Social Inequalities and Secondary Educational Attainment in India: An - - PDF document

Social Inequalities and Secondary Educational Attainment in India: An Inter-State Analysis

Charu Jain and Narayan Prasad *The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the

• pinion of the affiliated organizations.

Authors Bibliographical Note and Contact Details Charu Jain is an Associate Fellow at National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), New Delhi. Her areas of research interest include socio-economic studies, gender andeducational studies, developmental changes and consumer studies. She has extensively worked in the area of large scale consumer studies, industrial surveys,housing studies, agriculture and macro-economic policy issues. Her current research focuses on educational issues, handloom sector and agricultural outlook. She has also contributed few research papers and articles in reputed national journals and has also presented papers in international

• conferences. Her doctorate degree is in the area of education sector, particularly looking at

the quality issues of secondary education in India. Official Address:-

• Dr. Charu Jain

Associate Fellow National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) 11 Indraprastha Estate, Parisila Bhawan, New Delhi-110002, India Emails: charujain13dec@gmail.com Narayan Prasad is presently Director, Research Unit and Professor of Economics in School

• f Social Sciences, IGNOU. Prior to joining IGNOU, he has worked in several reputed
• rganizations like Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission,

Association of Indian Universities (AIU) etc. He was awarded post-doctoral fellowship by UGC and visited France under the scheme Indo-French Cultural Exchange Program. He has delivered lectures on Vedanta at various places including New York, Washington and Los Angeles in USA. He has completed three research projects and wrote three books which have been published by reputed publishers like SAGE publications and Springer Publications. Recently, he has completed another major research project entitled ―Assessment of Human Well-being in India‖ financially sponsored by ICSSR. He has contributed 25 research papers and three review articles to the reputed National and International journals. His areas of research interest are: Human Well-Being, Human Development, Spiritual Economics and Philosophical Foundation of Economics. Official Address:-

• Dr. (Prof.) Narayan Prasad

Professor of Economics Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) Discipline of Economics, School of Social Science (SOSS) Academic Block F, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi- 110068, India Email: nps20@rediffmail.com

Social Inequalities and Secondary Educational Attainment in India: An Inter-State Analysis Charu Jain and Narayan Prasad Abstract: Given the fact that the patterns of management of secondary education in India are complex and vary considerably across and within states on various socio-economic fronts, this paper presents comparative analysis of individual states in terms of school educational attainments; identifying social inequalities at different stages; ranking states on development and performance indicators; and measuring their inter-relationship with other socio-economic

• utcomes. While, Gini-coefficients are computed for measuring inequalities in educational

attainment, the development and performance indices have been constructed using UNDP‘s methodology and plotted on 2-dimensional scale to measure inter-state disparities. For developing socio-economic indices, PCA technique has been adopted and linear regressions are used to measure inter-linkages. Findings reveal striking variations across and within states

• n school educational attainments by gender, social groups, religion and school types. The

ranking of states by SEDI and SEPI clearly categorize them into four zones showing which states are doing well off in secondary education and which sates need further efforts. Results further indicate inter-relationship between education and socio-economic outcomes with impacts being stronger for secondary education. Hence, states need to re-design their education policies looking at their capabilities/inefficiencies in order to reap maximum benefits to grow in a balanced way. Keywords: Secondary Education, Social Inequality, Principal Component Analysis, Gini Coefficient, Linear Regression, Educational Outcomes

• I. Introduction

India aspires to become a world knowledge hub with hopes to transform millions of young people across the world into educated global citizens. Education is essential for economic growth, health benefits, gender equality, poverty reduction and overall sustainable development of the nation. Ensuring equality in education can further accelerate the achievement of these goals. For this, the entire education system in the country has to become sound and robust by achieving excellence. Education in India is in the concurrent list with some responsibilities lying with the union and the states having autonomy for others. Therefore, the responsibility for the provision and financing of education is a shared responsibility between union and state governments. After significant improvements in primary school education achieved by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), it is the right time to address the secondary education system across the country. To achieve equality at national level, it is desirable to strengthen the education system at state level first. The secondary education act as one of the strongest link between primary and higher education in India and

provides human capital base for the country, despite this fact, it is noticed that the patterns of management of secondary education are complex and vary considerably not only across states but even within states widely on various socio-economic fronts. Given the regional disparities in India; the comparative performance of individual states in terms of school educational attainments; identifying gaps; development and performance indicators of educational services; and their relationship with socio-economic outcomes has become an important area of research. But mere identifying gaps are not enough, it is equally important to study the progress made by states over the period of time due to the fact that huge investments are involved in this sector. Despite this fact that secondary education forms an integral part of the development of entire education system, very few studies have been conducted that discusses the issues on growth of secondary education particularly at state level in India. The state level analysis for secondary education is required especially if, states needs to progress in a balanced way by re-looking into the investments states have made in the field of education. At the same time it is equally important to identify states which are performing well in which sector of education and lacking in which areas. It is not necessary that states which are performing well on economic or social fronts are equally performing well at educational fronts. The reason being that it is quite possible that the infrastructural development is helping in improving the quality of education services in some states, while for others; it could be the economic factors, governmental policy efficiencies or quality of human capital living there. Hence, it is really important to understand the efficiencies and capabilities of each state and analyzing how it is affecting in rendering the quality services of

• education. In the light of this discussion, an attempt has been made through this paper to look

at the issues related to existing social inequalities in school education in major states in India with special reference to secondary education due to the fact that it forms an integral part of the development of entire education system. The paper also presents the state ranking in terms of development and performance indicators for secondary education, thereby highlighting the inter-state disparities at two time intervals to study the progress. In addition to this, it will also find the performance of states on various other socio-economic fronts and linking it with school educational outcomes at state level. It is expected that the results from state comparisons can throw up successful experiments which can be replicated by other states and can provide useful suggestions in improving the secondary school education system in India, while considering the social, economic and demographic factors of each state

• separately. The paper is organized in six sections: while section I and II gives introduction

and brief literature review on the subject, the objectives and methodology are discussed in

Sections III and IV. The results of the analysis are discussed in section V, while section VI summarizes the major findings and policy implications of the study.

• II. Objectives

In light of the above discussion, the paper aims to fulfill four broad objectives:  To identify state-level disparities in secondary educational attainments and expenditures in India at various levels: by gender, school type, region and level of study.  To study the extent to which various states varies across secondary educational development and performance indices and thereby, identifying the changes in the ranking and positioning of the states on these two indices over two time intervals.  To explore how school educational outcomes (both elementary and secondary education) varies across states along with varied socio-economic outcomes. Does states that are performing well on economic or social or health fronts are also performing well on educational front? What are the best performing and lacking dimensions for each state so as to enable them to improve on their lacking areas by re- channeling the resources in right way.  To explore, if there is any linear relationship between the secondary educational

• utcomes on one hand and socio economic outcomes (economic; demographic; social

and health) on the other hand; and also to have a comparative view with other levels

• f school educational outcomes.

III. Data and Methodology In this section, we present the datasets used in the study and statistical methods applied

• thereof. The paper highlights the state level disparities on various fronts like educational

attainments, development or performance indicators and educational expenditures. In addition to this it also explores to test a wide spectrum of relationships between school educational outcomes and various socio-economic outcomes at states aggregate level. For testing these objectives, an exploratory model has been developed using latest available data for 20 major states in India. The entire analysis in this paper is based on state level data collected from various renowned secondary sources in India like Census 2011, Statistics of School Education, National Health Profile, Economic Surveys, NFHS, SRS etc. To fulfill the

• bjectives as stated above, three approaches have been adopted:

Approach I- Identifying Social Inequalities in Secondary Education: Worldwide, scholars have used different methods to study the inequalities in education. Some have used Gini-coefficients, while others have used standard deviation or latest trends in access and enrolments for identifying gaps. We have tried to apply a mix of all these approaches in this paper to explore the inequalities in education across states. The disparities in educational attainment have been identified by studying the state level trends at various levels and also through 2-dimensional plots. For identifying the inequalities in educational expenditure, Gini-coefficient has been calculated by region, gender or level of study for 2014. Approach II- Ranking States by Growth vs. Performance in Secondary Education Sector: To measure the variations in demand and supply of secondary education, two separate indices have been constructed at state: Secondary Education Development Index (SEDI) and Secondary Education Performance Index (SEPI). This index is developed based on UNDP methodology which is expressed as: Score= (Actual Value – Min Value) / (Max Value- Min Value) The minimum and maximum is set for each indicator and it is seen that how each dimension varies across states. SEDI is average all four independent dimensional scores. The main idea behind using UNDPs methodology here rather than PCA method is that at state level the

• bjective was not to measure the absolute level of education development but wanted to see

the relative positions of various states in the country. To indicate the mismatch between development and performance in secondary education, the states were plotted on two- dimensional scale and their progress is being analyzed two time intervals 2011 and 2015. The development of both of these indices has been discussed in detail here. SEDI: The idea for development of secondary education development index has been derived from Quality Education in Developing Countries (QEDC) Initiative that identifies 4 factors important for education development; access, participation, quality and funding. Based on this criterion, the index is developed using four indicators as; schools per 1000 population, Gross enrolment ratio, pupil-teacher ratio and expenditure as percent of GSDP. The ‗access‘ component is represented by secondary schools per 1000 population in age group 14-17

• years. The main idea behind taking this rather than simply number of schools at secondary

level is to eliminate any kind of biasness towards big states with larger number of schools available although they may not be sufficient enough to cater high population in those states. Schools per thousand population will judge states simply not on the basis of absolute number

• f schools available in each state but in terms of its accessibility and reach per thousand
• population. For participation rates, Gross Enrolment Ratios (GER) has been taken. Funding is

taken care by public expenditure on secondary education as percentage of GSDP of respective states. The fourth component is quality for which pupil-teacher ratio is taken as proxy indicator. SEPI: This index is based on three indicators: transition rates from upper-middle to lower- secondary, dropout rates, per cent pass-outs from total appeared. While transition rates and dropout rates are process indicators, the percent of pass-outs is output indicator. Together, both of these represent the performance of secondary education in schools. While transition rates are ideal indicators to show internal efficiencies, the drop-out rates indicates

• inefficiencies. The methodology to construct this index is same as the earlier one.

Approach III- Comparative View of Linking Educational Outcomes at different Level of School Education with various Socio-Economic Outcomes-: This section explores how educational outcomes at elementary and secondary level of school education vary across different states with varied socio-economic outcomes. For this, separate indices have been developed covering seven broad dimensions including; elementary education, secondary education, economic index, social index, health index, demographic index and demographic-health index for 19 major states in India. This approach mainly considers the data based on year 2011 as most of the demographic and health indicators were available till that period only and for finding the exact relationships, it was important o take education data also till 2011. For developing the indices, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) technique has been adopted. The value of index for each dimension is between 0 and

• 1. It shows that higher the score value of index and is near to 1, better is the performance of

that particular dimension, except in case of Demographic-Health Index where impact is negative in relation to educational attainment and value near 0 denotes better performance and the higher score values of this index near 1 reflects weak performance. The educational development index at both the levels of education i.e. elementary and secondary includes indicators which are reflecting the development of education in that sector like Gross enrolment ratios, schools per thousand population, expenditure as percent of GSDP, pupil teacher ratios and female participation rates. Economic index (ECI) includes indicators on growth rates of states, net per capita NSDP, state debt burden and FDIs, thus reflecting the prosperity of states in economic terms. While, Demographic index (DMI)

considers variables related to population growth in respective states and other population related indicators, Demographic-health index (DMHI) on the other hand includes related to the basic health indicators of population residing in states for instance BR, DR, IMR or TFR. This index not only reflects the achievements of states in terms of initiatives taken to improve basic health facilities but also in bringing demographic transition in states. The Health index (HLI) covers indicators related to immunization, contraception‘s use, female health indicators and health infrastructure. Finally, Social index (SCI) covers those indicators which have a great influence on society as a whole for e.g. poverty rates, HIV prevalence, literacy, employment, mean effective age of marriage etc. These indicators can bring huge change in society and have linkages with health and economic prospects as well. Moreover, not directly but indirectly education can change the mindsets of people and can bring change in society which do have long term benefits for nation as a whole (refer annexure table A1 for list of indicators covered index–wise). Using the index score values for each of these indices, this paper further applied simple linear regressions to examine the impact of secondary and elementary education on economic, social, health, demographic and health-demographic indicators.

• IV. Results and Discussion

IV.1. Secondary Education Trends and Disparities To reap full benefits of the demographic dividend, India has to provide education to its population and that too of quality standard. The distribution of schools indiates the existing disparties between states in terms of provision and schools and accessibility to majority of

• population. At both the levels of secondary education, it is found that in 2014-15 Tamil Nadu

is the only state where senior secondary schools are higher than lower secondary schools per 1000 population. In addition to this, it is found that gap between lower and senior secondary schools per thousand population is highest in HP, Odisha, AP, Karnataka, and Assam. Not

• nly had this but, the share of government and private schools varies significantly between

lower and senior secondary levels of education. At all India level, 55.5 percent of the schools are privately owned at lower secondary level, while this proprtion is 58.8 percent in case of senior secondary education. While the share of private schools (including aided and unaided) for both lower and senior secondary level of education are highest in Maharashtra, U.P, Gujarat, Kerala and Karnataka, while the share of government secondary schools is highest in states like West Bengal, Bihar, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, HP and Jharkhand. Within private schooling as well, there are disparities between aided and unaided schools.

The differentiation between states with respect to school management further creates differences in school enrolments ratios, overall learning quality and performance of students. Table 1shows that HP, Delhi, Kerala are top ranking states for gross enrolment ratios at both lower and senior secondary levels, while Bihar, UP, Assam, Jharkhand are lowest ranking states among all. As far as female participation rates are concerned, Rajasthan and Gujarat followed by Haryana and Punjab shows lowest female participation per 100 males in 2014-

• 15. In senior secondary education, the female participation is higher than males in southern

states like Tamil Nadu (113 girls per 100 males), Kerala (108 girls per 100 males) and Karnataka (105 girls per 100 boys). However, in lower secondary level, the highest female participation per 100 males is reported in West Bengal, Assam and Chhattisgarh. However, there are few states like West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Assam where although female participation per 100 males is above national average for lower secondary levels, but as they move up the ladder towards senior secondary levels, the female participation declines. In terms of PTR, there are disparities between states at both levels of secondary schooling. For lower secondary level PTR ranges from 13 pupils per teacher to 61 pupils per teacher between states, while it ranges between15-106 in case of senior secondary level indicating serious shortage of teacher at senior secondary level in few states. Table 1: Key Indicators of Secondary Education by Levels & States 2014-15

Lower Secondary (IX-X) Senior Secondary (XI-XII) States PTR GER Girls per 100 Boys PTR GER Girls per 100 Boys AP 19 72.4 96 35 51.6 93 Assam 13 74.8 109 20 34.0 95 Bihar 59 69.1 96 61 31.8 82 Chhattisgarh 33 101.8 102 26 63.3 95 Delhi 30 103.6 86 25 91.6 91 Gujarat 34 74.3 70 31 44.9 77 Haryana 14 84.3 78 18 65.8 77 HP 19 115.9 86 15 100.6 90 Jharkhand 61 71.9 97 68 48.7 88 Karnataka 16 81.8 92 28 33.0 105 Kerala 17 103.2 94 20 76.9 108 MP 40 80.2 87 40 45.5 80 Maharashtra 23 89.3 84 43 62.2 85 Odisha 20 77.1 98 20

• 86

Punjab 17 85.6 77 28 69.4 80 Rajasthan 23 76.2 72 39 56.5 66 Tamil Nadu 21 91.9 95 26 77.5 113 UP 57 67.8 89 106 63.8 90 West Bengal 37 90.4 116 56 80.4 97 Uttarakhand 18 78.2 92 32 50.0 95 Source: Statistics of School Education 2014-15

The strong supply-side expansion, together with rising household incomes and falling poverty has ensured good progress that continued to lift up the enrolment at all level of

• education. The GER at lower secondary level has risen from 58.2 percent in 2007-08 to 65.2

percent in 2011 and further to 78.5 percent in 2014-15 and for senior secondary levels it has gone up from 33.5 percent in 2007-08 to 39.2 percent in 2011 and to 54.2 percent in 2014-15 which is itself a great achievement, although at international levels these are still quite low. One of the reasons behind lower GER at secondary level is wide disparities existing at various levels across and within states. Although efforts are been made at national level to reduce the gender disparities in GER at secondary levels of education but despite of that it is

• significant. Moreover, the progress has been very uneven across states. Figure 1 shows inter-

state variations in gender-disparity in secondary school enrolment rates. The gender parity index reflects the male to female secondary school enrolment ratio, where a ratio of ‗1‘ represents gender equality. Figure 1: Inter-State Variations Gross Enrolment Rates by Gender Parity Index Kingdon (2005) finds that an important part of the reason for gender inequality is to be found within the household, as opposed to institutional explanations. Using household fixed effects equations, Kingdon finds strong within-household bias against daughters in terms of enrolment and household educational expenditure. Figure clearly depicts that states with higher GER at secondary level also reflects higher gender equality. Among various major states Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Kerala, HP, Haryana, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh are performing really well on GER due to higher female participation rates as shown by higher

• GPI. But then there are even those states where GPI is although higher but still not

performing that well on GER. However, the positive point to note here is that these states wih higher GPI and lower GER are still improving and are moving towards acheiving higher GER at secondary level. Among these states, West Bengal and Jharkhand are ahead in the race. The high instances of gender disparity across states is one of the major cause which is hindering the growth of secondary enrolments and overall education quality in India. Figure 2 (A & B) depicts the level of variations between various states in GER and dropouts for both boys and girls at secondary level. Figure 2A: State-wise and Gender-wise GER and Dropouts at Lower Secondary Education 2014-15 Figure 2B: State-wise and Gender-wise GER and Dropouts at Senior Secondary Education 2014-15

10 20 30 40 50 60 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 AP Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Gujarat Haryana HP Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala MP Maharashtra Odisha Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu UP West Bengal Uttarakhand INDIA Dropouts GER GER Boys GER Girls Dropouts Boys Dropouts Girls

A

5 10 15 20 25 20 40 60 80 100 120 AP Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Gujarat Haryana HP Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala MP Maharashtra Odisha Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu UP West Bengal Uttarakhand Dropouts GER GER Boys GER Girls Dropouts Boys Dropouts Girls

B

It is seen that at lower secondary level of education, states with higher dropout rates for both girls and boys are actually the states with lower GER (Odisha, Assam, Karnataka, M.P, Bihar, Jharkhand, Gujarat and Rajasthan) (Fig 2A). It further shows that the highest enrolments for both boys and girls are observed in HP, followed by Kerala, Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu and in these states except for Chhattisgarh, the average annual dropoutfor both girls and boys are found to be lowest in 2014-15. Howver, at senior seocndary level of education, the highest dropouts for boys and gilrs is in case of Delhi followed by Andhra Pradesh (Fig 2B). While, GER for boys and girls is higher in Delhi but in case of Andhra Pradesh, male fmeale GER is quite low. In Delhi, the probable reason behind higher dropouts at senior secondary levels may be due to fact that there are lot of

• ptions available at this stage for vocational education. Generally, we have pre-conceptions

in our minds that girls dropouts is higher in India compared to boys but actually this is not the

• case. The situation is other way round as far as dropout rates are concerned in India as boys

shows higher average annual dropouts at lower secondary level (17.9 percent) compared to girls (17.8 percent) at all India level. In fact in majority of the states, this is what the situation is except for eastern and north-east states where girls dropout is higher than the boys. To investigate the inequality in educational expenditure in India, the most popular method of Gini-coefficient has been adopted. For applying this method, we have taken the expenditure by level of education for each quintile class of usual monthly per capita consumer expenditure (UMPCE) for 2014 at all India level. The value of Gini-coefficient varies between 0 to 1. While value near 0 reflects perfect equality, the value near 1 reflects perfect inequality. The findings indicate inequality at both level of secondary education by region and gender. It shows that the level of inequality is higher in case of secondary education as compared to senior secondary level of school education. Region-wise the extent

• f inequality s higher in case of urban areas compared to that of rural areas. The gender

analysis, however shows that in rural areas, inequality is higher in case of males, whereas in urban areas, females gives higher signs of inequalities in educational expenditures. Table 2: Gini-Coefficients in Education Expenditure by Level of education, Region and Gender 2014 Level of Education Rural Urban Male Female All Male Female All Secondary 0.247 0.219 0.236 0.318 0.355 0.335 Senior Secondary 0.178 0.170 0.177 0.314 0.336 0.324

Overall, this section presented wide scenario on disparities existing between different states in India in terms of various quality educational indicators. Bihar, Odisha, UP, Gujarat and MP are lagging behind in most of the indicators for secondary education. These states really need to relook into the policies to increase expenditure, GER and female participation at secondary education level. IV.2. Interlinking Secondary Education Development with Performance: Trends Overtime It is clear from above discussion that there are huge variations in both demand and supply of secondary education dissemination at state level. Therefore, in addition to exploring wide disparities in the existing system, it is equally important to understand the aspects of educational inputs and outputs at secondary stage. For this two indices have been developed at state level: Secondary Education Development Index (SSEDI) and State Secondary Education Performance Index (SSEPI). IV.2.1 Secondary Education Development Index (SEDI) The Indian literature shows that very few economists have developed the indices for measuring the development of education for example Tilak (1979) has developed educational development index (EDI) using enrolments and institutional cost indicators. In early 90s Human development reports also considered education as one of its indicator for development process. Human development reports considered two variables in estimating education index; literacy rates and GER at all levels of education. In one of the study (Geetha Rani, 2007) both Education development index (EDI) and Education performance index (EPI) at secondary level were constructed for India based on three indicators GER, PTR and number of schools. This study excludes the cost factor which actually plays an important role at school level education. Therefore, based on the criterion laid by QEDC initiative, we have developed secondary education development index (SEDI) that covers the growth aspects of secondary education system in terms of access and participation. This index has been developed on two time intervals 2011 and 2015. The scores and ranking of secondary education development index state-wise is given in Table 3. The table shows that between 2011 and 2015, nearly 5 states have shown improvements in the secondary education development in terms of their ranking. These states are Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu. Almost 6 states have maintained same ranking in 2015 as in 2011.

Table 3: Ranking for State Secondary Education Development Index

States 2011 2015 Index Rank Index Rank Andhra Pradesh 0.557 8 0.585 8 Assam 0.615 4 0.736 4 Bihar 0.162 20 0.159 20 Chhattisgarh 0.540 12 0.608 6 Delhi 0.581 6 0.525 13 Gujarat 0.301 18 0.372 17 Haryana 0.546 9 0.559 11 Himachal Pradesh 0.967 1 0.936 1 Jharkhand 0.249 19 0.163 19 Karnataka 0.514 14 0.583 9 Kerala 0.709 3 0.608 7 Madhya Pradesh 0.490 16 0.427 16 Maharashtra 0.558 7 0.558 12 Odisha 0.540 11 0.489 14 Punjab 0.608 5 0.738 3 Rajasthan 0.541 10 0.688 5 Tamil Nadu 0.502 15 0.564 10 Uttar Pradesh 0.349 17 0.264 18 West Bengal 0.539 13 0.442 15 Uttarakhand 0.826 2 0.773 2

IV.2.2 Secondary Education Performance Index (SEPI) In addition to SEDI, Secondary Education Performance Index (SEPI) has also been constructed that captures the process and output indicators. The composite index score and shifts in ranking for secondary education performance is given in Table 4. In terms of performance ranking between 2011 and 2015, following states shows improvement: Delhi, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Haryana is the only state which has maintained same ranking in 2015 as in 2011; however, in absolute terms the value of index has declined.

Table 4: Ranking on State Secondary Education Performance Index

States 2011 2015 Index Rank Index Rank Andhra Pradesh 0.539 8 0.695 10 Assam 0.281 4 0.215 19 Bihar 0.412 20 0.268 17 Chhattisgarh 0.184 6 0.299 15 Delhi 0.880 13 0.770 6 Gujarat 0.417 17 0.284 16 Haryana 0.666 11 0.630 11 Himachal Pradesh 0.817 1 0.919 2 Jharkhand 0.152 19 0.222 18 Karnataka 0.478 9 0.379 13 Kerala 0.854 7 0.862 3 Madhya Pradesh 0.296 16 0.105 20 Maharashtra 0.603 12 0.828 4 Odisha 0.462 14 0.313 14 Punjab 0.600 3 0.828 5 Rajasthan 0.410 5 0.713 9 Tamil Nadu 0.749 10 0.920 1 Uttar Pradesh 0.685 18 0.729 8 West Bengal 0.454 15 0.555 12 Uttarakhand 0.595 2 0.746 7

IV.2.3 SEDI vs. SEPI: Changes Overtime The positioning of states in terms of their performance and development between two time intervals indicates how far states have come and how far they need to go to be the best. It also reflects at the same time which states have proved themselves as role models for remaining

• states. The level of disparities and progress in development and performance of secondary

education by 20 major states has been presented in Figure 3A and 3B. Both of these figures are divided in 4 zones: where zone A is the best zone in terms of development initiative and performance indicators and Zone C indicates poor development and performance by the

• states. While zone B indicates higher performance, zone D on the other hand indicates high

development initiatives by the states but with low performance.

Figure 3A: SEDI vs. SEPI 2011 Figure 3B: SEDI vs. SEPI 2015 Figures shows that certain states have maintained the standards of their education level both in terms of development and performance between two time intervals. These states are HP, Kerala, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, AP and Haryana. Delhi which was earlier in zone A has now moved to zone B, while Tamil Nadu has moved from zone B to zone A in 2015.

Rajasthan is another state which has worked quite well on performance indicators and therefore has moved up to zone A in 2015 from zone D in 2011. Figure also highlights the states where although development has taken place but the performance level is poor. These states include Karnataka, Assam and Chhattisgarh. It gives indication of misallocation or inefficient use of resources in these states which need strong policies to channelize the fund in right direction. The five states which are falling in zone C in 2015 were also in same zone 4 years back implying not much improvement in the field of secondary education. These states seriously need to look into the quality and infrastructural issues at secondary schooling level. IV.3. Inter-States Disparities in Educational and Socio-Economic Outcomes This section has attempted to highlight the disparities between and within states in providing the school education at both the levels of study and relating it with respect to their other socio-economic performances. For this, indices have been constructed on seven broad dimensions using 2011 data available for 19 major states in India. These seven dimensions are: elementary education index, secondary education index, economic index, social index, health index, demographic index and demographic-health index. The educational indices, both at elementary and secondary level include indicators which are reflecting the development of education in that sector. Economic index reflects the prosperity of states in economic terms. While, demographic index considers variables related to population growth in respective states and other population related indicators, demographic-health index relates to the basic health indicators of population residing in states. This index not only reflects the achievements of states in terms of initiatives taken to improve basic health facilities but also in bringing demographic transition in states. The health index covers indicators related to immunization, contraception‘s use, female health indicators and health infrastructure. Finally, social index covers those indicators which have a great influence on society as a whole. All these indicators can bring huge change in society and have linkages with health and economic prospects as well. Moreover, not directly but indirectly education can change the mindsets of people and can bring change in society which does have long term benefits for nation as a

• whole. On the basis of these indices, states were ranked on all 7 dimensions. The model

brings interesting results and shows that it is not necessary that the states which are performing well at elementary education level also perform well at secondary education. In fact, shows that there are huge disparities between states and even within states in providing the school education at both the levels (Fig. 4.).

Figure 4: State-wise Elementary vs. Secondary Education Index Figure shows that the best performing state in terms of EEI is Madhya Pradesh while Punjab got the lowest scores. On the other hand, in case of SEI, while Himachal Pradesh performs the best, Bihar performs poorest. In most of the states, the development for secondary education is lower than that of elementary education. However, there are few exceptions where focus is more on secondary education development as compared to elementary one like Delhi, Haryana, HP, Punjab, Kerala, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. It is found that there are significant disparities within states in both the levels of school education. Only HP, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand are the states where attention has been given on

• verall school education, since the level of disparities in these states between the elementary

and secondary index scores are lowest among all. On other socio-economic fronts as well, the variation between states are significant. Figure 5 shows the level of variations among states with respect to economic, social, demographic, health and demographic-health index.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 AP Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Gujarat Haryana Himachal Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala MP Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu UP West Bengal Uttarakhand Index Values EEI SEI

Figure 5: State-wise Socio-economic Indices Figure shows that Uttar Pradesh has performed weakest in four of the five indexes discussed here except for social index where Rajasthan shows weakest performance among all states. Amongst best performing states, Delhi has got top ranking for economic and demographic- health index, whereas for health index Andhra Pradesh scored highest ranking. Maharashtra has got top ranking for social development index, while Kerala performed best in terms of demographic index. Findings reveal huge disparities between and within states in rendering school educational and also indicates that while some states that are performing best on economic front, shows average or below average performance on health or demographics dimensions. Hence, it is very important for states to look at their capabilities and to work on

• inefficiencies. Especially, when we are looking at the development of secondary education in

states, it utmost important to find out that how best performing states in education are performing on other fronts at macro level. For this, the states are divided into three categories based on their ranking in secondary education index: highly developed (top 6 ranking), medium developed (ranking 7-13) and low developed states (14-19 rank). Accordingly, their performance on other fronts are given, which will help us in understanding the growth patterns (Table 5). Findings reveal that the states which have got top rankings for secondary education are actually the states which have performed really well on other fronts as well and vice versa. In case of states classified in medium category, except for Chhattisgarh and Odisha, most of them are performing either best or at medium level on other fronts. These trends suggest that education is inter-related to other socio-economic aspects and have an

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 AP Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Gujarat Haryana Himachal Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala MP Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu UP West Bengal Uttarakhand Index Value ECI SCI DMI DMHI HLI

impact on them directly or indirectly. Moreover, it forms a kind of vicious circle where all dimensions are benefitting from each other and promotes overall inclusive growth. Table 5: States Ranking by Level of Development in Secondary Education 2011

Level of Development States SEI EEI ECI SCI DMI DMHI HLI Highly Developed Himachal Pradesh 1 2 5 12 5 7 13 Uttarakhand 2 4 4 15 9 8 16 Kerala 3 11 7 6 1 2 5 West Bengal 4 5 16 9 3 4 2 Tamil Nadu 5 13 6 4 2 5 4 Punjab 6 19 3 7 7 6 7 Medium Developed Chhattisgarh 7 7 11 10 16 15 14 Andhra Pradesh 8 8 9 5 6 10 1 Delhi 9 18 1 2 11 1 6 Maharashtra 10 16 2 1 4 3 3 Karnataka 11 9 8 3 8 9 8 Orissa 12 3 14 14 13 14 15 Haryana 13 15 10 13 15 11 9 Low Developed Madhya Pradesh 14 1 18 17 18 18 11 Rajasthan 15 17 17 19 14 16 12 Uttar Pradesh 16 10 19 16 19 19 19 Gujarat 17 14 13 8 12 12 10 Bihar 18 12 15 11 17 17 18 Jharkhand 19 6 12 18 10 13 17

Notes: SEI- Secondary Education Index, EEI- Elementary Education Index, ECI- Economic Index, SCI- Social Index, DMI- Demographic Index, DMHI- Demographic-health Index, HLI- Health Index

IV.4. Linking Educational and Socio-Economic Outcomes: Regression Analysis To have a better clarity on the impacts of elementary and secondary education attainment on various socio-economic outcomes at aggregate state level, simple linear regressions were run taking elementary and secondary education index as independent variables and other indices as dependent variable. The results are presented in Table 6. It captures the extent of an impact

• n various socio-economic outcomes by elementary and secondary level of education

considering various state-level indicators. The regression results reveal that the impact of secondary education attainment is higher than elementary education attainment on various dimensions at state-level. Secondary education index shows significant and positive impact

• n economic and demographic index, whereas in case of demographic-health index, the

relation is although significant but negative. This implies that as the level of secondary

education increases there higher chances of decline in BR, DR, IMR, MMR and TFR which is good for economy as a whole. In case of social and health index although the results were not significant but the coefficient beta value were higher in case of secondary education for these two indices which implies that there might be indirect impacts which are surely higher than the elementary education attainment. In contrast to this, although elementary educational attainment shows significant impacts on economic, social, demographic-health and health index, the relations are negative between them which are not good for the growth of society as a whole. Table 6: Regression Results for Linking Education with Socio-economic Indices

Indexes Parameters Economic Index Social Index Demographic Index Demographic- Health Index Health Index EEI Beta coefficients

• 0.437
• 0.380
• 0.127

0.430

• 0.357

T-Statistics

• 2.950
• 2.114
• 0.906*

2.430

• 1.814

SEI Beta coefficients 0.569 0.292 0.513

• 0.785

0.421 T-Statistics 2.731 1.207* 2.734

• 3.303

1.596*

*- Not Significant

• V. Concluding Remarks

The paper clearly brings out that although states have made huge progress over the years in school education sector but the level of progress is slow and uneven. The investigation further reveals that there are significant disparities within and between states in rendering elementary and secondary level of school education. Factors such as number of institutions, enrolments, female participation, public expenditures, female teachers, Pupil- teacher ratio

• etc. contributes to striking variations across states. Significant gaps are visible across gender,

region, level of study and school type. The Gini- Coefficients in education expenditure reveal that disparities are higher at secondary level of education as compared to senior secondary

• level. Moreover, inequality is higher in urban educational expenditures rather than rural

expenditures. The ranking of states by SEDI and SEPI clearly categorize them into four zones showing which states are doing well off in secondary education and which sates need further

• efforts. The results although shows that between 2011 and 2015, few states has moved up the

ladder of development and performance in secondary education but still states need to go a long way so as to achieve quality education.

The paper highlights various capabilities and inefficiencies of states in terms of socio- economic and demographic profiles and while highlighting these factors trying to relate it with educational attainments in selected states. State profiles shows that there are significant disparities within states in both the levels of school education. Only HP, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand are the states where attention has been given on overall school education, since the level of disparities in these states between the elementary and secondary index scores are lowest among all. The findings further reveals that it is not necessary that states which have done well in economic performance or social performance are also performing well on education front. For instance, Gujarat is highly developed state but its performance in education sector is not satisfactory. But for secondary education, the states which have got top rankings are actually the states which have performed really well on other fronts as well. In contrast, the table clearly reveals that lowest performing states are doing badly on other front also. Hence, it suggests that education is inter-related to other socio-economic aspects and have an impact on them directly or indirectly. Moreover, it forms a kind of reinforcing where all these dimensions are benefitting from each other and promotes overall inclusive growth. The analysis further indicates that attainment of secondary education bear important relationship with various outcomes at states aggregate level. The secondary education has direct impacts on economic growth, demographic transition and demographic-health performances of states, whereas in case of social and health outcomes it bears indirect impact. Along with this, it also shows that these impacts are much stronger in case of secondary education attainment as compared to elementary education attainment levels. Thus, it makes secondary education even more important area of concern not only at national level but for states as well. The findings suggest that although progress has been made by states over the years in secondary education sector but the level of progress is slow and uneven. It further adds that the benefits of secondary education are huge at macro level but are not able to be achieved fully due to huge disparities existing at various stages in this system. Therefore, states need to bring out certain policies not only to minimize the differences in order to achieve balanced participation from various sub-populations but also to improve the quality

• f services. Hence, states need to re-design their education policies and revising their

investment patterns on the basis of re-looking at their capabilities and inefficiencies in order to reap maximum benefits so as to grow in a balanced way.

References:

Ammermueller, A., & Dolton, P. (2007). Pupil teacher gender interaction effects on scholastic

• utcomes in England and the USA. Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), Discussion

paper no. 06-060. Anbalagan, P. (2011). Public expenditure on education: A study of inter-state variations in India. IJBEMR, 2(1). Ansari, M.I., and Singh, S.K., (1997) ‗Public Spending on Education and Economic Growth in India: Evidence from VAR Modeling‘, Indian Journal of Applied Economics, Vol.6, No.2, pp.43- 64. Barro, R. J. (1991), ‗Economic Growth in a Cross-Section of Countries‘, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 407-443.

• Barro. and Lee. (1994), ―Sources of Economic Growth,‖ Carnegie Conference Series on Public

Policy, 40: 1. Behrman, Jere. and Wolfe, Barbara. (1987), ‗How Does Mother‘s Schooling Affect the Family‘s Health, Nutrition, Medical Care Usage and Household Sanitation?‘, Journal of Econometrics 36, 185-204. Birdsall, N., Ross, D. and Sabot, R. (1995), ‗Inequality and Growth Reconsidered: Lessons from East- Asia‘, World Bank, Economics Review 93, 477–508. Bloom, D., Canning, D., and Chan, K. (2006), ‗Higher Education and Economic Development in Africa‘, Washington D.C., World Bank. Bourguigon, F. and Morrison, C. (1990), ‗Income Distribution, Development and Foreign Trade: A Cross Sectional Analysis‘, European Economic Review, 34, 1113-1132. Census of India. (2001 and 2011). Registrar general of India. Government of India. Chatterji, Monojit. (1998), ‗Tertiary Education and Economic Growth‘, Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, Volume 32(4), pp. 349-354.

• CSO. (2004–05). Real growth rates of states—GSDP % at constant prices & other parameters

released on 25 Oct 2011. Directorate of Economics & Statistics of respective State Governments and for All-India.

• CSO. (Various Years). Statistical abstract of India. New Delhi: Government of India.

Das, A. (1999). Socio-economic developments in India: A regional analysis. Development and Society, 28(2), 313–345. Dee, T. S. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. Journal of Human Resources (University of Wisconsin Press), 42(3). Denison, E. F. (1962), ‗The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives before‘, Page 13-15, NY: Committee for Economic Development. Dreze, Jean and Murthi, Mamta. (2001), ‗Fertility, Education, and Development: Evidence from India‘, Population and Development Review, Vol. 27, Issue 1, pp 33-63, March 2001. Duraisamy, P. (2002), ‗Changes in Returns to education in India, 1983-94: by gender, age-cohort and location‘, Economics of Education Review, Volume 21, Number 6, December 2002, pp. 609- 622(14) Glewwe, Paul. (2002), ‗Schools and Skills in Developing Countries: Education Policies and Socioeconomic Outcomes‘, Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2). Government of India. (2008). Status of education in India. National Report, Dept. of Higher Education, Ministry of HRD, prepared by NUEPA. Government of India. (2009). Summary report on gendering human development indices: Recasting the GDI and GEM for India. HDI and GDI. Chapter 4—Estimates for India and the States/UTs: Results and analysis, by UNDP for Ministry of Women and Child Development. Government of India. (2011–12). Employment and unemployment situation in India. NSS 68th Round 2011–12, MOSPI. Government of India. (2011a). Family Welfare Statistics in India. Report under National Rural Health Mission by published by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MHFW). Government of India. (2011b). Report on Family Welfare Statistics in India. Statistics Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Government of India. (Various Years). Economic Survey of India. Ministry of Finance, GOI.

Government of India. (Various Years). Economic Survey of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Government of India. (Various Years). Selected educational statistics. MHRD. Government of India. (Various Years). Statistics of school education 2010–11 and 2014–15. Identifying Inter-state Disparities and Socio-economic Linkages Layout: T1 Standard Book ID: 441121_1_En Book ISBN: 978-981-10-4928-6 Chapter No.: 9 Date: 21-7-2017 Time: 9:02 am Page: 144/145 Kingdon, G. and J, Unni. (2001), ‗Education & Women‘s Labour Market Outcomes in India‘, Economics, 9(2), 173-95. Kingdon, G. G. (2005). Where has all the bias gone? Detecting gender bias in the intra-household allocation of educational expenditure in rural India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53(2), 409–452. Kingdon, G. G. (2007). The progress of school education in India. GPRG-WPS-071, March 2007, Global Poverty Research Group, ESRC Global Poverty Research Group. Website: http://www.gprg.org/. Lazear, E.A. (2003), ‗Teacher Incentives‘, Swedish Economic Policy Review, 10(3), pp. 179-214. Macerinskiene, Irena. andVaiksnoraite, Birute. (2006), ‗The Role of Higher Education to Economic Development‘, ADYBA / Management.2006 m. Nr. 2(11). Malhotra, S., & Singh, S. L. S. (2006). Linkages between poverty, education, health and development in India. The Indian Economic Journal, 364–390.

• MHFW. (2010). Estimates of total fertility rate (TFR), family welfare statistics in India: 2006–2010.

Sample Registration System (SRS), GOI (released on April, 2012). Ministry of Human Resource Development, Bureau of Planning, Monitoring & Statistics, New Delhi. Mulligan, C.B. (1999), ‗Galton versus the Human Capital Approach to Inheritance‘, Journal of Political Economy, 107(6), pp. S184-S224. Murname, R.J., Willet, J.B., Duhaldeborde, Y. and Tyler, J.H. (2000), ‗How Important Are the Cognitive Skills of Teenagers in Predicting Subsequent Earnings?‘, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(4), pp. 547-568.

• NBT. (2010). National youth readership survey data used for analysis. Data collected by NCAER

under National Action Plan for Readership Development of the Trust Initiative of National Book Trust (NBT), India. Ndulu, Benno J. and O‘Connell, Stephen A. (2006a), ‗Policy Plus: African Growth Performance 1960–2000‘, Synthesis volume of the African Economic Research Consortium‘s Explaining African Economic Growth project. New Delhi, India: AIU, pp.37-42 Planning Commission. (2011). DCH data book. May 18, 2011. http://planningcommission.gov.in. Pritchett, Lant. (2001), ‗Where Has All the Education Gone?‘, World Bank Economic Review. Psacharopoulos, G (1993): ―Returns to Investment in Education: A Global Update,‖ PPR Working Paper No. WPS 1067, World Bank,Washington D.C. Psacharopoulos, G. (1984), ‗The Contribution of Education to Economic Growth: International Comparisons‘, In J. W. Kendrick (Ed.), International Comparisons of Productivity and Causes

• f the Slowdown, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger/America Enterprise Institute.

Psacharopoulos, G., Patrinos, H. (2004), ‗Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update‘. Education Economics, 12(2), pp. 111-134. Schultz, T. W. (1961), ‗Investment in Human Capital‘, American Economic Review, 51, pp. 1-17. Self, Sharmistha. and Grabowski, Richard. (2004), ‗Does Education at All Levels Cause Growth in India, A Case Study‘, Economics of Education Review, 23 (2004) 47–55. Shiva Kumar, A. K. (1991). Human development index for Indian states. Economic and Political Weekly, 26, 243–245. Tilak, J. B. G. (1979). Interstate disparities in educational development in India. Eastern Economist, 73(2), 140–146. Tilak, J.B.G. (2001), ‗Building Human Capital: What Others Can Learn‘, World Bank Institute Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, D.C. UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics) and OECD, (2003), ‗Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow: Further Results from PISA 2000‘, Paris: OECD.

Annexure Table Table A1: List of Indicators for Various Dimensional Indexes: State-level

• S. No

Index Type List of Variables 1 Elementary Education Index (EEI)

• 1. Public expenditure on elementary education as % of GSDP
• 2. Elementary schools/1000 population
• 3. Pupil teacher ratio in elementary schools
• 4. Elementary GER
• 5. Girls per 100 boys

2 Secondary Education Index (SEI)

• 1. Public expenditure on secondary education as % of GSDP
• 2. Secondary schools/1000 population
• 3. Pupil teacher ratio in secondary schools
• 4. Secondary GER
• 5. Girls per 100 boys

3 Economic Index (ECI)

• 1. Per Capita NSDP at FC constant price 2011-12
• 2. Public Debt as % of GSDP
• 3. Real GR of States as% of GSDP
• 4. FDI proposals approved (in million Rs)

4 Social Index (SCI)

• 1. Urban Population % 2011
• 2. Mean age at effective marriage (Females) 2011
• 3. Poverty %
• 4. Literacy Rate % 2011
• 5. HIV prevalence rate adult
• 6. Employment in organized sector 2011

5 Demographic Index (DMI)

• 1. Sex Ratio (Females per 100 Males) 2011
• 2. Life Expectancy at Birth 2006-10
• 3. Exponential GR of Population 2011

6 Demographic Health Index (DMHI)

• 1. Crude Birth rates
• 2. Crude Death Rates
• 3. Infant Mortality Rates
• 4. Maternal Mortality Rates
• 5. Total Fertility Rates

7 Health Index (HLI)

• 1. Full Immunization of children (%)
• 2. Contraceptive use by any methods (%)
• 3. Percent of institutionalized deliveries
• 4. Percent of women with any ANC
• 5. Average population served per Govt. hospital