Reforming the Education

This is the time for education reforms. Luckilly for the past few years the government has been doing everything to reform the sector. With the proactive HRD minister everything seems to be on the right track.

Kiran Karnik writes in The Times of India (15 August 2009)

The education sector in India is in ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings and triggered a cyclone, to
borrow a metaphor from chaos theory, was Nasscom's much-reiterated statement that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. Similar views echoed by other sectors have led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, ''finishing schools'', and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. Some, however, felt that these are but band-aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.

The National Knowledge Commission, though a government-appointed body, has drawn criticism from the establishment for recommending structural changes in the educational system. Suggestions by this writer for creating, on a limited-experiment basis, special education zones with minimal regulation and permitting for-profit corporate educational institutes drew considerable interest, but even greater flak. Now, the Yash Pal committee has made some radical suggestions, including the replacement of UGC, AICTE and other regulatory bodies by a single one: the Higher Education and Research Council. The opposition to this might be greatly muted by the strong support already indicated by HRD minister Kapil Sibal, and equally by the public exposure through CBI raids and action of long-known corruption in AICTE.

Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India as in many countries education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deified. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water, or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit-making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of for-profit institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic a need, less important a right, than higher education?

While there are strong arguments for free or subsidised higher education, we are not writing on a blank page: education in India has already been hugely commercialised. Politicians and businessmen have entered this sector in a big way and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be not-for-profit trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of for-profit corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stymied at a time when Planning Commission figures indicate that the Eleventh Plan allocation is but a fourth of the need.

Well-run corporate organisations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so-called trusts which barring some noteworthy exceptions are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other: different organisational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulatory framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organisations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Loan/scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.

Is this imagination run riot? Of course, one can pick many holes in these ideas or raise dogmatic and philosophical objections. Yet, education is about innovation and experimentation, about challenging conventional wisdom and breaking new ground. Despite the apparent centralised power inherent in the proposed new regulator, the Yash Pal committee report has a clear bias towards autonomy for each university, decentralisation and freedom to innovate. Overall, it has made a strong case for radical structural reforms.

The last real structural reforms in higher education were the creation of the IITs and IIMs. An Act gave the former autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities; the IIMs went even further. In the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. The government mainly bureaucrats, but also the occasional minister seeks to assert its ownership by exercising tight control. These institutes now need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally.

However, IITs and IIMs will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory framework that will enable and encourage states and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.