Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India

Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India

• 1.
  Regulatory Structure ofHigher Education in India Centre for Civil Society Submitted to International Growth Centre
• 2.
  Outline o Overview o KeyChallenges and Recommendations o Higher Education Landscape o Setting up a Private University: Key Challenges o Setting up a Deemed-to-be-a-University: Key Challenges o Setting up a Private College: Key Challenges o Course level regulations: Key Challenges o Accreditation: Key Challenges o Conclusion o Annexure: Comparison of Rules for Higher Education Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India 2
• 3.
  Overview o Need forthe study: Target of 10% increase in Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) set by the 12th Five Year Plan (FYP) – needs a more competitive environment in the higher education sector o Scope : The three links in the higher education supply chain – of University, College & Course have been covered : – For Universities, of the 5 types, the 2 types where private players are allowed (Private University, Deemed-to-be University) have been studied in detail for 3 states (UP, Haryana, Rajasthan) – For Colleges, the process has been studied in detail for the state of Madhya Pradesh – For Courses, the process has been studied in detail for setting up Engineering courses (AICTE Regulations) – Additionally, UGC requirements and accreditation process (NAAC / NBA) have also been studied Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India 3
• 4.
  Key Challenges andRecommendations Challenges o High capital requirement to meet land norms, endowment fund and other such requirements - aggravated by restrictions on source of funding o Outdated requirements w.r.t. faculty qualification/library norms/channel of delivery o Overlapping regulations at different layers – for opening a university/college; offering a course; getting accredited -- add to the time and cost of entry o Lack of clear and easily accessible documentation of the requirements o Accreditation limited to only two agencies, which do not have the capacity to process applications; neither of the accreditation agencies uses outcome- based recognition norms and instead saddle applicants with input-heavy-norms. Recommendations o Limit entry norms to verification of the applicant’s financial strength rather than mandate land or endowment fund norms (as is the case in all three countries studied (USA, Australia and Malaysia)) o Approve entry of for-profit institutions to widen the pool of entrants; give “infrastructure” status to attract investments; and permit conversion of existing trusts and societies to Section 25 companies o Allow flexibility in meeting norms, for example, students in the United States are allowed to access an external library rather than require each institution to setup its own library o Consolidate the regulatory structure of this sector by eliminating the over- lapping regulations at the university, college, course and accreditation levels. Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India 4 The key challenges identified from the study & recommendations to address the same:
• 5.
  Higher Education Landscape RegulatoryStructure of Higher Education in India 5 Accreditation regulations • The regulatory framework of this sector is multi-layered. At the last chain of delivery – the classroom, three sets of regulations operate – University, College, and Council (as per the course). Additionally, accreditation norms apply. • Five types of Universities – Central, State, Private, Deemed, Institute of National Importance • Deemed universities can have either government or private management • Jurisdiction of deemed university is pan-India or worldwide • Private universities can be set up at state level only. No private university has been established at the Central level until now • Jurisdiction of Private Universities is state-wide • Private universities cannot affiliate colleges University • Colleges can affiliate to either central or state government universities • Private colleges usually affiliate to only state government universities College • 15 statutory professional councils regulate recognition of courses, institutions, and provision of grants to undergraduate programs and various awards Course
• 6.
  Higher Education Landscape oPlanned expenditure for the higher education sector in the 11thFYP was pegged at INR 849.43 billion ($13.85 billion) and this has increased by more than 100% in the 12th FYP to INR 1847.40 billion ($ 30.11 billion). o In the 12thFYP, the GER is targeted to increase by 10% (UGC, 2011). The private sector has shown greater growth – both in the number of institutions (Figure 2.4) as well as in the enrolment of students, as compared to the government institutions (Figure 2.5). Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India 6 11,239 16,768 18,185 29,662 year-2007 year -2012 Government Private Growth in Enrolment in Higher Education Institutions(in millions)* Growth of Higher Education Institutions by Management* 6.3 8.9 7.5 12.8 year-2007 year -2012 Government Private *Source: Higher Education in India: 12th FYP 2012-2017 and beyond, FICCI Higher Education Summit 2012
• 7.
  Setting up aPrivate University: Key Challenges o Regulations studied for the states of Haryana, Rajasthan & Uttar Pradesh o Entry Challenges: – Legislative approval -- Private universities can be established only through the legislative route – making it a constrained and lengthy process given the seasonal schedule of legislature and lack of time to meaningfully discuss bills – Lack of clarity on process -- Some states such as Rajasthan, Haryana, Assam and Gujarat have passed an umbrella Act specifying in detail the process and requirements for setting up a private university. Other states – like Uttar Pradesh do not have such an umbrella Act and hence the process and requirements are opaque and carry potential for rent-seeking. – Not for profit nature -- creates significant hurdles in raising finances; equity route is not possible; only the debt route, through loans from banks, remains open. However, banks are inexperienced in lending to educational institutions and demand cash flows equivalent to other for-profit industries – Land norms & Endowment Fund – the capital required to meet these norms is higher than is justified by returns on learning outcomes from these requirements; also it is tough to buy contiguous land near cities, where it is most feasible to setup universities. Hence, land has to be acquired through the government route by land acquisition and the process is time-consuming o Operations: – Fees -- in Haryana, fee concessions mandated for domicile students; in Rajasthan, fees require pre- approval from a committee and can be revised only once in 3 years – Admissions -- all three states mandate reservations on caste or domicialiary status – thereby restricting the freedom enjoyed by the University to drive merit in it’s operations – Granting of affiliation to colleges -- is not allowed – even to those Private Universities which have established credibility Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India 7
• 8.
  Setting up aDeemed-to-be University: Key Challenges o An Institution of Higher Education, working at a high standard in specific area of study, can be declared as an Institution ‘Deemed-to-be-University’ by the Central Government on the advice of the UGC o Entry – Unclear eligibility criteria -- Some of the criteria such as ‘proven contribution to innovation in teaching’ and ‘verifiable high quality of research output’ are vague in their definition. To qualify for de-novo status, the discipline offered should also possess the criteria of being ‘emerging areas of knowledge’, of which the definition is unclear. Assessment of such criteria is subjective and may lead to rent-seeking and lobbying opportunities. – Land requirements -- the land requirement for a deemed university, specified by the UGC, is for the provision of a single course. As the number of courses increase, the land requirement is the aggregate of the land prescribed by the Statutory Council like the Medical Council of India, Bar Council of India, etcetera, for each course. the statutory councils specify the land requirement and therefore, it is redundant for UGC to mention the same under the deemed university regulations. This leads to misunderstanding among the applicants when they face different sets of regulations from various regulating bodies. – Corpus Fund -- All non government-funded institutions must create and maintain a corpus fund of INR 250 million permanently in the name of the institution, through government securities or other forms approved by UGC, UGC does not specify the date or circumstances, if any, under which the fund will be returned to the applicant. This is a sunk cost bore by the owners. However the AICTE, on the other hand, has a provision of returning the endowment fund after a period of ten years – a policy worthy of emulation by UGC. o Operations -- unlike with Private Universities, deemed-to-be-Universities do enjoy greater freedom in operations – including wr.t. admissions, fee structures, academic and administrative operations. o However, since 2009 the UGC has not granted such a status to any private institution, thereby closing this route for the private players. Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India 8
• 9.
  Setting up aPrivate College: Key Challenges o The third route of setting up a private institute of higher education in India is to establish a college that is affiliated to a State University. Compared to the previous two routes discussed, this route is less expensive and no specific legislation is required. o The key challenges in entry and operations are : – Land requirement within the jurisdiction of the affiliating university – thereby limiting choice of new colleges in applying for affiliation with reputed universities which are located in areas with limited land banks. – Lack of a transparent regulatory environment and the existence of ‘adequate’ and ‘genuine need’ norms which are not clearly defined, and are subjective; this results in cumbersome, time-consuming and confusing norms of affiliation – Lack of autonomy for the educational institutions with respect to syllabus, examinations etc. resulting in creativity and competitiveness in improving quality of education are killed for the sake of uniformity Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India 9
• 10.
  Course-level Regulations: KeyChallenges o Supporting the UGC, accreditation for higher learning over Universities is overseen by the following fifteen autonomous regulatory and statutory institutions: o These councils are responsible for the recognition of courses, promotion of professional institutions, regulating the course syllabus, providing grants and other awards to various fields of education. Each council has its own set of rules and mandates for the concerned institutions which overlap with the functions of UGC. o AICTE regulations were studied in detail and the 2 key challenges identified were with respect to: – Financial burden imposed by the requirements on Corpus Fund, land and facility requirements – Excessive rules including on intake (not more than 60 students are allowed in one division and only five divisions are allowed in the first year of operation; this can increase in subsequent years with prior approval from AICTE) and faculty qualification requirement for eg., which fails to recognise value of working professionals who do not have required ‘degrees / qualifications’ Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India 10 All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)* Central Council of Homoeopathy (CCH) Distance Education Council (DEC) Medical Council of India (MCI) Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) National Council for Rural Institutes Bar Council of India (BCI) Indian Nursing Council (INC) Council of Architecture National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Dental Council of India (DCI) State Councils of Higher Education
• 11.
  Accreditation of HigherEducation Institutions: Key Challenges o The National Policy on Education in 1986 initiated the idea of quality assurance in higher education in India. It was after this that the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) was formed under the AICTE and the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) under the UGC. The goal of these bodies is to inform interest groups such as students, parents, and employers about the standard of an institution, and to encourage quality improvement of education through self-assessments and recommendations. o Capacity problems: In 2011, the NAAC accredited 548 institutions resulting in a total of 5,780 accredited institutions out of more than 35,500 institutions in India. While many of these institutions may not yet be eligible for accreditation as per the NAAC requirements, the Council has accredited an average of about 410 institutions per year since its first accreditation 14 years ago. At this rate, it would take the NAAC about 42 years to accredit only half of the institutions in India. The NBA also has limited coverage in the field of technical education. Between 1998 and 2009, the NBA only accredited about 50 percent of the applications it received. o Innovation restrictions : Both accreditation bodies encourage traditional campus learning for higher education and leave little room for innovation in the higher education sector. The accreditation bodies take into account facilities, classroom sizes, library sizes, the number of faculty rooms, etc. These physical requirements restrict the opportunity for open and distance learning (ODL) and other non-traditional systems to easily gain accreditation, and even deter such programs from seeking accreditation, realising that it could result in a lower grade. o Currently, the NAAC and NBA ratings do not appear to have much of an influence on students’ perceptions of programs. Out of the top 25 engineering colleges in India in 2013, published by India Today, only three of these were accredited by the NAAC in 2013 and eleven of the colleges had programs accredited by the NBA currently and in the past. These colleges are also the most highly regarded in India, and the lack of an accreditation seal from the NAAC or NBA does not deter the 500,000 students applying to the Indian Institutes of Technology. Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India 11
• 12.
  Conclusion o There aremany options to solve the challenges listed above, including: – By limiting entry norms to verification of financial strength of the applicant rather than mandating land, facility or fund requirements, which contribute little to the outcomes of the institutions, as is the case in all three countries studied (USA, Australia and Malaysia) – Approval for entry of for-profit institutions, to substantially widen the pool of entrants into this critical sector which is now restricted to non-profits that have the financial wherewithal to meet the steep entry norms; according of “infrastructure” status to this sector to attract investments; permit conversion of existing trusts and societies to Section 25 companies – Flexibility in meeting entry norms – for example, students in the United States of America are allowed to access an external library which has a recognised arrangement with the college, rather than requiring each institution to set up a library – Consolidation of the regulatory structure of this sector by eliminating the overlapping regulations that are currently defined at the university, college, course and accreditation levels. Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India 12
• 13.
  Annexure: Comparison ofRules for Higher Education Regulatory Structure of Higher Education in India 13 RajasthanPrivate Unversities Act,2005 HaryanaPrivate UniversitiesAct, 2006 AmityUnversityUttarPradeshAct, 2005 Deemed Universities (General Category) Deemed Universities(De- NovoCategory) College affiliatedto Jiwaji University,Gwalior College affiliatedto DAVV,Indore College affiliatedto RGPV,Bhopal Establishmentroute a) Throughlegislative route b) Separate Actforeach private unversity a) Throughlegislative route b) Same Actisamendedto appendeachnew private unversity toaschedule a) Throughlegislative route b) Separate Actforeachprivate university Granteddeemed-to- be-university status by the Ministry of HumanResource Developmentacting uponthe reccomendationof of the UGC Granteddeemed-to- be-university status by the Ministry of HumanResource Developmentacting uponthe reccomendationof of the UGC Throughapplicationto the University forgrantof afiliation Throughapplicationto the University forgrant of afiliation Throughapplicationto the University forgrant of afiliation Sponsoringbody Canbe society, trust, ora section25company Canbe society, trust, orasection 25company Nomention Canbe anot-for- profitsociety ortrust Canbe anot-for- profitsociety ortrust Canbe anot-for-profit society ortrust; applicationby an individual (founder) allowed Canbe anot-for-profit society ortrust Canbe anot-for-profit society ortrust Landnorm a) 30acres b) Constructionaminimumof 10,000square metersof coveredspace a) aminimumof 20acresof land outside municipal limits b) aminimumof 10acresof land withinmunicipal limits c) Minimum10,000square metresof coveredspace a) Possesstitle rightsfor30yearsor more b) Min50acresof contiguousland a) aminimumof 5 acresof landin metropolitianarea b) aminimumof 7 acresof landinnon metropolitianurban area c) Minimum1000 square metresfor administrative building&10000 squaresmetresfor academicbuilding a) aminimumof 5 acresof landin metropolitianarea b) aminimumof 7 acresof landinnon metropolitianurban area c) Minimum1000 square metresfor administrative building&10000 squaresmetresfor academicbuilding Nomention(adequate facilitiesare required) a) solvency of atleastrs. 15lacinimmovable property b) Sufficientnumberof classroomsand adequate facilities Nomention(adequate facilitiesare required) Entry Detailed comparison matrix available here: Comparison of Rules for Higher Education Institutions.xlsx