Will this be the budget that transforms education?

The proposed budget for FY2026-27 indicates a welcome shift in language to back up the government’s electoral promise to gradually increase public investment in education. The education sector allocation of Tk 1,36,606 crore, compared to the Tk 87,206 crore in the outgoing fiscal year, shows an increase of about 56.6 percent. For a country long criticised for its underinvestment in education, this increase signals a political recognition of education as a priority sector.

The budget message labels education not merely as a certificate production entity but as the foundation of national reconstruction, productivity, social equity, and an employment-orientated economy. Focus has been given to skills, values, creativity, innovation, technical education, third language learning, technology-enabled classrooms, research, and industry-academia collaboration. The investment is aimed at turning students into human capital. The government also wants to increase education allocation to five percent of GDP over the next five years to bring Bangladesh closer to international education financing expectations. The proposed increase can be considered a first instalment, not a destination.

Having said that, we need greater clarity with numbers. The proposed total budget is Tk 9,38,000 crore, with a development expenditure of Tk 3,16,075 crore, including an Annual Development Programme (ADP) of Tk 3,00,000 crore. Among the three education divisions, the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education will receive Tk 46,738 crore, the Secondary and Higher Education Division Tk 57,301 crore, and the Technical and Madrasa Education Division Tk 18,457 crore. Together, these three add up to Tk 122,496 crore against the announced amount of Tk 136,606 crore for the education sector. The difference may arise from allocations for other divisions. A reformist education budget must maintain transparency.

It is good to see that the increased allocation for primary education has created an opportunity to address foundational learning, nutrition, attendance, disability inclusion, and classroom readiness. The inclusion of free school uniforms and kits for poor students is a welcome measure as this move is likely to reduce dropout and improve participation. The objective for secondary education is quite ambitious. The policy includes competency-based learning, analytical thinking, ethics, values, sports, culture, and co-curricular development. The expectation is to move away from rote learning. The reality is that implementing such a pedagogical approach will require massive teacher preparation, a complete rehaul of the assessment system, and school-level academic support. One hopes that the government will allocate the necessary funding for teacher capacity development to integrate the planned curriculum.

The budget is equally ambitious for technical and vocational education. It proposes the progressive introduction of technical education from Class VI, with at least one market-relevant skill for every student in ICT, electrical work, electronics, graphic design, tourism, healthcare, construction, agriculture, and the creative industries. Connecting schooling with livelihood is one of the strongest parts of the budget philosophy. Then again, its success will depend on trainers and regional labour-market mapping.

There is a deliberate vision to mainstream madrasa education by strengthening science, mathematics, English, IT, employment-orientated training, digital education, and modern learning materials as part of the curriculum. This shows that the government is envisioning madrasa reform as capability enhancement.

For higher education, the budget has all the right jargon in place: research and innovation, international credit transfer, student exchange, summer schools, visiting scholars, joint research, industry-academia collaboration, internships, startups, and skills development centres jointly established by universities and industry. However, the budget does not yet show a sufficiently clear higher education reform architecture. Will the University Grants Commission (UGC) remain a grant-issuing authority tied to the education ministry, or will it become a more empowered higher education regulator? How will public universities be held accountable for research productivity? Will private universities be included in national research, innovation, and internationalisation schemes? How will accreditation, graduate employability, and academic quality be funded and measured? The budget needs to clarify its approach towards the private sector. This is a sector that can potentially stop brain drain and keep foreign currency from being sent abroad. What incentives can the government provide to onboard the private sector as a partner in the growth of the higher education sector?

The government’s decision to withdraw from infrastructure-centred spending and direct it towards qualitative improvements can usher in sustainable changes. Education expenditure should not be an option where ceremonial ribbon cuttings and foundation stones are more important than learning outcomes. The challenge now is to ensure quality, governance, and implementation. One top priority should be to create reliable data. Experience tells us data is often aligned with political dictation, which in turn impacts implementation and false expectations.

The education budget creates at least five prospects. First, reducing the financing gap will help attain the SDG benchmark. Second, it places teacher development, including those from remote and peripheral areas, at the centre of quality improvement. Third, it recognises skills and employability as national priorities, not as vocational fringe exercises. Fourth, it rightly connects education with technology, including Edu-ID, digital libraries, AI, robotics, coding, and digital literacy. Fifth, it introduces a more international outlook through third language learning, credit transfer, student exchange, visiting scholars, and joint research. These approaches resonate with the country’s pursuit of demographic dividend.

However, these figures will only be effective if the budget deficit of Tk 243,000 crore is met. Otherwise, education promises may face mid-year compression. The other risk involves absorptive capacity. The allocation spike faces the risk of rushed spending, weak procurement, and poorly monitored projects. At a recent meeting, I heard that most administrative leaders struggle with bureaucratic entanglements. They complained that they have to spend most of their time in the secretariat rather than in their respective universities chasing fund release. Another risk involves fragmentation as Bangladesh’s education system is divided into multiple entities. The reform agenda must find a coordination mechanism to avoid overlapping as well as resource maximisation. The success of the budget depends on the capacity of the teachers. Instead of political consideration, the government must strengthen the teacher recruitment process and in-service training initiatives. The final risk is equity: all marginal groups must have a fair share of the education budget. It will be useful to have a transparent dashboard where all education-budget annexes are displayed.

Finally, there has to be a clear chain between the primary, secondary and tertiary. The primary and secondary should provide the intellectual basis for higher education. Universities need to move beyond being their teaching-only entity to becoming knowledge creation hubs. The competitive research and innovation fund should be open to both public and qualified private universities. The UGC can track quality assurance, accreditation, internationalisation, research productivity, and graduate employability to reward or punish the institutions.

The FY2026-27 education budget is expansionary and philosophically ambitious, recognising education as the foundation of human development, productivity, equity, and democratic nation-building. It has no shortage of aspiration. Greater operational clarity will help its execution. It’s time for us to see education as the country’s main development engine.

Dr Shamsad Mortuza is vice-chancellor at the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (ULAB).

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.