|
In a multi-level planning framework the
planning exercise in India can be undertaken at national, state, district, block
and village/habitation level. However m vast countries like India it is
desirable to carryout the planning exercise at lower levels and this is the
reason that decentralised planning has been emphasized in the country. One may
notice that in India right from the inception of first five year plan in
1950-51, we have been talking of decentralised planning but still at least in
the field of education, the planning process has in most of the states not
percolated below the state level. It is generally felt that one of the reasons
of our failure to achieve the basic goals in education. e.g. Universalisation of
Elementary Education, is that the plans are formulated at higher levels, namely
national and state levels which are quite distant from the grassroots realities.
Thus there is a wide gap between those who plan (at higher levels) and those who
implement it (at the local level). This gap can be reduced by planning at the
lower levels. It is perceived that lower the level or unit of planning smaller
will be the gap between planning and implementation. This is one of the
strongest justification of decentralised planning. In addition to this there are
many advantages of decentralised planning. These are: (i) local needs can be
taken care of more effectively and efficiently at the lower levels, (ii) plans
are expected to be more effective because of the homogeneity of the unit, (iii)
it helps to overcome local specific problems in a better way, (iv) flow of
information / data will be quick which is very crucial for planning and (v)
there are more chances of successful implementation of plans as the implementers
will be partner in planning process.
One of the issues in any planning process is to
clearly specify the unit for initiating planning process and effect planning
decision. India has debated this issue and now it is accepted that district is
tie most viable unit for initiating decentralised planning. Therefore,
decentralisation of educational planning in India in the present context implies
district level planning in education. Serious efforts for decentralised planning
have started in India about a decades back. In 1969 the Planning Commission
issued guidelines for preparation of district plans. Realizing that planning
machinery and competency are not yet developed at the district level efforts was
redirected in the later years to strengthen state level planning process. In the
early eighties a Working Group under the Chairmanship of professor C.H.
Hanumantha Rao was constituted to develop guidelines for district plans. 3ased
on the recommendations of this committee, the seventh five year plan adopted
decentralised planning at the district level as one of the major
strategies to achieve plan targets. With the recent constitutional amendment (73rd
and 74111 amendments) the Panchayati Raj Institutions or their
equivalent in urban areas are going to play an important role in shaping local
level educational plans.
Efforts to decentralize planning and
management of education in India needs to be seen in this broader context of
decentralisation taking place in the country. Education in India continues to be
an area dominantly funded and managed by the public authorities, While policies
are formulated at the national level, educational plans are developed at
national, state and sometimes even at the district levels. Upto the
mid-seventies, education continued to be an area of state subject. Although
education is a concurrent subject at present, for all practical purposes, the
development in this sector depends on the initiatives by the state governments.
The existing administrative structure is more
centralised and hence it is lot very conducive for initiating decentralised
planning. For facilitating decentralised planning it is important to ensure that
the role perceptions of authorities at different levels are clearly defined. It
is important to draw clear distinction between the domains of operation of the
district level programmes, state level programmes and national level programmes
This is very important in the Indian context because many a time a large share
of the programmes which are implemented at the district level are either
centrally sponsored or state sponsored schemes. In fact, what is lacking in
India is that, districts ire not in a position to independently initiate any
programme of their own because they do not have their own resources. They depend
upon the state or central government for financial resources. Many a time the
resources given from the state or national levels are specifically tailor made
for certain activities. Under this arrangement, even when resources are
available at the district level they may not be in a position to target on
issues, which they consider to be high on their agenda. Another pre-requisite
for decentralised planning in India is in the area of financial decisions. The
district should have the authority to mobilize resources of its own or
re-allocate the resources which are allocated to them by the state government,
In this context, it is very often suggested that the allocations from the State
or Central Government to the district should be on a lump-sum basis rather than
on a tailor made fashion.
Process of Planning
At the national level planning is carried out by
Planning Commission for all sectors of economy including education. However
educational plans are implemented through the Department of Education, Ministry
of Human Resource Development. Similarly at the state level State Planning
Boards are established to help in preparation of plans. The state educational
plans are implemented through the Secretariat and Directorates of Education. The
Secretariat deals mainly with policy decisions where as the Directorates are
more directly involved in the implementation process. Many bigger states in
India have separate secretaries for school and higher education. Similarly there
are separate Directorates of Elementary Education, Secondary Education, Higher
Education, Technical Education etc. When planning for education is carried out
at the state level all these Directorates and Departments are consulted and thus
educational plans are formulated with active involvement and consultation of
these bodies.
In India the third tier in the multi-level planning
framework is the district. But at this level unfortunately such clearly defined
organisational arrangement for planning is not yet created. The National Policy
on Education 1986 envisaged to creates District Boards of Education (DBE) to
initiate and coordinate planning activities at the district level. But. Whatever
be the reasons, no state in the country has so far been able to set up the
District Boards of Education.
Since, there is no planning machinery to formulate district plans, planning
competencies are rarely developed at the district level. At present what exists
in the name of district level planning is nothing but an adjustment or
manipulation with the budgetary figures that too on an incremental basis. Often,
it is observed that the plans prepared at the district level are not closely
scrutinized and hence planning process itself becomes rather routine and
bureaucratic. The externally funded projects in primary education in India have
shown that if resources are provided at the district level and power and
authority are also vested with the district level authorities, then there is a
possibility of developing district level plans which are more realistic and
local specific.
District as a Unit of Planning
Choice of unit for planning depends upon the existing administrative structure
and also the level of development of the planning machinery. Information-wise,
the district is the ultimate reducible unit for which data collection machinery
exists in India (Mundle: 1977). At this level, administrative structure is also
fairly well developed. There is a collectorate at district level and below the
state level collectorate is the most well developed administrative structure.
More importantly, at district level we have r Natively better trained or
trainable staff who can undertake the responsibility of developing district
plans.
The efforts to make planning effective at the district level were initiated in
the sixties. The Planning Commission (1969) even issued guidelines for district
planning. The report of the Working Group (Planning Commission: 1984) is a
restatement and re affirmation of tine tact that district is the viable unit for
decentralised planning in India at the present level of development. Therefore,
in the present context while one talks about decentralised planning one is
talking about district level planning.
According to the Working Group definition, district planning is seen as a
subsystem in the multi-level planning framework. All planning activities at the
district level will be with a single planning body at the district level. This
body will be in line with Planning Boards at the state level and Planning
Commission at the national level. The report stresses that the planning function
will not be fragmented among numerous departments and agencies. In other words,
planning at the district level will be integrated and it will dovetail with
plans at the lower and higher spatial units.
The developments in the field of education in terms of decentralisation are
perhaps more positive. Following the Working Group Report the National Policy on
Education (1986) and the Programme of Action envisaged setting up of District
Board of Education to facilitate educational planning at the district level. The
Working Group on Elementary Education set up in the context of the eighth five
year plan (Planning Commission: 1989) noted that there are educationally
advanced districts in educationally backward states and there are educationally
backward districts even in educationally advanced states. Hence, the Working
Group argued for keeping district as the unit for developing realistic
decentralised planning in education. The NDC Committee on literacy and
elementary education (Planning Commission: 1992a) and the eighth five year plan
(Planning Commission: 1992b) categorized the districts for purposes of planning
education into three: i) high literacy districts where enrolment is universal
and retention rates are high and hence the emphasis needs to be on quality
improvement programmes: ii) Total Literacy Campaign districts where the campaign
has produced an increased demand for primary education and conditions are
conducive to increase the pace of expansion of primary education: and in) low
literacy districts where provision of facilities are poor, delivery mechanisms
inadequate and community awareness at very low levels. The CABE Committee on
decentralised management of education (Government of India: 1993) emphasised the
need for integrating educational planning and management efforts with the
Panchayat Raj institutions.
Decentralisation of educational planning and
management is an important reform measure initiated during the 1980s. It is
widely accepted that district is the lowest viable unit for initiating
decentralised planning in India. Therefore, the National Policy on Education
1986 and the subsequent Programme of Action emphasised on district level
planning in education in India. The Programme of Action (NPE-1992) resolved
under its Para 7.4.6 "Further efforts would be made to develop district specific
projects with specific activities, clearly defined responsibilities, definite
time schedule and specific targets. Each district project will be prepared
within the major strategy framework and will be tailored to the specific needs
and possibilities in the district. Apart from effective UEE, the goal of each
project will include the reduction of existing disparities in educational
access, the provision of alternative systems of comparative standards to the
disadvantaged groups, a substantial improvement in the quality of schooling
facilities, obtaining a genuine community involvement in the running of schools,
and building up local level capacity to ensure effective decentralization of
educational planning. This is to say, the overall goal of the project would be
reconstruction of primary education as a whole in selected districts instead of
piecemeal implementation of schemes. An integrated approach is more likely to
achieve synergies among different programme components".
As mentioned above it was envisaged in the NPE 1986
that District Boards of Education (DBE) will be constituted in all the districts
to co-ordinate educational planning activities. However, the DBEs were not
established at the district level. The Total Literacy Campaigns (TLCs)
were district-based programmes which were introduced in a decentralised mode and
implemented through a participatory approach. TLC was a significant step towards
localizing educational decision making process. The next major programme which
focused on district level educational planning was the DPEP.Although
decentralisation of educational planning was recognized as 2 necessary step
towards improving primary education, the idea was not translated into an
operational practice due to various reasons. Firstly, even when district level
educational planning was emphasised, the resource decisions continued to be
centralized at the state level leaving very little scope for the districts to
fix their own targets and mobilize the necessary resources to achieve the
targets. Secondly, there existed no organisational mechanism to facilitate
district planning in education. The chief educational functionary at the
district level is the District Education Officer (DEO) who could get very little
time to prepare and develop district level educational plans. In the absence
of any organisational arrangements, like the DBE envisaged in the Programme of
Action, the possibilities of decentralised planning at the district level seemed
a distant dream. Thirdly, planning competencies were poorly developed at the
district level. In other words, these three factors, tamely, centralized
resource decisions, absence of organisational arrangements and poorly developed
planning competencies among educational functionaries at the district level
acted as major constraints in promoting district planning as an operational
practice in education (Varghese, 1996).
The focus in the planning exercise during the last
2 decades and even before has been on achieving the goal of Universal Elementary
Education. In order to meet this goal in late 80s and 90s some pi-ejects and
programmes were launched in various states of the country. Some such important
projects/programmes are: Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Project (APPEP), Bihar
Education Project (BEP) and Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project (UPBEP). On
the basis of experiences in these projects Government of India launched a
nation-wide programme on primary education named as District Primary Education
Programme (DPEP). This programme launched in 1994-95 in 42 districts of 7 states
now covers 219 districts of 15 major states of the country. Tie DPEP is perhaps
the first major programme after TLC programme which focused o i district level
educational planning. Thus the decentralised planning of education at the
district level became a reality in India with launching of DPEP. Recently the
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme conceived by Government of India is to be
launched in selected districts in its first phase. However it has been decided
by the Government that the SSA will cover all the districts of the country by
toe end of Ninth Plan. Thus it is heartening to note that by the end of Ninth
Plan district planning in education will be undertaken in all the districts of
the country.
Process of District Planning
At the district level while planning for education
the emphasis remains on school education in general and the elementary/primary
education in particular. In India the experience under educational projects and
programmes are mainly with regard to planning for universal primary education
(UPE). Even the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme also has focused on
Universahzation of Elementary Education. Planning exercise for education at the
district level with special reference to elementary education has the steps like
diagnosis of educational situation, setting targets, identifying problems and
issues, evolving strategies, translating strategies into programmes, activities
and tasks, estimating financial requirements and developing implementation
schedule. These steps under the planning process are explained as follows:
Diagnosis of Educational Situation
In the context of educational planning
'diagnosis is an effort to make a fair assessment of achievements and
constraints and thus diagnosis tells us 'where we are' at present on various
items. While diagnosing educational situation at the district level one may
concentrate on inter-block disparities. The 'diagnosis' as a step in planning
process may not only be restricted to educational indicators, it may however
concentrate on education related factors also which operate more in social and
economic realm. This is because educational development is not independent of
developments taking place outside the educational sector. The diagnosis can be
both quantitative as well as qualitative. A diagnosis of the system can be
attempted based on either opinions or impressions or on research and empirical
analysis. While opinions and perceptions of the actors in education are
important since they provide valuable insights into the problem, a diagnosis of
this type may be less objective and hence less reliable for the purpose of
educational planning. Therefore diagnosis involves a systematic and empirical
analysis of education al situation. This involves collection information, and
developing a reliable data base in education for the purpose of initiating the
planning exercise. (Varghese 1997).
While making diagnosis it is important to take into
account all factors of education related to the inputs into the system,
functioning of the system and factors related to efficiency and outcomes of the
educational process. The inputs factors may have elements like availability of
schooling facilities, physical infrastructure in schools, teaching-learning
materials, students enrolment in various grades, availability and distribution
of teachers, teachers specialization and their age distribution and information
of school finances etc. The diagnosis of input: factors may mean analysing the
information on these items. The process factors of education may include
elements like factors leading to teaching-learning process, availability of
educational managers like headmaster, inspectors, information on management of
schools, policies and practices of students evaluation, classroom teaching
process, inspection and supervision of schools, educational administrative
structure. Analysis of these items actually may be diagnosis of process factors
of education. The efficiency and outcome factors include wastage and stagnation
in schools, the number and quality of pass outs, achievement level of students,
internal efficiency of education system. Diagnosis of efficiency and outcomes
means analysis of these factors.
Identification of Problems/Issues
An important step
in planning process is to identify me problems and issues related to elementary
education if the concern is UEE. There can be various sources for identifying
these issues. These are diagnosis of educational scenario, participatory
exercises undertaken at district block, village level, studies conducted and
surveys undertaken. However there can be two models of planning process for
developing district plan of education. These can be termed as top-down model and
bottom-up model. In a top-down model the formulation of the district plan is
done on this basis of inputs from studies, surveys, participatory meeting at
various levels. Thus having these participatory exercises in which all
stakeholders are involved identifies the grass root level problems. The :op down
model of district educational planning process is comparatively less time
consuming. Such an approach was adopted in District Primary Education Programme
for developing district plans. In the bottom-up model of district educational
planning process, the district plans are formulated on the basis of block plans
which are made by integrating and consolidating the village and habitation
plans. Thus the process starts at the village/habitation level and the first
step is to formulate village/habitation plans 'or all the villages/habitations
of the district. The second step is the consolidation of these
village/habitation plans to formulate block level plans and finally
consolidating the block plans to formulate the district plan. This model, though
ideally very proper, but is more time consuming as the exercise of formulating
village/habitation plans for hundreds and thousands of villages/habitation of
the districts may sometimes even take years.
Target Setting
Targets are translation of objectives in clearly
defined quantitative terms. What the plan intends to achieve during the plan
period when specified in quantitative terms is known as target setting. Targets
are statements which state clearly and unambiguously what is to be achieved and
are in measurable terms and have definite time frame, in order to develop
district elementary education plan the targets may be set for access, enrolment,
retention and achievement levels of children. However it is desirable to
undertake the target setting exercise in a disaggregated manner which means that
in d: strict plan document the targets should be set block-wise. This is
important because different blocks have different levels of e.g. enrolment or
retention and so targets for these bloc< may also be different. Secondly in a
perspective plan of 5 to 7 years the targets should be set in a phased manner
which means that targets should not only be set for the total plan period but
should also be set for all intervening years. This may not only help to see the
progress of implementation of the plan on year to year basis but may also
facilitate in reviewing the implementation strategies and perhaps revising the
targets for the coming years.
The gender and social disparities in the field of
education are common features in India. These disparities may be in enrolment,
retention or even in achievement also. One of the important objectives in the
District plan will be to reduce these disparities. It is therefore important to
set the targets on enrolment and retention separately for boys and girls as well
as for Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes population. Over a period of time
the gap between boys and girls and between SCs, STs and others may be reduced.
The target of reducing this gap may depend upon the gaps that exists between
these categories in the base year of the plan. The goal in District Elementary
Education Plan is to universalize elementary education which means universal
access, universal enrolment, universal retention and universal achievement. This
means the ultimate target is 100 percent access, enrolment, retention and
achievement. But while setting the target on these parameters it is important to
look at the present status of the district on these components and then
accordingly set the targets which are realistic and are achievable. An insight
in this exercise of target setting can be had by looking at the progress made in
the district on e.g. enrolment ratios and retention rates during past 5 to 7
years.
Intervention Strategies and Activities
Evolving intervention strategies to achieve the
targets is another important step in planning process. However it is to be noted
that the strategies evolved will have to address the identified problems and
issues of elementary education in the district. While evolving the strategies
important points to keep in view are: (i) in a decentralised planning any single
strategy may not be uniformly operational or applicable in different areas and
that is why probably for addressing a single problem one may have to envisage a
set of strategies for a given context, (ii) Many a times a single strategy may
not be enough to address an issue or a problem and there will be a need to work
out multiple strategies for addressing a single problem, (iii) All the problems
and issues identified during the planning exercise must be tackled and
intervention strategies should be worked out accordingly and there should thus
be a linkage between the problems/issues identified and the intervention
strategies developed for addressing them. Translating the strategies into
programmes and activities is the next step in the plan formulation. It is to be
kept in view that a specific intervention strategy may require a number of
programmes to make it operational and effective. However a programme may be an
aggregation of various activities. It is therefore necessary to translate each
and every strategy into activities and tasks. For example for improving access
the strategy can be 'opening of new primary schools'. However one of the
activities under the strategy of opening new primary schools may be
'construction of school building'. But th3 activity of construction of school
building has many tasks that are to be undertaken. These tasks may be (i)
identification of school-less habitations; (ii) identification of habitations
qualifying for opening schools; (iii) listing and prioritization of habitations;
(iv) deciding about the number of schools to be opened; (v) identification of
habitations where schools are to be opened; (vi) deciding the location/site of
the school; (vii) acquiring site/transfer of land; (viii) identification of
agency for construction and supervision; (h) actual construction work; (x)
monitoring and supervision of construction work and (xi) finishing and
furnishing of school building. Next step in
planning process is the sequencing and phasing or these activities and the
tasks, it may be noted that some activities/tasks can be undertaken only in a
sequential manner whereas some activities/tasks can be started simultaneously.
For example, construction of school building and recruitment of teachers are the
activities which can be undertaken simultaneously while actual construction of
school building can not be done before deciding the site of the school,
acquiring site, transfer of land and identification of agency for construction
and supervision.
Costing and Financial Requirements
An important step in the district planning process
is the costing and estimation of financial requirements to implement the plan.
Translating the physical inputs into financial requirements is essential for
funding purpose. Various steps that are involved in estimation of financial
requirements are: (i) listing of all the activities to be undertaken (ii)
classifying all these activities into two categories i.e. activities having cost
implications and activities which do not have cost implications; (iii)
classifying the activities which have cost implications into recurring and
non-recurring heads; (iv) working our the average cost of recurring activities
and unit cost for non-recurring activities (v) estimation of costs separately
under the recurring and non-recurring leads. While estimating the financial
requirements for the District Elementary Education Plan the recurring costs
estimation may be on items such as salaries, training, maintenance of building,
equipment, furniture, infrastructure etc.; travel and fuel costs; stationary and
consumables, contingencies, rents etc. Similarly the non-recurring cost
estimation may be on items such as: construction of school building, additional
classrooms, toilets, compound wall, equipments, furniture; infrastructure;
vehicle etc. The aggregation of costs of all the activities and tasks under
various strategies will give the total financial requirements of the plan.
Allocation of resources to education is based on the budgets. Budgets are
prepared annually to facilitate the resource allocation process. This implies
that these activities are to be classified according to the year of beginning
and completion of the activities. This may help in preparing the annual budgets.
The budget should correspond to the activities indicated to be completed in that
particular year |