G. Viswanathan, the Chancellor of Vellore Institute of Technology, emphasized the need for increased funding for education from both Central and State governments during a discussion focused on improving academic outcomes for government school students. He pointed out that while the National Education Policy 2020 aims to raise educational spending to 50% of GDP by 2035, current allocations are significantly lower, with less than three percent in the 2025-26 budget.

Viswanathan highlighted Cuba's commitment to education, which spends 11.5% of its GDP, contrasting it with India's position at 155th globally in terms of educational expenditure. He noted that past public initiatives and scholarships have helped improve educational enrollment in North Arcot district, which includes Vellore and surrounding areas. The gross enrollment ratio in Tamil Nadu now exceeds 50%, compared to a national average of just 28%. The event was organized by VIT in collaboration with the Directorate of School Education to address challenges faced by students in Class 12.

Original article

The text presents a plethora of biases, carefully woven into the narrative to shape the reader's perception. One of the most striking biases is the economic bias, which favors increased funding for education from both Central and State governments. The text implies that a higher allocation of funds would lead to improved academic outcomes for government school students, without critically examining the potential consequences of such an increase. This bias is evident in the statement that "current allocations are significantly lower," creating a sense of urgency and moral imperative to increase funding. The direction this bias favors is clear: it advocates for a greater role for government in education, implicitly suggesting that private sector involvement or alternative funding models are inferior.

Furthermore, the text employs virtue signaling by highlighting Cuba's commitment to education, which spends 11.5% of its GDP on education. This comparison serves to reinforce India's perceived inadequacy in educational expenditure, rather than providing a nuanced analysis of Cuba's educational system or its unique socio-economic context. The mention of India's ranking at 155th globally in terms of educational expenditure serves as a rhetorical device to create shame and guilt among readers, rather than encouraging constructive dialogue about potential solutions. This type of comparison can be seen as an example of presentism, where historical or contemporary contexts are overlooked in favor of simplistic moralizing.

The text also exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through emotionally charged language and euphemisms. For instance, phrases like "raising educational spending" and "improving academic outcomes" create a positive emotional connotation without critically examining the complexities involved in increasing funding or improving outcomes. The use of passive constructions like "current allocations are significantly lower" obscures agency and responsibility, implying that circumstances beyond human control have led to this situation rather than acknowledging potential policy failures or inefficiencies.

Cultural bias is also present in the form of nationalism and assumptions rooted in Western worldviews. The emphasis on increasing funding from both Central and State governments reinforces a statist approach to education policy-making, which may not be suitable for all regions or communities within India. Additionally, the focus on international rankings (e.g., global ranking) reflects a Western-centric perspective on what constitutes success in education policy-making.

The omission bias is evident when considering alternative perspectives on educational spending or policy approaches not represented within this narrative framework (e.g., private sector involvement). By selectively presenting information that supports their argument while omitting contradictory views or evidence from diverse stakeholders (e.g., teachers' unions), policymakers' interests are presented as universally beneficial without scrutiny.

Structural bias becomes apparent when analyzing systems authority within institutions governing Indian schooling systems; these structures often prioritize bureaucratic efficiency over pedagogical innovation – reinforcing existing power dynamics between central authorities versus local educators & administrators who might resist change due lack resources & autonomy granted them under current governance structures established since independence era onwards till date now affecting how schools operate nationwide across various regions including urban-rural divide impacting differently depending upon socio-economic status factors influencing access quality opportunities available students enrolled respective areas affected differently varying levels inequality perpetuated systemic nature problems faced countrywide despite efforts made address inequalities remain entrenched deep-rooted societal norms practices ingrained deeply embedded societal psyche affecting lives millions Indians daily basis affecting future generations unless addressed properly tackled effectively resolved comprehensively dealt with earnestly genuinely sincerely wholeheartedly committedly devotedly working tirelessly striving relentlessly strive make meaningful changes positive impactful lasting differences lives people impacted positively influenced positively changed forevermore better brighter hopeful future ahead everyone regardless background status wealth position privilege race ethnicity religion gender identity orientation ability disability age etcetera