People's Democracy
(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
No. 13
March 31, 2013
|
Vol. XXXVII
No. 13 March 31, 2013 |
HIGHER EDUCATION IN 12TH
PLAN For-Profit Private
Investment, High
Fees, Contract Faculty Vijender Sharma THE Planning Commission’s approach paper to
the twelfth five year plan, titled “Faster, Sustainable
and More inclusive
Growth” and submitted in August 2011, pointed out that
private higher education
“accounts for about four‐fifths of enrolment in professional higher
education and one‐third
overall. This growth trend is likely to
continue in the twelfth plan.” For encouraging private
investment, it called
for “re-examination” of “not-for-profit” tag in the
higher education sector. It
proposed that higher education institutions (HEIs)
should be encouraged to
raise their own funds, have reasonable tuition fees and
differential salaries
to staff, etc. Given the “widespread use of English
language and low cost (of)
living,” it aimed to make THREE NEW PRINCIPLES The Planning Commission later presented its
draft 12th five year plan (2012-17) on December 27, 2012
to the National
Development Council which has now adopted it. The draft
plan document estimated
that “developed economies
and even China will face a shortage of about four crore
(40 million) highly
skilled workers by 2020, while, based on current
projections of higher
education, India is likely to see some surplus of
graduates in 2020. Thus, It expressed concern over the fact that “less
than one-fifth of the estimated
12 crore potential students are enrolled in HEIs in The
document called for careful planning of future expansion
so as to correct
regional and social imbalances, improve standards and
improve employability.
The strategic aims of the twelfth plan centre around ‘three
Es’ — expansion, equity and
excellence. However, the draft plan document proposes “a
paradigm change” for
achieving these goals — through three new principles.
First, emphasis will be
on expansion with quality. Second, higher education
opportunities will be
diversified; world class research universities and
sophisticated teaching
institutions will be developed to impart key vocational
and generic skills as
per the needs of the labour market. Third, this
excellence in diversity will be
implemented through governance reforms. STATUS OF HIGHER EDUCATION There
was a special thrust on enrolment in private
institutions of higher education
during the eleventh plan. During this period, the
enrolment in private
institutions increased more than double than in public
institutions. It
increased in private institutions by 53.11 lakh, state
institutions by 23.72
lakh and central institutions by 2.53 lakh. It amounted
to 58.9 per cent of
total enrolment in the private institutions, while it
was 38.5 per cent in
state institutions and 2.6 per cent in central
institutions. Incidentally, these
figures do not match with those given in the approach
paper as mentioned above
in the first paragraph.
During
the eleventh plan, the total number of institutions grew
by 58 per cent from
29,384 to 46,430. This growth was 63.47 per cent in case
of private
institutions, 49.15 per cent in state institutions and
52.41 per cent in
central institutions. By the end of the Plan, the
country had 645 degree
awarding institutions, 33,023 colleges affiliated to 174
universities and over
12,748 diploma granting institutions. Of the 46,430
institutions, 29,662, i.e.
63.88 per cent of the total, were private institutions.
Growth in private
institutions was significant with 98 private state
universities, 17 private
deemed universities, 7,818 private colleges, and 3,581
private diploma
institutions. A majority of them offer professional or
vocational programmes
almost exclusively. According
to the draft plan document, additional enrolment
capacity of “one crore
students including 10 lakh in open and distance learning
would be created. This
would enable roughly 30 lakh more students in each age
cohort to enter higher
education and raise the country’s GER from 17.9 per cent
(estimated for 2011-12)
to 25.2 per cent by 2017-18 and reach the target of 30
per cent GER by 2020-21
which would be broadly in line with world average.”
By
the end of the twelfth plan period, the enrolment
capacity of central
institutions would be doubled from six lakh to 12 lakh.
In the state
institutions, it would increase from 84 lakh to one
crore 10 lakh. “The bulk of
growth would be in the private institutions.” In private
institutions, the
enrolment capacity would increase from one crore 27 lakh
now to one crore 85
lakh (p 96). Thus the thrust would continue to be on
private investments.
The
draft plan document asserts that during the eleventh
plan, Indian higher
education moved from ‘elite’ to ‘mass’ higher education
by crossing 15 per cent
GER and is now moving towards universal higher education
and will cross 50 per
cent GER. With about 85 per cent children in the
relevant age group of 17–23
years remaining outside the ambit of higher education,
how can one call it
‘mass’ higher education? The
draft plan document further says that while expanding
capacity, “costs have to
be kept low while maintaining high quality.” It
suggested that it could be
achieved by increasing the capacity of existing
institutions through multiple
shifts and year-round operations. This takes care of a
long-time demand of
students to start evening shifts in colleges in order to
increase enrolment. To
keep the costs low, it further suggested the appointment
of faculty on contract
basis. It said, “high-cost full-time faculty can be
engaged in high-value
teaching while specially trained teaching assistants or
adjunct faculty could
be used for tutorials and online courses that are
blended with face-to-face
instruction” (p 98). FOR-PROFIT GROWTH WITH PUBLIC FUNDS A
major policy shift in the draft plan document is for a
re-examination of
“not-for-profit” tag in higher education for “pragmatic
considerations so as to
allow the entry of for-profit institutions” (p 100). It
points out that the
private sector in higher education accounts for 58.5 per
cent enrolment.
However, the philanthropic investment in higher
education has decreased
tremendously over the years. This sector has already
become for-profit; in fact
it is making huge profits illegally. Since the major
responsibility for
expansion would be on private sector, therefore to
attract large private funds
it would only be “pragmatic” to allow the private sector
in higher education
for earning profits legally. For-profit private
investment would also mean that
higher education would be sold as a commodity which
could be purchased by those
who could bear its cost. It must be noted here that
several judgements of the
Supreme Court held education as a not-for-profit
activity but allowed the
private institutions to generate some surplus, and not
profit, required for their
development. Innovative
proposals have been suggested in the draft plan document
to encourage the
infusion of more private capital in the traditional
not-for-profit higher
education. These include: (i)
enabling liberal financing options for the sector, like
allowing private
institutions to raise funds through public offerings of
bonds or shares; (ii) changing
the legal status of the
sector to attract more investors, like allowing all
types of institutions to be
established under section 25 of the Companies Act and
allowing existing trusts
and societies to convert to institutions under the same
section; (iii)
giving priority recognition to
the sector, like providing it ‘infrastructure’ status
with similar, financial
and tax treatment. The government would give to
non-profit private institutions
“on an equal footing with public institutions,” student
financial aid, research
funds and technology and faculty development support. NO SOCIAL CONTROL Section
25 of the Companies Act applies only to non-for-profit
organisations and
prohibits fundraising through bonds and shares. It means
that the nature of this
section would also be changed. While private
institutions would be getting
public funds, the draft plan document makes no proposal
to have social control
over these institutions in relation to fees, admission,
service conditions,
examination, etc. Rather, the public institutions not
meeting standards would
be handed over to the private sector. Special
emphasis will be placed on expansion of skill-based
programmes in higher
education during the twelfth plan by
establishing community colleges in accordance with the
North American Model (p
101).
These colleges will provide modular credit-based courses
with entry and exit
flexibility. They will offer programmes leading to
certificates (after one
year), diplomas, advanced diplomas or associate degrees
(after two years) with
options to transfer to regular degree programmes. Their
faculty will typically
consist of a permanent core, who will teach fundamentals
(language,
mathematics, science) and a large pool of adjunct or
part-time faculty who will
focus on specialisations. Since the emphasis is on the
efficient use of the facilities
of existing institutions, the existing colleges will be
forced to run like
community colleges for first two years working with huge
contract faculty. MISCONCEPTION
ABOUT
QUALITY Expressing
serious concern, the draft plan document lays emphasis
on improving the overall
quality of higher education institutions in the country.
It points out that
general higher education could be an excellent
foundation for successful
knowledge-based careers; therefore focus should be
primarily on improving the
quality of general higher education. Graduates should be
able to acquire skills
beyond the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic
(the ‘3Rs’). Critical
thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity
(the ‘4Cs’) are
increasingly important now. Special emphasis on verbal
and written
communication skills, especially, but not limited to,
“English would go a long
way in improving the employability of the large and
growing mass of
disempowered youth.” The
‘4Cs’ as skills are taken care of by community colleges.
However, these are
inbuilt in general higher education within ‘3Rs’.
Therefore, what is required
is more infrastructural development in general higher
education and not their forcible
conversion into community colleges as is being currently
done in The
draft plan document mentions certain steps taken during
eleventh plan for
improving the quality of general higher education,
including financial
assistance given to 417 departments of universities and
colleges. One of the
steps taken was introduction of semester system in a few
states and in The
document calls for reforming the affiliating college
system through a
five-pronged strategy during the twelfth plan. First,
large and reputed
colleges will be converted into full-fledged
universities. Second,
college-cluster universities will be created with each
college working as a
campus. Third, some of the large and unwieldy
affiliating universities will be
split into manageable units. Fourth, colleges would be
allowed to consolidate
through merger under an autonomous framework. Finally,
affiliating universities
will have to revamp their college development councils
and give greater
autonomy to their colleges in all academic,
administrative and financial
matters. However, it has not been explained as to how
these reforms are going
to improve quality. RE-CRAFTING
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
AND FACULTY Undergraduate
programmes should provide, according to the draft plan
document, a holistic
education and give students opportunities for
intellectual exploration,
hands-on research, job skilling, experiential learning,
creative thinking,
leadership, ethics education, community service and
more. “In place of three
year programs, several institutions have introduced
four-year undergraduate
programs to achieve these multiple objectives. During
the twelfth plan, four
year undergraduate programmes would be promoted. UGC
currently provides
financial support for starting specialised programmes in
interdisciplinary and
emerging areas, which could be strengthened and could
include support for
four-year undergraduate programmes.” There
has not been any debate on the desirability of the four
year undergraduate
programmes instead of three years. No convincing
argument is provided in the
draft document. The structure which has recently been
passed in The
draft plan document proposes an enabling policy
framework to attract Indians
teaching in universities abroad. Senior and tenured
overseas faculty could be
invited as international visiting professors by offering
them attractive
remuneration. This could be supplemented by “tapping the
growing pool of
retired experts.” It
further proposes
that “new faculty may be kept under probation for a
period of five years and
confirmation could then be done on the basis of rigorous
performance evaluation
including peer review and student feedback” (p 109) The
draft plan document proposes to promote a
“meta-university framework as a
network of universities” in order to expand student
choice and increasing the
design of innovative interdisciplinary programmes. This
would enable several
universities to come together and offer courses across
disciplines, treat
faculty and students from all institutions alike and
always mobile, and provide
all network members access to content, teaching, and the
research support they
need. Accreditation will be mandatory with clear
incentives and consequences. These
proposals will create differential pay structure for
faculty and a big army of
exploited contract teachers working at the mercy of the
managements. This will
instead of raising quality lead to the degeneration of
higher education system. HIGH
FEE STRUCTURE The
plan document notes: “….while, about 60 per cent
students are enrolled in
private unaided institutions and pay full fees, the
remaining 40 per cent are
enrolled in public-funded institutions and usually pay
very low fees. Central
universities, particularly that are Delhi-based, have
not raised the fees for
decades, while several State universities have raised
the fees to reasonable
levels” (p 120). It asserts that maintaining low levels
of fees is regressive
since it often benefits the “better-off students.” The
draft plan document has
once again opened the debate started by the World Bank
in the eighties and
nineties. The World Bank had advocated that higher
education was not a merit
good and subsidising higher education meant subsidising
the rich. It said that
the process of raising fees, which started with the
elite central institutions
like the IIMs and IITs raising their fees in recent
years, should be continued
and brought to reasonable levels. This should eventually
cover all central
institutions. Similarly, state governments should also
be encouraged to raise
fees to reasonable and sustainable levels in state
universities and colleges.
Instead of social control, it seeks to extend some
flexibility to private
institutions in matters related to fee fixation. The
plan document proposes low costs for expansion of
enrolment, contractual
faculty, allowing private investors to make profits,
making courses suited to
the market, restructuring undergraduate courses in
accordance with North
American model, and charging of high fees from students.
All these proposals
are for commercialisation of higher education leading to
private profits with
public funding. The students’ and teachers’ movements
have been fighting
against these attempts, and have to fight against these
draft plan objectives
which are anti-student, anti-teacher and anti-people.
