Appendix H — Program Atlas
First sector of the 236-sheet Atlas. Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the…
Read this chapter in the interactive reader, or download the full 601-page manifesto (PDF).
The People’s Model
Manifesto v2026
Volume III — Implementation Handbook
Appendix H — Program Atlas
Education sector — sheets H.001–H.018 + H.226 (v1.0)
First sector of the 236-sheet Atlas. Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the format-reference sector).
How to read the cost bands (applies to every sector’s sheets). Each sheet’s ‘Annual cost band’ states the total operating scale of that programme — including money already in the state budget baseline, central-scheme shares, and re-tagged existing spending — so a citizen can see what the programme costs to run, not only what is new. The sum of cost bands across sheets therefore intentionally exceeds the new-money envelope in Vol III App J, which counts only the incremental state commitment (5-year CAPEX + additional OPEX). App J Sec. J.3–J.4 is the authoritative statement of new money; the bands are the authoritative statement of programme scale.
About this document
This document carries 19 program design sheets — the Education sector of the 236-sheet Program Atlas that completes Volume III. Each sheet follows the standard 8-section template (Header, Problem ≤60 words, Program Design, Owning Agency, Funding Model, KPIs, Standard Risk Controls, Dependencies) and is intended to pass the 4-point quality bar (this document is the format-reference sector): all 8 sections present; cost / agency / KPI baselines are real numbers and sources; dependencies map correctly; safeguards name specific anti-capture mechanisms rather than generic monitoring.
This is the first of 12 sectors. It is the format-reference sector. The remaining 11 sectors — Health, Cities, Agriculture, Environment, Justice, Rural, Youth & Innovation, Cybersecurity, Inclusive Governance, Media, Equity — follow the same format.
Cost bands and KPI baselines in v1.0 are honest estimates against Karnataka 2025–26 references; department-confirmed figures replace them as they are received.
Problem
Many Karnataka children leave Grade 3 below grade-level on reading and numeracy. Every subsequent year compounds the gap, and learning gaps track to district, gender, and family income.
Program design
- Weekly grade-level FLN assessment in every government school.
- Block-level analysis of weak areas; targeted remediation in the same week.
- Re-assessment in the next cycle; trend published per school.
- Teacher coaching loop (Vol II Ch 7 Sec. 7.3) feeds remediation pedagogy.
- District Education Mission Team owns the loop end-to-end.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of School Education & Literacy (Karnataka)
Backup: Karnataka State School Quality Assessment Organisation (KSQAO)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹180–240 cr / year at full scale
Source: State Budget — School Education head; supplemented by NEP FLN Mission funds.
Payment trigger: Per-quarter assessment data published + remediation work-orders evidenced.
KPIs
- • % Grade 3 at or above grade-level (FLN) — baseline: Significant gap (KSQAO 2025); F: baseline published per district; B: ≥80%; C: ≥95%.
- • % schools running weekly FLN cycle — baseline: Low (informal); F: all govt schools in 5 pilot districts; B: statewide; C: 100% with audit.
- • Teacher coaching cadence per teacher — baseline: Sporadic; F: monthly in pilot blocks; B: monthly statewide; C: risk-targeted, with measurable lift.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Teaching-to-the-test gaming. Safeguard: Independent sample re-test by KSQAO; results published per district (Vol I Sec. 1.7 safeguard 8 — rating-triggered audit).
- • Risk: Data manipulation at school level. Safeguard: Sample-based external audit; school-level data published with version history (Vol III App D Sec. D.4).
- • Risk: Equity blind-spots in aggregate data. Safeguard: Disaggregation by gender, caste, language minority per Vol II Ch 18 Sec. 18.4 (sheet H.204).
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 2 (operating spine — Citizen Case File for the student).
- • Vol II Ch 7 Sec. 7.3 (learning improvement loop + teacher coaching loop).
- • App H sheets H.002 (Teacher Cadre), H.008 (Anganwadi 2.0), H.013 (Parent Partnership), H.016 (Dropout Prevention).
Problem
Teachers in Karnataka are overloaded with non-teaching tasks; classroom observation and micro-training are rare; performance signals do not return to the teacher in usable form.
Program design
- Single Teacher Professional Cadre with a published career path.
- District Teacher Academies for residential and short training.
- Classroom-observation-based coaching by trained mentors.
- Micro-training tied to observed gaps; follow-up within 30 days.
- Career progression on demonstrated practice, not seniority alone.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of School Education & Literacy
Backup: Diet/DSERT (State Council of Educational Research & Training)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹220–300 cr / year (academies, coaching, sabbatical)
Source: State Budget School Education head; Samagra Shiksha convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-quarter coaching-visit and certification evidence published.
KPIs
- • Mentor visits per teacher per year — baseline: Sporadic; F: ≥6 per teacher (pilot); B: ≥12 statewide; C: Risk-targeted with measurable lift.
- • % teachers with annual development plan — baseline: Limited; F: ≥70% in pilot districts; B: ≥95% statewide; C: 100% with quarterly review.
- • Teacher absence rate — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined per block; B: ≤5%; C: ≤3%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Coaching becomes adversarial inspection. Safeguard: Mentor cadre separate from inspection cadre; mentor data not shared as performance evidence (Vol I Sec. 3.7 safeguard 4 — separation inside execution).
- • Risk: Career-progression bias. Safeguard: Promotion panels publish decision reasons; representation safeguards from Vol II Ch 16 sheet H.177.
- • Risk: Cadre capture by training providers. Safeguard: Open bidder-floor procurement for training contracts (Vol I Sec. 1.7 safeguard 6); rotation of providers.
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 5 (Project Delivery Cadre as recruitment-process reference).
- • App H sheets H.001 (FLN coaching pedagogy), H.003 (school infra owner), H.015 (Sports & Arts pedagogy).
Problem
Karnataka has thousands of government schools; many have non-functional toilets, water, or electricity. Maintenance is the missing step in the public-project cycle for the school asset class.
Program design
- School Asset Registry integrated with the Works Corps (Vol I Ch 5).
- Critical-issue work orders prioritised; rapid-repair teams handle within published SLA.
- Maintenance schedule published per school.
- School Quality Index published quarterly per school.
- Citizen audit by parent committees (sheet H.013).
Owning agency
Lead: Public Works Department + School Education Dept.
Backup: Karnataka State Works Corps (district unit)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹300–450 cr / year (maintenance + critical-issue rectification)
Source: State Budget — School Education + PWD; maintenance-first allocation (Vol I Sec. 3.4).
Payment trigger: Asset-Registry work-order completion with geo-tagged evidence.
KPIs
- • Schools above facility-functionality threshold — baseline: Variable; many below; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: 100% sustained.
- • Critical-issue (water/sanitation/safety) repair median time — baseline: Patchy; F: ≤14 days; B: ≤7 days; C: ≤3 days.
- • Maintenance backlog reduction (asset-class) — baseline: High; F: stable; B: -50%; C: -90%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Inflated maintenance unit-costs. Safeguard: Published ward-wise / district-wise unit costs (Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.5); single-bid review (Vol I Sec. 1.7 safeguard 6).
- • Risk: Diversion of maintenance funds. Safeguard: Maintenance-first allocation ring-fenced (Vol I Sec. 3.4); diversion is an auditable event.
- • Risk: Manipulated evidence on completion. Safeguard: Geo-tag mismatch detection (App C RF-E-04); independent rotation of inspectors (App C RF-E-05).
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 5 (Works Corps + Asset Registry).
- • Vol II Ch 9 (Cities asset-management pattern reference).
- • App H sheets H.011 (School Transport Safety), H.034 (Clean Water/Sanitation for Health convergence).
Problem
Digital learning content in Karnataka schools is dominated by online platforms that exclude low-connectivity blocks. Children in those blocks fall further behind their connected peers.
Program design
- Open-licensed, offline-first content in Kannada + English (and minority languages).
- Sync-when-connected design; cache-on-server at school.
- Teacher-curation, not influencer-led.
- Integrated into the FLN Mission and Skill Labs.
- Hardware refresh tied to Asset Registry (sheet H.003).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of School Education & Literacy
Backup: DSERT + Karnataka State Wide Area Network team
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹80–120 cr / year
Source: State Budget; PMeVidya convergence; CSR (no editorial influence).
Payment trigger: Sync-evidence published per school per quarter; content adoption metrics.
KPIs
- • Schools with operational offline content cache — baseline: Low; F: ≥60%; B: ≥95%; C: 100%.
- • Content usage hours per student per week — baseline: (new); F: baselined; B: rising trajectory; C: embedded in FLN delivery.
- • Content available in Kannada / minority language — baseline: Limited minority coverage; F: Kannada coverage 100%; B: +5 minority languages; C: All Karnataka languages with sufficient corpora.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Content lock-in to a single vendor. Safeguard: Open licence requirement; bidder-floor on hardware contracts (Vol I Sec. 1.7 safeguard 6).
- • Risk: Hardware theft or non-maintenance. Safeguard: Asset Registry + maintenance contracts under the Works Corps (Vol III App F Sec. F.2.7 — Quality Lead).
- • Risk: Content bias / sectarian content. Safeguard: Independent academic board (Vol III Ch 21 Sec. 21.4 safeguard 1) certifies content.
Dependencies
- • Vol II Ch 15 (Cybersecurity for the content systems).
- • App H sheets H.001, H.007 (Skill Labs), H.014 (Library in every Panchayat).
Problem
Karnataka’s scholarships and fee waivers are often delayed and require repeated documentation. The poorest students bear the largest paperwork burden.
Program design
- Auto-eligibility on the Citizen Case File (Vol I Ch 2 — Citizen Case File subsystem).
- No re-application annually; status carries forward with proactive verification.
- Disbursement via the operating spine (Vol I Ch 2 — Open Ledger & Payments subsystem).
- Real-time tracking on the People’s App; Open Ledger publication of disbursement aggregates.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Backward Classes Welfare; SC/ST Welfare; Minorities Welfare; School Education (umbrella)
Backup: Karnataka Examinations Authority (for higher-ed merit channel)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹700–900 cr / year (consolidated, status quo coverage)
Source: State Budget; central scheme convergence (NSP).
Payment trigger: Eligibility verification on the spine + disbursement event.
KPIs
- • Scholarship disbursement on time (≤30 days from eligibility) — baseline: Delayed; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥99%.
- • Beneficiary inclusion error (eligible but uncovered) — baseline: Material; F: Baselined per district; B: ≤10%; C: ≤3%.
- • Beneficiary exclusion error / leakage (ineligible) — baseline: Material; F: Baselined; B: ≤5%; C: ≤2%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Ghost beneficiaries. Safeguard: Spine identity + consent-logged data access; bank-account-change protocol (Vol I Sec. 1.7 safeguard 7; App C RF-P-03).
- • Risk: Discretionary delays at the disbursement stage. Safeguard: Stop-the-line on milestone evidence; payment-delay anomaly detection (App C RF-P-04).
- • Risk: Caste/gender targeting gap. Safeguard: Equity audits (Vol II Ch 18 sheet H.204/H.205) on coverage per group.
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 2 (spine — Identity + Case File + Payments).
- • App H sheets H.166 (Vulnerability Case File), H.167 (Proactive Enrolment), H.017 (Higher Education Support).
Problem
Karnataka students often leave school without a clear path into skills, apprenticeships, or first jobs. First-generation aspirants from non-metropolitan areas pay the highest price.
Program design
- Career counsellor at every government PU and SS school (shared across clusters).
- Apprenticeship network with MSMEs, PSUs, the Works Corps, and government departments (sheet H.127).
- Stipend + placement tracking via the Citizen Case File.
- Bias toward first-generation learners and rural/tribal candidates.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship
Backup: Department of Higher Education
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹200–280 cr / year
Source: State Budget; convergence with National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme.
Payment trigger: Placement and stipend events on the Case File.
KPIs
- • Apprenticeship placements per cohort — baseline: Limited scale; F: Baselined; rising; B: Material scale-up; C: Karnataka leads peer states.
- • Completion rate of apprenticeship — baseline: Variable; F: ≥70%; B: ≥85%; C: ≥90%.
- • Post-10th destination known within 90 days — baseline: Patchy; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥98% within 60 days.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Ghost apprenticeships. Safeguard: Open Ledger publication of stipend disbursement; spine-linked verification.
- • Risk: Counsellor bias toward private placement providers. Safeguard: Rotation of provider panel; conflict-of-interest register (Vol I Sec. 1.7 safeguard 7).
- • Risk: Exploitative apprenticeship terms. Safeguard: Karnataka apprenticeship-employer compliance audit; right-to-exit guarantee on the Case File.
Dependencies
- • Vol II Ch 14 (Youth & Innovation).
- • App H sheets H.007 (Skill Labs), H.127 (Apprenticeship Guarantee Framework), H.141 (Career Counselling Atlas).
Problem
Karnataka students outside Bengaluru rarely access hands-on skill-building infrastructure. Innovation talent gets identified by accident, not by design.
Program design
- Skill Lab + Maker Space at the district headquarters of all 31 districts.
- Shared workshop facilities — electronics, fabrication, textiles, agri-tech.
- Open to school students, drop-outs, returners, and women’s SHGs.
- Integrated with sheets H.128 (Innovation Hubs) and H.133 (Maker-spaces).
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka Innovation Authority
Backup: Department of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹90–130 cr / year (steady state)
Source: State Budget; convergence with NIPUN India and DST funding.
Payment trigger: Asset commissioning + usage event log.
KPIs
- • Districts with operational Skill Lab — baseline: Limited (Bengaluru-centric); F: 8 districts; B: All 31; C: All 31 + sub-district expansion.
- • Active users per Lab per month — baseline: (new); F: ≥150 per Lab; B: ≥400 per Lab; C: ≥600 per Lab.
- • Verified maker project outcomes per year — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material output; C: Pipeline into Innovation Sandbox.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Equipment under-utilisation. Safeguard: Usage-event logging in the Asset Registry; rotation across user cohorts; published utilisation metrics.
- • Risk: Equipment theft. Safeguard: Asset Registry maintenance + insurance; community-anchored management.
- • Risk: Exclusion by language/literacy. Safeguard: Kannada-first signage and instruction; assisted-access operator (sheet H.169).
Dependencies
- • Vol II Ch 14 (Youth & Innovation).
- • App H sheets H.128, H.133, H.142 (Karnataka Civic Network).
Problem
Foundational learning starts before school. Karnataka’s Anganwadis serve children 3–5 unevenly; many have weak learning content, weak nutrition, and weak workforce support.
Program design
- Strengthened Anganwadi worker cadre with continuous training.
- Age-appropriate play-based curriculum integrated with FLN preparation.
- Daily nutrition standard with supply-chain on the State Essential Commodities pipeline.
- Linked Citizen Case File from Anganwadi enrolment → Grade 1 admission.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Women & Child Development
Backup: Karnataka State ICDS programme office
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹600–800 cr / year (incremental over baseline ICDS)
Source: State Budget + Central ICDS funds (Mission Saksham Anganwadi).
Payment trigger: Per-Anganwadi monthly data on attendance, nutrition, learning activities.
KPIs
- • Anganwadi worker training cadence — baseline: Sporadic; F: ≥2 days quarterly; B: ≥3 days quarterly; C: Continuous + observation-based.
- • Children with stunting on entry to Grade 1 — baseline: Above acceptable threshold; F: Baselined per block; B: Declining trajectory; C: At/below state target.
- • Anganwadi → school transition tracked on Case File — baseline: Patchy; F: Pilot in 5 districts; B: All districts; C: 100% with quality.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Supply-chain leakage for nutrition. Safeguard: Spine-linked stock tracking (sheet H.020 alignment); Vol I Sec. 1.7 safeguard 4 (Open Ledger).
- • Risk: Anganwadi worker overload (multiple programmes). Safeguard: Workload audit; cadre strengthening per sheet H.002 pattern.
- • Risk: Caste/community gatekeeping in enrolment. Safeguard: Inclusion-audit dashboards (sheet H.180); Anti-discrimination pathway (sheet H.176).
Dependencies
- • Vol II Ch 8 (Health × nutrition).
- • App H sheets H.020 (Essential supply chain), H.023 (Maternal & Child Health), H.033 (Nutrition Kitchens).
Problem
Attendance enforcement in Karnataka government schools often takes punitive forms — late-fines, public shaming, denial of meals — that disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable children.
Program design
- Attendance tracked on the Case File without disclosure of individual data publicly.
- Drop-attendance triggers a counsellor visit (sheet H.016), not a punishment.
- Mid-day meal entitlement decoupled from attendance threshold.
- Published attendance metrics aggregated to school level only.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of School Education & Literacy
Backup: Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹30–50 cr / year (counsellor cadre cost)
Source: State Budget; convergence with Samagra Shiksha.
Payment trigger: Attendance-data publication + counsellor-visit log.
KPIs
- • Average attendance rate per school — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined per block; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95%.
- • Attendance gap between at-risk groups and others — baseline: Material; F: Baselined; published per group (sheet H.205); B: Gap halved; C: Gap closed against statewide median.
- • Punitive-action complaints — baseline: (new); F: Reporting capacity stood up; B: Trending down with published response time; C: Near-zero with statutory remedy.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Surveillance creep. Safeguard: Aggregation-only publication; Citizen Data Trust review (Vol I Ch 6) of any individual-level use.
- • Risk: Stigma to non-attending children. Safeguard: Counsellor visit (not enforcement); right-to-explain on the Case File.
- • Risk: Manipulation of attendance by schools. Safeguard: Independent random visits; geo-tag mismatch detection.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.016 (Dropout Prevention), H.176 (Anti-Discrimination), H.205 (Gender Outcomes Audit).
Problem
Karnataka government schools are unevenly equipped for children with disabilities — assistive technology is scarce, sign-language and Braille support patchy, infrastructure inaccessible.
Program design
- Universal design standards in new school infrastructure (sheet H.003).
- Assistive-tech distribution through the spine (consent-based, case-file linked).
- Sign-language teachers and Braille-trained support staff in every district.
- Special-education teacher coaching loop with mentor visits.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of School Education & Literacy + Department of Disabled Welfare
Backup: Karnataka State Disability Department (institutional anchor)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹90–140 cr / year
Source: State Budget; convergence with central RPWD Act funds.
Payment trigger: Asset deployment + child-level service log (consent-protected).
KPIs
- • Schools meeting accessibility standard — baseline: Limited; F: ≥40%; B: ≥85%; C: 100%.
- • Children with documented disability receiving prescribed assistive aid — baseline: Sparse; F: Baselined per district; B: ≥80%; C: ≥95% within agreed turnaround.
- • Special-education teachers per district — baseline: Below need; F: Per-district plan published; B: Vacancy gap halved; C: Vacancy gap ≤5%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Asset misallocation. Safeguard: Citizen Case File visibility to the recipient; audit by Karnataka State Commission for Persons with Disabilities.
- • Risk: Tokenistic infrastructure. Safeguard: Independent accessibility audit (sheet H.180); UNCRPD-aligned standards.
- • Risk: Family stigma reducing uptake. Safeguard: Outreach via ASHA and Vulnerability Case File (sheet H.166).
Dependencies
- • Vol II Ch 16 (Inclusive Governance).
- • App H sheets H.163, H.165 (Assistive Devices), H.179 (Disability Department).
Problem
Karnataka children, especially in rural belts, travel to school in unsafe vehicles. Accidents and harassment incidents go under-reported and under-acted-on.
Program design
- Registered school-vehicle list with safety-certification (annual).
- Driver verification + behavioural training.
- GPS + parent-app visibility to route and arrival.
- Incident-reporting pathway on the People’s App; auto-escalation.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka State Transport Department + School Education
Backup: Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹50–80 cr / year (regulation + verification + small-grants)
Source: State Budget; partial cost recovery from vehicle-fitness fees.
Payment trigger: Certification log + incident-report response time.
KPIs
- • Registered & certified school-vehicle share — baseline: Patchy; F: ≥80% in pilot blocks; B: ≥95% statewide; C: 100%.
- • Verified driver share — baseline: Patchy; F: ≥90%; B: ≥98%; C: 100% with re-verification cycle.
- • Response time on incident report — baseline: (new); F: Median ≤48 h; B: ≤24 h; C: ≤8 h.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Certification capture / bribe-driven approvals. Safeguard: Rotation of inspectors (Vol I Sec. 1.7 safeguard 5); random third-party audit.
- • Risk: Harassment by drivers/staff. Safeguard: Statutory remedy through Grievance Justice Authority; whistleblower protection.
- • Risk: Cost passed to parents pushing children out. Safeguard: Fee-cap rules; assistance through scholarship sheet H.005.
Dependencies
- • Vol II Ch 9 sheet H.047 (Road Safety Urban Design); Vol I Ch 5 sheet for the Helmet Programme convergence.
- • App H sheets H.003 (Infrastructure), H.170 (Women’s Safety Network).
Problem
Karnataka examinations are periodically marred by paper leaks and irregularities. Public trust in the certification has declined.
Program design
- Versioned, secure question-bank with audit logging of access.
- Multi-track verification before paper print.
- Independent integrity-audit unit reporting to the Karnataka State Examinations Authority chair.
- Public reporting of integrity incidents with remediation.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) + Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (KSEEB)
Backup: Karnataka State Information Commission (transparency on aggregated data)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹40–60 cr / year (security + audit unit)
Source: State Budget; partial cost recovery from examination fees.
Payment trigger: Per-exam integrity report + incident-response time.
KPIs
- • Detected paper-leak / integrity incidents — baseline: Periodic; F: Reduction trajectory published; B: Material reduction; C: Below peer-state benchmark.
- • Incident-detection-to-disclosure time — baseline: Variable; F: ≤72 h; B: ≤24 h; C: ≤4 h.
- • Re-test or remedial action completion time after detected incident — baseline: Variable; F: ≤30 days; B: ≤14 days; C: ≤7 days.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Internal collusion. Safeguard: Officer rotation; multi-signature high-risk approvals (Vol I Sec. 3.7 safeguard 5); whistleblower protection.
- • Risk: Vendor (printing/logistics) capture. Safeguard: Open bidder-floor (Vol I Sec. 1.7 safeguard 6); rotating vendor panels; concentration-risk audit (App C RF-X-02).
- • Risk: Politicisation of integrity audits. Safeguard: Independent integrity unit; Citizen Data Trust certifies audit data.
Dependencies
- • Vol III Ch 19 (Political Framework — anti-corruption rules).
- • App H sheets H.108 (Justice Data Publication).
Problem
School Management Committees in Karnataka are often dormant; parental participation in governance is sporadic and frequently tokenistic.
Program design
- Activated SMC with statutory access to Asset Registry, work-orders, and aggregate learning data.
- Quarterly community-audit workshops with structured agenda.
- Citizen Case File visibility for parent on own child (consent-based).
- Grievance-pathway integration with the spine.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of School Education & Literacy
Backup: Karnataka State School Education Mission
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹30–50 cr / year (facilitation, training)
Source: State Budget; Samagra Shiksha convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-school per-quarter community-audit completion + grievance disposition.
KPIs
- • Schools with active SMC running quarterly audits — baseline: Low; F: ≥60% pilot districts; B: ≥90% statewide; C: ≥98%.
- • Parent participation rate at audit workshops — baseline: Patchy; F: Baselined per school; B: Rising trajectory; C: Continuous engagement.
- • Grievance-from-parent resolution within SLA — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95% with appeal pathway.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Capture by dominant local interests. Safeguard: Representation safeguards (Vol II Ch 16 sheets H.177–H.178); rotation of office-bearers.
- • Risk: Tokenistic participation. Safeguard: Time-bound documented agenda; published minutes; outcomes traced to action.
- • Risk: Backlash against parents who file grievances. Safeguard: Whistleblower protection extended to parents; Grievance Justice Authority remedy.
Dependencies
- • Vol III Ch 21 (Civic Literacy adult programmes).
- • App H sheets H.117 (Gram Sabha as Audit Body), H.215 (Public Reporting on Equity).
Problem
Reading culture in Karnataka has unevenly developed; many panchayats and small towns lack a functioning, well-stocked, language-rich public library.
Program design
- One Karnataka Library at the panchayat or cluster level — open to all ages.
- Bilingual + minority-language stock; open-licence digital titles.
- Trained librarian; community programming.
- Asset Registry + maintenance under the Works Corps.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Public Libraries (Karnataka)
Backup: Department of School Education & Literacy
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹110–150 cr / year (steady state)
Source: State Budget; partnerships (Pratham Books, open-licence content) — without editorial influence.
Payment trigger: Library commissioning + monthly footfall data.
KPIs
- • Panchayats / clusters with operational library — baseline: Patchy; F: +1,500 within Foundations; B: 100% panchayat coverage; C: 100% with quality.
- • Average footfall per library per week — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Rising trajectory; C: Sustained community use.
- • Books in Kannada / minority languages per library — baseline: Variable; F: Baseline floor + Kannada coverage; B: Minority-language floor met; C: Continuously refreshed catalogue.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Selection bias toward partisan content. Safeguard: Independent collection-development board; Vol III Ch 21 Sec. 21.4 safeguard 1 pattern.
- • Risk: Building decay. Safeguard: Asset Registry + maintenance contracts (sheet H.003).
- • Risk: Access exclusion (caste, gender, language). Safeguard: Inclusion-audit (sheet H.180); assisted-access operator pattern.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.004 (Digital Learning Commons), H.109 (Panchayat Service Centres).
Problem
Karnataka schools treat sports and arts as optional, leading to talent loss and reduced student well-being. Many districts have no functioning playground or arts space.
Program design
- Mandatory weekly hours; trained sport/art teachers per cluster.
- Inter-school competitions at panchayat, taluk, and district levels.
- Talent identification with linkage to State Sports Authority and arts academies.
- Asset Registry maintenance for playgrounds and arts spaces.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Youth Empowerment & Sports + School Education
Backup: Karnataka State Sports Authority; Karnataka Lalithakala Academy (arts)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹130–180 cr / year
Source: State Budget; PYKKA convergence; Khelo India.
Payment trigger: Per-school activity log + competition completion.
KPIs
- • Schools with functional playground + arts space — baseline: Variable; F: ≥70%; B: ≥95%; C: 100% with maintenance.
- • Children participating in inter-school activity per year — baseline: Patchy; F: Baselined; B: Material participation; C: Universal once-per-year minimum.
- • Identified talents transitioning to pathways — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Rising trajectory; C: Visible careers from public-school pipeline.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Gender exclusion in sport. Safeguard: Equity audit (sheet H.205); minimum guarantee for girls’ participation.
- • Risk: Equipment under-supply. Safeguard: Manufacturing Network (sheet H.040) for safety equipment; supply tracked on Open Ledger.
- • Risk: Talent identification bias. Safeguard: Independent panel rotation; published selection criteria.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.003 (Infrastructure), H.143 (Sports & Arts Talent ID — Youth chapter).
Problem
Karnataka loses learners disproportionately at Grade 8–10 and 10–PU transitions. Girls, first-generation learners, and tribal-area children pay the highest price.
Program design
- Early-warning signals from attendance + learning data + family situation.
- Counsellor home visit within published SLA.
- Support package — transport / scholarship / health referral / accommodation — assembled across schemes.
- Open case file until criteria met.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of School Education & Literacy
Backup: Karnataka State School Education Mission + District Education Mission Team
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹70–100 cr / year
Source: State Budget; Samagra Shiksha convergence.
Payment trigger: Case open + closure with verified outcome.
KPIs
- • Dropout rate at Grade 8–10 transition — baseline: Material in several districts; F: Decline trajectory published; B: -40% vs Foundations; C: -75% vs Foundations.
- • Cases opened from early-warning signal — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: All triggered signals acted on; C: Pattern-driven prevention.
- • Case-closure with retained learner — baseline: (new); F: ≥60%; B: ≥80%; C: ≥90%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Surveillance creep from early-warning data. Safeguard: Citizen Data Trust review of indicator design; minimum-data principle.
- • Risk: Counsellor cadre vacancy. Safeguard: Recruitment via Cadre framework (App F pattern); vacancy is itself an audit event.
- • Risk: Family-side resistance. Safeguard: Trained community engagement; respect for choice; right to refuse counsellor visit on the record.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.005 (Scholarship), H.011 (Transport), H.166 (Vulnerability Case File), H.170 (Women’s Safety).
Problem
Karnataka students with both merit and need often face cumulative cost barriers to higher education, especially outside metros. Talent loss across class and caste lines is significant.
Program design
- Auto-eligibility (need) + open competitive criteria (merit), both visible.
- Tuition, hostel, transport, and book support combined into a single package.
- Tracked through the Citizen Case File from school exit to graduation.
- Special-need stream for first-generation, tribal, and disability-status applicants.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Higher Education + Karnataka Examinations Authority
Backup: Karnataka State Higher Education Council
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹350–500 cr / year (consolidated)
Source: State Budget + central scheme convergence (NSP, post-matric scholarships).
Payment trigger: Per-quarter disbursement + retention evidence.
KPIs
- • Coverage of eligible candidates — baseline: Partial; F: Baselined per category; B: ≥85%; C: ≥95% within window.
- • Retention to graduation among supported cohort — baseline: (new); F: Baselined per institution; B: Rising trajectory; C: ≥85% completion.
- • Disbursement on time — baseline: Delayed; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥99%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Concentration of awards in a few institutions. Safeguard: Concentration-risk audit (App C RF-X-02); award allocation rules published.
- • Risk: Ghost beneficiaries. Safeguard: Spine-linked verification; payment-anomaly detection (App C RF-P-02/P-04).
- • Risk: Exclusion of vocational/skill streams. Safeguard: Parity with sheet H.006 apprenticeship pathway; cross-eligibility rules.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.005 (School Scholarship), H.006 (Career Guidance), H.166 (Vulnerability Case File).
Problem
Government schools in Karnataka are widely perceived as a second-best choice — a perception that compounds resource pressure and accelerates a private-school migration the state cannot afford to ignore.
Program design
- School Quality Index (Vol II Ch 7 Sec. 7.5) published per school, transparently comparable.
- Public commitment to a published improvement trajectory in low-rank schools.
- Visible investments in infrastructure, teachers, learning materials, sports/arts.
- Communications discipline (Vol II Ch 17) on outcomes, not announcements.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of School Education & Literacy
Backup: Karnataka State School Quality Assessment Organisation (KSQAO)
Funding model
Annual cost band: Embedded across sheets H.001–H.017 (no standalone budget)
Source: Convergence with all Education sheets; no separate spend.
Payment trigger: School Quality Index publication + tracked perception studies.
KPIs
- • Median School Quality Index of govt schools — baseline: Variable; below private-school median; F: Baselined and published; B: Rising trajectory; gap closing; C: Parity with private-school median for comparable cohort.
- • Net enrolment trend in government schools — baseline: Declining in places; F: Stabilised; B: Rising in delivered-improvement districts; C: Recovered to district population share.
- • Parent satisfaction (independent survey) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Rising trajectory; C: Top quartile across districts.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Vanity dashboards. Safeguard: Independent rating-triggered audits (Vol I Sec. 1.7 safeguard 8); KSQAO independence.
- • Risk: Cream-skimming admissions. Safeguard: Anti-discrimination pathway (sheet H.176); admission-rules audit.
- • Risk: Communications drift toward propaganda. Safeguard: Public Information Charter discipline (Vol II Ch 17 sheet H.181).
Dependencies
- • All H.001–H.017 sheets converge into this outcome sheet.
- • Vol II Ch 18 sheet H.211 (Education Outcome Recovery in Gap Blocks).
H.226 — Mandatory Community-Service Hours (school + college, NSS-style universal)
Problem
India’s existing community-service programmes (NSS, NCC) reach only the small minority of students who opt in. Most students complete school and college without any structured civic-engagement experience, despite the state needing the civic mass that a universal programme would build.
Program design
- Mandatory community-service hours tied to academic credit for ALL students — class 8 onwards at school, full Community Practicum semester at college (DHEC + KAI + all state-funded colleges).
- School level: ~40 hours/academic year (calibrate per grade in implementation).
- College level: one semester of credit; required for graduation; scheduled in 4th or 5th semester.
- Approved activities menu published: Deep Clean cleaning campaigns; library + KPB community programming support; museum field-assist; panchayat/ULB shadowing; environmental restoration; sanitation-worker shadow days (dignity-respecting); Project Delivery Cadre apprentice slots where age-appropriate.
- NO political-party activity as approved category — community service cannot be redirected into party work for any government of the day.
- NO caste-based assignment of activity types — student chooses from the menu.
- Community Service Log on JANATA Lifelong-learner role-card per student.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka Education Dept (school) + Karnataka Higher Education Authority (college) + Karnataka Public Service Bureau (activity coordination)
Backup: JANATA platform (Vol III Ch 22) + Citizen Data Trust ombudsperson (audit + grievance)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹300–500 cr / year statewide (coordination + activity-supervisor compensation + audit + minor materials)
Source: State Budget Education head; embedded in the existing per-student-per-year framework
Payment trigger: Per-student log entries + supervisor sign-off + activity-category mix per district (aggregate published)
KPIs
- • Student participation rate (hours completed within academic year) — baseline: <10% in NSS; F: ≥85%; B: ≥97%; C: 100%.
- • Approved-activity diversity per district (no single category exceeding 60%) — baseline: (new); F: ≥4 categories active; B: ≥6 categories active; C: ≥6 with no single category exceeding 40%.
- • Caste-based assignment patterns flagged in audit — baseline: (new); F: zero detected patterns; B: zero detected patterns sustained; C: same.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Token participation — students sign in without doing real work. Safeguard: supervisor sign-off + student reflection note + activity-photo evidence + annual independent audit.
- • Risk: Activities directed toward partisan ends. Safeguard: explicit ban on party-political activity as approved category; academic council (not ministry) approves new categories.
- • Risk: Activity-supervisor career incentives bias reporting. Safeguard: supervisors not graded on volume of student hours; rotating cross-district audit panels review activity-quality samples.
Dependencies
- • Vol II Ch 7 Sec. 7.4.9 (Mandatory Community-Service Hours canonical); Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.6.5 (Deep Clean cleaning campaign linkage); Vol II Ch 16 + Ch 18 (anti-caste-stigma protections).
- • Vol III Ch 22 (JANATA Lifelong-learner role-card); Vol III App I (durability via Karnataka Higher Education Network Authority Act + DHEC/KAI Acts).
Architecture cross-reference
Architecture cross-reference — sector sheets to architectural sheets
Each program sheet in this sector references the operating architecture defined in Vol I Ch 2 and App H CyberDPI sheets H.230–H.233. Specifically: financial flows from this sector’s programs are published through the Open Ledger (sector-specific data fields per App D) anchored to KSSL (sheet H.230). Time-series outcome data and sector dashboards are published on the Karnataka Open Data Portal (sheet H.233). Personal data flows (where applicable) are governed by the Citizen Consent Ledger (sheet H.232). Security audit and incident response across this sector’s systems falls under the statutory CSOC (sheet H.231).
H.001 — EDUCATION — Foundational Literacy & Numeracy Mission (Grades 1–3)
H.002 — EDUCATION — Teacher Professional Cadre & Continuous Training
H.003 — EDUCATION — School Infrastructure & Maintenance Guarantee
H.004 — EDUCATION — Digital Learning Commons (Offline-first)
H.005 — EDUCATION — Scholarship & Fee Support (Auto-Eligible)
H.006 — EDUCATION — Career Guidance & Apprenticeship Network
H.007 — EDUCATION — District Skill Labs & Maker Spaces
H.008 — EDUCATION — Early Childhood (Anganwadi 2.0)
H.009 — EDUCATION — Attendance Without Harassment
H.010 — EDUCATION — Special Needs Inclusion & Assistive Tech
H.011 — EDUCATION — School Transport Safety
H.012 — EDUCATION — Open Exams + Question Bank Integrity
H.013 — EDUCATION — Parent Partnership & Community Audit
H.014 — EDUCATION — Library in Every Panchayat
H.015 — EDUCATION — Sports & Arts as Core
H.016 — EDUCATION — Dropout Prevention Case Management
H.017 — EDUCATION — Merit + Need Based Higher Education Support
H.018 — EDUCATION — Government School as the Default Quality Option
← Appendix H — Program Atlas · Appendix H — Program Atlas →
This is a chapter of The People's Model manifesto for Karnataka — published in full for public review. Every claim may be challenged: write to [email protected].