DRAFT POLICY AIMS TO RE-ENGINEER COUNTRY’S EDUCATION SYSTEM
However, there are some areas of concern, especially with regard to higher education.
The draft National Education Policy (NEP) recommends a complete overhaul of the country’s education system, demolishing existing structures, creating new ones, recommending huge financial outlays for the new architecture and generally challenging the existing power equations in the education arena. Academic circles have hailed some of its suggestions, but have voiced concerns over many others.
RECALIBRATING GOVERNANCE
The NEP advocates autonomy of higher education institutions (HEI). Decisions related to many aspects that should be within the purview of institutional governance and leadership are centralised at the level of the University Grants Commission (UGC) or other state and Central bodies. Controlled as they are in many significant ways by the affiliating university, colleges are unable to chart their own courses. This deeply undermines institutional autonomy.
Hence, the policy is suggesting decentralisation of power to make a higher education institution responsible for its own development. A “competent and committed” Board of Governor (BOG) will now replace the existing mechanisms, norms and practices and will write the institutional development plans.
Dr Vasudha Kamat, Member, NEP Draft Committee and former Vice Chancellor, SNDT University, said: “Clear, merit-based procedures for appointments of the BOG and other top positions will ensure elimination of external interference, including from the government.”
Academicians, however, have a guarded approach to the suggested governance mechanism. Dr Vidya Yeravadekar, Pro-chancellor, Symbiosis International University, Pune, said: “This is fine as long as the role of governing boards is facilitatory and not regulatory. No education system in the world will function successfully if autonomy of academicians is curbed.”
Dr Sanjay Deshmukh, former Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University, said, “Bringing transparency and making administrative appointments competencebased is necessary. NEP is silent on politicisation of administrative appointments and training and capacity building. Academic leaders should get some degree of free hand in choosing their teams.”
T.V. Mohandas Pai, Chairperson, Manipal Global Education, has suggested a way out. The government has to first form a governing board for an institution. The first board will then form its own nomination committee. This nomination committee will then form the subsequent boards. “The tenure of the nomination committee and the governing board should be fixed. The members should be academicians of higher repute, government and business representatives, and at least 60% should be alumni. They have the money, connections and brands to give fillip to their institution. The faculty should have representation on the BOG.”
The draft policy also advocates replacing individual regulators in higher education, including professional and vocational education, with the National Higher Regulatory Authority (NHERA). This means the current about 17 professional bodies like AICTE, Bar Council of India and the proposed National Medical Commission will set standard only for professional practice and the UGC will only dole out grants.
Dr Kamat said: “They will not specify curriculum. Instead, they will specify professional standards and/or a curriculum framework, against which educational institutions will prepare their own curricula.”
This implies that HEIS will have to exercise their academic autonomy with epistemic, educational and ethical responsibility. They will also have to ensure that their educational programmes are responsive to professional standards set by the various professional standard setting boards and the “learning outcomes” as articulated by the proposed General Education Council (GEC).
Dr Vinay Bansal, Chairman, New Delhi Institute of Management, said: “The loosening of control is likely to engender more innovative practices tailored to the needs of the clientele.” However, he is quick to add that if it is a free-rein in an immature market, it could be more confusing and may add to the chaos. “Whether the proposed NHERA, as a single body, would be able to facilitate all forms of higher education, including professional and vocational education, we do not know. We are quite happy even in the current dispensation of AICTE as a regulatory body. After all, more than the structure, it is the intent and quality of leadership that makes the most impact,” he said.
National Assessment & Accreditation Council’s (NAAC’S) divorce from UGC, however, has been hailed by all. The NAAC will now be a super accreditor under which there will be multiple accreditation institutions. NAAC and National Board of Accreditation together have accredited only 25% institutions so far. Dr Vinay Sahasrabuddhe, Member, Rajya Sabha and President, Indian Council for Cultural Relations, said: “Those who conduct cannot assess and evaluate objectively. I am sure that this separation would do away any possibility of building a nexus.”
FINANCING EDUCATION
Funding is another hotly debated issue. NEP recommends committing 6% of the country’s GDP to education. From where will the money will come, ask educationists. Their anxiety stems from the fact that the government, in fact, has been cutting down the expenditure on education for the past five years. It was 2.71% of GDP in 2017-18. The 2019-20 budget speech does not throw much light on this aspect, but has earmarked Rs 38,547 crore for the National Education Mission (NEM), a new overarching body entrusted with the vision of the country’s education. The funds thus allocated are not commensurate with the grandiose plans unfolded in the NEP, feel educationists.
Further, the NEP seeks to double the public expenditure on education from the current 10% by 2030. Questions are being raised as the public spend on education has actually decreased in recent years, from 4.14% in 2014-15 to 3.40% in 2019-20 (post inflation adjustment).
Dr Deshmukh said: “These numbers are grossly overestimated. India can reach these levels only in the span of 20 years.” According to Dr Bansal, these are laudable goals. “However, the current patterns of budget allocation by the federal government may not inspire too much confidence on achievement of these goals,” he said. A country aspiring to contribute immensely to the knowledge economy needs to invest significantly on education. Dr Yeravadekar agrees with this. “Doubling the public spend from 10% to 20% by 2030 is a challenge. The government will have to prioritise funding for education and health by diverting some funds from other sources,” she said.
NEP assumes that the public expenditure on education will increase with increase in the GDP. It bases its assumption on:
2030-32.
Education cess cannot be considered as a permanent source of revenue as it is a dedicated fund for a purpose. The contribution of the CSR fund towards education was only Rs 2,400 crore (37%) in 2017. Dr Sahasrabuddhe seems optimistic. “This government has established that where there is a will, there is a way. I have every hope that the government, once it officially and formally adopts this policy, will find ways of resource mobilisation.”
Others, however, tread cautiously. Dr Bansal said: “All projections have to be made on some assumptions. Some recent upsets notwithstanding, there is nothing wrong in assuming and aspiring for a
32. Yes, the task might be getting tougher to achieve that goal, but we shall continue to strive.”
Pai has offered a solution. “Today, almost 60% of our students are studying in private colleges. By the next decade, it will be 75%. This means 75% of our students can afford to pay for the education that they receive. For the remainder, the government may give full scholarships to those whose annual income is below Rs 5 lakh and grant scholarship-cum-loans to those whose income is between Rs 5-10 lakh. Those with an income above Rs 10 lakh may pay. With increased growth funding for HE will improve.” Dr Deshmukh also expressed similar views: “Issuing education bonds—like the Ayushman Scheme— may be looked at.”