The Right to Education Act 2009and the Contribution of Private schools

Professor Geeta Gandhi Kingdon

Chair of Economics of Education & International Development

University College London

Role & relevance of private sector in education in UP

• Demonstrate the contribution of the private sector by showing the:

• Size of the private sector• Growth of the private sector• Fee levels in the private sector• Learning levels of children in the private sector• Value for Money given by the private sector

• Through these data you will see why the voice of the private sector is important, when formulating education policy

Age Rural Urban Total

6-10 38.1 69.2 48.8

11-14 41.5 61.6 48.4

15-18 42.8 47.3 44.3

Total 40.5 60.0 47.2

Table 1% children studying in private unaided schools in Uttar Pradesh,

by age and area, (NSS data 2014-15)

Temporal Change in Number of schools, Total enrolment and average enrolment per school, in Govt. and Private Schools (2010-15)

STATE

Number of schools Total Enrolment

Absolute Change(2010-15) % Change

Absolute Change(2010-15) % Change

Govt Private Govt Private Govt Private Govt Private

Andhra Pradesh* -4,269 3,932 -5 16.1 -223,489 294,412 -4 6

Assam 5,692 5,590 13 59 425,198 285,062 10 27

Bihar 3,206 7,659 5 1929 701,365 1,769,302 4 1810

Chhattisgarh 859 1,101 2 22 -377,980 293,815 -10 36

Gujarat 121 2,774 0 39 18,040 978,261 0 44

Haryana -377 1,977 -3 38 -103,416 663,742 -5 51

Himachal Pradesh 229 288 2 12 -145,950 69,231 -20 24

Jammu & Kashmir 1,198 251 5 5 -187,618 42,618 -15 5

Jharkhand -124 3,665 0 136 -779,208 831,535 -14 94

Karnataka -914 3,086 -2 24 -489,429 582,932 -11 19

Kerala** -527 4,520 -10 62 -290,984 872,547 -25 40

Madhya Pradesh 2,346 4,351 2 18 -1,941,935 87,262 -18 2

Maharashtra -1,590 1,449 -2 5 -1,236,274 955,608 -17 11

Odisha 1,329 2,737 2 39 -416,185 431,168 -7 60

Punjab -631 6,212 -3 194 -303,225 1,237,983 -14 135

Rajasthan -7,589 10,095 -10 39 -1,163,851 1,307,308 -16 27

Tamil Nadu 1,638 486 5 3 -153,910 -378,863 -4 -7

Uttarakhand 133 1,163 1 23 -152,974 257,393 -16 39

Uttar Pradesh 9,448 32,524 6 66 -2,593,508 7,474,389 -13 61

West Bengal 3,313 4,420 4 51 -1,912,764 465,199 -14 45

India (20 states) average 675 4,914 1 139 -566,405 926,045 -10 127

India (20 states) TOTAL 13,491 98,280 11 2,778 -1,13,28,097 1,85,20,904

Source: DISE state report card for each state for each year 2010-11 to 2014-15, downloaded from www.dise.in

*( Data has been taken for year 2013-14 as the data of 2014-15 cannot be taken because of separation of Telangana.)

**(Data has been taken for year 2009-10 and 2014-15 because the data for 2010-11 is not available in DISE)

Total No. of

Govt. Schools

Avg.School Size

i.e.Avg. Total

enrol-ment

Govt. Schools with a Total Enrolment <=50

No. of small govt.

schools

% of small govt.

schools

No. of pupils in

these schools

Average No. of

pupils per small

school

AverageNo. of pupils

per class

No. of Teachers in these

small schools

Pupil Teacher

Ratio

Total Expense on salary (crores)

(a) (b) (c) (d=c/a*100) (e) (f = e/c) (g=f/5) (h) (i=e/h) (j)

2005-06

122,126

179

10,873 8.9

3,24,692

30.0

6.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010-11 150,295 129 22,410 14.9 7,26,084 32.4 6.4 50,871 14.3 N/A

2014-15 160,942 106 32,317 20.1 10,53,534 32.6 6.6 79,177 13.3 3,800

Increase in the number of ‘small’ govt. schools, UP(schools with 50 or fewer students)

Total No. of

Govt. Schools

Avg.School

Sizei.e.

Avg. Total

enrol-ment

Govt. Schools with a Total Enrolment <=20

No. of small govt.

schools

% of small govt.

schools

No. of pupils in

these schools

Average No. of pupils

per small

school

AverageNo. of pupils

per class

No. of Teachers in these

small schools

Pupil Teacher

Ratio

Per pupil teacher salary

expense(Rs. pm)

Total Expense on salary (crores)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f = e/c) (g=f/5) (h) (i=b/e) (j)

2005-06

122,126

179

2,846 2.3

26,639 9.4 1.9 -- -- -- --

2010-11 150,295 129

4,151 2.8

52,093 12.5 2.5

7,569 6.9 -- --

2014-15 160,942 106

5,135 3.2

69,220 13.5 2.7

11,204 6.2 6474 538

Increase in the number of ‘tiny’ govt. schools, UP(schools with 20 or fewer students)

SMALLGovt. schools with a total enrolment of:

Number of small govt.

schools

Number of Pupils in

these govt. schools

Average school size (Number of

kids) per 'small' govt.

School

Number of

Teachers in these

govt. schools

Pupil Teacher

Ratio

Total Expense on

salary (Rs. crores)

0 237 0 0.0 396 0.0 19

<= 5 514 1,044 2.0 941 1.1 45

<= 10 1316 7,738 5.9 2,619 2.9 126

<= 20 5,135 69,220 13.5 11,204 6.2 538<= 50 32,317 10,53,534 32.6 79,177 13.3 3,800

Table 1B: Small govt. school phenomenon, UP 2014-15

Note: Avg. teacher salary Rs 40,000 pm in 2014-15, (NUEPA, 2015), with UP SCERT. Source: DISE data for UP, www.dise.in/statereportcards/raw In 2014-15, the Total number of Govt. elementary schools in UP was 160,942; and the Average school size in UP (Number of students) taking schools of ALL sizes, was 106.

Enrolment share of private schools, over time (ASER)SN States Private Share of total elementary enrolment

2005 2009 2014Increase

2009 to 20141 Andhra Pradesh 19.2 29.4 36.7 7.32 Assam 13.7 14.5 17.3 2.83 Bihar 9.6 5.0 12.0 7.04 Chattisgarh 4.4 9.4 17.8 8.45 Gujarat 7.4 10.2 13.3 3.16 Haryana 34.4 40.9 54.2 13.37 Himachal Pradesh 7.1 22.0 35.2 13.28 Jammu & Kashmir 17.7 32.0 48.1 16.19 Jharkhand 10.8 10.0 18.0 8.0

10 Karnataka 9.5 16.8 25.5 8.711 Kerala 22.2 51.5 62.2 10.712 Madhya Pradesh 8.5 14.8 21.4 6.613 Maharashtra 18.2 28.2 36.9 8.714 Orissa 3.5 4.4 8.5 4.115 Punjab 25.5 30.3 49.5 19.216 Rajastan 21.9 30.4 42.1 11.717 Tamil Nadu 18.4 19.7 31.9 12.218 Uttarakhand 19.4 24.7 37.5 12.819 Uttar Pradesh 27.9 35.8 51.7 15.920 West Bengal 2.8 6.5 8.8 2.3

Average 15.1 21.8 31.4 9.6

Mean MedianState Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total

ANDHRA PRADESH 595 858 783 500 708 667ASSAM 459 754 622 354 475 417BIHAR 539 560 553 300 392 350CHHATTISGARH 181 738 639 167 417 358DELHI 800 2098 2017 667 1800 1563GUJARAT 602 709 688 333 475 450HARYANA 786 1118 1010 667 708 700HIMACHAL PRADESH 709 800 738 520 700 558JAMMU & KASHMIR 408 624 522 333 467 417JHARKHAND 473 671 617 208 567 446KARNATAKA 662 1011 926 583 750 683KERALA 736 897 833 642 745 700MADHYA PRADESH 355 548 485 250 375 308MAHARASHTRA 775 1133 1053 563 750 667NORTHEAST STATES* 513 714 616 361 599 507ODISHA 299 632 503 250 417 333PUNJAB 824 919 882 692 600 658RAJASTHAN 413 632 535 333 417 375TAMIL NADU 1006 1022 1016 885 900 900TELENGANA 681 902 838 583 708 667UTTAR PRADESH 189 525 342 117 250 150UTTARANCHAL 704 792 768 333 650 600WEST BENGAL 381 1384 1124 192 1000 596Total 450 801 663 292 542 417

Mean & Median monthly Fee levels in Private Unaided Schools for children aged 6-14, by state (NSS data, 2014-15)

% of 6-14 year old Private Unaided School attendees who pay fee below given thresholds, by state, 2014-15

S.No. State

<=100 per

month

<=200 per

month

<=500 per

month

<=750 per

month

<=1000 per

month

<=1500 per

month

<=2000 per

month

<=2500 per

month

Reimbursement Amount

% of pupils whose fee level is less than RTE

reimb. level

1 Andhra Pradesh 1.9 5.3 38.9 61.1 73.6 92.0 96.9 98.5 2 Assam 5.7 15.7 58.5 74.8 87.4 93.7 95.6 98.1 3 Bihar 6.0 20.9 69.2 77.6 87.4 94.9 97.5 98.3 4 Chhattisgarh 7.6 30.8 64.7 74.8 81.3 87.9 90.9 97.5 5 Delhi 1.3 3.4 12.5 24.9 33.5 48.1 58.8 68.7 1190 35.26 Gujarat 4.9 21.9 61.2 74.2 85.9 90.5 93.2 96.3 7 Haryana 1.1 4.6 36.2 56.1 68.4 85.8 92.2 95.0 8 Himachal Pradesh 2.0 6.1 46.7 66.5 78.2 90.4 97.5 99.0 1593 91.99 Jammu & Kashmir 2.9 12.0 71.2 86.1 92.7 97.1 98.8 99.6

10 Jharkhand 6.9 22.6 53.8 70.2 81.2 94.9 98.9 99.3 11 Karnataka 3.4 10.0 38.6 53.9 71.0 82.1 90.0 95.1 987 66.012 Kerala 1.6 4.5 31.9 55.1 74.1 91.4 97.3 98.4 13 Madhya Pradesh 9.8 27.7 71.1 81.9 90.7 96.3 97.9 99.4 14 Maharashtra 6.7 13.0 42.1 53.9 67.0 80.2 85.8 90.7 15 Orissa 11.3 29.9 69.7 86.6 91.3 96.1 97.8 98.3 16 Punjab 2.5 7.8 41.2 58.2 72.3 85.9 91.4 96.4 17 Rajasthan 3.6 18.0 69.1 81.4 89.6 94.8 97.2 99.0 1383 92.818 Tamil Nadu 0.6 2.3 20.8 40.6 60.0 83.6 93.0 97.0 19 Uttar Pradesh 32.3 61.5 84.0 89.2 92.6 96.4 97.7 98.5 450 80.620 Uttarakhand 2.4 14.3 44.5 63.1 82.1 87.5 92.9 98.8 860 71.021 West Bengal 11.0 26.8 45.8 54.5 61.7 74.9 83.6 88.5

Source: Author's analysis of raw data from the National Sample Survey, 71st round NSS, 2014-15

ASER survey, Uttar Pradesh

ASER Survey (Uttar Pradesh)

Table 2a: Government and Private schools’ Value for Money Comparison (using data on children’s Literacy Outcomes)

S. No. Variables Uttar

Pradesh Bihar Gujarat Tamil Nadu

Madhya Pradesh Kerala Punjab Odisa

A Govt Per Pupil Expenditure (Rs.) 23012 3105 47044 33126 9384 39267 16166 8897

B Govt Achievement (Reading) 27 45 45 50 28 61 61 50

CGovt Expenditure per Achievement Units (Rs.) (c=a/b) 859 70 1055 664 338 641 265 178

D Private Per Pupil Expenditure (Rs.) 1800 4200 5400 10800 3700 8400 7900 7150

E Private Achievement (Reading) 61 88 64 40 58 71 74 77

FPrivate Expenditure per Achievement Units (Rs.) (f=d/e) 29 48 84 269 63 119 107 93

G Govt./ Private Per Pupil Expenditure Ratio (g=a/d) 12.8 0.7 8.7 3.1 2.5 4.7 2.0 1.2

H Govt./ Private Numeracy Ratio (g=b/e) 0.44 0.51 0.70 1.24 0.48 0.87 0.83 0.65

IPrivate/Government Efficiency Ratio ( g = c/f ) 29.3 1.5 12.5 2.5 5.3 5.4 2.5 1.9

PPE estimated from state budgets and SSA PAB data (excludes MDM exp)

State Primary Secondary

Salary of

new appointee

Salary after 15

years

Salary after 25

years

Salary of new

appointee

Salary after 15

years

Salary after 25

years

Tamil Nadu 15,345 28,660 50,140 26,370 48,750 84,410

Karnataka (R) 18,794 26,098 33,672 24,272 34,618 44,762

Karnataka (U) 21,814 30,198 38,892 28,102 39,978 51,622

Jharkhand (R) 28,650 39,780 44,400 37,494 57,523 78,637

Jharkhand (U) 31,600 43,260 48,100 39,208 60,160 82,247

Odisha 14,031 26,659 27,347 25,625 37,806 43,034

Rajasthan 26,013 -- -- 28,331 -- --

Mizoram 16,504 -- -- -- -- --

Uttar Pradesh 29,293 39,683 44,783 37,226 47,716 52,996

Punjab^ (R) 35,936 59,113 79,288 40,602 66,868 89,699

Punjab^ (U) 36,588 60,194 80,742 41340 68,092 91,346

Simple Average 25,922 40,623 49,653 33,578 51,595 66,793

Table 6.3: Actual take home salaries of teachers (Rupees) July 2014

Source: State reports ; R – Rural; U – Urban # Actual take home salary includes basic pay, grade pay, dearness allowance, HRA, CCA, and other benefits and deductions

State Take home salary

per month July 2014

Take home salary

per annum July 2014

State Domestic

Product SDPper capita (2014-15)

Primary teacher salary as a multiple of state per

capita income

(a) (b) (c) (d) = b / c

Tamil Nadu 28,660 343920 128366 2.7Karnataka 28,148 337776 101594 3.3Jharkhand 41,520 498240 52147 9.6Odisha 26,659 319908 59229 5.4Uttar Pradesh 39,683 476196 40373 11.8Punjab 59,654 715848 99578 7.2Simple mean 6.7

Govt. primary school teachers’ mean salary as a multiple of state per capita GDP, 2014-15

Source: For teacher salary data, Table 6.3 in Vimala Ramachandran, 2015, NUEPA. We have taken teacher salary after 15 years experience as the ‘mean teacher salary’ (Ramachandran reports teachers’ salary at 0 years, 15 years and 25 years experience, for the year 2014-15). For state pc SDP, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Also see the website http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-capita-of-indian-states.php accessed on 27 Nov 2015

State Take home salary per

month July 2014

Take home salary per annum

July 2014

State Domestic Product

per capita (2014-15)

Upper Primary teacher salary

as a multiple of state per capita

income

(a) (b) (c) (d) = b/c

Tamil Nadu 48,750 585000 128366 4.6Karnataka 37,298 447576 101594 4.4Jharkhand 58,842 706104 52147 13.5Odisha 37,806 453672 59229 7.7Uttar Pradesh 47,716 572592 40373 14.2Punjab 67,480 809760 99578 8.1Simple average

8.7

Govt. upper primary school teachers’ mean salary as a multiple of state per capita GDP, 2014-15

Source: For teacher salary data, Table 6.3 in Vimala Ramachandran, 2015, NUEPA. We have taken teacher salary after 15 years experience as the ‘mean teacher salary’ (Ramachandran reports teachers’ salary at 0 years, 15 years and 25 years experience, for the year 2014-15). For state pc SDP, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Also see the website http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-capita-of-indian-states.php accessed on 27 Nov 2015

Table 5Estimates of primary-school teacher salaries as a multiple of per capita GDP

Country/state Reference year

Estimated ratio of teacher salary to:

Per capita GDP Per capita SDPOECD average 2009 1.2 --Asian countries China 2000 0.9 -- Indonesia 2009 0.5 -- Japan 2009 1.5 -- Bangladesh 2012 ~1.0 -- Pakistan 2012 ~1.9 --India Nine Indian statesa 2004-5 3.0 4.9 Uttar Pradeshb 2006 6.4 15.4 Bihar 2012 5.9 17.5 Chattisgarh 2012 4.6 7.2

Source: Table 5.4 in Chapter 5 of Dreze, Jean and Amartya Sen (2013) “An Uncertain Glory: India and its Contradictions”. Allen Lane, London.

Conclusions• These data show the significant role of the private sector in education• Share of private enrolment has grown• Majority provider of education • The public is trusting the private school sector• Quality of education is better, i.e. learning is higher • They provide at lower cost, yield higher VFM• They have the moral authority to have their voice heard

RTE Act – Is it evidence based?• Free education• compulsory education• Children aged 6-14• In a neighbourhood school

Problems• Section 6 – create public schools in every neighbourhood• Section 8 – duty to give education of good quality• Section 12(1)(c) – 25% seats of private schools to EWSD kids• Section 12(2) – calculation of reimbursement to private schools• Section 18 – Mandates recognition of private schools

• No learning norm; 40 extra norms, PTR, training (inputs-focused, evid-based?), • Leading to school closures

• Section 19 – Lays penalties for non-compliance with recog. Norms• No penalty for Govt. schools if they don’t comply

• On s.12(1)(c) • Rules – definition of neighbourhood• s.2(c) – kids below age 6 • S.5(1) – no right of transfer to private schools• S.15 – Extended period of admission• Rules – Definition of ‘Disadvantaged Group’ – creamy layer – Definition of EWS (income level)

Conclusion• Clearly, flawed inputs emphasis• Not evidence based • Requires your voice at district, state, national level• Collectively asleep between 2005-2009 • New Education Policy being formulated now• Always room for reform• Seek out forums• Write opinion editorials • Because you care; because you have moral authority• When lots of voices raised, it will surely have effect

Thanks

The GO of 8th May 2013 infringes the autonomy of UP’s private unaided schools by imposing various conditions which militate against the judgment of the Eleven Judges Bench of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka and others as reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, and also against the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537.

In these judgments, the Hon’ble SC has throughout maintained the autonomy of the private unaided schools in regard to their establishing, administering and charging fee to the extent of even creating surplus fund for the development of their educational institutions.

• Lakhs of low-fee private schools in U.P. run for livelihood of the entrepreneur

• Requirement to run without gain/profit not provided in RTE Act, but included in UP RTE Rules 2011.

• Such condition discourages private investment in educ by small entrepreneurs, and should be scrapped.

• This condition assumes only rich philanthropists establish schools, who can buy costly land, buildings, furniture, etc. - to give it free, to run non-profit schools; there are few such philanthropists

• If private schools close down, it would impose great burden on state govt - no financial capacity for that, esp. as per-pupil-cost in govt schools is high (as teacher salaries are about 20 times higher in govt schools in rural UP).

Condition to run schools as non-profit

Condition to raise fee only once in 3 years • The norm that a private unaided school cannot raise its tuition fee for 3 years and then by a

maximum of only 10% once in 3 years, contradicts the UP govt’s own condition (for granting NOC to private schools) which stipulates that private schools must pay their teachers the same salary and yearly increments and DA as those given in government and aided schools

• This contradiction is because in govt and aided schools, DA increases by 15% every year (in the past 4 years) and there is, in addition, also a salary increment of 3 percent every year in UP

• So, just as govt has to increase its revenue every year to raise DA & increments for its own teachers every year, in the same way, a private school has to raise fee revenue every year, to pay for increments and increase in DA for teacher salaries every year, in line with govt/aided schools.

• While only a small fraction of private schools pay govt-prescribed salaries, but the teachers in even the remaining private schools expect annual pay increments.

• Private school teachers will blame govt for imposing a rule which allows govt teachers to get a 15% increase in DA and 3% increment in basic each year, but restricts private school teachers’ salaries to rising only once every 3 years

The GO dated 8th May 2013 is destroying the autonomy of private schools, and negates the landmark Supreme Court judgment which says that the essence of a private school is its autonomyIn the landmark judgment TMA Pai Foundation versus the State of Karnataka, the 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court had observed that “the essence of a private educational institution is the autonomy that the institution must have in its management and administration. There, necessarily, has to be a difference in the administration of private unaided institutions and the government aided institutions. Whereas in the latter case, the government will have greater say in the administration, including admissions and the fixing of fees, in the case of private unaided institutions, maximum autonomy in the day to day administration has to be with the private unaided institutions. Bureaucratic or governmental interference in the administration of such an institution will undermine its independence”.

It goes on to say: “While an educational institution is not a business, in order to examine the degree of independence that can be given to a recognised educational institution, like any private entity that does not seek aid or assistance from the government, and that exists by virtue of the funds generated by it, including its loans and borrowings, it is important to note that the essential ingredients of the management of the private institution include the recruiting student and staff, and the quantum of the fee to be charged.” In another place in the same judgment the Supreme Court says that “the fixing of a rigid fee structure …. would be unacceptable restriction”.

• Further down in the same TMA Pai judgement the court observed that: “an educational institution is established for the purpose of imparting education of the type made available by the institution….One cannot lose sight of the fact that providing good amenities to the students in the form of competent teaching faculty and other infrastructure costs money. It has therefore to be left to the institution if it chooses not to seek any aid from the government, to determine the scale of the fee that it can charge from the students…. We have been given to understand that a large number of professional and other institutions have been started by private bodies who do not seek any governmental aid. In a sense, a prospective student has various options open to him or her where, therefore, normally economic forces have a role to play. The decision on the fee to be charged must necessarily be left to the private institution that does not seek, or is not dependent upon, any funds from the government.”

• Since the number of private unaided schools is large, at least in urban and peri-urban areas, there is something close to a situation of ‘perfect competition’ among schools. i.e. no school can make ‘super-normal profits’ since parents will have the ability to abandon a school that is providing similar facilities and results compared to other schools in their neighbourhood but is charging higher fee than other schools. As the TMA Pai case judgement says, economic forces play a role to drive out schools that are not giving value for the fee they charge.

See letter dated 14/.12.2015 against 8 May GO in folder C:\Users\Geeta Kingdon\ggk\CMS and Lucknow\Legal & advocacy\RTE writ petition\Letter to UP govt and authorities