(8) Experience shows that there is a sharp contradiction between the requirements of quantity and quality. The pressure exerted by popular demand for quantitative expansion in terms of numbers of pupils enrolled in educational institutions is enormous and virtually irresistible under present conditions. At the same time there were many schemes formulated by academic experts which seek to improve the content, quality and utility of education imparted in these institutions. It is impossible to find funds for all purposes. It is necessary that this fact should be accepted and an overall plan devised which would reconcile the claims for expansion with the claims for improvement and impose restraints on both.

(9) Consider for instance, the question of Basic education. Once upon a time Basic educational experts used to claim that if only pupil-labour was organised in schools in the manner recommended by them, it would be possible to raise the pupil's educational level to the standard of "matriculation minus English" and the result could be secured at next to no expense to the State (the value of seven year's labour of pupils being equated to the pay of teacher for six years). Now-a-days no one repeats this claim... It has been proved in practice that expenditure on Basic education (even after allowing for pupils" labour) is heavier than on traditional Elementary education. This is only to be expected. It is a better quality article and cannot be had except by paying a higher price. But the question is-can we afford to go in at the same for quality as well as quantity? If not, how shall we resolve the contradiction? Given the position that we shall be unable to budget (even in 1965-66) for an annual expenditure exceeding three rupees per capita on the first five years in school and another one rupee per capita on the next three years in school, how far shall we be able to fulfil Article 45 of the Constitution and how far shall we succeed in changing over from the traditional to the Basic pattern? These, are the questions to which concrete answers must be given before it will become possible to integrate a programme of Basic education within a "ten-year programme of development of Primary education", to which reference has been made already. If this is not done, complaints will continue to be made, about the pace of progress in Basic education,

(10) Similarly considerations apply to the recommendations of the Secondary Education Commission. The objectives which the Commission had in view are excellent. The measures by which the objectives are sought to be attained are reasonable in themeselves. But the Commission did not attempt to cots

319

its own recommendations) either in respect of the changes proposed in Secondary education, or in respect of. the changes in College education to which they are correlated. Detailed examination disclosed (in respect of school education in Madras State) that a sum of Rs. 14.50 crores would be required by way of non-recurring expenditure, in addition to a quite substantial increase in the annual recurring expenditure. At one time it seems to have been thought that the recommendations could be put through in respect of College education, without any appreciable increase of expenditure. Experience has disclosed. the fallacy underlying this assumption. The cost of this change, which has been already carried out by the University of Madras, is only now in process of ascertainment. Detailed study of the recommendations of the Secondary Education Commission so far as they related to Secondary education has been completed. It has been found that the beneficial results which the Commission had in view can be secured at a reasonable cost, but only on the basis of integrated reorganisation of both Elementary and Secondary education and that this process will have to be spread over not only in the Second FiveYear Plan period but also in the Third Plan period.

(II) Even when those difficult questions are settled and an integrated programme emerges, there is the further problem of defining priorities and flexible method of phasing the implementation of the programme, so that the cost of the programme in any year may not exceed the funds which can be made available under the Plan for that year. After studying this problem the Committee of the Madras Legislature has said, "In practice, we have no doubt, it will be difficult to resist the pressure for expansion in order to devote larger resources to improvement. It will be even more difficult to resist the claims of advanced areas in order to accelerate the progress of backward areas. The difficulties must nevertheless be faced. The grants-in-aid rules should be revised with an eye on specially securing these results. We should add by way of clarification that it is not our intention that there should be any bar to expansion of improvement in the advanced areas, where they may be achieved without entailing a corresponding increase of Public expenditure".

The Committee then proceeded to translate these general considerations into specific targets for 1965-66, specific limits of cost, and specific statements of relative priorities and concluded, "Our advice to the Government is as follows :

I. Make all the preparations necessary for raising funds in order to step up the average annual cost per capita (on standards I to XI) from Rs. 3.10 nP. to Rs. 5 per capita. This will be difficult. It will entail stepping up of the incidence of the State taxation and local taxation and mobilisation of educational endowments. Panchayats, municipalities and district boards. should be required to undertake a specific share of the responsibility for levying local taxation and raising funds.

II. Out of Rs. 5 per capita allocate Rs. 3 for standards I to V and Rs. 2 for standards VI to XI. This will mean an increase of Rs. 1.20 per capita for standards I to V and 13 annas per capita for standards VI to XI. If new resources fall short of Rs. 1.15 per capita, allocate such extra resources may be available proportionately.

320

III. Accept a definite target of annual outturn of pupils who complete the primary phase of Elementary education and attain permanent literacy at the rate of 20 pupils (boys and girls) per 1,000 people, at a cost not exceeding Rs. 150 per pupil. To this end, enforce compulsion and reduce wastage. Provide free school meals for poor children. Step up enrolment in standards I to V to 110 per thousand people ; and enrolment in standard V to 20 per thousand people. Regulate the number of teachers at the rate of 1 per 40 pupils; and the pay scales of teachers so as not to exceed the allocated cost per capita. Encourage local authorities to experiment on ways and means of reducing cost. Make sure of attaining the target with the maximum possible economy.

IV. In respect of standards VI to XI, recognise and give effect to the following order of relative priorities :-

(1) Improvement of the quality and utility of Secondary education, at existing rates of annual outturn of pupils who complete Secondary education.

(2) Levelling up the annual outturn of pupils who complete Higher Elementary education and Secondary education respectively to a common minimum level for all taluks of the State. This common minimum level may be fixed to begin with at 4 per 1,000 people in respect of Higher Elementary education and 1 per 1000 people in respect of Secondary education.

(3) (a) Improvement of the quality and utility of Elementary education above standard V including the integration of Basic education with the general school system, if and in so far as funds may be still available.

(b) Further expansion of enrolment in standards VI to XI so as to raise the common minimum level to 6 per 1,000 people in respect of Higher Elementary and 1.5 per 1,000 people in respect of Secondary education."

(12) This concludes my account of the experience of the Madras Government in grappling with the difficulties of working out an integrated programme of Development of Education. I have reached the following conclusions :-

(i) There is urgent need for changing over as completely and as quickly as possible from the "unplanned development" process of the past to the new process of "planned development". This is not possible, so long as our planning perspective is limited to the Second Five-Year Plan period. It is necessary, forthwith, to bring within our Planning Perspective the entire period of the third Plan.

(ii) Having done this, it is necessary to formulate and accept a system of "cost-controlled targets", the general nature of which is indicated by the recommendations, of the Legislature Committee.

The memorandum outlining the, preliminary draft of a "Model Perspective Plan" represents a further development of the foregoing conclusions.

321