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.

Challenge the dogma of the educational establishment, or else....

The dogma of the educational establishment is a serious threat to our ability to provide higher education for all to ensure the country's continued growth. Here's a taste of the the dogma.

Even as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is seeking more private investment in higher education, educationists want privatisation to be restricted "to the minimum desirable level." Also, they have called for a tax on the industry to raise resources for higher education.

Such is their angst against privatisation and commercialisation of higher education that the majority view at a recent meeting on the issue - organised by the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (on May 2 2005) - favoured a law banning such commercialisation. "All commercialisation of education, which should be unambiguously defined, should be banned by a suitable act of Parliament." This was one of the recommendations of the meeting of 64 eminent educationists here earlier this week.

However, they are not closed to the idea of private participation. "Private investors in education may be encouraged. However, it must be made clear that this cannot be for profit-making purposes, in however disguised a form. Further, the entry of the private sector cannot be seen as a solution to all the various problems of quantity and quality," the educationists noted in their recommendations submitted to the Government.

One of their grouses against privatisation was its market-orientation. "Commodification of education may lead to excessive emphasis on skill, employment and corporate-oriented education" at the cost of basic sciences and the vast pool of traditional knowledge, thereby creating an imbalance among various streams of learning.

Given the inevitability of private initiative in the Indian context, they said Article 19(6) of the Constitution should be invoked to ensure a holistic development of higher education, and prevent commodification and profiteering. Article 19(6) allows the State to put "reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of the right to establish and run educational institutions conferred under Article 19(g) - the freedom to practise any profession, carry on any occupation, trade or business.

says a report in The Hindu (May 06, 2005) about a National Seminar on Privatization and Commercialization of Higher Education organised by NIEPA on May 2, 2006 at the India International Centre ( IIC), New Delhi. Surprisingly, no newspaper other than The Hindu has thought it worthwhile to report on this. It would be interesting to find out who the 64 educationists mentioned are and how many of them were part of the majority view and how many of them (and who) were the dissenters, if at all. If anyone has access to a detailed report of the seminar proceedings, please post it.

Let's consider what the eminent educationists are supposed to have said (marked in red) and look a bit deeper at the implications of what they're saying.

• educationists want privatisation to be restricted "to the minimum desirable level."

  The State has, over the past 58 years, been unable to create enough opportunities to provide higher education for all through state funding alone and has pretty much abdicated its responsibility to the private sector. How many new state funded higher education institutions have been set up in the last ten years when compared to the number of new institutions set up in the private sector in the same period? Why should privatisation be restricted to a minimum desirable level, when the State is unable to meet the demand?

  The educationists seem to be so steeped in dogma about the role of the state and the role of the private sector that they are losing sight of the ends (providing education for all) and getting caught up with the means (keeping the private sector out and letting only the State do everything at its own glacial pace, even if it means the objective is becoming unattainable). We left this mindset behind when the economy was liberalised in 1991, but it continues to haunt us in the education sector. Rapid growth of Industry and Services since 1991 is testimony to the success of economic liberalisation. Educational liberalisation can result in rapid growth of educational opportunities, likewise.

  There's also the other issue of what is the "minimum desirable level" of private participation? Who is to define this? There can be no easy consensus on such an issue.

• they have called for a tax on the industry to raise resources for higher education.

  While in general, raising taxes to fund education is the way to go, we need to do the sums. What will be the extent of fresh taxation, how much will that raise and what will be impact of the taxes on the economy? Will the money raised through fresh taxes be sufficient to increase the supply of education to meet the huge, pent up demand? It's one thing to speak in general terms about taxes, but specific proposals doing the sums need to be put forward and debated.

• the majority view at a recent meeting on the issue favoured a law banning such commercialisation. "All commercialisation of education, which should be unambiguously defined, should be banned by a suitable act of Parliament." This was one of the recommendations of the meeting of 64 eminent educationists here earlier this week.

  What is commercialisation? The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines
  - Commercialisation as "manage or exploit in a way designed to make a profit"
  - Profit as "a financial gain, especially the difference between an initial outlay and the subsequent amount earned", and
  - Profiteering as "making an excessive or unfair profit"

  These words are going to be widely used in debating the dogma and need to be understood well by all.

  An educational institution spends money on infrastructure and salaries to provide an education to students and expects to get paid by students in the form of fees for the service provided. If the fees cover all of the institution's expenditure, that would be ideal. More often than not, the fees cover only part of the expenditure and the institution has to balance the shortfall from other sources in the form of grants from the State or other types of income. If the State had no shortage of funds, it could bridge the shortfall in all institutions through grants and subsidies and there would be no problem at all in keeping fees very low and yet providing education for all. But with the State not having enough funds to meet the shortfall in existing institutions, where is it going to find the necessary funds to set up new institutions?

  We're only talking about higher education here - the State has a far bigger challenge to find the funds to address the far more important task of providing free school education for all children.

  If the ultimate objective is to provide educational opportunities for all, something no one can or will disagree with, there is no alternative to relying on the private sector to invest in expanding the supply of educational opportunities.

• However, they are not closed to the idea of private participation. "Private investors in education may be encouraged. However, it must be made clear that this cannot be for profit-making purposes, in however disguised a form. Further, the entry of the private sector cannot be seen as a solution to all the various problems of quantity and quality," the educationists noted in their recommendations submitted to the Government.

  How can the the private sector be encouraged to participate in increasing the supply of education on the one hand, while the other hand is forcing them to operate at a loss? I'm sure the eminent educationists all understand economics and incentives, but their dogma is so strong that they believe the private sector will do their bidding. If a private sector educational institution cannot at the least recover its costs, it will have to close down. The private sector won't even be interested in getting involved in the first place. At the least, private institutions must be allowed to be "commercial" i.e. they must be allowed to break-even or make a small fair profit, which would be the difference between the money spent and the money earned. If they are allowed to do so transparently, there would be no need to disguise their profit. Like prohibition, by outlawing for-profit education, the State has not been able to arrest it - it has only driven it underground. In fact, not just commercialisation (fair profit), even profiteering is rampant today - only not overtly.

  But if private institutions begin profiteering and give short shrift to quality, that should certainly be stopped. That is where the State needs to play a crucial role, something it has been remiss in not doing so far.

  Good regulation is the solution to doing away with profiteering and poor quality. The State must set up an independent, autonomous regulator to regulate all private and public higher education institutions to ensure quality and transparency and prevent profiteering. The State did so in the telecom sector by setting up the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to ensure basic quality of services as well as keep the prices of telecom services provided by both public and private operators at reasonable levels. It needs to do the same in the education sector and regulate quality, not growth of supply.

  The group of eminent educationists should be urged to take note of the excellent job quietly being done by the Directorate General of Shipping, the regulator of both publicly and privately funded maritime education institutions in India. Not only has the DGS decided to make it mandatory for all maritime education institutions to get themselves rated by independent rating agencies (CRISIL, ICRA and CARE), but it has also introduced exit examinations for students graduating from the institutions. The exit examinations will be conducted not by DGS but "by professional bodies in an open, fair, transparent and independent manner," and "institutes not yielding good results at the common exit exams would be closed down," according to GS Sahni, Director General of Shipping. When DGS has shown the way, why can't we learn from them and do the same in all other areas of higher education in India?

• One of their grouses against privatisation was its market-orientation. "Commodification of education may lead to excessive emphasis on skill, employment and corporate-oriented education" at the cost of basic sciences and the vast pool of traditional knowledge, thereby creating an imbalance among various streams of learning.

  Commodification is inevitable in education too like most other areas and we need to deal with it in the proper manner. It is true that the private sector would tend to first focus on areas where there is high demand, areas with emphasis on skills, employment (engineering, medicine etc.) and corporate-oriented education (like Management, Law, Finance etc.). Rather than citing that as an excuse to keep the corporate sector involvement to the minimum, the State should acutally encourage the corporate sector, albeit with proper regulation, to address the demand in these areas to the maximum and look to complement the corporate sector by channeling all its funds towards basis sciences and "knowledge-oriented" courses. We also need to remember that there's no reason to believe that the private sector will never be interested in the sciences, social sciences and other knowledge oriented areas. The Indian Institute of Science (1911), Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (1945) and Tata Institute of Social Sciences (1936) were originally mooted and set up by the Tatas. Apart from taking over these institutions, how many more such high quality institutions has the State set up? The State's efforts have largely resulted in the proliferation of numerous arts and science degree colleges (that only dole out paper degrees mostly), with little emphasis on quality or knowledge.

• Given the inevitability of private initiative in the Indian context, they said Article 19(6) of the Constitution should be invoked to ensure a holistic development of higher education, and prevent commodification and profiteering. Article 19(6) allows the State to put "reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of the right to establish and run educational institutions conferred under Article 19(g) - the freedom to practise any profession, carry on any occupation, trade or business.

  The eminent educationists grudgingly accept that private initiative is inevitable, but in the same breath are fighting to keep the private sector role to the "minimum desirable level" and clamouring to prevent the private sector from making a small fair profit. They seem to be unable to come to terms with the fact that the State by itself, has not been able to, and cannot, provide educational opportunities for all and if the private sector is not invited to participate, the ultimate objective of providing education for all is in jeopardy.

  Why are they so threatened by the private sector to the extant that they want to invoke Article 19(6) of the Constitution to put "reasonable restrictions" on the right to establish and run educational institutions? Why can't they let enlightened regulation by an independent, autonomous body hold both the private and public sectors to transparency and high standards, without the need to resort to legislation? , Why can't they encourage both the private sector and State-funded institutions like the IITs, IISc., TIFR, JNU, the various Central Universities and others to address the needs of basic sciences, the humanities and the arts?

It is matter of serious concern to find these eminent educationists clamouring for legislation to turn their dogma into the law of the land. We need to challenge their dogma and speak out against it, else, there's little hope for us to provide educational opportunities for all, to ensure continuing growth.

Foreign Direct Investment allowed in education in India: Questions in the Lok Sabha

LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO 11 (answered on March 01, 2005)

11. SHRI GURUDAS DAS GUPTA, SAMBASIVA RAYAPATI RAO

Will the Minister of HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT be pleased to state:-

(a) whether the Government is considering a proposal for allowing foreign investments in the field of higher education;

(b) if so, the details thereof;

(c) whether the Government had had a detailed consultations with all stake holders before taking any final decision in the matter; and

(d) if so, the details thereof?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (SHRI ARJUN SINGH)

(a) & (b): Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in education, including higher education, is already being allowed under the automatic route, without any sectoral cap, since February, 2000, vide Order No.7(4)/2000-IP dated 11 February, 2000, issued by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion.

(c) & (d): Do not arise.

A subsequent question on the same issue - LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO 11 was answered on February 21, 2006.

303. SHRI ANANTRAO GUDHE, M. APPADURAI

Will the Minister of HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT be pleased to state:-

(a) whether the Government has decided to permit Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in education sector, particularly elementary and primary education;

(b) if so, the details thereof;

(c) the details of the FDI proposals approved and the proposals which are at an advanced stage of approval;

(d) whether any policy guidelines have been formulated in this regard;

(e) if so, the details thereof; and

(f) the extent to which FDI is likely to improve the education sector?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (SMT. D. PURANDESWARI)

(a) & (b): There is no separate sectoral policy notified for education sector. By virtue of Press Note 2(2000 Series), FDI up to 100% is allowed on automatic route in the Education Sector. In the recent review of policy notified vide Press Note 4 (2006 Series) there is no change in the policy for education sector. In addition, as indicated in the same Press Note No.2(2000 series), the investor may choose to make an application direct to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) without availing the automatic route.

(c):Information is being collected and will be laid on the table of the House.

I wonder if details of the FDI proposals approved and the proposals at an advanced stage of approval have already been laid on the table of the House. Should be interesting to see what this reveals.

(d): No, Sir.

(e): Does not arise.

(f): Experience with FDI in education is recent and no serious analysis has been made of the data available.

Free education for single girl children: CBSE proposes, legal advice disposes, but silver lining emerges

CBSE's experiment to promote the education of girl children by ordering all CBSE-affilated schools to provide free education from classes VI-XII to girls who are the single child of their parents has come to an end even before it could be implemented. The CBSE has watered down its order and made it optional for private CBSE-affiliated schools to consider offering free education to single girl children in classes IX-XII, apparently after being provided with legal advice that indicated that its original order may not be defensible in court. But it is a story that ends well with a silver lining emerging in the form of government funded scholarships of Rs. 500/- per student per month given to single girl children in classes IX-XII in all CBSE-affiliated schools.

In future, I hope the Government floats such ideas first to be able to get a pulse of the both legal and public opinion, before making it an order or law. The CBSE could have saved itself a lot of trouble if it had floated the idea and asked for feedback from all CBSE-affiliated schools as well as legal opinion on whether such an order would be defensible in court.

Here's how the CBSE in its circular dated October 15, 2005 to heads of CBSE-affiliated schools described its reasons for imposing its order and the how it was to be implemented.

Sir/Madam,

You may be aware that in many countries available indicators show that the girl child is discriminated against from the earliest stages of life, through her childhood and into adulthood. It may not be out of place to mention here that India is one of those countries in the world in which men outnumber women. The reasons for this can be attributed to, among other things, indifferent attitudes and practices against girl child including their health and well being. It has generally been observed that girl child is discriminated against in the matter of education also. The ratio of drop outs for girls at different levels of education is more than that for the boys

To remedy the situation, the Central Board of Secondary Education has already made a provision in its Examination Bye-Laws that girl candidates, who are bonafide residents of the National Capital Territory of Delhi can appear in Class X and Class XII Examinations of the Board as Private Candidates.

In order to further promote education for girl child, an amendment in the Affiliation Bye-Laws of the Board has now been made that all the affiliated schools will grant full waiver of all fees (including tuition fee and all other fees under any head except the meals and transportation fee) charged by them from class VI onwards to each girl student who is also the single child of a parent. Similarly, it will be appreciated if the schools also consider extending 50% concession in these fees for every girl student who is one of two daughters who are also the only two children in a family. In addition to above, the school on its own can also waive such fees like transportation and meal fee (as applicable).

It has been decided by the Board that the above provisions will be made applicable to all schools affiliated with the Board. However, already affiliated schools will have a choice to implement these either with immediate effect or from the next academic session commencing from 1.04.2006. In case of schools seeking affiliation with CBSE, the implementation will be with immediate effect.

For implementation of these provisions, it is advised that the schools may accept the status of the girl children on the basis of a simple affidavit sworn by the parents. Such parents may also be informed very categorically that they shall intimate the school immediately about any change in the single status of girl child/children in the family, if and when it occurs, and it shall be their sole responsibility. The schools may also intimate to the parents that in case it is detected at any time that the affidavit sworn in by them was false, appropriate action will be taken by the school against them, and the CBSE will also consider withholding certificates.

In the light of the above, the Managements & Heads of the Institutions of all the affiliated schools are requested to take appropriate action, and to submit their 'Quarterly Report on Fee Concession', as per enclosed format. The schools who have applied for affiliation with the Board are also requested to be in readiness for implementing the above provision for promotion of education for the girl child from the month they receive affiliation with the Board and start sending quarterly reports in the format. To start with, the report for the quarter ending September 2005 may be sent to the Joint Secretary (Affiliation), Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi before 30th November 2005. It is hoped that all the affiliated schools will take the pride in the implementation of above provisions in the interest of education of girl children, and non-implementation of these provisions will attract necessary action under Affiliation Bye-Laws of the Board.

Not only was the CBSE asking schools to provide free education to single girl children, it was also asking schools to submit a Quarterly Compliance Report - more paperwork for the schools. There was strong resistance to this move from CBSE-affiliated schools and a minority unaided institution, Carmel Convent School, moved the Delhi High Court saying that the circular is violative of Article 30 of the Constitution (right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions). In January 2006, the Delhi High Court stayed the implementation of the order and Justice Vikramjit Sen issued notices to CBSE, the Centre and the Director of Education of the Delhi Government asking them to file replies to the petition within four weeks and posted the matter for further hearing on March 27.

Just a week before the next hearing in the Delhi High Court, the CBSE in its circular dated March 22, 2006 has chosen to water down its previous circular by making it optional for private CBSE-affiliated schools to consider extending waiver of fees to single girl children studying in classes IX to XII. But all single girl children studying in government run Kendriya Vidyalayas would be given a fee waiver from class VI onwards, with the government picking up the tab. It has also introduced a new scholarship scheme for single girl children who secure 60% or more marks in their class X Examination for the year 2006 onwards. These children would be given scholarship of Rs. 500/- p.m. for studying in classes XI and XII in schools who charged tuition fee of not more than Rs. 1,000/- p.m. during the academic year 2005-06.

The Delhi High Court has subsequently disposed off the case (Civil Writ Petition No. 778/2006) on March 27.

This is what the CBSE says in its superceding circular dated March 22, 2006.

Sir/Madam,

In supersession of circular No.CBSE/AFF/2005/22817-30743 dated 18.10.2005 on above-mentioned subject, the following decisions have been taken by the Board for promotion of education for Girl child in the school:

1. A new scholarship scheme has been introduced from the academic session 2006-07 for single girl child studying in the schools affiliated with the Board. As per the new scholarship scheme all single girl children who secure 60% or more marks in their class X Examination for the year 2006 onwards would be given scholarship of Rs. 500/- p.m. for studying in classes XI and XII in schools who charged tuition fee of not more than Rs. 1,000/- p.m. during the academic year 2005-06.

   The detailed guidelines for availing the scholarship will be issued shortly.

2. All the Kendriya Vidyalayas would continue to give fee waiver to single girl children (except meals and transportation fee) from class VI to XII as per the scheme already introduced by the Board.

3. Further all the private independent schools affiliated to CBSE may also consider extending waiver of school fee (excluding meals and transportation fee) to single girl children studying in class IX to XII.

The above modifications are subject to the final outcome of the writ petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this regard.

For implementation of these schemes including scholarships, the status of single girl child will be accepted on the basis of an affidavit sworn by the parents. Such parents may also be informed very categorically that they shall intimate the school as well as the CBSE immediately about any change in the single status of girl child/children in the family, if and when it occurs, and it shall be their sole responsibility. The schools may also intimate to the parents that in case it is detected at any time that the affidavit sworn in by them was false, appropriate action will be taken against them, which may even include withholding of certificates.

In the light of the above, the Managements & Heads of the Institutions of all the affiliated schools are requested to take appropriate action, and to submit their 'Quarterly Report on Fee Concession' as per enclosed revised format if they are implementing. It is also requested that the modifications made to the scheme especially the scholarship component may be widely publicized among the students/parents of your school so that they are able to take maximum benefit.

Further in order to enable the Board to grant scholarships at the earliest all the schools are requested to submit the following information to the Board:

(a) List and Roll No of single girl children who appeared in AISSE 2006 of the Board latest by 31.5.2006 and

(b) List and Roll No.of single girl children secured 60% and above marks in AISSE 2006 latest by 31.7.2006.

It is hoped that all the schools affiliated with the Board will cooperate in implementing the modified scheme successfully.

The revised proposal of offering a scholarship to all single girl children studying in all CBSE-affiliated schools (not just Kendriya Vidyalayas) makes eminent sense. The Government ought to pick up the tab and has rightly chosen to do so. With a minimum requirement of 60% marks in their class X exams and limiting the scholarship to those schools where the tuition fee is not more than Rs. 1,000/- per month, the CBSE is targeting the really needy and promising single girl students.

Not only is it targeting the right students, it is also providing a very strong incentive for schools to enroll single girl students since they will get Rs. 500 per month per child from the government. In effect, this is a voucher model. Any single girl child can take the scholarship and go to any school he/she wants and encash it there. Schools will now be competing to enroll single girl children.

Manmohan Singh calls for liberalising rules and regulations on private investment in higher education

I have always felt that unlike in the United States and Europe, we do far less in our country to fund tertiary education and research through charities and trusts. As we increasingly universalize access to primary and subsequently secondary education, we will see a quantum jump in the demand for higher education. Our government has effected a steep increase in financial allocations for education at all levels. However, the priority for government will continue to be the primary and secondary education. I expect the private sector to play a larger role at the tertiary level, especially in the field of technical education and I listened with great interest to what Sunil told us about the need for new partnership between Government and industry and the private sector in reaching out to those segments of our society who have hitherto been deprived of the benefits of education. India needs to invest lot more in universalizing access to primary and secondary education. The Government will play its role. But we also need help and support of the private sector. And what Sunil set out as the vision for the Bharti Foundation is one of the most helpful and innovative way of promoting partnership between Government and the private sector in this vital area.

The expansion of high quality tertiary education and applied research is also necessitated by the robust growth of our economy. I see sector after sector facing a supply constraint when it comes to skilled, qualified manpower. This is unacceptable in a country of over a billion people where many are still unemployed or are engaged in low income activities. We need to work towards providing education and gainful employment to our young people. Our government has constituted the National Knowledge Commission to seek new ideas on how we can modernize and expand our educational institutions and make them world class.

I do recognize that we have to make rules and regulations pertaining to education more liberal to enable a quantum leap in private investment in education. We must recognize the fact that some of the great success stories in our educational sector have been the product of individual and group initiative and enterprise. While public investment in education must increase, I see no reason why we should not also facilitate higher private investment in education.

I have therefore been heartened by the interest taken by many Indians living overseas, who are beneficiaries of our educational system, to invest in education in India. I believe it is the duty of our Government to enable such initiatives to fructify so that public-private cooperation becomes a solid reality in a reasonably short period of time.

said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, when dedicating the Bharti School of Telecommunication Technology and Management, at IIT Delhi.

This is encouraging news. I expect other politicians and bureacrats will now slowly become more receptive to the fact that the Government is in no position to provide education for all and there is no alternative to resorting to private initiatives in education, but with proper regulation.

Hopefully the rules and regulations relating to private investment in higher education will be liberalised soon, but we need to keep up the drumbeat.

NewSchools Venture Fund - a cross between a VC fund and a public charity

The NewSchools Venture Fund (NSVF), set up in 1998 by John Doerr and Brook Byers, both venture capitalists with VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and Kim Smith, co-founder and executive chairman of NSVF, is a very interesting idea.

Here's how they describe themselves on their web site.

NSVF believes that all children are entitled to an education that will serve them well in the knowledge economy of the 21st century. Sadly, too many children are being left behind at schools where expectations for achievement are low, where academic programs are weak, and where too little learning is taking place. NewSchools stands alongside education, business, nonprofit, and policy leaders working to transform the K-12 public education system that exists today.

Our approach is powerful, unique and proven. We raise early-stage capital from institutional and individual donors, and we invest it in nonprofit and for-profit ventures led by promising education entrepreneurs who are creating high-quality, scalable solutions that address the most critical problems facing education. And, because education is complex and change-averse, we fortify our positions with thought leadership designed to foster an environment that is conducive to high performance and to real change.

NewSchools Venture Fund is a public benefit, 501(c)(3), nonprofit organization designed to improve public K-12 public education, particularly for underserved students. As a venture philanthropy firm, we invest in a select portfolio of the most promising for-profit and nonprofit education ventures. Like a traditional venture capital firm, the NewSchools team reviews business plans, conducts extensive due diligence on promising ventures, and invites ventures that best fit the NewSchools criteria to be part of the investment portfolio.
NewSchools differs from traditional firms in that the return on our investment is measured not in dollars, but in improved educational outcomes. NewSchools differs also in that we invest in both for-profit and nonprofit entities. Any financial returns that are generated from for-profit investments are re-invested in the Fund and used to support more education entrepreneurs.

Our track record demonstrates the power of entrepreneurs to improve education. Since 1998, we've invested $60 million in leading ventures, and together they've produced incredible results:

• Over 1 million underserved children learned to read, empowering them with the single most important foundational skill they need to progress through elementary and secondary education.
  
• 2 million children in high-need urban and rural areas have been taught by over 14,000 high-achieving college graduates, deployed with the vision of ensuring our underserved children receive the best education available.
  
• 150,000 underserved children measurably improved their algebra skills, providing a critical stepping-stone towards notable achievement in the fields of science and technology.
  
• Over 100,000 students attend schools led by a new breed of highly-qualified principals who were recruited from diverse backgrounds and trained to deploy their unique skills and talents in the service of our nation's greatest asset -- our children.
  
• Nearly 15,000 low-income students today attend 61 industry-leading charter schools, receiving an education in foundational and higher-order skills to rival their middle- and higher-income peers -- by 2009, almost 58,000 students will benefit in over 160 schools.
  
• Each month, 2 million parents, teachers and others use an online information site to become more informed decision-makers about, and advocates for, their children's education.

NSVF's portfolio ranges across public, private and charter schools.

State control over fee cap is simply untenable

The following article of mine appeared in the op-ed section (fe Insight) in the Financial Express  today (August 23, 2005).

Without doubt, as a society, we must strive to provide opportunities for quality higher education for all. In the ideal scenario, the state ought to provide such opportunities for all and subsidise it for those from the poorer sections. Article 41 of the Constitution (one of the Directive Principles of State Policy) as it relates to education, says: “The state shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to education.”

The state has, so far, failed in its efforts to provide opportunities for higher education to all and is fully aware that within the limits of its economic capacity, it cannot do so in the foreseeable future. The private sector has been playing an important role in supplementing the state’s efforts at increasing the overall supply of higher education. Taking the private sector’s role for granted, the state has conveniently abdicated its responsibility to provide education for all, and has been forcing the private sector to subsidise education for the socially backward sections.

Two main issues brought to the fore by the recent Supreme Court judgement are restrictions on the state’s ability to impose reservations for the socially backward sections and set the fee structure with caps in unaided private institutions. The SC has ruled that the state cannot enforce its reservation policies in minority or non-minority unaided institutions and that such institutions are free to devise their own fee structures, as long as they don’t charge capitation fees and do not indulge in profiteering. The ruling is difficult to fault.

All political parties, without exception, are worried that the removal of reservations in private institutions would be a big blow to social justice, and they have a point. Socially backward sections have been benefiting from access to higher education through reservations, which are not purely merit-based, and they will lose out. There is talk of bringing about legislation to enable reservations in private institutions to continue. This legislation is certain to be passed in one form or another, given the overwhelming support for it across the political spectrum.

What are the implications of continuing with reservations? Reservations per se may not be a problem for private unaided institutions, if the state agrees to pay the full fees for those students who join the private institutions under the reservation quotas. Private institutions would have no cause for complaint. The problem arises if the state caps the fees for students in the reservation quota far lower than the full fees, without agreeing to compensate private institutions for the lower fee income, thereby preventing these institutions from recovering their costs from fees, let alone making a surplus. More than the reservations, it is the state’s control over the fee cap that is simply untenable.

Rather than worrying about the state imposing reservations on private unaided institutions, we need to focus on preventing the state from forcing the private sector to bear the burden of subsidising education for the socially backward classes. Our aim should be to try and ensure that any new legislation that is passed makes it compulsory for the state to bear the full costs of funding the education of all students admitted under the reservation quota in private institutions. If it cannot bear the costs itself, it could at least provide loans to students to be paid back over a long term.

At the same time, any new legislation must also ensure that all educational institutions, public and private, are transparent, non-exploitative and accountable to society, especially in devising their fee structure. As in the financial sector, all educational institutions must also be required to periodically disclose the details of their finances and operations. This would prevent them from charging capitation fees or profiteering.

It will be financially unviable for private institutions to subsidise education on a sustainable basis, if the state doesn’t take care of the subsidy. If forced to do so, most private institutions will fold up and there will also be no incentive for the private sector to set up any new institutions.

One of the most important challenges before us today is to increase the supply of higher education. Efforts need to be focussed on ensuring that any new legislation doesn’t affect our ability to do so.

China is expanding its supply of higher education rapidly

China seem to have found ways of addressing many of the challenges we're facing - increasing supply, tapping private and foreign investment in education,  integrating teaching and research,  broadening the curriculum, creating world class institutions comparable to the best in the West.

The Christian Science Monitor (July 29, 2005) reports on China's efforts at increasing the supply of higher education (emphasis mine).

Several years ago, Chinese car manufacturer Geely grew concerned about a shortage of well-trained workers. Its solution: plunk down $800 million and start a private university. Even a decade ago, the idea would have been almost unimaginable. But in 2000, the sprawling campus of Beijing Geely University, with its Stanford-inspired quad, opened on the outskirts of Beijing - one of some 1,300 private universities that have sprung up in recent years. This September, Geely will enroll about 20,000 students, studying everything from engineering to character education to English.

As China continues to surge onto the global economic stage, it is undergoing one of the most ambitious higher education expansions in the world. Spurred by a government call in the late 1990s to build world-class universities and broaden access to the masses, the country is prying open the doors of institutions that formerly served a narrow elite. It's pouring money into research, welcoming private ventures like Geely, and broadening the curriculum to ensure that its grads stay on top in a knowledge-based world economy.

Like so much in China, the move is happening quickly - and in eye-popping dimensions.

"It is an unprecedented expansion," says Gerard Postiglione, an education expert at the University of Hong Kong. It has been done, he notes, with little of the instability such a rapid boom can cause. "It is something that has happened nowhere else in terms of scale."

Since 1998, when Jiang Zemin, then president of China, spoke on the 100th anniversary of top-ranked Peking University and issued his bracing call for change, overall college enrollment in China has roughly tripled. The country now outpaces leaders like the US, India, Russia, and Japan in numbers of students in colleges and universities. By 2010, Chinese officials estimate, at least 20 percent of high school grads will be enrolled in some form of higher education; that number is expected to rise to 50 percent by 2050. China currently has about 20 million students pursuing higher education.

But the change is wrenching long-accepted practices from their foundations. The introduction of market forces throughout the 1990s has yielded tuition fees and new private colleges. Educators are adding courses that will feed a booming appetite for skilled workers. Schools have had to adjust quickly as enrollment has soared: a newly reorganized Zhejiang University, near Shanghai, for example, has grown from about 10,000 students in the mid-1990s to about 45,000, in part through consolidation with other universities.

"This is a crucial period for China's universities," says Shi Jinghuan, executive director of Tsinghua University's Institute of Education Research in Beijing. "The whole society, and higher education with it, is in transition." At Tsinghua, this year's seniors have been among the first to feel the impact of attending one of the seven institutions tapped to compete with the Harvards and Sorbonnes of the West. The school has boosted exchanges with foreign scholars and recruited them to teach, and is offering some classes in both Chinese and English. Known for several decades as the MIT of China, it is requiring more general education and allowing undergraduates to enroll in a dozen schools, from management to architecture. Most faculty have studied abroad. Extracurriculars are popular, from the venerable chorus to a recently added crew team. Virtually all students are familiar with English, and many speak it with an almost easy familiarity.

"China has an enormous market of well-educated people who are primed to go to college," says William Kirby (dean of faculty at Harvard University and a China scholar). Now, he says, it is making an enormous investment in that talent.

Much food for thought for all of us in India.

Update: I just noticed that Abi has also linked to this article via a post on Cosmic Variance.

What's the real extent of India's "education imports"?

The strong resistance amongst policy advisers and regulators to letting foreign education providers operate in India may be resulting in a huge "education imports" bill for the country. The case of an obscure college in Ireland throws some light.

Indymedia.ie (Dec 29, 2004), an Irish web site, reported that

Finally, in early December, a business operation named Dundalk Business School folded with debts of about €600,000. It appears that many of the creditors are Indian students and would be students who made advance payments to attend IT courses. It appears that India was a particular target of the company’s marketing although India itself is a world leader in IT.

Finfacts.com (July 21, 2005), an Irish business portal, provides the background to the story. 

Last December, Dundalk Business School, which termed itself a college of further education, was wound up by order of the High Court.  A solicitor, in an affidavit, said he had been retained to act for 300 Indian students whose applications were processed through an Indian overseas student association, which had discharged about €450,000 in tuition fees to the school - and had sent another €150,000 to the school in support of visa applications which were unsuccessful.

A director of the college Mark Markey, in an affidavit, said the Dundalk premises had been raided by Gardaí in September 2004 and subsequently the Garda National Immigration Bureau had ceased granting visas to any students who had paid fees or deposits to the company.

India, which is a leading global software industry location, is the source of thousands of students for what are essentially third-rate Irish educational institutions, providing courses that are not on a par with what they could find in their own country. In addition, Indian students do not need to come to Ireland to learn English.

The current situation provides big incentives for both the Irish education businesses and agent intermediaries in poor countries.

I'm not sure if the last bit was said in a positive or negative sense, but this raises many questions. The shortage of supply of higher education in India is being exploited as an opportunity by other countries resulting in India having to "import education".

A back of the envelope calculation indicates India's education imports from the U.S. might amount to  close to a billion dollars a year due to Indian students who go to the U.S. for higher studies, paying for their education themselves. Add to that, the outflows to the U.K. and Australia, two other countries who have been aggressively recruiting in India in recent years and it could be a sizeable sum. What is the real extent of India's "education imports"? How well are we tracking it? Which agency of the government is tracking it?

The fact that students are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go abroad to dubious institutions is an indication of the huge mismatch between demand and supply of higher education within India. The first impulse of the government when there is a short supply of some product or service in the country resulting in huge imports will be to impose import duties on such imports. But unlike other products or services on which import duties can be levied, there is nothing that the Indian government can do to disincentivise education imports since the value is delivered outside the country and citizens are free to buy it if they have the money. With foreign exchange available easily today, there is nothing to stop citizens from going ahead.

This problem can be solved only by addressing the problem of short supply. The objective of the government and the regulators should be to increase the supply urgently, while maintaining quality and standards, to provide access to higher education to everyone who desires it. There's not much point on quibbling on the means (state-funding, private funding, foreign providers etc.), the end (of increasing supply) is far more important - we must use all the means possible. We are using all means possible to ensure adequate supply on other fronts including food, clothing, shelter and health care. We should do so in education too.

If we permit reputed foreign education providers to set up campuses in India, we would not only be increasing supply here and enabling many more Indian students to get a high quality education right here in India, we'd also be reducing education imports substantially and possibly building on the opportunity for education exports too.