Why Evaluate Schemes?
Government schemes in education are large, complex and often overlapping. Evaluations help answer three simple questions: (1) Did the investment reach the intended people? (2) Did it produce measurable improvements (enrolment, retention, nutrition, learning)? (3) Is the intervention cost-effective and scalable? This post compares the flagship programmes using the latest available data and independent evaluation findings.
Methodology & Scope
- Focus: major centrally-sponsored/central schemes and flagship programmes that shape school education in India: Samagra Shiksha (including former SSA & RMSA), PM-POSHAN (Mid-Day Meal / MDM), Right to Education (RTE) Act, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV), Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (BBBP) and a brief look at PM-SHRI / STARS / scholarships.
- Evidence sources: official budget allocations and scheme manuals, national data (UDISE+/ASER-type outcome reports), parliamentary annexures and peer-reviewed or government evaluation reports.
- What “good/bad” means in tables: “Good” = consistent, reproducible evidence of intended outputs/outcomes (e.g., increased enrolment, regular meals, improved attendance); “Bad/limited” = weak evidence of outcome, poor implementation fidelity, weak monitoring, or unintended negative effects (e.g., learning stagnation despite high spending).
- Note: State schemes and off-book convergence (health, women & child development budgets) materially affect outcomes but are listed separately where relevant.
Quick Snapshot — budget scale (most recent central allocations)
| Scheme | Most recent central budgetary allocation (BE approx.) | Nature of funding |
|---|---|---|
| Samagra Shiksha (merged SSA + RMSA + TTI) | ₹37,500 crore (BE 2024–25) | Centrally sponsored scheme — states share norms vary |
| PM-POSHAN (Mid-Day Meal) | ₹12,467–12,500 crore (BE 2024–25 / 2025–26) | Centrally supported national feeding programme |
| PM-SHRI (school strengthening) | ₹6,050 crore (BE 2024–25) | Centrally sponsored school improvement scheme |
| STARS (World Bank assisted) / Scholarships & special projects | Variable (STARS ~₹1,250 Cr BE 2024–25) | Targeted, timebound programmes |
| Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (BBBP) component | District grants: ₹20/30/40 lakh per district/yr; central allocations vary yearly | Behaviour change & convergence; modest per-district funds |
(Figures reflect the Ministry of Education / budget documents and recent BE announcements for FY 2024–25 / 2025–26; they represent central allocations and DO NOT include all state co-funding or convergent line department spending.)
Comparative table — what each scheme aimed to do, what happened
| Scheme (launch year) | Primary objective | Measurable achievements (what worked) | Evidence / limitations (what didn’t) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Samagra Shiksha (2018; consolidates SSA 2000 & RMSA 2009) | Universal access, equity & quality from pre-primary to class XII; strengthen teachers, infrastructure, inclusive education | Large increases in basic access & infrastructure (more classrooms, toilets, ramps). Major financing consolidated; clear norms for teacher training & ECCE integration. | Learning outcomes still low in many states; UDISE shows enrolment stabilising, but ASER and other assessments show limited gains in foundational reading/math. Implementation uneven across states. |
| PM-POSHAN (Mid-Day Meal / MDM) (nationwide long-standing scheme; rebranded) | Improve nutrition & attendance; incentivise school participation via hot cooked meals | Strong evidence of improved attendance, reduced short-term hunger; positive impacts on some learning outcomes and nutritional markers in multiple studies. Large scale, well-institutionalised supply chain. | Nutritional quality and regularity vary by state/district. Some evidence of administrative leakages; program is necessary but not sufficient for learning gains. |
| Right to Education (RTE) Act (2009) | Free & compulsory education 6–14; norms on pupil-teacher ratio, infrastructure; 25% reservation in private schools | Sharp gains in enrolment; legal entitlements for access; increased focus on minimum school standards. | Evidence shows RTE quota students sometimes perform worse (integration, remedial support needed). Compliance and enforcement uneven; norms (e.g., PTR) not uniformly met. |
| Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) (2004) | Residential schools for out-of-school adolescent girls (SC/ST/others) to bring them back into education | Effective at reducing barriers for marginalized adolescent girls; residential model helps retention and secondary transition in many sites; positive qualitative outcomes for girl empowerment. | Variable quality across KGBVs; infrastructure/teacher gaps exist; outcomes depend on post-residential transition support. |
| Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (BBBP) (2015) | Arrest decline in child sex ratio and promote girls’ survival, protection & education via convergence | Raised awareness; several districts reported SRB improvements; created a convergence & IEC platform; some districts used funds for enrolment drives and campaigns. | Modest per-district funds (₹20–40 L/yr) limit scale; attribution to SRB improvement is difficult; long-term behaviour change and enforcement (PCPNDT) uneven. |
| PM-SHRI (2022) | Transform selected schools into model schools (infrastructure, learning, inclusive tech) | Upgrading of selected schools, focus on learning & holistic development; visible flagship activities and infrastructure improvements. | Limited reach (pilot number of schools); impact on learning yet to be systematically evaluated at scale. |
| Scholarship schemes (NMMS, state scholarships) | Reduce dropouts and support meritorious/poor students | Scholarships help continuation for targeted cohorts; NMMS gives incentive for secondary completion. | Coverage limited; many eligible students are not aware or don’t apply; evidence on learning gains mixed. |
Deep dive: What does the evidence say about outcomes?
1. Access & enrolment
- Massive success story: school access and enrolment improved dramatically after SSA and continued under Samagra Shiksha; out-of-school children for primary ages dropped sharply compared with pre-2000 levels.
- Caveat: Secondary enrolment improved over time but transition/completion rates vary widely by state and socio-economic group.
2. Nutrition & attendance (MDM / PM-POSHAN)
- Multiple studies (systematic reviews and country evaluations) show MDM improves attendance and short-term nutritional markers and can have a positive effect on cognitive outcomes when meals are regular and fortified. The re-branding to PM-POSHAN brought increased nutrition norms (fortified rice, expanded menu).
- Caveat: Impact on stunting and long-term cognitive outcomes is mixed and depends on complementary health interventions.
3. Learning outcomes (foundational skills)
- Alarming and persistent gap: large national learning assessments and ASER community surveys show low foundational reading and numeracy in many states despite schooling. This indicates that access (schooling) has not automatically translated into learning.
- Countries that show high learning (e.g., Finland, Singapore) combine smaller pupil-teacher ratios, strong teacher preparation, and focused early-grade pedagogy — areas that need more sustained investment in India.
4. Gendered outcomes & girls’ education
- Schemes targeted at girls (KGBV, BBBP, scholarships) improved enrolment and retention where implemented well. KGBVs show strong results when residential facilities, safe environment and transition support are present.
- Persistent challenge: intra-household barriers, safety, sanitation and costs (coaching) continue to affect dropouts and subject choices for girls.
Table — Evidence of impact (summary grading)
Grading explained: A = strong, reproducible positive evidence across studies; B = moderate evidence with caveats; C = mixed/limited evidence; D = little evidence of intended outcomes.
| Scheme | Outcome: Enrolment & Access | Outcome: Attendance/Nutrition | Outcome: Learning (foundational skills) | Implementation quality / Monitoring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samagra Shiksha (SSA+RMSA) | A | B | C | B (improved MIS but uneven) |
| PM-POSHAN (MDM) | A | A | B (some studies show learning gains) | B (logistics strong; quality varies) |
| RTE Act (2009) | A | B | C (integration & remedial gaps) | C (compliance issues) |
| KGBV | B (targeted access) | B | B (improved retention) | C (variable across districts) |
| BBBP | C (campaigns, targeted districts) | C | C (indirect for education) | C (small grants; convergence issues) |
| PM-SHRI | C (pilot & limited reach) | C | C (awaiting robust evaluation) | C (new scheme rollout) |
Why the biggest gap is learning — not access
Policy success in India has largely delivered access: classrooms, teachers, basic infrastructure and meals. But learning — measured by the ability to read a simple paragraph or do basic division — remains the elusive outcome. Reasons include:
- Teacher preparation & ongoing professional development not uniformly effective at changing classroom practice.
- High pupil-teacher ratios in many contexts and large multi-grade classes.
- Overemphasis on rote learning and exam preparation rather than foundational competencies.
- Insufficient focus on early grade pedagogy (Foundational Literacy & Numeracy) at scale until recently.
- Weak evaluation culture: few large, randomized or quasi-experimental studies have been embedded to identify what works at scale.
Common implementation challenges across schemes
- Convergence remains aspirational. Many programmes require Health, Education, WCD and local government coordination — but line-department budgets are rarely re-aligned to create durable convergence.
- Monitoring quality vs. quantity. UDISE/UDISE+ improved reporting but physical verification and learning monitoring (timely assessments) need strengthening.
- Capacity at district level. District Education Officers and Block staff are often understaffed or lack monitoring & evaluation capacity.
- Scale vs. fidelity trade-off. Flagship programme scaling often loses the fidelity that smaller pilots enjoyed.
- Targeting and leakage. Some benefits do not reach the most marginalized without active outreach and strong grievance redressal.
Recommendations — focusing investments for impact
- Shift 20–30% of incremental funding toward foundational learning interventions (early grade pedagogical coaches, teacher mentors, remedial programmes) with rigorous evaluation built in.
- Fund and scale high-quality teacher professional development tied to observed classroom practice (coaching, video-feedback, lesson study) rather than one-off training.
- Strengthen district MIS with citizen-facing dashboards that show school-level learning, fund use and meal delivery, giving civil society the tools to hold implementers accountable.
- Use conditional, evidence-backed pilots (e.g., teacher coaching + small PTR reductions) in high-need states and evaluate them with randomized/quasi-experimental methods before scaling.
- Integrate nutrition, health and learning data — e.g., PM-POSHAN actions targeted in schools with poor foundational learning to maximize cognitive returns on nutrition investments.
- Prioritise girls’ transition & safety: scale what worked in KGBVs (residential + transition support) and use BBBP funds to support rigorous community interventions plus strict PCPNDT enforcement where sex-ratio issues persist.
Practical checklist for an evaluation (for NGOs or district teams)
- Is the programme logic clear (inputs → outputs → outcomes)?
- Are baseline data and counterfactuals established before intervention?
- Is there an M&E budget and a plan for independent evaluation?
- Are financial flows transparent and published (district action plans, AWP&B)?
- Is the scheme integrated with state programmes (health, nutrition, social protection)?
- Are results disaggregated (gender, caste, location) so equity effects are visible?
Conclusion
India’s education story is mixed: spectacular successes in access and food security for schoolchildren, but stubborn and widespread learning deficits. Evaluations tell a coherent story: funding and bricks alone do not guarantee learning. If the next decade focuses investments on what changes classroom practice and learning for the most disadvantaged children — with rigorous evaluation and district capacity to act on evidence — India can convert the enormous public spending on education into real learning gains.