Education in India

Recommendations of the National Seminar on Privatisation and Commercialisation of Higher Education

Here's an executive summary of the recommendations of the National Seminar on Privatization and Commercialization of Higher Education held on May, 2, 2006, as laid on the table in response to a question raised in Parliament.

LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 129 (answered on July 25, 2006)

129. SHRI GURUDAS DAS GUPTA, C.K. CHANDRAPPAN

Will the Minister of HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT be pleased to state:-
(a) whether the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA) has submitted its report to the Government on higher education; and
(b) if so, the recommendation made by the NIEPA alongwith the Government’s reaction thereto?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ( SHRI M.A.A. FATMI )
(a): Yes, Sir, the NIEPA has forwarded a report on a Seminar organized on the 2nd May, 2006 by the Institute on the theme of “ Privatization and Commercialization of Higher Education”.
(b): A summary of recommendations made at the Seminar is at Annexure-I. These recommendations are valuable inputs in formulating policies, as well as appropriate laws, in regard to preventing commercialization.

ANNEXURE-I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Recommendations

The executive summary of the recommendations of the National Seminar on Privatization and Commercialization of Higher Education held on May, 2, 2006, arising out of the background paper and the deliberations during the seminar, is presented below.

1. The objectives of higher education and basic research for any society, particularly one striving to grow into a knowledge society, are not only to address the knowledge needs of the present time, but also to project the knowledge needs of the future, as far as possible. In fact, a knowledge society needs creative minds in the sciences and the humanities that are not confined within narrow boundaries set by either the current market trends in the private sector or the policy commitments in the government sector, binding though they may be in the short run. It is the responsibility of the state to try to determine the futuristic vision with the help of identified groups of knowledge workers, and influence the course of development in pursuit of that vision with appropriate funding.
2. The State is primarily responsible for ensuring quality education at all levels and in all regions. This would entail strengthening of public institutions as also their quantitative expansion. It is evidently the obligation of the state to find ways and means of raising public resources for higher education as per the recommendations of (a) the CABE Committee Report on financing of Higher & Technical Education and (b) the Tapas Majumdar Committee Report on National Common Minimum Programme's Commitment of 6% GDP to Education.
3. The philanthropic tradition in Indian higher education has been always active and institutions sponsored by it therefore should be promoted. An incentive system in terms of tax concessions, land grants and transparent rules should be laid down so as to attract private participation in higher education. Industry may be encouraged to provide research grants relevant to appropriate technological change. Educational funds for various specific purposes may be floated by seeking contributions from likely private sources and the management of funds should be in the hands of academic/processional bodies. Some of the private higher education institutions with a proven track record of excellence should be identified and promoted.
4. During recent years, private initiative in higher education became almost unavoidable. At the same time, there was increasing pressure in favour of expansion. Since the courts permitted the institutions to charge students in full in certain cases, a large number of new institutions came to be opened. This in turn created a fresh set of problems and all of them have not been taken care of yet. This much is clear by now that the private sector of education has come into existence alongside the governmental sector. One of the problems that need to be taken care of is how the two should co-exist. Secondly, there is the problem of commercialization.
5. Commercialization is manifestating itself in a variety of forms such as the full recovery of the cost of higher education in government and government aided institutions; high fees in self-financing private processional colleges, deemed and private universities; high fees charged in unrecognized private institutions offering foreign degrees in collaboration with foreign universities etc. Commercialization, therefore, needs to be unambiguously defined with a view to containing it.
6. Commercialization of higher education can have adverse implications, both in terms of access and equity. It may even create internal imbalances and distortions in higher education such as excessive importance to the IT - related sector at the cost of the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Commodification of education, research and knowledge will not serve the long range interests of the nation. It could lead to truncated growth and lop sided development of higher education. The applied aspects may acquire importance at the cost of other dimensions, thus neglecting vast pools of traditional knowledge acquired over the centuries. Therefore, commercialization needs to be controlled.
7. A system to regulate commercialization should be put in place by the Central and State governments in coordination with each other. If the Central government so desires, it may lay down constitutional provisions to regulate commercialization. A suitable framework in respect of specific issues can be imposed by legislation, if necessary, and its implementation may be ensured through various regulatory bodies.
8. Foreign universities are promoting the process of privatization and fuelling commercialization. Issues like regulation by the various professional bodies to control fees, fine tune quality and suitable legislation for the entry of foreign universities would have to be immediately attended to.
9. Private non-government institutions may be permitted to generate a fair surplus without indulging in unfair practices and the surplus so generated should be ploughed back for the upgradation of the institution. These institutions should be made to submit a copy of their quarterly accounts to their respective states for audit.
10. Distance education is yet another area where potential of commercialization are quite high because of diverse nature of suppliers offering variegated programmes with little control by the regulatory bodies. Today, the quality of distance education is both unsatisfactory and uneven. This is largely because it is not clear who controls what. Both the UGC and the IGNOU operate in different ways and sometimes at cross purposes with each other. The role of foreign universities also contributes to this phenomenon. It is a matter of urgency therefore that this confusion is removed and responsibilities are allocated in a rational and constructive manner.
11. There if an urgent need to evolve a proper coordination mechanism amongst the various regulatory bodies in order to determine issues such as fees, admission, procedures, the quality of education, future directions etc.
12. Periodic accreditation of all institutions of higher learning should be made mandatory for the purpose of ensuring quality. It is matter of utmost urgency that each new institution is accredited not later than one year of it being started. In case the relevant professional agencies are unable to meet this demand, these bodies may either be strengthened or some partner agencies with established credibility may be identified and entrusted with the responsibility of carrying out accreditation.
13. Whenever an institution is found in default of the norms laid down by the relevant controlling authority, the latter shall have the right to impose a financial penalty for each default. This should apply to all institutions, including those controlled by the government. The amount chargeable should be laid down in advance at the time of laying down the norms. If an institution more than twice commits the default, the institutions should be debarred from running the courses, as the case might be.

Azim Premji Foundation to run 50,000 government schools in Karnataka? Unlikely

Yes, that's what a recent report in the Star of Mysore claimed.

[The Karnataka State Government] has prepared documents to hand over 50,000 Government schools to Premji Foundation of Azim Premji, Chairman of WIPRO, from the present academic year, it is learnt. Premji, who has consented to the offer of the Government in a written agreement, is said to have put forward some conditions.

The Government schools which were established by the kings of the State for the benefit and development of rural and poor students are in a pathetic condition now. These schools will come under the control of Premji from June 1 this year and will be managed by his enterprise WIPRO. All the Government schools which has classes from one to ten will be managed by WIPRO and the employees of Primary and Higher Education Department will become its employees in every sense.

The Government is also learnt to have agreed to part with the Centre's Rs. 1,500 crore annual grant for the schools to Premji Foundation along with all the benefits from the State Government.

The Deccan Herald (April 03, 2007) carried a denial of any such proposal.

Mr T M Vijayabhaskar, Secretary of Primary & Secondary Education categorically denied reports that the government plans to hand over 50,000 government schools to Premji Foundation.

I'd take the denial at face value. I doubt if the Government could have disbursed Rs. 1,500 crores without enough discussion and debate. Equally, I doubt if the Azim Premji Foundation would have agreed to take on 50,000 schools at one shot. That is simply too much to bite off and chew, at one shot.

But the idea of the "proposal" raises some interesting questions. First let's look at the facts. According to data on the web site of School Education department of the Karnataka Government  (web site currently not accessible -  data taken from Google's cache),

There are a total of 54,529 primary schools in Karnataka as of 2005-06, of which there are

27,017 Lower Primary Schools (LPS), and
27,512 Higher Primary Schools (HPS).

There are a total of 9,498 secondary schools in Karnataka as of 2005-06, of which there are

3,335 Government schools,
2,700 Aided schools, and
3,463 Unaided schools

This adds up to a total of 64,027 schools in the state. So if 50,000 schools are to be handed over the Azim Premji Foundation, that would amount to 78% of all primary and secondary schools in Karanataka.

The total outlay for general education for Karnataka for 2006-07 was Rs. 5103.3 crores. Out of this, the allocation for school education for 2006-07 amounts to Rs. 4,465.1 crores, about 87.5% of the total outlay for education. The school education outlay further splits into
2,924.5 crores for elementary education (which is 57.31% of the total education outlay)
1,540.7 crores for secondary education (which is 30.18% of the total education outlay)

So if the Karnataka Government is to give Rs. 1,500 crores to the Azim Premji Foundation as claimed, that would amount to about 33.6% of the total annual school education budget.

The Annual report for 2005-06 of the Department of Public Instruction of the Government of Karnataka (web site currently not accessible -  data taken from Google's cache) lists the state's educational goals for the next three years as follows:

1. Increasing the State’s literacy rate upto to 80%.
2. Reducing the school dropout rate by 50% from the present dropout rate at the elementary stage.
3. Ensuring that all children in the age group of 6-14 (both, children who have not been admitted and those who have dropped out join school, complete 5 years of schooling and attain minimum levels of learning.
4. Improving teachers’ learning and teaching standards, which will result in competent teaching.
5. Bringing about a qualitative change by, incorporating educational reforms.
6. Ensuring progressive community involvement.
7. Bringing all children who have dropped out and who have not been admitted to school, into the mainstream through special bridge course program.

and also states that the school drop out rates in 2004-05 (2003-04 in brackets) were as follows:

Classes I-V   :    9.33%  (  8.83%)
Classes I-VII :  14.47%  (28.94%)
Classes I-X   :  55.67%  (59.61%)

To meet its three year goals, what can the Government do? It has two options.

Option A: The Government could try and set up and run the schools by itself, taking on the challenge not just of providing the funding, but also ensuring that the schools are run effectively (meeting the learning goals) and efficiently at (minimum cost).

Option B: The Government could provide the funding (through a budgetary allocation) but take the help of non-government organisations (like say the Azim Premji Foundation) by contracting such organisations to run the schools effectively and efficiently and hold these organisations to their promises and commitments and incentivise or penalise them appropriately.

It does not have to rely wholly on Option A or Option B - indeed it will have to be a mix of both. The degree of the mix will need to be determined as we go along, but a start has to be made.

If the Government was indeed planning to try Option B, it could start by handing over just 50-100 schools each to the Azim Premji Foundation and other such NGOs for a period of three years, and then benchmark the results with all the other Government schools run by the Government. Based on these results, the Government could moot the possibility of expanding Option B or not.