Some concerns
By Debasish Chowdhury
Delivering the valedictory address during the Vice Chancellors conclave held at New Delhi in March this year, Kapil Sibal, our flamboyant Union Minister for Human Resource Development, hinted at remodelling of the funding structure in higher education by shifting it from the existing block grant system to norm based pattern in which funds allocated to any institution would be linked to its enrolment status. Shifting over to the norm-based funding, he argued, would facilitate equitable distribution of resources among institutions. Sri Sibal also suggested that grants so sanctioned might also be revised time to time to offset the inflation in a gap of every two or three years to match the growth prospects of the institution in receipt of such grants.
The proposal to shift over to the norm based funding somewhat in line with the US model from the currently in place block grants model, however, failed to elicit a uniform response. Reacting to the proposal, some argued that the block grant system allows a greater degree of functional autonomy to the universities while some others felt that linking grants to enrolment might lead to a compromise in the quality of education on offer. A few others believe that normative funding based on status of enrolment can indeed relieve some of the universities that are facing severe fund constraints in the existing system. The divergent views expressed on the issue leaves it for now a matter of conjecture as to whether such a funding pattern would actually be a reality in future or not. One thing, however, remains certain and that is that the issue of public funding in higher education indeed calls for a serious review.
India’s gross spending in education, in particular higher education, has always remained much lower than what it ought to have been. Many recommendations to ensure that at least 6% of its GDP be spent on education and many assurances to do so, India’s spending on education still remains well below that mark. Lack of available resources has generally been the standing excuse for not being able to meet the envisaged funding requirement. Fairness demands of us to admit that despite not reaching the 6% GDP mark, India’s public investment in education has indeed registered a staggering growth even though in real term measurement this growth, particularly in respect of higher and technical education, has actually been far too incommensurate than what is necessary to sustain a quality world class higher educational set up in a country of a 1.2 billion people.
India’s higher educational setup today services the academic aspirations of about 13 million youths in the age group of 18-24 thus making it the third largest higher educational set up in the world. Compared to a mere 0.23 million youths who were enrolled in its institutes of higher learning in 1947, the present enrolment status does reflect a phenomenal growth. Despite the growth, the very fact that its higher educational setup accommodates barely a 12% of its 110 million youths in the eligible age group presents a less than encouraging scenario. The EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005 from UNESCO placed India at the bottom of the chart in terms of enrolment ratio with Korea leading the pack in a select list of 24 developed and developing countries. Even south Asian countries such as Thailand with its enrolment ratio standing at about 37% and Malaysia with its enrolment ratio standing at 26% approximately have been placed well ahead of India in this regard. It is being widely argued that at least 20% enrolment in higher education is the desired threshold level for ensuring rapid and sustainable economic growth and progress in a modern day nation. Given its population size and the stipulated shortfall, India indeed has an uphill task ahead of her to accomplish.
India’s gross spending in education, in particular higher education, has always remained much lower than what it ought to have been.
Fund for higher education in India comes from three major sources, public funding being the single largest source. Revenue generated from fees is the second largest source for funds and only about 10% of the net resources available in this sector come from philanthropic endeavours. While funding alone may not be the sole or even the prime factor for the low accessibility in higher education, it does certainly play a very significant role in the enhancement of quality and accessibility in higher education. India only spends a meagre 0.37% of its GDP on higher education. Brazil with its enrolment ratio standing at 31.5% spends 0.91% of its GDP in higher education. In developed nations, the share of GDP committed to higher education is even higher. For instance, Canada spends 1.88% while the US commits 1.41% of its GDP for higher education. In Australia it is 1.19% and UK spends 1.07% of its GDP in this sector.
Low fund investment is a serious problem in India. It needs to be to be reckoned with. But a disparate distribution policy of whatever fund is made available in this sector too is no less difficult in ensuring a balanced and qualitative growth. It is for all to see that institutions of higher learning in India do not operate on a level plane even though it is desired of them to deliver identically. Facilities, infrastructure and faculty wise some of our institutions are world class. But thanks to the complex provisions regulating the public funding mechanism the bulk of institutes languish for resources to provide for the basic minimum learning ambience at their campuses. Degree colleges in India, for instance, account for approximately 79.0% of its enrolled strength in higher education though together they share only about 21.0% of the resource allocation on higher education. About 79.0% of the allocated resources go to the universities and university like institutes which collectively account for only about 21.0% of the enrolled strength in higher education. To add further to the worries, even the allocated funds do not get disbursed in time often for non explicit reasons. During the current plan period Rs 17566 crores out of a total of Rs 45000 crores have only been disbursed till the end of the last financial year leaving about 61.0% of the allocation awaiting disbursal even though the plan period has already entered in the last lap of running.
Besides, non implementation of a national wage policy and partial implementation of the latest UGC/AICTE recommended pay scales and attached service conditions in select institutions across different states have further aggravated the already prevailing disparity in compensation packages of the faculty deployed at colleges in a manner wherein pay packages of identically qualified faculty discharging identical responsibilities vary as wildly as one can think of. Accordingly, faculty salaries in colleges even if it is enlisted under 2f and 12B of the UGC Act and as such are eligible for central assistance, now ranges from as low as a couple of thousands to may be as high as a lakh or beyond leaving the entire intra and inter institutional service ambience in total disarray. Lack of available resources stands once again as excuse for non-implementation of identical pay packages for identically qualified personals discharging identical responsibilities, little realising that distraught faculty can hardly be the right answer for a nation seeking to be a knowledge society.
Higher education in India was brought under the concurrent list of responsibilities through the 42nd amendment (many would like to recall that amendment with disdain) ostensibly to facilitate smoother and enhanced resource flow. Almost four decades since, the desired standardisation of service benefits and responsibilities throughout the country remain as elusive as they ever were. Responses from various state governments in such matters often lacked the enthusiasm partly on count of resource shortage and partly to serve skewed and vested political objectives. Besides, since the constitutional liability of the governments to provide education for all is mandated in a limited way restricting its responsibility only till the children attain the age of 14 years, various state governments often chose to spend larger chunks of the allocated fund for education on primary and elementary sector leaving higher education in the lurch. Recommendation of the CABE committee on financing higher education to earmark 50.0% of the net fund allocation for elementary, 25.0% for secondary and the remaining 25% for higher and technical education, if implemented, may actually improve the funding scenario in higher education particularly if investment in higher education indeed goes up to its promised level of 6.0% of the GDP in the coming days.
Investment in education is hardly rewards the investor with a quick visible return. In a parliamentary system of democracy where vote apparently counts above the person casting it, it may not be a surprise that our elected leaders have often preferred to pay only lip service to education according it as priority in words alone not matched by deeds. After all, they are intelligent people to realise that five years is too short a time to invest in education and reap electoral dividend from it. Yet, to blame politicians for all the follies would not be fair. Lifting our educational setup by suitably equipping it to deliver, undoubtedly, is a non-negotiable necessity and perhaps, in our own limited way, we all can make some contribution to it. The sooner it dawns on us that we must give it a go in all earnest, the better it is. Compromised quality of education, after all, is nothing but an open invite to a perilous destiny. Besides, it hardly adds to our pride that though India provides the world with the third largest contingent of technical and skilled work force, as on date it is also the largest illiterate nation of the world. ………… (The author is presently Principal, Women’s College, Shillong).