REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON POLICY AND PLANNING (ANNEXURE-XII)
The Group was chaired by Shri K. Chandrasekharan, Minister of Education, Kerala. Shri Ashok Saikia, Secretary and Commissioner of Education, Govt. of Assam acted as Rapporteur. The Group considered Agenda items 3, 19, 20 and 21. The list of participants is appended.
2. The Group considered the manner in which the report of the NPE Review Committee is to be processed. The Group noted that there is a certain degree of uncertainty in regard to the educational policy and is of the view that this uncertainty needs to be dispelled at the earliest. The Group recommends the constitution by the Chairman of the CABE of a sub-committee to study in-depth the report of the NPE Review Committee. The Group also recommends that the State Governments and other related bodies be given time till the end of April to send their comments on the NPE Review Committee report. The CABE committee should take into account these views in formulating its proposals.
3. The Group considered in-depth the resource requirements of the education sector. The Group welcomes the proposition set out in the Eighth Plan approach document that the developmental pattern and process should be explicitly reoriented so as to enable everyone, inter-alia to have access to education and strongly urges that this proposition be adequately reflected in the Plan allocations. Ever since the Kothari Commission made a fervent plea for progressively raising the level of expenditure on education to 6% of the national income, the 6% norm has become a national goal reiterated again and again in many policy documents, including the NPE, 1986. The Group strongly pleads the immediate implementation of the 6% norm. Keeping this in view, significant increase in allocation for the education sector should be made by the States and the Centre in the Eighth Five Year Plan. Without a sizeable infusion of additional resources it would not be possible to translate into practice the laudable objective of reorienting and restructuring the educational pattern and process. The Group strongly feels that this would be a timely step against the backdroup of the stirring developments in the
181
field of adult literacy and the nation-wide resolve to universalise elementary education in order to accelerate social transformation in the shortest possible time.
4. The Group discussed the question of mobilising additional resources for education by increasing fees, efficient management of resources, reduction of subsidies, by greater community participation and through appropriate tax incentives through amendments to the Income-Tax Act. For example, the scope of deductions under the Income-Tax Act can be extended to cover donations to educational institutions on 100% basis; incentives can be provided to support research in science and technology, humanities and social sciences on par with R & D. The Group also recommends that adequate incentives should be provided by the State and Central Governments to educational institutions to raise resources through consultancies and similar services. The present practice of deducting such income from the block grants acts as a severe disincentive. The Group also notes that while these resources can supplement to some extent they do not detract from the strong need for adequate budgetary support by the states and Centre for the education sector as envisaged in the earlier paragraphs. To supplement Government effort, corporate bodies should also undertake educational promotion activities from their own resources.
5. The Group takes note of the attempt of the Department of Education, Government of India, to tap external funds in the field of basic education from bilateral sources as well as multilateral agencies. While endorsing this effort the group is of the view that external funding should be an additionality to the resources for education, that the projects must be in total conformity with national policies, strategies and programmes, that the project formulation should be the responsibility of the Central/State Government/other national agencies, that project formulation should be a process of capacity building, that the projects must be drawn up on innovative lines, emphasising people's participation, improvement of quality and equality of education and a substantial upgradation of facilities. The Group notes that in the implementation of the externally aided projects, the State Governments are handicapped by the stipulation requiring the States to first incur expenditure from their own resources and claim reimbursement subsequently. The Group would recommend a specially earmarked ways and means advance to the States for the implementation of the externally aided projects including the World Bank assisted Technician Education Programme. Further
182
the outlay on externally aided projects should be an additionality to the State Plan in the Education sector.
6. The Group would recommend that district be the unit for determining educational backwardness, and the benefits accruing to the educationally backward states should be extended to the educationally backward districts. Moreover the hill, desert remote rural areas, urban slums as well as tribal areas should be provided special Central Assistance.
7. The Group appreciated the support provided by the Central Government for the wide-ranging HRD activities for the western border areas under the Border Area Development Education Programme (BADEP). The Group was apprised of the serious resource constraint being faced by the States of the north-eastern region and Sikkim and also of the need. to enhance investment in HRD activities in these States. As the objectives of BADEP are equally applicable to the North-Eastern States and Sikkim, the Group strongly recommends extension of BADEP to these States with necessary enhancement of outlays or to start, with immediate effect, another Scheme for the North-Eastern States and Sikkim taking into consideraion their difficulties.
8. On a review of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme, the Group came to the conclusion that the Schemes in the education sector mainly relate to extension of the facility of education to the deprived sections and improvement of quality of education. Considering that education is a concurrent subject and concurrency entails sharing of responsibility between Centre and States the Group is of the view that strong Central support to major programmes in priority areas of education is a categorical imperative. The States need to be reassured that adequate and sustained support from the Centre would be forthcoming. The Grout) strongly recommends that the Centrally Sponsored Schemes should not only be continued but also strengthened and widened in the Eighth Five Year Plan. The Group would suggest that the Department of Education, Government of India should review, in consultation with the States, the existing Centrally sponsored Schemes with a view to improving their effectiveness. The Centrally Sponsored Schemes should have an element of flexibility to fulfil the individual needs of the States. Moreover, the Group would suggest that in consultation with the States the Central Govt. should initiate new Centrally Sponsored Schemes in areas which have remained uncovered during the Seventh Plan. These schemes should be started in 1991-92.
183
PARTICIPANTS IN THE GROUP ON POLICY & PLANNING
1. Shri K. Chandrasekharan Chairman
Minister (Education & Law)
Government of Kerala.
2. Shri Ashok Saikia Rapporteur
Secretary & Commissioner
Education, Government of Assam.
3. Dr. D. P. Singh
Minister of Higher Education
Bihar.
4. Shri Arun Kumar Kar
Minister (Education)
Tripura.
5. Prof. Syed Khaleefathullah
President
Central Council of Indian Medicine.
6. Prof. Ramlal Parikh
Vice-Chancellor, Gujarat Vidyapeeth
Ahmedabad.
7. Prof. K. L. Chopra
Director, IIT
Kharagpur.
8. Dr. Jyotibhai Desai
Gandhi Vidyapeeth, Vedachhi
Surat.
9. Shri B. C. Jhaveri
Technical Director
M.N. Dastur & Co. Ltd.
10. Prof. Satya Bhushan
Director, NIEPA.
11. Shri R. K. Srivastava
Secretary, Education
Government of Bihar.
12. Shri A. N. Mathur
Secretary, Education
Government of Haryana.
13. Shri D. Eswarappe
Director of Collegiate Education
Government of Karnataka
184
14. Shri J. S. Badhan
Commissioner & Secretary, Hr. Education
Government of Kerala.
15. Dr. Vasant Nagpure
Director of Education
Government of Maharashtra.
16. Shri Lalhums
Commissioner & Secretary, Education
Government of Nagaland.
17. Smt. Gurbinder Chahal
Secretary, Education
Government of Punjab.
18. Shri V. Sankarasubbaiyan
Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu.
19. Shri Sudhri Sharma,
Commissioner (Education)
Government of Tripura.
20. Shri Shardindu
Joint Secretary, Education
Government of Uttar Pradesh.
21. Shri Hari Prasad Pandey
Director, SCERT
Government of Uttar Pradesh
22. Shri A. K. Chatterjee,
Secretary, Hr. Education
Government of West Bengal.
23. Dr. J. B. G. Tilak
Senior Fellow, NIEPA.
24. Dr. M. Mukhopadhyaya
Senior Fellow, NIEPA.
25. Dr. Manjula Chakravarty
Dy. Director (Women's Development Division)
NIPCCD, Deptt. of Women & Child Development
Ministry of H.R.D.
26. Shri Kalyan Roy
Assistant Director (ECE), NIPCED
Deptt. of Women & Child Development
Ministry of H.R.D.
27. Dr. R. V. Vaidyanatha Ayyar
Joint Secretary
Department of Education
Ministry of H.R.D.