People's Democracy

ON THE APPROACH PAPER TO ELEVENTH FIVE YEAR PLAN

Towards ‘Slower’ And More ‘Exclusive’ Growth In Education - II

Vijender Sharma

TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

ACCORDING to the data collected in 60th round of NSS, only 3 per cent of the rural youth (15-29 years) and 6 per cent of the urban youth have gone through a formal course of vocational training of any kind. It is good that a concern has been expressed in the Approach Paper about the expansion of vocational training “from the present capacity of a mere 2 to 3 million to 15 million new entrants to the labour force. The Eleventh Plan must pay special attention to devising innovative ways of modernising the Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs).” 

Privatisation of ITIs on Cards

According to the Paper, “vocational training for both men and women shall be accorded top priority in the Eleventh Plan.” But what is of concern is that vocational training will be “treated as an industry to attract investment into it.” A new initiative at “Public Private Partnership” will be launched “that will give a choice to the industry in design of courses and to the youth in selecting courses.” Whatever the phrase – public private partnership, public private participation, public private initiative or any other phrase – it is a synonym for privatisation and commercialisation. If the Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) are brought under the “new initiative at public private partnership”, then lakhs of students who wish to take training in these institutions will suffer because they have to pay high fees for the same. These institutions need to be strengthened in terms of number and infrastructure. But their privatisation and commercialisation would be disastrous for the children of low income groups who enroll in ITIs for vocational training.

For the rural youth, the Approach Paper recommends that the “skill development should be treated at par with school education in allocation of government resources.” The latent meaning of this recommendation is that in the rural areas, priority would be given to skill development and vocational training rather than opening schools for general education. This recommendation goes counter to its own recommendation for a “new mission” for secondary education, SSA-2, to cover up to class X.

HIGHER EDUCATION

Despite the fact that India has a big higher education system, only about 7 per cent of the students in the 17-23 years of age group are enrolled in the institutions of higher education. However, in many developing countries, this figure is between 20 and 25 per cent. There is clearly a need to undertake major expansion of higher education system. 

The Approach Paper has expressed concern that the “high quality institutions are finding it difficult to get faculty of suitable quality given the enormous increase in opportunities in the private sector for many of the skills most in demand.” However, it has not been reflected in the Approach Paper that the central government has done little to attract and retain talent in these institutions. In fact, the facilities and promotional avenues given to the college and university teachers at the time of 4th and 5th pay revisions had been withdrawn or not implemented by the UGC, other related bodies, and central and state governments. As a result, these institutions are either not getting quality faculty or the existing faculty has been leaving these institutions in disgust. The central government alone is responsible for this situation. It is high time for the central government to revisit the service conditions, including pay scales and promotional avenues, available to the faculty so as to attract the new faculty and retain the existing faculty.

Emphasis on Distance Education

The Approach Paper emphasises that the Eleventh Plan must undertake “a major effort to expand capacity in our institutions while also improving quality…. New colleges and universities must be set up, to provide easier access to students in educationally backward districts. Existing institutions must be strengthened and expanded where possible and open and distance education encouraged.” The central government through various committee reports has been trying to transfer the increased demand of access to higher education to open and distance learning. At present about one-fourth of the students enrolled in higher education institutions are covered by open and distance education. One such plan had been to transfer 50 per cent of the students to this sector. The Approach Paper recommends that until a larger network of “well provided for colleges” is developed, the open schooling system should be strengthened and expanded. “In case of subjects that do not require laboratory work, pre-recorded selection of lectures, tutorials, and standardised tests available at internet kiosks which the students can access at will, can be helpful.” This is a proposal for the exclusion of students belonging to deprived sections. While it will be further expansive for the deprived sections to access Internet in cities, the students in villages and townships will be excluded from education completely. This sector has been used to deprive the students of the weaker sections from quality regular education. 

According to a NIEPA Paper, the quality of distance education is not comparable with the regular system. Though the very purpose of distance education is primarily for equity and access for the deprived sections, the NIEPA Paper points out that “a substantial amount of fee is collected from these deprived sections. It is unfortunate that, as NIEPA Paper further points out, “such fee income forms one of the major sources for a regular university to meet its recurring expenditure.” This amounts to cheating the deprived sections twice over, first deny them quality regular education and then charge them heavily in order to subsidise the regular education. Therefore, the Eleventh Plan must provide for setting up of adequate number of new colleges and universities to meet the increased demand and the new aspirants should not be left to open and distance education.

Granting More to Elite Institutions

In addition, the Approach Paper recommends formulating “a specific plan” for upgrading a few “existing” select universities with “potential for excellence” in tune with “global standards”. At least 20 universities, with the potential for excellence, may be upgraded in the Eleventh Plan period. This recommendation is basically to give more funds to the universities that are performing well. There is no problem in doing so. But the problem lies in ignoring those colleges and universities which have been suffering for want of funds. The Planning Commission must make provision for making available more funds to other institutions as well so that they can attempt to upgrade and excel.

CASTE BIAS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

The Approach Paper points out that “the recent decision to extend reservation for OBCs in central educational institutions has highlighted the issue of inadequate capacity for non-OBC non-SC/ST students in high quality institutions.” This is an outrageous formulation in the Approach Paper. Has the Planning Commission ever thought to create adequate capacity for SC/ST and OBC students in “high quality institutions”? This para of the Approach Paper clearly shows the bias of the Planning Commission against SC/ST and OBC students as far as “high quality institutions” are concerned. The Approach Paper goes on to say that the “government has assured that there will be sufficient expansion in the total number of seats to avoid any reduction in seats available for non-OBC non-SC/ST students. This expansion is long overdue. In fact, the Eleventh Plan should aim for expansion over the medium term which would allow expansion even for the general category.” The Planning Commission, which did not propose adequate measures for the reservation of seats in such institutions for the students belonging to SC/ST and OBC categories in the past, is now shedding tears that the “expansion is long overdue” and “even for the general category.” This para is most shameful. The Planning Commission must be overhauled for this kind of bias towards SC/STs and OBCs.

The Approach Paper further points out that the “access to high quality institutions is extremely important for equity since they provide opportunities for the poor and socially disadvantaged to advance themselves. However, the ability to benefit from higher education is effectively determined at the school level. Unless the access of all groups to high quality schooling is improved, they will remain at a disadvantage even if they get access to higher education, because they will not be able to do well at later educational stages.” 

This is the argument that the anti-reservationists have been advocating in the last few months. When it came to the reservation in jobs, the anti-reservationists argued to give reservation in admissions to institutions of higher education. When it came to give reservation in admissions to institutions of higher education, the anti-reservationists argued that the reservation should be in school education where they should be provided quality education to compete for admission to institutions of higher education. Is the Planning Commission functioning under the Constitution of India or advocating its class and caste bias?

RAISING OF FEES AND STUDENT LOANS

The Approach Paper points out that the achievement of these objectives will require a “substantial increase in resources devoted to this sector and successive annual plans will have to provide rising levels of budgetary support. However this must be accompanied by internal resource generation by duly and realistically raising fees.” The Approach Paper is trying to sell the same prescriptions as advocated by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation (with education under General Agreement on Trade in Services). This is also what Birla and Ambani Report and the Concept Paper for the Model Act for all universities had proposed. Thus, the Planning Commission is advocating “internal resource generation” and “realistically raising the fees” to meet the cost of education which the central government has been trying through so many committees. This is the proposal for the privatisation and commercialisation of higher education. This must be reversed.

The Approach Paper further advocates making efforts to “develop a wider merit-cum-means based loan and scholarship programmes through the banking system and other agencies”. The merit-cum-means loan schemes through banking system have been proposed in last two decades by the World Bank and several policy documents of the Indian government to finance the full cost of expenditure on education. The student loan schemes shift the burden of cost from the government to parents and students. Sanction of loan by a Bank requires 100 per cent collateral security and a guarantor and market rate of interest or more is charged from the students. These loans are not responsive to any equity considerations. There is enough evidence that the education loans have kept the poorer sections of the society, first generation learners and girls away from getting access to higher education. In case of girls, the loan schemes have proved to be ‘negative dowry’. Therefore, the Planning Commission must propose in the Eleventh Plan, a substantial rise in investment in education at all levels. Otherwise, quality, quantity and equity would suffer. 

CHANGE THE APPROACH 

The Approach Paper to the Eleventh Five Year Plan “Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth” is full of conceptual confusion. It advocates public private participation, without justification, leading to privatisation and commercialisation of education which needs to be opposed. It advocates raising of fees and other charges which lead to exclusion of students, particularly girls and deprived sections, rather than their inclusion. The Approach Paper has not presented a scheme to attract, enroll and retain girls and deprived sections’ students in education at all levels. There is no recommendation for any scheme for bringing crores of child labourers into schools. Instead of emphasizing primacy of public responsibility for providing education, it promotes private school and higher education. There is no concern expressed in the Approach Paper for access and equity in education. 

The Approach Paper does not recommend a mandatory quota for admitting students from poor and deprived sections for private schools receiving financial aid and other forms of support from the government. The Approach Paper has shown utter bias against SC/ST and OBC students. It has ignored the pledge made in the Common Minimum Programme to raise public spending in education to at least 6 per cent of GDP and to also universalise the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme to provide a functional anganwadi in every settlement and ensure full coverage for all children. The Approach Paper is thus a document towards slower and more exclusive growth in education. This Approach Paper must be redrafted afresh by taking into account the issues and concerns raised above and the realities of the Indian society in right earnest.

(Concluded)