💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Education

  • Alongside Centre, states’ education expenditure too declined over past 12 years

    Why in the News

    Amid ongoing youth protests demanding education reform and Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, data analysis shows the decline in education spending is not confined to the Union Budget. In fact, State Governments’ own education spending share has fallen too over the same period.

    Why does state level spending matter when education policy debates usually focus on the Centre?

    1. Concurrent subject: Education is in the Concurrent List (Seventh Schedule), so both the Union and State Governments can legislate and spend on it.
    2. The Centre’s own decline: The Education Ministry’s share of the Union Budget fell from 4.6% (2013-14) to 2.5% (2025-26).
    3. The national state average mirrors it: The average share of all States’ and Union Territories’ expenditure devoted to education fell from around 17% (2013-14), tracking the same downward trend as the Centre’s budget share.

    What does the state level data reveal about educational outcomes?

    1. Bihar versus Kerala: Bihar’s Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) at the secondary level is 45, against Kerala’s 94, confirming long held differences in educational outcomes.
    2. GER as a measure of distance to travel: Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) is the number of students enrolled in a given education level, regardless of age, divided by the official age-group population for that level and multiplied by 100; a low GER indicates how far a state is from achieving adequate educational coverage.
    3. Spending share does not track outcome: Kerala and Tamil Nadu, despite strong GER, spend a lower share of their budgets on education than the national average, while Bihar and Delhi spend higher shares, showing that budget share alone does not explain educational outcomes.

    Is there an exception that breaks the declining trend?

    1. Delhi under the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP): Between 2014-15 and 2024-25, Delhi’s education spending share increased sharply even as the national average declined, reflecting a government that prioritised health and education.
    2. Kerala and Tamil Nadu have converged toward, then fallen behind, the national average: Kerala allocated a higher than average share until 2020 (COVID-19 period) and has lagged since; Tamil Nadu broadly tracked and later fell slightly below the national average over the long term.

    Conclusion

    The decline in India’s education spending is a joint Centre-State phenomenon, not solely a Union Government decision. The exception of Delhi’s rising education expenditure under a government that made education a political priority suggests the decline reflects policy choices, not an unavoidable trend. The findings therefore distribute responsibility for India’s education outcomes across both levels of government.

    Back2Basics

    1. Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER): The total enrolment in a specific level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the population in the official age group for that level; a key indicator of the reach of the education system.
    2. Concurrent List: The list of subjects under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India on which both Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws. In case of inconsistency, Parliamentary law prevails under Article 254.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 remains inadequate in promoting incentive-based system for children’s education without generating awareness about the importance of schooling. Analyse.

    Linkage: The PYQ examines challenges in implementing the Right to Education through adequate public investment, equitable access, and improved educational outcomes. The article highlights declining education expenditure by both the Centre and States, raising concerns over financing and effective implementation of the Right to Education.

  • It’s not just about a retest, it’s about the India story

    Why in the News:

    Protesters at Jantar Mantar are demanding Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation over the NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) paper leak, and the government is countering with a promise of a clean retest. Both sides are treating a retest as the solution, when the actual failure is a shrinking Union education budget and unresolved Centre-state coordination since education moved to the Concurrent List in 1976.

    What does a retest actually fix, and what does it leave untouched?

    1. Narrow scope of a retest: A retest addresses the manipulation of a single examination cycle, nothing more.
    2. Small share of aspirants affected: Competitive examinations like NEET select only a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands who appear.
    3. The larger unaddressed problem: The majority of India’s youth remain ill-prepared and poorly equipped to participate in the country’s growth story, a gap no retest can close.

    How has the Union government’s own education-spending record shaped this crisis?

    1. Declining budget share: Union government allocations for education have fallen sharply as a percentage of total government expenditure over the twelve years since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government took charge.
    2. Signal, not just shortfall: This downward trajectory reflects the government’s low prioritisation of education, not merely a resource constraint.
    3. Policy without investment: The government has refreshed the National Education Policy but has not matched it with investment in human resources as infrastructure for growth.

    Why does the 1976 shift of education to the Concurrent List complicate a fix?

    1. Constitutional history: Education was a State subject until 1976, when it was moved to the Concurrent List.
    2. Coordination requirement: Concurrent List placement means systemic reform requires substantial coordination between the Centre and State governments, not unilateral Union action.
    3. Limits of a Union-only response: A retest ordered by the Union government cannot substitute for the coordinated systemic reform the Concurrent List structure demands.

    What is the political stake if the underlying failure remains unaddressed?

    1. A generation coming of age: By the next general election in 2029, a generation of voters will have grown up entirely under NDA-led governments.
    2. Rising impatience: This cohort is likely to be far less tolerant of an unreformed education system and the toll it takes on growth.
    3. The real demand: The Jantar Mantar mobilisation is not asking the government to fix one exam; it is demanding that education be placed at the centre of governance and political discourse.

    Conclusion:

    The NEET leak is only the visible trigger; the substantive failure is chronic underinvestment in education and unresolved Centre-state coordination on a subject moved to the Concurrent List in 1976. Unless the Union treats education as core to growth policy rather than an electoral-cycle afterthought, retests will keep recurring without addressing employability. A durable Centre-state financing and coordination mechanism for education outcomes remains missing.

  • AISHE 2023-24: India’s Higher Education Enrolment Reaches 4.5 Crore

    Why in News?

    The Ministry of Education has released the All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2022-23 and 2023-24, showing that India’s higher education enrolment has reached 4.5 crore, reflecting significant improvements in access, gender parity, and participation of socially disadvantaged groups.

    Key Highlights

    • Total higher education enrolment reached 4.5 crore in 2023-24.
    • Enrolment increased by 31.5% from 3.42 crore in 2014-15.
    • Data was collected from 59,533 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).
    • Institutional participation in the survey exceeded 90%.

    Gender Parity

    • Gender Parity Index (GPI) stood at 1.08 in 2023-24.
    • Female participation has remained higher than male participation for seven consecutive years.
    • Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER): Overall GER: 30, and Female GER: 31.2
    • Female teachers increased to 7.78 lakh, constituting 44.9% of the total teaching workforce.

    Inclusion of Marginalised Communities

    • Scheduled Castes (SC): Enrolment increased by 51.4% since 2014-15. Total enrolment reached 69.72 lakh. GER increased from 18.9 to 27.8.
    • Scheduled Tribes (ST):Enrolment increased by 75.7%. Total enrolment reached 28.83 lakh. GER increased from 13.5 to 22.8.
    • Other Backward Classes (OBC): Enrolment increased by 60.2%. Student strength rose from 1.13 crore to 1.80 crore.

    STEM Education

    • STEM enrolment crossed 1.02 crore students.
    • Female share in STEM increased from 38.4% in 2014-15 to 44% in 2023-24.
    • Total teachers in higher education increased to 17.32 lakh.

    About AISHE

    • All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) was launched in 2011 by the Ministry of Education.
    • It is India’s primary database on higher education.
    • Covers: Universities, Colleges, and Standalone institutions
    • Collects information on: Student enrolment, Teachers, Infrastructure, Courses, Examination results, and Finance
    • Data is self-reported by institutions through an online Data Capture Format (DCF) portal.
    • The Ministry conducts validation and scrutiny, while data accuracy is the responsibility of the participating institutions.

    Key Indicators Used in AISHE

    • Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER): Percentage of students enrolled in higher education compared to the total population in the 18 to 23 years age group.
    • Gender Parity Index (GPI): Ratio of female GER to male GER. GPI = 1 indicates equal participation. GPI > 1 indicates higher female participation.

    [2017] What is the aim of the programme ‘Unnat Bharat Abhiyan’?

    [a] Achieving 100% literacy by promoting collaboration between voluntary organizations and government’s education system and local communities.

    [b] Connecting institutions of higher education with local communities to address development challenges through appropriate technologies.

    [c] Strengthening India’s scientific research institutions in order to make India a scientific and technological power.

    [d] Developing human capital by allocating special funds for health care and education of rural and urban poor, and organizing skill development programmes and vocational training for them.

    1. Should the premier institutes like IITs/IIMs be allowed to retain premier status, allowed more academic independence in designing courses and also decide mode/criteria of selection of students. Discuss in light of the growing challenges.

    2. The quality of higher education in India requires major improvements to make it internationally competitive. Do you think that the entry of foreign educational institutions would help improve the quality of higher and technical education in the country? Discuss.

    3. National Education Policy 2020 is in conformity with the Sustainable Development Goal-4 (2030). It intends to restructure and reorient education system in India. Critically examine the statement.

      The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, introduced after 34 years, aims to transform the Indian education system to make it equitable, inclusive, and globally competitive.

      NEP 2020 in alignment with SDG-4

      Free and Universal Education

      NEP promotes free primary and secondary education and universal literacy.

      Targets universalisation of education with 100% Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) by 2030.

      Proposes extension of Right to Education up to 18 years.

      Elimination of Discrimination in Education (SDG 4.5) – Focuses on inclusion of 2 crore out-of-school children into mainstream education.

      Equal Access to Quality Pre-primary Education (SDG 4.2)

      Affordable and Quality Vocational Training for Women (SDG 4.3)

      Qualified and Trained Teachers (SDG 4.c) – NEP proposes National Professional Standards for Teachers and regular training.

      Reorientation and Restructuring of the Indian Education System

      School Education Reforms

      5+3+3+4 model aligns learning outcomes with cognitive development stages.

      National Mission on Foundational Literacy and Numeracy (NIPUN Bharat) ensures universal literacy by Grade 3.

      Integration of vocational training from Class 6 bridges the gap between education and employability.

      Higher Education Transformation

      Vision to create a multidisciplinary and research-driven system with HECIs (Higher Education Commission of India) as a single regulator.

      Establishment of National Research Foundation (NRF) to boost innovation.

      Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) target of 50% by 2035-aligns with SDG-4’s focus on higher education accessibility.

      Technology Integration – Creation of National Educational Technology Forum (NETF) and expansion of DIKSHA platform for digital content.

      Focus on Teachers – Teacher education to become integrated and professionalized (B.Ed. as a 4-year degree).

      Challenges

      Federal Issues as Education is a concurrent subject. Eg- TN opposition to 3 language

      Funding Constraints – NEP targets 6% of GDP expenditure on education, but current allocation is around 2.9% (Union Budget 2024-25).

      Digital Divide – over 40% rural households lack internet access (NFHS-5).

      Limited industry-academia linkage hampers employability outcomes of vocational programs. (only 55% employability)

      Learning poverty – Over 70% of Class 3 students cannot read age-appropriate texts (ASER 2025)

      Teacher Shortage – Over 9 lakh vacancies (MoE, 2025); only 15% of teachers trained under NISHTHA

      Poor Infrastructure in Schools – 35% of schools lack reliable electricity and digital tools (UDISE+, 2021-22).

      Way Forward

      Establish State Curriculum Frameworks (SCFs) aligned with NEP timelines.

      Increase Public Investment: Achieve 6% of GDP target with transparent utilization and outcome monitoring.

      Digital Equity: Expand PM eVIDYA, public Wi-Fi, and digital resource centers in rural schools.

      Public-Private Partnerships: Leverage CSR, EdTech collaborations, and local institutions for inclusive access.

      Teacher Empowerment: Strengthen continuous teacher training and monitoring under PARAKH assessment framework.

      If effectively realized, NEP 2020 can transform India from a literacy-focused to a learning and innovation-oriented society, essential for achieving Viksit Bharat @2047.

    4. “Earn while you learn’ scheme needs to be strengthened to make vocational education and skill training meaningful.” Comment. (150 words)

      India’s demographic dividend can be fully realized only through quality skill development. The scheme provides students opportunities for on-the-job training and financial independence.

      Significance of the Scheme

      Bridging Education-Employment Gap: (55% employability)

      Promoting Financial Inclusion: Encourages economically weaker students to continue education.

      Industry-Ready Workforce: Provides hands-on skills needed for job readiness and entrepreneurship.

      Encouraging Dignity of Labour: Changes social perception towards blue-collar jobs.

      Education – College drop-out rates can come down.

      Exposure and experience- To their subject and field.

      Inculcate soft skills, business acumen in students.

      Challenges in Implementation

      Limited Industry – academia Linkages

      Vocational education is often treated as inferior to mainstream courses.

      Lack of Standardization: Weak alignment with National Skill Qualification Framework (NSQF).

      Funding Constraints: Poor financial incentives for students and industries to participate.

      Monitoring and Quality Issues: Weak oversight of apprenticeships and training outcomes.

      Gender Disparities due to mobility constraints, safety concerns, and societal norms

      Way Forward

      Strengthen Industry-Academia Linkages: Implement the Dual System of Training (DST) as in Germany.

      Integrate with PMKVY and National Skill Development Mission for convergence.

      Incentivize Employers: Tax benefits and recognition for industries providing apprenticeship.

      Embed Life Skills & Entrepreneurship Training to enhance employability.

      The ‘Earn While You Learn’ model embodies the vision of NEP 2020 and SDG-4 by promoting skill-based, inclusive education. “Skilling is building a better India. ” – PM Narendra Modi

    5. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 remains inadequate in promoting incentive-based system for children’s education without generating awareness about the importance of schooling. Analyse.

      Enacted under Article 21A, the RTE Act (2009) aims to provide free and compulsory elementary education to all children aged 6-14 years.

      Key Features of RTE Act

      Fundamental Right: Makes eight years of quality elementary education a justiciable right.

      25% Reservation: Mandates private unaided schools to reserve seats for disadvantaged groups.

      Infrastructure Norms: Sets binding standards for Pupil-Teacher Ratio, buildings, and toilets.

      No-Detention Policy: Prohibits failing or expelling students until Class 8 (subject to later state-level amendments).

      Zero Screening: Bans capitation fees and interview-based admissions for children or parents.

      Teacher Standards: Mandates minimum professional qualifications and clearing of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).

      Major Incentives Provided

      Mid-Day Meals: Ensures nutritional support to improve attendance and concentration.

      Free Uniforms and Textbooks: Eliminates the direct out-of-pocket costs of schooling.

      Transport Allowances: Provided to children in remote areas lacking a neighborhood school.

      Special Training: Bridge courses for out-of-school children to join age-appropriate classes.

      Infrastructure Grants: Funding for functional girls’ toilets and drinking water facilities.

      Scholarships: Target-based financial aid for SC, ST, and minority students.

      Major Issues in Promoting Incentive-Based System

      Prevalence of Child Labour and lack of awareness about Education importance – Eg- High seasonal dropouts in agriculture-heavy districts of Bihar/UP in 2025. (ASER 2025)

      Marginalized families remain unaware of the 25% EWS quota and online application portals.

      Perverse Incentives: Focus on attendance for meals/books rather than actual learning engagement or outcomes.

      The “Class 9” Cliff: Incentives stop at Class 8, leading to massive dropouts once fees are introduced.

      Learning Poverty Paradox: ASER 2024 reports that only ~43% of Class V students can read a Class II-level text.

      Geographical Exclusion: Over 8.1 million children from urban slums remained out of school in early 2026. (NAC Implementation Report)

      Stigmatization: EWS children in elite schools face social alienation

      Way Forward

      Awareness Campaigns: Use “Nukkad Nataks” and local influencers to explain the “value” of education beyond meals. Eg- “Vidyanjali 2.0” community volunteer programs.

      Extension of Mandate: Extend free education up to Class 12 to prevent the “Class 9 dropout” crisis. (NEP 2020)

      Outcome-Based Incentives: Transition from “enrollment incentives” to “outcome-linked” benefits for schools and students. Eg- NIPUN Bharat performance-linked grants

      Documentation Camps: Organize “on-the-spot” certificate camps in schools for EWS/Caste certificate verification.

      Social Integration Training: Sensitize private school teachers to prevent the stigmatization of EWS students in classrooms.

      Strengthening SMCs: Empower School Management Committees to conduct local social audits of learning quality.

      Public School Revamp: Elevate government school quality (PM SHRI) to make them the “first choice” for parents.

      RTE must shift from a “Right to Enrollment” to a “Right to Learning” by prioritizing awareness over mere fiscal incentives.