KARNATAKA - of Planning Commission

Financing Human DevelopmentTransfer of responsibilityfrom the state governmentto rural local bodies mustbring about more equityfor the underprivileged,in terms of access toelementary educationservices in the state.in the state, along with the indicators of schoolingrequirements and achievements. There arewide variations in the expenditure per child ofschooling age (6-14 years), among the districtsin Karnataka. There is positive and signifi cantcorrelation (Table 3.2.11) between per childexpenditures and school attendance rate (0.57)as well as between per capita expenditures andthe literacy rate (0.59).Although it would be tempting to conclude fromthis that higher expenditure, by itself, results inbetter literacy rates, such a conclusion ignoresthe fact that the literacy rate depends on avariety of factors and not public expenditurealone. Parental education, the socio-economicenvironment in the region, employment avenuesfor the educated, availability of schools withina reasonable distance and availability of privateschools are other factors that can infl uence theenrolment and retention rates. Another way ofinterpreting the signifi cant correlation is thatexpenditures are lower where they are neededmost, i.e. in the less literate districts which arealso economically underdeveloped. Districtswith high expenditures show very high schoolattendance rates. Thus, in the poorer districts ofBellary, Bidar, Gulbarga, Bijapur, Haveri, Koppaland Raichur, expenditure per child is substantiallylower than the average and these are thedistricts with low literacy rates, a high gendergap in literacy and low school attendance. Onthe other hand, districts with high educationalachievements, like Bangalore Rural, Chikmaglur,Dakshina Kannada, Uttara Kannada, Udupi andKodagu have higher than average per-childexpenditures. However, very high expendituresare also seen in districts with median levelachievements, such as Mandya, Mysore, Hassanand Tumkur. Per-child expenditures are the lowestin Hyderabad Karnataka and Bombay Karnatakaregions, the highest in south Karnataka andabout average in the coastal region. Interestingly,while the educational achievement in the coastalregion of the state is the best among the variousdistricts, the expenditures are about average. Thereasons for this optimum cost effi ciency couldbe the existence of a good educationalinfrastructure dating back to the pre-statereorganisation period, the high demand foreducation and the existence of strong privateinitiatives.This analysis shows that even after entrustingthe responsibility of school education to localbodies, the pattern of expenditures continuesto be dictated by historical factors, ratherthan by the specifi c requirements of variousdistricts. Transfer of responsibility from the stategovernment to rural local bodies must bring aboutmore equity for the underprivileged, in terms ofaccess to elementary education services in thestate. Educationally backward districts are alsoeconomically backward, and therefore, a largemajority of the people cannot afford expensiveprivate education. Another aspect of the scenariois that the middle-class and the rich exit thesystem and send their children to private schools.Since it is these groups who have the capacity tolobby effectively for improvements in the system,their absence leaves the users of state systemswithout strong advocacy.TABLE 3.2.11Correlation matrix of outcomes and expenditure on elementaryeducation across districtsCorrelation matrixLiteracyrateSchoolattendancerateFemaleliteracygapExpenditureper childLiteracy rate 1School attendance rate 0.78 1Male-female gap in literacy -0.61 -0.59 1Expenditure per child 0.59 0.57 1Note: Data on all the variables refers to 2001.Assessment of financial requirementsfor primary and secondary educationThe projected annual growth for primary educationin DMTFP-2002 (Table 3.2.12) is 15.53 per cent,16.25 per cent, and 23.13 per cent for each year from2003-04 to 2005-06. For secondary education theannual growth projected is 8.75 per cent, 9.65 percent and 11.80 per cent. The table also highlights thefact that different DMTFPs show different fi nancialforecast values for the same year: for instance, thedifference between the forecast values in DMTFP-2002 and DMTFP-2003 for the year 2004-0560