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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Education

  • Ensuring equity amid India’s educational progress

    Ensuring equity amid India’s educational progress

    Why in the News

    The Unified District Information System for Education Plus (UDISE+) 2025-26 report records notable progress across India’s school education system. Progress is recorded in gross enrolment, student retention, dropout reduction, teacher availability and educational infrastructure. The same report records that regional and social disparities persist in access, resources, learning opportunities and educational outcomes. Differences in gross enrolment ratios, dropout rates, pupil teacher ratios and infrastructure availability now separate States and social groups from one another rather than separating India from an earlier baseline. What is contested is whether an improving national average can be read as equitable, inclusive and quality education.

    What is the Unified District Information System for Education Plus (UDISE+)?

    1. A school level administrative database: UDISE+ is the annual data system that collects information from every recognised school in the country, managed by the Department of School Education and Literacy under the Ministry of Education.
    2. Scale of the 2025-26 round: The report covers 1.47 million schools, 240 million students and 10.2 million teachers.
    3. What it measures: It records enrolment, retention, teacher deployment and school infrastructure, reported down to the district and school level.
    4. Why the numbers matter: The database is the official basis on which school education allocations are made and progress is monitored.

    What is the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER)?

    1. Enrolment measured against an age group: GER is total enrolment at a school stage expressed as a percentage of the population in the official age group for that stage.
    2. Why a value above 100 is possible: Enrolment of under age and over age children pushes the ratio past 100 without meaning that every eligible child of that age is in school.

    What is the Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR)?

    1. Students carried by each teacher: PTR is the number of enrolled students per teacher at a given school stage, so a higher value means each teacher carries a larger class load.

    What is the Gender Parity Index?

    1. Girls’ enrolment measured against boys’: The index is the ratio of female to male enrolment at a school stage, and a value above one shows more girls enrolled than boys.

    What is Aadhaar seeding of student records?

    1. Linking an enrolment record to a unique identity number: Seeding attaches a student’s Aadhaar number to the school record, which is how duplicate and inactive enrolments are removed from the count.

    Which States lead and lag on enrolment records and school profile?

    1. Aadhaar seeding of enrolled students: Andhra Pradesh leads at 99.6 percent, followed by Chandigarh at 99 percent. Meghalaya records the lowest rate at 35 percent against a national average of 90.2 percent.
    2. Share of schools and enrolment: Uttar Pradesh accounts for the highest share of both schools and student enrolment. Meghalaya and Himachal Pradesh have the lowest shares of schools relative to enrolment, which produces higher student school ratios.
    3. Composition of schools by stage: West Bengal records the highest proportion of foundational and preparatory schools at 79 percent and among the lowest secondary schools at 11 percent. Chandigarh is the reverse, with 83 percent secondary schools and 5 percent foundational and preparatory schools.
    4. Average enrolment per school: Chandigarh registers the highest at 1,194, followed by Delhi at 788. Ladakh records the lowest at 64, which marks the spread in school size across the country.

    How is enrolment distributed across social groups?

    1. Regional concentration of social groups: Chandigarh and Delhi have the highest proportions of General category students. Lakshadweep, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Ladakh have high proportions of Scheduled Tribe enrolment.
    2. Concentration of Scheduled Caste and Other Backward Classes enrolment: Punjab records one of the highest shares of Scheduled Caste enrolment. Other Backward Classes representation is particularly high in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat.
    3. Gross enrolment by social group at the national level: Other Backward Classes record the highest at 49 percent, followed by General at 27 percent, Scheduled Castes at 17 percent and Scheduled Tribes at 10 percent.
    4. Enrolment set against population: Those figures diverge from the corresponding population of each social group, which is where the enrolment gap between groups becomes visible.
    5. Girls ahead of boys on participation: The Gender Parity Index across all school levels shows higher girls’ enrolment and participation than boys in most States and Union Territories.
    6. Minority enrolment: Students from minority communities account for more than 20 percent of enrolment, with Muslims and Parsis among the major minority groups.

    How far apart are States on teacher availability?

    1. The spread tracks population density: PTR registers lowest in Union Territories and highest in densely populated States.
    2. The secondary stage carries the heaviest load: Foundational, preparatory and middle stage ratios are generally lower than the secondary ratio across most States.
    3. The highest secondary ratios: Jharkhand records the highest secondary PTR at 43, followed by Uttar Pradesh, which signifies a heavy workload on each teacher.
    4. The lowest secondary ratios: Sikkim records the lowest secondary PTR at 6, followed by Ladakh.

    What do the stage wise gross enrolment figures show?

    1. Foundational stage: Meghalaya records the highest at 131, followed by Mizoram. Bihar records the lowest at 24, preceded by Uttar Pradesh.
    2. Preparatory stage: Meghalaya again records the highest at 171, followed by Manipur. Gujarat records the lowest at 74, preceded by Bihar.
    3. Middle stage: Chandigarh and Meghalaya record the highest at 118, followed by Delhi. Bihar records the lowest at 70, preceded by Nagaland.
    4. Secondary stage: Chandigarh registers the highest at 109, followed by Goa. Bihar records the lowest at 48, preceded by Nagaland.
    5. The pattern across stages: One large State sits at or near the bottom at every stage, which concentrates the enrolment deficit rather than spreading it evenly across the country.

    What does the dropout data show about retention at each stage?

    1. Why the indicator matters: The dropout rate determines attainment and the transition rate to the next stage of schooling.
    2. Preparatory stage: Bihar accounts for the highest preparatory dropout rate at 7.9 percent, followed by Meghalaya. Delhi, Haryana and Maharashtra do not report dropout at this stage.
    3. Middle stage: Bihar records the highest middle level dropout rate at 9 percent, followed by Uttar Pradesh. Chandigarh, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh register no dropouts at this stage.
    4. Secondary stage: Ladakh records the highest secondary dropout rate at 14.8 percent, followed by Karnataka. West Bengal records the lowest at 1.5 percent, preceded by Telangana.

    Why has improved access not produced regular attendance?

    1. A school within reach is now the norm: Access to schooling has improved significantly over the years, and most children now have a school at a suitable distance.
    2. Terrain still decides regularity: Remote, hilly, tribal and border areas still have limited schools and transport facilities, so children there face greater difficulty attending regularly. Eg. Bageshwar district of Uttarakhand, Ganjam and Kandhamal districts of Odisha, Kathua district of Jammu and Kashmir, and Palghar district of Maharashtra.
    3. Social position compounds distance: Children from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minorities and economically poor families face barriers that limit enrolment, attendance and completion together.

    What limits infrastructure and teacher deployment in backward districts?

    1. Infrastructure has improved unevenly: School infrastructure has improved in several areas of the country on drinking water and electricity, and availability still varies across regions.
    2. Rural schools in backward districts lag: Educationally backward districts continue to struggle to provide a learning environment in rural schools compared with urban areas.
    3. One teacher, many roles: Rural and remote schools face teachers handling multiple classes and subjects alongside non teaching responsibilities allotted by the government.

    Which groups remain outside the gains?

    1. Girls’ schooling has advanced without closing retention: Progress in girls’ schooling has not removed the challenge of reducing dropout rates.
    2. The primary to secondary transition is weak: Improving the transition from primary to secondary education remains a stated gap.
    3. Facilities for disabled children fall short: Sufficient and suitable facilities for children with disabilities are not yet in place.
    4. What inclusion requires: Inclusive infrastructure, accessible classrooms and supportive teaching practices are the stated conditions for equitable education.

    Does progress in national averages amount to educational equity?

    1. Improvement and inequality sit in the same dataset: Educational inequality persists across accessibility, infrastructure, teacher availability, digital resources and social inclusion even as the aggregate indicators improve.
    2. The dimensions move together: Addressing these dimensions collectively is treated as essential, since a gain on one indicator does not carry across to the others.
    3. The paradox of progress: Regional and social imbalances continue to influence educational opportunities and learning conditions, so the national average understates what a child in a lagging district faces.

    What would a targeted equity response have to do differently?

    1. Investment directed at deprived regions: Targeted investment in educationally deprived regions is the first measure set out, in line with the National Education Policy 2020.
    2. Teacher deployment as an equity instrument: Deployment is set out as a requirement distinct from recruitment. Eg. The State spread in secondary stage ratios.
    3. Digital infrastructure as a school input: Improved digital infrastructure is named alongside physical infrastructure rather than as an add on.
    4. Dedicated support for disadvantaged groups: Stronger support for disadvantaged social groups, backed by inclusive social and economic policies, is required in addition to general spending.

    Conclusion

    India’s school education system has largely settled the access question and opened the equity question in its place. The 2025-26 data establishes progress at the national level and leaves the distribution unsettled, since the State a child studies in still predicts enrolment, teacher availability and completion. Progress will read as equity only when the distance between the best and the worst performing States narrows on the same indicators that have improved nationally.

    “[2022, GS2, 15 marks] 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.”

  • English indigenous or foreign language? Supreme Court for examining constitution

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court on 20 August 2026 said the constitutionality of treating English as a non indigenous language under the three language policy will have to be examined, given the extent of its roots in Indian society. That classification decides which languages compete for a student’s single foreign language slot, so a descriptive label is operating as a rationing rule.

    What is the Three-Language Formula?

    1. What it requires: The three language formula requires a school student to learn three languages, of which at least two must be native Indian languages, described in the policy as Bhartiya Bhashas.
    2. Source and timing: The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) is introducing it under the National Education Policy, 2020 from the academic year 2026-27.
    3. Sequence prescribed: The policy begins a child with the mother tongue, moves to another indigenous language, and leaves the third open to being either indigenous or foreign.

    What is the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)?

    1. National Council for Teacher Education: The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is the statutory body that lays down norms for teacher education programmes and recognises the institutions running them. Its rules decide whether a school’s language teacher holds the Bachelor of Education qualification that recognition requires.

    Why is the classification of English as non-indigenous a constitutional question?

    1. The label under scrutiny: The bench said it will have to see whether English can be classified as a non indigenous language or an indigenous one, given the historical perspective of English and the extent of its roots into Indian society.
    2. Objection to the word native: A judge on the bench recorded a serious reservation about the expression native, holding that it carries a very colonial import and that indigenous is the correct term.
    3. Source of the expression: The Additional Solicitor General told the Court that non native is an expression coming from the new education policy, and the bench replied that the framers of the policy ought to have been conscious of the words they chose.
    4. The Board’s position: English is an official language under the Constitution and that status cannot be taken away, it is not treated like a foreign language, and it cannot be treated like a native language either.
    5. The presiding judge’s view: The Chief Justice of India said English could hardly be considered a foreign language.
    6. Why the label is reviewable: A classification that determines which language a student may take up is State action affecting a class of students, which brings it within constitutional review rather than leaving it to policy discretion alone.

    How does the classification restrict the study of other foreign languages?

    1. Two slots pre committed: Mandating at least two native Indian languages leaves a student only one slot for a foreign language.
    2. English absorbs that slot: Nearly all students choose English for the single slot, so French, Japanese and Spanish are effectively pushed out of the main curriculum.
    3. Enrolled students displaced: A large number of students already studying French and Japanese have to switch to a native language.
    4. Employment argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that a second foreign language increases employment opportunities, and that the students affected come from middle and lower income homes.
    5. Textbook design problem: Textbooks placed online under the scheme begin with compound sentences rather than with the first letter, which makes learning an unfamiliar script from them impractical.

    Why is the Class 6 batch at the centre of the dispute?

    1. Cohort singled out: Classes 7 to 9 were exempted under Board guidelines, and the present Class 6 batch was slated to face full implementation.
    2. Terminal assessment: That batch faces a mandatory third language paper in the Class 10 Board examination by 2031.
    3. Reprieve proposed: The bench asked why the Class 6 students could not be given a reprieve from writing the third language paper in the Class 10 examination.
    4. Infrastructure not in place: The Court tied the reprieve to the fact that school infrastructure is still not adequately in place across the various education Boards.
    5. Start earlier instead: The bench held that the scheme should begin in a lower class, which would give students, families and school administrations elbow space to adapt.

    What capacity gaps does the Court identify in implementation?

    1. Choice on paper only: The option is 23 languages in theory, and in practice the range a school can actually offer is far narrower.
    2. Board asymmetry: Only around 4 per cent of schools are under the Central Board of Secondary Education and 96 per cent are under State Boards, so a Board level rule reaches a small share of the school system.
    3. Teacher education compliance: There are asymmetries in compliance with National Council for Teacher Education rules across schools and Boards.
    4. Qualified teacher shortage: There are inadequate numbers of Bachelor of Education qualified teachers for the languages the scheme would add.
    5. Sanskrit as the illustration: The bench asked how many Sanskrit teachers hold a Bachelor of Education qualification, noting that deep subject learning does not substitute for the prescribed teaching qualification.
    6. Compliance regime required: Schools will need an administrative compliance regime for the additional language, which they can absorb only if the change is phased in.

    What has the Court asked the Board to return with?

    1. One time reprieve: Whether a one time reprieve can be given to the current batch of Class 6 students from the third language Board examination.
    2. Human resources: How human resources are to be built to meet the demands of the three language scheme.
    3. Starting class: Whether the scheme should ideally be started in earlier classes rather than at Class 6.
    4. Response undertaken: The Additional Solicitor General said she would place these questions before the experts and appraise the Court.

    Does a mother tongue first policy expand or narrow a student’s choices?

    1. Cognitive case accepted: Early instruction in the mother tongue improves comprehension and retention, which the bench acknowledged as a good policy foundation.
    2. The count is not the constraint: The dispute is not over learning three languages but over the rule that two of them must be indigenous, which fixes the composition rather than the number.
    3. Choice shrinks at the top: Fixing two slots turns the third into the only site of choice, so every additional foreign language competes against English instead of sitting alongside it.
    4. Distributional effect: Students from middle and lower income homes depend on institutional provision for a second foreign language, and better resourced students can purchase it outside the school.
    5. Supply decides the outcome: A student in a school with two language teachers has a choice of two, whatever the 23 language menu states, so teacher supply and not the rule is the binding constraint.

    Challenges to implementing the Three-Language Formula

    1. Teacher cadre does not exist: A third language cannot be staffed from an establishment that was never recruited for it. Eg. Tamil Nadu has not maintained a Hindi teaching cadre in its government schools, so the posts a third language would require have no incumbents to draw on.
    2. State resistance on federal grounds: School education sits on the Concurrent List and States have rejected the formula as imposition. Eg. Tamil Nadu has followed a two language policy since 1968 and has declined central school scheme agreements that carry the three language requirement.
    3. Persistent non implementation: The formula has been official policy for six decades without uniform adoption. Eg. It was recommended by the Kothari Commission and adopted in the National Policy on Education, 1968, and no decade since has seen it implemented across all States.
    4. Migration breaks continuity: A child who moves between States loses the second indigenous language on transfer. Eg. A student learning Marathi in Maharashtra who relocates to West Bengal has to restart a new regional language at the same class level.
    5. Assessment weight against learning time: A Board paper in a language begun at Class 6 carries the same weight as papers in subjects taught from Class 1. Eg. The current Class 6 batch faces a third language paper in the 2031 Class 10 examination after five years of instruction.
    6. Material for less taught languages: Beginner grade teaching material is thin for classical and less taught languages. Eg. Textbooks placed online under the scheme open with compound sentences, which suits a scholarly reader rather than a Class 6 beginner.
    7. Private school offer disrupted: Schools that market a second foreign language lose that offer when the slot is taken. Eg. Private schools offering French, German and Japanese from Class 6 draw fee paying enrolment on that basis.

    Conclusion

    The dispute has moved from how many languages a school child must learn to who decides that English is not one of India’s own. The Court has said the constitutionality of classifying English as non indigenous will have to be examined, and has asked the Board to return on a one time reprieve for the Class 6 batch, on building teacher capacity, and on shifting the scheme to earlier classes. The Board has undertaken to place these questions before its experts, so the policy stands notified for 2026-27 with its core classification still under judicial scrutiny.

    “[2020, GS2, 15] 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.”

  • [20th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: The IISERs have a leadership problem

    Question (2014, GS2): “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.
    Linkage: This question directly addresses the central conflict in your prompt: the struggle of premier national science and technology institutes to maintain their academic independence and elite status when confronted with structural and administrative constraints.

    Mentor Comment

    Several of the seven Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research are operating under temporary, divided or incomplete leadership, with chairpersons holding simultaneous charge of two or three other institutions and nominated positions for eminent scientists lying vacant. The institutions were created to give students an intellectually vibrant research environment and prize autonomy as an essential ingredient of good science, which sits against a statutory Board structure dominated by government officials and nominees.

    What are the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research?

    1. Why they were created: The Indian government created the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs) to offer students an intellectually vibrant research environment and to bring them into research at a relatively early stage by the standards of the Indian system.
    2. What they prize: They treat autonomy as an essential ingredient of good science, specifically the ability of scientists to decide which questions are worth pursuing and with what resources, and top down control is inimical to that vision.
    3. Their statutory basis: They were brought within the framework of the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007.
    4. How many there are: Seven IISERs are in operation, each with its own Board of Governors.

    How are IISER Boards of Governors constituted?

    1. The statutory requirement: The 2007 Act requires each IISER to have a Board of Governors that includes senior government officials and other government nominees.
    2. Named ex officio positions: The IISER statutes specify, among others, the secretary of higher education and the director of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru.
    3. The accountability rationale: Publicly funded science should be publicly accountable, which is the justification for the government presence on the Boards.
    4. Where the rationale runs out: Suboptimal appointments or outright vacancies are objectionable because they lead to policy paralysis at best, which is a failure of accountability rather than an exercise of it.

    What does the current composition of the seven Boards show?

    1. The IISc director’s spread: The director of the Indian Institute of Science is an ex officio member of most IISERs.
    2. IISER Pune: The chair of its Board is also the chairperson of the Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur.
    3. IISER Berhampur: Its Board chair was given additional charge while also chairing the Board of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Guwahati. Nominated positions on the same Board lie vacant, including one for an Indian Institute of Technology director and two for eminent scientists.
    4. IISER Bhopal: Its current director is listed as director in charge, after the previous director left to join NITI Aayog in June.
    5. IISER Thiruvananthapuram: Its chairperson simultaneously chairs the Boards of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kottayam and the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing, Kurnool.
    6. The cumulative position: Interim appointments are routine and vacancies arise during transitions, and ex officio positions change when officials move between posts, but taken together several IISERs are operating under temporary or incomplete leadership.

    Who is leading India’s basic science institutions?

    1. IISER Pune’s chairperson: A retired Indian Administrative Service officer whose educational background is in commerce and journalism.
    2. IISER Pune’s director: A chemical engineer by training, whereas the IISERs have little focus on engineering.
    3. IISER Thiruvananthapuram’s chairperson: A surgeon.
    4. IISER Tirupati’s chairperson: A chemical engineer and the co founder of an industrial group.
    5. IISER Berhampur’s chairperson: An executive in the footwear industry.
    6. The measurable outcome: Going by awards, fellowships or global achievement and recognition, there are few outstanding scientists in positions of authority on the IISER Boards today.

    Why does the professional background of a chairperson matter for a basic science institution?

    1. There is no legal bar: No rule requires that the chairperson of a scientific institution must be a scientist.
    2. Why it matters regardless: It bears on each institution’s credibility and on its vision, both of which rest on who is seen to be setting the research direction.
    3. What the Boards do gain from outsiders: Expertise in administration, industry, finance and public policy is genuinely useful to a Board.
    4. What the case for scientists rests on: Institutions focused on basic science should draw their leadership from the scientific community, where many people combine distinguished research careers with substantial experience in running academic and research organisations.
    5. The practice that was dropped: The government had earlier appointed the finest scientists to the IISERs’ helm before discontinuing the practice.
    6. The question that actually arises: It is not whether the current leaders are competent, it is why India’s many accomplished scientists are not being asked to lead institutions whose central purpose is basic science.

    How does divided and interim leadership weaken institutional autonomy?

    1. Attention divided across institutions: Leaders whose attention is already split between two or three institutions cannot supply sustained direction to any one of them.
    2. Control shifting away from scientists: With outsiders and divided attention at the top, scientists have less control over decisions that affect their own work.
    3. Rotation instead of recruitment: The availability of a research cadre calls into question the practice of moving the same people between institutions rather than recruiting from the scientific community.
    4. Administration falling behind: People familiar with the IISERs’ functioning describe an administration losing its ability to keep up with students’ needs in respect of a good education in basic science.
    5. The internal assessment: A senior scientist at one of the IISERs described the position as one in which there is no vision or imagination and no sense of leadership propelling the institution towards its core goals of carrying out high quality frontier research in and teaching basic science at an international level.
    6. The powers that go unused: By design, the directors and the Board hold the power to institute positive changes, so the deficit is one of direction rather than of authority.

    Challenges to institutional autonomy in India’s basic science institutions

    1. Lagging decline masked by reputation: An institution whose governance has begun to decline can remain scientifically productive for years as long as the people who built its reputation remain and the institutional label is still valuable, which delays any corrective response. e.g. the IISERs continue to attract strong entrants through the joint admission route while several Boards run without full leadership.
    2. Concentration of authority: Weak collegial governance shifts decisions towards a small group at the top, reducing faculty participation in academic direction. e.g. the flagging of a risk of concentration of authority as a consequence of the IISERs’ present leadership arrangements.
    3. Risk averse research culture: Where leadership lacks a research background, funding and hiring decisions favour safe incremental work over frontier problems. e.g. the expectation of an increasingly risk averse institutional culture as the cumulative effect of the IISERs’ governance decline.
    4. Vacancies in nominated positions: Seats reserved for eminent scientists and institute directors go unfilled, removing the very expertise the statute intended the Board to carry. e.g. the IISER Berhampur Board, with one Indian Institute of Technology director position and two eminent scientist positions vacant.
    5. Interim leadership without a mandate: A director in charge cannot commit an institution to long horizon research investments. e.g. IISER Bhopal, run by a director in charge after the previous director left for NITI Aayog in June.
    6. Government nominee dominance: The statutory requirement of senior officials and nominees on the Board makes institutional direction dependent on the postings cycle of the civil service. e.g. the ex officio membership of the secretary of higher education on IISER Boards under the 2007 Act statutes.
    7. Underfunding of basic research: India’s gross expenditure on research and development remains below one per cent of gross domestic product, so institutional autonomy is further constrained by dependence on annual government grants. e.g. the persistent share of roughly 0.64 per cent of gross domestic product against the two per cent and above spent by comparable research economies.
    8. Faculty attrition to better resourced systems: Weak governance and uncertain research support push early career scientists towards positions abroad or in the private sector. e.g. the reliance of schemes such as Ramanujan and Ramalingaswami fellowships on reversing exactly this outflow.

    Conclusion

    The IISERs were created on the premise that scientists deciding their own research questions produces better science than top down direction, and the statutory Board structure was the accountability counterweight to that autonomy. The counterweight has become the whole of it, with chairpersons drawn from outside the scientific community, ex officio members spread across several institutions, and seats reserved for eminent scientists left vacant. Restoring the earlier practice of appointing distinguished scientists to the helm, and filling the nominated positions the statutes already provide, requires no change in the law.

    Basic Scientific Research in India

    1. What it covers: Basic research is investigation directed at understanding fundamental phenomena without a specified application, distinguished from applied research and from experimental development.
    2. Institutional spread: It is conducted through the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research laboratories, the Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Space institutions, the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, the Indian Institute of Science, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the central universities.
    3. Scale of national spending: India’s gross expenditure on research and development stands at roughly 0.64 per cent of gross domestic product, against about two per cent or more in most comparable research economies.
    4. Composition of that spending: The government accounts for the larger share of research spending in India, whereas in most leading research economies the private sector accounts for the bulk of it.
    5. Global standing on output: India ranks among the top three countries in the world by annual volume of scientific publications, and its citation impact remains below that publication rank.
    6. The IISER model: The IISERs were designed as a distinct category from the Indian Institutes of Technology, combining a five year integrated science programme with a research faculty, so that undergraduates enter laboratories early.
    7. The funding reform: The Anusandhan National Research Foundation, established under the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, 2023, is intended to fund research across universities and colleges, with a substantial share of its corpus expected from non government sources.

    Government Initiatives for Science Education and Research

    1. Anusandhan National Research Foundation: Established under the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, 2023 as the apex body for seeding, growing and promoting research across the natural sciences, engineering, mathematics, environmental and earth sciences, health and agriculture, with a mandate to fund university and college research.
    2. INSPIRE: The Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research programme of the Department of Science and Technology offers scholarships to school students, undergraduate and postgraduate scholarships in the basic and natural sciences, and faculty fellowships.
    3. Kishore Vaigyanik Protsahan Yojana: A fellowship programme to identify and support students with an aptitude for research careers in the basic sciences, since merged into the INSPIRE stream.
    4. Ramanujan and Ramalingaswami Re entry Fellowships: Offered by the Science and Engineering Research Board and the Department of Biotechnology respectively to bring Indian scientists working abroad back into Indian institutions.
    5. PM Research Fellowship: Provides doctoral fellowships at institutions of national importance with an enhanced stipend and a research grant, to retain top undergraduates within the domestic research system.
    6. National Research Professorship and J.C. Bose Fellowship: Recognise and support distinguished scientists to continue active research beyond conventional retirement.
    7. Vigyan Jyoti and Women in Science and Engineering KIRAN: Target the participation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education and research careers.

    Key Facts about the IISERs

    1. Number and locations: Seven institutes, at Kolkata, Pune, Mohali, Bhopal, Thiruvananthapuram, Tirupati and Berhampur.
    2. Year of first establishment: The first two, at Kolkata and Pune, were established in 2006, followed by Mohali in 2007, Bhopal and Thiruvananthapuram in 2008, Tirupati in 2015 and Berhampur in 2016.
    3. Statutory status: They are Institutes of National Importance under the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007.
    4. Administering ministry: The Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Education.
    5. Flagship programme: A five year BS-MS dual degree in the basic sciences, with admission through the IISER Aptitude Test and other channels.
    6. Governance structure: A Board of Governors chaired by a chairperson, with a director as the chief executive, and a Senate for academic matters.
    7. Named ex officio Board members: The secretary of higher education and the director of the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, among others.

    Back2Basics: National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007

    1. What it is: A central Act that declares certain institutions to be Institutes of National Importance and provides for their incorporation, governance and funding.
    2. Enacted: 2007, originally covering the National Institutes of Technology, and later extended to the IISERs and to the Indian Institutes of Engineering Science and Technology.
    3. What Institute of National Importance status confers: Autonomy to award its own degrees, direct central funding, and exclusion from the University Grants Commission’s affiliation framework.
    4. Governance it prescribes: Each institute has a Board of Governors as the principal executive body, a Senate for academic decisions, a chairperson, a director and a registrar.
    5. Composition requirement: The Board must include senior government officials and other government nominees, which is the provision that places the secretary of higher education and the Indian Institute of Science director on IISER Boards through the institute statutes.
    6. The Council: The Act also creates a Council for the institutes it covers, chaired by the Union Minister in charge, to coordinate across them.
    7. Why it governs this item: It is the statutory source of both the IISERs’ autonomy and the government dominated Board structure that the present appointments have made the operative feature.

    Way Forward

    1. Restore scientist leadership at the helm: Reviving the earlier practice of appointing distinguished scientists as chairpersons and directors requires no amendment to the 2007 Act, only a change in the selection practice.
    2. Fill the vacant nominated seats: Appointing to the eminent scientist and institute director positions already provided in the statutes restores the scientific expertise the Board structure was designed to carry.
    3. Bar simultaneous multiple chairmanships: A rule against holding the chair of more than one Institute of National Importance would end the divided attention that leaves several IISERs without sustained direction.
    4. Time bound filling of directorships: A fixed outer limit on how long an institute may run under a director in charge would prevent interim leadership becoming the standing arrangement.
    5. Publish selection criteria and search process: A transparent search committee process, with published criteria for research standing and institution building experience, would make appointments contestable on merit.
    6. Build a leadership pipeline from the research cadre: Structured administrative training for mid career scientists would widen the pool beyond the same individuals rotated between institutions.
    7. Strengthen Senate authority over academic direction: Vesting curriculum, faculty recruitment and research priorities firmly with the Senate would insulate scientific decisions from Board level turnover.
    8. Raise and stabilise research funding: Multi year block grants through the Anusandhan National Research Foundation would reduce the dependence on annual allocations that constrains long horizon research.

  • [19th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: Education must change to account for AI

    Question (2023, GS3): “Introduce the concept of Artificial Intelligence (AI). How does AI help clinical diagnosis? Do you perceive any threat to privacy of the individual in the use of AI in healthcare?
    Linkage: This is the foundational question on AI awareness. Adapting education to AI requires first understanding its core concepts and cross-sectoral applications, which are now being integrated into school and higher education curricula.

    Mentor Comment:

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping work in the sectors where India holds comparative advantage, including generic drugs, biosimilars and vaccine manufacture, and will eliminate a large share of entry level positions while leaving deep domain expertise in demand. This exposes a conflict between an education system built to load ever more content before entry into the workforce and an economy that now requires selection, synthesis, judgement and adaptation instead.

    What is the National Education Policy’s four year undergraduate structure?

    1. What it is: The National Education Policy, 2020 replaced the three year undergraduate degree with a flexible four year undergraduate programme offering multiple entry and exit points.
    2. Exit ladder: A certificate after one year, a diploma after two years, a bachelor’s degree after three years and a bachelor’s degree with research after four years.
    3. The research pathway: The fourth year is designed as a research pathway in which a student undertakes a supervised project rather than additional taught coursework.
    4. Credit portability: Credits earned at each exit point are deposited in the Academic Bank of Credits, allowing a student to re-enter and complete the degree later.
    5. Why it matters here: The four year structure with a research final year is the closest institutional equivalent to apprenticeship that the system already possesses.

    What is vibe coding?

    1. What it is: Vibe coding is the practice of producing working software by describing the desired outcome in natural language to an AI system, which generates and iterates on the code, rather than by writing the code line by line.
    2. Effect on work: It removes the routine coding task that has historically been the entry level rung in software employment.

    What are biosimilars?

    1. What they are: Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to an already approved reference biologic, with no clinically meaningful difference in safety, purity or potency.
    2. Why they differ from generics: A biosimilar is produced in living cells and cannot be copied exactly, so approval requires comparative analytical, non clinical and clinical evidence rather than simple bioequivalence.

    What is an automated fill finish line?

    1. What it is: A fill finish line is the final stage of pharmaceutical manufacture in which the bulk drug substance is filled into vials or syringes, stoppered, sealed, inspected and labelled under sterile conditions.
    2. Effect of automation: Robotic and isolator based fill finish removes human presence from the sterile core, which raises throughput and sterility assurance while eliminating operator roles.

    How is AI changing the nature of work itself?

    1. Change is rapid and unpredictable: The nature of work is changing at every level, and the direction of that change cannot be forecast with confidence.
    2. Routine work is the first casualty: Vibe coding threatens to render much routine coding obsolete, which removes the task that entry level employees have traditionally performed.
    3. Important work also becomes routine: With wisely configured agents and other tools, even important work can be made routine, so the change is not confined to low skill tasks.
    4. Employment shifts to oversight: Fewer employees remain, and their function becomes careful oversight of systems rather than execution of the task.
    5. No settled timeline: Assessments of when superintelligence arrives range from a few years to many years, so institutions cannot plan against a fixed date.

    How will AI reshape the sectors of Indian strength?

    1. Generic drugs and biosimilars: AI is reshaping molecule screening and formulation in generic drugs and biosimilars.
    2. Synthesis and quality control: Robotics and machine vision will increasingly handle synthesis and quality control in the same sectors.
    3. Vaccine design: AI can help design antigens and predict immune responses, changing the research stage of vaccine development.
    4. Vaccine manufacture: Robotic bioreactors, automated fill finish lines and AI managed logistics will make production faster, cleaner and more precise.
    5. Corporate adaptation is assumed: Indian industry will pivot to meet these changes and companies may survive and prosper, so the disruption falls on employment rather than on firms.

    Why does the disappearance of entry level jobs create a skills paradox?

    1. Two requirements point in opposite directions: Employers will still need people with deep domain expertise, and the entry level positions through which such expertise was historically acquired will disappear.
    2. Expertise cannot be front loaded: Deep domain expertise cannot be acquired at the point of entry, so it cannot simply be added to a degree programme as more coursework.
    3. Employee profiles change, not employer demand: Companies will prosper while their employee profiles change dramatically, so the market signal to students is ambiguous rather than absent.
    4. Oversight requires the expertise it displaces: The remaining employees must supervise systems whose outputs only an expert can evaluate, so the skill required is higher precisely where the training ladder has been removed.
    5. The gap is institutional, not individual: No individual can resolve a missing apprenticeship rung by studying harder, which is why the response has to come from the design of education.

    Why has the strategy of extending years of education run out of road?

    1. The historical pattern: Earlier technological revolutions were met by extending education, from basic literacy to primary school, then high school, then college, and increasingly professional master’s degrees.
    2. What each transition demanded: Every transition asked people to acquire and retain more knowledge before entering the workforce.
    3. Why the pattern breaks now: As AI systems advance, the comparative advantage no longer lies in humans storing ever more information in their heads.
    4. What replaces storage: The requirement is to know what must be understood deeply, what can be retrieved when needed, and how to learn quickly in unfamiliar situations.
    5. Adding material makes it worse: A future that cannot be predicted cannot be prepared for by adding ever more material to the curriculum.

    What kind of rigour must replace content coverage?

    1. Two apparently contradictory tasks: Education must thin out what it teaches while providing far more opportunities to learn on the fly.
    2. Not less rigour: The objective is a different kind of rigour rather than a reduction of it.
    3. The four capacities named: That rigour consists of selection, synthesis, judgement and adaptation.
    4. How it is built: Students need repeated experience of confronting problems whose answers are not in the syllabus, finding the relevant knowledge and applying it with judgement.
    5. The system’s starting condition: India’s higher education system contains isolated pockets of excellence embedded in a large undifferentiated mass that is difficult to reform as a whole.

    How can the four year undergraduate structure deliver apprenticeship at scale?

    1. The ideal model and its limit: The ideal way to train an expert is apprenticeship, one student working closely with one teacher or practitioner, and that model cannot be provided at scale at present.
    2. The available substitute: The National Education Policy’s four year undergraduate structure already provides a research pathway in the final year, the closest institutional equivalent available.
    3. What blocks it in practice: Residual coursework crowds out the immersion the policy intends, so the final year reverts to taught classes.
    4. The proposed fix: Universities should allow any remaining essential coursework to be completed online, freeing the year for immersion.
    5. Where students should be placed: Students should spend that year embedded in industry, university laboratories or national laboratories.
    6. What the placement teaches: Working alongside people solving real problems lets students encounter uncertainty and learn to acquire knowledge as it becomes necessary.

    Challenges to reorienting education for AI

    1. Faculty shortage and capacity: Immersion requires supervisors who themselves work on live problems, and Indian universities carry large vacancies in teaching posts, e.g. central universities have reported vacancy levels around one third of sanctioned teaching positions.
    2. Absence of industry placement capacity: There are not enough laboratories and firms willing to host a full cohort for a year, e.g. the National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme has consistently engaged far fewer apprentices than its annual targets.
    3. Regulatory rigidity on credits: University statutes tie degrees to classroom contact hours, which blocks substitution of a year of placement for taught credits, e.g. many State universities still require minimum attendance percentages that a workplace year cannot satisfy.
    4. Assessment mismatch: Examination systems reward recall, which is the exact capacity AI has made least valuable, e.g. the majority of Indian undergraduate examinations remain terminal written papers rather than project defences.
    5. Digital access inequality: Moving residual coursework online assumes reliable connectivity and devices, which a large share of students lack, e.g. only about 57 percent of women have independent internet access against 72 percent of men.
    6. Employability and credential signalling: Employers screen on degree names and marks rather than on demonstrated judgement, so students resist a less legible qualification, e.g. campus recruitment for information technology services has long been anchored to aggregate marks thresholds.
    7. Uneven institutional quality: Reform designed for research capable institutions cannot be transplanted into colleges with no research infrastructure, e.g. a large majority of Indian undergraduate students study in affiliated colleges rather than in universities.
    8. Financing the transition: Placement years, laboratory access and supervision cost money that public institutions do not currently receive, e.g. public expenditure on education remains near 4.6 percent of gross domestic product against the National Education Policy’s 6 percent target.

    Conclusion

    The core problem is not that AI will destroy work but that it removes the entry level rung through which deep expertise was formed, while continuing to demand that expertise. Adding more content to the curriculum cannot answer this, and the response is to thin the syllabus and use the National Education Policy’s four year structure to place students inside industry and laboratories for a full year. That requires moving residual coursework online and treating immersion, not coursework, as the final year’s substance.

  • The challenge for school consolidation

    Why in the News

    A recent NITI Aayog Report flagged the closure of nearly 94,000 government schools across India over the past decade. Falling enrolment and a declining fertility rate underlie the closures and mergers. The debate weighs neighbourhood access against better resourced consolidated schools.

    What is school consolidation?

    1. Definition: the merging of under enrolled schools into better equipped composite schools with qualified teachers and improved infrastructure.
    2. Aim: to raise educational quality rather than merely cut costs.
    3. Constitutional placement: education sits on the Concurrent List, so states drive closure and merger policy.

    What is UDISE Plus?

    1. Full form: the Unified District Information System for Education Plus.
    2. Function: an education management information system that tracks schools, enrolment and teachers nationwide.
    3. It is the largest digital database of information related to school education in India.
    4. This portal, operated by the Union Ministry of Education, records the details of all recognized government and private schools in the country online.

    What do the data reveal between 2014-15 and 2024-25?

    1. Schools: the total number of schools fell by about 45,000, driven entirely by a fall of 94,000 government schools while private unaided schools grew.
    2. Enrolment: overall enrolment fell by 2.26 crore to 24.69 crore.
    3. Sector shift: government enrolment fell while private enrolment rose from 8.42 crore to 9.59 crore.
    4. Teachers: teacher numbers rose from about 90 lakh to over one crore, improving teacher availability.
    5. Demography: the total fertility rate fell from more than 3 in the early 1990s to about 2.0, below the replacement level of 2.1.

    Why does school size matter?

    1. Thin schools: thousands of schools run with a single teacher or a handful of students.
    2. Weak instruction: low size makes grade wise, subject specific teaching, laboratories and peer learning difficult.
    3. Teacher load: teachers handle multiple classes alongside administrative tasks.
    4. Hidden disparity: national averages mask overcrowded urban schools alongside near empty rural ones.

    What are the challenges to school consolidation?

    1. Travel distance: longer distances disadvantage young children, girls and students in remote or tribal areas.
    2. Access risk: closures can strip neighbourhood access unless safe transport is guaranteed.
    3. Cost driven mergers: decisions taken on financial grounds alone can undercut quality goals.
    4. Equity gap: consolidation must balance quality, efficiency and equitable access, not just efficiency.
    5. Data need: decisions should be data driven rather than administrative, with uninterrupted access ensured wherever schools merge.

    Conclusion

    The school numbers reflect a transformation, not merely closures, driven by demographic change and shifting preferences. Consolidation can raise quality but only if it protects access for the most vulnerable children. Success should be measured by whether every child reaches a well resourced school, with safe transport where schools merge.

    Back2Basics

    International Examples & Case Studies

    India (Project SATH-E & State Initiatives):

    1. Under NITI Aayog’s Project SATH-E, states like Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Odisha consolidated over 26,000 schools.
    2. Rajasthan horizontally merged co-located schools and built vertically integrated “Adarsh” (model) schools spanning grades 1-12. This reduced multi-grade teaching and doubled the presence of designated headmasters.

    China (Rural School Consolidation Policy):

    1. Implemented to centralize resources in middle-income rural areas. While it successfully built larger, better-funded institutions, longitudinal studies indicate unintended consequences.
    2. For instance, longer commutes occasionally limited written minority language facility and worsened educational equity for marginalized groups.

    The Nordic Countries & Western Europe: Ecosystem Integration

    1. Low demographic density in isolated rural pockets across Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway.
    2. Unlike abrupt closures, Denmark and other Nordic nations leveraged regional clustering. Rather than completely standardizing environments, they implemented extensive public support networks, dedicated student transport, and digital infrastructure to ease student adjustments.
    3. Short-term disruption to student test scores was documented, particularly for students transferring from the smallest schools. However, these adverse effects weakened over time as institutional integration stabilized

    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 whether school education reforms ensure universal and equitable access under the RTE Act. The article assesses whether school consolidation can improve quality without compromising access for vulnerable children.

  • 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.