Education in India

Parliamentary Roundup - Teacher shortage, NOC for CBSE schools, Data on GER & edu expenditure as % of GDP

A round up of recent answers by the Minstry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) to questions raised in the Lok Sabha, relating to education.

 

Details on the shortage of school teachers in India (state-wise)

Out of 19.84 lakh sanctioned teacher posts under SSA, 14.8 lakh teachers have been recruited and another 5.04 lakh are yet to be recruited as on Sep, 30, 2013.  Bihar (1.75 lakh to be recruited) and U.P (1.24 lakh) are the farthest behind.

(Source: Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 188 Answered on 18.12.2013)

 

On use of NCERT vs private publishers' textbooks in CBSE schools

"The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has, since 2005-06, directed all its affiliated schools to refrain from recommending the books of private publishers in different subjects at the senior secondary level. The CBSE now prescribes only the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) published books for classes IX to XII."

(Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 2101 Answered on 18.12.2013

 

On the requirement of an NOC from the State Government concerned for affiliation of a private school with CBSE NOC from the State Government concerned for affiliation of a private school with CBSE.

"The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) no longer requires an NOC from the State Government. CBSE has amended its Affiliation Bye-Laws which state that the school seeking provisional affiliation with the Board must have prior recognition of the State/UT Government. The applicant School has to also produce evidence to this effect that they had intimated the concerned Education Department of the State/UT about the application made to the CBSE for seeking affiliation with the Board. In case of receipt of any objection during the process of application of the school, the Board may ask the concerned school to produce the No Objection Certificate from the State/UT Government. Otherwise it would be assumed that concerned State/UT Government has no objection.

The newly amended provision ensures authentication of the facts and credentials of the private school as the applicant school is required to seek recognition from the State/UT Government prior to submitting its application for seeking affiliation from the Board. The Board also physically inspects the applicant school to assess its suitability before the grant of affiliation." 

(Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 2140 Answered on 18.12.2013)

 

On the proposal to open Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs) under the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) mode; the norms laid down for opening of KVs in the country; the number of KVs functioning in the country along with the students enrolled in these KVs, State/ UT-wise

"The Board of Governors of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) in its 91st meeting held on 19.01.2012 has taken a policy decision that the scheme of opening of new Kendriya Vidyalayas under the Public Private Parternership (PPP mode) is not in line with the mandate of the KVS." 

(Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 2199 Answered on 18.12.2013)

"Presently 1091 KVs are functioning in the country." -  State/UT-wise details along with enrollment data and norms for opening new KVs.

(Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 1115 Answered on 11.12.2013)

 

Detailed data on the gross-enrolment rate* (GER) of children in primary, upper-primary, secondary and senior secondary levels in the country during 2008-09 to 2010-11, state-wise, year-wise and gender-wise.

For India as a whole, GER is

• 116.7 at the Primary level (Class I-V);
• 83.1 at the Upper Primary level (Class VI-VIII);
• 60.8 at the Secondary level (Class IX-X) and
• 36.1 at the Senior Secondary Level (Class XI-XII)

(Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 2296 Answered on 18.12.2013)

 

On the overall government expenditure on Education (Centre + States) as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during last three years, comparison with the same figures for other countries and why the goal of spending at least 6% of GDP hasn't been achieved.

Overall government expenditure on Education (Centre + States) as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

• 3.95%  -  2009-10
• 4.20%  -  2010-11 (Revised Estimate)
• 4.17%  -  2011-12 (Budget Estimate)

"As per the figures published by the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) in its publication titled, “Global Education Digest 2012”, the share of education in Gross Domestic Product in some other countries were U.S.A.(5.4%), U.K.(5.6%), Japan (3.8%), Australia (5.1%), Russian Federation (4.1%), Egypt (3.8%), Azerbaijan (3.2%), Georgia (3.2%), Tajikistan (4.0%), Hong Kong SAR of China (3.6 %), Thailand (3.8%), Peru (2.7%), Jamaica (6.1%), Pakistan (2.4%), Bangladesh (2.2%), Ethiopia (4.7%), United Republic of Tanzania (6.2%) and Zambia (1.3%) during 2010.

During the XII Five Year Plan, the Ministry of Human Resource Development have been allocated a sum of Rs.4,53,728 crore (Rs.3,43,028 crore for the Department of School Education & Literacy and Rs.1,10,700 crore for the Department of Higher Education) as compared to actual expenditure in XI Five Year Plan which was Rs.1,77,566.86 crore (Rs.1,37,920.04 crore for the Department of School Education & Literacy and Rs.39,646.82 crore for Department of Higher Education). This increase in central plan outlay for education represents a very substantial effort on the part of the Central Government for raising public spending on education towards the national goal of spending 6% of GDP for education. Overall progress towards this goal, would however, also depend on the efforts made by the States and the private sector.

This increase in central plan outlay for education represents a very substantial effort on the part of the Central Government for raising public spending on education towards the national goal of spending 6% of GDP for education. Overall progress towards this goal, would however, also depend on the efforts made by the States and the private sector."

(Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 1085 Answered on 11.12.2013)

Periscope 7 - 50 new DTH channels for Higher Ed, Open Schooling, New Education Commission, Higher Ed GER, Expenditure on IITs

• "Starting nearly 50 DTH channels for Higher Education in the Country within the XI Plan period has occupied a high place under the National Mission on Education through ICT (NMEICT) at present. MHRD’s request to ISRO for providing 2 transponders has been noted by ISRO and sent to the INSAT Coordination Committee. NMEICT has an allocation of Rs. 120 crore for the DTH channels to begin with." Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 3397 Answered on 14.12.2011

Since the Minister's reply says it will be done within the XI plan period, the channels should be in place before the end of 2012. Sounds unrealistic. The NMEICT, in its mission document, had listed as one of its 48 ambitious objectives, 

34. Content delivery through EduSAT and narrowcasting of TV signals. Providing 1000 DTH (Direct to Home) channels on 40 transponders [to be availed through the Department. of Space] so that a separate DTH channel is available for every subject for every class in various languages to the extent possible.

• Data on enrollment and expenditure in National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS): Enrollments are much lower than I thought.  NIOS also enrolls students in 15 overseas centres of NIOS in UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Nepal. Source: Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 381 Answered on 21.12.2011

Year	2009-10	2010-11	2011-12 (Upto Oct 31st)
Total Learners Enrolled	4,38,906	4,93,091	3,66,539
Learners from minority communities enrolled	88,983	92,185	62,696
% of minority community enrolled	20%	19%	17%
	Rs. in Crores	Rs. in Crores	Rs. in Crores
Budget: Plan Funds from Govt of India	15.00	11.25	15.00
Budget: Income Generated by NIOS	89.35	99.07	40.83
Expenditure: Plan Funds from Govt of India	11.61	8.19	6.02
Expenditure: Income Generated by NIOS	69.75	71.98	37.15

A recent report on the Development of the State Open Schools in India by T. Rajagopalan, erstwhile Education Correspondent of The Hindu, concludes that it is well nigh impossible to achieve the goal of Education for All through the formal education system alone or even the National Open School system alone. Rajagopalan says although the State Open Schools have an important role to play, the policy establishment pays only lip service to expanding educational opportunities and seems least interested in consolidating and strengthening the open school system in the states.

• New Education Commission: "In pursuance of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 15th August, 2011, Government has decided to set up an Education Commission to make recommendations for improvement at all levels of education. The Constitution and Terms of Reference of the proposed Commission is being finalized by the Government after wide consultations." Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 4492 Answered on 21.12.2011. Other than the news reports based on the PM's August 15th speech, I could find no other mention on any of the Government-related web sites on the setting up of the new education commission, but apparently they're working on it.

• Data on government expenditure on education as % of total government expenditure and also breakdown by segment within education. Note: This is NOT expenditure on education as a percent of GDP Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 4500 Answered on 21.12.2011
  

	2008-09	2009-10	2010-11
% of total budget allocated to MHRD	5.16%	4.36%	4.50%

Sector	2008-09	2009-10	2010-11
Elementary Education	56.32%	48.75%	50.23%
Secondary Education	14.45%	15.57%	13.71%
Adult Education	1.17%	1.02%	2.61%
Higher Education (Including Technical & Other)	28.05%	34.66%	33.45%
Total	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%

• "The average annual expenditure per student in the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) is Rs. 2.82 lakhs, the tuition fees uniformly payable for under-graduate programmes by each student is Rs. 25,000 per semester.

The Council of the IITs, in its 43rd meeting held on 14th September, 2011, accepted ‘in principle’ the report of Dr. Anil Kakodkar Committee on the road map for enhancing the autonomy of the IIT system which has recommended, inter-alia, that while the students' scholarships, capital and infrastructure expenditure may continue to be met fully by the Government, the IITs may meet, on their own, the operational expenditure. Thus, while the capital costs may be taken care of by the Government, the student of under graduate programme may pay enhanced fee towards the recurring cost of education on getting employed, which is justifiable on the grounds of earning potential of an IIT graduate. An empowered Task Force has been constituted for implementation of the Committee’s recommendations. " Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 4520 Answered on 21.12.2011

It is unclear from the statement if the annual expenditure of Rs. 2.82 lakhs includes both capital and operational expense per student or only operational expense per student. If the latter, the gulf between annual expenditure per student (Rs. 2.82 lakhs) and tuition fees paid per year (Rs. 50,000) by each student is substantial. If annual operational costs have to be recovered by the IITs through fees alone, the fees will have to rise by over 500%!

 

• "Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) of students enrolled in higher education as a percentage of the population in the age group of 18-23 years in 2009-10(Provisional) is 15.0 (All Categories), 11.1 (Scheduled Caste) and 10.3 (Scheduled Tribe)." Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 4593 Answered on 21.12.2011

Statewise 2009-10 Provisional GER data was also provided - Delhi (47.9) is the highest followed by Uttarakhand (36.0), Puducherry (29.1), Goa (28.3), Chandigarh (28.0). The GER for larger states Himchal Pradesh (23.9), Maharashtra (21.4), Chattisgarh (20.0), Tamil Nadu (19.0), Karnataka (18.1), Andhra Pradesh (16.9), Madhya Pradesh (14.9), West Bengal (11.9) and Uttar Pradesh (10.9) is lower. 

National Education Finance Corporation - Why has the MHRD abandoned it?

This seemed like a very good idea. The HRD Minister, Kapil Sibal, proposed the idea for a National Education Finance Corporation in early 2010, and expanded on it in the Rajya Sabha by making a persuasive case for it.

Under the present policy framework if you want to set up an institution there is no Government agency that can finance you.  So, there is no access to finance to setting up a new educational institution.  So, he will have to go to the bank to actually get financing from the bank at the lending commercial rate.  Now, human resource development is not considered as an infrastructure development and the Supreme Court has said that this is charity, this is for public service.  So, an activity which is for public service has to borrow if he wants to set up an educational institution at commercial rates.  But, an activity which is in the infrastructure sector, namely physical infrastructure, you can borrow at softer rates because that is priority sector.  So, what the policy framework within which we are working is, that anybody who wants to set up an educational institution should have access to finance. That is the first purpose.  This has nothing to do with UGC.  Secondly, if you set up an educational institution, under the present guidelines you will get grants from the UGC or from the Government or under schemes of the Government only when you have achieved certain milestones.  Now, in the meantime if you want to enhance your infrastructure -- and nowadays, with research and development expanding exponentially -- you need new capital investment.  There is no way that you can get finance.  You have to cross many milestones.  So, when you want to set up an educational finance corporation, our objective is that anybody who wants to set up an educational institution should have free access to finance as a priority lending sector.  What happens is, when you call it charity, State Government control fees.  Once it is charity, State Government control fees and they cannot increase fees in their institutions.  Many of them do the kind of practices that they are doing and that is the root cause of the problem.  When they will have free access to finance and every child has free access to loan why will he need to sell the family silver to enter into an educational institution?  So, I think it is the need of the hour and I would require you to give me suggestions as to how we must move forward because unless we build that infrastructure and capital we will not be able to move forward.

Kapil Sibal's proposal was welcomed by a few other MPs during the discussion in the Rajya Sabha.

But the Planning Commission apparently raised some objections and the MHRD seems to have given up on the idea.

"Proposal for setting up of National Educational Finance Corporation (NEFC) was prepared and sent to Planning Commission for concurrence. Planning Commission has raised certain objections to the proposal. Therefore the proposal was not taken forward." Source: Lok Sabha UnStarred Question No. 4410 Answered on 21.12.2011

I wish the MP, Rajaogpal Lagadapati, who asked the question had raised a supplementary question about what the Planning Commission objected to and whether the MHRD is pursuing any alternatives, or has given up the idea for good.

A report in The Hindu (May 10, 2010) throws some light on the Planning Commission's thinking on the NEFC as well as the idea of providing loan guarantees:

The Planning Commission has suggested that the Human Resource Development Ministry examine the option of setting up a loan guarantee authority as a separate division within the purview of the proposed National Education Finance Corporation (NEFC).

The proposed NEFC aims at refinancing student education loans and institutional loans at concessional rates with longer repayment, which will help expansion and new investments in the higher education sector, particularly universities.

While putting the NEFC on a “fast track”, Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia reportedly told the Ministry to also look into the possibility of creating an authority that would stand guarantee for education loans to students or institutions who borrow money for investment in the higher education sector, instead of only refinancing.

 Mr. Ahluwalia is said to have suggested to the Ministry that both the options of refinancing and standing guarantee could be brought under the purview of the NEFC. The proposed NEFC would have two divisions, one as a loan guarantee authority and the other to deal with infrastructure loans.

....

If the NEFC stands as a guarantor, it will have to pay only for defaulters, who would be few. The Ministry, open to the new suggestion, is working out mechanisms to cut down on defaulters before approving the loans.

The refinancing of loans for investment is also expected to curb capitation fees, since, at present, investment for infrastructure has to be borrowed at commercial rates where the interest is high and the repayment period short. To avoid this, institutions often borrow money from the market, and in order to repay it quickly, charge capitation fees from students. Once the loan is repaid, the capitation fee turns into profit. With the availability of soft loans, this is expected to come to an end.

The NEFC will refinance to the bank at a lower rate the sanctioned loan that it releases to the student or an institution. The bank makes its margin from the difference in interest rates, while the NEFC will use the educational cess released by the government, which is free of cost and also borrows from the market, so that the average cost of funds advanced as loans is lower than the rate at which it lends to banks. This differential rate will be the NEFC's margin or profit.

The Planning Commission doesn't seem to have objected to the idea of the NEFC per se - it has only provided constructive suggestions on how the NEFC could also look at providing student loan guarantees.  The report in The Hindu had indicated that the MHRD was open to the Planning Commission's idea and was working on incorporating it into the scope of the NEFC.

Why then is the MHRD claiming now that the Planning Commission objected to the idea of the NEFC and citing that as the reason for abandoning the idea of the NEFC altogether? An eminently sensible idea seems to have been buried quietly. The MHRD needs to explain its thinking instead of providing bland statements.

Progress Report on the Implementation of the Right to Education Act

The Right To Education is now justiciable in India with the coming into effect of the Right To Education Action on April 1, 2010. If the State does not do all that it must do as per the Act, within the stipulated timeframe, any citizen can take the State to court. The justiciability of the RTE Act will be tested sooner than later after March 2013. It will be interesting to see when, where and on what grounds the first such cases are filed and how the State responds to the cases.

A clear picture of the current status of implementation of the Right To Education Act as well as the timeframe for implementation of the various provisions of the RTE Act is now available thanks to a question raised in the Rajya Sabha by the MP, H.K. Dua.

Rajya sabha Question No. 568, Answered on November 25th, 2011

568  SHRI H.K. DUA: Will the Minister of HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT be pleased to state:-

(a) the progress on the implementation of the Right to Education (RTE) Act providing for universal education up to 14 years of age, State-wise;
(b) the States that have not notified the rules for implementation of the law;
(c) the steps Government is going to take in this connection so that these States fall in the line with the rest of the country; and
(d) how long will it take for complete implementation of the Act?

ANSWER:
MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT  (DR. D. PURANDESWARI)

(a) The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 has come into force with effect from April 1, 2010. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Framework of Implementation and norms for interventions have been revised to correspond with the provisions of the RTE Act. This includes interventions, inter alia for

1. opening new primary and upper primary schools as per the neighbourhood norms notified by State Governments in the RTE Rules,
2. support for residential schools for children in areas which are sparsely populated, or hilly or densely forested with difficult terrain, and for urban deprived homeless and street children in difficult circumstances,
3. special training for admission of out-of-school children in age appropriate classes,
4. additional teachers as per norms specified in the RTE Act,
5. two sets of uniforms for all girls, and children belonging to SC/ST/BPL families,
6. strengthening of academic support through block and cluster resource centres, schools, etc.

Since RTE Act came into force, 50,672 new schools, 4.98 lakh additional classrooms, 6.31 lakh teachers, etc have been sanctioned to States and UTs under SSA. The fund sharing pattern between the Central and State Governments has also been revised to a sharing ratio which is more favourable to States Governments.

(b) to (d) So far, 27 States have notified the State Rules under the RTE Act, including five Union Territories which have adopted the Central RTE Rules. These States are:

1. Andhra Pradesh
2. Arunachal Pradesh
3. Assam
4. Bihar
5. Chhattisgarh
6. Haryana
7. Himachal Pradesh
8. Jharkhand
9. Kerala
10. Orissa
11. Madhya Pradesh
12. Maharashtra
13. Manipur
14. Meghalaya
15. Mizoram
16. Nagaland
17. Punjab
18. Rajasthan
19. Sikkim
20. Tripura
21. Tamil Nadu
22. Uttar Pradesh
23. Daman and Diu
24. Chandigarh
25. Dadra and Nagar Haveli
26. Andaman and Nicobar Island, and
27. Lakshadweep.

The States of Karnataka, Gujarat, West Bengal, Goa, Delhi, Puducherry, Uttarakhand have not yet notified the RTE Rules, and these States have been reminded to expedite the notification of the State RTE Rules.

The RTE Act mandates the following timeframe for implementation of its provisions:

Activity	Timeframe
Establishment of neighbourhood schools	3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
Provision of school infrastructure All weather school buildings One-classroom-one-teacher Head Teacher-cum-Office room Library Toilets, drinking water Barrier free access Playground, fencing, boundary walls	3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
Provision of teachers as per prescribed Pupil Teacher Ratio	3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
Training of untrained teachers	5 years (by 31st March 2015)
Quality interventions and other provisions	With immediate effect

There are a whole host of issues that will crop up for the Government to address by March 31st, 2013.

• What will the State do if it has not been able to set up the necessary schools, and hire the necessary qualified teachers to provide an education to every single child in the country? In particular, in densely populated urban areas where there is very little land available for constructing new schools, how will the State construct new schools with playgrounds and buildings of the size specified in the RTE Act?
• What will the State do with all the private, unaided schools, that do not measure up to the standards set out in the RTE Act for buildings and playgrounds by March 2013? Will all such schools be de-recognised and forced to close down? How will the Government protect the interests of the parents who are currently sending their children to such private unaided schools?
• How will the State respond to those Government schools that are not able to measure up to the standards of the RTE Act by March 2013?

If things don't work out as envisaged, we will need a Plan B. We need to anticipate potential problems and begin thinking right now about possible ways of addressing them rather than starting to think about it 3 years from now when we may be mired in litigation, or stuck with lack of funding, structural issues in implementation and myriad other problems.

The Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, headed by Rajya Sabha MP, Oscar Fernandes, has invited suggestions on "Implementation of the Right To Education Act". Comments and suggestions may be emailed to [email protected] by December 5, 2011.

Note: For a good overview of how Parliamentary Standing Committees work in India and the role they play, listen to this talk by Chaksu Roy of PRS Legislative Research at the recently held Takshashila Shala in Chennai.

 

 

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.