The clash between UGC and the ministry of
human resource development (MHRD) had to come sooner or later. For, the
ministry has been making changes in the education domain for the the last nine
months, both at the policy as well as the operational levels. A welcome move,
certainly, because higher education is passing through a difficult and complex
scenario.
There is growing interest among today’s youth in the usefulness and quality of education. They are also concerned about the enormous disparities among the country’s various universities in their academic structures, examination systems and the knowledge that a degree education delivers. This is critical for them mainly because across the country job opportunities are enhancing in industries. But then, the country still has the old combination of annual structure, semester system and an occasionally used credit-based open and flexible modular structure. The teachers, the college and the university authorities, the “not for and for profit education industrialists,” the state governments and 13 national level authorities like UGC, AICTE, MCI, DCI, NBC and so on have always operated as independent entities adopting their own policies without communicating with each other. Each entity is in effect a king of their own realm and this has created all the “academic non cohesiveness.”
The earlier NDA dispensation did make an effort to bring some uniformity across such a complex structure. In 2003, for the first time all professional councils came on a single platform in UGC and decided to bring uniformity in identification of new professional colleges so as to avoid the visits of half a dozen different independent committees to the same institution more than a dozen times. The UGC and MHRD at that time realised that this was an enormously time consuming process that took 10 to 12 months for approvals for new professional institutions. Every good educationist in the country felt that the change would finally get triggered and education per se would change in quality and utility. They expected that the public education system, which caters to 75 per cent of our students, would now become stronger and the government would invest larger finances in public universities.
However, these reforms never became a reality because NDA-1 lost the elections in 2004 and the next government appointed Arjun Singh as the HRD minister, who through his thoughts and actions thereon, clearly indicated a preference for enhancing deemed universities and private universities, instead of public ones. The present mess in the higher education domain is actually the result of such an unwarranted action.
The present government has taken a comprehensive approach this time by announcing the creation of Rashtriya Uchchtar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) with a well-defined strategy to be created and operated by the MHRD. The UGC and other agencies obviously were uncomfortable as their role was getting redefined and reduced. In the recent meeting of the parliamentary standing committee on HRD, the UGC chairperson, Ved Prakash, asked for the role of RUSA to be reviewed. Appearing before the panel, Prakash said: “RUSA, whose primary function is to fund state universities and ensure that systemic reforms are carried out — a job that was being done by UGC — has become an “obstruction' to higher education.” He said the bulk of funds were now going to RUSA which could impact UGC’s endeavour to push for research and innovation.
Prakash's argument was disputed by HRD ministry officials but the parliamentary panel gave him a patient hearing. Panel chairperson Satyanarayan Jatiya asked UGC and MHRD to present their respective points of view in the next meeting, and said that this was an issue that needed proper discussion and a final view would be taken only after that.
If one studies the role of RUSA as defined by the MHRD, it turns out that some of UGC’s functions have indeed shifted to RUSA. First, model degree colleges will be set up in 374 educationally backward districts, 60 of which have been set up though the present plan and will get funds through RUSA. The entity now also undertakes the funding of upgradation of colleges to universities and disburses infrastructure grant. Already, 35 states and union territories have committed to abide by conditions set by RUSA. More than 20 states have set up state higher education councils, the first condition by RUSA, and are making considerable progress towards implementing other conditions.
It is clear that the MHRD is trying to enter in the domain of many entities like, UGC, AICTE and eventually many other types of councils through RUSA. The MHRD has been rather clever, which is clear from a statement from the ministry source which said, “RUSA is the only specific plan for higher education. It was conceived as state governments were complaining about the earlier system of funding.”
The need, therefore, is to avoid such unwarranted clash between various authorities. We are already facing huge difficulties in bringing uniformity in the education sector, let us not compound the confusion further by acting in contrarian ways.
There is growing interest among today’s youth in the usefulness and quality of education. They are also concerned about the enormous disparities among the country’s various universities in their academic structures, examination systems and the knowledge that a degree education delivers. This is critical for them mainly because across the country job opportunities are enhancing in industries. But then, the country still has the old combination of annual structure, semester system and an occasionally used credit-based open and flexible modular structure. The teachers, the college and the university authorities, the “not for and for profit education industrialists,” the state governments and 13 national level authorities like UGC, AICTE, MCI, DCI, NBC and so on have always operated as independent entities adopting their own policies without communicating with each other. Each entity is in effect a king of their own realm and this has created all the “academic non cohesiveness.”
The earlier NDA dispensation did make an effort to bring some uniformity across such a complex structure. In 2003, for the first time all professional councils came on a single platform in UGC and decided to bring uniformity in identification of new professional colleges so as to avoid the visits of half a dozen different independent committees to the same institution more than a dozen times. The UGC and MHRD at that time realised that this was an enormously time consuming process that took 10 to 12 months for approvals for new professional institutions. Every good educationist in the country felt that the change would finally get triggered and education per se would change in quality and utility. They expected that the public education system, which caters to 75 per cent of our students, would now become stronger and the government would invest larger finances in public universities.
However, these reforms never became a reality because NDA-1 lost the elections in 2004 and the next government appointed Arjun Singh as the HRD minister, who through his thoughts and actions thereon, clearly indicated a preference for enhancing deemed universities and private universities, instead of public ones. The present mess in the higher education domain is actually the result of such an unwarranted action.
The present government has taken a comprehensive approach this time by announcing the creation of Rashtriya Uchchtar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) with a well-defined strategy to be created and operated by the MHRD. The UGC and other agencies obviously were uncomfortable as their role was getting redefined and reduced. In the recent meeting of the parliamentary standing committee on HRD, the UGC chairperson, Ved Prakash, asked for the role of RUSA to be reviewed. Appearing before the panel, Prakash said: “RUSA, whose primary function is to fund state universities and ensure that systemic reforms are carried out — a job that was being done by UGC — has become an “obstruction' to higher education.” He said the bulk of funds were now going to RUSA which could impact UGC’s endeavour to push for research and innovation.
Prakash's argument was disputed by HRD ministry officials but the parliamentary panel gave him a patient hearing. Panel chairperson Satyanarayan Jatiya asked UGC and MHRD to present their respective points of view in the next meeting, and said that this was an issue that needed proper discussion and a final view would be taken only after that.
If one studies the role of RUSA as defined by the MHRD, it turns out that some of UGC’s functions have indeed shifted to RUSA. First, model degree colleges will be set up in 374 educationally backward districts, 60 of which have been set up though the present plan and will get funds through RUSA. The entity now also undertakes the funding of upgradation of colleges to universities and disburses infrastructure grant. Already, 35 states and union territories have committed to abide by conditions set by RUSA. More than 20 states have set up state higher education councils, the first condition by RUSA, and are making considerable progress towards implementing other conditions.
It is clear that the MHRD is trying to enter in the domain of many entities like, UGC, AICTE and eventually many other types of councils through RUSA. The MHRD has been rather clever, which is clear from a statement from the ministry source which said, “RUSA is the only specific plan for higher education. It was conceived as state governments were complaining about the earlier system of funding.”
The need, therefore, is to avoid such unwarranted clash between various authorities. We are already facing huge difficulties in bringing uniformity in the education sector, let us not compound the confusion further by acting in contrarian ways.
Source
| Financial Chronicle | 17 June 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment