Page 377 - DEDU503_EDUCATIONAL_MANAGEMENT_ENGLISH

Unit 29: IIEP as an Apex Body in Educational Planning and Management

to make macro plans strategic. It was evident from the general policy to do something in every Notes
sector or for every programme during the first three Five-Year Plans (1951 to 1966) with the result
that the meagre resources available were spread thinly over a very large area.
In free India, however, education, has always remained an integral part of the overall economic
planning and as such, its evolution should he seen in the context of changes that have taken place
in the overall economic planning practices. Alter independence, India adopted a multi-level planning
framework and efforts were made to create necessary institutional arrangements at national, state
and district levels for institutionalizing planning. Accordingly, the Planning Commission was created
at the national level and State Planning Boards at the provincial level that facilitated development
of national and state level plans. During the third Five-Year Plan (FYP, 1961-66) efforts were made
to develop district and block level plans for rural development. In 1969, the Planning Commission
issued guidelines for preparing district plans. Realizing the fact that the necessary planning machinery
and expertise were absent at district and sub-district levels, measures in the 1970s aimed at
strengthening state level planning. In 1984, the Planning Commission recognized the district as the
viable unit for planning and management of development programmes, and accordingly, developed
guidelines for district planning. The seventh FYP (1985-90) adopted decentralized planning up to
the district level as one of the major strategies to achieve plan targets. The importance of
decentralization as a development strategy in education was widely appreciated by the central and
state governments in the 1980s and it was adopted as one of the measures to improve equity in
achievement in school education.

To promote decentralized planning in education, the National Policy on Education (1986) envisaged
establishment of the District Board of Education (DBE) at the district level. The Central Advisory
Board of Education (CABE) Committee on decentralized management of education further
emphasized the need for integrating educational planning and management efforts with the Panchayati
Raj Institutions (PRIs). Though the 1 FYP recognized the need for a disaggregated planning exercise
st
through a process of democratic decentralization incorporating the idea of the village plan and of
District Development Councils (DDCs), democratic decentralization was given a boost with the
enactment of the 73 and 74 Constitutional Amendments during the 9 FYP in 1992. With the 73 rd
th
th
rd
th
and 74 Constitutional Amendments, decentralized planning became a constitutional mandate.
Accordingly, Article 243ZD of the Constitution provided for the creation of District Planning
Committees (DPCs). The “principle of subsidiary” became the cardinal consideration in multi-level
planning framework. The report of the Working Group on Elementary and Adult Education (2001)
of the Planning Commission also considered decentralized planning (i.e. planning at the district
level and local level planning techniques such as school mapping and the micro planning) critical
for achieving the tenth FYP targets.
Though policy initiatives were taken in the 1980s and Constitutional provisions made in the early
1990s to facilitate educational decentralization, the actual decentralized planning process in education
was initiated in the early 1990s with the implementation of externally funded basic education
development programmes, particularly the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP). It may
be noted that, while, in principle, planning and administration of school education has been
decentralized up to the district level and a greater role of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and
Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) envisaged in the educational governance; in practice, decentralized
planning practices are limited to literacy and basic education sub-sectors. Planning at the secondary
and tertiary education sub-sectors continues to be centralized and mostly based on past trends and
political processes. Considering privatization as a form of decentralization, decentralization of general
secondary education becomes more visible mostly in urban areas where private unaided institutions
mushroomed in response to increased social demand for quality education. However, private aided
secondary institutions established mostly through community in the DEEP.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 371