered.

Source: (i) For 2004-05 to 2013-14 (BE): Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education2011-12 to 2013-14, Planning and Monitoring Unit,

Department of Higher Education, MHRD (2014); and

(ii) For 2012-13 (Actuals) to 2015-16 (BE): authors' calculations based on Union and State Budget documents, various years.

11

The latest data provided by MHRD shows that till 2013-14 (BE), 2.9 percent of GDP was allocated for school education, which is a 0.8

percentage point increase from the 2004-05 level. Our analysis has shown the expenditure pattern for last four financial years, i.e. 2012-13

The total school education budget of India, as presented here, is a summation of what all states are spending on school education. The

break-up of the total budgetary expenditure on school education shows a small decline in budgetary expenditure on elementary level (as a

proportion of GDP) between 2012-13 and 2014-15 (RE); there is an increase in the elementary education budget as percent of GDP in 2015-

16. The small increase in the overall school education budget, during 2012-13 to 2015-16 (BE),has been more on account of the increase in

expenditure at the secondary level (see Figure 2).

actuals, 2013-14 actuals, revised estimates for 2014-15 and budgetary allocation for 2015-16 (see box inside figure 1). The figure shows

that in last four years, there is a decline in the overall quantum of budgetary spending / allocation for school education as a proportion of

the country’s GDP. In fact, after the implementation of RTE in 2010, the school education expenditure has increased just by 0.2 percentage

point (from 2.5 percent of GDP in 2009-10 to nearly 2.7 percent of GDP in 2015-16 BE). It seems states have not injected any substantially

higher magnitude of resources for school education even after the enactment of RTE; rather they have mostly followed incremental

budgeting over the last six years. The analysis looks at the school education budget at the disaggregated level to see if this small increase

(of 0.2 percentage point) is due to increase in expenditure at the elementary level or secondary level.

1.53

0.86

2.7

2012-13 (Actual)

1.49

0.87

2.59

2013-14 (Actual)

1.49

0.87

2.53

2014-15 (RE)

2.68

0.9

1.55

2015-16 (BE)

Elementary Eduaction Secondary Eduaction School Eduaction

Figure 2: Public Expenditure on School Education as Percent of GDP by Level of Education

Note: Re Revised estimate; BE- Budgeted Estimate, GDP figures are from CSO in 2011-12 series;

Source: Calculation by authors

12


IV. School Education Budget as Percent of GSDP

Here, an effort is made to see how different states have provisioned budgetary resources for school education (including the central share

of funds for SSA and RMSA) over the last four years.

In Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh (undivided), Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the size of school education

budget as a proportion of GSDP has declined between 2012-13 and 2015-16 (BE). The remaining five general category states have shown

an increase in this expenditure as a proportion of GSDP, with Bihar recording the highest figure (5.6 percent of GSDP for school education

in 2015-16 BE)[see figure 3].

The total budgetary spending / allocation for school education as percent of GSDP in the special category states is relatively higher than

those in general category states; this is primarily because of higher central share of funds and lower magnitudes of GSDP (i.e. smaller sizes

of state economies) in case of the special category states. Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, which are relatively better performing

5.5

4.7

6.2

5.6

4.9

4.6

4.1

5.0

4.5

4.3 4.

9 4.

6

4.6

4.3

3.4 3.7

3.3 3.

9

3.3

3.3

3.1

2.5

3.5

3.6

3.2 3.4 3.5

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.1 2.32.6

2.6

2.5

2.6 2.7

2.0 2.2 2.3

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.1 2.3

2.3 2.5 2.6

2.7

2.2

2.3

2.1

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.7 2.

1 2.

1

2.2 2.3

2.0 2.2 2.4

2.5

2.3

2.1

1.2

1.0 1.2

1.2

Bih

ar

Utt

ar P

rades

h

Chhat

tisg

arh

Odis

ha

Mad

hya

Pra

des

h

Jhar

khan

d

Raj

asth

an

Ker

ala

Wes

t B

engal

Andhra

Pra

des

h

Mah

aras

htr

a

Punja

b

Goa

Kar

nat

aka

Guja

rat

Har

yana

Tam

il N

adu

Del

hi

2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 (RE) 2015-16 (BE)

Figure 3: School Education Budget as Percent of GSDP: General Category States

Note: BE- Budget Estimates, RE- revised Estimates, 2015-16 (BE) includes Supplementary Budget; School education refers to class I-XII.

This includes expenditure by Education Department and all other departments spending on school education at Union and State level on (6-17) age group children

Source: Detailed Demand for Grants of relevant departments from state budget documents, SSA portal, RMSA portal.

13

states in terms of educational achievements are showing a decreasing trend, whereas states like Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura,

Assam, Jammu & Kashmir have increased their spending in school education (as compared to the size of their economies) over the last

four years (see figure 4).

However, we must note here that a state’s budgetary spending/allocation on school education as a proportion of its GSDP shows an

upward bias, in inter-state comparisons, when the state’s GSDP is smaller as compared to other states; this is the case not only with most

of the special category states but also with some of the poorer states in general category. The economically more advanced states, like,

Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra, for example, show relatively lower magnitudes of budgetary spending on school education as proportions of

their GSDP; but these figures translate into much higher levels of per child or per student spending in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra

(relative to the poorer states like Bihar or Uttar Pradesh) due to their GSDPs being much larger (please refer to section VI of this fact sheet

for comparisons at per child level of spending).

6.8

6.4 7.

0 13

.2

Nag

alan

d

Aru

nac

hal

Pra

dse

h

Man

ipur

Miz

oram

Tri

pura

Ass

am

Sikk

im

J&K

Meg

hal

aya

Him

achal

Pra

des

h

Utt

arak

han

d

2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15(RE) 2015-16(BE)

5.8

7.5

9.1

7.2

1.7

6.4

7.8

6.8

8.8

9.0

7.6

6.4

5.6

5.7

5.9

6.2

4.8

4.6 5.

9 5.

6

5.0 5.2

5.1

4.8

3.3

3.6 4.1 5.

1 4.

4 6.

6 4.

1

4.1 4.4

3.6

3.4 3.7

3.8

3.7 3.94.4

Figure 4: School Education Budget as Percent of GSDP: Special Category States

Note: BE- Budget Estimates, RE- revised Estimates, 2015-16 (BE) includes Supplementary Budget; School education refers to class I-XII

This includes expenditure by Education Department and all other departments spending on school education at Union and State level for (6-17) age group children; Budget data

for 2012-13 actual for Manipur was not available;


14


V. School Education Budget as Percent of Total State Budget

The share of school education expenditure in the state’s total expenditure reflects the budgetary priority of the state for school education.

The figure shows that some of the educationally backward states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh

are spending a higher share of the state budget on school education as compared to states like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. However, it

cannot be concluded from this finding alone that these states are investing more on school education on a per child or per student level;

because if the overall public resource envelop of the state (i.e. the total magnitude of State Budget) is small, then even a small increase in

expenditure on school education will show a higher share of expenditure in the total State Budget. However, the fact is that during2012-13

to 2015-16 (BE), except for Delhi and Haryana, in all other general category states, the share of school education in the total State Budget

has declined.

Mah

aras

htr

a

Bih

ar

Utt

ar P

rades

h

Chhat

tisg

arh

Raj

asth

an

Del

hi

Mad

hya

Pra

des

h

Wes

t B

engal

Ker

ala

Har

yana

Guja

rat

Odis

ha

Tam

il N

adu

Jhar

khan

d

Andhra

Pra

des

h

Punja

b

Kar

nat

aka

Goa


19.9

20

.6

17.9

18

23.5

20

.2

18.1

17

.7

22.1

19

.6

15.3

17

.2

22.1

20

.4

18.9

17

18.8

18

.9

16.1

16

.7

13.0

13

.7

14.8

16

.1

20.7

22

.8

14.6

15

.9 18.7

16

.4

13.3

15

.8

16.5

16

.7

15.4

15

.7

14.5

14

.3

15.0

15

.0 16.0

18

.0

14.4

14

.9 17.6

15

.9

13.2

14 14

.7

15.5

13

.8

13.4 15

.5

14.1

13

.4

13.2 15

.9

12.4

10

.4

12.0 13

.5

11.8

10

.9

11.4 14

.0

12.2

14

.2

10.8

10.0

10

.7

8.2

8.3

Figure 5: School Education Budget as Percent of State Budget: General Category States


This includes expenditure by Education Department and all other departments spending on school education at Union and State level on (6-18) age group children;

Source: Detailed Demand for Grants of relevant departments from state budget documents, SSA portal, RMSA portal

15

Unlike general category states, in the special category states the pattern of spending varies a lot across these states. Between 2012-13 and

2015-16 (BE), in states like Assam and Uttarakhand, the share of school education budget in the total budget has declined by more than

five percentage points; on the other hand, Nagaland has increased its share by more than 10 percentage points. However, the important

point to note here is that all the states are spending at least 10 percent of their total budget on school education.

Aru

nac

hal

Pra

dse

h

Ass

am

Him

achal

Pra

des

h

J&K

Man

ipur

Meg

hal

aya

Miz

oram

Nag

alan

d

Sikk

im

Tri

pura

Utt

arak

han

d


10.4

13.7

16.3

10

.2

22.3

21

.5

17.6

17

.7

15.6

17

.0

12.6

15.4

9.1 10

.6

9.7

9.6

3.2

13.0

11

.2

12.7

15.3

13

.9

14.1

12

.2 13.6

13

.7

10.1

10

.4

10.0

12.2

10

.4

11.2

13.4

14

.3

11.2

15

.1

17.2

18.7

14

.2

14.3

20.5

19

.2

16.0

15

.7

Figure 6: School Education Budget as Percent of State Budget: Special Category States




16


VI. Per Child Spending on School Education

Per child spending on school education captures the relative resource availability for the sector taking into account the variations in child

populations across states. It is expected that a state’s planning and budgeting for school education should be based on the number of 6-17

age group children in the state; hence per child allocation / spending does serve as an important pointer on spending across states.


Goa

Ker

ala

Mah

aras

htr

a

Del

hi

Chhat

tisg

arh

Tam

il N

adu

Har

yana

Guja

rat

Punja

b

Odis

ha

Andhra

Pra

des

h

India

Raj

asth

an

Kar

nat

aka

Wes

t B

engal

Mad

hya

Pra

des

h

Utt

ar P

rades

h

Jhar

khan

d

Bih

ar

2745

6 32

162

3074

7 3875

1

1525

0 17

288

1929

5 23

566

1268

5 14

744

1599

0 18

035

1013

7 12

112

1335

0 17

691

1128

1 12

006

1580

5 17

223

1157

8 14

169

1581

2 16

939

1033

9 10

767

1495

1 16

927

1109

0 13

320

1281

2 15

411

1002

4 11

869

1353

3 15

173

8517

92

33

1067

9 14

277

1955

2 16

249

1134

8 13

444

8892

97

29

1070

0 12

717

8037

94

22

1083

5 12

606

9951

12

080

1416

2 12

503

8684

88

63

8728

11

345

8459

99

69

8840

11

330

6420

65

34

6657

91

67

5156

47

44

7645

91

59

5199

52

71

7872

85

26

Figure 7: Per Child Spending on School Education (Rs.): General Category States



Source: Detailed Demand for Grants of relevant departments from state budget documents, SSA portal, RMSA portal, Census 2011, Population Projection for 2012, 2013, 2014 and

2015 by MHRD (Link: http://mhrd.gov.in/statist?field_statistics_category_tid=All&page=2)

17

In the last four years, the per child spending figure has increased in all general category as well as special category states. As the per child

figure depends on the total budgetary spending as well as the number of 6-17 age group children in the respective states, the states with

either a relatively lower child population or a relatively higher amount of allocation are also the states with higher per capita figures in this

asssessment. That is also the reason for high per child spending figures for the north eastern and Himalayan states. In 2015-16 (BE),

except Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh, rest of the general category states have allocated more than Rs. 10,000 per child per annum to

provide education at the school level. It is also important to mention that Goa and Sikkim, two states with the highest per capita income

levels in the country, are also the states with the highest per capita spending on school education.

Sikk

im

Miz

oram

Aru

nac

hal

Pra

des

h

Him

achal

Pra

des

h

Tri

pura

Nag

alan

d

Utt

arak

han

d

Man

ipur

Ass

am

Meg

hal

aya

J&K

2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 (RE) 2015-16 (BE)

3539

9 43

718

5280

9 59

791

2730

1 33

494

3362

0 35

698

1704

6 25

838

3667

3 33

955

2190

5 24

992

2577

1 30

385

1481

5 18

368

2246

8 27

886

1634

5 18

627

2170

9 26

664

1482

5 15

916

1943

1 22

119

3511

35

92 21

241

2136

0

6169

65

64

8605

15

041

1075

9 11

350

2011

2 14

497

8811

10

644

1276

7 13

737

Figure 8: Per Child Spending on School Education (Rs.): Special Category States



Source: Detailed Demand for Grants of relevant departments from state budget documents, SSA portal, RMSA portal, Census 2011, Population Projection for 2012, 2013, 2014 and

2015 by MHRD (Link: http://mhrd.gov.in/statist?field_statistics_category_tid=All&page=2)

18


VII. Per Child Spending vis-à-vis Per Student Spending

Per child expenditure provides a measure of the resources a state is spending per annum on each child of the school going age group,

whereas per student expenditure provides a measure for the resource it is spending on each child enrolled in government and

government-aided schools. In a country like India, where a huge number of children are out of school, it is obvious that the per student

spending figures would be higher than the per child spending. There is a debate over which indicator is more suitable for policy

prescription. Though per student spending represents the unit cost of the prevailing government school education system as a whole, the

comparisons with per child spending figures reflect the degree of inclusivity of the government school education system in a state. In this

section, a comparison has been drawn between per child spending and per student spending across states for the year 2014-15 (RE).

Per student spending (Rs.) Per child spending (Rs.)

Goa

6704

1 30

747

Ker

ala

3881

1 19

295

Ken

dri

ya V

idya

laya

3226

3

Mah

aras

htr

a28

630

1599

0

Tam

il N

adu

2361

7 15

812

Kar

nat

aka

2285

6 14

162

Chhat

tisg

arh

1919

0 15

805

Har

yana

1842

0 14

951

Punja

b17

783

1353

3

Guja

rat

1769

0 12

812

Odis

ha

1533

5 10

679

Del

hi

1509

8 13

350

Andhra

Pra

des

h14

582

1134

8

India

1397

4 10

700

Raj

asth

an13

512

1083

5

Mad

hya

Pra

des

h11

771

8840

Wes

t B

engal

1086

2 87

28

Bih

ar95

83

7872

Jhar

khan

d94

51

7645

Utt

ar P

rades

h76

13

6657

Figure 9: Per Student Spending (Rs.) vs Per Child Spending (Rs.): General Category States (2014-15 RE)

Source: Authors' calculation

19

In all the states, per student spending is higher than per child spending. However, in some of the states like Goa, Kerala, Maharashtra,

Tamil Nadu and Jammu & Kashmir, the difference between the per child and the per student spending is significant. This indicates a gap

between the total population of the 6-17 age group and the total population of the school enrolled children. However, these are the states

where number of out of school children are not very high which implies a demographic change in the 6-17 group population and a

relatively higher percentage of the children going to private schools.

In this context, it is important to note that Kendriya Vidyalayas and Navodaya Vidyalayas, which are considered as ‘model’ schools

financed by the Union Government, also spend much higher amounts on their students (Table 1).

Sikk

im

Miz

oram

Aru

nac

hal

Pra

dse

h

Him

achal

Pra

des

h

Meg

hal

aya

Utt

arak

han

d

Nag

alan

d

Tri

pura

J&K

Man

ipur

Ass

am

5970

7 52

809

4220

2 33

620 4209

8 36

673

3069

7 25

771

2975

4 20

112 2845

2 19

431

2682

3 21

709

2513

2 22

468

2213

6 12

767

1827

3 21

241

1115

2 86

05

Per student spending (Rs.) Per child spending (Rs.)

Figure 10: Per Student Spending vis-à-vis Per Child Spending: Special Category States (2014-15 RE)

Source: Authors' calculation

20

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Kendriya Vidyalaya 24539 29857 32263 32698

Navodaya Vidyalaya 73930 81734 88648 85000

Table 1: Per Student Spending on School Education (Rs.)

Source: MHRD annual report, NVS portal (http://nvshq.org/display_page.php?page=Budget%20and%20Accounts);

KVS portal (http://kvsangathan.nic.in/GeneralDocuments/StudentCost.PDF)


21

VIII. Preliminary Evidence on the Impact of Fourteenth FC Recommendations

Our study has covered the status of the budgetary spending / allocations for school education till 2015-16. However, the year 2015-16 was

a transition year as a number of changes happened in the country’s fiscal architecture that year. On 14th December 2014, the Fourteenth

Finance Commission (FFC) had tabled its report with a recommendation of increasing the states’ share in the divisible pool of central taxes

from 32 percent to 42 percent every year. In a spirit of strengthening cooperative federalism in the country, the Union Government

accepted this recommendation. But this has been accompanied by a reduction in the Union Government’s Plan grants to states. This

change has happened in view of enhanced ‘untied’ resources available with the states. However, in this changed structure, the overall

adequacy of budgetary resources for school education, to a large extent, would be dependent on how much priorities are accorded by

states to this sector in their budgets.

In this section, we present an assessment of the budgetary priority for the entire Education sector (i.e. the combined budget for: school

education, university and higher education, technical education, adult education and literacy etc.) across states during the last three

financial years, which includes the Revised Estimates for 2015-16 and the Budget Estimates for 2016-17. We look at two indicators here:

1. Budget for Education Sector as Percent of Total State Budget; and

2. The Extent of Increase in the Total State Budget vis-à-vis that in Allocation for ‘Education’ Sector from 2014-15 to 2016-17 (BE).

Mah

aras

htr

a

Del

hi

Wes

t B

engal

Ker

ela

Chat

tisg

arh

Har

yana

Andhra

Pra

des

h

Bih

ar

Odis

ha

Raj

asth

an

Tam

il N

adu

Guja

rat

Utt

ar P

rades

h

Kar

nat

aka

Punja

b

Jhar

khan

d

Mad

hya

pra

des

h

2014-15 (A) 2015-16 (RE) 2016-17 (BE)

21 20.1

19 17 17

.1

19 17

14.8

17 17 16

.317

12 1316 18

13.5

16 1815

.316 17 18

.615 15 1514

.4 17 1512.4 16 15.3

15

17 16.8

15 16 1512.5

15 14.5

13 10 11.5

11 10 8.7 11 10 9.2

10

Figure 11: Budget for Education Sector as Percent of Total State Budget: General Category States

Note: BE- Budget Estimates, RE- revised Estimates; this includes expenditure on Education, sports, arts and Culture and technical education.

Source: Compiled from State Budgets for 2016-17.

22

As discussed earlier, 2015-16 was a year of transition in the domain of Centre-State sharing of resources. Hence, a comparison has been

made here between 2014-15 and 2016-17(BE), with regard to the total budgetary resources provided by the states to Education sector.

One can make the assumption that if the extent of increase in the budget for Education sector is significantly higher than the extent of

increase in the overall State Budget during the two year period (i.e. from 2014-5 to 2016-17), it reflects an increase in priority for the sector

in the state concerned in the post FFC recommendations phase.

Figure 11 and figure 12 together portray a mixed picture for the trend in the budgetary priority for Education sector across states.

Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh are the four states, where Education sector has witnessed a higher budgetary priority in

the last two State Budgets. On the other hand, we do not find any such encouraging trend of a significant increase in the absolute amount

of budget allocation for the Education sector in the last two State Budgets in the other general category states.

% change in total State Budget in 2016-17 (BE) over 2014-15 % change in Budget for education sector in 2016-17 (BE) over 2014-15

288

2612

26 19 1930 4222 1828

4731 3136 3032

5335 41 37

6547 4848 47

57 5166 59

7451

107

Guja

rat

Kar

nat

aka

Tam

il N

adu

Mah

aras

htr

a

Andhra

Pra

des

h

Punja

b

Raj

asth

an

Ker

ela

Wes

t B

engal

Bih

ar

Odis

ha

Har

yana

Mad

hya

Pra

des

h

Utt

ar P

rades

h

Del

hi

Jhar

khan

d

Chat

tisg

arh

Figure 12: Extent of Increase in the Total State Budget and the Allocation for 'Education' Sector (from 2014-15 to 2016-17 BE)

Note: BE- Budget Estimates, RE- revised Estimates, This includes expenditure on Education, sports, arts and Culture and technical education;

Source: State Budgets for 2016-17


23

IX. Key Findings:• India's total public expenditure on school education as percentage of GDP has increased gradually overtime. It was 2.1 percent of GDP in

2004-05 and had reached 2.7 percent of GDP in 2012-13, before declining to 2.53 percent of GDP in 2014-15 (RE). It revived to 2.7 percent of GDP in 2015-16 (BE). Since 2010, in the post RTE Act phase, i.e. in the last four financial years, the budgetary expenditure on school education has increased by only 0.2 percentage point of GDP.

• Among the 18 'general' category states, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh (undivided), Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are the states, where the school education budget as a proportion of the GSDP has declined between 2012-13 and 2015-16 (BE). In the remaining 'general' category states, the budgetary expenditure on school education as percent of GSDP has shown an increase during these four years, with Bihar recording the highest figure of 5.6 percent of GSDP allocated for school education in 2015-16 (BE).

• In the 'special' category states, the budgetary expenditure on school education as percent of GSDP is relatively higher in comparison to general category states mainly due to the smaller size of their state economies and higher central shares of funding. The north eastern states are spending more than the Himalayan states. In the last four years, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Assam and Jammu & Kashmir have increased their spending on school education as proportions of their GSDP.

• Between 2012-13 and 2015-16(BE), except Delhi and Haryana, in all other general category states, the share of school education in the total state budget has declined. The picture is different for special category states, as all these states are spending at least 10 percent of their total state budget on school education. Between 2012-13 and 2015-16(BE), in states like Assam and Uttarakhand, the share of school education budget in the total budget has declined by more than five percentage points, whereas Nagaland has increased its share by more than 10 percentage points.

• Value of both the indicators - per child spending and per student spending– varies across states. However, in all the 30 states, per student spending is higher than per child spending. In the case of some of the states like Goa, Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Jammu & Kashmir, the difference between per student and per child spending is significant. While Goa spends the highest amount of Rs. 67041 per student per annum, it is Rs. 7613 in Uttar Pradesh. A similar picture is seen in case of per child spending, where for the highest spending State, Goa, the amount is Rs. 30747, it is only Rs. 6657 in Uttar Pradesh.It is important to note that Kendriya Vidyalayas and Navodaya Vidyalayas, which are considered as 'model' schools financed by the Union Government, also spend much higher amounts on their students.

• In Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, the Education sector has been accorded a higher priority in the last two State Budgets (i.e. for 2015-16 and 2016-17); we do not find any such encouraging trend of a significant increase in the absolute amount of budget allocation for the Education sector in the last two State Budgets in the other general category states.

References:

Education Commission (1966): Education and National Development (New Delhi: Ministry of Education),(Also known as Kothari

Commission)

Government of India (1997): Report of the Committee of State Education Ministers on Implementation of the Proposal to Make Elementary

Education a Fundamental Right (also known as Saikia Committee Report of 1996), Department of Education(New Delhi: Ministry of

Human Resource Development)

Government of India (1998): National Policy on Education 1986,Departmentof Education (New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource

Development).

Government of India (1999): Expert Group Report on Financial Requirements for Making Elementary Education a Fundamental Right (also

known as Tapas Majumdar Committee Report of 1999), Department of Education (New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development)

Government of India (2005): Report of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE): Committee on Free and Compulsory Education

Bill and Other Issues Related to Elementary Education, June (New Delhi: Ministry of HRD)

Jain, Pankaj. J. S & Ravindra H Dholakia (2009):’ Feasibility of Implementation of Right to Education Act, Economic and Political Weekly,

vol xiiv no 25, June 20

Mehrotra, Santosh (2012): “The cost and financing of the right to education in India: Can we fill the financing gap?”, International Journal

of Educational Development 32(1):65–71, January

Ministry of Finance (2014): “‘Report of the Fourteenth Finance Commission”, Directorate of Economic affairs, Government of India, 14th

December

NITI Aayog (2015). “Report of the sub-group of chief ministers on rationalisation of centrally sponsored schemes”, Government of India,

October

Planning Commission (2010): “Report of the Working Group on Elementary Education Literacy, 12th Five Year Plan, 2012-17”,

Government of India

24

Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability

B-7 Extn/110A (Ground Floor) Harsukh MargSafdarjung Enclave, New Delhi – 110029, India

Tel: +91 (11) 4920 0400, 4050 4846

Email: [email protected]

CRY – Child Rights and You,

189/A Anand Estate, Sane Guruji Marg, Mumbai – 400 011

E-Mail : [email protected]

Tel : 022- 23063647/3651/1740, 022-23098324/6472/6845