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

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.

Kapil Sibal's 100 day Action Plan

The education minister, Kapil Sibal's 100 day Action Plan has been published on the Education Ministry site. The hundredth day would be around October 10th - the clock is ticking. The Action Plan lists the following goals:

Legislative Initiatives

1. An autonomous overarching authority for Higher Education and Research based on the recommendations of Yashpal Committee and National Knowledge Commission;
2. A law to prevent, prohibit and punish educational malpractices;
3. A law for mandatory assessment and accreditation in higher education through an independent regulatory authority;
4. A law to regulate entry and operation of Foreign Educational Providers;
5. A law to establish a Tribunal to fast-track adjudication of disputes concerning stake holders (teachers, students, employees and management) in higher education;
6. A law to amend the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, to strengthen the Commission;
7. A law to amend the Copyright Act, 1957 to address the concerns relating to copyrights and related rights of the various stake holders

Policy Initiatives

1. Formulation of a 'Brain-Gain' policy to attract talent fiom across the world to the existing and new institutions;
2. Launching of a new Scheme of interest subsidy on educational loans taken for professional courses by the Economically Weaker Students;
3. Strengthening and expansion of the Scheme for Remedial Coaching for students from SC/ST/minority communities, in higher education;
4. 'Equal Opportunity Offices' to be created in all universities for effective implementation of schemes for disadvanaged sections of the society;
5. A new policy on Distance Learning would be formulated

While a draft of The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of entry and operation, maintenance of quality and prevention of commercialisation) Bill, 2007 already exists, the other bills on the agenda will need to be drafted. The Law ministry had mooted special educational tribunals to adjudicate on educational malpractice complaints about an year ago.

This 100 day Action Plan is quite ambitious, especially the legislative agenda. The lawyer that he is, Kapil Sibal may well be able to put up drafts of each of the bills for debate by October 10th. Apparently he has the support and backing of the Prime Minister for his agenda.

Special educational tribunals mooted to curb malpractices by educational institutions

According to a report in The Hindu Business Line, Monday, August 11, 2008, p3 print edition ( I couldn't find this report online),

The Law Ministry is taking a close look at a suggestion to set up special tribunals with jurisdication on various educational malpractices, including overcharging of fees and non-payment of students' dues by institutions. Ministry officials said they are in touch with the Human Resources Ministry, as it is concerned with policies related to educational institutions. The government's stand on the issue would largely depend "on the HRD ministry's views", said an official. The Law Minister, Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, is believed to be keen on using the tribunals for handling litigation related to specific kind of cases in already overburdened courts. The proposed tribunals on educational malpractices would save students and their parents the trouble of approaching over-burdened courts for justice.

Presumably "overcharging of fees" refers to the so called donations that are forcibly demanded and collected?

While the idea of regulating educational institutions is certainly welcome and long overdue, we need to look into the pros and cons of establishing a new tribunal just to look into malpractices by educational institutions. If the existing regulatory bodies for schools, colleges and other types of educational institutions are given more teeth and enforcing powers, they may well be able to handle this themselves, rather than creating a new tribunal.

If the Law Ministry is considering such a proposal, I wish they think about putting it out in the public domain and calling for comments and suggestions from the public. An important regulatory issue like this needs to be debated.

Primary education for profit likely to be allowed in India

says The Economic Times. This is a very interesting move by the Government, heralding a huge change in their thinking on funding primary education. If they implement it, there could be a surge of much-needed private investment into primary education to provide a big boost to both supply and quality. The idea of cautious experimentation by asking private players to work in partnership with a government agency is a wise one.

Source: The Economic Times, Chennai Edition, Tuesday, July 22, p1 (couldn't find the link online)

Profit-making in primary education may get okay

Gireesh Chandra Prasad
New Delhi

Come December and corporates may get to venture into preimary education as a profit-making business by partnering with government bodies. According to a proposal on public-private partnership that the government is working on, shareholders of such companies will be eligible for dividends. This is a major break from the present legal restrictions that force companies providing education to plough back profits and utilise the funds for their stated objective of providing education.

Trusts, societies and charitable companies are the most-preferred legal structure for educational institutions and promoters are barred from taking profits out of such institutions. The proposed rules will change this equation with promoters earning reasonable dividends under watchful eyes of the public sector partners they will work with.

THe new norms would allow entrepreneurs to incorporate their ventures as companies and get into education as a profit-making service. However, they will not be eligible for any tax exemption that now extends to societies, trusts and charitable companies.

The finance ministry is expected to begin the process by issuing a request for qualification - a document detailing the parameters for eligible companies. This would give details about how the proposed business model would be structured without violating the existing restriction on repatriation of profits. The ministry would also evolve a model for inviting private investments in primary health centres through public-private partnerships.

The proposed relaxation would be available only for companies getting into partnerships with government entities and not to all. The nature of these projects would be different from the few public-private partnerhsips that have already happened under the rurual health mission and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which are largely in the form of management contracts or for providing specific services.

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.

No-objection Certificate from state governments required for private, unaided schools seeking CBSE affiliation?

Does a private, unaided school seeking affiliation to CBSE require a no-objection certificate from the state government of the state in which the private unaided school is situated? The Delhi High Court has ruled that a no-objection certificate from the state government is a must and that decision is currently on appeal in the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds it, state governments will have a means to control the growth of private, unaided CBSE schools in their respective states, which would not be good at all. Things like this could happen in any state.

Here's the background to the case currently before the Supreme Court. There was a Delhi High Court ruling on September 08, 2005, in a case involving a private, unaided school (run by Tushar Welfare Society), seeking affiliation to the CBSE, which had applied to the Uttar Pradesh State Government for a no-objection certificate, to which the state government never responded. The CBSE had declined affiliation to the school on the grounds that it had not submitted the no-objection certificate from the state government, which it claimed was a requirement according to the bye-laws of the CBSE. The school obviously couldn't submit the no-objection certificate because the state government was dragging its feet for some reason. The school filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court arguing that the CBSE's constitution stipulated that a no-objection certificate was required only for state-funded schools and the bye-laws could not extend that to private, unaided schools, and over-ride the CBSE's constitution. Justice Vikramajit Sen of the Delhi High Court agreed and ruled in favour of the private, unaided school and asked the CBSE to recognise the school even without the no-objection certificate, if it satisfied all other conditions.

Justice Vikramajit Sen also made a few other interesting observations in his ruling (of September 08, 2005), which are excerpted below (emphasis is mine). These observations were criticised by two other judges of the Delhi High Court when this matter went on appeal (see below).

7. The Constitution of the CBSE requires the concurrence of the State Government concerned if in those cases where an Institution receiving 'regular maintenance or grant-in-aid from a State' applies for affiliation to the CBSE. There is sufficient reason for this stipulation since the State which is disbursing grant-in-aid to an Institution must retain the power to decide inter alia whether such Institutions should prepare the students for appearing for examinations conducted by the State itself or jointly by the State Education Boards as well as Central Boards such as the CBSE. Equally, Institutions which do not take aid from the State must have the freedom to choose whether they will prepare its students to appear in a Central or State Board examinations. If Central Boards are increasingly preferred over State Board, one of the consequences would be that High Courts throughout the country would not be burdened with several Writ Petitions dealing with the grant of equivalence of educational qualifications. It is widely experienced that one State does not automatically grant recognition to educational qualifications obtained from another State and educational standard vary drastically. The most effective solution is to be found in students appearing in one of the Central Board examinations such as conducted by the CBSE. The difficulties and problems that are endemic in varying and deferring standards of State Education Boards would automatically be obviated.

8. In this analysis, therefore, the CBSE is adopting a retrogate practice and stand in insisting that State clearances should be taken even by School which are private and unaided. In the present times, control and interference of the State is consciously being minimised. It would be a progressive step if educational institutions maintain themselves and regulate their affairs without drawing upon the State funds for which there invariably are many other suppliants. Where the parents of students are unable to afford the fees of private institutions, State schools should be available, as they presently are. No further regulation of education is called for. It is this ethos which has been expressed in the Constitution of the CBSE itself. All institutions which fall in the category of being private and unaided need not therefore obtain the concurrence and prior approval of a State Government for applying for affiliation to the CBSE. This is also what the Constitution of the CBSE itself envisages. The Bye-laws of the CBSE which require the concurrence and/or approval of the State Government are clearly ultra vires, and are, therefore, struck down. Private institution which obtain affiliation to the CBSE or any other Central Board need not have any connection with the State in which it is located, apart from it following and adhering to local laws including labour legislation.

The CBSE then appealed the decision in the Delhi High Court, which was heard by the Chief Justice Markandeya Katju and Justice Madan Lokur who delivered a judgement on December 09, 2005 which set aside the judgement of September 08, 2005 of Justice Vikaramajit Sen and dismissed the original writ petition filed by Tushar Welfare Society. Some excerpts from the December 09, judgement make interesting reading.

15. In para 3 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the CBSE is discharging the function of conducting examinations, prescribing educational courses and generally maintaining standards of school education and advising the Government of India when called upon to do so on matters pertaining to school education. The CBSE frames its own rules and is governed by them and it has not been created under any statute. The CBSE is an autonomous and independent body, and no part of its expenses for running the organization is borne by the Government. It gets no aid, grant or subsidy from the Government and is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution.

This is an interesting point, which I had not been aware of. According to the CBSE web site, "CBSE is a self-financing body which meets the recurring and non-recurring expenditure without any grant–in–aid either from the Central Govt. or from any other source. All the financial requirements of the Board are met from the annual examination charges, affiliation fee, PMT examination etc."

But the CBSE web site also states that the "The Education Secretary, MHRD, Govt. of India is the Controlling Authority of the Board. If the Board does not, within a reasonable time, take action, to the satisfaction of the Controlling Authority, the Controlling Authority may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Board, issue such directions, consistent with this Resolution, as he may think fit, and the Board shall comply with such directions." So its autonomy is questionable.

17. Thus it is evident that although the CBSE was initially created by the Central Government by the Resolution dated 01.07.1929, subsequently the appellant was registered as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Hence after its registration on 02.01.1935 it ceased to be a limb of the Central Government and became an independent and distinct legal entity.

24. In Para 06 of the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has observed :- So far as regulations or bye-laws vis-a-vis a statute are concerned it is firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that a delegate would exceed the jurisdiction and the powers vested in it if it were to go beyond the provisions of the Statute which has created it.

25.There is no disputing the proposition which the learned Single Judge has referred to in the above observation. However, with due respect to the learned Judge what has not been taken into consideration by him is that there was no statute which created the CBSE but only a Resolution of the Central Government dated 01.07.1929. That Resolution is only an executive order and not a statute. Subsequently, the CBSE became a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 02.01.1935. Hence from 02.01.1935, the society is no longer a limb of the Central Government, but is a distinct legal entity like a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Hence from 02.01.1935 the CBSE is no longer governed by the Resolution of the Central Government dated 01.07.1929. It is this vital point which has been over looked by the learned Single Judge and hence in our opinion, the said judgment cannot be sustained.

26. The learned Single Judge in para 8 of the impugned judgment has further observed:- In this analysis, therefore, the CBSE is adopting a retrograde practice and stand in insisting that State clearances should be taken even by Schools which are private and unaided. In the present times, control and interference of the State is consciously being minimized. It would be a progressive step if educational institutions maintain themselves and regulate their affairs without drawing upon the State funds for which there invariably are many other suppliants. Where the parents of students are unable to afford the fees of private institutions, State schools should be available, as they presently are. No further regulation of education is called for. It is this ethos which has been expressed in the Constitution of the CBSE itself. All institution which fall in the category of being private and unaided need not therefore, obtain the concurrence and prior approval of a State Government for applying for affiliation to the CBSE.

27.With profound respect to the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that using language like "retrograde practice" and remarks like "in the present times, control and interference of the State is consciously being minimized", are wholly irrelevant and misplaced. The court has to decide a case on legal principles and not on its own notions of what is "retrograde" and what is "progressive".

34. In our opinion, it is entirely for the Board to lay down the rules for grant of affiliation. This is a policy matter, and it is not proper for this Court to interfere in this.

45. The bye-law 3(i) which requires a No Objection Certificate from the State Government before grant of affiliation to a school is a policy decision of the CBSE, and it is well settled that in policy matters this court should not ordinarily interfere.

The Independent Schools Federation of India has appealed in the Supreme Court on April 13, 2006 against the Delhi High Court judgement of December 09, 2005. The Hindu (April 16, 2006) reported on this appeal.

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Central Board of Secondary Education on a special leave petition challenging a Delhi High Court order, which said it was mandatory for a school seeking CBSE affiliation to obtain a no-objection certificate" (NoC) from the State Government concerned. A Bench consisting of Justices K.G. Balakrishanan and P.P. Naolekar issued the notice on Thursday.

The petitioner, Independent Schools Federation of India, contended that the by-law, making it mandatory for schools seeking affiliation to the CBSE to get the NoC, was violative of the government resolution by which the board was constituted. As per this resolution, affiliation could not be denied to an unaided school if it failed to secure the NoC.

The petitioner said it represented hundreds of unaided public schools seeking affiliation to the CBSE in the interest of the children of government servants with transferable jobs, who might otherwise have to contend with different syllabi and different courses being followed in various States.

The petitioner cited clause 9 of the July 1, 1929 Central Government resolution, which laid down that the State Government's concurrence was mandatory if a school was getting grant-in-aid from it. This clause was not applicable to unaided public schools, which were not getting any grant-in-aid from the State.

Note the mention of the terms "public schools" and "children of government servants with transferable jobs" in the report above. What is meant by "public schools"? How are they different from private, unaided schools on which the Delhi High Court had ruled earlier?

While The Hindu had reported on the September 08, 2005 ruling by the Delhi High Court, I could not find any report on the Delhi High Court order on December 09, 2005 overturning the September ruling of the Delhi High Court. The Hindu's latest report (April 16, 2005) on the appeal in the Supreme Court makes no mention of the overturning of the September ruling on December 09, 2005, except to say it was being challenged in the Supreme Court. Not very good reporting by The Hindu, I must say. I had to dig around for the various rulings to piece together the puzzle.

The Executive and the Legislature are ceding influence to the Judiciary

Shiksha Bachao Andolan has filed a public interest litigation in the Patna High court claiming that Rs. 1,100 Crores of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan funding that was given to the Govt. of Bihar remains unutilised and many posts of principals and teachers remain vacant.

The Patna High Court (HC) on Wednesday took exception to the deterioration in the school education system, especially middle schools, of Bihar. The high court asked the state government to file an affidavit outlining the present education scenario in Bihar. The high court fixed the next date for hearing on May 2 and directed the Bihar Education Project (BEP) director to be present in the court on that day.

says The Times of India (April 13, 2006)

Citizens shouldn't be looking to the courts in such situations - the Opposition parties must be raising this in the state legislature. But if the executive fails to provide basic governance, let alone good governance, and on top of it the opposition legislators fail to challenge the executive for their omissions and commissions, what're citizens to do? By abdicating their responsibilities, the Executive and the Legislature are digging their own grave and ceding influence to the Judiciary.

The ongoing case of the AICTE vs Deemed Universities (summarised by Badri) is another case in point. The UGC could have quickly stepped in asking the deemed universities to fall in line with the AICTE's norms and ensured that the deemed universities did so. But as Abi pointed out, the UGC and the AICTE don't seem to get along and that has resulted in a lot of confusion for the students who have been the most affected - all because the executive is not doing its job properly. Again the legislature seems to be least bit interested in raising this in Parliament and the courts are the last resort for the citizens.