Education in India

Details about the Azim Premji University

I met my friend KS Viswanathan, the head of new initiatives at the Azim Premji Foundation (APF) a couple of days ago in Bangalore and asked him for some details about the Azim Premji University (APU). This is what I learnt from an informal chat with him.

• The APU will be an institution of excellence in the area of education to develop outstanding education thinkers & leaders, and also serve as a think tank for long-term education change and sustainable development. Akin to the IITs, AIIMS, IIMs and the NLSUI respectively focussed on Science & Technology, Medicine, Management and Law, the APU will in effect be an IIE focussed on Education.
• The APU's vision is to promote, conceptualize and create a paradigm shift through development of outstanding leadership, research, knowledge and ideas for education and allied development sectors.
• The objectives of the APU include
  • Creating Intellectual Capital: through research based theory and outstanding, creative and socially committed leaders and thinkers. Expand the frontiers of knowledge in education and allied disciplines
  • Practice informed by sound theory: Serve as a national education resource center and present an alternative authentic voice for educational and social change
  • Demonstrating models for effective development of teachers and education leaders
• The APU has been set up through a section 25 company and will be autonomous and self-funded with no dependency on funds from the Karnataka Government.
• The Azim Premji University Ordinance 2009, was passed by the Karnataka Government in November 2009.
• The APU is being set up on 50 acres of land in Sarjapur, near Bangalore. The land is being provided by the section 25 company, which is acquiring it directly from the owners.
• It will be a fully residential university.
• The APU will not be aiming to recover all its expenditure from tuition fees. Any budgetary gap between income and expenditure will be bridged by funds provided by Section 25 company being established by Azim Premji.
• The first students will join the university in 2011. The APU will start by offering masters level courses and eventually also run a Ph.D. program.
• Apart from the classroom lectures, the students at the APU will be required to do field work in schools as an integral part of their learning.
• The APU, in addition to developing education professionals and contributing to research will work towards strengthening the educational space by:
  • Increasing the public debate on alternative approaches towards educational excellence
  • Creating possibilities and opportunities to promote innovation and piloting of new ideas/approaches
  • Supporting state and central governments to move towards a quality education revolution
  • Serving as a resource centre for the country in the areas of education and development
  • Emerging as a centre of excellence in education policy and implementation

Corporates may be able to set up universities through section 25 companies

according to the Business Standard.

“We have received requests demanding this route. The government is exploring the possibility, as it could be allowed under Section 25 of the Companies Act,” confirmed Sunil Kumar, joint secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD),
......

At present, educational institutions in India can be set up only by trusts, societies or companies, and it is not possible for non-profit companies, like industry associations, under Section 25 of the Companies Act, to set up institutions and get recognition from the University Grants Commission. In the primary and secondary education space, however, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) allowed companies registered under the Act to start private unaided schools last year.

Some higher education institutions have taken this route in the technical education space to escape policing by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) — the body that regulates technical education in the country. For instance, many management schools have gone the Indian School of Business (ISB) way, opting for a one-year management programme (against the conventional two-year courses), and have registered themselves under Section 25 of the Act.
....

Educational institutions in India, which are set up by trusts or societies come under the purview of the Charity Commissioner, who is appointed by a state government. Section 25 of the Act, on the other hand, comes under the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), thus reinforcing the control of the Centre and not the state over the manner in which the institutions are run and financed.

However, in both the structures — non-profit or society and trust — profits cannot be taken out of the institution and have to be reinvested. Institutions registered under the Act have to use their profits, if any, in promoting the institutions. The Act also prohibits the payment of any dividend to its members. The association may enjoy all the privileges of charitable trusts, but are scrutinised by the Income-Tax Department and not Charity Commissioner, unlike limited companies.

MHRD says it is still studying the way out for students if an institution set up under the Act winds up and its assets are to be transferred to another similar institution. “As of today, if an institution set up by a society winds up, its operation and properties are transferred to another institution. But in this case, we are still studying what route a non-profit entity could acquire if it faces a similar issue,” added an HRD official.

Experts add, this arrangement will allow standards for centrally-administered institutes to be cleared by one central authority rather than different standards for different states

This was actually mooted a little over an year ago. But why all this hoopla? What is the difference between being a trust, a society or a section 25 company? What is the difficulty with a section 25 company setting up a university? A study on charities in India throws some light with a comparison of a section-25 company, a society and a trust across various parameters.

There is one uniform law across the country for companies, the Companies Act, 1956. It is this robust law protected by powerful commercial interests that makes it very difficult for the state government to take over a section 25 Company. The company form is recognised all over the world, it is more closely regulated and monitored than trusts and societies.

But the confusion still remains. Why should the state want to take over or dissolve a section-25 company running a university? In the event of the incumbent management of  a section-25 company running a university mismanaging the university, shouldn't the state be facilitating a takeover of the mismanaged section-25 company by any other interested party capable of running the university well? When the fraud at Satyam Computers came to light, the state didn't take over the company. It only appointed an independent board of directors comprising of experienced and respected professionals who set the house in order and found another entity willing to acquire the assets and liabilities of Satyam and run it going forward.

More questions than answers at this point of time.

Reliance University on the anvil

So reports The Economic Times.

On November 17, when chairman Mukesh Ambani addresses Reliance Industries’ annual general meeting, he is likely to announce the group’s next foray: education.

India’s biggest business house is planning to launch a private university in line with the Ivy League institutions, says a company insider, though the contours are yet to be finalised.

....

According to an IDFC-SSKI report, Indians spend $50 billion annually on private education. The four segments of the education market — plus two, higher, vocational and supplemental — present a $80-billion opportunity by 2012. It is expected to grow at a CAGR of 16%, says a CLSA Pacific study.

“Mukesh envisions bringing global education to India. He will outline a road map for the business in the AGM speech,” says an official close to RIL who did not wish to be named. An RIL spokesman declined to comment.

....

Ditto Jaiprakash Industries, which is already running engineering institutes, while the London-listed mining giant Vedanta Group has announced a large university near Puri in Orissa. Those in the waitlist include Chennai-based Murugappa group and FMCG company Ruchi Soya.

This had to happen.

Kapil Sibal is away courting the foreign universities to get them to set shop in India. He should be courting Indian investors too and far more aggressively at that. An Indian university can get off the blocks much faster and we may know how to run it better. There's enough and more of money in India and the know how, experience and skills required to set up and run an university can easily be purchased acquired by an Indian entity. What we need most today is the vision, the largeness of outlook and the willingness to invest money. More importantly, to think big over the really long term, well beyond one's lifetime. While Mukesh Ambani and the others to come, have enough and more of the former, we will have to wait and see about the latter.

Listen to a description of Ezra Cornell's unreasonable vision to get a sense of how a self-made millionaire decided to invest his surplus into building the foundation for a university in the mid 19th century. His motto - "I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any field of study" - speaks for his vision, and long-term outlook. The operative word is found. He probably knew his vision may not be achieved in his lifetime, but like all visionaries, he was envisioning the way things ought to be, rather than the way things could be in his day or lifetime. He didn't stop with the vision. He hired the right institution-builders and did enough and more to give it the momentum to keep going on and on. I'd say it's still work in progress.

Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata is another example of such a visionary closer to home.   

Mr. Narayana Murthy, Mr. Lakshmi Mittal, Mr. Ambani, Mr. Sunil Bharti Mittal and others - are you listening? Azim Premji is already off the blocks.

Full text of Kaushik Basu's dissent note to the Yashpal Committee Report

Prof. Kaushik Basu wrote a dissent note to the Yashpal Committee Report, the full text of which (as provided by Prof. Basu himself) is as follows.

Report of The Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education in India

A Note of Dissent

Kaushik Basu

The broad ideas outlined in the main report, such as forming an apex body for managing Indias higher-education sector, nurturing inter-disciplinarity and extending university education to much larger and diverse segments of the populationare commendable. My apprehension, however, is that without more detailed plans of action and sharper targets these broad aims will remain unfulfilled, like so many well-meaning previous pronouncements. There are many areas where we need reform and which have been dealt with in the main report. What I mention here are items which, in my opinion, deserve consideration but are omitted or not emphasized in the report and also some fine points on which I have a difference of opinion.

Till a few decades ago India's higher education system stood out for its excellence, in comparison to developing countries but also some industrialized nations. The high economic growth that India has witnessed since 1994 has several causes; one of them is our good higher education. Unfortunately, this sector is now faltering. Several nations which trailed India on this score are now ahead of us. This is not because India has changed but because India has not changed while others have. If our nations development is to be sustained and we want to be a progressive and enlightened nation, then it is imperative that we reform our system of higher education.

First, the main report speaks about the need for greater autonomy for colleges and universities. However, one stumbling block for this objective is the huge power vested in the UGC and AICTE. There is need for these organizations to divest themselves of some of this power.Also, there should be a refocusing of their main function. It is the responsibility of the UGC to maintain the quality of our higher education and research. However, this must be achieved by nurturing excellence instead of spending a disproportionate amount of energy creating barriers to entry, and preventing new colleges and universities from coming into existence. The latter has led to the creation of what is effectively a licensing system in higher education. Just as India gave up on industrial licensing in the early nineties (and thereby unleashed growth), the reformed UGC and AICTE should give up on the licensing of higher education. At times we forget that the market with all its faults does perform certain functions reasonably well. Poorly-performing colleges and educational institutes, if information about their performance is made easily available, will be competed out of existence by the pressures of the market.

For this reason, one principal activity of a revised UGC should be to rate universities and institutes of higher education. As we know from the modern industrial sector, good quality rating is vital for the economy and successful nations spend a lot to collate information and rate corporations. The UGC should, likewise, produce and publicize ratings of and information about all universities and institutes of higher education. This should be a detailed, annual exercise and be prominently available on a website.

Our main aim must be to nurture excellence instead of spending a disproportionate amount of energy trying to curb the lack of it. While the United States has arguably the world's greatest universities, it also has many sub-par ones. The existence of the latter does not harm the reputation of the US as a nation of academic excellence. If there was a perfect way for the state to efficiently weed out the bad, I would be for it. But as we learnt from our experience with industrial licensing, often the effort to weed out the bad by using bureaucratic control can do more harm than good.

What has to punished is misinformation. Many private colleges levy charges midway through the course of study by when the student has no choice but to pay up; they advertise achievements of the college which are false; they promise to offer courses without any intention to actually do so. These need to be severely punished.

Second, we have to recognize that it is not possible for any government, let alone the government of a developing nation, to run over three hundred universities with equal generosity.Such an agendum is bound to cause either a fiscal breakdown or doom the university system to mediocrity. It follows from this that we have to reconcile ourselves to the differential treatment of institutions and universities and also of individuals. This has to be based on a transparent system of objective evaluation, so that every individual and every university has the same opportunity. But to expect the outcome to be the same across individuals and universities is to court failure.

This takes us to the touchy topic of salaries and research support. The old system of a flat scale, where every professor was supported in the same way across all the over-300 universities, was once an attractive idea. It is no longer feasible. On the one hand, most nations are switching over to the system of special salaries and research budgets for star researchers and professors. This began with the U.S.. Now other nations, including U.K. and even China, have switched to this. On the other hand, corporate salaries have gone through the roof. Given these facts (about which there is little that we can do), if we want to attract top talent to research and teaching, we have to allow for pay differentials. The exact modality of this will entail discussion and debate. Two ways of doing this are: first, designating, say, 20 universities, as centers of excellence and putting them on a higher funding scale. The list of top 20 should be evaluated and revised every three years so that all universities stand a chance of getting there. The second option is to select a small number of professors in each field from the entire nation and place them on a higher salary and research support. By higher salary I do not mean 5% or 10% higher but three or four times the regular professorial salary. This will create incentives for academics to work harder and also attract top minds that would have gone to the corporate sector to come into academics and research. If this system is properly managed, it can transform the quality of India's higher education. Further this can be achieved with no additional fiscal burden. The average salary of all professors all over India can be held constant and this achieved by simply creating a graded salary system.

Third, we should allow private sector money to come into higher education. Surreptitious privatization is already a fact of life. It will be better to let this happen openly; there can then also be open monitoring. The purely-private colleges should of course not be subsidized by the state. They should be allowed to set college fees as high as they choose (as long as this is made transparent). It is true that such private colleges will end up teaching mainly commercially-viable subjects and cater to relatively rich students. There is no harm in this and some advantages, since the state will now be able to allocate more money to the colleges and universities under its charge and provide good education to the remainder at a lower cost.

There is an additional question: Should we allow these private colleges to be profit-making organizations, that is, allow the owners or the shareholders to openly keep the profit to themselves? A common presumption is that,if someone is interested in profit, that person will not be interested in providing good education. This is a fallacy. It is like assuming that, if Tata Motors is interested in making profit, it will not be interested in producing a good small car. However, in reality, its interest in producing a good small car could be because it is interested in making profits. Likewise, in education. If a profit-making company wants to start a university, there is no reason why we should not allow this. This is an idea that should at least be on the table. There are not too many examples of such universities in the world. This can be a pioneering effort on the part of India and, if successful, can cause a huge infusion of funds into our higher education system.

Finally, this is the time to consider steps to make India into the world's major hub for higher education. Given our historic (though eroding) advantage in higher education, our strength in the English language and our low cost-of-living, it is possible for India to position itself as a major destination for students from around the world, not just from poor countries, but rich, industrialized nations, such as Korea, U.K. and even the U.S.. One reason why an African student goes to the US to study is to then acquire the right to stay on there and work. Attracting such a student will not be easy. But consider an American student who anyway has the right to go back to the U.S. and work there. In the U.S. each year of education costs approximately, $50,000 or Rs. 25 lakhs. If India can build some good universities with high quality residences for studentsand advertise globally, India can give this market tough competition. If India charges tuition fees of Rs. 5 lakhs per annum from foreign students, then with all other overheads a student can get quality education for Rs. 8 lakhs per annum, which is one third the cost in the U.S. There is clearly a huge comparative advantage in this and the scheme can attract lots of students to India. This can bring in a large infusion of money, which can make it possible for the Indian government to subsidize the higher education of Indian students and vastly expand the number of Indian students

Summary of the full text of the Yashpal Committee Report

The Full text of the 94 page report of the The Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education is up on the education ministry's site. The 24 member committee chaired by Prof. Yashpal included amongst others the Chairpersons of UGC, AICTE, and NAAC, Vice Chancellors (current and former) of publicly funded universities, Directors of IIT (Madras), IIM (Bangalore) and NCERT, economists and bureacrats from the Planning Commission, the Finance, Education and other ministries. Dr. Ramdas Pai, Chancellor of Manipal University, was the sole member on the committee from a private university. A few others from outside the education sector include Kiran Karnik (former President of NASSCOM) and legal expert N.R. Madhava Menon who is a member on the commission of Centre-State Relations.

Apparently, Prof Kaushik Basu, an Economics Professor at Cornell University, and a member of the Yashpal Committee, has penned a dissent note to the report. There is no mention of the dissent note by Kaushik Basu in the copy of the 94 page report put up online at the education ministry's web site.

Addendum: Prof. Basu has provided the full text of his dissent note.

Here is a summary of the main points from the full text of the Yashpal Committee Report (extracted and paraphrased by me as I have understood it, with references provided to the page numbers on the report).

1. All universities must be teaching cum research universities. All research bodies must connect with universities in their vicinity and create teaching opportunities for their researchers. (p14)
2. We must prevent isolation of study of engineering or management. We should look forward to the day when IITs and IIMs also produce scholars in areas like literature, linguistics and politics. Institutions must be given the freedom to expand and diversify as they see fit rather than thrusting an uniform diktat on all institutions. (p15)
3. All syllabi should require teachers and students to apply what they have learnt in their courses, on studying a local situation, issue or problem. There should be sufficient room for the use of local data and resources to make the knowledge covered in the syllabus come alive as experience. (p18)
4. Minimum set of occupational exposure to be made compulsory for all students, irrespective of discipline, in the form of summer jobs or internships, with evaluation of the students on this front. (p19)
5. Need to expose students at the undergraduate level to various disciplines like humanities, social sciences, aesthetics, irrespective of the discipline they would like to specialise in subsequently. (p21)
6. Teacher training for all levels of school education (from primary to higher secondary) must be carried out by institutions of higher educations. The absence of university-level interest in teacher training has resulted in poor academic quality. (p21-22)
7. We need to build strong bridges between different fields of professional education and the disciplines of science, social sciences and humanities, All professional institutions must be part of a comprehensive university in a complete administrative and academic sense. We must abolish intermediary bodies that have been set up solely to issue licenses to professional colleges alone and inspect them. This will also help new interdisciplinary courses and research to evolve in the comprehensive universities. (p23)
8. All vocational institutions must also be part of universities. (p24)
9. It should be mandatory for all universities to have undergraduate programes. All teachers in universities must teach at the undergraduate level. (p26)
10. Universities must take steps to reduce gender, class and caste asymmetries. (p27)
11. Universities must study areas that are relevant in their immediate social and natural milieu and create knowledge bases in those areas. (p28)
12. Universities must be motivated to identify and prioritise areas for reform and initiate and implement the reform themselves from within rather than having the reform thrust on them top-down by a national or state-level body. This will be true autonomy. (p28)
13. There should be no discrimination between Central and State funded universities. All benefits extended to Central Universities must also be extended by State Governments to the state universities and the Centre must incentivise the States to do so. (p30)
14. There is an optimum size for a University in terms of the number of affiliated colleges, which must be maintained. (p31-32)
15. The inability of the state to drastically increase capacity in higher education has led to growth of the private sector in higher education. To double higher education capacity, we need all three kinds of universities: state-funded and run universities, private universities and those funded and run by public-private partnerships. All of them should work efficiently overseen by a transparent regulatory mechanism. (p32-34)
16. All private universities must submit to a national accreditation system. Private degree-granting universities must not be confined to select areas like technology, medicine, management, finance etc.. They must be required to be comprehensive universities covering the arts and social and natural sciences too. (p35)
17. There must be tight regulation of private universities in terms of auditing of accounts, payment of minimum salaries to teachers, certain percentage of seats reserved for meritorious students who are to be provided scholarships etc.. (p35)
18. Granting of Deemed University status to be put on hold. All existing Deemed Universities to be given three years to shape up (to have strong research programmes, and become a comprehensive university as defined in this report) failing which their Deemed University status is to be withdrawn. (p37)
19. Education must be made affordable for all through scholarships or loans provided by the State. Every student who gains admission must get an assured loan or a scholarship (for the needy) from the State. (p39)
20. Do we need foreign universities? Can the best learning experiences not be provided to our students by opening our doors to foreign scholars? p(40)
21. If the best of foreign universities (amongst the top 200 in the world) want to come to India, they should be welcomed. Such institutions should award an Indian degree and be subject to all the rules and regulations that would apply to any Indian university. (p40)
22. State funding, though increasing, will not be enough to expand supply and progress towards excellence. Complementary sources of funding will have to be found even for state funded universities. Philanthropy from society and alumni as a source of funding needs to be encouraged, with appropriate changes in regulation. Universities must be able to hire professional fundraisers and professional investors to attract funding from non-government sources. (p41)
23. Universities must be freed from the constraints imposed by funding agencies to obtain approvals for every single post. Funding agencies must provide block grants against a plan and universities must be allowed to spend them according to their priorities, subject to the plan. (p42)
24. There are a large number of students who can afford to pay for their education. Absence of differential fees has led to subsidising students who can actually afford to pay. Those who can afford to pay must pay higher fees for which they will be offered guarateed student loans. Free education will be provided only to those who cannot afford it. (p42)
25. National tests like the GRE must be organised round the year. Students from all over India must be allowed to take the tests as many times as they like and their best score can be sent to the universities for admission. Currently the CBSE and the State Board exams are a means of normalising school level competencies - this can be done by the National tests. We must seriously think of reviving our faith in each school and its teachers to credibly evaluate their own students. (p42-43)
26. India can provide affordable higher education to foreign students, if we remove systemic impediments. It will also enrich the ethos of our universities. (p43)
27. Urgent measures are needed to attract good people who enjoy teaching and research back to the university and offer them a positive and motivating environment. Resources in terms of libraries, laboratories and research assistance as well as competitive remuneration will need to be provided to retain good people. (p43-44)
28. Student assessment of teachers needs to be instituted. Students can provide an experiential assessment of the quality of teaching. Parameters of student feedback can be drawn up to avoid distorted assessments by students. Teachers whose feedback record remains poor in successive years should be required to face formal precedures which might allow a university or college to shed them.
29. We need to improve governance of universities by developing expertise in educational management, and avoid burdening good academics with administrative chores. We must have a separation between academic administration and overall management (including fund raising). State governments must abandon the trend of appointing civil servants as university administrators. (p45)
30. Teachers and students must have autonomy. In academic matters, the teacher should have the autonomy to frame his/her course and the way he/she would like to assess his/her students. Students should be allowed to take courses of their choice from different universities and then be awarded a degree on the basis of credits earned. (p46)
31. We should not blame private initiative, political interference, and other forces for the loss of autonomy of universities. There was no rigorous resistance, indeed there was willing abdication, from the academic community to the subversion in matters of policy implementation, appointments and day-to-day functioning of the universities. Education was made subservient to ideological compulsions, which led to its loss of respect. (p49)
32. We need a De Novo regulatory body - the National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) under which the various functions of the existing regulatory agencies would be subsumed. The new body would also take over the powers vested in the existing regulatory bodies in terms of creation of new institutions as well as their content/sylallbi. (p52)
33. The 13 existing professional councils created under various acts of Parliament may after divesting their existing regulatory functions to NCHER look at conducting tests for practicisng professionals affiliated to the councils, prescribing syllabi for such tests and leave it to the universities to design their curriculum based on such syllabi. (p55).
34. The NCHER would not interfere with academic freedom and institutional autonomy. It would not follow the current inspection-based approval method, it but would use move to a verification and authentication system. Universities will put out mandatory self-declarations in the public domain.(corrected)
35. 1. Given the federal nature of our country and the role of states in education, there must be Higher Education Councils (HECs) in the states which will co-ordinate with the NCHER, to allow different institutions created and funded by the Centre and States to grow on equal footing. These HECs would also insulate the State universities from outside interference. (p57).
36. There should be a fast-track statutory mechanism in place for the adjudication of disputes between teachers, employees and management of institutions and universities in respect of matters concerning service conditions, as well as in matters of disputes relating to fee, admissions etc. A suitable law should be enacted to establish a National Education Tribunal along with State Education Tribunals or appropriate number of Benches of the Apex Tribunal in place for such adjudication. This would be in line with the observations of the Supreme Court of India in the TMA Pai matter, where such Tribunals were recommended. (p 60)
37. Any agency whose intention is to protect students from sub-par education is better off by providing information on the programmes and univerisites to the student rather than walk the slippery path of establishing minimum standards of quality (for education is about academic over-reach rather than reaching the minimum). (p63)
38. Curricular reform to be the topmost priority of the newly created NCHER which would create a curricular framework based on the principles of mobility within a full range of curricular areas and integration of skills with academic depth. (p64)
39. The NCHER should galvanize research in the university system through the creation of a National Research Foundation. (p64)
40. The NCHER should identify the best 1,500 colleges across India to upgrade them as universities, and create clusters of other potentially good colleges to evolve as universities. (p66)
41. The NCHER too should be subject to external review once in five years. (p66)
42. The NCHER should prepare and present a Report on the State of Higher Education in India annually to Parliament. (p68)
43. 1. The NCHER shall establish transparent norms and process for entry and exit of institutions. The need is to make the process easy for good and serious proposals for setting up new institutions. (p68)
44. The NCHER would be an autonomous body created by making a suitable amendment to the Constitution, accountable only to the Indian parliament and drawing its budgetary resources from the Ministry of Finance. It would have a seven-member board with a full-time Chairperson. Of the seven members, one would be an eminent professional from the world of industry and one with the background of a long and consistent social engagement. All other five members would be academic people of eminence, representing broad areas of knowledge. The status of the Chairperson of the commission should be analogous to that of the Chief Election Commissioner and that of the members should be comparable to the Election Commissioners. The Commission will be independent of all ministries of the Government of India. It will have the autonomy to hire talent at various levels within and outside the government. It will also have the autonomy to define the compensation of its employees.
45. The NCHER may initially consist of five divisions: (p70)
    • Future Directions: Developing global benchmarks on student performance; university performance; salaries, potential programmers; new research directions; and articulation of needs of the government in terms of manpower etc.
    • Accreditation Management: Creating norms for accreditation and certifyingmultiple accreditation agencies which would be independent of the government .Institutions and universities may like to get accreditation from one or more than one agencies depending on their reputation. They would be also providing annual feedback to universities, and organizing workshops etc.
    • Funding & Development: Developing funding needs of universities, developing mechanisms for funding institutions, helping universities with development of corpus and good endowment management, managing the guaranteed student loan/scholarship programme, and funding the requirements of universities etc.
    • New Institutions & Incubation: Including training workshops for first-time VCs as well as on themes like accounting, investing the corpus, communication within & outside the university, negotiations & managing vendors, good office practices, human resource management etc.
    • Information & Governance: This division will focus on managing the data needs of the commission, display of information on universities, develop performance parameters on the governance of universities, support other divisions with information as well as provide students with information on each university. This division w ill also inform the Accreditation and Funding & Development divisions of the performance or lack thereof, for each university, each year.

There's a lot of interesting stuff in the report! Enough fodder for a separate post to follow looking at the prognosis, suggestions and recommendations.

The Azim Premji University, a pioneering initiative in India

The Azim Premji Foundation (APF) is planning to set up the Azim Premji University (APU) a private self-financing university in Karnataka that would undertake teaching, training and R & D in fields like elementary and secondary education,education management and education policy. The APF will provide the statutory endowment fund of Rs. 25 crores. The University, while based in Karnataka will open branches elesewhere in the country. The Azim Premji University Bill is to be introduced in the Karnataka Assembly in the upcoming session, says the The Economic Times.

According to Business Line,

• The University will be self-financed, with no financial grant or assistance from the State Government
  
• Implying that reservations could apply to this university, a note issued during the meeting said that while it would be "open to all classes, castes and gender, the Government of Karnataka can make special provisions".
  
• The Board of Governors will have two Secretaries holding the charge of the education departments, while the rest will be from outside the Government. The board will appoint auditors, lay down policies, review decisions of the university, approve the budget and decide, if necessary, on the winding up of the university. The Government reserves the right to intervene in the event of mismanagement, mal-administration and indiscipline, the note, explaining some of the clauses in the proposed Bill, said.
  
• The Governor of the State will be a visitor of the university. He can seek any information and clarifications and confer degrees and the minister for higher education will be pro-visitor (pro-chancellor).

Business Standard interviewed Dileep Ranjekar, the CEO of the APF, who throws more light on their plans for the APU.

Where do you plan to have the varsity?
If Karnataka finally passes the Bill, and empowers us to start the private university, then the location will be Bangalore.

What was the inspiration behind this concept?
The biggest issue that has actually promoted us to think about the varsity is 'why is that there is no university that is focussed on elementary education in the country'. We observed that we don't have people with professional backgrounds in this country to address issues pertaining to the education sector. Hence, this university will be very similar to the national law school which was launched primarily to create professional lawyers in the country. The university will engage itself in educating professionals who, in turn, will be required for building the capabilities of teachers and managers as educators. Besides, we intend to train people who will make policy decisions based on their knowledge about education.

What courses you plan to offer?
Other than creating trained educational professionals, we plan to offer a post-graduate (MA) programme in education initially. We will also launch several short-term courses which will actually be targeted at in-service development needs of education managers, teacher educators and teachers. The second important activity is research, because research is lacking in education in India. The university will focus sharply on research on several issues to understand how things works; what causes better learning; how do we develop better people and what makes an effective teacher. There are hundreds of such issues. It will also have some experimental labs as part of the university. We also intend to collaborate with a number of states across the country to help them through education resource centres.

Since it will be a self-financing university, will students bear the cost?
Essentially it will be borne by the students. But where the students can't afford, we will have a scholarship programme.

How much funding have you received from Azim Premji for the Foundation so far?
We have earmarked close to Rs 650 crore so far, and this has been entirely funded by Azim Premji. We work with the government and we leverage the funds which we spend. The leverage is very important because the state has really the strength. Because anybody else spending money on the education is going to be very minuscule. The Foundation works with the government which is responsible for schooling. We work with close to about 20,000 schools across the country.

Will the UGC recognise the courses being offered by the university?
The university that comes into existence through a state legislation, will automatically be a recognised university. We don't have to approach the UGC for this.

The APF website lists K.S. Viswanathan as the person in charge of the APU project. Viswanathan had outlined APF's thoughts on improving education in India and its current activities in an interview last January.

VP: What exactly is the Azim Premji foundation doing now in the school scene in Karnataka?

K.S.V: The Azim Premji foundation is focused on Rural Government Schools in the states. We work along with the State Governments in executing some of their priorities. Karnataka has over 45,000 Elementary Schools and 8,000 Education functionaries. However, the learning levels in these schools are very low.

The key objective of the Azim Premji Foundation is to significantly contribute to the Universalisation of Elementary Education in India that facilitates a just, equitable and humane society. After 7 years of operations driving this goal, the foundation has now identified Teacher, Education functionaries as well as Examination reforms as the three pillars as the major programs to pursue.

Teachers tend to teach what gets tested. Teachers are the key transformational agents in the class rooms. Education Functionaries play an important role on how a teacher is actually engaged in a class room. What is needed is a common shared Vision amongst the various stake holders in the Education System in the country. With these goals, the Azim Premji Foundation has been working with the State Government on various initiatives that will supplement their efforts in improving the quality of education in the state.

Our programs in the Karnataka Government is built around Examination reforms, Class room teaching learning process, Teacher training and preparation and Academic support for schools.

We started with Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) in North East Karnataka (the most backward economically and academically) in 2001. This was followed with the Learning Guarantee Program ( LGP) where we ran programs to assess the learning's in the class measured in terms of Competencies acquired in Maths, Language and Science in Class 2 and Class 4. Based on our findings, the Karnataka Government set up a special Organization, Karnataka State Quality Assessment Organization ( KSQAO). KSQAO is now running the LGP program across the state to assess the competency acquired in the Elementary Schools in the state. Currently, we are implementing Child Friendly School initiatives in 330 schools in Surpur block of Yadgir district in NE Karnataka to assess the impact of Community participation in School management, Teacher support system as well as LGP.

We are also running a Management Development Program for 8000 Education functionaries in the state.

VP: What does the Foundation do in other states?

K.S.V: We have extended the concept of Learning Guarantee Program in the few districts in the states of MP, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Uttaranchal. We are also developing Child centric, self paced, interactive learning system using educational software in 18 languages including 4 tribal languages, to facilitate the unleashing of creativity in children.

In addition, in the states of Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Pondicherry, we are working with the Governments to assess the impact of Technology led initiatives in Class room learning along with, as well as providing Academic and Pedagogic support to Schools . Our programs cover 13 States, 16000 schools and 2.5 Mn children.

VP: India currently has about 35 Million children "out of school" and about 157 Million children in the school. How are you trying to bring a balance between quantity and quality?

K.S.V: We have a unique challenge here. We need more schools to cover larger number of children in the country and at the same time, the quality of education in terms of school infrastructure, class room process as well as Teacher support system. Post the launch of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (Universalisation of Elementary Education) program, there has been an improvement in the access to the school for the children in the rural areas. Today, close to 90 % of the children have an access to an elementary school within a distance of 3 Kms from their homes. However, in the process the quality of education has taken a beating. Other programs like Mid day meals, free text books etc have further enhanced the gross enrolment ratio in the schools to around 90%. This is good and welcome news with respect to quantity.

However, quality of education has emerged as the biggest concern in the elementary school system in the country. We have around 200 mn children in the age group of 6-14; out of who only 52% of them reach Class 8 and only 31% reach class 10.Even amongst these children, only 1/3rd of the children are able to read and write their names in their native language.

One of the main reasons for the higher drop out rate as well as low learning in the elementary schools, is the quality of class room process, Curriculum design and Teacher support system in addition to other socio economic factors. The good news is there is an increased awareness on these issues and there is a good focus from all concerned including NGO's like Azim Premji Foundation, Ministry of Education in the Central and in the state government to address these issues . It is a slow but a definite process towards improving the quality of education in the elementary schools.

VP: So what, according to you, are the key needs of elementary education today?

K.S.V: Elementary Education today requires a good Academic Support System, more accountability to all stake holders including the Community for learning outcomes as well as a common shared strategic perspective amongst all stake holders in the system. Making the Teacher's job more exciting, more important as well bringing more recognition to the teachers and the Education functionaries can change the way we look at the Elementary education system in the country.

We need more Action research in the challenges of the Elementary Education. There is also a need to revamp the teacher Education system in the country focused on Elementary schools.

The APF's strategy of addressing the challenge of universalisation of elemenatary education by improving the quality of teachers and the quality of the classroom learning process is an excellent one. Their idea of walking the talk and investing to set up an university focussed on teaching and education management is a welcome step. What is more, the APF's strategy of working closely with the Government, indeed partnering with them, to leverage their strengths and complement them with the APF's own strengths is very well conceived. As Dileep Ranjekar points out, the challenge of educating all our children is a challenge of scale. No private player can match the scale of the Government's efforts. The Government has a crucial role to play. Ranjekar's choice of the word "leverage" is apt in this context. The APF's efforts (backed by its Rs. 650 crore investment - no mean sum in itself, albeit just a drop compared to the Government spending on education) can provide a multiplier effect to the Government's own investments and lead to huge improvements in teaching and learning in Government schools. By working closely with the Government (the Policy Planning Unit in the Dept. of Education in Karnataka is staffed by Government officials as well as staff from the Azim Premji Foundation) and offering the Government substantial control over the running of the proposed APU, the APF is also pre-empting the possibility of any standoffs with future Governments, run by other administrations.

The APF's initiatives in area of Education Management are described on their web site. One aspect of Education Management that doesn't find a mention in their list, but deserves attention is the economics of running schools. The challenge will be to keep fees as low as possible and affordable to the masses, yet find the ways and means to delivery a high quality education in a self-sustaining manner year on year. I hope the APF is working on this too.

The APU is likely to be the first of many more such universities likely to be set up in the coming years. Just as Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata provided the seed investment to set up the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore (still knowns as Tata Institute to Bangloreans) a 100 years ago, I can see a time not before long when we will have more such universities spawned by India's successful and farsighted business leaders. Imagine an Infosys University, a Mittal University, a Mahindra University, a Tata University, a Birla University ,a Reliance University, a HCL University, a TVS University, a Bharti University, a Bajaj University, an ITC University, an ICICI University, a HDFC University, and many more dotting the country over the next decade. Just the thought of the impact they could have, with each of them specialising in different areas, sends a frisson of excitement down the spine. It took almost 13 years, from 1896 when Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata wrote to Lord Reay about the creation of a national university, to 1909 when the Government of India issued the vesting order for the institute, for the Indian Institute of Science to see the light of day. Azim Premji has shown that it will take much less time today from idea to reality.

Section 25 companies to be allowed to invest in higher education in India

According to a Business Standard report,

Private and foreign corporate investment may soon get to flow into Indian higher education with the government considering a move to reform policy that hinders such financing.

Currently, it is not possible for non-profit companies under Article 25 of the Companies Registration Act — like industry associations — to set up an institution and get university status and recognition from the University Grants Commission.

Educational institutions in India can be set up only by trusts, societies and charitable companies, but the profits cannot be taken out of the institution and have to be reinvested. Not only does this restriction hamper expansion, it also encourages promoters to resort to creative accounting to take out profits from the institutions.

Now, under encouragement from an influential political ally from Maharashtra, the United Progressive Alliance government is expected to clarify this clause, sources told Business Standard.

But this report doesn't indicate that for-profit higher education will be allowed - it only seems to indicate that in addition to non-profit trusts or societies, non-profit Section 25 companies will also be allowed to set up higher education institutions, which is not as big a step as what is being considered in the primary education space. A recent report had suggested that for-profit investment in primary education is under consideration.

So, what is a Section 25 company? The Indian Companies Act (1956), provides a definition of a section 25 company.

Section 25 POWER TO DISPENSE WITH "LIMITED" IN NAME OF CHARITABLE OR OTHER COMPANY.

(1) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Central Government that an association
(a) is about to be formed as a limited company for promoting commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any other useful object, and
(b) intends to apply its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its objects, and to prohibit the payment of any dividend to its members, the Central Government may, by licence direct, that the association may be registered as a company with limited liability, without the addition to its name of the word "Limited" or the words "Private Limited".

(2) The association may thereupon be registered accordingly; and on registration shall enjoy all the privileges, and (subject to the provisions of this section) be subject to all the obligations, of limited companies.

(3) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Central Government - (a) that the objects of a company registered under this Act as a limited company are restricted to those specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), and (b) that by its constitution the company is required to apply its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its objects and is prohibited from paying any dividend to its members, the Central Government may, by licence, authorise the company by a special resolution to change its name, including or consisting of the omission of the word "Limited" or the words "Private Limited"; and section 23 shall apply to a change of name under this sub-section as it applies to a change of name under section 21.

(4) A firm may be a member of any association or company licensed under this section, but on the dissolution of the firm, its membership of the association or company shall cease.

(5) A licence may be granted by the Central Government under this section on such conditions and subject to such regulations as it thinks fit, and those conditions and regulations shall be binding on the body to which the licence is granted, and where the grant is under sub-section (1), shall, if the Central Government so directs, be inserted in the memorandum, or in the articles, or partly in the one and partly in the other.

(6) It shall not be necessary for a body to which a licence is so granted to use the word "Limited" or the words "Private Limited" as any part of its name and, unless its articles otherwise provide, such body shall, if the Central Government by general or special order so directs and to the extent specified in the directions, be exempt from such of the provisions of this Act as may be specified therein.

(7) The licence may at any time be revoked by the Central Government, and upon revocation,

Not that big a difference from the way non-profit trusts or societies operate in India.

The Business Standard report also goes on to suggest that with the shackles of the Left Parties removed after the recent confidence vote, there will now be movement on the pending Foreign Education Providers (Regulation) Bill to allow foreign universities to operate in India.

There is also renewed hope for a Bill allowing foreign universities and institutions into India to be tabled in Parliament, judging by Human Resources Development Minister Arjun Singh’s remarks at a conference of state education ministers two days ago.

The Left parties were the principal opponents of the Foreign Education Providers (Regulation) Bill, which was cleared by the Cabinet in 2007 but never introduced in the Lok Sabha although it was listed in the agenda papers.

“We have tried to accommodate some of the concerns. We will try to introduce the Bill in the Lok Sabha session beginning August,” Singh said. The Bill seeks to regulate foreign institutions setting up campuses in India. A contentious issue is whether caste-based reservations would apply to these institutions.

Both Oxford and Stanford Universities have evinced interest in setting up campuses in India but have been hesitant about moving forward until they are clear about the degree of regulation, funding and other issues.

Experts say the moves would provide clarity on funding of higher education institutions by overseas entities. "This will probably provide funding clarity for foreign institutions like charitable organisations or NRIs wanting to set up facilities in India.

International higher education headed for a sub-prime style crash?

So says Philip Altbach, in an article in The Times Higher Education.

Just as many universities want to be global players, so in the housing sector, buyers and financial industries wanted to participate in a growing and lucrative market. House prices were rising fast, and few questions were asked about products, sellers or buyers. The market was allowed to function without constraint. "Irrational exuberance" set in, with the market becoming saturated - a "bubble" mentality. The bubble has now burst and many countries face very serious economic and social consequences.

International higher education stands in the middle of that cycle - somewhere between exuberance and a bubble - so now is the time to examine which actions are sustainable, which policies will serve the interests of students and the academy, and which actions constitute mistaken policy or greed.

International education has become big business, with perhaps 3 million students studying outside their own countries, and billions of pounds, euros and dollars being generated from tuition, living expenses, branch campuses, franchises and much else. No one knows how many branch campuses exist, but estimates are in the hundreds, almost all in developing or middle-income countries. The market is large, growing and basically unregulated. It is indeed the Wild West or, more accurately, the Wild East.

One might take the view that "the market will sort itself out". Here again, a comparison can be made with sub-prime mortgages. In that sector, today's crisis was reached by allowing unscrupulous players to operate, and by encouraging respectable banks to buy up risky debt with little regulation. There is a similar mentality in international higher education. In this largely unregulated market, some sellers are prestigious universities hoping to build links overseas, recruit top students to their home campuses and strengthen their brand abroad. But many more are sub-prime institutions: sleazy recruiters, degree packagers, low-end private institutions seeking to stave off bankruptcy through the export market and even a few respectable universities forced by government funding cutbacks to raise cash elsewhere.

Buyers such as students but also institutions in developing countries, are similarly unregulated, sometimes ill-informed and often naive. Most tragically, students buy services without much information or understanding. Uninformed or simply avaricious institutions in developing countries may form partnerships with low-quality colleges and universities in, for example, the US, Australia and the UK, and receive substandard teaching or degree courses. Regulation may be absent or inappropriate, making quality assurance impossible. There are not enough top-quality universities in countries such as China and India to absorb all the potential overseas partners. Further, most institutions worldwide lack the infrastructures to engage successfully in sophisticated international initiatives.

I couldn't agree more with his suggestion and his proposed solution to avoid the impending crash.

Clear regulation is needed, probably by government authority, to ensure that national interests are served and that students do not receive a shoddy service from unscrupulous providers. This will also help universities think about their motivations for entering the market.

We badly need an effective educational regulator in India like SEBI, the RBI or TRAI, which regulate the capital markets, the banking sector and the telecom sector respectively. Will the Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE) see the light of day and more importantly have the teeth and comptence to regulate well, if it does indeed come about?

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.

Morsels and chunks from FICCI's summit on Private Higher Education - Opportunities and Challenges

FICCI conducted The Higher Education Summit & Exhibition - "Private Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges" on March 23-24, 2006 in New Delhi. News reports have thrown up quite a few interesting morsels and chunks.

First the morsels.

• From The Financial Express:

  Deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, pointed out the need for a substantial rise in the public expenditure in higher education in India. He felt that the improvement in the higher education system could only be achieved through a balanced partnership between the public and private sector. This, in turn, called for increased private-sector participation along with a significant upgrading in the public education infrastructure, he added. Mr Ahluwalia said the prevailing dysfunctionality of the incentive mechanism in the higher education system was a serious cause for concern.

  Montek Ahluwalia is echoing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's views on the need for private investment in higher education.

• From the U21Global press release:
  

  U21Global, a Singapore-based online graduate school of management was granted the associate membership of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI). In addition, Mukesh Aghi, CEO, U21Global, will join FICCI's education committee as member and will work with the other members on potential liaisons and tie ups between private higher education institutions and government bodies in India to help meet the rapidly diversifying needs of the growing Indian economy.

  It is interesting to note that foreign educational institutions are now beginning to participate in the lobbying for liberalising private investment in higher education.

• In the run-up to the FICCI's education summit, FICCI conducted a survey called "Developing an understanding of private higher education in India: A Stakeholder Perspective". Some excerpts from The Tribune and Business Standard:
  
  1. The survey was carried out between December 2005 and January 2006 and 4,000 stakeholders including students, parents, faculty, recruiters and promoters across 11 cities countrywide were interviewed.
     
  2. 70% students of private Higher Education Institutes (HEI) have sought government intervention in monitoring and accreditation of such institutes
     
  3. 55% of students interviewed said they felt such institutions charged exorbitant fees and 50 per cent said they selected courses based on employment potential, which, the report said, reflected a "negative impact on the research contributions at the HEIs".
     
  4. Promoters of self-financing private higher education institutes recognised the need for meeting regulatory requirements and getting affiliation and recognition. The prime challenge perceived by them was the uncertainty and the complexity of government regulatory environment, whereas, the least-challenging issue was financing the institute
     
  5. Promoters of such institutes supported a single-window approval system which, they said, would remove prevalant confusion due to multiplicity of regulating agencies such as the UGC, AICTE, MCI etc.

  Both the students and the private institutions are unhappy with the way the State is regulating the private institutions. Far better regulation is needed and the State does not seem to be in a position to provide it - this is going to be a major challenge. FICCI is attempting to address this by proposing self-regulation.
  

• Mr. Saroj Kumar Poddar, President, FICCI, in his address stated that the education sector in India continues to be constrained by strong entry barriers, poor regulatory framework, resource crunch and the inability to cater to the industry demands. To ensure financial sustainability along with equity in higher educational institutions in India, Mr. Poddar, suggested a framework wherein the Government could buy the desired number of seats in the public as well the private institutes, with the rest of the seats sold at prices that would make institutions viable. Mr. Poddar announced that a Higher Education Network (FICCI - HEN) would be launched by FICCI to promote disclosure and accountability through self-regulation. "A number of leading private sector educational institutions have joined FICCI-HEN and we would work with the government to promote good practices by Higher education service providers", said Mr. Poddar (From the FICCI press release)

  FICCI's proposal for the Government to "buy" a desired number of seats in both public as well as private institutes is a radical one, which is likely to face strong resistance from the Government circles. FICCI's idea of self-regulation, led by disclosure norms and accountability, by an industry-driven body, rather than the Government is a very good one. The UGC's draft rules for disclosure norms could provide a good starting point.

Now for the chunks.

• Lawrence H. Summers, President of Harvard University, in his speech at the summit (full transcript available) made some interesting points. He talked about five lessons for India from the American experience in higher education - the importance of competition, flexibility, the authority of ideas, generous philanthropy, and combining research with undergraduate study. He also suggested that there was a major opportunity for India in exporting education. Some excerpts from his speech.
  
  • First, the most important guarantor of both quality and adequate investments in American higher education is competition. All of us in American higher education, particularly at the highest levels, see ourselves as engaged in a brutal competition. If there is a single reason why American education has excelled, it is the brutal competition for students, for faculty, for grant funds, that drives American institutions forward....And we regard it all as good. Not as something to be discouraged, not as something to be managed, but something to be seen and treated as a spur forward....At the federal level in the U.S. we rely primarily on direct federal support for students who can then take that support to the institutions they choose who then compete to attract the best students....We allocate federal financial aid funds in the way that we allocate federal research funds - on the basis of competition and peer review, not on other bases. And these judgments support the competition and drive our excellence."
    
  • American higher education depends on flexibility and the capacity to respond. Unlike what takes place in the primary and secondary level, there is in the U.S. no standard for what constitutes a necessary curriculum. No mandate as to how the academic calendar is to be organized. No set of requirements for what a university must provide.... Success depends on flexibility. That means for example that at Harvard and other great universities there are no fixed salary scales. When an extraordinary professor gets an extraordinary opportunity, we are in a position to change her salary. People of different ages or in different fields, because of conditions in the marketplace, have salaries that can differ by a factor of two or three. Students who want to change their curriculum or forge a major that cuts across two different fields are permitted to do so. The emphasis is on flexibility.
    
  • "Universities must be places based on the authority of ideas, rather than the idea of authority." Summers relates a story of a freshman student (in a seminar on globalisation that Summers taught at Harvard) "who has been here for all of five weeks would tell the guy who had the title 'President' - who had been in charge of this stuff for his country - that he was all wrong and that he had thought about it and that is what he concluded. And that nobody would regard it as a big deal. And that is something that is absolutely central to the success of academic life. There is no question that should be impossible to ask, no subject that should be beyond the scope of inquiry, no issue that should be regarded as finally settled, and no one who should be above or beyond debate. That is a culture, that is an approach, that is a view that is very difficult to maintain in any institution, anywhere. And yet for the most creative ideas to come out, for students to be best trained, it is something that is absolutely essential. And it is something that we fight at Harvard to preserve."
    
  • For all of this to work, there must be generous philanthropy. Our ability to maintain an institution like Harvard, the United States' ability to maintain a system of private higher education, depends on philanthropy. It depends on wealthy individuals who recognize their obligation to an institution that gave them their start, or to giving something back to society, or to promoting a cause that they believe in. It depends on a government's set of policies, ranging from tax deductions to an attitude taken by public officials that celebrates and welcomes, and is unthreatened by, individual generosity. It depends on harnessing the fact that people like to be recognized for their success - by being prepared to name professorships and scholarships and buildings for those who provide generosity.... That is a challenge for would-be philanthropists in this country, where I note the number of those included in Forbes magazine's list of billionaires has increased substantially in recent years, but it is also a broader challenge for institutions to learn to work with philanthropists.
    
  • Successful universities focus on research and on professional education as well as on undergraduate study. Some of the greatest contributions that American universities have made are in the upgrading of the medical profession and in the training of the legal profession. They increasingly, and this is something that I put great emphasis on during my time at Harvard, strengthen the contribution that universities make to professions that are absolutely central to our global system, but that do not involve the largest financial rewards for those who go into them

  • I would suggest that there is a major opportunity here for (exporting) Indian higher education. Potential benefits to the Indian economy of developing it as an export are obvious. But there are more fundamental benefits as well. First, if my own experience is any guide, foreigners that come and spend any time in India will want to come back. They will tell their friends about the beauty of India and the warmth of India's people and many will decide to come back later in life and to visit. Second, foreigners who study here will inevitably make long-lasting connections with their India counterparts. They will forge lifelong relationships that over time will change the attitudes of our nation and other nations towards India.

    I can tell you that no small part of the influence and strength that the United States has in conducting its global policies over the last few years has derived from the thinking about America that has come from those who spent six months or a year or two years in American universities. It is something that any rising super power should consider.

    Third, there are remarkable economic opportunities in this country, and those who come here and study them will see those opportunities and be more likely to exploit them to their benefit, and, I would suggest, to the benefit of the Indian economy. There will be those I am sure who will respond to this suggestion by saying that India's universities are already full and that there is not enough university capacity in India even to serve those in India who need higher education without setting aside spaces for foreigners. There are those who will argue that at a time when many thousands of Indians are traveling to the United States, should we be trying to keep them in India rather than recruit foreign students? My response is a simple one and it is the basis of economics. By attracting tuition dollars and euros, by attracting the money that foreign students will inevitably spend on housing and other living expenses, Indian institutions can potentially develop a new and reliable stream of revenue that will support their domestic expansion and enable them to teach more rather than fewer Indian students. I have no doubt that by welcoming more students from abroad, India can accommodate more students from home.
    

  
   
  
  
• Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon, Director, National Judicial Academy, Bhopal in his speech, provided a legal perspective on private funding of higher education in India and an example of a highly successful private initiative in legal education in India. This private institution was set up by no less an organisation than the Bar Council of India, which is the professional council responsible for regulating legal education in India!

  Prof. Madhava Menon lists the relevant constitutional provisions that which will determine the parameters of a new regulatory regime.
  

  1. Right to Equality (Article 14, 15, 16)
     
  2. Right to Education (Article 21 - A)
     
  3. Cultural and Educational Rights of Minorities (Article 30)
     
  4. Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 38, 39, 41, 46)
     
  5. Rights to Property (Article 300-A)
     
  6. Entries in List I of Seventh Schedule (Item 65, 66)
     
  7. Entries in List III of Seventh Schedule (Item 25, 26)
  He suggests that there are at least four different sets of regulatory arrangements that are likely to operate in private higher education in future.
  
  1. State imposed regulations: This will largely be in relation to admissions, fees, subsidies, competition, fairness and other public policy issues.
     
  2. Professional/Discipline-induced regulations: This will be in relation to eligibility, curriculum and licensing requirements as determined
     
  3. Regulations arising out of market compulsions: The market will be a powerful regulator in a liberalized regime in future where the consumers stand to benefit in cost and quality if competition is maintained.
     
  4. Self-imposed regulations: In the changed context, service providers will be persuaded to build brands for educational excellence and towards this a series of regulatory steps and self-discipline may have to be cultivated including ethics for organization, administration and delivery of services.
  Prof. Madhava Menon asks why India is not a desired higher education destination for foreign students and says "The politics and economics of higher education coupled with unprincipled interventions from State agencies have eroded the dynamism and competitiveness of governing structures of educational institutions. For several decades curriculum remained unrevised. Teaching was geared more to examinations rather than to acquisition of knowledge. The public discourse on higher education has been dominated to the exclusion of all other aspects by considerations of equity, equality and social justice. The post TMA Pai debate (2002(8) SCC 481) hijacked the educational agenda to the differing approaches of the Judiciary and Parliament on the nature and scope of State authority to regulate admissions through reservations (apparently for less meritorious students identified by state) and to decide the fee structure of private unaided educational institutions."

  He goes on to describe his experience of being associated with the successful experiment of the National Law School of India University at Bangalore, which in his words accommodates access with quality as well as autonomy with accountability.

  University education in law is regulated by multiple agencies including U.G.C., The Bar Council, the Government and the respective university authorities. For a variety of reasons the quality of so-called legal education in the 1970s was found to be utterly poor despite the regulators and the regulations. Several attempts at curriculum reform and stricter controls by the Bar Councils yielded no substantial results in terms of quality, professionalism and competitiveness. It was a state of equality in mediocrity! To redeem the situation the Bar Council of India itself decided to establish a model law school in the private sector or joint sector to act as a pace-setter for legal education reforms. A self-financing, privately managed law University, independent of government control, the first of its kind in the country got established in 1986 in Bangalore under the name of National Law School of India University. Today there are seven such Law Universities in as many states and three more are about to get started in the coming academic year. Everyone concerned with law education applaud the initiative which changed the course of higher education in law, making it internationally competitive and socially relevant attracting the attention of industry, government and the public in the legal sectors.

  I had the good fortune of being associated with this reform movement in higher education for the last 25 years. It has influenced curriculum development even outside the National Law Schools and compelled the private un-aided institutions to improve quality of the education and training they offer. The scheme does honour the State's reservation policy though it would not allow the admissions to be regulated by the State. It assiduously maintains its autonomy in academic and governance matters and some of them are tying up with foreign Universities on their own terms. The experiment is now two decades old and worth looking into when models are being considered for regulating private higher education in the liberalized regime.

  He concludes on a very positive note, but with a caveat on the State's role.
  

  one can confidently say that private higher education has a great future in the Indian Scenario. PHE will bring in competitive merit and force periodical changes in curriculum, pedagogy, examination and governance across the entire educational sector. However, the State will have to negotiate equality and equity through a fair, transparent-participatory regulatory system which will be driven more by consumer interests rather than administrative exigencies and political considerations.

  
  

• Dr. S.Venkateswaran, Vice-Chancellor, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, (BITS) Pilani, Rajasthan in his speech, takes a refreshingly different view of higher education, striking a few notes very similar to Lawrence Summers. He provides a lot of food for thought and pointers to what can be done. The BITS Pilani model needs to be studies to see if it could serve as a model for more such institutions.

  The universities may have to develop an attitude by which students will be treated as clients with continuously changing needs and ambitions. Teachers and scientists may have to work more to satisfy the wishes of the students and society than their own personal and individual urges and impulses. The curriculum would require constant change. The traditional functions of the university namely, creation, preservation and dissemination of knowledge is taken over by others outside the university system as well. Actually, more technologies are created, preserved and propagated by other systems, outside the university. In order to cope with this, university curriculum may have to be guided more by the external impulses rather than internal impulses.

  It will not be possible for the university system to function in isolation. It will be difficult for the higher education system to continue to have the philosophy that education is for the sake of education. One may have to embrace the philosophy that education is for economic advantage. BITS, Pilani has embraced this philosophy since its inception and has done several innovations.

  Dr. Venkateswaran makes some very interesting points about the BITS model, of which a few are excerpted below

  • All admissions are made on an all India basis and are purely based on merit. There is no quota like state quota, management quota, NRI quota, etc.
  • Admissions are done through a computer-based online test spread over two months at various centers across the country with the flexibility for the candidate to have a choice of place of examination as well as time and date of examination. This year about sixty-eight thousand (68000) students have registered for this test for a total number of 1400 seats (800 at Pilani campus and 600 at Goa campus).
  • The overwhelming demand of highly meritorious students seeking admission to the Institute prompted the Institute to open campuses outside Pilani. At present the Institute has a campus is Dubai where the current strength in 950 students. The Institute has opened a campus in Goa where the strength is 1200 and will become 2500 in steady state. The Goa campus is constructed in an area of about 188 acres. The Institute has already invested about 130 crore rupees in this project. The Institute is planning to have a campus in Hyderabad. The government of Andhra Pradesh has already allotted 200 acres land for the campus there and the project cost of around 160 crore rupees is already being planned. There are pending requests from Singapore, Vietnam and Mauritius to open campuses there.