xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20049999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00374
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 12, no. 25 (June 13, 2004).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c June 13, 2004
Growth and financing of elementary education in Uttar Pradesh : a province in India / P. Geetha Rani.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 12issue 25series Year mods:caption 20042004Month June6Day 1313mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2004-06-13
1 of 28 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES EPAA is a project of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education Volume 12 Number 25June 13, 2004ISSN 1068-2341Growth and Financing of Elementary Education in Utt ar Pradesh: A Province in India P. Geetha Rani National Institute of Educational Planning & Admini stration New Delhi, IndiaCitation: Rani, P. G., (2004, June 13). Growth and financing of elementary education in Uttar Pradesh: A province in India. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12 (25). Retrieved [Date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epa a/v12n25/.AbstractThe present article attempts to study financing pat terns of elementary education in Uttar Pradesh. A review of educational development in the state reveals that the goal of u niversalizing elementary education in a resource-poor state seems to be elusive in the near future. Neither the financing p attern of education per se nor elementary education in partic ular is conducive to achieving the target of universal elem entary education. The magnitude of out-of-school children (leaving or dropped-out children) vis--vis the resources alloc ated toward elementary education provides a gloomy picture in t he state. Financing the additional resources required to univ ersalize elementary education in the state would require sig nificant reallocations in overall expenditure with federal a ssistance, since the fiscal situation in Uttar Pradesh is highly imb alanced. The state and central government should bear the entire responsibility of funding and ensure the twin principles of equity and efficiency in the public education system in the state. This r equires an indomitable political commitment in terms of reorie ntation of spending priorities and improving the efficiency of resource use in the state. This study reaffirms that the goal of un iversal elementary education could become a reality only if there is a joint commitment between the federal and state polities.Introduction
2 of 28 Investment in basic education contributes immense o f benefits and further perpetuates the benefits into the future generations. Benefits of education include the economic and social returns; decline in poverty and income distribution; fertility, populat ion and health outcomes; political and economic development; dynamic externalities associated with education and above all better quality of life. The importance and hence the provision of free and comp ulsory elementary education is well recognized in the international and national arena. At the intern ational level, in Article 26 of Universal Declarati on of Human Rights, (UN,1950); Articles 13 and 14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) and Article 28 of the Conven tion on the Rights of the Child(1989) (Note 1) Human capital revolution around 1960s, World Confer ence on Education For All at Jomtien in 1990 and adoption of World Declaration on Education for All (EFA) in the same conference and its assessment at Dakar in 2000 have well established t he importance of education in the social, economic and political development of a nation.The Government of India in its preamble in the Const itution under Article 45, made a resolution to provide free and compulsory education up to the age of 14 within a period of 10 years. The National Policy on Education, 1986 and the Programme of Acti on in 1992 reiterated the Constitutional Directive that free and compulsory education of satisfactory quality be provided to children up to the age of 14 years before the 21st century. Though this target p eriod has been revised time and again, recently the bill on Elementary Education as a Fundamental Right has been passed in the parliament in its 93rd Amendment. Elementary education as a fundamental ri ght underlines the paramount significance of the Central government in achieving universal eleme ntary education. In the educational planning and development strateg y, though the underlying principles are promoting regional equity and efficiency in the system, still there exists a great deal of variation in the educ ational development across states. In the continuum, at one end, we have Bihar with the lowest literacy rates (47 percent in 2001 census) and on the other Kerala with near 100 percent literacy rates (91 percent i n 2001 census). Few states, especially Himachal Prade sh and Tamil Nadu, exhibit outstanding success in educational development within a short time span Himachal Pradesh is one of the educationally developed states after Kerala, Goa and Maharashtra a ccording to the 2001 census. The progress in educational development is a recent phenomenon in t his state since the 1980s, and it progressed at a much faster rate than other states. On the contrary, experience of economically and educationally least developed and at the same time one of the mos t populous and geographically largest, Uttar Pradesh provides a hard reality of an Indian state. It is in this light, the causes for such backwardn ess in the educational development of Uttat Pradesh des erve to be studied. The present study examines a very specific aspect, viz., that of financing eleme ntary education in Uttar Pradesh, one of the import ant determinants in achieving universal elementary educ ation. It is to be noted that there are number of other equally important factors which also determin e the educational progress in a state. The present study attempts to examine major issues on financing elementary education in Uttar Pradesh in the recent two decades, from 1980-81 to 1999-2000. The scheme of the study is as follows: First a brief account of the socio economi c development and a review of educational development in the state is presented. Then the dis cussion brings out the importance of education in the overall state plan and non-plan resources per se The next section is devoted to the analysis on financing elementary education in particular, besid es the role of central government in and external a id to financing elementary education. The last section provides the concluding remarks. The information for the study is culled from various sources, viz, Analysis of budgeted expenditure on Education and Selected Educational Statistics published by MHRD, state five-year plan documents, national and state statistical abstracts, and the like.BackgroundUttar Pradesh is one of the least developed states in India with the lowest per capita income of Rs.7743 in 1996-97. Only three states (Assam, Orissa and Bihar) have a lower per capita income than Uttar Pradesh. Economic growth has decelerated in U ttar Pradesh since 1991, while growth accelerated in other states of India. The gap betwe en Uttar Pradesh and the rest of India widened substantially in the 1990s as annual growth in percapita income slowed down to 1.2 percent in Uttar Pradesh (Ahluwalia, 2000). Poverty and unemployment are the two chronic problems of the state. Though the percent of population living below the p overty line in terms of head count ratios has come down, from 45 per cent in 1987-88 to 31 per cent in 1999-00 (Note 2) the labour force participation in
3 of 28 secondary and tertiary sectors is limited due to lo w literacy levels of the population. In the primary sector, the inherent problems of low levels of prod uctivity and high levels of under employment persis t. Severe fiscal crises hinder the state from investin g enough to provide economic growth and improve social conditions. The overall fiscal deficit incre ased to a high of 7.7 percent of gross State Domest ic Product (SDP) in 1998-99, among the highest across India. The share of debt service in total state revenues has increased from 13 percent in 1985-86 t o more than 39 percent in 1998-99. Salaries, pensions, and interest payments absorbed more than three-quarters of the total revenues in 1998-99. Poor governance has resulted in a narrowing of the tax base (a 25 percent decline in the number of taxpayers between 1993 and 1997), and unsustainable growth in the governmentÂ’s wage bill. High and growing deficits for more than a decade, together w ith the slow pace of economic growth, have resulted in an unsustainable level of indebtedness in the state (World Bank, 2000). Social indicators for the state are pitiful. Life e xpectancy at birth (1993-97) is 57.6 years and rema ins second from the bottom compared to all other states ; IMR in 1999 was 84 and stood third from the bottom; maternal mortality rate per 100,000 live bi rths in 1998 was 707 worst among all states (Note 3) ; the death rate in 1999 was second highest; the bi rth rate was the highest at 32.8 in 1999 (Note 4) Uttar Pradesh is one of the most populous states in the country, and there are no signs of reducing th e rate of growth of population in the state. For thre e decades from 1971 to 2001, the rate of growth of population was persistently 2.5 per cent per annum, indicating that the state is still in its primitiv e stages of demographic transition. This could be mai nly on account of low levels of education and restricted role of women in society besides the poo r functioning of public services (see, Dreze and Gazder, 1996, Kurian, 2000). Crude Birth Rate and Infant Mortality Rate by Natural Divisions in Uttar Pradesh RegionCBRIMR Uttaranchal23.766.1 Eastern33.877.7 Southern34.082.2 Central34.196.7 Western36.297.2 Source: SRS 2000 Data, ORGThe Education Scenario in Uttar PradeshUttar Pradesh is one of the most educationally back ward states in India with 43 per cent of the population as non-literate according to the 2001 ce nsus. The progress in literacy rates has been at a snailÂ’s pace in the state for three decades from 19 61 to 1981 as can be seen from Table 1. Only in the previous two decades were there signs of improvemen t in literacy rates. The gender gap in literacy rates exhibits the extent of deprivation of women e ducation in the state. In the knowledge based era o f the 21st century not even half of the female popula tion is literate. Table 1 Literacy Rates in Uttar Pradesh MaleFemalePerson (Note 5) Gender Gap 196132.638.4321.1324.20197136.6912.4625.4424.23198138.914.4227.424.48
4 of 28 199154.8224.3740.7130.45200170.2342.9857.3627.25 Source: Census of India. Elementary educational institutions in the state at the time of independence numbered 38,433 and increased to 118,642 in 1999-2000, about three and a half times. Children enrolled in elementary schools were 30.8 lakhs (a Â“lakhÂ” is 100,000) in 19 50-51 and increased to 166 lakhs in 1999-2000, a five fold increase. Though, it has increased over a long period of time, in recent decades, there is a decline in the children enrolled in primary and upp er primary levels of education as can be seen from the simple growth rates estimated for the period 19 80-2000 as a whole and between the decades 1980s and 1990s, (see Table 2). Table 2 Growth Rates (Note 6) in Elementary Educational Institutions in Uttar Prade sh Institutions EnrollmentTeachers PryUPElem.PryUPElem.PryUPElem. 1980-19900.662.310.953.0210.334.280.954.631.831991-20002.803.882.98-0.68-0.85-0.712.211.081.911980-20001.592.121.682.164.042.48126.96.36.199 Source: Estimated based on Selected Educational Sta tistics That the growth rate in enrollment is negative for the latest decade is a cause for concern. But, grow th in the number of teachers in elementary education h as been quite high, from 84,804 teachers in 1950-51 to a five fold increase of 426,680 teachers Though, growth in teachers is almost in pace with increase in enrollment over the long period, if we closely look at the growth rates in enrollment and teachers in 1980s and 1990s, it can be noticed that the growth in number of teachers is positive in th e 1990s as against the negative growth rate in enroll ment both in primary and upper primary levels. Growth rates indicate that though there have been ef forts to employ teachers, but no such effort was generated to increase the enrollment of the childre n. Table 3 Gross Enrollment Ratio in Elementary Educational Instit utions in Uttar Pradesh Year PrimaryUpper Primary BoysGirlsPersonBoysGirlsPerson 1980-8190.845.768.954.519.337.51985-8686.450.369.456.722.440.71990-9189.151.071.163.225.645.51991-92104.966.986.967.933.451.61992-93103.772.088.673.435.755.61993-94103.972.889.372.235.455.01994-95105.172.789.873.135.355.41995-96104.372.089.172.334.954.71996-9785.259.973.462.432.649.01997-9874.148.962.350.327.740.0
5 of 28 1998-9976.049.363.448.926.438.61999-0078.450.265.048.725.838.1 Source: Selected Educational Statistics, various is sues This is because the teachers and the teacher unions are vocal in the polity (Muazzmil and Kingdon,2001). It is unfortunate that the strength of teachers has not been used to universalize in a broader perspective for the development of educatio n. Gross enrollment ratio as well suggests that there has been a drastic decline in the ratio in re cent years. The decline is sharp from 1996-97 onwards, in both boys and girls and also in primary and upper primary enrollment ratios as shown in Table 3 (Note 7) In the year 1999-2000, 25 per cent of the boys an d 50 per cent of the girls of the eligible age group children are not enrolled in any schools at the primary level. The situation is far bleak at the upper primary level that 50 per cent o f the boys and 75 per cent of the girls are not enrolled at upper primary level. Table 4 Children Enrolled in Different Management by Region in 1993 (in %) PrimaryGovernment*Private AidedPrivate UnaidedAll (i n lakhs) Rural188.8.131.5203.4Urban35.910.753.427.0Total77.84.218.0130.5 Upper Primary Rural39.532.228.330.7Urban22.847.529.614.7Total184.108.40.2065.4 Includes local bodies; Source: NCERT(1998), Vol.II Enrollment in Schools. It is often argued that the decline in enrollment ( which corresponds to enrollment in government and private aided schools) might be on account of incre asing numbers of children enrolled in private unaided schools. However, it can be seen in Table 4 that, in the early 1990s enrollment in government / local bodies schools is predominant in the state. Enrollment in private unaided schools is a phenomenon only in the urban area. However, the PROB E (1999) survey found that even in rural areas the children, particularly males, are increas ingly enrolled in private unaided schools. The information from the household surveys on atten dance rates suggests an improvement in the middle and late 1990s as shown in Table 5. Attendan ce rate is a better indicator when there is a large gap between children enrolled and actually attendin g schools. Table 5 Attendance Rates in Uttar Pradesh RuralUrbanTotal MaleFemaleAllMaleFemaleAll Primary(1995-96) (Note 8) 67495973697261 Upp.pry (1995-96)77466380727666Primary(1998-99)83717887838579Upp. Pry (1998-99)80577081808172 Source: NSSO(1998), pp.A41-47 correspond to year 199 5-96; IIPS(2001) NFHS Â–II; 1998-99 Though there has been improvement in the attendance rates, still there is a huge number of children
6 of 28 dropping out. The rate of drop-out is higher among girls in primary and elementary levels of education and it has been increasing over the years (see Tabl e 6). Table 6 Drop-out Rates in Uttar Pradesh 199719981999-00 TotalGirlsTotalGirlsTotalGirls Primary49.8555.9849.8857.4956.6462.16 Elementary52.4557.2853.1157.953.0157.94 Source: Selected Educational Statistics, various ye ars. While investigating the relationship between work a nd education of children in two villages of Uttar Pradesh, Lieten (2000) found that the drop-out fact or is more likely to be associated with push factor s internal to the school than to the pull factors ema nating from the labour market. In addition to the children who dropped out, 1.6 crores (a Â“croreÂ” equ als 10 Million) children in the age group 6-14 were never enrolled in school. Percentages of out-of-sch ool children estimated based on the 1991 Census in Uttar Pradesh in the age group 6-11 is 63 per ce nt and in the age group 11 Â–14 is 47 percent as against 48 and 36 percent for the country (Note 9) It is a challenge for the state as well as for th e central government to bring these out-of-school chi ldren into schools and retain them in schools. Then only can the unaccomplished goal of universalizing elementary education can become a reality. The recent NFHS survey identified that 38 per cent of t he urban male never enrolled children cited that it costs too much to enroll in schools. As noted earli er, the twin chronic problems of poverty and unemployment ill-resulted in children never enrolle d and even if enrolled drop out due to the grip of the vicious circle of poverty and child labour combined with poor quality of schooling. The glaring fact f rom this quick review is that the goal of universalizin g elementary education in a resource poor state seems to be elusive in the near future. The goal co uld become a reality only if there is indomitable a nd concomitant will between the federal polities combi ned with social mobilization within the state.Public Expenditure on Education in Uttar PradeshThe role of State assumes paramount significance in reaching the goal of providing free and compulsory education up to the age of 14. The amoun t of resources required for accomplishing the unfinished agenda remains high. This section highli ghts the major issues relating to financing education in Uttar Pradesh, viz., the relative impo rtance of education in the overall economic development of the state in terms of planned and no n-planned expenditures; the relative share of education expenditure in planned and non-planned ac counts, and education and other departmentsÂ’ contribution to education focusing the period from 1980-81 to 1999-2000. In India, at the central and state level, it is the task of the Planning Commission and state planning boards at the state level to allocate planned resou rces to various sectors of the economy. The maintenance of the investment made in the planning framework is taken care of by another statutory body, namely the finance commission. The share of p lan education expenditure in the total plan expenditure of the state and similarly the share of non-plan education expenditure in the total non-pl an expenditure is reported in Table 7 for selected yea rs. In the total plan expenditure of the state governme nt, from 4 to 14 per cent of expenditure is allocat ed to education expenditure in the plan account. In th e early 1980s, the share of plan expenditure was in single digit and improved in the late 1980s and aga in declined drastically in the beginning of 1990s. It could be mainly on account of the structural adjust ment program, which began in the 1990s. From the middle of 1990s onwards, there has been improvement in the plan allocation for expenditure on education. However, the major problem in the state is low economic growth, 4 per cent growth of SDP (1.2 per cent growth of per capita SDP) and hence t he overall resources available within the state its elf are meager. Table 7 Share of Plan and Non-plan Education Expenditure in
7 of 28 Total Plan and Non-plan Expenditures Year % of edn plan to state plan % of edn non planto state non plan 81-825.024.582-837.124.584-857.524.789-9013.1126.790-917.3325.9492-934.422.6493-945.2620.094-9510.9120.795-9614.0119.8596-9712.6921.3897-9812.1519.63 98-9910.0420.14 Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure in the Edu cation Sector, MHRD, various years. In the non-plan account, the share of education exp enditure fluctuates from 20 to 25 percent in the state during the last two decades. Though, in the r ecent finance commissions, the non-performing states like Uttar Pradesh have been allocated a hig her share of transfers (based on backwardness index, infrastructure index, etc.), given the exten t of backwardness and dysfunctional governance in the state makes it more difficult for any signs of improvement and development in the state. Table 8 Share of Expenditure on Education by Department of Edu cation & Other Departments in Uttar Pradesh Year Education deptOther deptTotal (in %)(Rs.in Crs) 1980-8191.708.30378.301985-8689.7810.22855.731990-9190.609.402295.681991-9288.6011.402240.391992-9388.8011.202783.901993-9487.8512.152639.351994-9588.4711.533302.871995-9690.129.884400.301996-9786.3813.624426.001997-9893.376.634431.311998-9985.3812.326471.52 1999-0085.3814.626873.10 2000-01(B)91.688.324241.11 Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure in the Edu cation Sector, MHRD, various years.
8 of 28 Education expenditures primarily flow from the educ ation department of the government. In addition, other departments such as Ministry of Health, Minis try of Welfare, etc., spend on education. About 10 to 12 percent of the total expenditures on educatio n flow from other departments (see Table 8). The problem among the developing countries is that the majority of expenditures is allocated for non-plan, i.e., salary and other expenditure as edu cation is predominantly a labour-intensive sector. In this resource-starved state as well, about 10 perce nt of the expenditure on educationaccount for developmental activity, viz., building of schools, acquiring additional class rooms, infrastructure, e tc. The major share of the expenditure is taken away fo r the nondevelopmental activity of maintenance of the system. Growth rates in both plan and non-pla n expenditures in the 1980s are higher than in the 1990s. Table 9 Share of Plan and Non-plan Expenditure on Education i n Uttar Pradesh Year PlanNon-planTotal (in %)(Rs.in Crs) 1980-814.2295.78346.921985-866.0593.95768.271990-917.4692.542079.841991-928.2391.771984.951992-933.9196.092472.041993-945.1894.822318.671994-9510.3189.692922.191995-9614.5985.413965.371996-9710.8589.153823.241997-989.7890.224137.511998-996.8693.145674.42 1999-0010.1089.905868.25 2000-01(B)13.1486.863888.06 Growth rates 80-81 to 89-9028.0217.1317.8890-91 to 00-0117.8210.3010.9080-81 to 00-0118.9315.1815.49 Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure in the Edu cation Sector, MHRD, various years. This is against the experience of some of the other states; for example, for Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu in the 1990s, the growth of plan expenditures in total expenditure are much higher. It is because plan funding from Center has increased after adoption of National Policy on Education 1986 which gave a meaningful definition t o the concurrency of education enshrined in the Constitution through its 42nd amendment. But in Utt ar Pradesh even with central funds, the growth rates in plan expenditures during 1990s are less co mpared to 1980s. This indicates that the state funds are not coming forward even when there is cen tral support, (see, Bashir, 2000). This unambiguously illustrates the stateÂ’s lack of finan cial commitment to education.Allocation of ResourcesYet another important dimension of financing educat ion is looking at the allocation of resources to education. There are three important aspects relati ng to allocation of resources to education: a)
9 of 28 allocation of resources to education vis--vis othe r sectors, referred as inter-sectoral allocation of resources; b) intra-sectoral allocation of resource s within education, i.e., allocation to different l evels of education; and c) inter-functional allocation of re sources to different activities such as teaching, administration, student welfare, etc. (Tilak, 2002) Inter-sectoral allocation of resourcesInter-sectoral allocation of resources is examined by looking at a couple of important indictors, viz. share of education expenditure in total income of t he state and share of education expenditure in tota l revenue expenditure in Uttar Pradesh. Share of educ ation expenditure in SDP reflects the relative priority given to education in the state economy. U ttar Pradesh allocated on average 3.4 percent during 1980s and increased this amount to 4.5 perce nt in the 1990s, (see Table 10). In a resource poor state, even a lesser expenditure would show a higher share as income itself is growing at a slower rate. The data in Table 10 suggest that ther e is fluctuation in both the share of SDP and share of revenue budget in the state. Table 10 Share of Total Education Expenditure in SDP and State Budget in Uttar Pradesh Year% of SDP% of State Budget 1980-812.7022.041985-863.4723.11 Average3.4222.63 1990-914.6424.071991-923.9221.541992-934.4921.941993-943.7819.871994-954.1721.411995-964.9725.061996-974.3023.041997-983.9219.971998-995.7224.82 1999-004.1722.48 2000-01(B)3.9319.66 Average 4.3622.17 The national share of education expenditure to GDP w as around 3.4 per cent in 1999-00; thus, neither Uttar Pradesh nor the nation has followed the recom mendations of Education Commission(1966) which fixed a target of 6 percent of GDP to investme nt in education from public exchequer by 1986. Table 11 Share of Education Expenditure in State Domestic Produ ct (SDP) & State Budget in Major States in India in 1989-90 and 1997-98 1989-90 1997-98 States% of SDP % of Budget % of SDP*% of Budget Andhra Pradesh4.624.52.916.6
10 of 28 Assam6.025.59.133.4Bihar6.328.16.929.8Gujarat4.324.34.021.2Haryana3.118.64.014.7Himachal Pradesh8.8220.127.116.11Karanaka4.322.13.521.8Kerala6.530.44.423.9Maharashtra5.024.22.823.9Madhya Pradesh18.104.22.168.4Orissa5.424.25.924.4Punjab3.522.73.617.2Rajsathan5.326.55.325.2Tamil Nadu5.023.74.122.2Uttar Pradesh4.624.04.020.0West Bengal5.430.44.624.1India4.913.73.913.2 Source: Analysis for Budgeted Expenditure on Educat ion, 1997-98 to 1999-2000. Share of education expenditure in SDP in Uttar Prad esh vis--vis other major states in the country in the year 1989-90 suggests that only four states (Ma dhya Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Gujarat) allocated a lesser share of SDP than Uttar Pradesh (see Table 11). But in 1997-98, the allocation marginally declined. Education expenditure as perce nt of revenue expenditure indicates the relative priority given to education in the government budge t. The share ranges between 19 and 25 percent in Uttar Pradesh. This share is much less than Kerala, which allocates 30 and 24 percent of revenue expenditure to education in 1989-90 and 1997-98, re spectively, (see Table 11). Uttar Pradesh is placed at the middle and allocated 24 per cent duri ng both periods. Only three states Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab allocated lesser government expe nditure on education than Uttar Pradesh. Expenditures on education indicate to what extent t he education sector is accorded importance in the five year plans of a state. The inter-sectoral allo cation in the five year plans in the state exhibits three phases, (see Table 12). The first phase consists of the period from first to third plan, where allocat ion of resources to the education sector ranged between 6 to 13 percent in the total plan expenditures. The second phase consists of (declining period) fro m annual plans to the seventh plan, the resources allocated to education ranged between 3 to 6 percen t of the total plan expenditures. At the national level and many of the educationally progressing sta tes like Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, the increasing plan allocation could be found from the sixth plan onwards, while such a trend seems evident in Uttar Pradesh only from the annual plans (1990-1992) truly from eight plan onwards. This is the third phase of increasing trend of resources al located to education. Table 12 Inter-Sectoral Allocation in Five-Year Plans in Uttar P radesh (in%) I planII planIII plan Annual plansIV planV planVI planVII plan Annual plansVIII plan Agriculture & allied25.530.729.329.320.714.613.719. 117.721.6 Irrigation, flood control & energy36.635.23949.954.257.849.441.248.53 7.6 Industry & minerals22.214.171.124126.96.36.199.82.952.7Transport & comm.4.56.6188.8.131.520.310.78.711.7
11 of 28 Social Sector29.216.315.013.014.812.9184.108.40.2064 .8 Education12.86.18.02.220.127.116.11.06.25.3Health18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.84.02.6Total (Rs. In crs)153233560455116529096594119486903 21679 Source: Various State Plan Documents, Uttar Pradesh It can be noted that Uttar Pradesh is lagging behin d by fifteen years that of the educationally progressive states in terms of the plan resource al located to education. It is because though earlier plan documents commit for educational development i n the state, the same does not get reflected in the resource allocation under five year plans. It i s more important to maintain and further enhance th e plan resources for education in the tenth plan as w ell. Intra-sectoral allocationAllocation of resources within education sectors re flects the relative priorities assigned to differen t levels of education. The educationally backward sta te needs to allocate a higher share to elementary education, which is found to be true in the state u nder various five year plans. But the disturbing tr end is that it fluctuates a great deal over various pla ns (see Table 13). In the first plan, the highest s hare of 70 percent of the total expenditure on education wa s spent on elementary education. This has been fluctuating and had fallen to a drastic low level o f 42 percent in sixth plan. This is against the tre nd observed at the national level and in many of the e ducationally progressing states. In the eighth plan the share touches 60 per cent of the total expendit ure, which again declines to 50 per cent in the nin th plan. (Note 10) Table 13 Intra-sectoral Allocation of Plan Expenditure in Educa tion in India in the Five-Year Plans ElementarySecondaryHigherOthers Total (Rs. In lakhs) % of Plan Education Expenditure in Total Plan Expenditures I plan7072201807 12.8 II plan59211281431 6.1 III plan66171164471 8.0 Annual plans59191921231 2.7 IV plan66171155701 5.6 V plan53281369404 3.7 VI plan423514921483 3.3 VII plan #562116748225 4.0 VIII plan*6119155115775 5.3 # Up to 1983-84, actual expenditure and 1984-85 Â– a nticipated expenditure; outlay Source: Various State Plan Documents, Uttar Pradesh The pattern of resources allocated under various pl ans for overall education and for elementary education in the state leaves much to be desired. T he ray of hope visible in the eighth plan for education seems to disappear in the reduced allocat ions towards elementary education in the ninth plan. The financing pattern of education in Uttar Pradesh in terms of any of the indicators (viz., share of plan education expenditures to total plan expenditures, share of non-plan education expenditures to total
12 of 28 non-plan expenditures, share of education and other departments in education expenditures, share of education expenditures in SDP and revenue expenditu res, resource allocation under various five year plans and for elementary education) exhibits a pess imistic outlook. The magnitude of out-of-school children besides the dropped-out children vis--vis the resource allocated toward education in terms o f any of the indicators provides a gloomy picture in the state.Financing Elementary Education in Uttar Pradesh Financing elementary education in Uttar Pradesh can be analysed by examining the relative importance given to elementary education in stateÂ’s income, government budget expenditure and in the total education expenditure covering a period o f about two decades from 1980-81 to 1999-00. It can be observed from Table 14 that around 1.2 to 2. 4 percent of the State domestic product is allocated for elementary education over a period of 20 years. To bring back the 2 crores of out-of-school children into schools, the resource a llocation to elementary education needs to be enhanced. The relative importance of elementary edu cation in the state budget ranges from 8 to 13 percent. However, there is fluctuation among variou s years specifically in the period of 1990s, which could be attributable to its slow growth of income and fiscal crisis and to some extent the impact of structural adjustment program and economic reforms.As far as the share of elementary education expendi ture in the total expenditure on education is concerned, it ranges from 39 to 64 percent in the s tate. In many years, it is between 40 to 50 percent In the 1990s, when there was greater mobilization o f resources and various movements towards achieving the goals of education for all, the norm in many states with regard to intra-sectoral alloca tion for elementary education was 60 percent. In Uttar P radesh, the share of elementary education was only 49 percent even in 1998-99. Table 14 Budget Expenditure on Elementary Education as Percent of SDP, Revenue Expenditure & Total Expenditure on Education in Uttar Pradesh Year% of SDP% of rev expr % ele in total edn* 1980-811.229.9945.321981-821.259.8844.371982-831.339.8841.741983-841.369.6041.831984-851.5710.2342.671985-861.5410.2644.411986-871.6310.2164.111987-881.508.9939.521988-891.7910.4845.081989-902.4313.2150.101990-912.4512.7052.751991-921.8610.2547.581992-931.758.5639.001993-941.608.4142.311994-951.809.2343.091995-962.1010.6142.32
13 of 28 1996-972.0711.0948.141997-981.9910.1550.821998-992.8212.2349.27 1999-001.9010.2545.57 2000-01(B)1.929.6174.63 Includes expenditure on education by department of education and other departments. Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure in the Edu cation Sector, MHRD, various years. Figure 1. Share of elementary expenditures to total edu cation expenditures in major states in India in 1998-99. These figures confirm that the resource poor state is spending much less on elementary education than the national average. It indicates the need fo r a larger presence of the central government in resource sharing specially in a poor state like Utt ar Pradesh, which is not able to generate sufficien t resources to meet the challenges of universalizing elementary education. However, in the recent years, there have been efforts made by the state to allocate more resources to elementary education vis--vis other major states in India (see Figure 1 ). Given the enormous number of out-of-school children in the state, the financial commitment nee ds to be greater than in other states and also sustained for a longer time.The share of plan expenditure in elementary educati on ranges from 3 to 13 percent of total expenditures, (see Table 15). Plan expenditures gre w at a faster rate than non-plan expenditures in the 1980s than 1990s. Table 15 Plan, Non-plan and Per Student Budget Expenditure on Elementary Education in Uttar Pradesh Year PlanNon-planElementary Expenditure (Rs. In lakhs) Per Student Elem. Expr. (in %)(In current prices)(in real prices) Current prices Constant prices 1980-813.3396.6717145171451581581981-824.3895.6218829179681651571982-834.4895.5223360205321901671983-844.7895.2226501218112031671984-857.7792.233369425577245186
14 of 28 1985-866.5093.5038002261442901991986-877.0392.9744401288643051981987-887.5092.5045653277172981811988-8911.1288.8865549374644352491989-9013.0886.92101083521656253221990-918.3491.66121094557327653521991-928.0691.94106591426195822331992-934.8595.15108576404505682121993-946.3093.70111676378815721941994-955.6994.31142333437427172201995-9612.8487.16186218524679382641996-9713.5286.482130655548110732791997-9812.9587.052252165448913973381998-998.0991.91318874771492032492 1999-0014.3385.67313235757852015487 2000-01(B)11.9288.0831650676636nana Growth rates 80-81 to 89-9037.1318.5219.7411.2014.826.6490-91 to 99-0022.2412.8913.736.3713.735.0280-81 to 99-0022.4716.0316.537.4914.004.88 Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure in the Edu cation Sector, MHRD, various years. The increase in growth is on account of resources i n the plan account through the centrally sponsored schemes such as Operation Blackboard, Non-formal edu cation and Teacher education in the middle of 1980s (Note 11) Lesser growth rates in the 1990s may be on accoun t of lesser growth of income, fiscal imbalances of the states and structural adju stment programs, which jointly resulted in a cut in the education budget and eventually in elementary e ducation growth as well. The same levels of elementary education expenditure viewed in constant process reveal much lower growth rates in 1990s (see Figure 2), the growth ra te was mere 5 percent. The decline would be detrimental to the growth of the school system in U ttar Pradesh. While in many of the educationally progressing states the growth rate of plan expendit ure was much higher during 1990s because of central assistance to elementary education. With re gard to Uttar Pradesh, it suggests the stateÂ’s inability to absorb the centerÂ’s assistance through plan transfers under various schemes. Pressures of nonplan expenditures (basically salary component) have forced to reduce plan expenditures and thus growth of the system being hampered.
15 of 28 Figure 2. Budget Expenditure on Elementary Education i n Uttar Pradesh in current and constant prices. Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure in the Edu cation Sector, MHRD, various years. Another important dimension that needs to be looked into is for which of the items / activities, the expenditures are incurred. The intra-sectoral alloc ation or intra functional allocation of resources i n elementary education in Uttar Pradesh suggests that the lionÂ’s share of expenditures on elementary education goes to private aided schools (see Table 16). The highest share of government resources is allocated to private schools only in Uttar Pradesh for just around 15 % of private aided elementary schools in the state in 1993 (Note 12) compared to Kerala, where more than 60 % of the sc hools are private aided but the resources allocated to them a re about 55 % of the elementary expenditures. It is argued that this kind of a situation is on account of the political economy of education in Uttar Prad esh (Muzammil and Kingdon, 2001). In a resource-poor st ate, the government resources are increasingly utilized by the private schools because of the stat eÂ’s inability to divert the resources for governmen t schools. As far as the states are concerned, the fi nancial commitment and utilizing the resources efficiently for universalizing elementary education do not seem to be strong. Government investment in incentives for education wi ll be more influential for the children from low-income families to enroll in schools. Nonethele ss, it can be seen in Table 16 that hardly any expenditure is incurred for student incentives such as scholarships and textbooks. Table 16 Intra Sectoral Allocation of Public Expenditure on Ele mentary Education in Uttar Pradesh (in %) '90-91'91-92'92-93'93-94'94-95'96-97'97-98'98-99'99 -00'00-01(B) Direction InspectionAdmn.126.96.36.199.51.73.02.01.51.81.9Assistance to Govt schools0.20.20.50.188.8.131.52.20.30.3Asst. to Private schools90.991.890.491.088.491.287.192.985.8 91.8 Asst. to Local Body Schools--------------------Teacher Training184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.40.50.5Non-Formal Education18.104.22.168.20.82.12.00.91.782.14Scholarships--0.10.00.00.10.00.00.00.00.0Textbooks--------------------
16 of 28 Other22.214.171.124.47.63.08.14.19.93.3Total (Rs in crs)1210106510851116142321302252318931323165 Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure in the Edu cation Sector, MHRD, various years. Even the National mid-day meal scheme, a centrally sponsored scheme, provides ration to the enrolled children in Uttar Pradesh as against the p rovision of cooked meals in other states. Further, it is noted that the scheme failed to set any target f or enrollment and attendance from 1995 to 1999. It is because of poor governance, increased corruption, d eclining performance, and lack of concern for the poor that ineffective public programs and delivery in the state are manifest (Hasan, 2001). But, the scenario in other states is much different (see Tab le 17). Table 17 Distribution of Expenditure on Elementary Education in Major States in India in 1996-97 Direction Inspection & Admn Govt. primary School Asst. to non-govt primary school Asst. to LBs for primary education Teacher training Non-formal educationScholarships Textbooks Other expend. Andhra P0.533.849.2076.922.66 3.690.07--3.08 Bihar1.6293.901.02---0.34 2.87----0.27 Gujarat0.69------89.41 --0.020.898.99 Haryana3.2089.651.130.01---1.823.520.67 Himachal2.7291.070.29--0.48 --1.35--4.08 Karnatak0.200.45088.350.65 --3.18--7.16 Kerala1.3435.8057.165.090.50 --0--0.10 Madhya P5.2786.193.674.070.33 --0.040.320.11 Maharash1.66---0.0696.55 0.76------0.97 Punjab2.8396.260.760--------0.14 Rajastha1.6850.301.7336.72-0.58----9.0 Tamil Na0.0661.8131.940.42 -------2.493.28 Uttar Pra3.030.2691.23--0.44 2.070.03--2.95 West Ben1.540.0692.83---0.48 0.080.441.872.69 Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Educati on, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi, 2000. So far, various dimensions of financing education per se and financing elementary education in particular in Uttar Pradesh have been discussed. Ex penditure on elementary education in relation to the number of enrolled students is yet another impo rtant and comparable indicator across place and time. Per student public expenditure on elementary education in 1980-81 was a mere Rs.158 and increased at the rate of 14 percent in 1999-00 to R s.2015. But the per student expenditures converted to real prices suggest that increase is about 5 per cent over the same period, (see columns 6 and 7 of Table 15).Centrally Sponsored SchemesThe role of central government in financing element ary education is limited in many of the states and in Uttar Pradesh as well. The education commission (1966) suggested that the central government should assume a larger financial responsibility for education by expanding central and centrally sponsored sectors. Since 1986 with the National Edu cation Policy, central government support was organized into a number of centrally sponsored sche mes (CSS). The rationale for central transfers to
17 of 28 states is to promote regional equity in the educati on system. Besides plan and non-plan transfers from the central government, depending upon the prioriti es of the central government, it funds a number of schemes. These schemes are fully or partially finan ced by the central government and administered by state governments. The funding pattern of centra l and state government varies from scheme to scheme from 50% for co-educational non-formal educa tion centers to 100% for girls non-formal education centres and 100% for operation blackboard (teaching-learning equipments), etc. Table 18 Centrally Sponsored Schemes in Elementary Education in Uttar Pradesh (in %) '92-93'93-94'94-95'95-96'96-97'97-98'98-99 Operation Blackboard30.30.01.00.015.418.352.5Non-Formal Education37.469.688.087.977.834.127.9Teacher Education (Note 13) 32.330.4126.96.36.199.79.7 DPEP0.00.00.00.00.943.89.8CSS in Elementary(Rs. In lakhs)410836513697459355301243013236% of elementary in total73.354.353.964.779.390.584. 7 Total-CSS(Rs. In lakhs)560367246854709569771372915619 Source: Education Â– Profile of States/Union Territo ries, Government of India, MHRD, New Delhi, 1998 & 1999. Centrally sponsored schemes 1985-901990-911991-921992-938th plan Education CSS12132764766062440Elem. Education6301553553321272Non Formal Education302139177172315OB31610150150917Adult Education351826184422Rural funct. literacy309653556280All Css program246338723110251212267309 Source: Draft Eighth plan volume Â–III. There are four important schemes in elementary educ ation through which the resources allocated are available (see Table 18). The share of elementary e ducation expenditures under centrally sponsored schemes fluctuates between 50 and 70 percent until DPEP is implemented in the state. The share of allocation to non-formal education is substantial i n the state, greater than towards either operation black board or teacher education. The distribution of funds under non-formal educatio n in Uttar Pradeash vis--vis other major states ha s been relatively skewed, with Uttar Pradesh obtainin g the highest share, 28 % in the 1990s. The preference for non-formal education over operation blackboard or teacher education may be related to the reluctance to take over the high recurrent cost s associated with operation blackboard and teacher education (Bashir, 2000). This could be one of the major reasons for a low growth rate in plan expenditures on elementary education in the 1990s i n the state. This clearly brings out the stateÂ’s inability to absorb central assistance for an impro vement in the formal education system. The state is reluctant to reallocate the resources in favor of f ormal elementary education to absorb the centerÂ’s
18 of 28 resources for schemes such as Operation Blackboard a nd Teacher Education. At the same time, it may be noted that the state allocates 90 per cent o f its elementary expenditures to private aides schools (see Table 16)Foreign Aid and EducationExternal assistance to primary education is a recen t phenomenon in India since the early 1990s. As a follow-up to the macro economic reforms package, ex penditure compression has been advocated. Soft sectors like education are the worst impacted by budget cuts. Hence, in order to offset the adverse impacts of Structural Adjustment Programme, World Bank and other UN agencies have initiated social safety net measures. Other importan t agencies include UNICEF, UNDP, Overseas Development Agency (ODA) and Swedish International D evelopment Agencey (SIDA). Finances from the World Bank, its sister concern IDA and the USAI D are playing significant roles in supporting specific educational schemes in certain areas of Ut tar Pradesh. The first externally assisted funding scheme in ele mentary education in the state was Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project (UPBEP) initiated in 1993 w ith International Development Agency funding. This project covered ten districts for a total cost of US$193.86 million. Non-formal education has a very specific role in this project. The World Bank provides finances to the schemes of Education for A ll in Uttar Pradesh; Education for All phase II; Distr ict Primary Education Project (DPEP)phase II and DPEP Â– phase III. DPEP is an important social safet y net measure and the main focus of this program is primary education. It is the largest externally funded program in education covering 22 states of India in three different phases. In Uttar Pradesh, DPEP II in 1997 covered 22 districts and further in phase III of DPEP covered another 38 districts in a ddition to 10 districts covered under UPBEP, brining almost the whole state under the ambit of t he primary education project. Finances for DPEP come through the central government and a 15 percen t share is borne by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. DPEP in Uttar Pradesh attempts to improve girlsÂ’ education in a number of ways such as positive discrimination against girls, community su pport, more female teachers and school environments, more incentives and support systems s uch as mid-day meals, scholarships for SC/ST, free textbooks, and the like. USAID provides specia l assistance for promoting girlsÂ’ education at the primary level.The Uttar Pradesh (UP) Basic Education Pilot Projec t and the national India District Primary Education Project exemplify good social development practices The pilot project in UP to assist girls in achiev ing better education proved so successful that it was s caled up to the national level. The guiding princip le of both projects is to improve education by buildin g capacity at the community level.From a Pioneering Pilot to a National ProjectIn 1992, the Government of India presented an educat ional reform proposal to the World Bank. The objective was to assist Uttar Pradesh through a sta tewide primary educational initiative targeted at improving the status of women and girls. The female literacy rate in Uttar Pradesh is the third lowest in India, and the estimated enrollment rate of 6-10 ye ar olds is the fourth lowest. The project aimed to increase female enrollment, reduce dropout rates, i mprove learning achievement, and strengthen community ownership of schools. From its inception, the project sought community involvement. Social assessment aided a decentralized approach to project preparation. Surveys and focus group discussions identified a wide-range of educational issues at the village level. Problems ranged from caste discrimination to debate on the language of i nstruction to the impact of weather on educational opportunities. In some villages, girls were not att ending school because of their responsibility to ca re for younger siblings. In other places, the issue wa s girlsÂ’ safety. One of the key elements of the Uttar Pradesh pilot p roject was the development of local Village Education Committees (VECs) with representation of women and minority groups. VECs are involved in school construction, community mapping, monitori ng teacher attendance, and processing the funds from the government. Capacity building through NGO in volvement also occurs through Mahila Sakhya the womenÂ’s empowerment movement. It works to imp rove enrollment, to increase attendance retention of girls, and to make accessible early ch ildhood education and alternative schooling. NGOs are involved in decision making through representat ion on the General Council and Executive Committee of the UP Education for All Project Board Teacher Associations, including district-level
19 of 28 chapters, are consulted and involved in implementin g curriculum, instructional materials development and training programs.By the mid-term review in 1993, the Uttar Pradesh p roject had developed an in-service teacher training program, which was also decentralized at t he level of village blocks and clusters. These loca l efforts were supported by improved capacity buildin g for Institutes of Education and Training at the district level and through the creation of a State Institute of Educational Management and Training. Capacity building also occurred for Indian scholars through grants to conduct research and assessments. The World Bank compiled an implementat ion training manual to translate World Bank experience into applicable steps. The Uttar Pradesh project built on good practices from prior Indian primary education projects. Throughout the Uttar Pr adesh project, the Government of India independently hired highly trained education specia lists to shadow the World Bank staff. The government had been accustomed to running top-down programs, so developing a program that took its directions from the ground up was a new approac h. Local politicians have promoted the Uttar Pradesh p rojectÂ’s educational objectives. Local politicians were pleased to find an approach that worked at the community level and that they could champion as their own, regardless of which government was in po wer at the state level. Targets set for female participation in primary education were exceeded. T he enrollment gap between boys and girls decreased, and dropout rates for girls were halved. Learning achievement improved in 8 of the 10 districts, particularly in the second grade. Due to this project, two million girls are in school who otherwise would not be.One of the major hurdles in the project was convinci ng the central government that the World Bank could provide useful technical advice to an educati onal project. In reviewing the outcomes of the project, the government agreed that the decentraliz ed approach worked effectively and decided that the Uttar Pradesh project was exactly the kind of p rimary education program needed nationally. By scaling up the project to the national level, this proposal became the District Primary Education Program Project (DPEP), which was implemented in 19 95.Lessons LearnedDuring the preparation phase, the DPEP (District Pr imary Education Project) relied heavily on beneficiary assessments that included an emphasis o n girls and tribal children. In addition, Indian educational institutes conducted learning achieveme nt tests of 40,000 children and extensive teacher interviews. Given IndiaÂ’s geographic, cultural, and linguistic diversity, a major challenge for the DPE P was how to supervise the national program. The proj ect benefited from the collaboration of IndiaÂ’s education officials and researchers, who possessed specific regional and local expertise, with Bank staff, who provided technical advice. Foreign donor s collaborated through creating one vehicle for channeling funding, which enabled institutions to w ork together toward the same objectives. The two projects are good examples of flexibility i n project design, scaling up and increasing the capacity of a successful pilot program, and sustain ability of the program over the long-term. These projects also offer a model for country centered ow nership. The project has helped establish monitoring and evaluation systems that have been ad opted by the state governments. External funding facilitates additional central ass istance for augmenting stateÂ’s resources as 30 percent of the funds comes as a grant. The problem with DPEP in general is that though external finance is growing, domestic resources either stagn ate or decline, resulting in what is referred to as Â“borrowed growth.Â” Sustainability of borrowed growt h is questionable. StatesÂ’ own plan resources grew slowly in some states or stagnated and declined in real terms. However, there needs to be a concomitant increase in the state level resources a s well. In this sense, DPEP has not promoted significant additional resources for education from the state. With regard to Uttar Pradesh, the available information reported in Table 18 do not s eem to suggest the financial impact of DPEP. It is to be noted that external financing of education could not be significant for a large state like Uttar Pradesh where the size of the education budget and also the magnitude of the problem are huge. Several new schemes have been launched to encourage the education of the children in the country. The national literacy mission has an important role to play in changing the attitudes and perception o f non-literate men and women toward educating their c hildren besides the adult population themselves
20 of 28 becoming literate. This effort has generated social mobilization towards education as could be seen from the experiences of Kerela, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradhesh and Karnantaka. But in Uttar Pradesh, it has hardly made any impact on the social mobiliz ation of the public for education and attaining higher literacy rates. Further, it is to be noted t hat some of the specific center/state sponsored schemes have made a substantial impact on literacy and educational progress even among educationally backward states. For instance, the pr ogram on Lok Jumbish in Rajasthan is making important strides towards girlsÂ’ education. But no such positive effect is visible in Uttar Pradesh, except in the northern hill areas of Uttar Pradesh consisting of 10 districts where there has been improvement of female and overall literacy rates fr om 1951 to 1991 (McDougall, 2000). It is to be noted that these 10 districts comprise only 16 perc ent of the total districts in the state. Yet another centrally sponsored scheme, namely SarvaShiksha Abhiyan is launched in all non-DPEP districts for achieving universal elementary educat ion. It attempts to subsume many of the centrally sponsored schemes under one umbrella. Despite all t hese efforts, elementary education in Uttar Pradesh has yet to make the desired impacts.Resources Required for Universalising Elementary Ed ucationGiven the magnitude of never-enrolled children in th e age group 6 to 14 in the state, the resources required to universalize elementary education would be very high. Various committees and studies have estimated the financial requirements of univer salizing elementary education in the decade of the 1990s. The financial requirements of universalizing elementary education in the state was estimated as Rs.3646.84 crs based on the per student expendit ures of 1995-96 and various other requirements. The estimated additional financial requirement was to cover 66.91 lakhs of out-of-school children in 1996. Yet another committee, MHRD (1999) attempted a detailed costing exercise by activity components such as investment in basic teaching fac ilities, infra-structure building, teacher training for quality improvement in classrooms and out-of-classr oom teaching practices and expenditure on teacher salaries. Based on such detailed estimation of costs of each item consisting of various non-recurring costs and incentives on access and re tention and the non-recurring cost to be incurred on curriculum and text books, the financial require ments for universalizing elementary education was estimated by MHRD (1999). Table 19 Additional Requirement of Resources for UEE in Uttar Pra desh (Rs. In Lakhs) PrimaryUpper primary Access and retention: Non-recurring costs9920.86934 9.48 Access and retention: Special needsÂ—Non-recurring c osts334.15202.81 Access and retention: Incentives-Recurrent costs889 .76683.64 Curriculum and text books: Non-recurrent cost114.44 3.52 Total 11259.1710279.45 Source: Expert Group Report on Financial Requirement s for making Elementary Education a Fundamental Right (Tapas Majumdar Committee), MHRD, 1999. It is estimated that an additional financial requir ement of Rs. 21538.62 lakhs over a period of ten ye ars from 1998-99 to 2007-08 (see Table 19 for macro det ails and Appendix for micro details) would be needed to cover the estimated 87.57 lakh out-of-sch ool children in primary education and to cover 72.90 lakh children in upper primary level in Uttar Pradesh. However, the estimates of resource requirements of the Majumdar committee (1999) is si x times higher than that of the Saikia committee (1997) to cover 2.4 times as many out-of-school chi ldren based on the estimates of the Majumdar Committee over the Saikia Committee.It has been repeatedly lamented that a shadow (dual ) state operates in Uttar Pradesh (Hasan, 2001); access to schools for the poor and in rural areas r emains limited due to ill-equipped and ill-function ing government schools (Dreze and Gazder, 1997). In addi tion to these findings, it was also found that education attainment (and more specifically female educational attainment) is influenced by civic
21 of 28 engagement and political Conscientisation, (McDouga ll, 2000). Consequently, the political and financial commitment of the state is acutely warran ted. Only then could there be absorption of the central assistance in addition to the stateÂ’s own f inancial commitment for educational progress and universalizing elementary education in the future.ConclusionThe economic, social and demographic profile of the state is not conducive to its overall development per se and accomplishing the target of universal elementa ry education in particular. A quick review of educational development in the state reveals that t he goal of universalizing elementary education in a resource-poor state seems to be elusive in the near future. Resources required for achieving that goal remains high. Added to this, the financing pattern of education in Uttar Pradesh in terms of any of th e indicators (share of plan education expenditures to total plan expenditures, share of non-plan education expenditures to total non-plan expenditur es, share of education and other departments in education expenditures, share of education expendit ures in SDP and revenue expenditures, resource allocation under various five year plans, and for e lementary education) exhibit a pessimistic prospect Considering the magnitude of out-of-school children and the dropped-out children vis--vis the resource allocated toward elementary education, the state has not yet allocated the required resources to achieve the goal of universalizing elementary ed ucation. Acquiring the additional resources require d to universalize elementary education would require significant adjustment in overall expenditures with federal assistance. Further, pressures of non-plan expenditures (basically salaries) have forced reductions in plan expenditures, which is essential for the growth of the school system in the state. It is to be noted that the northern hill region of Uttar Pradesh shows improvement in literacy rates and enrollment with active involvement of the governmen t and community participation. The analysis reaffirms that resources allocated to financing elementary education in Uttar Pradesh are greatly inadequate; the public education system in the state is extremely inefficient. It is to be reiterated that given the public value of elementar y education, the state and central government should shoulder the entire responsibility of fundin g and ensuring the twin principles of equity and efficiency in the public education system. This req uires an indomitable political commitment in terms of spending priorities and improving the resource-use efficiency in the state.Notes 1. As quoted in UNESCO(2000). 2. Economic Survey, 2001-02 3. Only three African countries are reported to have a higher maternal mortality rate than Uttar Pradesh (HDR,2001). 4. Economic Survey, 2001-02 5. Gender gap refers to the difference between male and female literacy rates. 6. Refers to simple growth rates based upon trend line s. 7. The reasons for such a decline in enrollment since 1996-97 may be attributable to the change in the base of the 6-14 age group population from 1981 cen sus to that of 1991 census. It is to be noted that even from 1996-97 onwards, which is comparable, the re is a decline in gross enrollment ratios. Further, negative growth rate from actual enrollmen t figures confirm the sharp decline in enrollment i n the recent period in the state. 8. Refers to age-specific attendance ratios. 9. Selected Educational Statistics,(2000). 10. Corresponds to 9th plan outlay on elementary expend iture. 11. Allocation towards these centrally sponsored and ex ternally funded schemes are discussed later.
22 of 28 12. NCERT(1998) 13. Teacher education is not exclusively for elementary education but primarily for the development of elementary education, while other three schemes are exclusively for elementary education.ReferencesAhluwalia, Montek.S,(2000), Economic Performance of States in Post-Reforms PeriodÂ” Economic and Political Weekly 35(19), pp.1637-1648. Bashir, S, (2000), Financing Elementary Education Expenditures in the 1990s European Commission, New Delhi.Dreze, Jean and Haris Gazdar (1996), Â“Uttar Pradesh: The Burden of InertiaÂ” in Indian Development: Selected Regional Perspectives (ed.), Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, Oxford Universi ty Press, Delhi. Education Commission,(1966), Education and National Development: Report of the E ducation Commission 1964-66 Ministry of Education, New Delhi. Government of Uttar Pradesh, Statistical Diary of Uttar Pradesh Economics and Statistics Division, State Planning Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, v arious years. Government of Uttar Pradesh, Statistical Abstract of Uttar Pradesh Economics and Statistics Division, State Planning Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, v arious years. Government of Uttar Pradesh, Seventh Five Year Plan 1985-90, Draft Eighth Five Y ear Plan 1990-95, Annual Plans Planning Department, Lucknow, 1985, 1990. Government of India(1995), Budgetary Resoruces for Education 1951-52 to 1993-9 4 Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of Educa tion, New Delhi. Government of India(1986), National Policy on Education and Programme of Actio n ,1992, New Delhi. Government of India(1998, 1999), Education Profile of States / Union Territories MHRD, Department of Education, New Delhi.Government of India, Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education various years, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of Educa tion, New Delhi. Government of India, Selected Educational Statistics various years, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of Education, New Delhi.Hasan, Zoya, (2001), Â“Transfer of Power? Politics o f Mass Mobilisation in UPÂ”, Economic and Political Weekly 36(46&47), pp.4401-4407. Indian Institute of Population Studies, (2001), National Family Health Survey India-II, 1998-99 Mumbai.Kurian, N.J, Â“Widening Regional Disparities in Indi a: Some IndicatorsÂ”, Economic and Political Weekly 35(7), pp.538-550.Lieten, G.K, (2000), Â“Children, Work and Education I I: Field Work in Two UP VillagesÂ”, Economic and Political Weekly 35(25), pp.2117-2178. McDougall, Lori, (2000), Â“Gender Gap in Literacy in U ttar Pradesh: Question for Decentralised Educational PlanningÂ” Economic and Political Weekly 35(19), pp.1649-1658. MHRD(1997), Report of the Committee of State Education Minister s on Implications of the Proposal to Make Elementary Education A Fundamental Right Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi.MHRD(1999), Expert Group on Financial Requirements for Making El ementary Education A
23 of 28 Fundamental Right Ministry of Human Resources Development, Governmen t of India, New Delhi. Ministry of Finance (2001-02), Economic Survey Government of India, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi.Muzammil, M. and G.G. Kingdon, (2001), Â“Political Eco nomy of School Education in Uttar PradeshÂ”, Economic and Political Weekly 36(32 & 33), pp.3178-85. NCERT,(1998), Sixth All India Educational Survey National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi.NSSO(1998), Attending an Educational Institution in India: Its Level, Nature and Cost Report No.439, Government of India, New Delhi.PROBE(1999), Public Report on Basic Education in India Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Tilak, J.B.G.,(1996),Â“How free is Free Primary Educa tion in India?Â”, Economic and Political Weekly 31, (5&6), 275-82 and 355-66.Tilak, J.B.G.,(2000), Determinants of Household Expenditure on Education in Rural India, National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.Tilak, J.B.G. (2001), Â“Household Expenditure on Educ ation: A Few Stylised FactsÂ” in Social and Economic Security in India (ed.) by S. Mehendra Dev et al Institute for Human Development, New Delhi.Tilak, J.B.G, (2002), Â“Financing of Elementary Educa tion in IndiaÂ”, in India Education Report (ed.) by R. Govinda, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.UNDP,(2001), Human Development Report 2001 United Nations Development Programme, Oxford University Press, Oxford.UNESCO(2000), World Education Report UNESCO, Paris. World Bank, (2000), Fiscal Governance: Poverty Reduction and Economic Ma nagement: Uttar Pradesh PID8711, January.About the AuthorP. Geetha RaniAssociate FellowNational Institute of Educational Planning and Admi nistration 17-B, Sri Aurobindo MargNew Delhi 110 016.Email: email@example.comAppendixAdditional Requirement of Resources for UEE in Uttar Pra desh (Rs. In Lakhs) Item PrimaryUpper primary Access and retention: Non recurring costsA1 Construction of schools with community supervisi on3538.923115.47 A2 Provision of school equipments by decentralised procurement42.7223.24 A3 Establishment of new DIET's and upgradation of e xisting DIET's3150 A4 Establishment of cluster centers 19.379.68 A5 Establishment of block resource centers83.073348 .39
24 of 28 Access and retention: Recurring costsA6 Teachers salaries 2733.542556.24 A7 Teachers support material and aids 37.7831.9 A8 Maint. & repair of school infrastructure with co mmunity support38.7332.28 A9 Provision for sustainable replacement/repair/mai nt. of school equipment38.7332.28 A10 salaries of DIET staff 222.34 A11 Salaries of block level institutions 15.68 Access and retention: Special needs-Non recurring c osts B1 Integrated education for disables children256.68 164.07 Access and retention: Special needs-Recurring costsB2 Teachers for disables children 77.4738.74 Access and retention: Incentives-Recurrent costsC1 Free uniforms 267.37170.91 C2 Mid-day meals 213.9136.73 C3 Scholarship 237.37170.91 C4 Teaching and learning equipment for students171. 12205.09 Curriculum and text books: Non recurrent costD1 curriculum and text book improvement 0.1531.9 Curriculum and text books: Recurrent costD2 52.9 D3 12.91 D4 Community based monitoring supervision and resea rch12.6 D5 Advocacy environment building and mobilisation12 .6 D6 Classroom observations by resource persons23.241 1.62 Total 11259.1710279.45 Source: Expert Group Report on Financial Requirement s for making Elementary Education a Fundamental Right (Tapas Majumdar Committee), MHRD, 1999. The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu Editor: Gene V Glass, Arizona State UniversityProduction Assistant: Chris Murrell, Arizona State Unive rsity General questions about appropriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State Universi ty, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: email@example.com .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. AppleDavid C. Berliner
25 of 28 University of WisconsinArizona State University Greg Camilli Rutgers University Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on TeacherCredentialing Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State Univeristy Richard Garlikov Birmingham, Alabama Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Ontario Institute ofTechnology Patricia Fey Jarvis Seattle, Washington Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Les McLean University of Toronto Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Los Angeles Michele Moses Arizona State University Gary Orfield Harvard University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Jay Paredes Scribner University of Missouri Michael Scriven University of Auckland Lorrie A. Shepard University of Colorado, Boulder Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisÂ—UC Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University John Willinsky University of British ColumbiaEPAA Spanish & Portuguese Language Editorial Board Associate Editors Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State University & Pablo Gentili Laboratrio de Polticas Pblicas Universidade do Estado do Rio de JaneiroFounding Associate Editor for Spanish Language (199 8Â—2003) Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Argentina Alejandra Birgin Ministerio de Educacin, Argentina Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Mnica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Argentina Email: email@example.com, Mariano Narodowski Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Argentina
26 of 28 Email:Daniel Suarez Laboratorio de Politicas Publicas-Universidad de Bu enos Aires, Argentina Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Marcela Mollis (1998Â—2003) Universidad de Buenos Aires Brasil Gaudncio Frigotto Professor da Faculdade de Educao e do Programa dePs-Graduao em Educao da Universidade Federal F luminense, Brasil Email: email@example.com Vanilda Paiva Email:firstname.lastname@example.org Lilian do Valle Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Email: email@example.com Romualdo Portella do OliveiraUniversidade de So Paulo, Brasil Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Roberto Leher Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Email: email@example.com Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizont e, Brasil Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Nilma Limo Gomes Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizont e Email: email@example.com Iolanda de OliveiraFaculdade de Educao da Universidade Federal Flumi nense, Brasil Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Walter KohanUniversidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Email: email@example.com Mara Beatriz Luce (1998Â—2003) Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGS Simon Schwartzman (1998Â—2003) American Institutes for ResesarchÂ–Brazil Canad Daniel Schugurensky Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Univers ity of Toronto, Canada Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Chile Claudio Almonacid AvilaUniversidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educaci n, Chile Email: email@example.com Mara Loreto Egaa Programa Interdisciplinario de Investigacin en Edu cacin (PIIE), Chile Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Espaa Jos Gimeno SacristnCatedratico en el Departamento de Didctica y Organ izacin Escolar de
27 of 28 la Universidad de Valencia, Espaa Email: Jose.Gimeno@uv.esMariano Fernndez EnguitaCatedrtico de Sociologa en la Universidad de Sala manca. Espaa Email: email@example.com Miguel Pereira Catedratico Universidad de Granada, Espaa Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Jurjo Torres Santom Universidad de A Corua Email: email@example.com Angel Ignacio Prez Gmez Universidad de Mlaga Email: firstname.lastname@example.org J. Flix Angulo Rasco (1998Â—2003) Universidad de Cdiz Jos Contreras Domingo (1998Â—2003)Universitat de Barcelona Mxico Hugo Aboites Universidad Autnoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco, Mxi co Email: email@example.com Susan StreetCentro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social Occidente, Guadalajara, Mxico Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Adrin Acosta Universidad de Guadalajara Email: email@example.com Teresa Bracho Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmica-CIDE Email: bracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Rollin Kent Universidad Autnoma de Puebla. Puebla, Mxico Email: email@example.com Javier Mendoza Rojas (1998Â—2003) Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Humberto Muoz Garca (1998Â—2003)Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Per Sigfredo ChiroqueInstituto de Pedagoga Popular, Per Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Grover PangoCoordinador General del Foro Latinoamericano de Pol ticas Educativas, Per Email: email@example.com Portugal Antonio TeodoroDirector da Licenciatura de Cincias da Educao e do Mestrado Universidade Lusfona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Lisboa, Portugal Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
28 of 28 USA Pia Lindquist WongCalifornia State University, Sacramento, California Email: email@example.com Nelly P. StromquistUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, Cal ifornia Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Diana RhotenSocial Science Research Council, New York, New York Email: email@example.com Daniel C. LevyUniversity at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York Email: Dlevy@uamail.albany.edu Ursula Casanova Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Erwin Epstein Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois Email: email@example.com Carlos A. Torres University of California, Los Angeles Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Josu Gonzlez (1998Â—2003) Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona EPAA is published by the Education Policy StudiesLaboratory, Arizona State University