Rethinking education: The draft NEP 2016

Policy

Rethinking education: The draft NEP 2016

Roopal Suhag - October 3, 2016 Comments

The Ministry of Human Resource Development released the draft National Education Policy, 2016 in July this year.[1] The Ministry was receiving comments on the draft policy until the end of September 2016. In this context, we provide an overview of the proposed framework in the draft Policy to address challenges in the education sector. The country’s education policy was last revised in 1992. It outlined equitable access to quality education, with a common educational structure of 10+2+3 years. The draft Policy 2016 aims to create an education system which ensures quality education and learning opportunities for all. The focus areas of intervention of the draft Policy are: (i) access and participation, (ii) quality of education, (iii) curriculum and examination reforms, (iv) teacher development and management and (v) skill development and employability. Through these key interventions, the draft Policy provides a framework for the development of education in the country over the next few years. We discuss the key areas of intervention below.

Access and participation Figure 1 (1) Presently in the country, enrolment at pre-school levels for children between the ages of 3- 5 years is low. 38% of children in this age bracket are enrolled in pre-school education in government anganwadi centres, while 27% of the children are not attending any (either government or private) pre-school.[2] In contrast, the enrolment rate in primary education, which is class 1-5, is almost 100%. However, this reduces to 91% in classes 6-8 and 78% in classes 9-12.[3] The trend of lower enrolment rates is seen in higher education (college and university level), where it is at 24%.[4] Due to low enrolment rates after class 5, transition of students from one level to the next is a major challenge. Figure 1 shows the enrolment rates across different education levels. With regard to improving participation of children in pre-school education, the draft Policy aims to start a program for children in the pre-school age group which will be implemented in coordination with the Ministry of Women and Child Development. It also aims to strengthen pre-school education in anganwadis by developing learning materials and training anganwadi workers. Presently, the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 applies to elementary education only. To improve access to education, the draft Policy suggests bringing secondary education under the ambit of the RTE Act. However, a strategy to increase enrolment across different levels of education has not been specified. Quality of education Figure 2 (1) A large number of children leave school before passing class eight. In 2013-14, the proportion of students who dropped out from classes 1-8 was 36% and from classes 1-10 was 47%.³ Figure 2 shows the proportion of students who exited the school system in classes 1-8 in 2008-09 and 2013-14. Among the population of children who stay in school, the quality or level of learning is low. The Economic Survey 2015-16 noted that the proportion of class 3 children able to solve simple two-digit subtraction problems fell from 26% in 2013 to 25% in 2014. Similarly, the percentage of class two children who cannot recognize numbers up to 9 increased from 11.3% in 2009 to 19.5% in 2014.[5] To address the issue of learning levels in school going children, the draft Policy proposes that norms for learning outcomes should be developed and applied uniformly to both private and government schools. In addition, it also recommends that the existing no-detention policy (promoting all students of a class to the next class, regardless of academic performance) till class 8 be amended and limited to class 5. At the upper primary stage (class six onward), the system of detention should be restored. Curriculum and examination reforms It has been noted that the current curriculum followed in schools does not help students acquire relevant skills which are essential to become employable. The draft Policy highlights that the assessment practices in the education system focus on rote learning and testing the students’ ability to reproduce content knowledge, rather than on understanding. The draft Policy aims to restructure the present assessment system to ensure a more comprehensive evaluation of students, and plans to include learning outcomes that relate to both scholastic and co-scholastic domains. In order to reduce failure rates in class 10, the Policy proposes to conduct examination for the subjects of mathematics, science and English in class 10 at two levels. The two levels will be part A (at a higher level) and part B (at a lower level). Students who wish to opt for a vocational stream or courses for which mathematics, science and English are not compulsory may opt for part B level examination. Teacher development and management It has been observed that the current teacher education and training programs are inadequate in imparting the requisite skills to teachers. The mismatch between institutional capacity to train teachers and required supply in schools results in a shortage of qualified teachers. At the level of classes 9-12, the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan prescribes a teacher-pupil ratio of 1:30.^[6] However, some states have a higher teacher-pupil ratio: Chhattisgarh (1:45), Bihar (1:57) and Jharkhand (1:68).³ In various central universities, the total number of sanctioned teaching posts is 16,339, of which 37% are lying vacant.^[7] The draft Policy recommends that state governments should set up independent teacher recruitment commissions to facilitate transparent, merit based recruitment of principals, teachers, and other academic staff. For teacher development, a Teacher Education University should be set up at the national level to focus on teacher education and faculty development. In addition, the draft Policy also states that all teacher education institutes must have mandatory accreditation. To ensure effective teacher management, periodic assessment of teachers in government and private schools should be carried out and linked to their future promotions and increments. Skill development and employability It has been noted that the current institutional arrangements to support technical and vocational education programs for population below 25 years of age is inadequate. The social acceptability of vocational education is also low. Presently, over 62% of the population in the country is in the working age-group (15-59 years).^[8] Only 10% of this workforce (7.4 crore) is trained, which includes about 3% who are formally trained and 7% who are informally trained.^[9] In developed countries, skilled workforce is between 60-90% of the total workforce.^[10] The draft Policy proposes to integrate skill development programs in 25% of schools and higher education institutions in the country. This is in line with the National Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Policy that was released by the government in 2015. The draft Policy 2016 focuses on important aspects that have not been addressed in previous policies such as: (i) curriculum and examination reforms, and (ii) teacher development . Although the Policy sets a framework for improving education in the country, the various implementation strategies that will be put in place to achieve the education outcomes envisaged by it remains to be seen. For an analysis on some education indicators such as enrolment of students, drop-out rates, availability of teachers and share of government and private schools, please see our Vital Stats on the ‘overview of the education sector’ here. [1] Some Inputs for Draft National Education Policy 2016, Ministry of Human Resource Development, http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/Inputs_Draft_NEP_2016.pdf. [2] Rapid Survey on Children, 2013-14, Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India, http://wcd.nic.in/sites/default/files/RSOC%20FACT%20SHEETS%20Final.pdf. [3] Secondary education in India, U-DISE 2014-15, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, http://www.dise.in/Downloads/Publications/Documents/SecondaryFlash%20Statistics-2014-15.pdf. [4] All India Survey on Higher Education 2014-15, http://aishe.nic.in/aishe/viewDocument.action?documentId=197. [5] Economic Survey 2015-16, Volume-2, http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapvol2-09.pdf. [6] Overview, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan, Ministry of Human Resource Development, http://mhrd.gov.in/rmsa. [7] “265^th Report: Demands for Grants (Demand No. 60) of the Department of Higher Education”, Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, April 2013, 2015, http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20HRD/265.pdf. [8] “Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship: Key Achievements and Success Stories in 2015”, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Press Information Bureau, December 15, 2015. [9] Draft Report of the Sub-Group of Chief Ministers on Skill Development, NITI Aayog, September 2015, http://niti.gov.in/mgov_file/Final%20report%20%20of%20Sub-Group%20Report%20on%20Skill%20Development.pdf. [10] Economic Survey 2014-15, Volume 2, http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2014-15/echapter-vol2.pdf.

Tags:

access to education,

draft education policy 2016,

education,

GER,

NEP

Union Budget 2020-21: Are the fiscal targets realistic?

No comments

Gayatri Mann and Suyash Tiwari - February 6, 2020 Comments

Today, a general discussion on the Union Budget 2020-21 is being held in both Houses of Parliament. In the budget, the government presented the estimates of the money it expects to spend on various ministries, and how much money will be raised from different sources such as levy of taxes and dividends from public enterprises in 2020-21. In addition, the budget presented the revised estimates made by the government for the year 2019-20 in comparison to the estimates it had given to Parliament in the previous year’s budget. The budget also gave an account of how much money the government actually raised and spent in 2018-19.

What are revised estimates?

Some of the estimates made by the government might change during the course of the year. For instance, once the year gets underway, some ministries may need more funds than what was actually allocated to them in the budget, or the receipts expected from certain sources might change. Such deviations from the budget estimates get reflected in the figures released by the government at later stages as part of the subsequent budgets. Once the year ends, the actual numbers are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), post which they are presented to Parliament with the upcoming budget, i.e. two years after the estimates are made.

For instance, estimates for the year 2019-20 were presented as part of the 2019-20 budget in July 2019. In the 2020-21 budget (February 2020), the government presented 2019-20’s revised estimates based on the actual receipts and expenditure accounted so far during the year and estimations made for the remaining 2-3 months.

Is there a way to find out the government’s actual receipts or expenditure mid-year?

The actual receipts and expenditure accounts of the central government are maintained by the Controller General of Accounts (CGA), Ministry of Finance on a monthly basis. On January 31, 2020, the CGA updated the accounts figures for the period April to December 2019. Thus, we have unaudited actuals for the first nine months of the financial year.

How do the actual figures for the year 2019-20 so far compare with the revised estimates?

Table 1 gives the revised estimates presented by the central government for the year 2019-20 and the monthly account figures maintained by the CGA for the nine-month period April to December 2019. The difference between these two figures gives us the three-month target that the government will have to meet by March 2020 to reach its revised estimates.

Till December 2019, the government has spent Rs 21.1 lakh crore, which is 78% of the revised estimates for 2019-20. While the expenditure has reached 78% of the target, so far, the government has been able to generate only Rs 11.8 lakh crore or 61% of the receipts (excluding borrowings) for the year 2019-20. This implies that the receipts will have to grow at a rate of 41% in the three-month period January-March 2020 to meet the revised estimates of Rs 19.3 lakh crore. So far, receipts have grown at a rate of 4%.

Table 1: Budget at a Glance – Comparison of 2019-20 revised estimates with Apr-Dec 2019 figures (Rs crore)

Budget at a Glance	Actuals	Revised	Nine-month period	Three-month target	Growth rate so far	Growth target
Budget at a Glance	2018-19	2019-20	Apr-Dec 2019	Jan-Mar 2020	% change (Apr-Dec 2018 to Apr-Dec 2019)	% change (Jan-Mar 2019 to Jan-Mar 2020)
Revenue Expenditure	20,07,399	23,49,645	18,54,125	4,95,520	14%	28%
Capital Expenditure	3,07,714	3,48,907	2,55,522	93,385	21%	-3%
Total Expenditure	23,15,113	26,98,552	21,09,647	5,88,905	15%	22%
Revenue Receipts	15,52,916	18,50,101	11,46,897	7,03,204	6%	50%
Capital Receipts	1,12,779	81,605	31,025	50,580	-33%	-24%
of which Disinvestment	94,727	65,000	18,100	46,900	-47%	-22%
Total Receipts (without borrowings)	16,65,695	19,31,706	11,77,922	7,53,784	4%	41%
Revenue Deficit	4,54,483	4,99,544	7,07,228	-2,07,684
Fiscal Deficit	6,49,418	7,66,846	9,31,725	-1,64,879
Primary Deficit	66,770	1,41,741	5,07,411	-3,65,670

Sources: Union Budget 2020-21; Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance; PRS.

How do the actual tax receipts fare in comparison to the revised estimates of 2019-20?

A lower than estimated growth in nominal GDP has also affected the tax receipts of the government during the year. The 2019-20 budget estimated the nominal GDP to grow at 12% over the previous year, whereas the latest estimates suggest this growth rate to be 7.5% in 2019-20. The revised estimates for 2019-20 show gross tax receipts of Rs 21.6 lakh crore (includes states’ share). Till December 2019, tax receipts of Rs 13.8 lakh crore has been collected, which is 64% of the target. The tax receipts will have to grow at 19% in the three-month period January-March 2020 to meet the target. Table 2 shows similar comparison for the various taxes and also for the tax receipts devolved to states. While the budget estimated a growth in receipts from all major taxes, receipts from taxes such as corporation tax (-14%), union excise duties (-2%), and customs (-12%) have declined during the period Apr-Dec 2019.

Table 2: Tax receipts – Comparison of 2019-20 revised estimates with Apr-Dec 2019 figures (Rs crore)

Revenue Receipts	Actuals	Revised	Nine-month period	Three-month target	Growth rate so far	Growth target
Revenue Receipts	2018-19	2019-20	Apr-Dec 2019	Jan-Mar 2020	% change (Apr-Dec 2018 to Apr-Dec 2019)	% change (Jan-Mar 2019 to Jan-Mar 2020)
Gross Tax Revenue	20,80,465	21,63,423	13,83,035	7,80,388	-3%	19%
Devolution to States	7,61,454	6,56,046	4,76,113	1,79,933	-2%	-34%
Net Tax Revenue	13,17,211	15,04,587	9,04,944	5,99,643	-3%	57%
Dividend and Profits	1,13,420	1,99,893	1,61,979	37,914	175%	-30%
Other Non-tax Revenue	1,22,284	1,45,620	79,974	65,646	-10%	96%
Revenue Receipts	15,52,916	18,50,101	11,46,897	7,03,204	6%	50%

Note: Figures for income tax exclude receipts from the Securities Transaction Tax.

Sources: Receipts Budget, Union Budget 2019-20; Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance; PRS.

If we look at sources of receipts other than taxes, non-tax revenue during Apr-Dec 2019 is Rs 2.4 lakh crore, i.e. 69% of the estimated Rs 3.5 lakh crore. Disinvestment receipts till date amounted to Rs 18,100 crore, i.e. 17% of the budget target of Rs 1.05 lakh crore. Though the investment target has been revised down to Rs 65,000 crore, it implies that Rs 47,000 crore would need to be raised in the next two months.

How does this impact the borrowings of the government?

When the expenditure planned by the government is more than its receipts, the government finances this gap through borrowings. This gap is known as fiscal deficit and equals the borrowings required to be made for that year. Given lower than expected receipts, the government has had to borrow more money than it had planned for. Borrowings or fiscal deficit of the government, till December 2019, stands at Rs 9.3 lakh crore, which is 22% higher than the revised estimate of Rs 7.7 lakh crore. Note that with three months still remaining in the financial year, fiscal deficit may further increase, in case receipts are less than expenditure.

When we look at fiscal deficit as a percentage of GDP, the 2019-20 budget estimated the fiscal deficit to be at 3.3% of GDP. This has been revised upward to 3.8% of GDP. However, till December 2019, fiscal deficit for the year 2019-20 stands at 4.6% of GDP (taking the latest available GDP figures into account, i.e. the First Advance Estimates for 2019-20 released in January 2020). This increase in fiscal deficit as a percentage of GDP is because of two reasons: (i) an increase in borrowings as compared to the budget estimates, and (ii) a decrease in GDP as compared to the estimate made in the budget. The latter is due to a lower than estimated growth in nominal GDP for the year 2019-20. The 2019-20 budget estimated the nominal GDP to grow at 12% over the previous year, whereas the latest estimates suggest this growth rate to be 7.5% in 2019-20.

Note that, in addition to the expenditure shown in the budget, the government also spends through extra budgetary resources. These resources are raised by issuing bonds and through loans from the National Small Savings Fund (NSSF). The revised estimates for 2019-20 show an expenditure of Rs 1,72,699 crore through such extra-budgetary resources. This includes an expenditure of Rs 1,10,000 crore by the Food Corporation of India financed through loans from NSSF. Since funds borrowed for such expenditure remain outside the budget, they do not get factored in the deficit and debt figures. If borrowings made in the form of extra-budgetary resources are also taken into account, the fiscal deficit estimated for the year 2019-20 would increase from 3.8% of GDP to 4.6% of GDP due to extra-budgetary borrowings of Rs 1,72,699 crore. This does not account for further slippage if the targeted revenue does not materialise.

Recommendations of the 15th Finance Commission for 2020-21

No comments

Rohin Garg and Saket Surya - February 3, 2020 Comments

The Finance Commission is a constitutional body formed by the President of India to give suggestions on centre-state financial relations. The 15^th Finance Commission is required to submit two reports. The first report will consist of recommendations for the financial year 2020-21. The final report with recommendations for the 2021-26 period will be submitted by October 30, 2020. In this post, we explain the key recommendations of the report.

What is the amount of tax devolution to the states, and how is it being calculated?

The Finance Commission uses certain criteria when deciding the devolution to states. For example, income distance criterion has been used by the 14^th and 15^th Finance Commissions. Under this criterion, states with lower per capita income would be given a higher share to maintain equity among states. Another example is Demographic Performance criterion which has been introduced by the 15^th Finance Commission. The Demographic Performance criterion is to reward efforts made by states in controlling their population.

The 15^th Finance Commission used the following criteria while determining the share of states: (i) 45% for the income distance, (ii) 15% for the population in 2011, (iii) 15% for the area, (iv) 10% for forest and ecology, (v) 12.5% for demographic performance, and (vi) 2.5% for tax effort. For 2020-21, the Commission has recommended a total devolution of Rs 8,55,176 crore to the states, which is 41% of the divisible pool of taxes. This is 1% lower than the percentage recommended by the 14^th Finance Commission.

Table 1 below compares the new criteria with the criteria recommended by the 14^th Finance Commission.

Table 1: Criteria for devolution (2020-21)

Criteria	14^thFC 2015-20	15^thFC 2020-21
Income Distance	50.0	45.0
Population 1971	17.5	-
Population 2011	10.0	15.0
Area	15.0	15.0
Forest Cover	7.5	-
Forest and Ecology	-	10.0
Demographic Performance	-	12.5
Tax Effort	-	2.5
Total	100	100

Sources: Report for the year 2020-21, 15^thFinance Commission; PRS.

Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have received the largest devolutions for 2020-21, receiving Rs 1,53,342 crore, and Rs 86,039 crore respectively. Karnataka and Kerala saw the largest decreases in the share of the divisible pool with a decrease of 0.49% and 0.25% respectively. Table 2 below displays the state-wise breakdown of the share in the divisible pool and the total devolution.

Table 3: Share of states in the centre’s taxes

State	14^th Finance Commission		15^th Finance Commission		Devolution for FY 2020-2021
State	Share out of 42%	Share in divisible pool	Share out of 41%	Share in divisible pool	(In Rs crore)
Andhra Pradesh	1.81	4.31	1.69	4.11	35,156
Arunachal Pradesh	0.58	1.38	0.72	1.76	15,051
Assam	1.39	3.31	1.28	3.13	26,776
Bihar	4.06	9.67	4.13	10.06	86,039
Chhattisgarh	1.29	3.07	1.4	3.42	29,230
Goa	0.16	0.38	0.16	0.39	3,301
Gujarat	1.3	3.1	1.39	3.4	29,059
Haryana	0.46	1.1	0.44	1.08	9,253
Himachal Pradesh	0.3	0.71	0.33	0.8	6,833
Jammu and Kashmir	0.78	1.86	-	-	-
Jharkhand	1.32	3.14	1.36	3.31	28,332
Karnataka	1.98	4.71	1.49	3.65	31,180
Kerala	1.05	2.5	0.8	1.94	16,616
Madhya Pradesh	3.17	7.55	3.23	7.89	67,439
Maharashtra	2.32	5.52	2.52	6.14	52,465
Manipur	0.26	0.62	0.29	0.72	6,140
Meghalaya	0.27	0.64	0.31	0.77	6,542
Mizoram	0.19	0.45	0.21	0.51	4,327
Nagaland	0.21	0.5	0.23	0.57	4,900
Odisha	1.95	4.64	1.9	4.63	39,586
Punjab	0.66	1.57	0.73	1.79	15,291
Rajasthan	2.31	5.5	2.45	5.98	51,131
Sikkim	0.15	0.36	0.16	0.39	3,318
Tamil Nadu	1.69	4.02	1.72	4.19	35,823
Telangana	1.02	2.43	0.87	2.13	18,241
Tripura	0.27	0.64	0.29	0.71	6,063
Uttar Pradesh	7.54	17.95	7.35	17.93	1,53,342
Uttarakhand	0.44	1.05	0.45	1.1	9,441
West Bengal	3.08	7.33	3.08	7.52	64,301
Total	42	100	41	100	8,55,176

Sources: Reports of 14^th and 15^th Finance Commission; PRS.

What are the various grants recommended by the 15^th Finance Commission?

The Terms of Reference of the Finance Commission require it to recommend grants-in-aid to the States. These grants include: (i) revenue deficit grants, (ii) grants to local bodies, and (iii) disaster management grants.

14 states are estimated to face a revenue deficit post-devolution. To make up for this deficit, the Commission has recommended revenue deficit grants worth Rs 74,341 crore to these 14 states. Additionally, three states (Karnataka, Mizoram, and Telangana) have received special grants worth Rs 6,674 crore. The special grants are being given to compensate for a decline in the sum of tax devolution and revenue deficit grants in 2020-21 as compared to 2019-20.

The Commission has recommended a total of Rs 90,000 crore for grants to the local bodies in 2020-21. This amounts to an increase over the Rs 87,352 crore allocated for 2019-20 for the same. The new allocation is 4.31% of the divisible pool. Of this sum, Rs 60,750 crore has been recommended for rural local bodies, and Rs 29,250 crore for urban local bodies. These grants will be made available to all three tiers of Panchayat- village, block, and district.

To promote local-level mitigation activities, the Commission has recommended the setting up of National and State Disaster Management Funds. Recommended grants for the State Disaster Risk Management Fund is Rs 28,983 crore, while the allocation for the National Disaster Risk Management Fund is Rs 12,390 crore.

Apart from these, guidelines for performance-based grants and sector-specific grants have been outlined. The Commission has recommended a grant of Rs 7,375 crore for nutrition in 2020-21. Sectors for which sector-specific grants will be provided in the final report include: (i) nutrition, (ii) health, (iii) pre-primary education, (iv) judiciary, and (v) railways.

For more details, please see our summary of the report.

Rethinking education: The draft NEP 2016

Subscribe to the PRS Blog