PUBLIC UTILITY OF
PRIVATE SCHOOLS
*****
A Study of Eighty Elite Private Schools of India
SUBMITTED TO
DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY & HIGHER EDUCATION
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
*****
1
A Report by
Dr.Dheeraj Bhatnagar
Khorrum Omer
Media Management Group for Literacy and Development,
New Delhi
*****
2
HON. DIRECTOR OF THE STUDY
ATUL DEV SARMAH
*****
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgement
-
6
Executive Summary
-
7
Chapter 1
-
Introduction
-
17
Chapter 2
-
Approach & Methodology
-
21
Chapter 3
-
Fiscal Benefits Available to Private
Schools
-
31
Chapter 4
-
Situational Analysis of Select Private Schools of India
38
Chapter 5
-
Findings of the Study
-
99
Chapter 6
-
Implications for Education & Tax
Policies & Recommendations
-
105
4
Page
ANNEXURES
Annexure I
-
Total Number of Students in the Sample Schools
111
Annexure II -
Basic Facts & Questionnaire
-
113
Annexure III-
Number of Students getting scholarships in Sample Schools
123
Annexure IV-
Total Amount spent on Scholarships
by Sample Schools
-
124
Annexure V -
Total Number of Students getting Fee
Concessions in Sample Schools
-
125
Annexure VI-
Total Amount Forgone towards Fee
Concessions in Sample Schools
-
126
Annexure VII-
Total Amount Spent on providing
Free Books by Sample Schools
-
128
Annexure VIII-
Total Amount Spent by Schools on
Health Care
-
129
Annexure IX -
Existence of an Explicit & WellPublicised Pro-Poor Admission Policy
-
130
Annexure X
Charitable Activities undertaken by
Sample Schools
-
131
Annexure XI -
Number of Beneficiaries
-
135
Annexure XII -
Total Amount Spent on Community
Service Programmes by Sample Schools
(2001-02)
136
-
*******
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are deeply indebted to Shri Vivek Bharadwaj, IAS, Deputy Secretary,
Department of Secondary & Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India.
The idea to undertake the study in fact came
during a discussion with him. Mr. Bharadwaj has been a constant source of support
and has guided us at various intervals during the course of the study. He has also
served as a vital link between the affiliating bodies and the authors ensuring that the
schools respond to requests for information.
********
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and purpose
As with several other things, the education system in India, too, has its legacy in
the colonial past.
The thrust in the past being on creating an educated elite has
imparted certain peculiarities to the Indian Education System. Unlike the United States
of America and the United Kingdom where the Neighbourhood School Concept and the
Common School System have provided an almost egalitarian education system, in India,
there exists a system of schools catering, almost exclusively, to different stratas of
society. They thereby provide a qualitatively different type of education to the various
socio economic segments.
There exists in the country a parallel system of government schools and private
schools, the major demarcator between the two being the medium of instruction viz.
English. Generally, the perception is that government schools do not provide quality
education and hence are accessed by people from a particular class of society. The
edge is perceived as lying with the private schools, which have over the years
presumably contributed to Indians achieving a globally reckonable position in various
fields. However, these perceptions do not have their genesis in any empirical study
ever being conducted into the specific contributions made by private schools to the
society at large.
It is in the above background that the need for a study evaluating the role of
private schools was felt. The study thus assesses whether the private schools have
been beneficial to the country or have they been the cause of several ills plaguing the
society – namely unequal educational opportunities, leading thereby to the
fragmentation of the community, promotion of elitism and an enhanced classconsciousness.
These questions are answered by this study specially when viewed in
the framework of the National Education Policy. The outcome of the study also serves
7
as an indicator for determining the case for the enhancement or withdrawal of tax
benefits being accorded to these schools which presently are being extended to them
by virtue of their being charitable social institutions. The study also helps in assessing
the efficacy of the different monitoring and regulating agencies viz. the Directorates of
Education, the affiliating Boards, the Registrar of Societies, the Directorate of IncomeTax etc. and could therefore, provide a future blueprint.
Methodology
The basic idea behind the study was to make a Cost Benefit Analysis of private
schools. This was to be done by assessing the costs that these schools impose on
society when viewed in context of the benefits, which the society at large is receiving
from them.
An Index of Social Utility for the private schools was proposed to be
developed by weighing the costs accruing to society, against the benefits being derived
in a particular year.
Private schools are recipients of various concessions from the
government which extends these in the belief that this subsidisation of capital and
recurring costs would be effective in bringing fee levels down, therefore making
education available even to the most deprived segments of society.
The parameters for assessing the benefits were culled out from the objectives
enshrined in the National Education Policy which covers objectives such as preference
to SC/ST and backward classes in admission, free/concessional education to under
privileged classes, freeships such as uniforms and books, scholarships etc.
These
parameters were weighed against the objectives laid down by the schools in their
Memorandum of Association which describe them as charitable societies.
For the
purpose of conducting the survey, it was initially thought to have a sample size of 100
schools in the cities of Delhi, Chennai, Kolkatta, Mumbai and Guwahati. However, after
much persistence only 80 schools responded. The survey included 80 private schools,
ranging from a pupil size of 300 to more than 6600. The schools were classified into 3
broad groups of small, medium and large schools. The responses of the schools were
8
then judged on the basis of questionnaires covering the various objectives from the
National Education Policy in the backdrop of the costs that these schools impose on
society. The year of reference for the purpose of the study was 2001-2002.
Though not commonly known, private schools are beneficiaries of various
concessions from the Government.
The benefits extended by the State include tax
benefits under the income tax act, wealth tax and lower property taxes, direct subsidy
towards the cost of land allotted, concessional electricity charges etc. In addition, some
State Governments also provide direct grant-in-aid to the schools towards meeting
recurring expenses e.g. West Bengal provides the Dearness Allowance component of
teachers salaries of Anglo-Indian Schools which are all in the private domain. These
benefits are extended by the State to these societies for helping them in their charitable
activities and for eventually making education available to all strata of society. The
Index of Social Utility as formulated by the study intends to form the basis of an
assessment of the present policy of tax benefits etc. being extended to the private
schools as there is a widespread feeling that many of the private schools have become
commercial ventures and thus do not qualify for availing these benefits being extended
by the State.
Previously too, certain studies have been conducted for assessing the benefits
etc. being extended to charitable societies, which include schools. The Comptroller and
Auditor General (CAG) reviewed in 1992 the working of tax exemptions available to
Non-Profit Organizations. The records of 6133 public charitable/religious trusts were
seen for the purpose of examining the grant of registration for income tax purposes,
the quantum & the manner in which income was derived, applied and accumulated visà-vis the applicable regulatory provisions under the Income Tax Act. It was found by
the CAG that the benefits being extended to these charitable organizations were being
grossly abused by them by not utilizing the income generated by these charitable
institutions on the charitable objectives as laid down by them in their Memorandum of
Associations (MOA) while getting registered as charitable/religious trusts.
9
An
assessment was attempted by a study group under the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) Project - “Public Sector Reforms”, of the amount of direct tax
revenue foregone by the government on account of benefits being extended to these
charitable institutions (NIPFP, 2000). The study group estimated revenue foregone
under provisions of Sections 80-G (Charitable Donations) and revenue lost due to
exemption given on income of the different charitable institutions under various
provisions of Income Tax Act.
It was estimated by the Study Group that the total
revenue loss approximated Rs.3,000 crores for the financial year 1996-97 which
amounted to 8.15% of total direct tax revenue and 0.23% of aggregate GDP.
Situational Analysis & Findings
The study eventually covered 80 schools affiliated to different Boards – CBSE,
CISCE and State Boards. An assessment of the functioning of these schools as brought
out by the responses provided by the schools was done. These were analyzed in the
context of the Memorandum of Association of these schools as also the objectives laid
down in the National Education Policy.
The analysis indicated that the objectives
enumerated by the Schools have no relevance in their actual functioning. The study
establishes that private schools when viewed in the context of the benefits being
availed by them from the Society, are not contributing enough. The situation becomes
a little disheartening since the schools surveyed are the ones, which constitute the
upper crust, are well endowed, resource rich, from the leading cities of the country.
If
these schools are not setting an example, the contribution of the vast majority can only
be imagined. The Study thus provides a sad commentary on the abdication of the
fulfillment of the social responsibility of private schools.
10
A few indicators of the outcome as mentioned in supra can be seen below:(i)
While 52.6% of schools have a provision for granting scholarships,
59% do not spend any money on it!
students
65% had less than 10
on
scholarships in their schools!
(ii)
Only 27.5% of the schools do not have a provision for fee
concession but 36.7% do not spend a paisa! More than half of the
schools surveyed had less than 12 students being given concession
in fee.
(iii)
50% of the schools surveyed spent less than Rs.42,000 per annum
on fee concessions. The average amount foregone in providing fee
concessions by these private schools annually as a proportion of
the total enrollment was a meager Rs.71.63 in 2001-02. It may be
relevant to mention here that the annual fee of these schools for a
single child ranges between Rs.12,000 to Rs.30,000.
(iv)
Out of the 80 private schools surveyed, 30% did not admit disabled
children in their schools while the tabulated data shows that 41%
of these schools do not have any disabled children. Thus while
30% do not admit the disabled as a policy, another 11.3% do not
do so in practice.
(v)
68.8% of the surveyed schools have a Community Service
Programme while 31.2% did not even have a Community Service
Programme in existence.
The data generated during the study
shows that the cost incurred on Community Service Programmes by
11
these schools on an average was Rs.16.38 per annum per student
i.e. less than Rs.1.50 per month.
The purpose of the study was to determine the costs & benefits of private
schools by formulating a social utility index of the schools when viewed in context of
the concessions/benefits claimed by these schools from the State. The results of the
study are an eye opener since only Rs.27 are spent by the private schools towards
socially useful activities as compared to every Rs.100 of concessions/incentives given by
the Government to them. The overall sample for which both information with respect
to the fiscal benefit and the expenditure on educational activities having social utility
was available, reveals that one unit of public finance benefit (in the form of income
tax/property tax concession, grant-in-aid, concession in cost of land etc.) yields only
0.2676 of out put in terms of social utility. The study also suggests that the welfare
activities undertaken by these schools are not conditional on the government extending
subsidies. The regression index worked out shows an insignificant relationship between
government subsidies and the social welfare expenses incurred by schools. The study
also brought forth the illustrative case of a very well known educational society, which
runs a chain of schools within and outside Delhi.
While the Society received tax
benefits amounting to Rs.2.36 crores in 2001-02, it spent a sum of Rs.17.87 lacs only
on charitable activities.
Interestingly, the study also revealed that 20% of the sample schools spent
much more than the concessions received by them from the Government, on welfare
activities. Incidentally, all of these schools are run by charitable religious trusts, 90% of
them being Christian!
Constraints
12
The intent of the study to develop an index of social utility for private schools
was constrained by the inadequacy of data.
The study could not incorporate data
relating to valuation of free/concessional land given to private schools by the State for
setting up schools for the same reason. Most schools were extremely reluctant to part
with information. The data on costs to the society was dispersed in different agencies
like the Income-Tax Department, Land owning & disposing agencies like the DDA,
NDMC etc., Municipal bodies which provide electricity & water on concessional rates and
concessions on property tax.
Recommendations
An analysis of the study has led to certain recommendations, enumerated
below:(1)
The study has shown that the Memorandum of Association (MOA) of the
societies’ running the schools have few charitable objectives.
Moreover, the
objectives listed have no relevance to their day-to-day functioning.
The
Government should therefore, rethink the concessions and incentives provided to
societies for establishing schools, specially when the study shows an insignificant
relationship between government subsidies and the social welfare expenses
incurred by schools. When thousands of crores of rupees are foregone by
the Government as tax revenue to provide an incentive to charitable
societies for social service & when these incentives have no impact on
the quantum or quality of charitable activities undertaken by them it
would be best to withdraw these tax concessions.
(1) The study establishes that there is a paramount need for rectifying the current
pattern of maintaining accounts by schools. The present system does not facilitate
examination of the veracity or comprehension of the accounts maintained by
schools. There is an immediate need for evolving a standard accounting format to
be adopted by schools. This was also the recommendation of the Committee on the
13
‘Fee Hike and Other Charges in Recognised Unaided Private Schools in Delhi’ also
called the Justice Duggal Committee Report (1999) set up by the Delhi High Court.
(3)
The study establishes that there is a shocking lack of transparency in the
functioning of private schools.
Efforts should thus be made for introducing
greater transparency in the Sector. The activities of private schools affects the
society at large.
Therefore, information regarding the fiscal benefits made
available to these schools & details of their accounts should be made public
either by mandatory advertisements or by placing them on the Internet.
Specifically, as a first step the accounts furnished by private schools to
affiliating bodies like the CBSE or CISCE or regulatory agencies like the
Directorate of Income Tax should be placed by these organizations on
their websites. This would go a long way in introducing transparency as well
as in making the activities of the private schools auditable by different
stakeholders.
Public scrutiny would ensure that the private schools do not
deviate from the objectives laid out in their MOA.
(4)
Certain Local Authorities give concessions on services provided to schools.
These concessions should be made contingent on the fulfillment of the social
welfare objectives of these schools as laid out in their MOAs. If it is found that
the schools are being run on a purely commercial basis then no subsidization of
costs of these private schools should be made, since the benefit is not being
passed on to the Society which is the intent behind these concessions.
(5)
The State Governments should reform the Property Tax Laws in a way, which
enables an equitable amount of tax concession. Particularly, the reliance on the
historical cost basis should be discouraged since it gives an undue advantage to
those private schools, which have been set up earlier.
(6)
There should be closer coordination between the authorities of the Income Tax
and the Property Tax Department. The State Education Departments should also
develop a coordinating mechanism with Tax Authorities in order to improve
monitoring of activities of private schools.
14
(7)
Presently, in India only charitable organisations are allowed to set up schools.
However, the results of the study have shown that the intents of these policies
stand negated due to the abdication of social responsibility by schools.
A need
is therefore felt to allow Companies to set up educational institutions.
In the USA and Europe the present trend is that of Companies establishing
schools. These are called Charter schools. Countries in the Middle East and
China also allow companies in education.
Among the SAARC Countries while
Nepal permits companies to set up schools, Bhutan and Sri Lanka allow only
companies to establish private schools. Introduction of companies would bring
forth several benefits in the education sector, the most significant of which would
in increasing the number of schools in the country. A larger number of service
providers in the field of education will mean increased competition and thus
better quality!
Further, public companies will have to publish their accounts at
regular intervals, which would promote transparency.
Presently, due to the
system of accounting followed by schools, it is difficult to ascertain the exact
surplus being generated by the schools in the country, though the same would
be running in crores of rupees. Eventually, the entry of companies in education
would go a long way in ensuring accountability, transparency and providing
better quality of education.
(8)
To be fair to the schools it seems that there was a lack of understanding on their
part as to how to go about achieving the objectives for which they had been set
up. The schools confined themselves to traditional means like planting of trees,
distributing medicines in hospitals and so on. However, this was primarily the
responsibility of the societies running the school and the initiative for broadening
the scope of community service and a more inclusive education experience
rested with them. School managements have shown remarkable imagination in
prescribing different types of fee – development fee, computer fee etc., the
same efforts could also have been made for realizing the objectives of these
societies.
Perhaps, the regulatory agencies could prescribe guidelines to
facilitate the school managements in this case.
15
16
Conclusion
All the above analysis and information points to just one simple fact – private
schools are not contributing enough to the society !
Corporate social responsibility
cannot be confused with the social responsibility of private schools. While corporates
are set up with the objective of earning a profit through economic activity, schools are
set up by societies or trusts which are registered for charitable purpose and therefore,
have a duty to perform accordingly.
As they have singularly failed in these duties, it is time the Government withdrew
tax concessions extended to these societies’, permit companies to set-up schools, bring
in transparency and accountability in the sector to ensure equitable access to quality
education for all Indians.
*****
17
CHAPTER – I
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Education System is a legacy of the British Colonial Rule.
The
medium of instruction, the stress on language proficiency and analytical – logical
abilities have their roots in the Colonial past. However, there are significant differences
also.
One of the most important is that while Britain follows the Common School
system, which in the US is called the Neighbourhood School Concept, we in India have
different schools for different socio-economic groups. Perhaps we have extended the
caste system to education also!
The majority of Indians go to schools, which are run either fully by the
Government or on Government grants.
The elite in general, whether in the
metropolitan cities of the country or in semi-urban areas go to private schools. These
schools are generally run by Societies or Trusts registered under the various State Acts
as also, the Societies Registration Act of 1860.
Private Schools in India are an aspirational brand. Parents, even those not very
resourceful, aspire to send their children to these private schools.
There is a
widespread feeling among the Indian populace that private schools are better than
Government schools and even though education in Government schools is practically
free or subsidised, private school education offers value for money.
Many academicians, educational administrators and certainly the media feel that
private schools are rendering a great service to Indian society, specially because
Government schools are seen to be not fitting the bill. The biggest differentiator of
private schools is the medium of instruction, which is English. The superpower status
of India in software & now in BPO is sometimes attributed to Private School education.
However, there has been no detailed study on the impact and utility of private schools
18
in India. This study seeks to find an empirical basis for such opinions and views. It
also seeks to explore the relationship between society at large and private schools, as it
is a two-way interaction and exchange, of resources, skills and benefits.
It may be mentioned here that private schools in India are generally known as
public schools – a misnomer. Publicly funded schools are commonly called Government
or Government-aided schools. In many states Governments at the local level also assist
the running of schools in the country.
Globally, children go to the neighbourhood school. The Government and the
community publicly fund the neighbourhood school. Parents of different social status
send their children to the same school. This promotes not only social objectives like
equality of opportunity, community building and participation but also educational
objectives.
It is widely held that children from different social and economic
background enrich the educational environment, promote critical thinking, problemsolving abilities and peer to peer learning.
In this background the Indian Education System stands out for its uniqueness.
Has this unique system benefited the society or is it the bane of several of our society’s
ills – fragmentation of the community, lack of equal opportunities, break-down of the
publically-funded education system and promotion of elitism? In case, the effect of
private schools in the country has been detrimental there is a need to explore how the
present system can be integrated into the larger education system.
The National Policy on Education, 1986 (Part III) lays down the concept of
a “National System of Education”. The concept of a National System of Education
implies that, upto a given level, all students irrespective of caste, creed, location or sex
have access to education of a comparable quality. The National Policy stated that to
achieve this objective “the Government will initiate appropriately funded programmes.
Effective measures will be taken in the direction of the common school
19
system recommended in the 1968 Policy”.
It further states that “to promote
equality, it will be necessary to provide for equal opportunity to all not only in access,
but also in the conditions for success”.
By analyzing the functioning of private schools in the country and evaluating
their role for formulating an Index of Social Utility it is possible to lay an empirical
foundation for the need or otherwise of a common school system in the country. The
National Policy on Education as such emphasizes the need for equalizing the
educational opportunity for disadvantaged groups such as scheduled castes, scheduled
tribes, minorities, disabled and those belonging to rural areas, hill and desert districts,
remote and inaccessible areas. An assessment of the present school system through
this report provides pointers to the effectiveness of the present policy and the need, if
any, for modification.
One school of thought has proposed that there is a need to ensure that atleast
25 to 30 percent of all students in private schools should be from the neighbourhood
and preferably from disadvantaged sections as a step towards a Common School
System.
This change should be brought about through dialogue and if necessary
through legislation. The Supreme Court has also recently given it judicial sanction by
ordering schools in Delhi to implement a 25% quota. Societies running private schools
have generally opposed the idea primarily on the ground that the need for cross
subsidisation for implementing the proposal shall make education even more expensive
for the common man. This study provides enough justification for the implementation
of such a policy.
The study is also relevant for judging the efficacy of the present tax policy
towards charitable and educational institutions. Based on the Index of Social Utility it
has been possible to empirically justify or emphasise the need for modification or
withdrawal of grant of tax concessions to these bodies.
20
Finally, the study is an evaluative exercise of the role of different monitoring &
regulating agencies of the school system – the Directorates of Education, the Registrar
of Societies and the Income Tax Authorities apart from the affiliating agencies like
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Council for Indian School Certificate
Examination (CISCE). It throws light on the nature of the monitoring system, the level
of coordination amongst the various coordinating agencies and the efficacy of
monitoring. Furthermore, the study is able to suggest an effective mechanism to the
income tax authorities in respect of tax concession imparted to such educational
institutions.
*********
21
CHAPTER – II
APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
Initially, the study was to have a sample size of 100 private schools. More or
less equal numbers of schools were to be selected from the cities of Delhi, Mumbai,
Kolkata, Chennai and Guwahati. However, despite repeated attempts only 80 schools
responded. Assistance was also solicited from the Affiliating Boards like CBSE & CISCE.
Surveyors visited the schools again & again. Even where Questionnaires were returned,
they were not complete and of questionable validity. Data validation took a longtime &
much effort.
The total number of schools surveyed city-wise are as follows:City
Number
Mumbai
19
Kolkata
10
Guwahati
15
Chennai
20
Delhi
16
However, there is some satisfaction. Earlier, attempts to glean information from
private schools have been much less fruitful. The Justice Duggal Commission, set up in
1998 on the orders of the Delhi High Court, sent questionnaires asking for information
from 929 Delhi schools. Even though it had the authority of a civil court & could ask for
any records only 187 schools responded, out of which 80 schools did not furnish
complete information.
The study primarily utilised the sample used by ‘Outlook’ magazine published in
December, 2001 under the title “Bearers of the Standards”. This study was conducted
by ‘Centre for forecasting and advisory research’. The parameters of the survey which
ranked the country’s “best” schools were (a) quality of faculty (b) infrastructure and
facilities (c) sports (d) co-curricular activities and (e) academic environment.
22
The
results of the present study are primarily based on the criterion of social or public
utility.
The study enlisted the objectives of National Policy on Education such as
preference to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes in admission,
free/concessional education to under privileged classes and provision of books, uniform,
etc.
It then measured the facilities provided by the schools to achieve the various
objectives enshrined in the National Policy on Education. It then made an assessment
whether and to what extent these objectives are met by such institutions and evaluate
the existing monitoring mechanism in terms of its efficacy in ensuring their attainment.
The study attempts to develop an ‘Index of Social Utility’ for the private schools,
through ascertaining the welfare costs to the society of various benefits provided to the
private schools. It was assumed that though the private schools serve the public, their
utility needs to be assessed by taking into account the costs they impose on the society.
The determination of index of social utility would help in reviewing the various benefits
provided by the Government and in re-designing the appropriate monitoring
mechanism. The index is based on the tenet of working out ‘’Social Marginal Cost of
Fund’ (SMCF)(Slemrod, 2000).
Conceptual Framework for Assessment of Social Utility of Private Schools:
Marginal Efficiency of Cost of Funds (MECF)
Social Marginal Cost of Funds (SMCF) is a concept in contemporary public finance,
which denotes the welfare cost to the society in raising one unit of revenue. An
analogous concept is the concept of the Marginal Efficiency Cost of Funds (MECF). The
concept is based on the tenet that given an exogenous revenue requirement, the cost
to society from the use of any revenue instrument should, at the margin, be equal for
all revenue instruments.1
1
This is a standard reinterpretation of the “optimal tax” rule in second best situations discussed, for
23
The concept of MECF can be applied to assess the social marginal cost of funds for any
public body. Accordingly, the study proposed to apply the concept for assessing the
social utility of private schools, since private schools in India depend to a large extent
on public finance, whether directly or indirectly.
The explanation of the MECF for assessing the public utility of schools is adapted from
the MECF for tax rate changes derived by Slemrod and Yitzhaki (1996). Let the
potential increase in Social utility from a marginal increase in a given Public finance
concession be Y, if there is no change in the student base due to behavioural response.
However, with behavioral responses by the school authorities to decrease their
expenditure on the objects of National Education Policy, 1986, the benefit to the society
is MB only (marginal benefit). Thus Y – MB rupees “leak” out due to behavioural
responses of school authorities. So the social cost or excess burden of raising MB is (YMB)/MB while the total marginal cost to the school authorities is Y/MB.
The derivation of the MECF has assumed, so far, that the social cost of the leaked
revenue equals the private cost (to the school authorities). In general, this need not be
the case.2 So Instead of a total social cost of Y = (Y-MB)+MB, the cost can be written
as γ(Y-MB) + MB, where the parameter γ measures the social cost per rupee of leaked
public finance benefit. The first term is the marginal excess burden (MEB) or economic
cost of the policy change. To complete the MECF, the increase in direct costs to the
school authorities, C (i.e. the marginal cost, MC), must be added to this. Furthermore,
the marginal increase in administrative cost due to the change in the public finance
benefit instrument must be subtracted from MB in the denominator to obtain the net
marginal benefit (NMB) to the society. Thus the Marginal Effective Cost of Funds for
School (MECFS) is:
example, in Joel Slemrod and Shlomo Yitzhaki (1996). Various later papers have studied additional
revenue instruments. A review is in Slemrod and Yitzhaki (1998).
2
Possible reasons include limited flexibility on the part of the school authorities to respond to the change
in the public finance benefit.
24
MECFS =
γ (Y − MB) + C + MB MEB + MC + MB
=
MB
NMB
The decision rule for evaluation of the compliance requirement for the schools would be
to relax (strengthen) the requirement depending on whether its MECFS exceeded (fell
short of) a benchmark public finance benefit instrument.
An important point to note is that the MECFS will exceed unity, if the current policy
relating to regulatory requirements for the private schools is optimal. However, if the
policy change lowers excess burden or compliance costs, it may be less than one or
even negative.
Another point is that if a choice exists between trading off compliance costs to the
schools (C) or administrative costs to the regulatory authorities holding MB and MECFS
constant, then increasing compliance costs by Re. 1 is preferable provided the reduction
allowed in administrative costs is at least Rs. (1/MECFS). For example if the MECFS is
1.25, then an 80 paise reduction in administrative costs coupled with a Re. 1 increase in
compliance costs, leaves MECFS unchanged. A second way of looking at this property is
to note that the public benefit maximization by the school regulatory authorities,
wherein marginal benefit (MB) equals marginal cost can never be socially optimal,
though C=MB is conceivable.
To obtain the SMCF, the marginal costs to each student of the schools and the marginal
benefit to each individual must be separately weighted, where the weights are the
relative social value attached to each student’s parent’s income.
Alternatively, a summary statistic such as the change in an inequality index can be used
to multiply the MECFS. For example, utilizing the Yitzhaki (1994)3 proposition, SMCFS
may be equated with MECF (1-eG) where G is the Gini coefficient of the student’s
3
As discussed in Slemrod and Yitzhaki (1996). The implicit social welfare function underlying this
SMCF is m(1-G) where m is per capita income.
25
parent’s incomes, and e is the elasticity of the Gini coefficient with respect to the public
finance benefit instrument under consideration.
SMCFS =MECF (1-eG)
Benefits
A number of performance indicators may be formulated for the education system.
While some of them might have a direct relationship with the kind of financial
autonomy private schools enjoy, not all indictors might be treated as benefits from a
utilitarian perspective. For example, certain private schools are known for very high
performance in certain areas, which eventually lead to ‘Brain drain’ in a majority of
cases. For the sake of objectivity and in line with the generally agreed concept of
‘public good’ in terms of the objectives of the Government, the study also took into
account the performance indicators with regard to the objectives of National Policy on
Education(1986). These objectives, inter alia, include the following:
(i)
Preference to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes in
admission,
(ii)
Free/ concessional education to girl students.
For working out the social costs, the study took into account costs to the
Government- direct and indirect- in supporting these schools. These costs include:
(a)
direct grant in aid given during the year,
(b)
the cost of tax-free donations received during the year,
(c)
the amount of tax exemptions availed under various tax laws like property tax,
municipal taxes & services,
26
(d)
the value of concession given by the Government towards allotment of
land/building,
(e)
value of any other benefit provided by the Government.
Hypotheses
Meeting various social objectives require the schools to bear considerable
financial liability. Most of the objectives of the policy enhance general welfare, though it
may not render immediate benefits to the school. In fact one of the main reasons
behind state support to such schools is that these schools have to deploy almost the
entire surplus in the long run towards these social objectives. Accordingly, it is
presumed that the higher is the financial resources of the school; the better should be
its performance on the various objectives of the National Education Policy.
To test the above tenet, the first hypothesis of the study is:
H1:
The greater the resources, the higher is the level of output.
The above presumption is often influenced by various other factors. Hence
schools having sound financial base may not be spending their resources on welfare if
1) There is no compulsion 2) Some Conditions are imposed. The extent of compliance
of these conditions depends on the efficacy of the monitoring mechanism of various
administrative agencies responsible for the disbursement of various benefits. It is
presumed that the performance of the private schools on socially desirable indicators
might be higher with higher levels of monitoring. The study attempts to test the same
through the following hypothesis:
27
H1:
The higher the index of social utility better is the monitoring
mechanism.
For an assessment of the functioning of the schools and the attainment of their
objectives as laid down in their Memorandum of Association, the National Affiliating
Bodies like CBSE and CISCE were approached for providing, the same. Where such
schools are not affiliated to these organizations the assistance of the respective State
Boards was sought.
An analysis of the Memorandums brought out the charitable
objectives of these societies. These served as guideposts in evaluating the benefits
being provided by the school to the community and also how effective it has been and
how sincere it is in realizing its own objectives.
A pre-designed questionnaire was sent to the selected schools to elicit the
elements of benefits embedded in the Index of Social Utility. A copy of the same is
annexed. It had 41 queries divided into fourteen parts. These related to aspects like
provision of scholarships, Fee Concessions, Mid-day meals, Book-Bank, Health Care,
Community Service, Resource-Sharing etc. A basic fact sheet was also procured. This
was forwarded to the Principals of the Schools.
To determine the costs, data relating to exempted income and the amount of
tax-exempt donations was obtained from the Income-tax authorities. Similar
information relating to property tax exemption and concession in the value of land
allotted was sought from the local authorities concerned.
28
Response
The response rate from the schools was 80%. This was despite a poor response
from the school authorities though Affiliating Boards like CBSE provided remarkable
support.
However, this was much higher than that reported in earlier attempts
including by the Justice Duggal Commission, set up in 1999 on the orders of the Delhi
High Court, to look into the issue of fee hike by private schools, which had the authority
of a civil court.
The data from the Income tax department was available for 55% of the school.
Majority of the other schools either did not file their tax returns in time or their accounts
were clubbed with other schools or charitable hospitals in a consolidated balance sheet.
The Local authorities had a complex system of land allocation. In cities like Delhi,
there is a multiplicity of authorities, each having its own systems & procedures. Like
wise for property tax, bodies like NDMC grant equal tax concessions to all private
schools. It was fond that the major benefit which accrued to these schools was through
the valuation of rateable value of the property on the historical cost basis that allows
the schools set up in the past to be valued at their historic cost, thereby giving a
distinct advantage over newer schools.
In the presence of these complex factors, the costs have been valued primarily
by taking into account the amount of direct tax concessions calculated by applying a tax
rate of 35% on the amount of income over expenditure i.e. the Surplus and the amount
of donations received by the schools, which are exempt in the hands of the school, if
registered under section 11.
The following were the major steps undertaken in the study -
29
1.
Situational Analysis of Select Private Schools of India:The culture & ethos of the Indian Society is reflected in the legal framework
governing education in the country wherein educational institutions cannot be run for
private profit or by corporate entities. Private schools are established, therefore, by
Registered Societies or Trusts. Many of these Societies are charitable in nature. The
Memorandum of Associations and Byelaws of select private schools were studied to
identify the charitable purposes for which these societies were established.
These
objectives related to providing access to disadvantaged groups like backward castes,
the poor, minorities, the disabled or girls. An attempt was made to analyse how far
these charitable societies have been successful in the attainment of their objectives.
One measure of that is the proportion of expenditure incurred on these objectives as
compared to other heads of expenditure.
2.
Construction of an Index of Social Utility:Though not commonly known, private schools are recipients of several benefits
from the Government and the Society at large. Some States like Delhi and Gujarat
have the provision of concessional land for establishment of educational institutions.
West Bengal provides the dearness allowance (D.A.) component of teachers salaries of
Anglo-Indian Schools which are all in the private domain.
extended to these schools under the Income Tax Act.
Tax benefits are also
These tax benefits include
exemption of the income of these schools and of donations received by such societies
from tax. Concessions provided by the Government run into thousands of crores of
rupees every year. As these are public funds, there is a need to assess the benefits
derived by the Society from such expenditure. Several schools provide for free-ships
and tuition fee concessions to the poor and deserving students. Other benefits include
provision of free text books, mid-day meals etc. This study has developed an Index of
Social Utility for schools in India, which is primarily a cost - benefit analysis.
30
3.
Assessment of the Tax Policy towards Charitable Institutions &
Societies:The index of social utility shall form the basis of an assessment of the present
tax policy towards the education system.
As stated earlier these institutions derive
substantial benefits on the basis of prevailing tax laws in the country. This has been
done with the objective of providing incentives to public-spirited individuals. There is a
widespread feeling in the society that many of these schools have become profitmaking commercial ventures which do not deserve the concessions extended to nonprofit making charitable bodies.
*****
31
CHAPTER III
Fiscal Benefits Available to Private Schools
Private schools are recipients of several benefits from the Government. These
are meant for subsidizing their capital and recurring costs, with a view to bring the fee
levels down to make education affordable for families of the lower socio-economic
strata. The benefits extended by the state include tax benefits under the Income tax
and Wealth tax Act and on Property taxes, direct subsidy towards the cost of land
allotted, concessional electricity charges, etc. In addition, some State Governments,
including Maharashtra, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu provide direct grant-in-aid also to
the schools towards meeting recurring expenses.
Some States like Delhi and Gujarat
have a provision for allotment of land at concessional rates for establishment of
educational institutions.
provided at a fixed rate.
A major benefit in the property tax sphere is the rebate
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi provides a major tax
benefit in as much as it allows levy of property tax in case of educational institutions on
the ratable value of the property worked out on historical basis.
Private schools are entitled to various tax concessions under the Union and State
Acts. Tax concessions under the Central Acts are primarily available under the Incometax Act, 1961 and Wealth tax Act, 1957. Similarly, State Governments provide tax
rebates under the Property Tax Acts administered by them.
32
Rationale for tax concessions to charitable institutions
Charitable institutions enjoy tax concessions across countries. These not-forprofit organizations (NPOs) grow along side Government institutions in a complimentary
manner, in such a way that they fill the void, wherever the government fails. In fact,
Government itself encourages proliferation of NPOs in certain areas, where it is not
possible for it to meet the requirements. Tax concessions among other sops, therefore,
serve as positive externalities.
NPOs are characterized by two distinct features:
(a)
Public Benefit - The organization works primarily for some purpose other than
private gain. It is the objective of public welfare that is important, though the
organization may have a surplus (excess of income over expenses).
(b)
Non-distribution Constraint- The organization is barred from distributing the
surplus amongst the ‘patrons’, members or other individuals who exercise
control over it.
The phenomenon of proliferation of NPOs can be explained in response to the
Public goods argument, which suggests that in a democracy, failure of the Government
to provide public goods/services leads individuals to make donations to private
organizations in order to produce collective goods/ services in accordance with their
preferences. Secondly, NPOs are considered a safe choice, where due to specific
circumstances or because of the nature of the product/ service the consumer is not able
to exercise his choice due to lack of complete market information. An NPO with its notfor-profit motto supplements market discipline and hence proliferate due to ‘contract
failure’ by the for-profit organizations.
NPOs are granted tax concessions to facilitate its objectives. Due to the nondistribution constraint, the surplus of an NPO is to be deployed towards the activities of
the NPO only. Taxing the same would therefore, adversely affect their activities.
33
Similarly, taxing the donations given to ‘donative’ NPOs would have similar adverse
effect. In any case, due to the non-distribution constraint, NPOs have to deploy the
entire surplus towards charitable activities, hence there may not be any profit in the
long run.
Tax concessions are intended to compensate the NPOs for inherent difficulties in
mobilizing capital, such as uncertain stream of donations; restrictions on issue of debt
and unattractiveness of subscription to its equity capital (due to the non-distribution
constraint).
Income tax concessions
Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, Private schools run by charitable organizations
are entitled for total exemption of their income (surplus over expenses) and donations
received by them. Under section 10(23C) (iiiad), income of an educational institution is
exempt subject to certain conditions. Under Section 10(23C) (iv) and (via), tax
exemption is available to an educational institution run by a charitable trust/ institution.
A charitable institution/trust is eligible for exemption under sections 11 to 13.
Property tax concessions
State governments generally provide for higher tax rebate from the annual
property tax levied by them compared to that available for individuals. However, the tax
rebate is generally available to all schools, whether private or not. The New Delhi
Municipal Council (NDMC) provides 50% tax rebate to schools as per section 62 of the
NDMC Act. Similarly, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), which exercises
jurisdiction over the major part of Delhi, also provides a 40% tax rebate to schools
under its jurisdiction.
34
The major property tax benefit available to the schools is actually in the form of
valuation of the rateable value of property, which for the schools is on Historical cost
basis and not on the fair market value.
Schools established a few decades ago
therefore, have very low tax liability compared to schools established later.
Monitoring Mechanism of Income tax concessionsThe tax concessions under the Income tax Act have significant difference in
terms of the extent and nature of monitoring required for ensuring compliance with the
inherent conditions. Among all the tax concessions the provisions of sections 11 to 13 of
the Income tax Act which provide for 100% exemption to the income of charitable trust
/institutions are the most efficient ones. These provisions put a restriction on the
distribution of any part of their income to the trustees/ owners/settlers and effectively
prevent self-indulgence by the managers. In line with the objectives of the NPOs, these
provisions provide exemption in respect of that part of the income that is accumulated
for specified purposes.
On the contrary, the provisions of sections 10 (23C) (i) to (iiiae) do not impose
any kind of non-distribution constraint and hence open the possibility of easy misuse by
the managers.
The provisions of sections 10 (23C) (iv) to (via) provide for application of the
income wholly for the purposes of the organization and therefore, implicitly prohibit
distribution of surplus. However, the lack of restriction on self-dealing on the managers,
allow the owners to defeat the non-distribution clause in the garb of becoming
managers. Further, in the absence of clauses for accumulation for specified purposes,
the capital subsidy in the form of tax concession is wasteful. Table I highlights the
differences in the administration of various income tax concessions.
35
Table -I
Monitoring mechanism for Income tax concessions available to charitable
Institutions
Section
Exemption
Whole income
Charitable/religious
University,
trust/instt.
educational
Educational instt.,
instt. , etc.
etc.
10 (23C) (i)
10 (23C) (iv) and
Charitable/religious
trust/instt.
11 to 13
to (iiie)
(via)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Mostly
Constraints
Non-distribution to owners/
tustees implicitly prohibited
Non-distribution to owners/
tustees specifically
prohibited
Restriction on self-dealing
by managers
Accumulation for specific
purposes
Compliance
Requirement to file annual
return
Govt. approval for
exemption
Competition from for-profit
organisation
36
Observations/Studies on extent of revenue foregone
The provisions relating to benefits/concessions to charitable institutions including
schools have been the subject matter of system study/appraisal by the government and
various study groups.
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India reviewed the
working of tax exemptions available to NPOs (CAG, 1992).
The system appraisal
consisted of examination of the records of 6133 public charitable/religious trusts for the
purpose of examining the grant of registration for income tax purposes, the quantum
and the manner in which income has been derived, applied, accumulated and invested
vis-a-vis the applicable regulatory provisions under the Income Tax Act. The CAG found
the following abuses of the tax concessions provided:
(i)
The major form of abuse was in the form of non-application of the income on
the charitable objects, as was claimed by the charitable trusts running the
private school/hospital, etc. The basic objective behind the tax concessions is
mobilization of public money (through donation) towards important social
objectives, to supplement the limited resources of the Government.
(ii)
The tax exemption is, in principal, not supposed to be available to a
trust/institution created or established for charitable purposes, if the benefit
is restricted to a particular religious community or to the employees or
members of a trust or to substantial donors. However, in several cases, there
were violations of this basic condition. A test-check revealed that in case of
11 trusts/institutions, properties held under trust were used for the benefit of
relatives
or
the
benefits
were
restricted
to
a
particular
religious
community/caste.
(iii)
The voluntary contributions received by charitable trusts are deemed to be
income of the trusts unless the contribution is made with a specific direction
that it shall form part of its corpus. Where the trust intents to utilize such
37
funds in future and seeks tax exemption for the current year, it is required to
file Form No.10 seeking exemption. The test-check revealed that 15 trusts
did not show the voluntary contribution (without the specific direction for
treating it as corpus) in their taxable income, which resulted in revenue loss
of Rs.2.31 crores.
(iv)
The then Section 10 (22) provided tax exemption of any income of
educational institution established solely for philanthropic purposes and not
for the purposes of profit. However, in a number of cases the institutions
were run on commercial basis and were charging exorbitant fees and
capitation charges at the time admission. Further, these institutions were
also violating the conditions relating to application and accumulation of its
income laid down in Section 11(1)(a) and 11(2).
Estimation of cost of tax revenue foregone: Other Studies
A study group working under a UNDP Project titled ‘Public Sector Reforms’ had
made an estimation of the amount of direct tax revenue foregone by the Government
on account of tax concessions to various charitable institutions (NIPFP, 2000). The
study group estimated the revenue foregone due to the provisions of Section 80-G
(donations) and revenue lost due to exemption of the income of various charitable
institutions under various provisions of the Income Tax Act. The study group estimated
the total revenue loss on these counts at almost Rs.3000 crores for the financial year
1996-97. For that year, this amounts to 8.15% of total direct tax revenue and 0.23%
of aggregate GDP.
*****
38
CHAPTER – IV
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS OF SELECT PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF INDIA
This part of the study covered 80 schools, which were affiliated to different
Boards – CBSE, CISCE & the Boards set up by State Governments. All the data relates
to the year 2001-2002.
The city-wise break-up of these schools is given below: TABLE - I
City
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Kolkata
Mumbai
TOTAL
Schools Surveyed
20
16
15
10
19
80
MOA Available
05
11
03
0
02
21
We were able to procure a total no. of 24 Memorandums of Association (MoA)
after a lot of effort. Out of the 5 MoAs of schools in Chennai, Vidya Mandir M.L.C.
school society did not have any express charitable objective, in the other 2 MoAs
studied, only the Tamil Nadu Arya Samaj Educational Society, Madras had one specific
charitable purpose – “to give scholarships or other financial support to students, and to
establish academic prizes, awards and honours.”
Surprisingly Kumararajah Muthiah
School of Traditional Arts and Crafts, which runs the Chettinad Vidyashram, Chennai a
renowned public – spirited school did not have a single specific charitable objective in
its MoA. The Maharishi College of Natural Law under which the Maharishi Vidya Mandir
functions has a long preamble and list of aims and objectives – 21 in number.
However, only two refer to charity – “The services of MCNL will be free for the poor and
needy sectors of society. Its expenses will be covered by donations of members and
39
well-wishers….” and that MCNL can give scholarships for deserving individuals or
institutions to participate in its educational programmes free of charge or for reduced
fees. No charitable objective could be discerned in respect of the educational activities
of Shri Vallabhacharya Vidya Sabha, Madras which runs the Kola Saraswati Vaishnav Sr.
Sec. School, Chennai.
Out of the 11 MoAs available for schools in Delhi, Sri Aurobindo Education
Society, which runs the Mother’s International School, had at Sl.No. 18 of its objectives,
the following, “to give loans, scholarships, freeships, prizes and monetary assistance to
students of the Society’s Institutions to help them in their studies,” the rest of the
objectives (24 in all) were of a general nature like, “ to strive, endeavour and to create
conditions to prepare the younger generation for a higher, spiritual and harmonious life
in accordance with the philosophy and teachings of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother. The
Congregation of Christian Brothers in India, which runs the St. Columbas School was
registered with the objective of “promotion of literature, science, and the fine arts; the
promotion and spread of education and all other charitable purposes including the
establishing and management of schools, colleges, orphanages, and technical schools
and the holding in trust of property and money for the use of the said objects”.
Another school namely, Mira Model School run by the “Oberoi Education Society” and
which declared itself to be a charitable trust did not have any explicit charitable
objective in its MoA.
Possibly “spreading education literacy” and “to publish useful
literature” could be taken as charitable objectives.
The Holy Child Auxilium School
functions under the “Salesian sisters of Northern India”.
Out of the 8 objectives
specified in their MoA two were specifically of charitable intent. These were “to provide
residential accommodation, either free of cost or consideration and to educate, train
and assist financially or otherwise in the education and training of members of the
Congregation teachers, social workers, staff, students, orphans and other personnel for
the purpose of the Society” and “to perform works of charity spiritual and corporal”.
40
Only 2 MoAs were available of schools in Guwahati. Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan,
which runs Maharishi Vidya Mandir, had 21 objectives listed in the memorandum, the
only explicitly charitable being
“to undertake, carry on, promote, sponsor rural
educational development programmes.”
One MoA was available for Bombay schools, specifically of Anandilal – Ganesh
Podar Society. No MoA was available of Kolkata schools.
The above analysis
clearly
shows that
objectives enumerated in
the
Memorandum of Associations of different societies/trusts had no connection to their
actual functioning.
Out of 80 schools surveyed the proportion of schools which were aided and the
ones which were unaided is depicted in Table II below:TABLE – II
PROPORTION OF AIDED/UNAIDED SCHOOLS
Aided
Un-Aided
Total
No.of Schools
12
68
80
Percentage
15.0
85.0
100.0
The table brings to the fore the fact that the proportion of the unaided schools in
the private sector is high. Of the schools surveyed 85% were unaided. Seven (58.3%)
of the 12 such schools were in Mumbai, four in Kolkata, one in Chennai but none in the
Capital. The State Government assists private schools in Kolkata by providing them the
dearness allowance component of the salaries paid to the teachers.
The Table III below classifies the schools surveyed as per their affiliation to
different Boards. It would be seen that more than 60% of the schools surveyed belong
to the Central Board of Secondary Education. This is also by and large the all-India
41
picture as far as private schools are concerned.
The legend CBSE/States or
CISCE/States refers to those schools, which are affiliated to one particular Board till the
secondary stage and to another Board for the senior secondary stage (Table III).
TABLE III
BOARD OF AFFILIATION OF SCHOOLS
Board
Number of Schools
49
11
1
1
17
80
CBSE
CISCE
CISCE/State
CBSE/State
State Board
Total
Percentage
61.3
76.3
77.5
1.3
100.0
100.0
The following table analyses the correlation between the Board of Affiliation and
the amount spent on charitable activities.
TABLE - IV
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS DETERMINED BY BOARD OF AFFILIATION
Board
CBSE
CISCE
State Board
Total
No. of
Schools
50
13
17
80
Total
Enrolment
Total
Amount
Spent
100729
19045271
21957
4019541
25228
3637991
147914 26702803
Average amount
spent per student
per annum
189.07
183.06
144.20
An interesting conclusion which arises from the analysis is that CBSE schools are
marginally more geared towards such activities. Though the reason is not clear and can
only be speculated, it does provide an interesting field for further inquiry.
Annexure-I depicts the total enrolment of students studying in the schools
surveyed. This ranges from a minimum of 300 to a maximum of 6,600 odd.
42
The present analysis tried to correlate the scale of the school in terms of number
of students studying with the proportion of money spent on charitable activities.
Schools were grouped under small, medium and large. The results are as under:TABLE - V
SIZE AS A DETERMINANT OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Size of School
Number
Small
Medium
Large
Total
Enrolment Amount Spent
25
25
30
80
20651
39374
87889
147914
4276896
10070343
12355564
26702803
FIGURE - I
AVERAGE AMOUNT SPENT ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AS DETERMINED BY
SIZE OF THE SCHOOL
300.00
250.00
207.10
255.76
140.58
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
Small
Schools
Medium
Schools
Average amount
spent per
Student per
annum
Large
Schools
Size of Schools
It was found that Large schools spent the least on an average per student in the
year under reference (2001-2002) – Rs.140.58/- on social welfare activities. Medium
sized schools were most active.
An indicator of financial status of private schools is the ownership of land and
buildings of the school. The following figure brings out that about 75% of the schools
own the land and building on which the school is functioning.
FIGURE - II
43
OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND BUILDINGS OF SCHOOLS
75
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
16.2
Owned
Leased
8.8
Rented
The present survey divided the various charitable activities performed by private
schools into fourteen categories, namely
1. Scholarships.
2. Fee Concessions.
3. Mid-Day Meals.
4. Book Bank.
5. Free Uniforms.
6. Free Books.
7. Free Transport.
8. Health Care.
9. Creche.
10. Children with Special Needs.
11. Admission Policy.
12. Community Service.
13. Resource – Sharing.
14. School for Under-privileged.
Information on these categories was ascertained through a total of 41 questions.
A copy of the questionnaire is annexed at Annexure II.
44
I
SCHOLARSHIPS
Ascertaining the number of schools which provide scholarships to their students
we found that a majority of schools do not even have a provision for it (51.2%).
FIGURE- III
NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PROVIDING SCHOLARSHIPS
60
51.2
48.8
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
No
Yes
Schools which have a provision for scholarships were co-related with the Boards
which they are affiliated to, to ascertain whether this factor had any influence.
A
majority of such schools were found to be CBSE schools.
TABLE – VI
PROVISION OF SCHOLARSHIPS CORRELATED WITH BOARD OF
AFFILIATION
Board of Affiliation
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
No. of Schools
25
7
5
Percentage
54.0
38.5
41.2
Schools aided by the Government are assumed to be more inclined towards
fulfillment of societal expectations. Interpreting the data classified according to the
aided or unaided status of the school, it was found that the aided schools did provide
significantly more number of scholarships per hundred students.
45
TABLE – VII
NUMBER OF SCHOLARSHIPS AS DETERMINED BY AIDED/UNAIDED STATUS
No. of Schools No. of Students
Aided
Unaided
12
68
20448
127466
No. of Scholarships
789
1118
Scholarships
100 students
3.86
0.88
per
Annexure III depicts the number of students actually getting scholarships in a
school. 41 schools constituting more than half the sample size as mentioned earlier,
did not provide scholarships. 65% had less than 10 students on scholarships in their
schools!
These figures have been further correlated with the Board they are affiliated to
and whether they receive aid from the Government in financial terms or not. Aided
schools in Mumbai granted the largest number of Scholarships. More than six students
out of every hundred was on a scholarship. However, the all-India average was an
insignificant 1.28.
46
TABLE VIII
CITY-WISE NUMBER OF STUDENTS GETTING SCHOLARSHIP
No. of
Schools
Aided
City
Total
7
4
1
12
19
16
15
12
6
68
GRAND TOTAL
80 147914
Total
Unaided City
Mumbai
Kolkata
Chennai
No. of
No. of
Proportion of students
Students scholarships getting scholarships
11572
779
6.73
6807
10
00.15
2069
0
00.00
20448
789
03.86
41256
367
00.89
40163
697
01.74
17008
3
00.02
18008
48
00.27
11031
3
00.03
127466
1118
00.88
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Mumbai
Kolkata
1907
1.28
Boards affiliated to State Governments granted a larger number of Scholarships.
There were about 45 scholarships on the average in each such school. CISCE schools
seemed specially conservative. Only four students got scholarships per hundred – one tenth that of State Board schools.
TABLE IX
NUMBER OF SCHOLARSHIPS AS DETERMINED BY BOARD OF AFFILIATION
Board of Affiliation
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
Total
Schools
50
17
13
80
Enrolment
100729
25228
21957
147914
47
Scholarships
1081
774
52
1907
FIGURE – IV
NUMBER OF SCHOLARSHIPS AS DETERMINED BY BOARD OF AFFILIATION
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
45.52
21.62
4
State Boards
CBSE
CISCE
The top five schools having the largest number of students on scholarships is
given below:School
St. Mary’s School
K.M.S. Dr.Shirodkar High School
St.Xavier’s High School
Don Bosco High School
Sardar Patel Vidyalaya
City
Delhi
Mumbai
Mumbai
Mumbai
Delhi
Number
351
300
250
120
97
The funding of these scholarships is from 3 broad sources – the school itself,
patrons and a mix of both. The table given below provides the details. Surprisingly,
only 15% of the schools providing scholarships fund it exclusively by themselves.
TABLE X
SCHOLARSHIPS : SOURCE OF FUNDING
School
Patrons
Both
Total
Source
12
7
20
80
48
Percentage
15.0
8.8
25.0
100.0
Annexure IV provides an assessment of the total amount of money spent by
the private schools surveyed for providing scholarships. Interestingly it also shows that
while 52.6% of the schools have a provision for scholarships 59% do not spend any
money on it.
The conclusion is, therefore, that even though some schools have a
provision for scholarships they do not provide them and therefore, spend no money for
the purpose.
As the survey covers small private schools as well as big ones, ranging from a
pupil size of 300 to more than 6600, we classified them into 3 broad groups. The
average
amount
spent
on
scholarships
per
student
per
annum
was :Small Schools
- Rs. 21.87/-
Medium Schools - Rs. 41.04/Large Schools
- Rs. 26.77/-
Are large schools less inclined to be generous? This seems to be a repetition of
what we saw when we correlated the size of the school with the total amount spent for
the community. Small schools spent the least.
Classifying the data according to the School Boards, CBSE Schools as a group
obviously spent more on providing scholarships – their number was the largestHowever, each CBSE schools on the average also spent more than 4 times the amount
spent by CISCE or State Board schools on scholarships.
TABLE XI
EXPENDITURE ON SCHOLARSHIPS AS DETERMINED BY BOARD OF AFFILIATION
Board of Affiliation
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
Total
No. of Schools
50
17
13
80
49
Enrolment
100729
25228
21957
147914
Amount
3897901
299400
223600
4420901
FIGURE – V
AVERAGE EXPENDITURE ON SCHOLARSHIPS PER SCHOOL
AS DETERMINED BY BOARD
100000
80000
77958.02
60000
40000
17611.76
17200
State Boards
CISCE
20000
0
CBSE
We had earlier noticed that aided schools provided more number of scholarships.
However, analyzing the amount of money spent by schools for the purpose – and this is
more important than mere numbers – it is found that unaided schools spend twice as
much as their aided brethren. Unaided Delhi schools spent Rs.74/- on average annually
per student enrolled to provide scholarships, which was the maximum in the country.
Unaided Kolkata schools spent half a rupee annually!
TABLE XII
CITY-WISE AMOUNT SPENT ON PROVIDING SCHOLARSHIPS BY SCHOOLS
Mumbai
Kolkata
Chennai
7
4
1
12
11572
6807
2069
20448
304400
18000
0
322400
Amount as a
proportion of
enrolment
(Rs.)
26.30
2.64
0.00
15.76
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Mumbai
Kolkata
19
16
15
12
6
68
41256
40163
17008
18008
11031
127466
837266
2975235
96000
184000
6000
4098501
20.29
74.07
5.64
10.21
0.54
32.15
No. of
Schools
Aided
City
Total
Unaided
City
Total
50
Enrolment Amount
The five schools which spent the maximum amount of money in 2001-02 on
scholarships in the entire country are given below:School
St.Mary's School, Safdarjung Enclave
The Mother's International School
Delhi Public School, Vasant Kunj
Modern School, Barakhamba Road
Springdales School, Dhaula Kuan
City
Delhi
Delhi
Delhi
Delhi
Delhi
Amount
1152550
669235
333000
300000
227150
Schools spending maximum amount on Scholarships – Delhi
SCHOOL
1. St.Mary's School, Safdarjung Enclave
2. The Mother's International School
3. Delhi Public School, Vasant Kunj
CITY
AMOUNT
Delhi
Delhi
Delhi
1152550
669235
333000
Schools spending maximum amount on Scholarships – Chennai.
SCHOOL
CITY
1. Kola Perumal Chetty Vaishnav Sr. Sec. School
2. Vidya Mandir School
3. P.S. Senior Secondary School
Chennai
Chennai
Chennai
AMOUNT
200000
167645
126140
Schools spending maximum amount on Scholarships - Guwahati
SCHOOL
CITY
1. Miles Bronson Residential School, Borjhar
Guwahati
AMOUNT
96000
Schools spending maximum amount on Scholarships – Kolkata
SCHOOL
CITY
1. Patha Bhavan
2. Apeejay School
Kolkata
Kolkata
51
AMOUNT
18000
6000
Schools spending maximum amount on Scholarships – Mumbai
SCHOOL
CITY
1. Don Bosco Hg. School, Nathalal Parekh Marg
2. Campion School
3. Cathedral & John Connon School
II.
Mumbai
Mumbai
Mumbai
AMOUNT
205000
110000
54000
FEE CONCESSIONS
The second charitable activity considered in the survey was the provision of fee
concessions for students from disadvantaged background. It was found in the survey
and depicted in the table below that a large number of the schools surveyed (72.5%) in
the five cities in the country had a provision for fee concessions. A note of caution
however needs to be inserted here. This facility is also provided as a pre-requisite for
the staff working in the schools.
FIGURE - VI
NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PROVIDING FEE CONCESSIONS
72.5
80
60
40
27.5
20
0
No
Yes
While there seems to be no significant difference between CISCE & CBSE Schools
as far as provision of fee concessions is concerned, State Boards have a much higher
number of schools providing fee concessions. Surprisingly 60% of the unaided schools
have such a provision while only 12.5% of Aided schools had them. Delhi had the
52
largest number of schools in the unaided category offering fee concession (81.3%)while
the honour in the aided category went to Kolkata.
TABLE-XIII
CITY-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOLS PROVIDING
FEE CONCESSION TO STUDENTS
Aided
City
Unaided
Total
City
Schools
5
4
1
10
13
12
10
8
5
48
Mumbai
Kolkata
Chennai
Delhi
Chennai
Guwahati
Mumbai
Kolkata
Total
Percentage
26.3
40
5
12.5
81.3
60
66.7
42.1
50
60
Percentage of Schools
FIGURE - VII
BOARDS AND PROVISION OF FEE CONCESSIONS
85
82.4
80
75
70
70.0
69.2
CBSE
CISCE
65
60
State Bo
Boards
Analyzing the number of students who are actually provided fee concessions, the
conclusion which emerged while assessing the provision of scholarships, was repeated.
While 27.5% of the schools do not provide for fee concession a higher number (32.9%)
have no students being provided fee concessions.
53
More than half of the schools
surveyed had less than 12 students being given concessions in fee. This conclusion
emerges from the table given at Annexure-V.
Correlating the number of students getting fee concessions with total number of
students in the school gives interesting results.
Only 3.5% of students get fee
concessions! And how many of these are wards of school staff are another matter.
Aided schools have 15% students on concessional fee (skewed because of Mumbai
schools) while the Unaided ones have only 1.62% children in this category! Here the
Mumbai schools have the least number – 0.54%
TABLE-XIV
CITY-WISE NUMBER OF STUDENTS GETTING FEE CONCESSION
Aided
City
Mumbai
Kolkata
Chennai
Total
Unaided City
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Mumbai
Kolkata
19
16
15
12
6
68
41256
40163
17008
18008
11031
127466
375
747
579
99
277
2077
0.0090
0.0185
0.0340
0.0054
0.0251
0.01629
Total
80
147914
5301
3.58
Total
Grand
No. of
Schools
7
4
1
12
Students
No. of Students as
getting fee a proportion of
Enrolment concessions School enrolment
11572
2925
0.2527
6807
288
0.0423
2069
11
0.0053
20448
3224
0.1576
The schools, which provided the least number of fee concessions, were affiliated
to CBSE schools. Only 1.3% of students in CBSE schools actually got fee concessions.
This number was 13.5% in State Board schools!
54
TABLE – XV
NUMBER OF STUDENTS GETTING FEE CONCESSION AS DETERMINED BY
BOARD OF AFFILIATION
Board of
Affiliation
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
Total
No. of
Schools
50
17
13
80
Students Getting
Enrolment Fee Concessions
100729
1378
25228
3411
21957
512
147914
5301
No. of Students as a
Proportion of School
Enrolment
01.36
13.52
02.33
17.22
An assessment of fee concession provided by schools classified according to their
enrollment was also made. The details are given in the table given below. As would be
seen mid-sized schools provided more students with fee concession (3261) than large
schools (1340). Small schools were the least generous.
TABLE XVI
FEE CONCESSIONS PROVIDED BY DIFFERENT SIZED SCHOOLS
Small Schools
Medium Schools
Large Schools
No. of Schools
Total
Enrollment
25
25
30
20651
39374
87889
No. of Students
provided fee
concession
700
3261
1340
Amount forgone
towards fee
concession
1439145
2323938
6832741
Providing for fee concession is one thing but what is more important is the
impact the school is willing to take on its finances. The average amount foregone by
these private schools in providing fee concessions annually was Rs.71.63/- per student
in 2001-02!
The annual fee, we know is in the range of 12,000 – 30,000.
Forty
percent of these schools were poorer by just 12,000/- annually in making this provision!
(Annexure VI)
55
An interesting fact again comes to the fore. While 27.5% of the schools do not
have a provision for fee concessions a much larger no. i.e. 36.7% do not spend any
money on it.
Thus some schools while having a provision for fee concession have
limited it to the rule book only. Half the schools spent less than Rupees 42,000/- per
annum on this provision which comes to Rs. 3,500/- per month and the number of
students being just 12.
TABLE –XVII
AMOUNT FOREGONE ON PROVIDING FEE CONCESSIONS
No. of Total
No. of
Total
Schools enrolment students amount
getting fee foregone
concession
Aided
Mumbai
Kolkata
Chennai
7
4
1
12
11572
6807
2069
20448
2925
288
11
3224
53000
1186490
15020
1731510
Annual
Average
amount
foregone
per
student
(Rs.)
4.58
174.30
7.25
84.67
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Mumbai
Kolkata
Total
19
16
15
12
6
68
41256
40163
17008
18008
11031
127466
375
747
579
99
277
2077
1657570
4354651
1033603
856400
962090
8864314
40.17
108.42
60.77
47.55
87.21
69.54
GRAND TOTAL
80
147914
5301
10595824
71.63
City
Total
Unaided City
The five schools providing the largest number of fee concessions were the
following:-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
School
St. Columbus School
Don Bosco, Sonaighuli
Our Lady of Perpetual Succour High School
Khalsa Model Sr.Sec. School
The Frank Anthony Public School
56
City
Delhi
Guwahati
Mumbai
Kolkata
Delhi
Number
300
260
250
220
160
List of 10 largest schools in terms of amount spent on giving fee concession to Students
SCHOOL
1. The Frank Anthony Public School
2. St. Columbus School, Ashok Place
3. Chettinad Vidyashram
4. Holy Child Sr. Sec. School
5. Springdales School, Dhaula Kuan
6. Khalsa Model Sr. Sec. School
7. Don Bosco School, Park Circus
8. Loreto Day School, Lenin Sarani
9. St. Anthony's High School
10.Cathedral & John Connon School
CITY
AMOUNT
Delhi
Delhi
Chennai
Delhi
Delhi
Kolkata
Kolkata
Kolkata
Mumbai
Mumbai
1243088
1100000
1000000
795160
643473
625500
520000
421460
350000
265000
CITY
AMOUNT
Chennai
Chennai
Chennai
1000000
156000
91050
CITY
AMOUNT
DELHI
DELHI
DELHI
1243088
1100000
795160
CHENNAI
SCHOOL
1. Chettinad Vidyashram
2. Vidya Mandir School
3. SBOA School & Junior College
DELHI
SCHOOL
1. The Frank Anthony Public School
2. St. Columbus School, Ashok Place
3. Holy Child Sr. Sec. School
GUWAHATI
SCHOOL
1. Don Bosco School, Sonaighuli
2. Holy Child School
3. Maharishi Vidya Mandir
57
CITY
AMOUNT
Guwahati
Guwahati
Guwahati
260000
175200
164823
KOLKATA
SCHOOL
CITY
1. Khalsa Model Sr. Sec. School
2. Don Bosco School, Park Circus
3. Loreto Day School, Lenin Sarani
Kolkata
Kolkata
Kolkata
AMOUNT
625500
520000
421460
MUMBAI
SCHOOL
CITY
1. St. Anthony's High School
2. Cathedral & John Connon School
3. Campion School
Mumbai
Mumbai
Mumbai
AMOUNT
350000
265000
225000
The above data was also correlated with the affiliating bodies: While both CBSE
& State Board schools were poorer by almost the same amount annually, CISCE schools
were significantly more generous.
FIGURE - VIII
AVERAGE AMOUNT SPENT ANNUALLY ON FEE CONCESSIONS AS A
PROPORTION OF ENROLMENT (Rs.)
58
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
136.83
60.81
58.1
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
Interestingly, it were the large schools among the schools surveyed which gave
the largest amounts as fee concession. The amount forgone was more than twice on
an average per school when compared to medium-sized schools. However, one has to
remember that many large schools have a fee structure, which is more expensive than
smaller schools, and this might explain the difference.
FIGURE – IX
AVERAGE AMOUNT FORGONE FOR FEE CONCESSION PER SCHOOL
59
250000.00
227758.03
200000.00
150000.00
100000.00
92957.50
57565.80
50000.00
0.00
SMALL
SCHOOLS
MEDIUM
LARGE
SCHOOLS SCHOOLS
60
Average amount
forgone per school
III.
MID-DAY MEALS
The next charitable activity analysed was the provision of Mid-Day-Meals.
FIGURE – X
PROVISION OF MID DAY MEALS BY SCHOOLS
100
80
78.7
60
40
21.3
20
0
No
Yes
Only 21.3% of the schools surveyed have a provision for Mid-Day-Meals. The
following chart clearly brings out that out of 21.3% schools which provided Mid-DayMeals only 6.3% or 5 schools provided such a facility for free.
FIGURE - XI
MID-DAY MEALS
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Charged
Free
61
Subsidised
Schools spending largest amount on Mid-Day Meals
SCHOOL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Miles Bronson Residential School, Borjhar
Chettinad Vidyashram
Our Lady of Perpetual Succour High School
Loreto Day School, Lenin Sarani
St. Mary's School, Safdarjung Enclave
IV.
CITY
AMOUNT
Guwahati
Chennai
Mumbai
Kolkata
Delhi
300000
300000
32000
30000
30000
BOOK BANK
The following table (Table XVII) depicts the number of schools which provide for
a book bank to be accessed by the students from disadvantaged background.
Table XVIII
SCHOOLS WITH BOOK BANKS
No
Yes
Total
Schools
52
27
80
Percent
65.0
33.8
100.0
66% of the schools surveyed thus have no provision for a book bank.
62
The total amount of money spent by the school which have such a provision is
given in Table XVIII.
TABLE XIX
AMOUNT SPENT ON BOOK BANK BY SCHOOLS
AMOUNT
10000
10389
11200
11400
12000
23000
25000
26000
37500
45000
50000
69000
84000
NP
Total
Schools
64
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
80
Cumulative
Percent
81.3
82.6
83.9
85.2
86.5
87.8
91.1
92.4
93.7
95.0
96.3
97.6
98.9
100.0
100.0
Again while 33.8% of the schools provide for a book bank, a little less than 80%
do not spend any money on it. Though the present survey does not cover this aspect
but the reason for this could be that the school does not need to spend while providing
for a book bank as books are received as donations from past pupils and also book
sellers and publishers. Out of the schools which do provide for book banks the average
amount spent is about Rs.25,000/- per annum which comes to a little more than
Rs.2,000/- a month.
The following table provides the names of those schools which have spent the
maximum amount of money on providing for books to such students. Kolkata schools
did not seem to be particularly inclined towards this activity.
63
SCHOOLS SPENDING MOST ON BOOK BANKS
ALL INDIA
SCHOOL
1. Miles Bronson Residential School, Borjhar
2. K.M.S. Dr. Shirodkar High School
3. Kola Perumal Chetty Vaishnav Sr. Sec. School
4. Maharishi Vidya Mandir Sr. Sec. School
5. Villa Theresa High School
6. St. Mary's School' Safdarjung Enclave
7. Don Bosco Hg. School, Nathalal Parekh Marg,
8. Holy Child School
9. Don Bosco School, Sonaighuli
10. National School
CITY
AMOUNT
Guwahati
Mumbai
Chennai
Chennai
Mumbai
Delhi
Mumbai
Guwahati
Guwahati
Guwahati
84000
50000
50000
45000
37500
26000
25000
23000
12000
11400
CITY
AMOUNT
Chennai
Chennai
Chennai
50000
45000
10000
CITY
AMOUNT
Guwahati
Guwahati
Guwahati
84000
23000
12000
CITY
AMOUNT
Delhi
Delhi
Delhi
26000
10389
10000
CITY
Kolkata
AMOUNT
6900
CHENNAI
SCHOOL
1. Kola Perumal chetty Vaishnav Sr. Sec. School
2. Maharishi Vidya Mandir Sr. Sec. School
3. Sishya
GUWAHATI
SCHOOL
1. Miles Bronson Residential School, Borjhar
2. Holy Child School
3. Don Bosco School, Sonaighuli
DELHI
SCHOOL
1. St. Mary's School, Safdarjung Enclave
2. Delhi Public School, Mathura Road,
3. The Frank Anthony Public School
KOLKATA
SCHOOL
1. North Point Senior Secondary Boarding School,
64
MUMBAI
SCHOOL
1. K.M.S. Dr. Shirodkar High School
2. Villa Theresa High School
3. Don Bosco Hg. School, Nathalal Parekh Marg,
V.
CITY
AMOUNT
Mumbai
Mumbai
Mumbai
50000
37500
25000
FREE UNIFORMS
As far as provision of free uniforms is concerned 73.8% of the schools have no
such provision.
FIGURE - XII
SCHOOLS PROVIDING FREE UNIFORMS
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
73.8
26.3
No
Yes
Again as shown in Table XX below 81.3% do not spend any money on it. The
average amount of money spent by those schools which provide free uniforms was
Rs.30,000/- annually which comes to Rs.2,500/- per month.
65
TABLE XX
AMOUNT SPENT ON PROVIDING FREE UNIFORMS BY SCHOOLS
Amount
0
10000
100000
20000
200000
25000
30000
3200
4500
55000
6480
9000
93201
NP
Total
Schools
65
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
80
Percentage
81.3
3.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
100.0
TABLE –XXI
AMOUNT SPENT ON FREE/SUBSIDIZED UNIFORMS FOR STUDENTS AS
DETERMINED BY BOARDS OF AFFILIATION
Board of Affiliation
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
Total
No. of
Schools
50
17
13
80
Enrolment
100729
25228
21957
147914
Amount
417381
149000
10000
576381
Average annual
amount per student
(Rs.)
4.14
5.90
0.45
10.50
The schools which spend the maximum amount of money for providing free
uniforms in the country are as given below. Kolkata schools are not large spenders in
this category.
66
BIGGEST SCHOOLS IN TERMS OF AMOUNT SPENT ON PROVIDING FREE
UNIFORMS
SCHOOL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CITY
Miles Bronson Residential School, Borjhar
Don Bosco Hg. School, Nathalal Parekh Marg
Springdales School, Dhaula Kuan
St. Mary's School, Sufdarjung Enclave
Chettinad Vidyashram
VI.
Guwahati
Mumbai
Delhi
Delhi
Chennai
AMOUNT
200000
100000
93201
55000
30000
FREE BOOKS
Coming to the provision for free books to students who might not be able to
afford the same it was found that (Table XXI) about one third of the schools surveyed
had such a provision.
FIGURE – XIII
SCHOOLS PROVIDING FREE BOOKS (%)
70
60
50
40
63.8
36.3
30
20
10
0
No
Yes
Unaided schools took the lead in providing free or subsidized books to needy
students. The number of unaided schools providing such a facility was three times that
of aided schools. 56.3% of Delhi schools had such a provision.
67
TABLE-XXII
CITY WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOLS PROVIDING FREE/SUBSIDIZED
BOOKS
Aided
City
No. of Schools
Percentage
Mumbai
Kolkata
Chennai
4
2
1
7
21.1
20
5
8.7
Delhi
Guwahati
Chennai
Kolkata
Mumbai
9
5
4
3
1
22
56.3
33.3
20
30
5.3
27.5
Total
Unaided
City
Total
Out of the total number of schools providing free textbooks to needy students it
was the schools affiliated to State Boards, which had the maximum provision for such a
facility.
FIGURE – XIV
SCHOOLS PROVIDING FREE BOOKS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO
BOARDS OF AFFILIATION
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
58.8
30.8
30
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
An analysis of the amount of money spent on providing free books to students
by the school was also made. Annexure VII provides the details. About 75% of the
68
schools did not need to spend any money on it, which suggests that 10.9% schools
procured books through private booksellers or publishers.
Not only do a large number of State Board schools have a provision for free text
books, they also spend the largest amount per student per annum – Rs.4.71/- CISCE
schools spent a rupee per student per annum!
TABLE – XXIII
AMOUNT SPENT ON FREE/SUBSIDIZED BOOKS AS DETERMINED BY BOARDS
OF AFFILIATION
Board of Affiliation
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
Total
School
Enrolment
100729
25228
21957
147914
Total
Amount
373682
119030
24000
516712
Average annual
amount per
students (Rs.)
3.70
4.71
1.09
9.52
BIGGEST SCHOOLS IN TERMS OF AMOUNT SPENT ON PROVIDING FREE/
SUBSIDIZED BOOKS
SCHOOL
CITY
1. St. Columbus School, Ashok Place
2. Springdales School, Dhaula Kuan
3. SBOA School & Junior College
4. Chettinad Vidyashram
5. Holy Child Sr. Sec. School
6. Don Bosco Hg. School, Nathalal Parekh Marg
7. Khalsa Model Sr. Sec. School
8. Miles Bronson Residential School, Borjhar
9. Holy Child School
10.Don Bosco School, Sonaighuli
69
Delhi
Delhi
Chennai
Chennai
Delhi
Mumbai
Kolkata
Guwahati
Guwahati
Guwahati
AMOUNT
100000
93440
40200
40000
30000
25000
24342
24000
20000
18000
VII.
FREE TRANSPORT
FIGURE – XV
SCHOOLS PROVIDING FREE TRANSPORT
100
88.8
80
60
40
11.3
20
0
No
Yes
Only 9 schools out of 80 surveyed have a provision for free transport which
comprises 11.3% of the total. However 90% spent less than a thousand rupees per
annum. This means that free transport is not the norm and it is possibly provided only
to children of staff members as a pre-requisite.
TABLE XXIV
AMOUNT SPENT ON PROVIDING FREE TRANSPORT
Amount
0
635
10000
20000
24000
46800
48600
50000
106550
Total
Schools
71
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
70
Cumulative
Percentage
74.7
75.9
77.2
78.5
79.7
82.3
83.5
84.8
86.1
87.3
VIII. HEALTH CARE
One of the most popular charitable activity undertaken by schools is that of
providing for an annual medical check-up of the students and along with a provision for
first aid.
Table No. XXIV provides the details. It may be mentioned here that the CBSE
affiliation by-laws specifically provide for the school to arrange for medical check up of
the students at-least once a year under Chapter II para 13(6).
TABLE XXV
PROVISION OF ANNUAL MEDICAL CHECK UP/FIRST AID CARE
Medical Exam
First Aid
Both
Nil
Total
Schools
14
26
36
4
80
Percentage
18.1
32.5
45.0
5.1
100.0
Analyzing this information according to the Boards they are affiliated to, it is
seen that all CBSE schools do not provide for an annual medical check up.
TABLE – XXVI
PROVISION OF FREE ANNUAL MEDICAL CHECKUP/FIRST AID CARE AS
DETERMINED BY BOARD OF AFFILIATION
Annual Medical Check Up/ First Aid Care
Board of Affiliation
Annual
First Aid
Both
No.of Schools % Schools No.of Schools % Schools No. of Schools % Schools
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
10
2
1
20.0
11.8
7.7
10
10
6
Total
13
16.3
2.6
71
20.0
58.8
46.2
29
3
5
58.0
17.6
38.5
37
46.3
Table XXVII provides details about whether this service is provided for free, is
subsidized or is on payment basis.
TABLE XXVII
FREE / SUBSIDIZED
Free/Subsidized
Free
Not Provided
Paid for
Subsidized
Total
No. of
Schools
4
50
15
1
10
80
Percentage
5.0
62.5
18.8
1.3
12.5
100.0
Annexure VIII shows the amount spent by private schools on providing health
care. Surprisingly while 94.9% of schools provide for medical care 32.9% spend no
money for it. The solution to the mystery lies in the fact that, in many schools parents
who are by profession doctors perform the annual medical check up for free as a
service to the school. 50% of the schools spent less than Rs.3,000/- annually for the
purpose as shown in the table below, which comes to Rs.500/- per month!
Schools which spend the maximum amount on providing health care to the
students in the country are:BIGGEST SCHOOLS IN TERMS OF AMOUNT SPENT ON HEALTH CARE
Sl.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
SCHOOL
Delhi Public School, Mathura Road
Delhi Public School, Vasant Kunj
The Mother's International School
Chettinad Vidyashram
Jamnabai Narsee School
Modern School
SBOA School & Junior College
St. Mary's School
Sardar Patel Vidyalaya
Delhi Public School
72
CITY
Delhi
Delhi
Delhi
Chennai
Mumbai
Delhi
Chennai
Delhi
Delhi
Guwahati
AMOUNT
492000
480332
382426
340000
270000
216000
150000
150000
115000
100000
Similarly the top three spenders in Chennai, Guwahati and Delhi cities are:SCHOOL
CITY
1. Chettinad Vidyashram
2. SBOA School & Junior College
3. Maharishi Vidya Mandir Sr. Sec. School
AMOUNT
Chennai
Chennai
Chennai
SCHOOL
492000
480332
382426
CITY
1. Delhi Public School
2. Miles Bronson Residential School, Borjhar
3. Maharishi vidya mandir
AMOUNT
Guwahati
Guwahati
Guwahati
SCHOOL
1. Delhi Public School, Mathura Road
2. Delhi Public School, Vasant Kunj
3. The Mother's International School
100000
68708
18000
CITY
AMOUNT
Delhi
Delhi
Delhi
492000
480332
382426
Schools in Mumbai & Kolkata spent negligible amounts.
IX.
CRECHE
Only four schools of the 80 surveyed (5%) had a provision for a crèche for their
staff members.
FIGURE – XVI
PROVISION OF CRECHE FACILITY BY SCHOOLS
100
95
80
60
40
20
5
0
No
Yes
73
However as shown in Table XXVII below 96.3% did not spend any money on it.
TABLE XXVIII
AMOUNT SPENT BY SCHOOLS ON CRECHE FACILITIES
Amount
0
25200
30000
NP
Total
X.
School
77
1
1
1
80
Percent
96.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
100.0
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Societal commitment to the disabled child has been discussed and debated
widely & has now been acknowledged to a large extent. The Government has also
enacted the People with Disabilities Act (1995). This survey threw up interesting facts
about the attitude of private schools to the disabled.
FIGURE – XVII
NUMBER OF SCHOOLS ADMITTING CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES (%)
80
70
60
40
30
20
0
No
Yes
74
Out of the 80 private schools surveyed 24 i.e. 30% did not allow disabled
children to be admitted to their schools. A list of schools of each city which do not
admit children with disabilities is given below:-
DELHI
1.
Modern School, Vasant Vihar
2.
Delhi Public School, Mathura Road
3.
Modern School, Barakhamba Road
4.
Air Force Bal Bharti School
MUMBAI
1.
Campion School
2.
St. Xavier’s High School
3.
Jamnabai Narsee School
4.
Gokhale Education Society
KOLKATA
1.
Loreto Day School, Lenin Sarani
2.
Don Bosco School, Park Circus
3.
Ashok Hall Girls H.S. School
CHENNAI
1.
Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan
2.
Padma Seshadri Bala Bhawan
1.
Maharishi Vidya Mandir
2.
Kola Saraswathi Vaishnav Sr. Sec. School
3.
Good Shepherd Matriculation Hr. Sec. School
4.
Sacred Heart Matriculation Hr. Sec. School
75
76
GUWAHATI
1.
Don Bosco School, Sonaiguli
2.
Holy Child School
3.
National School
4.
South Point School
5.
Ascent Academy
6.
Gurukul Grammar School
7.
Guru Nanak High School
Correlating the data with the size of the school, it was found that more schools
which were mid-sized admitted the disabled (84%) than large schools (66%). Among
large schools it were the Delhi schools which were the front runners, while in the
medium-sized schools category it were the Mumbai schools which were most inclusive.
TABLE XXIX
SCHOOLS WHICH ADMIT CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
CITY
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Kolkata
Mumbai
TOTAL
No. of Schools
3
1
5
2
4
15
Percentage
15.0
6.3
33.3
20.0
21.1
60
Medium Schools
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Kolkata
Mumbai
TOTAL
4
2
3
4
8
21
20.0
12.5
20.0
40.0
42.1
84
Large Schools
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Kolkata
Mumbai
TOTAL
7
9
0
1
3
20
35.0
56.3
0.0
10.0
15.8
66
Small Schools
77
Awareness in the matter seemed to be maximum in schools affiliated to National
Boards. More than 40% of schools affiliated to State Boards did not admit disabled
children.
FIGURE – XVIII
SCHOOLS ADMITTING CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES CLASSIFIED
ACCORDING TO BOARDS OF AFFILIATION
80
60
40
20
0
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
CBSE schools had the lowest number of disabled students on their rolls. This
should certainly be a matter of concern to the ‘premier’ national body. There were 0.38
disabled students per one hundred students in CBSE schools. CISCE & State Boards
had double the number!
TABLE – XXX
NUMBER OF DISABLED STUDENTS IN SCHOOL CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO
BOARDS OF AFFILIATION
Board of
Affiliation
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
Total
No. of
Schools
50
17
13
80
Enrolment
100729
25228
21957
147914
78
No. of Students
with Disabilities
392
162
132
686
Average No. of
Disabled per 100
Students
0.38
0.64
0.60
0.46
TABLE – XXXI
CITY-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOLS WHICH ADMIT CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES
No
Aided
City
Kolkata
Mumbai
Chennai
Total
Unaided
City
Guwahati
Chennai
Delhi
Mumbai
Kolkata
Total
Yes
No. of
Schools % Schools No. of Schools
2
20
2
2
10.5
5
1
4
5
8
7
6
4
2
1
20
46.7
30
25
10.5
10
25
8
13
12
10
5
48
% Schools
20
26.3
5
10
53.3
65
75
52.6
50
60
Aided schools in general were found to be less inclusive in their attitude towards
the disabled. 60% of unaided schools admitted them. Three fourths of Delhi schools
admitted disabled children, the highest number in the country!
The following table shows the number of students with disabilities in each
individual school.
The table shows that 41% of schools do not have any disabled
children. Thus while 30% schools do not admit children with disabilities as a policy
another 11.3% do not do it in practice. Seven schools out of the 80 surveyed had only
79
one student with disabilities on their rolls. 80% had less than ten.
TABLE XXXII
NO. OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN SCHOOLS
Students
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
14
15
16
20
30
35
36
40
45
46
60
125
Total
Schools
33.0
7.0
6.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
80.0
Percentage
41.3
8.8
7.5
5.0
5.0
3.8
1.3
2.5
1.3
3.8
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
100.0
80
Cumulative
Percentage
41.3
50.0
57.5
62.5
67.5
71.3
72.5
75.0
76.3
80.0
82.5
83.8
85.0
86.3
87.5
91.3
92.5
93.8
95.0
96.3
97.5
98.8
100.0
Large schools had more disabled children enrolled (9.9) per school than mediumsized or small schools. The figure below provides the details.
FIGURE XIX
NUMBER OF DISABLED STUDENTS PER SCHOOL CLASSIFIED
ACCORDING TO SIZE
Average Number of Disabled Students per
School
12.00
9.90
10.00
8.00
8.32
7.16
No. of Disabled
Students average per
Schools
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
SMALL
SCHOOLS
MEDIUM
SCHOOLS
LARGE
SCHOOLS
On an average the private schools surveyed had one disabled child among 200
students.
This is much below the proportion of such children in the country’s
population. Aided private schools had marginally more of such students.
81
Mumbai
schools seemed the most inclusive. They had twice the number of the National average.
TABLE – XXXIII
CITY-WISE NUMBER OF DISABLED STUDENTS IN SCHOOL
Aided
Unaided
City
Total
City
Total
No. of
Schools
Mumbai
7
Kolkata
4
Chennai
1
12
Chennai
19
Delhi
16
Guwahati
15
Mumbai
12
Kolkata
6
68
GRAND TOTAL
80
Enrollment
11572
6807
2069
20448
41256
40163
17008
18008
11031
127466
147914
Disabled Average no. of
students disabled per 100
admitted Students
116
01.00
2
00.02
4
00.19
122
00.59
92
00.22
244
00.60
24
00.14
182
01.01
22
00.19
564
00.44
686
0.46
The schools with the maximum number of disabled students on their rolls across
the country are:-
Sl.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
SCHOOL
CITY
St.Columbus School, Ashok Place
St.Anne's High School
Jamnabai Narsee School
Cathedral & John Connon School
Don Bosco Hg. School, Nathalal Parekh Marg
Anandilal Podar High School (SSC)
Vasant Valley School
Vidya Mandir School
St.Mary's School, Safdarjung Enclave
Springdales School, Dhaula Kuan
82
Delhi
Mumbai
Mumbai
Mumbai
Mumbai
Mumbai
Delhi
Chennai
Delhi
Delhi
NUMBER
125
60
46
45
40
36
35
30
30
30
SCHOOLS SPENDING MOST ON THE WELFARE OF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
SCHOOL
CITY
1. Lakshmipat Singhania Academy
2. St. Mary's School, Safdarjung Enclave
3. Cathedral & John Connon School
4. Anandilal Podar High School (SSC)
5. Villa Theresa High School
6. Sanskriti School
7. Maharishi Vidya Mandir
8. Sardar Patel Vidyalaya
9. Miles Bronson Residential School, Borjhar
10.Kola Perumal Chetty Vaishnav Sr. Sec. School
Kolkata
Delhi
Mumbai
Mumbai
Mumbai
Delhi
Guwahati
Delhi
Guwahati
Chennai
AMOUNT
850000
561000
270000
200000
140000
107495
70000
69000
60000
60000
The three biggest spenders in each city were as follows:
CHENNAI
SCHOOL
1. Kola Perumal Chetty Vaishnav Sr. Sec. School
2. Bhaktavatsalam Vidyashram
3. The Hindu Sr. Sec. School
CITY
Chennai
Chennai
Chennai
AMOUNT
60000
50000
14000
CITY
GUWAHATI
GUWAHATI
GUWAHATI
AMOUNT
70000
60000
6000
CITY
Delhi
Delhi
Delhi
Delhi
AMOUNT
561000
107495
69000
12000
CITY
Kolkata
Kolkata
AMOUNT
850000
7300
GUWAHATI
SCHOOL
1. Maharishi Vidya Mandir
2. Miles Bronson Residential School, Borjhar
3. Blue Mount High School
DELHI
1.
2.
3.
4.
SCHOOL
St. Mary's School, Safdarjung Enclave
Sanskriti School
Sardar Patel Vidyalaya
The Frank Anthony Public School
KOLKATA
SCHOOL
1. Lakshmipat Singhania Academy
2. North Point Senior Secondary School
83
MUMBAI
1.
2.
3.
4.
SCHOOL
Cathedral & John Connon School
Anandilal Podar High School ( SSC)
Villa Theresa High School
Gokhale Education Society's
CITY
Mumbai
Mumbai
Mumbai
Mumbai
AMOUNT
270000
200000
140000
12000
Incidentally 81.3% of the schools do not provide any fee concession to disabled
students. Assessing the data according to the size of the school, one finds that while
only 20% of the large schools have a provision for fee concession, a relatively larger
proportion of the medium-sized schools (24%) provide concession in fee to such
students.
TABLE XXXIV
SCHOOLS PROVIDING FEE CONCESSION TO DISABLED STUDENTS
CITY
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Kolkata
Mumbai
TOTAL
No. of Schools
0
1
1
0
1
3
Percentage
0.0
6.3
6.7
0.0
5.3
12
Medium Schools
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Kolkata
Mumbai
TOTAL
0
2
2
1
1
6
0.0
12.5
13.3
10.0
5.3
24
Large Schools
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Kolkata
Mumbai
TOTAL
0
4
0
0
6
6
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
10.5
20
Small Schools
84
FIGURE XX
SCHOOLS PROVIDING SPECIAL EDUCATORS/EQUIPMENTS
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Special
Educators
Special
Equipment
Both
Not Provided
63.8% of the schools surveyed did not have any such provision while only 10%
had a provision for both special educators and equipment.
The total number of schools which provide either special educators or equipment
vis-à-vis which provide admission to the disabled was also analysed. It was clear that
while 70% admitted the disabled 63.8% did not have any provision for special
educators or equipment.
TABLE XXXV
SCHOOLS HAVING DISABLED FRIENDLY INFRASTRUCTURE
Schools
44
36
80
No
Yes
Total
Percentage
55
45
100
Only 45% of the schools had an infrastructure, which had been modified and
made friendly to the disabled.
CISCE had the least number of schools where the
infrastructure was disabled friendly.
85
FIGURE – XXI
SCHOOLS WITH DISABLED FRIENDLY INFRASTRUCTURE CLASSIFIED
ACCORDING TO BOARDS OF AFFILIATION
60
50
50
38.5
40
35.3
30
20
10
0
CBSE
I.
State Boards
CISCE
ADMISSION POLICY
An interesting question posed was the existence of a pro-poor admission policy.
Table XXXVI provides the relevant information. A total of 52.5% of private schools
claimed to have a pro-poor admission policy ! These comprised of 42 schools.
TABLE XXXVI
PRESENCE OF PRO-POOR ADMISSION POLICY
No
Yes
Schools
38
42
Percent
47.5
52.5
Total
80
100
However as Annexure - IX states 12 of these 42 schools could not even
provide details of such a policy.
86
TABLE-XXXVII
SCHOOLS ENCOURAGING ADMISSIONS FROM DISADVANTAGED
BACKGROUND
Aided
City
Kolkata
Mumbai
Chennai
Total
Unaided
City
Delhi
Chennai
Guwahati
Kolkata
Mumbai
Total
No. of
Schools
3
2
1
6
% Schools
30
10.5
5
7.5
12
10
8
3
3
36
75
50
53.3
30
15.8
45
Even aided private schools had no policy to encourage a more diverse mix of
children being admitted. Only 7.5% claimed to have such a policy. On the other hand
45% of unaided schools encouraged such children for admissions.
Delhi schools
claimed the top spot, in view of the recent court directives, perhaps! CISCE schools
were the least inclined towards a more inclusive learning environment.
FIGURE – XXII
SCHOOLS ENCOURAGING ADMISSIONS FROM DISADVANTAGED
BACKGROUND CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO BOARDS (%)
60
56
47.1
50
46.2
40
30
20
10
0
CBSE
State Boards
87
CISCE
XII.
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Many schools today have Community Service Programmes which periodically
make it even to the newspapers and are projected as a unique feature of the school.
Table XXXVIII provides information on the existence or otherwise of such a programme
in the schools survey.
While 68.8% schools had a Community Service Programme
31.3% did not even have one, not to talk of the effectiveness of such a programme.
Meanwhile, school prospectuses talk of inculcating values and ‘ethical development’!
TABLE XXXVIII
EXISTENCE OF COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMME
School
25
55
80
No
Yes
Total
Percentage
31.3
68.8
100
The largest proportion of schools having a community service programme
belonged to the CISCE family – CBSE schools were below the national average!
FIGURE – XXIII
SCHOOLS HAVING COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMME CLASSIFIED
ACCORDING TO BOARDS OF AFFILIATION (%)
100
80
84.6
66
64.7
CBSE
State Boards
60
40
20
0
88
CISCE
Many more unaided schools had a Community Service programme compared to
government aided ones, in fact about 7 times more. 93.8% Delhi schools claimed to
have a Community Service programme!
TABLE - XXXIX
CITY-WISE SCHOOLS HAVING A COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMME
Aided
City
No. of
Schools
4
2
1
7
Mumbai
Kolkata
Chennai
Total
Unaided
City
Chennai
Delhi
Mumbai
Guwahati
Kolkata
Percentage
21.1
20
5
8.7
15
15
9
5
4
48
Total
75
93.8
47.4
33.3
40
60
These were also correlated with the size of the school in terms of number of
students. Interesting there was a positive correlation with size!
FIGURE – XXIV
PRESENCE OF COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMME AS DETERMINED BY
SCHOOL SIZE
100
80
60
40
80
83.3
MEDIUM
SCHOOLS
LARGE
SCHOOLS
40
20
0
SMALL
SCHOOLS
89
However, when the cost incurred per school was calculated it was found that
while large schools only spent Rs.24,273/- for community service, the medium-sized
schools incurred an expenditure of Rs.65,696/- per school.
FIGURE XXV
COSTS INCURRED PER SCHOOL ON COMMUNITY SERVICE
65696.00
70000
60000
50000
40000
Series1
30000
24273.00
Series2
20000
10000
2096.00
0
SMALL SCHOOLS
MEDIUM
SCHOOLS
LARGE
SCHOOLS
A brief description of the various activities undertaken under the Community
Service Programme is given in Annexure X. Interestingly, as Annexure XI shows
62.5% of the schools stated that these Community Service Programmes did not benefit
even a single person while one school claimed its own students as the beneficiary of its
Community Service Programme!
Again 81.3% of the schools could not state any
economic benefit provided to the community through their Community Service
Programme. Not surprisingly as Annexure XII shows 80% of the schools did not
spend a single paise on their Community Service Programmes. State Board schools
spent the maximum on community service programmes. The CISCE schools came next,
while CBSE schools spent less than the average. One of the reasons why most schools
did not spend any money on their community service programmes was that they only
encouraged their students to collect funds for charities like Help Age, SOS Villages &
National Association for the Blind.
90
FIGURE - XXVI
COST INCURRED BY SCHOOLS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE CLASSIFIED
ACCORDING TO BOARDS OF AFFILIATION
70000
62352.9
60000
50000
43030.7
40000
30000
20000
16072.2
10000
0
CBSE
State Board
CISCE
While aided schools as a group spent Rs.48.92/- per student per annum on
community service programmes, unaided schools spent only Rs.11.16/-. It were the
Mumbai schools, both in the aided and unaided category which were found to have a
long tradition of such programmes. The average amount spent by the 80 schools per
91
student per annum for community service programmes was Rs.16.38 !
TABLE-XXXX
CITY-WISE COST INCURRED FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
School
Enrolment
Aided
City
Mumbai
11572
7
1000000
Average amount
spent per student
per annum (Rs.)
86.41
Kolkata
Chennai
6807
2069
20448
4
1
12
400
0
1000400
0.05
0
48.92
Chennai
Delhi
Mumbai
Guwahati
Kolkata
41256
40163
18008
17008
11031
127466
19
16
12
15
6
68
294000
569610
525000
8000
26000
1422610
7.12
14.18
29.15
0.47
2.35
11.16
Total
147914
80
2423010
16.38
Total
Unaided City
Total
Grand
No. of Schools
XIII. Resource - Sharing
Another aspect of functioning of schools which has also been institutionalised by
the CBSE through its Sahadoya Complexes is that of resource sharing. Table No. XXXX
provides information on this aspect. It shows that 61.3% of the private schools did not
have a programme to share their resources either with the private schools or
Government schools.
92
FIGURE – XXVII
SCHOOLS : EXISTENCE OF RESOURCE SHARING PROGRAMME
70
60
60
50
38.8
40
30
20
10
1.3
0
Both
No
Yes
Again, most of the resource sharing was within the private school system.
TABLE XXXXI
RESOURCE SHARING WITH OTHER PRIVATE SCHOOLS
No
Yes
Total
Schools
56
24
80
93
Percentage
70
30
100
TABLE XXXXII
RESOURCE SHARING WITH GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS
No
Yes
Total
Frequency
65
15
80
Percentage
81.2
18.8
100
Interestingly, 87.3% of the schools did not spend any money while sharing
resources with other schools as is shown in Table No. XXXXIII.
TABLE XXXXIII
AMOUNT SPENT ON RESOURCE – SHARING
Missing
Amount
0
2000
5000
7500
10000
12000
16500
35000
40000
Total
System
Total
School
69
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
79
1
80
Percentage
87.3
1.3
3.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
98.8
1.3
100
Possibly because the CBSE has institutionalised the concept of resource sharing
and actively encourages it, it is the CBSE schools as a group, which had the largest
number having such a programme. CISCE schools had the least.
94
FIGURE - XXVIII
SCHOOLS INTO RESOURCES SHARING CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO BOARDS
OF AFFILIATION
45
42
40
35.3
35
30.8
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CBSE
STATE BOARDS
CISCE
TABLE-XXXXIV
SCHOOLS OPERATING RESOURCE SHARING PROGRAMMES CLASSIFIED
ACCORDING TO AIDED/UNAIDED STATUS & CITY
Aided
City
Unaided
Total
City
Mumbai
Chennai
Kolkata
Delhi
Chennai
Guwahati
Mumbai
Kolkata
Total
No. of Schools
2
% Schools
10.5
2
11
7
5
5
1
29
2.5
68.8
35
33.3
26.3
10
36.3
The amount of money spent by different groups of schools is shown in the table
below.
However, the average amount spent per school per annum is dismal –
Rs.1725/- only. While more number of CBSE schools have taken up the activity it is the
CISCE schools which spend more.
95
TABLE XXXXV
BOARD WISE APPROXIMATE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON RESOURCE
SHARING PROGRAMMES
Board of Affiliation
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
Total
No. of Schools
50
17
13
80
Amount
74000
22000
42000
138000
FIGURE XXIX
AVERAGE ANNUAL AMOUNT SPENT PER SCHOOL
ON RESOURCE SHARING
3500
3230
3000
2500
2000
1500
1480
1294
1000
500
0
CBSE
State Boards
96
CISCE
83.8% of private schools among those surveyed did not open up their facilities
like computer labs or libraries to the community at large after school hours.
FIGURE XXX
PROVISION OF FACILITIES TO BE OPEN AFTER SCHOOL HOURS
90
83.8
80
70
60
50
Series1
40
30
16.3
20
10
0
No
Yes
TABLE XXXXVI
PROVISION OF FACILITIES TO BE OPEN AFTER SCHOOL HOURS CLASSIFIED
ACCORDING TO BOARD OF AFFILIATION
Board of Affiliation
CBSE
State Boards
CISCE
Total
No. of Schools
9
2
2
13
% Schools
18.0
11.8
15.4
XIV. SCHOOL FOR UNDERPRIVILEGED
A total of 16 schools comprising 20% of the schools surveyed were running
another school within their campus for under-privileged children. A list of such schools
shows that a substantial number of them are from Delhi.
It is believed that these
schools have been opened to skirt around the provision in their land lease documents
which enjoins upon them to provide admission to under-privileged children upto 20-
97
25% of their total annual intake. More of CISCE schools have embraced this socially
useful activity. Table XXXXVII provides the details.
TABLE XXXXVII
PRESENCE OF A SCHOOL FOR THE UNDERPRIVILEGED CLASSIFIED
ACCORDING TO BOARD OF AFFILIATION
Board of Affiliation
CBSE
CISCE
State Boards
Total
No. of Schools
8
4
4
16
Percentage
16.0
30.8
23.5
20.0
So, which are the Schools in the Country, which are the most socially
responsible? The ones with the biggest hearts?
TEN MOST SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
CITY
1. ST. MARY'S SCHOOL, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE
2. CHETTINAND VIDYASHRAM
3. SANSKRITI SCHOOL
4. ST. COLUMBUS SCHOOL, ASHOK PLACE
5. DON BOSCO HG. SCHOOL, NATHALAL PAREKH MARG
6. VILLA THERESA HIGH SCHOOL
7. HOLY CHILD SR. SEC. SCHOOL
8. MILES BRONSON RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, BORJHAR
9. DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, MATHURA ROAD
10. LAKSHMIPAT SINGHANIA ACADEMY
AMOUNT
Delhi
Chennai
Delhi
Delhi
Mumbai
Mumbai
Delhi
Guwahati
Delhi
Kolkata
DELHI
TEN MOST SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
AMOUNT
1. St. Mary's School, Safdarjung Enclave
2. Sanskriti School
3. St. Columbus School, Ashok Place
4. Holy Child Sr. Sec. School
5. Delhi Public School, Mathura Road
6. Delhi Public School, Vasant Kunj
3110350
1643495
1500000
1050910
974604
813332
98
3110350
1767500
1643495
1500000
1465000
1070500
1050910
976708
974604
852000
7. Sardar Patel Vidyalaya
8. Mira Model School
9. Blue Bells School International
10. Modern School, Barakhamba Road
534600
412315
326615
300000
CHENNAI
TEN MOST SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
AMOUNT
1. Chettinad Vidyashram
2. SBOA School & Junior College
3. Vidya Mandir School
4. Kola Perumal Chetty Vaishnav Sr. Sec. School
5. Maharishi Vidya Mandir Sr. Sec. School
6. Sacred Heart Mat. Hr. Sec. School
7. Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan Sr. Sec. School
8. P.S. Senior Secondary School
9. Bhaktavatsalam Vidyashram
10.Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Taylor's Road
1767500
599800
352295
342095
183000
160000
145230
136140
125000
68000
GUWAHATI
10 MOST SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
AMOUNT
1. Miles Bronson Residential School, Borjhar
2. Maharishi Vidya Mandir
3. Don Bosco School, Sonaighuli
4. Holy Child School
5. Guru Nanak High School
6. Delhi Public School
7. Delhi Public School, Guwahati
8. Hindustani Kendriya Vidyalaya
9. National School
10. Don Bosco School, Panbazar
976708
362023
318000
311200
149580
100000
100000
75000
66380
56000
99
KOLKATA
TEN MOST SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
AMOUNT
1. Lakshmipat Singhania Academy
2. Don Bosco School, Park Circus
3. Khalsa Model Sr. Sec. School
4. Loreto Day School, Lenin Sarani
5. Loreto House, Middleton Row
6. North Point Senior Secondary Boarding School
7. Ashok Hall Girls Higher Secondary School
8. Patha Bhavan
9. Appejay School
10. Bhavan's Gangabux Kanoria Vidyamandir
852000
671000
658802
456060
355030
342417
138396
109000
106000
10000
MUMBAI
TEN MOST SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE SCHOOLS
AMOUN
SCHOOL
T
1. Don Bosco Hg. School, Nathalal Parekh Marg
2. Villa Theresa High School
3. Cathedral & John Connon School
4. St. Anthony's High School
5. Campion School
6. Anandilal Podar High School(SSC)
7. K.M.S. Dr. Shirodkar High School
8. Jamnabai Narsee School
9. Gopi Birla Memorial School
10.St. Xavier High School
1465000
1070500
624000
361200
35000
300000
280000
270000
230400
84500
All the above analysis and information points to just one simple fact – private
schools are not contributing enough to the society. To take some extreme examples,
the cost incurred on Community service programmes by these schools on an average
was Rs.16.38/- per annum per student – less than Rs.1.50/- per month!
Private
Unaided Kolkata schools spent half a rupee annually per student on providing
100
scholarships – in a city known for its compassion. CISCE schools spent a rupee per
student per annum on providing free textbooks! These are figures which have been
provided by the Schools themselves and taken to be true as there was no way of cross
checking them in the absence of balance sheets or audited accounts.
And these are schools, which constitute the upper crust, ones, which are well
endowed and resource rich, from the metros of the country. How the schools in the
rest of the country are fulfilling their social responsibilities can only be imagined.
*******
101
CHAPTER V
Findings of the Study
The Study was based on a small sample of schools selected from the four
metropolitan cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai and the city of Guwahati.
Useful information could be elicited from the schools. However, due to the manner in
which information is recorded, the information from government departments about the
sample schools was not available to the same extent.
Despite this and other
constraints, the study reveals amazing facts about the social utility of private schools.
The study was able to work out the Marginal Efficiency Cost of Funds for Schools
(MECFS) in case of 30 schools. In case of 5 Schools, the MECFS could be worked out
for two educational societies governing them, since separate income tax information
was not available for individual schools.
The following emerged as important findings of the study:
1)
In India, schools can only be set-up by registered societies or charitable trusts.
These by definitions have a Memorandum of Association (MOA). An analysis of the
MOAs of different schools in the five cities revealed that the objectives for which the
charitable societies had been established and which were enumerated in the MOAs had
no correlation with the actual functioning of the societies and schools. In fact most of
the MOAs did not have any explicit charitable objectives !
2)
The study establishes that private schools when viewed in the context of the
benefits being availed by them from the Government are not contributing enough to
society. The situation seems to be disheartening since the schools surveyed are the
ones which constitute the upper crust, are well endowed and resource-rich apart from
being in the major cities of the country. The Study thus provides a sad commentary on
the abdication of the fulfillment of the social responsibility of private schools.
For
example, while 27.5% of the schools surveyed do not provide for fee concession, a
102
much higher number (32.9%) have no students being provided fee concessions. More
than half of the schools surveyed had less than 12 students being given concessions in
fee. Only 3.5% of all students got fee concessions. The average amount spent by the
80 schools per student per annum for Community Service Programmes was Rs. 16.80 !
83.8% of private schools among those surveyed did not open up their facilities like
Computer Laboratories or Libraries to the community at large after school hours.
3)
Most of the times while the schools claimed to have a provision for a certain
benefit like free books or uniforms, in actual practice it was found that the school had
spent no money to provide for it. For example, while 27.5% of the schools did not
have a provision for fee concession, 36.7% did not spend any money for providing such
a facility. Similarly while only 47.4% of the schools stated that they did not provide
scholarships, a much larger number (59%) had no expenses under this head.
4)
Similarly, while 33.8% of the schools provide for a book bank only a little more
than 20% spent any money on it. Only 26.2% of the schools provided free uniforms
but a much smaller number (18.7%) spent on it. Again while 94.9% of the schools
provide for an annual medical check-up, 32.9% spent no money on it.
The solution to this mystery lies in the fact that in many schools parents who are
Doctors by profession performed the annual medical check-up for free as a service to
the school. Similarly, schools do not need to spend any money for providing for a
book-bank as these are received as donations from past pupils and also book-sellers
and publishers.
5)
The present analysis tried to correlate the scale of the school in terms of the
number of students studying with the proportion of money spent on charitable
activities. Schools were grouped under small, medium and large. It did not seem that
the desire for doing good for the society increased in direct proportion to the number of
students in the school or in other words with more financial resources at the command
of the school.
It was found that large schools spent the least on an average per
student in the year under reference (2001-2002) – Rs. 140.58, on social welfare
103
activities. Medium-sized schools were most active. Large schools also spent less than
medium-sized schools on scholarships per student per annum. While only 66% of the
large schools admitted children with disabilities, 84% of the medium-sized schools did
so. Similarly, while the average amount of money spent for community services per
school by medium-sized schools was Rs. 65,696/- per annum it was Rs. 24,273/- per
annum in the case of large schools.
(6)
The overall sample for which both information with respect to the fiscal benefit
and the expenditure on educational activities having social utility was available reveals
that one unit of public finance benefit (in the form of income tax/property tax
concession, grant-in-aid, concession in cost of land etc.) yields only 0.2676 out put in
terms of social utility. Here it is pertinent to mention that the information in respect of
property tax was not available for a number of schools. Further, the schools did not
provide information about the direct grant-in-aid. Further more, the amount of subsidy
relating to the cost of acquisition of land was not readily available due to the nonavailability of records in case of old schools & the manner of record keeping.
In any case, the results are eye-opening since only Rs.27 are spent by the
private schools towards the socially useful activities out of every Rs.100 spent by the
Government towards the various concessions given to them.
(7)
The Sample shows that the social cost of the excess burden of financing the
marginal benefits in the form of educational activities having social utility, in the form of
various subsidies, is as high as 2.736.
This amount represents ‘leak’ due to the
behavioural responses of the school authorities.
(8)
The sample also reveals that the wide nature of subsidies extended by the state
to the private schools is not devoid of any cost to them. The total marginal cost to the
schools are found to be as high as 3.8.
104
(9)
Only 20% of the sample represented the private schools, which invested on the
educational activities with social utility to a much greater extent than the public finance
benefit received by them. While the public finance benefits are intended to subsidize
the social welfare activities to be undertaken by the schools, it seems that 80% of the
sample schools made profit out of such subsidies also.
(10)
The results show that the excess burden of the subsidies is less than 1 only in
case of 30% of the sample schools. The social cost of educational subsidies is higher
than unity in 70% of the sample cases and reaching as high as 112 in one case.
(11)
The case of a very well-known educational society of New Delhi, which
administers a chain of public schools within and outside Delhi is significant & illustrative
of the phenomenon.
It was observed that while the Society received tax benefits
amounting to Rs.2.36 crores, it spent a paltry sum of Rs.17.87 lacs on welfare activities.
The Society also had an important monetary advantage in the form of concessional
allotment of land to it at prime places in New Delhi.
(12)
The study also suggests that the welfare activities undertaken by schools are not
dependent on government subsidies or incentives. The regression index worked out
shows an insignificant relationship between government subsidies and the social
welfare expenses incurred by schools.
(13)
The study reveals that 20% of the sample schools spent much more than the
subsidies received by them from the Government on welfare activities. Incidentally, all
these schools are run by charitable/religious trusts, 90% of which are Christian
missionaries.
105
Caveat
(i)
The study intended to develop an index of social utility for private schools.
However, the inadequacy of data was the major constraint. Even with the small
sample size, the study highlights the hidden aspects of the government subsidies
extended to the schools for undertaking welfare activities.
The fact that the
quantum of the amount spent on welfare activities is a small fraction of the
subsidies given by the government shows that if National Education Policy is to
incorporate welfare activities also, it should be accompanied by a strong
regulatory mechanism with proper linkages.
(ii)
The study could not incorporate the data relating to the valuation of the cost of
free/concessional land given to private schools by the local authorities for setting
up schools. Some of them were established ages back, and given the constraints
of poor record keeping in government offices, it was not possible to work out the
differential amount of benefit, which was available to schools at the time of land
allotment, as compared to the fair market value of the land.
(iii)
The system of Property tax benefits, varies from one state to another.
For
example, in Delhi, the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) provides a major
benefit to schools in the form of valuation of rateable value of the land at
historical cost basis for determination of the property tax liability.
The
information relating to the historical cost was difficult to obtain from the land
allotting authorities. However, the same was available for new schools such as
Sanskriti. Since these new schools are charged property tax at a much higher
rateable value, the quantum of rebate for which they are entitled at a fixed
percentage like any other school, also becomes very high. This creates a skew
in the results since, despite paying an exorbitant amount of the property tax,
these schools are considered to be receiving exorbitant amount of subsidy in the
form of property tax rebate.
106
(iv)
The statistics relating to the income tax benefit were available for a majority of
the schools under study. However, unlike the Directorate of Education or the
local authorities, which administer Property Tax, the records of the Income Tax
Department are not maintained school-wise. This is because Income Tax returns
are filed by an assessee, which could be a charitable trust or institution running
several schools.
While due care has been taken to segregate the stream of
income pertaining to a particular school under study, with the help of the Income
Tax authorities concerned, it was practically impossible to segregate each and
every expense with respect to a particular school in such a case. Further, the
income tax benefit has been valued at a tax rate of 35% for Association Of
Persons (AOP), which is the rate applied to a trust, which does not fulfill the
necessary conditionality for availing the tax exemption. Further more, the tax
benefit has been worked out by taxing the donations also, which are deductible
under Section 80G in the hands of the donor.
*****
107
CHAPTER VI
Implications and Recommendations for Education & Tax Policies
Though it has been stated earlier, it bears repetition that all the above analysis
and information points to just one simple fact – private schools are not contributing
enough to the society. Let us not confuse corporate social responsibility with the social
responsibility of private schools.
While corporates are set up with the objective of
earning a profit through economic activity, schools are set up by societies or trusts
which are registered for charitable purpose and therefore have a duty to perform
accordingly.
To take some extreme examples 7 out of the 80 schools surveyed had only one
student with disabilities on their rolls. 80 percent had less than 10 students. More than
40 percent had none. More than half of the schools surveyed had less than 12 students
being given concessions in fee. Costs incurred on community service programmes by
these schools on an average was less than Rs.1.5/- per month per students when the
average fee per student per month would easily be about Rs.1500/-. These are figures
provided by the schools themselves and taken to be true for there was no way of cross
checking them as audited accounts were not made available. These are elite public
schools which are well-endowed and resource rich.
How schools in the rest of the
country are fulfilling their social responsibilities can only be imagined. The inescapable
conclusion is that education is no longer a charitable activity but is a commercial
venture and the sooner the society and the government recognize it the better it would
be. For development & reforms can only be based on an appreciation of reality and not
on a world based in our imagination or in the past.
The study has shown that not only do the MOAs rarely have charitable
objectives, whatever objectives are enumerated by these societies are irrelevant to their
actual functioning. The Government, therefore, needs to rethink the concessions and
108
incentives provided to these societies for establishing schools, especially, when the
analysis shows that there is no co-relation between the quantum of benefits provided
by the State and the fulfillment of social objectives by these societies.
The study finds that there is no direct one to one relationship between the
extent of fiscal benefits extended to the school and the resulting output in terms of
socially useful activities under taken by them.
The present study of eighty premier private schools of India has also been an
exercise in evaluating the role of different monitoring and regulating agencies of the
secondary education sector – the Directorates of Education, the Registrar of Societies
and the Income Tax Authorities apart from the affiliating agencies like CBSE & CISCE.
Implications
1.
The present policy of providing concessions and incentives to ostensibly
charitable organizations has evidently not worked. The expectation of the Government
that fiscal incentives shall encourage such organizations to provide quality education to
the disadvantaged section of the society has been belied. In fact these concessions
have been used to add to the profits being made by these societies. As mentioned
above, the study does not find any correlation between fiscal benefits extended and
charitable educational activities undertaken.
2.
The analysis suggests that private schools do not provide an inclusive learning
environment.
This is borne out by the number of disabled children admitted, the
emphasis given to community service programmes and so on. They thus contribute to
unequal educational opportunities leading thereby to the fragmentation of the
community, promotion of elitism and an enhanced class-consciousness.
3.
The study suggests that a vast majority of these schools do not fulfill the
charitable objectives for which they have been established. In fact they do not even
109
contribute in proportion to the concessions, which they receive from the Government.
The societies running these schools have vast surpluses.
The contention of these
schools that implementing a quota for students from the disadvantaged sections shall
lead to cross subsidization and make education even more expensive is not borne out
by facts.
4.
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) 1992 referred to earlier
shows that the Government is losing thousands of crores of rupees of revenue by
granting fiscal concessions to these societies which are at best ineffective and at worst
being misused. On the other hand the Government is in a bind to find larger resources
for education. The Government recently levied an education cess of two percent for
this purpose. It would perhaps be more prudent to do away with these concessions
and utilise the resources so saved to not only repeal the cess but also utilise the
residual funds to strengthen the Government school system.
The famous PROBE
Report which studied the school system in the Bimaru states found infrastructure to be
a major reason for lack of access and quality in the rural areas.
5.
It is doubtful whether a monitoring system had been devised to ensure the
achievement of policy objectives. However, even if one had, it is clear that none exists
on the ground. In a classic case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing,
none of the regulatory agencies coordinate with each other or exchange relevant
information. Data, which should be in the public domain, lies confined in silos.
6.
There is thus an urgent need to devise an appropriate mechanism to monitor the
functioning of these societies to ensure that there is proper utilization and application of
public funds and public goods like land are not converted into a source for private
profit. In such a mechanism it is obvious that it is the Ministry of Finance which will
have to take the lead through the Directorate of Income Tax. It is equally true that the
States will have to be taken on board for such an exercise.
110
7.
As has been stated elsewhere, one of the easiest ways to ensure accountability
of these societies and the schools run by them is to put all relevant information in the
public domain. This can easily be done through a web-based portal where all relevant
departments and agencies could upload information available to them. The Ministry of
Finance stipulated till recently that all societies shall publish their accounts in two local
newspapers.
This was done away with.
The Government can now bring this
requirement back in circulation with the added stipulation that it be available on the net
also. Needless to mention, the schools would also be under pressure to perform under
public scrutiny.
8.
The local authorities/ State Governments must also reform their property tax
laws in such a manner that the amount of tax concessions is equitably available. In
particular, the reliance on the historical cost basis should be discouraged, since it
provides an undue advantage to private schools, which were setup earlier. This would
provide a level playing field to the new private schools, which are already in a
disadvantageous position in view of high capital costs.
Recommendations
An analysis of the study has led to certain recommendations, enumerated
below:(1)
The study has shown that the Memorandum of Association (MOA) of the
societies’ running the schools have few charitable objectives.
Moreover, the
objectives listed have no relevance to their day-to-day functioning.
The
Government should therefore, rethink the concessions and incentives provided to
societies for establishing schools, specially when the study shows an insignificant
relationship between government subsidies and the social welfare expenses
incurred by schools. When thousands of crores of rupees are foregone by the
Government as tax revenue to provide an incentive to charitable societies for
social service & when these incentives have no impact on the quantum or quality
111
of charitable activities undertaken by them it would be best to withdraw these
tax concessions.
(2)
The study establishes that there is a paramount need for rectifying the current
pattern of maintaining accounts by schools.
The present system does not
facilitate examination of the veracity or comprehension of the accounts
maintained by schools.
There is an immediate need for evolving a standard
accounting format to be adopted by schools. This was also the recommendation
of the Committee on the ‘Fee Hike and Other Charges in Recognised Unaided
Private Schools in Delhi’ also called the Justice Duggal Committee Report (1999)
set up by the Delhi High Court.
(3)
The study establishes that there is a shocking lack of transparency in the
functioning of private schools.
Efforts should thus be made for introducing
greater transparency in the Sector. The activities of the private schools affect
the society at large. Therefore, information regarding the fiscal benefits made
available to these schools & details of their accounts should be made public
either by mandatory advertisements or by placing them on the Internet.
Specifically, as a first step the accounts furnished by private schools to affiliating
bodies like the CBSE or CISCE should be placed by these organizations on their
websites. This would go a long way in introducing transparency as well as in
making the activities of the private schools auditable by different stakeholders.
Public scrutiny would ensure that the private schools do not deviate from the
objectives laid out in their MOA.
(4)
Certain Local Authorities give concessions on services provided to schools.
These concessions should be made contingent on the fulfillment of the social
welfare objectives of these schools as laid out in their MOAs. If it is found that
the schools are being run on a purely commercial basis then no subsidization of
costs of these private schools should be made, since the benefit is not being
passed on to the Society which is the intent behind these concessions.
(5)
The State Governments should reform the Property Tax Laws in a way, which
enables an equitable amount of tax concession. Particularly, the reliance on the
112
historical cost basis should be discouraged since it gives an undue advantage to
those private schools, which have been set up earlier.
(6)
There should be closer coordination between the tax authorities of the Income
Tax and the Property Tax Department. The State Education Departments should
also develop a coordinating mechanism with Tax Authorities in order to improve
monitoring of activities of private schools.
(7)
Presently, in India only charitable organisations are allowed to set up schools.
However, the results of the study have shown that the intents of these policies
stand negated due to the abdication of social responsibility by schools.
A need
is therefore felt to allow Companies to set up educational institutions. In the
USA and Europe the present trend is that of Companies establishing schools.
These are called Charter schools.
companies in education.
The Middle East and China also allow
Among the SAARC Countries while Nepal permits
companies to set up schools, Bhutan and Sri Lanka allow only companies to
establish private schools. Introduction of companies would bring forth several
benefits in the education sector, the most significant of which would in increasing
the number of schools in the country. A larger number of service providers in
the field of education will mean increased competition and thus better quality!
Further, public companies will have to publish their accounts at regular intervals,
which would promote transparency. Presently, due to the system of accounting
followed by schools, it is difficult to ascertain the exact surplus being generated
by the schools in the country, though the same would be running in crores of
rupees. Eventually, the entry of companies in education would go a long way in
ensuring accountability, transparency and providing better quality of education.
(8)
To be fair to the schools it seems that there was a lack of understanding on their
part as to how to go about achieving the objectives for which they had been set
up. The schools confined themselves to traditional means like planting of trees,
distributing medicines in hospitals and so on. However, this was primarily the
responsibility of the societies running the school and the initiative for broadening
the scope of community service and a more inclusive education experience
rested with them. School managements have shown remarkable imagination in
113
prescribing different types of fee – development fee, computer fee etc., the
same efforts could also have been made for realizing the objectives of these
societies.
Perhaps, the regulatory agencies could prescribe guidelines to
facilitate the school managements in this case.
While the non-governmental sector has shown an understanding of the concerns
expressed by the Government and the media for the need for transparency and
regulations in view of the unscrupulous elements which have entered the voluntary
sector, charitable societies running private schools have shown no such response.
There have been few initiatives for greater transparency in their functioning or
realization of their objectives.
*****
114
ANNEXURE - I
Total No. of Students in the Sample Schools
Enrolment
300
320
335
350
400
440
515
770
776
820
850
950
1000
1017
1032
1035
1072
1080
1100
1135
1148
1156
1200
1261
1283
1318
1334
1350
1356
1368
1398
1400
1430
1436
1450
1453
1480
1515
1550
1652
1787
1850
1870
1900
Percentage
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
115
Cumulative Percent
1.3
2.5
3.8
5.0
6.3
7.5
8.8
10.0
11.3
12.5
15.0
16.3
18.8
20.0
21.3
22.5
23.8
25.0
26.3
27.5
28.8
30.0
31.3
32.5
33.8
35.0
36.3
37.5
38.8
40.0
41.3
42.5
43.8
45.0
46.3
47.5
48.8
50.0
51.3
52.5
53.8
55.0
56.3
57.5
1960
1973
2000
2018
2025
2042
2066
2069
2070
2097
2200
2205
2318
1350
2433
2450
2459
2471
2644
2898
3000
3200
3300
3500
3958
4000
4750
5080
6620
Total
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
100.0
58.8
60.0
62.5
63.8
65.0
66.3
68.8
70.0
71.3
72.5
73.8
75.0
76.3
77.5
78.8
80.0
81.3
82.0
83.8
85.0
87.5
88.8
92.5
93.8
95.0
96.3
97.5
98.8
100.0
116
ANNEXURE - II
BASIC FACTS
1.
Name & Address of the School
:
2.
Phone No.
:
3.
Name of the Principal
:
4.
Year in which established
:
5.
Name & Address of the Society/Trust
6.
Whether Charitable
:
7.
Registration No. allotted by Charity
Commissioner
:
8.
Government Aided/Unaided
:
9.
Co-educational
:
10.
Total No. of Students
:
11.
Total No. of Teachers
:
12.
Affiliated to CBSE/CISCE/State Board
:
13.
Medium of Instruction
:
14.
Whether Land & Building owned by
Society/Leased from Government/rented:
117
Yes/ No
Yes/ No
Questionnaire
*Year under reference is the financial year 2001-2002
I. SCHOLARSHIPS
1. Does your school provide scholarships to students?
Yes
No
2. If yes, to how many students on an average every year and in 2001-2002?
3. Are these scholarships funded by the school or by patrons?
School
Patrons
Both
4. What was the approximate amount of money spend on providing scholarships by the
school in the year 2001-2002.
Recurring
Non-recurring
Total
II. FEE CONCESSIONS
5. Does your school provide fee concessions to students from economically poor
backgrounds?
Yes
No
118
6. If yes, to how many students on an average every year and in 2001-2002?
7. How much money was approximately forgone by the school in the year 2001-2002
for this purpose?
III. MID-DAY MEALS
8. Does your school provide meals to students?
Yes
No
9. If yes, are the meals
Charged for
Subsidised
Free
10. In case they are free or subsidized what would be the approximate monetary value
in rupees of the benefit provided in 2001-2002?
IV. BOOK BANK
119
11. Does the school provide a book bank for poor students?
Yes
No
12. If yes, approximately how much did the school spend in 2001-2002 on maintaining
it?
Recurring
Non-recurring
Total
V. UNIFORMS
13. Does your school provide free/subsidized uniforms to disadvantaged/meritorious
students?
Yes
No
14. How much money did the school approximately spend on providing this facility in
2001-2002?
Recurring
Non-recurring
120
Total
VI. BOOKS
15. Does your school provide free/subsidized Books to disadvantaged/ meritorious
students?
Yes
No
16. How much money did the school approximately spend on providing this facility in
2001-2002?
Recurring
Non-recurring
Total
VII. TRANSPORT
17. Does your school provide free transport to children?
Yes
No
18. If yes, what was the cost incurred on it during the year 2001-2002?
Recurring
Non-recurring
Total
121
VIII. HEALTH CARE
19. Does the school provide for
Annual Medical check-up
First Aid care
of the students on a free/subsidized basis?
20. If yes, what was the approximate costs incurred by the school for the same in the
year 2001-2002?
Recurring
Non-recurring
Total
IX. CRECHE
21. Does the school have a crèche or day-care facilities for the staff?
Yes
No
22. If Yes, approximately how much did the school spend on providing such a facility in
2001-2002?
Recurring
Non-recurring
X. CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
122
Total
23. Does your school admit children with disabilities?
Yes
No
24. If, yes, approximately how many students with disabilities were on rolls in the
school in 2001-2002?
25. Are they provided any fee concession?
Yes
No
26. If yes, what was the total approximate amount in rupees forgone in 2001-2002 of
such a benefit?
27. Does the school provide
Special Educators
for these children?
Specialised equipment
28. Are the buildings, toilets etc. of the school disabled friendly?
Yes
No
29. How much money was spent by the school on providing these facilities in the year
2001-2002?
Recurring
Non-recurring
Total
XI. ADMISSION POLICY
123
30. Does the school have a policy which encourages children from poor or
disadvantaged backgrounds to apply for admission?
Yes
No
31. If yes, what are the details of such a policy?
transparent and objective?
Is it explicit, well-publicised,
XII. COMMUNITY SERVICE
32. Does the school have a community service programme?
Yes
No
33. If yes, please provide details of such activities conducted in the last academic year.
Name of activity
No. of people benefited
34. What would be the approximate economic benefit provided through such activities
to the community in the year 2001-2002?
35. What costs were approximately incurred in rupees by the school in 2001-2002 on
such activities?
Recurring
Non-recurring
124
Total
XIII. RESOURCE-SHARING
Note:- In case physical infrastructure or staff is shared with other schools/community,
the costs incurred may be apportioned between them on the basis of time spent, for
example, by the staff for students of other schools or maintenance expenditure of
physical infrastructure like laboratories, used by other school students.
36. Does your school operate an exchange programme for sharing of resources with
Other private
Schools
Government
Schools
37. If yes, what was the approximate expenditure incurred on the programme in 20012002?
Recurring
Non-recurring
Total
38. Are facilities like laboratories or library or Computer Lab. open after school hours
for use by the community or other schools?
Yes
No
39. If yes, what was the approximate expenditure incurred in 2001-2002 for providing
this facility?
Recurring
Non-recurring
Total
XIV. SCHOOL FOR UNDER-PRIVILEGED
125
40. Does the school run another school for the underprivileged?
Yes
No
41. How much money was spent on this school in the year 2001-2002?
Recurring
Non-recurring
126
Total
ANNEXURE III
No. of Students getting scholarships in Sample Schools
Scholarships
0
3
4
5
6
9
10
14
15
17
21
25
29
30
36
40
50
52
56
70
97
120
250
300
351
Missing
Total
No. of Schools
41
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
80
Percentage
51.3
3.8
2.5
1.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
3.8
2.5
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
100.0
127
Cumulative Percent
52.5
71.3
80.0
85.0
93.8
97.5
55.0
57.5
58.8
60.0
61.3
65.0
67.5
73.8
77.5
83.8
87.5
90.0
91.3
95.0
98.8
56.3
66.3
75.0
76.3
100.0
ANNEXURE IV
Total Amount spent on Scholarships by Sample Schools
Amount
0
2900
5000
6000
14680
14736
15000
18000
20000
25000
26500
27600
45600
50000
54000
60000
60500
72000
80515
93600
96000
18550
110000
126140
167645
200000
205000
227150
300000
333000
1152550
Total
Missing
Total
Number
46
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
78
2
80
128
Percentage
59.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
97.5
2.5
100.0
ANNEXURE V
Total No. of Students getting Fee Concessions in Sample Schools
Students
0
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
15
18
19
20
22
25
28
30
35
40
46
47
52
53
54
60
64
70
75
95
100
125
134
160
220
260
300
2500
Total
Missing
Total
No. of Schools
26
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
79
1
80
129
Percentage
32.9
2.5
2.5
3.8
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.8
3.8
1.3
1.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
5.0
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
98.8
1.3
100.0
ANNEXURE VI
Total Amount Forgone towards Fee Concessions in Sample Schools
Amount
Forgone
0
10000
12000
15000
15020
18000
20000
23355
25595
35400
42000
47510
48000
50000
54060
56000
66000
72000
75000
80000
86400
90000
91050
95000
96000
101990
111020
149580
150000
152040
155030
156000
164823
175200
215570
217500
225000
260000
265000
350000
421460
520000
625500
643473
Number
29
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Percentage
36.7
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
130
Cumulative Percent
36.7
39.2
40.5
41.8
43.0
44.3
45.6
46.8
48.1
49.4
50.6
51.9
53.2
54.4
55.7
57.0
58.2
59.5
62.0
63.3
64.6
67.1
68.4
69.6
70.9
72.2
73.4
74.7
75.9
77.2
78.5
79.7
81.0
82.3
83.5
84.8
86.1
87.3
88.6
89.9
91.1
92.4
93.7
94.9
795160
1000000
1100000
1243088
Total
Missing
Total
1
1
1
1
79
1
80
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
100.0
131
96.2
97.5
98.7
100.0
ANNEXURE VII
Total amount spent on providing free books by Sample Schools
0
2400
5000
6000
8000
10000
13300
15000
16000
16030
18000
20000
24000
24342
25000
30000
40000
40200
93440
100000
Total
Missing
Total
No. of
Schools
59
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
79
1
80
Percentage Cumulative Percent
74.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
100.0
74.7
75.9
77.2
78.5
79.7
82.3
83.5
84.8
86.1
87.3
88.6
89.9
91.1
92.4
93.7
94.9
96.2
97.5
98.7
100.0
132
ANNEXURE VIII
Total Amount Spent By Schools On Health Care
0
500
633
750
1000
1200
1500
2000
2147
2500
3000
3376
4961
5000
6000
7000
9000
10000
10655
15000
18000
20000
23298
28650
30000
49813
65000
67951
68708
97775
100000
115000
150000
216000
270000
340000
382426
480332
492000
Total
Missing
Total
No.of Schools
26
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
79
1
80
Percent
32.9
2.5
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
3.8
1.3
1.3
5.1
1.3
1.3
3.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
5.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
100.0
133
Cumulative Percent
32.9
35.4
36.7
38.0
40.5
41.8
43.0
46.8
48.1
49.4
54.4
55.7
57.0
60.8
62.0
63.3
64.6
67.1
68.4
73.4
74.7
75.9
77.2
78.5
79.7
81.0
82.3
83.5
84.8
86.1
88.6
89.9
92.4
93.7
94.9
96.2
97.5
98.7
100.0
ANNEXURE IX
Existence of an Explicit & Well-Publicised Pro Poor Admission Policy
No Provision
No Details Provided
Others
TOTAL
No. of
Schools
38
12
30
80
Percentage
47.6
15.0
37.4
100
134
Cumulative
Percentage
47.6
62.6
100.0
ANNEXURE – X
Charitable Activities undertaken by Sample Schools
No. of
Schools
27
Percentage
Adult Literacy
Programme,
Rain Water
Harvesting &
Environment
Education
6
7.8
Assisting the
aged and under
privilege children
7
9.1
Awareness
programme of
AIDS/Disabled
1
1.3
Better Calcutta
Project
1
1.3
Blood donation,
visits to
orphanages/old
age homes
1
1.3
Cleaning &
Awareness
Drives
1
1.3
Collecting funds
for NAB, CRY,
Spastics Society
Red Cross,
Cancer Patients
Aid Association
etc.
2
2.6
Collecting of
funds/Old clothes
& articles
1
1.3
No Provision
135
33.8
Donations to
SOS Villages/
Cheshire Homes,
Handicapped
people
1
1.3
Dress Designing
Beauty Culture,
Medical Camp &
Legal Literacy
1
1.3
Evening School
1
1.3
Financial
assistance, food,
clothes etc. for
Tribal children
2
2.6
Free remedial
teaching to poor
students &
distribution of
clothes and
blankets
1
1.3
Free Tailoring
Classes/
Remedial
Teaching etc.
1
1.3
Funds collected
for Help Age
1
1.3
Guru Parab
1
1.3
Help Age, visits
& assistance to
Old age homes/
blind & orphans,
Cancer Society
3
3.9
Interact club/
Karuna Club,
Pavement Club/
Aasha Daan/
Church feeding/
Old age homes
4
5.2
136
Maintenance of
approach road
to school
1
1.3
National Association for the
Blind, Kusumpur
Pahadi Slum
Project
1
1.3
Night shelter for
street children
1
1.3
NSS/RSP
1
1.3
Old age homes/
victims of
earthquakes,
floods etc.
1
1.3
Personality
Development,
Activity for
underprivileged
children
1
1.3
Remedial
Teaching for
neighbourhood
1
1.3
Road safety
service/Adult
literacy/
Collections for
NAB
1
1.3
Scouts/NCC/
Visit to Hospitals
1
1.3
Several
1
1.3
Social Service
2
2.5
Students teach
children of other
less privileged
schools/visit Old
Age Home
1
1.3
137
Teaching/Caring
for the Aged
1
1.3
Tiffin scheme
1
1.3
Visit of Govt.
School Children
1
1.3
1
80
1.3
100
Vocational & Adult
Education,
Voluntary Labour
Total
138
ANNEXURE - XI
Number of Beneficiaries
Number of
Beneficiaries
0
8
14
16
20
25
30
50
70
100
110
130
140
150
240
300
350
440
500
515
600
623
1300
2000
15000
30-40 orphanages
All School
Students
Total
No. of
Schools
50
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Percentage
62.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
2.5
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1
80
1.3
100
139
Cumulative
Percentage
62.5
63.8
65.1
66.4
68.9
70.2
71.5
72.8
74.1
75.4
77.9
80.4
81.7
84.2
85.5
86.8
88.1
89.4
90.7
92.0
93.3
94.6
95.9
97.2
98.5
99.8
100
ANNEXURE XII
Total Amount Spent on Community Service Programmes
by Sample Schools (2001-2002)
0
400
5400
8000
10000
16000
25000
32000
34000
36000
60000
93250
200000
402960
500000
Missing
Total
No. of
School
64
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
80
Percent
80.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.6
100.0
140
Cumulative
Percent
80.0
81.3
82.6
83.9
85.2
86.5
87.8
89.1
90.4
91.7
93.0
94.3
95.6
96.9
98.2
100.0
References
Allers Maarten (1995), Tax Compliance Cost in Netherlands, in C. Sandford (Ed.), Tax Compliance
Costs: Measurement and Policy, Fiscal Publications, Bath.
Aggarwal, Pawan, Arindam Das-Gupta, and M.S. Prasad (1991) “The Intertemporal and
Intersource Horizontal Equity of the Indian Income Tax: A Comparison of Tax Treatment in
Selected Assessment Years” Background paper for the Chelliah Committee, NIPFP, processed.
Bhatnagar, Dheeraj and Arindam Das-Gupta (2000) “Data Analysis Plan”, processed, New Delhi:
NIPFP.
Chattopadhyay, S. (2000) “Uses of Compliance Cost Studies”, processed, New Delhi: NIPFP.
Collard, David (1989), “Compliance Costs And Efficiency Costs Of Taxation”, Appendix in
Sandford, Cedric, Michael Godwin and P.J.W Hardwick,., Administrative and Compliance Costs of
Taxation, Fiscal Publications, Bath.
Dahlby, Bev (1998) “Progressive Taxation and the Social Marginal Cost of Public Funds”, Journal
of Public Economics, 67, 105-122.
Das-Gupta, Arindam (2000), “Evaluation Of Economic Costs of Compliance Requirements”,
processed, New Delhi: NIPFP.
Dean, Peter (1973), “Do You Pay Too Much Tax?”, in Sandford, C.T. Hidden Costs of Taxation,
London: IFS.
Dean Peter (1975), “Some Aspects Of Tax Operating Costs With Particular Reference To Personal
Taxation in the UK”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bath
Diaz C. and Maria Delgado (1995) , “The Compliance Costs of Personal Income Tax in Spain”, in
Sandford (Ed.), Tax Compliance Costs: Measurement and Policy, Fiscal Publications, Bath.
Fortin, Bernard and Guy Lacroix (1994) “Labour Supply, Tax Evasion and the Marginal Cost of
Public Funds: An Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Public Economics, 55, 407-431.
Godwin, Michael (1995) The Compliance Costs Of The United Kingdom Tax System, in Sandford
(Ed.), Tax Compliance Costs: Measurement and Policy, Fiscal Publications, Bath.
Green, Sue (1995), “Tax Compliance Costs: The Tax Practitioner’s Perspective”, in C. Sandford
(Ed.), Tax Compliance Costs: Measurement and Policy, Fiscal Publications, Bath.
Hasseldine, J.(1995), “Compliance costs of business taxes in New Zealand”, in C. Sandford (Ed.),
Tax Compliance Costs: Measurement and Policy, Fiscal Publications, Bath.
Kaplow, Louis (1995)”How tax complexity and enforcement affect the equity and efficiency of the
income tax”, NBER Working paper 5391.
Mayshar, Joram (1991) “Taxation with Costly Administration” Scandinavian Journal of Economics,
93, 75-88.
Poapongsakorn, Nipon, Kovit Charnvitayapong, Duangmanlee Laovakul and Bev Dahlby (2000) “A
Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Thailand Taxpayer Survey”, International Tax and Public Finance, 7, 6382.
Pope, J. (1995), “The compliance costs of major taxes in Australia”, in C. Sandford (Ed.), Tax
Compliance Costs: Measurement and Policy, Fiscal Publications, Bath.
Sandford, Cedric, Michael Godwin and P.J.W. Hardwick, (1989), Administrative and Compliance
Costs Of Taxation, Fiscal Publications, Bath.
141
Slemrod, Joel (1989)
Vaillancourt, F. (1995), “The evolution of compliance time of personal income tax-filers in Canada”, in
C. Sandford (Ed.), Tax Compliance Costs: Measurement and Policy, Fiscal Publications, Bath.
Zee, Howell (1995)”Taxation and equity”, in Parthasarathy Shome, Editor, Tax Policy Handbook,
Washington D.C: International Monetary Fund, 30-34.
142
109000
654842
8110902
671000
342417
350000
84500
1465000
57000
355400
20000
1030500
67951
0
0
352295
145230
62823
136140
1760000
50000
599800
80000
107495
1335688
402315
2100550
288000
1787936
300000
1087061
116747
442795
261947
6E+06
1E+06
1E+06
325507
644861
2E+06
254507
933497
8E+06
949603
2E+06
617087
440427
738358
1E+06
1E+07
575912
7E+06
5E+06
802862 6E+06
5E+06
2E+06
340993
1E+06
2E+07
343005 40619
2E+06
143
Total
Ratio
Total Marginal Cost
to the School
Income Property
Others
Tax
Tax
IN Rs.
Amount Spent
Public Finance Benefit
Excess Burden
TOTAL
116747
442795
3219887
261947
5713382
1343937
1432168.15
325507
644861
1581030.85
254507
933497
7737728.95
949602.85
1639734
617087
440427
738358
1008429.45
10986086.65
575911.7
7281063
5198957
6353906
4826477
1713986
340993
1367100
23656195
383624
1865355
0.933643
1.478883
2.519002
2.561587
0.059932
0.260429
0.059001
4.500671
0.088391
0.22479
0.078583
1.103914
0.008782
0
0
0.5709
0.329748
0.085085
0.135002
0.160203
0.086819
0.082378
0.015388
0.016918
0.276742
0.234725
6.160097
0.210665
0.07558
0.782016
0.582764
0.071073
-0.32381
-0.60302
-0.60962
15.68545
2.83982
15.94874
-0.77781
10.31335
3.448596
11.72535
-0.09413
112.8722
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.75162
2.032617
10.75299
6.407297
5.242095
10.51823
11.13915
63.98696
58.10885
2.613476
3.260308
-0.83766
3.746875
12.23101
0.278747
0.715962
1.0710733
0.6761860
0.3969826
0.3903830
16.685450
3.83982
16.948735
0.2221890
11.313350
4.4485955
12.72535
0.9058680
113.87218
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
1.7516200
3.0326172
11.752988
7.4072972
6.2420946
11.518234
12.139151
64.986962
59.108851
3.6134763
4.2603084
0.1623351
4.746875
13.231007
1.2787466
1.7159616
486400
0
1510672
1E+06 22715
95200
2E+06
25910917
144
1218117
95200
1548523
0.399305
0
0.975557
1.504352
#DIV/0!
0.025056
2.5043523
#DIV/0!
1.0250557
96813127.6 0.267638
2.736384
3.7363836