Contemporary Public Higher Education in India
The situation in higher education is not very encouraging in India While there has been a massive expansion of higher education after independence, making it the third largest after USA and China, it is very inadequate in terms of access, equity and quality. Currently it provides access to around 17-18 per cent of the relevant population (numbers vary) and efforts are being made to reach about 25-30% by 2020. To do it in the public sector alone might be extremely difficult and so the private sector might need to be co-opted. This is because the financial requirement as estimated in the 12th Five year Plan is about 413 thousand crore rupees. The number of seats that need to be created are 26 million and over 140 million children will need skill development. There is just no way in which public finance can meet this requirement but the task has to be undertaken if economic development has to go forward. It is also important to note that currently India spends about 1.1% of its GDP on higher education while South Korea, over 2% and USA over 4%. Of course there is a whole range of how much countries spend on higher education but the simple point is that India has to spend for more on higher education than public finance has the capacity to allocate.
Increasingly, the relationship between higher education and economic development has been established the world over leading to the “massification” of higher education and moving towards its universalization. This has linked it firmly with employability raising questions about relevance and quality of higher education. The need to simultaneously expand to increase access, create equity and tackle the issues of relevance and quality by upgrading existing institutions has put a strain on the resources available for the public funding of higher education. This has led to the emergence of the private sector in higher education that has prioritized subjects like engineering, medicine, management, media, law, applied sciences and technology together with subjects related to the service industry and skill development. Social sciences and humanities are facing neglect which gets emphasized as more and more higher education moves to the private sector. Further, there is an acute need for research for knowledge formation and its dissemination in which boundaries between disciplines get blurred. All this means that the way we think of the organization, financing, governance structures and delivery systems of higher education has to be revisited with regard to state funded institutions and the emergence of the private sector which has grown while policy for it has lagged behind.
In India, the strains in the system are more than evident as there are only a few research universities at the top and the bottom does not adequately fulfill the requirements of demand and so has little time to devote to relevance and quality. The skill formation is inadequate and too dysfunctional to meet the requirements of a growing and diversifying economy. While IITs and IIMs may be internationally competitive, they are only niche institutions which cater to a very small percentage of student population. One of the fundamental causes of malaise is, perhaps, what Prof. Altbach points out when he says that the mass of institutions of higher education have no clarity of vision about their purpose and aim. The universities are neither provided resources nor do they have the mandate to build a distinctive and innovative profile which is essential for successful academic systems. So they continue as an undifferentiated mass repetitively producing more of the same. If there was clarity on what different institutions are attempting to deliver, then their funding sources and patterns could also be diversified.
The accountability in the system is so diffuse and distributed that no one can be held responsible for delivery and outcomes. This leads to mediocrity. It is only natural because most academic arrangements in India have been derived from British colonialism and were not meant to be effective or encourage quality. The most affected is undergraduate education as the affiliating system puts the undergraduate colleges under the universities with their highly bureaucratized and controlled environment. It impedes innovation as they have to follow the common centralized policies without any autonomy. The universities, in turn, receive their funding from the government. So while they have formal autonomy they too are basically under the control of central or state governments. Also, they have been politicized which makes them ideologically blinkered and contentious. All this has made issues of quality assurance very ambiguous.
The Emergence of the Private Sector
What has been the societal and systemic response to this situation? At least two things have happened. One is that it has led to the emergence of a very substantial private sector that has stepped in to absorb the rising demand for higher education especially in areas of professional and management education. The second is that the government itself has realized that it will not be able to meet all the financial requirements of the demand and has tacitly recognized the need to involve the private sector. Therefore it has allowed elements of private education to enter the public sector universities and colleges through mechanisms like `self financing courses’ that run concurrently with public funded programmes. Also, self financing institutions have been affiliated to public universities and they now far outnumber the public funded colleges. Most of them are in the southern states of India. Many private deemed universities have emerged which indicates that the government seeks private help and, lacking a transparent policy or legislation, has taken this route to enable private institutions to flourish. There are another group of private institutions in the non-university sector that are run by private and corporate initiatives like NIIT and APTEC. By law they can’t award degrees but they attract students because of the quality and relevance of their programmes and training that they offer.
By the 1980s the student preference shifted to professional programmes over academic disciplines, particularly in areas related to engineering, medicine, management, computer applications and others because of economic and political factors. Finding a vacuum and sensing an opportunity, the private providers took to the professional sector in large numbers and did well. They were supported by an unarticulated paradigm shift in the government itself. This can be seen from the various policy statements that emerged at this time.
The National Policy on Education, 1986, stated:
Resources to the extent possible will be raised by mobilizing donations, asking the beneficiary communities to maintain school buildings and supplies of some consumables, raising fees at the higher levels of education and effecting some savings by the efficient use of facilities … all these measures will be taken not only to reduce the burden on state resources but also for creating a greater sense of responsibility within the education system
The position was reiterated in 1992.
Among the first indications that a policy on private sector would reach the realms of implementation came in the recommendations of the Eighth Plan (1993-2997) which stated that the opening of new universities and colleges should not be encouraged. Also that private sector and voluntary agencies be involved in the opening and running of higher education institutions with proper checks to ensure maintenance of standards and facilities. Higher education institutions were to be made as self financing as possible. The protests of the academic community were muted by stating that the quality of education would not be compromised. Earlier, the Report of the CABE on Gnanam Committee (1992) had also stated:
It will not be possible for the state government to fund adequate resources to create endowment funds for each university. Universities, however, should make efforts to raise their own resources but must be ensured that there are no conditions attached like preference on admission etc. Raising of resources should not affect academic standards and universities should lay down guidelines for the same.
This position was not unique to India. It was in keeping with what was happening globally and had been stated by the International Commission for Education for the 21st century in 1996 in its report “Learning the Treasure Within.”
It is not only justifiable but also desirable to raise money from private sector in order to ease the pressure on national budgets. Private funding can come from variety of sources, contribution… by families and students towards fees.
In 1997, the Ministry of Finance in its White Paper on public subsidies called higher education a “non-merit” good. This was significant because it could have had long term consequences for public financing of higher education as it made individuals the main gainers from it and hence not deserving of public subsidies. This is an old and continuing debate. If higher education is a public good it must be completely supported by the government because society benefits by the education of the citizens. It improves human capital, encourages civic involvement, and boosts economic development. The private good or “non-merit” counter argument is that higher education largely benefits the individual and therefore students should pay a significant part of their post secondary education. Perhaps there is truth in both and the answer need not be an either/ or proposition. In that case a policy in which both can co-exist can be formulated. This has not been done so far in the public domain as a national policy.
However, the government has been more than aware of the resource constraints and has tried to address the problem by introducing the Private Universities Establishment and Regulation Bill in August 1995 in the Rajya Sabha. It was referred to the Standing Committee for obtaining its views on involving the private sector. However, the Bill just faded away. Since the matter continued to be discussed at various forums, the HRD Ministry set up a core group in 1999 for their views and recommendations on various issues pertaining to higher education. Nothing came of it probably because it was politically contentious and the private sector too was very resentful of some of the provisions of the proposed bill like those pertaining to endowment fund, regulation by the government bodies and free education to one-third student. The Birla-Ambani Report of 2001 also suggested the involvement of the private sector, minimal subsidies for higher education and the resources so saved to be used for school education.
Although the 11th plan had a massive increase in the outlay for education and several new initiatives were envisaged which would lead to a substantial expansion of higher education like the establishment of central universities, world class universities and colleges in every district, even if it could all be implemented, it would still require massive inputs from the private sector to meet the demand for higher education. An even larger outlay is expected in the 12th Plan but given the increase in secondary education, India’s youthful demographic profile, and the existence of already large private sector, a clear policy on private higher education and acceptance of public private partnership will have to emerge.
However, there is resistance to the idea of privatization among a vociferous and influential section of society which is a hindrance in formulating a concrete national policy towards private higher education and its role. The contention of this section is that “education has never been a commerce in this country, making it one is opposed to the ethos, tradition and sensibilities to the nation.” But these contentions are not reflected in the actual practices. For example, medical care even more than education, should be the responsibility of the government, but the moment one is sick there is rush for the best private nursing home. There is obviously some hypocrisy here which is evident in the education sector as well. Flourishing coaching academies, tutorial colleges and parallel colleges collect substantial fees for unregulated academic programmes and these are willingly paid. Fees are also willingly paid for the sought after schools and computer institutes but when it comes to formal higher education any fee increase meets with fierce resistance.
Massification of Higher Education
Massification of higher education across the world has been attempted through both the public sector and the private sector. In Japan over 77% of education is private while in South Korea it is even higher. Philippines has over 70% private higher education. Private sector educates more than half the population in countries like Mexico, Brazil and Chile. Private universities are expanding in Africa, and China and India too have a significant private sector. However, Western Europe does not have a large private sector except for Portugal and in USA, the perceived bastion of private education, its role has reduced with the massification of higher education. The fall of communism has brought significant private higher education to the countries of former USSR and to the large majority of Central and East Europe. A few of these countries have only a tiny private sector but in several others it peaks at around 25-30%. It is mainly in the developing countries that the demand for private education is very strong probably due to the desire for using education and human resource development to accelerate economic growth.
Impact of Globalization and Democracy
The demand for higher education is being driven by at least two factors: globalization and democracy. Globalization can be seen as “the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide `interconnectedness’.” It is the “overarching international system shaping the domestic politics and foreign relations of virtually every country. It involves the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before – in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is also producing a powerful backlash from those brutalized or left behind. We have gone from how big is your missile to how fast is your modem? We have gone from a variety of economic ideologies to a choice between free market vanilla and North Korea.” While the polarities may not be as extreme as are made out here, but in today’s context, as Henry Feigenbaum observes, it is taken as axiomatic that education and spread of knowledge are essential to increase international competitiveness because national and global economies are interconnected and based on information and its exchange.
It is no wonder that internationally there has been much debate and discussion on higher education. October 1998, for instance, was a very significant year for the world of higher education as representatives of 128 nations responsible for education, including higher education, met for the first time in Paris under the auspices of UNESCO to discuss issues of common concern and to agree on the general direction that higher education must take in the twenty first century. The Conference was unanimously of the view that a renewal of higher education was essential for the whole society to face the challenges of the twenty-first century. These included intellectual independence of individual; creation and advancement of knowledge; and education and training to shape responsible, enlightened citizens and qualified specialists, without whom no nation could progress economically, socially, culturally or politically. The Declaration of the World Conference emphasized that since society was increasingly knowledge-based, higher education and research had become essential components of cultural, socio-economic and environmentally sustainable development of individuals, communities and nations. The development of higher education, therefore, ranked as among the highest national priorities of nations throughout the world because without it, the required human resource could not be created.
The Conference was preceded by a widespread mobilization of partners, national policy makers, institutional leaders, professors, researchers, students, professional sectors and others. Regional Conferences were held in Havana in November 1996, Dakar in April 1997, Tokyo in July 1997, Palermo in September 1997, and Beirut in March 1998. Findings, Declarations and Plans of Action of these conferences provided inputs for the Paris Conference. These were complemented by studies and analyses undertaken by some fifty governmental and non-governmental organizations charged with preparing a series of thematic debates on important issues of higher education. Twelve debates were structured around three main domains. The first was on higher education and development considered as requirements for the world of work. Under this were to be considered higher education and sustainable human development contributing to national and regional development; and higher education staff development as a continuous process. The second domain was new trends and innovations in higher education that encompassed students’ vision of higher education for a new society; the use of new information technologies, challenges and opportunities in research and the contribution of higher education to the education system as a whole. The third domain dealt with higher education and its relationship with culture and society. It had under its umbrella, women and higher education; promoting a culture of peace; mobilizing the power of culture; autonomy and social responsibility and higher education.
At the Conference itself the delegates dealt with issues pertaining to the changing missions of higher education in the twenty-first century. These included interaction of higher education with society; the impact of the change process on higher education together with diversification; increased flexibility of systems and promotion of lifelong learning; and access to higher education. All these factors provided elements that went into the Declaration and Framework for Action that the Conference adopted at the end as “World declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action” and “Framework for Priority Action for Change and Development of Higher Education.” The Conference resolved that “beyond its traditional functions of teaching, training, research and study, all of which remain fundamental”, higher education must “promote development of the whole persons and train responsible, informed citizens, committed to working for a better society in the future.” It has led to intense activity around the world as country after country has tried to assess the role of higher education in development and what needs to be further done.
The Task Force on Higher Education and Society was convened by the World Bank and UNESCO in the year 2000 to bring together some of the world’s foremost education and development experts. Based on research, intensive discussion and hearings conducted over a two-year period, the Task Force concluded that without more and better education, developing countries would find it increasingly difficult to benefit from the global knowledge-based economy.
Globalization is intimately connected to democracy and the empowerment of individuals who seek opportunities in an increasingly shrinking world. As Friedman points out, two major events have been responsible for this. One is the end of the Cold War, which has also been a struggle between two economic systems – capitalism and communism. Second is the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989. Now there is primarily one system in the world and while there may be many variations of it keeping in view the local milieu, everyone has had to orient and adapt to it one way or another. With the spread of democracy, regulated or centrally planned economies have become an idea of the past. Henceforth, more and more economies would be governed in consonance with interests, demands and aspirations of the people, that is, from ground up rather than by planning from top down.
Friedman argues that there have been three great eras of globalization. The first from 1492 when Columbus set sail opening trade between the Old World and the New World, until around 1800. It shrank the world from large to medium. Globalization was about countries and muscle. The driving force was, “brawn, how much muscle, how much horse power, wind power or later, steam power your country had and how creatively you could deploy it.”
The second era of globalization lasted roughly from 1800 to 2000, interrupted by the Great Depression and World Wars I and II. This shrank the world from medium to small. The key agent of change in this era, the dynamic force driving global integration, was multinational companies. The multinationals went global for markets and labour, spearheaded first by the expansion of Dutch and English joint-stock companies and then the Industrial Revolution. In the first half of this era, the impetus was given by falling transportation costs, thanks to the steam engine and the railroad; and in the second half, by falling telecommunication costs because of the development of technology. The global economy matured because there was enough movement of goods and information from continent to continent to create a global market, and global arbitrage in products and labour.
Around 2000, the third phase of globalization began. With it, the world shrank further from small to tiny and simultaneously flattened the playing field. What gives this phase of globalization its unique character is the new found power for individuals to collaborate and compete globally? The new information technology has made us all next-door neighbours. It is now for individuals to ask themselves where they fit into the global competition and opportunities of the day and they can, on their own, collaborate with each other globally. The individual empowerment is the most important new feature of globalization but companies, small and big, have also got newly empowered in this era and seek opportunities of growth and expansion for themselves.
Individuals push for higher education as they see in it an attractive personal investment which can bring them rich rewards in terms of long term income and employability in comparison to individuals with lower formal qualifications. Both these have contributed to the promotion of market elements in higher education particularly through increased privatization which has helped to meet the demand for massification, diversification and the increased access it requires. It has created heterogeneous and complex systems that are required to meet the new and diverse demand which has made it nearly impossible to maintain a pattern of detailed regulation of higher education. Hence, new forms of governance, financing, curricula and flexible delivery and evaluation systems are needed.
Apart from an increasingly integrated world economy, new information and communications technology, and the emergence of an international knowledge network, English language has gained in prominence as an international language of communication and work. Without it, it is not possible to prepare students for the globalized world, the by-product of which is internationalization of higher education. This includes enabling students to study abroad, setting up branch campuses overseas, internationalizing the curriculum or engaging in international partnerships. Both these factors, too, have contributed to the promotion of market elements in higher education particularly through increased privatization.
Early Private Higher Education
However, resistance to private education continues although it is resilient enough to persist and grow. Why is that? After all India has had a long experience in this area. In colonial times institutions of higher education were started with little or no support from the Government. Socio-religious trusts, societies and even individuals took the initiative motivated by their ideals and philanthropy. The Sikhs in Punjab formed the Khalsa Diwan in 1873 which established Khalsa schools and colleges. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan founded the Mohammad Anglo-Oriental College in 1877 which grew into Aligarh Muslim University in 1920. The Jamia Millia Islamia was founded by Dr. Zakir Hussain in 1920. The Arya Samaj founded a number of schools and the Anglo Vedic College in Lahore in 1886. The Deccan Education Society was founded in 1880 and started the Fergusson College. In Bombay, the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute was founded in 1887 through local initiative. Dr. Annie Besant of Theosophical Society founded the Central Hindu College in 1909 which was handed over to Banaras Hindu University Society. When she joined Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya to establish the Banaras Hindu University in 1917. In 1921, Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore started Viswa Bharti at Shantiniketan. Mahatma Gandhi motivated the establishment of several institutions in the 1920s – Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth.
The rulers of princely states too took a keen interest in higher education and contributed to the establishment and development of universities like Mysore University (1916), Osmania University (1918) and Annamalai University (1929). Business Houses too made their contribution to higher education and continued till much later after independence although philanthropy in this field largely died out after 1947. The efforts of Jamshedji Tata led to the establishment of Tata Institute for Science now called Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore. Educational programmes initiated by G.D. Birla at Pilani in the early 1900s culminated in the establishment of the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani in 1964. B.M. Birla started the Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi in 1955. Banasthali Vidyapeeth (1983), Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala (1985) and Bharti Vidyapeeth (1964) are all examples of private initiatives.
The situation was not unique to India. Many of the earliest universities of Europe, too, were the products of non-governmental initiative during the second half of the Middle Ages. They were set up as autonomous institutions by a royal or papal decree. They had a public orientation and were accountable to the secular or religious authorities. The distinction between the public and private spheres was not marked in medieval times and hence the dichotomy between public and private institutions was also less clear. It is only in the 17th and early 20th centuries that the modern state expanded and included higher education as its function.
The motivations for state control then were not very different from what they are today—politics and economics. The same factors that led to the ‘nationalization’ of higher education might end up in its privatization or at least in a mixed sector. The process began in the 1660s with the emergence of the modern state which came to regard the universities as the suppliers of qualified labour and so sought increasing control over them. As the functions of the state grew, new institutions were started by it or the existing ones regulated so that they could be used to train new members of administration. By the 19th C, the autonomy of the university was impacted as the state sought to regulate the organization of the universities, syllabus, teaching staff and students. The growing role of government funding of universities has been accompanied by greater oversight over them. The ministries of education and similar public administrative structures emerged to exercise detailed control over university life. It has gradually become so overbearing that in the last decades of the 20th C, this steady growth of persistent control of the state over universities has started to be questioned. However, the situation is complex because in the process, the universities themselves have become strongly dependent on secular authorities for all their needs – financial, administrative, educational and political. Freedom is frightening.
Hence a direct correlation can be seen between the expansion of the government’s economic and social role and the government’s control over universities. The social welfare state required highly qualified people like teachers, social workers, doctors, engineers, accountants and others. This impacted syllabus formation and priority in the funding of types of programmes thus privileging some over other. It meant that expenditure on higher education became a budgetary and political priority and funding was made available for required skills and achievements in scientific research required for military, economic and social life. It also led to mass higher education as more and more workforce was required which was primarily funded by the government.
This was the European pattern of higher education which was copied all over the world including India. With the rise of North America, the North American pattern which is different from the European model because of the development of a federal state and its limited role in the higher education is also beginning to emerge and intensifying the debate on the state control of universities and the autonomy required in a democratized and globalized world.
In pre-independent India, a large number of institutions had been established through private initiative but once independence came, the state took over and this led to the demise of philanthropy in this sector. For obvious reasons, it chose to follow the European model and more particularly the British model. In this model, since the government had a large control over institutions of higher education, the number of private institutions became insignificant. Higher education was seen as a state responsibility and as an instrument for training elites especially for civil service and public administration. In pursuance f this ideology, private higher education was either prevented from being established or not allowed to continue to function.
Contemporary Private Higher Education
Therefore, private education had existed earlier too, and private higher education has emerged now; what is the difference between the two? Historically, private institutions were established as not-for profit institutions like the universities. However, the recent growth of private institutions are inevitably profit seeking. Even when for profit institutions are not allowed the private institutions are usually for profit whatever may be their claim to the contrary and the regulatory mechanism is not able to deal with them. Further, most private institutions are not universities but specialized institutions that provide higher training in some specific fields of study. Research, especially in basic sciences is usually weak in them and often non-existent because of the large outlay it demands. However, in recent times, attempts to gain legitimacy have prompted them to show some amount of research activity but it largely remains cosmetic because it is difficult for them to find philanthropic sources of funding and they have no access to public research funds. So whatever finances are required for research they have to be cross subsidized from teaching funds and this involves raising tuition fee, already high compared to public universities, to a point which is not a viable option. As the system matures, some amelioration may take place.
Right now most private higher education institutions cater to undergraduate demand which satisfies the current needs of the labour market as this brings immediate returns. However, high end programmes demand heavy financial outlay which in turn means very high fees. Since there are no takers for this, either the quality gets diluted or private education gets confined to the popular courses of social sciences, economics, business management and others.
The issue of quality becomes an urgent one for them since they find it hard, if not impossible, to compete in terms of fees with public institutions. Also these institutions face problems of getting good teachers. Most of them have to rely on part time teachers from public universities or their retired faculty from these universities. The dearth of faculty disturbs the teacher student ratio that further dilutes the quality. Further, when teachers from public institutions `moonlight’ it creates tensions between the two sectors with its own consequences. Public angst too rises against them because lack of quality and high fees means that the employment returns do not match the individual investment and expectations.
Further, at the policy level the expectations from private institutions are usually not met. Given the fact that they have more flexibility, it is expected that they would increase diversification both in terms of geographical reach and subjects taught being more responsive to labour market demands. This does not happen because the very nature of private institutions makes them gravitate to capital cities or major urban centers. And the subjects get confined to those that are popular because of market demand. In fact it is the public institutions that are geographically diverse because of the involvement of local and regional authorities. They also have the wherewithal to innovate if they could only get out of their straitjacket.
But whatever may be the constraints on private higher education, the evidence seems to suggest that they are set to become a permanent feature of the higher education landscape. This is because higher education is likely to persist as the government may not be able to cope with its rising financial demands and expectations. There will be financial challenges on how to expand the supply of higher education both in the public and in the private sector. Unless there is a policy that will take into its ambit the concerns of both the sectors, the likely response will be the strengthening of market mechanisms which can increase the unregulated growth of privateness in the system. The consequence will be commercialization of higher education and the victims will be the stakeholders – teachers, students and parents. Teachers will be underpaid and hired on contractual basis with their services being dispensed with during vacations. They will have career uncertainties. Students will not get quality education and parents will pay exorbitant fees in their quest for professional degrees for their wards. Hence it is vital to have a public policy with regard to private education to avoid the ills of commercialization, but this will be a complex and controversial issue especially in countries where private institutions have remained minimal or there are ideological issues and public sentiment to grapple with.
Since private education usually gets a boost because of massification, initially at least, it will tend to focus on absorption of unfulfilled demand but gradually these institutions may position themselves as high quality/ high cost alternatives to mass/ low cost public higher education. In the course of time they would not want to be seen as second choice institutions for those who could not get a place in the public sector institutions. In the post massification phase, the demand absorption pattern can also give way to niche institutions which present alternatives to mass higher education rather than reinforcing it.
Private institutions will gradually seek greater legitimacy. Their first endeavour will be to strengthen their teaching mission both in terms of programs and faculty. They will also start to pay more attention to research for their own legitimacy and not concentrate only on teaching. They will attempt to improve their academic pedigree with better qualified staff, increase the number of research centers affiliated to them and develop good post graduate programs. In addition they are also likely to develop good strong student support mechanisms because both academic quality and students are equally important to them.
Models for Private Higher Education
Many models for private education are already available in the country. There are at least four distinct ones. One is the Manipal model where the approach is to provide access to students who can pay and who may not have got admission for various reasons in a public sector university. This is the vision behind the Manipal Academy of Higher Education which is a pioneering center for self financing higher education, managed and funded by private enterprise.
The second is the marketing model in which already existing institutions receiving aid from the government central or state are allowed to start some professional courses at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels on the self financing pattern.
The third is the sponsoring model which is popular with the corporate sector in which it sponsors its managerial and executive personnel to enable them to update their skills and knowledge. For this they are attached to some leading institutions for a short period of training.
Finally there is the franchising model in which self financing institutions and colleges have to be affiliated to a university, select courses designed by it and follow its teaching norms. These colleges do not receive any grant from the government. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi follows this model. It has a large number of privately managed self-financing colleges in different professional fields such as engineering, technology, management studies, medicine, pharmacy, education, law ans others are affiliated to it.
Governments will increasingly develop accreditation and evaluation mechanisms often as an instrument to monitor private institutions and curtail their indiscriminate proliferation. This will gain relevance as for-profit institutions emerge as they are already doing in many countries of the world, and even the not-for-profit ones behave like for-profit ones. Private institutions too will seek accreditation to legitimize themselves and proclaim their quality.
Need for Government Policy
However, the acceptance of private higher education will essentially depend on the role of the government. The government has to be clear, and build a national consensus on the issue. Right now there is divergence and the public perception is negative with a fair justification. At the same time, paradoxically the private sector continues to grow while policy lags behind. Therefore, benign negligence of the private sector or allowing its covert entry will not do. If the government needs the private sector for resource mobilization and its other strengths, it has to facilitate it and see it as complementary to its task of discharging its responsibility of expanding the higher education base. It may even need to incentvise it. For this, the most important is appropriate legislation because it will embody the will of the state and bring about clarity on the rules of the game. It will save the private sector education from perpetual litigation and harassment. Security by legal action would constitute the first step in promoting quality private participation in higher education. Regulation implemented with integrity can lead to open and transparent policies that can attract big corporations with enough funds to establish quality institutions and staying power to not expect immediate returns.
Lacking a national legislation many states have already enacted laws for the establishment of private universities, sometimes with disastrous consequences as in Chhatisgarh. But state legislation is not enough. The national will must be made clear through a national policy which should have basically three components: (i) promotion, (ii) facilitation and (iii) regulatory control. The promotional role needs policies that stimulate private efforts through expansion of higher education. Facilitation requires enacting of appropriate legislation and regulatory control is needed to ensure good quality in private institutions as well as to safeguard against any exploitation of the gullible public.
Right now higher education seems to be stuck in a quagmire. It is clear that India is affected by global trends but is unable to deal with them. If it has to meet the challenges it has to systematically create an internationally competitive academic system. For this it will have to rise above ideological biases and politics to reform its outmoded structures of academic governance structures and delivery systems and build a national consensus by a continuous center-state dialogue on higher education both in the public and the private sectors. A tall order perhaps but without it the Indian higher education system can neither deliver nationally nor compete globally.
References:
Altbach, Philip G., and Jorge Belán, ed., Transforming Research Universities in Asia and Latin America: World Class Worldwide, Battimore; The John Hopkins University Press, 2007.
Altbach, Philip G., “The Global Academic Revolution – Implications for India,” Journalof Educational Planning and Administration Vol. XXV, No.4, October 2011, pp.301-313
Gupta, Asha, Daniel C. Levy, K.B. Powar ed. Private Higher Education: Global Trends and Indian Perspectives, New Delhi : Shipra, 2008
Higher Education to 2030 Vol.2, Globalization, OECD: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2009.
Levy, Daniel C., An Introductory Global Overview: The Private Fit to Salient Higher Education Tendencies, WP No.7 September 2006, New York: Program for Research on Higher Education (PROPHE).
Levy, Daniel C., Unanticipated Developments: Perspectives on Private Higher Education’s Emerging Roles, WP No.1, April 2002, New York: Program for Research on Higher Education (PROPHE).
Powar, K.B., Expanding Domains in Indian Higher Education, New Delhi: Association of Indian Universities, 2012.
Powar, K.B., Indian Higher Education Revisited: Continuing Concerns and Emerging Issues, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 2011
Wells, P.J., J. Sadlok and L. Vlăsceanu (eds.) The Rising Role and Relevance of Private Higher Education in Europe, UNESCO-CEIES, 2007.