Education in India

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

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

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

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

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

ANSWER

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

ANNEXURE-I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Recommendations

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

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

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

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

11. SHRI GURUDAS DAS GUPTA, SAMBASIVA RAYAPATI RAO

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

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

(b) if so, the details thereof;

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

(d) if so, the details thereof?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (SHRI ARJUN SINGH)

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

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

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

303. SHRI ANANTRAO GUDHE, M. APPADURAI

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

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

(b) if so, the details thereof;

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

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

(e) if so, the details thereof; and

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

ANSWER

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

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

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

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

(d): No, Sir.

(e): Does not arise.

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

Status of Private Universities in India: Question in the Lok Sabha

LOK SABHA: STARRED QUESTION NO 163 (March 15, 2005)

163.  SHRI BALESHWAR YADAV, SHRI RAMAKRISHNA BADIGA

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

(a) whether the Government is considering to bring any legislation to curtail the growth of private universities and to protect the interest of the students enrolled already in such universities;

(b) if so, the details thereof;

(c) whether the Supreme Court has recently declared some private universities in Chhattisgarh as illegal;

(d) if so, the details thereof alongwith the reasons therefore;

(e) whether similar universities are also functioning in other parts of the country; and

(f) if so, the details thereof, state-wise?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (SHRI ARJUN SINGH)

(a) to (f): A statement is laid on the Table of the House.

STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a) to (f) OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO.163 DATED 15.3.2004 ASKED BY SHRI BALESHWAR YADAV AND SHRI BADIGA RAMAKRISHNA REGARDING PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

(a) to (f): The incorporation, regulation and winding up of Universities is within the competence of the State Legislatures. However, in order to maintain the standards of higher education, the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 were issued on 27th December, 2003 and are in force. The Central Government has also initiated wider consultations in regard to Universities promoted in the Private Sector in the overall context of protection of the interests of students, financing of Higher Education and autonomy for institutions. Based on such consultations and examination by experts of the issues involved, a decision will be taken on the need for pursuing the Central Legislation on the subject, which was introduced in the Parliament and, if so, the need for any modification thereto.

The Supreme Court of India vide its order in Writ Petition (Civil) No.19/2004: Prof. Yash Pal & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., dated 11 February, 2005 has declared the provisions of Sections 5 and 6, of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002, to be ultra vires of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has further directed that in order to protect the interests of the students who may be actually studying in the institutions established by such private Universities, the State Government may take appropriate measures to have such institutions affiliated to the already existing State Universities in Chhattisgarh, in terms of Section 33 and 34 of the impugned Act, whereunder responsibility has to be assumed by the State Government and, that the affiliation of an institution shall be made only if it fulfills the requisite norms and standards laid down for such purpose.

The State Government of Chhattisgarh has been requested to inform this Ministry whether any specific intervention is required to be taken by the Government of India in the matter. The UGC has also been requested to examine the judgment and its implications, particularly for bonafide students enrolled with these ‘universities’ so that, should the need arise, the Commission could be requested to take appropriate steps in the matter.

As on the 1st March, 2005 the following ‘private universities’ incorporated by the respective State Legislatures are functioning, under section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956: -

Gujarat

1. Dhirubhai   Ambani  Institute  of   Information   and Communication Technology, Gandhinagar. (Incorporated under Gujarat Act No.6 of 2003)

2. Nirma  University  of  Science & Technology,  Sarkhej, Ahmedabad.  (Incorporated under Gujarat Act No.10 of 2003)

Himachal Pradesh

3. Jaypee  University  of Information  Technology,  Solan District.  (Incorporated under Himachal Pradesh Act No.14 of 2002)

Uttar Pradesh

4.  Jagadguru   Rambhadracharya  Handicapped  University, Chitrakoot Dham (Incorporated under Uttar Pradesh Act No.32 of 2001)

5. Integral University, Lucknow (Incorporated under Uttar Pradesh Act No.9 of 2004)

Uttaranchal

6.    Dev  Sanskriti Vishwavidyalaya, Hardwar  (Incorporated under Uttaranchal Act No.4 of 2002)

7.    University  of Petroleum and Energy Studies,  Dehradun (Incorporated under Uttaranchal Act No.15 of 2003)

Does this mean no other private university other than the seven listed above is recognised by the UGC? What about the other private universities like  ICFAI University, for instance? According to the disclosure on ICFAI's web site,

The ICFAI University, Dehradun, Uttaranchal was established under the ICFAI University Act 2003 (Act No.16 of 2003). The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University,  Tripura was established under the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University, Tripura Act 2004 (Tripura Act No.8 of 2004). The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University, Sikkim has been recently established under the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University, Sikkim Act, 2004 (Act No.9 of 2004).

Our Members of Parliament ask questions, but stop with the prepared answer submitted to them. I wish they would ask the natual follow up questions that occur to you and me. I hope someone in the press can take this up and investigate further the implications of the HRD Minister's statement in Parliament.

To search for more questions raised in Parliament on various topics, click here.

Undergraduate enrollment in India (2000-2004): Question in the Lok Sabha

LOK SABHA: UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 2221 (December 12, 2004)

ENROLLMENT IN UNDER GRADUATE COURSES

2221. SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI

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

(a) the average annual number of candidates getting enrolled against under graduate courses at present;

(b) the percentage of such students to the total population of the country;

(c) whether the Government has set any target to increase this number; and

(d) if so, the details thereof and the time by which the target is likely to be achieved?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ( SHRI ARJUN SINGH )

(a) & (b): An average of about 78.50 lakhs students were enrolled annually through formal system of education for undergraduate courses in universities/colleges during the last four years, apart from enrollment in distance education. This is about 6-7 % of the population in the relevant age group of 17-23 years.

(c) & (d): The aim of the Government is to increase the enrollment against undergraduate courses to 10% by the end of Xth Plan period (2002-2007). This includes both formal and distance education.

If you would like to search for more questions raised in Parliament on various topics, click here.

Non-tuition fees charged by Kendriya Vidyalayas: Question in the Lok Sabha

LOK SABHA: UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 3021 (March 22, 2005)

3021. SHRI SANAT KUMAR MANDAL Will the Minister of HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT be pleased to state:-

(a) whether the Kendriya Vidyalayas are charging any fee other than tuition fee from the students;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor;

(c) whether the tuition fee being paid by the Government employees refunded by the Government to their employees;

(d) if so, the fee other than tuition fee also being refunded to the employees;

(e) if so, the details thereof; and

(f) if not, the reasons therefor?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (SHRI M. A. A. FATMI)

(a) & (b) The following fees charged by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in addition tuitions fees:-

(i) Vidyalaya Vikas Nidhi (VVN) at the rate of Rs. 160/- per month per student is charged by KVS from all classes except for the Science students of classes XI and XII from whom the amount is being charged @ Rs. 200/- per month per student to supplement the expenditure which are being met out of non-plan grants being sanctioned by the Government.

(ii) In respect of Pre-Primary classes an amount of Rs. 400/- per month per student is charged from students as these classes are run on self-financing basis.

(iii) An amount of Rs. 20/- is charged per month per student from students for Computer Education for class III onwards and Rs. 40/- per student per month is charged from the students who opt for Information Technology at +2 stage to meet the expenditure on providing Computer Education.

(iv) An amount of Rs. 100/- per student is charged towards cost of prospectus and admission form at the time of initial admission.

(v) An admission fee of Rs. 25/- per student is also charged from students at the time of initial admission.

(c) to (f) As per instructions of the Ministry of Finance, only the tuition fee being charged from the Central Government employees is refunded , subject to maximum amount of Rs. 50/- per child per month (Rs. 100/- per child per month in respect of physically handicapped/mentally retarded children). Ministry of Finance do not permit the refund of fees other than the tuition fee.

If you would like to search for more questions raised in Parliament on various topics, click here.