The crucial problems of improving
the quality of higher education, though has been one of the nucleus concerns of
Indian higher education system over the decades, assumed alarming proportion
with the mushroom growth in the number of higher education institutions in the
recent past. Most of such institutions
are generally known to have problems of bare minimum necessary academic and
physical infrastructure, acute resource crunch, and extremely poor enrollment. However, magnitude of these problems varies
from institution to institution. These
problems are specific not only to the private colleges as even the colleges /
institutions established by the government have been found wanting on these and
similar accounts. The concerned
statutory regulatory bodies have invariably directed such institutions to
create necessary infrastructure and support facilities and also take other
measures within the given time frame and after having found them failing in
compliance has even suggested/recommended appropriate action against them. However, the experiences show that in the
past such suggestions/ recommendations were hardly accepted by the State due to
obvious reasons. Unfortunately one of
the very relatable suggestions of the University Grants Commission (UGC) also
met the same fate. In order to address
the developmental needs of the colleges who were non-eligible for allocation of
development grants in the Ninth Plan under the college development scheme of
the Commission on account of their poor enrolments, the UGC suggested
conglomeration of developmental needs of such colleges so that those could be
probably addressed by allocating so that those could be properly addressed by
allocating them admissible development grants.
However, it is learned that did not cut much ice either with the State
or the affiliating university resulting into non-allocation of development
grants to many such college, which gratuitously deprived them to tide over
their acute resource crunch position hindering the very growth of the institution.
Higher education quality
improvement intervention strategies formulated and implemented during the
successive Plan periods by the concerned bodies responsible for coordination,
determination and maintenance of standards of higher education in the country
have attracted serious attention of all the stakeholders in the field of higher
education. One of the such intervention
strategies emerged out of the recommendations of the Education Commission
(1964-66) and is being experimented with by the UGC since 1976 in the field of
higher education is to confer the status of autonomous college to the well
–established and reputed colleges, through their parent universities, and thus
give them academic autonomy to improve quality of higher education through various
teaching-learning innovations/pedagogies.
By the end of the fiscal 2002-2003, a total number of 135 colleges in
the country were conferred with the autonomous status, which is supposed to be
an instrument for promoting academic excellence.
Quality Education and Autonomy
Drawing upon its experiences of
implementing the autonomy scheme in collegiate sector across the country, the
UGC document on the X plan Profile of Higher Education in India, highlighted
the importance of the scheme and stated that: ’The only safe and better way to
improvement the quality of under-graduate education is to delink most of the
colleges from the airlifting structure.
Colleges with academic and operative freedom are doing better and have
more credibility. The financial support
to such colleges boosts the concept of autonomy. It is proposed to increase the number of
autonomous colleges to spread the culture of the autonomy, and the target is to
make 10 per cent of eligible colleges autonomous by the end of the Plan.” In order to achieve this set ambitious
target, the UGC has recently invited proposals from the recognized colleges for
consideration under the scheme. Colleges
whose proposals are pending with it for want of NOC from the state and / or
university have been asked only to inform about their interest to get the
proposals considered as per the Tenth Plan guidelines. However, target to have 500 colleges
autonomous by the end of the Seventh Five-Year Plan itself was envisaged even
by the national policy on Education 1986--92).
Anyway it is better to be late than ever. It is expected that this pro-active role of
the UGC for improving quality of higher
education in the Country will receive loud appreciation and encouragement from
all those who earnestly seek quality in higher education.
Against this backdrop, it seems
prudent to examine and evaluate efficacy of the scheme by looking at the
achievements and constraints at the operational level. This introspection exercise is likely to help
the policy planners and educational administrators to achieve the target set
for the Plan period and improve quality of higher education in the country to
make it more competitive at the global level. The sole parameter seems to be
that in case the scheme has so far not been able to yield desired results to
the perceptible degree even after a period of more than a quarter century and
with substantial expenditure out of the central budget, then what next? Moreover, is granting autonomy the only safe
and better resort to improve quality of higher education? If yes, then how it should be best
implemented? And if not, whether other
intervention strategies being implemented for improving quality of higher
education need a re-look for revision to complement and supplement the autonomy
scheme? What may be the other
strategies, which may support or accelerate the on-going efforts for attaining
quality in higher education? The
experiences gathered so far are of a mixed bag.
Some have proved their abilities to innovate specially in terms of curriculum
revision; teaching, learning and evaluation process; and research, consultancy
and extension. Such colleges have also
attracted better assessment on the nine point rating scale of NAAC. Contrary to this in majority of cases the
curriculum has not been substantially revamped to suit the locale specific
needs, resources and aspirations. The
changes made have been more or less superficial and do not respond to the
changing needs. In few cases the parent
university has not favoured the changes made in the curricula and thus the
academic autonomy has proved partial.
Sometime the parent university itself has questioned Continuous internal assessment system. The universities have generally been found
not encouraging the college autonomy due to the fear that it would lead to
diminishing of their own power, authority and financial revenue. These and similar other set of questions
deserve pragmatic solution as it is learned that quite a few autonomous
colleges are not functioning at the satisfactory level and the even in some
cases their autonomy has been withdrawn.
This attainment falls short of the expectations of the scheme and
therefore, sincere efforts should be to ensure effective implementation of the
scheme. This will help building a strong
’human resource reservoir in the country, through the instrumentality of
quality in higher education, to cope with the ever growing and demanding and
fast changing and challenging scenario at the national and international
platforms.
Affiliation Vs Autonomy
Historically, the affiliating
system of colleges was originally designed when their number in university was
small. The university could then
effectively oversee the working of its affiliated colleges, act as an examining
body and award degrees. However, with
the rapidly growing increase in the number of colleges / educational
institutions, the system became unmanageable and started losing its
governance. Now it is becoming
increasingly difficult for any university even to effectively attend to the
varied needs of the affiliated / constituent individual colleges in a regular
way and that too within the reasonable time.
The act, statutes, ordinances and regulations of the university and its
common system, governing all colleges skills, irrespective of their
characteristic strength, weaknesses and locations, have adversely affected the
academic development of individual colleges.
Virtually all affiliated/ constituent colleges of a university are
supposed to strictly adhere to the given system and any initiative or
innovation, outside the given ambit, taken by a particular college at its own
cost, is often treated nu the university as an infringement on its dictum. Since hardly any college can afford the
unnecessary displeasure of its parent university even in respect of the matters
falling in the gray areas, they look to the parent university for
guidance. This infatuation restricts
their involvement/initiative in the field of higher education and thus
adversely affects healthy development of the colleges as well as the
university. Moreover, what is lamentable
is that the existing system hardly encourages leadership in the field of higher
education and prefers to operate in a domineering style Under the given scenario,
the colleges are required to follow the syllabus and academic calendar of the
university. They do not have the freedom
to modernize their curricula to make relevant to the locale specific needs,
resources and aspirations. Moreover, the
colleges having capacity and capability for offering programmes of higher
standards do not have the freedom to do so within the prevailing routine and
rigid bureaucratic style of functioning of the university system. Even if at all the freedom is granted, it
generally comes with a lot of riders of ‘its’ and ‘buts’. Realizing such constraints of our higher
education system, the Education commission (1964-66) observed that exercise of
academic freedom by the teachers is a crucial requirement for development of
the intellectual climate of the country.
Further, it felt that unless such a climate of academic freedom to the
teachers prevails in the country, it is difficult to achieve excellence in our
higher education system. It is
imperative that the university, college management, teachers, students, and
non-teaching staff etc. being as
stakeholders, have to share major responsibilities in raising the quality of
higher education. Hence, the Education
Commission recommended colleges autonomy, which is essence, was presumed as an
instrument for promoting academic excellence.
Pursuant to this, the UGC formulated the scheme of Autonomous Colleges
in the Fourth Plan (196973), but could implement the same only w.e.f. 1976.
Autonomy Objectives
The National Policy on Education
(1986-92) visualized that the autonomous colleges will have the freedom to
determine and prescribe their own courses of study and syllabi, prescribe rules
for admission in consonance with the reservation policy of the State, evolve
methods of assessment of student work, the conduct of examinations, and
notification of results; use modern tools of educational technology to achieve
higher standards and greater creativity; and provide healthy practices such as
community services, extension activities, etc.
The explicit intention, therefore, was to provide more opportunities to
teachers to play a crucial role in promotion and development of an intellectual
climate in the college, conducive to pursuit of scholarship and excellence and
the become role models for those who seems to have insulated themselves from
the changes.
Distribution of Autonomous Colleges
As on 31st March 2002,
only 130 autonomous colleges spread over 29 universities of nine states were
there in the country – Tamil Nadu (48), Madhya Pradesh (24), Andhra Pradesh and
Orissa (17 each), Chhattisgarh (11). Himachal Pradesh (05), Uttar Pradesh (04),
Maharashtra (03) and Gujarat (01):
The pace of acceptance of the
scheme by the collegiate sector has been rather slow as an increase of only 11
colleges (119 to 13.) was registered in the list of autonomous colleges during
the entire five –year period of the Ninth Plan.
However, for the purpose of improving quality of higher education, at
least 10 per cent of the 5013 eligible colleges (as on 31st March
2002 under Section 2(f) and 12 (B)of the Act, 1956)n have now been targeted by
the UGC for making them autonomous by the end of the Tenth Plan. Incidentally it is learned that in spite of
the sincere efforts and persuasion made in thepast, not many takers o fthe
scheme were there even during the first year
(2002-2003) of the Tenth Plan (2002-2007) itself, of 130
autonomouscolleges, thus raising the total number of autonomous colleges in the
country to 135 as on 31st March 2003. Thus in view of the current pace of
acceptance of the scheme by collegiate sector, the target set by the Plan end
is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
If average 92 new colleges every year, i.e., about eight colleges every
month will be required to be conferred with the status of autonomous colleges
beginning from the fiscal 2003-2004 itself till the end of the Plan period, in
addition to the continuation of 135existing autonomous college. To fasten the belt for achieving the set
target, a more pragmatic approach needs to be rigorously pursued as lack of
enthusiasm of the governments and the universities has been reported as the
crucial impediment in the acceptance and implementation of the scheme. In this context, regional disparities in the
spread over of autonomous colleges are an eye opener and a matter of serious
concern.
Regional Disparities
A close look of the distribution of
autonomous colleges across the country reveals that majority of autonomous
colleges are located only in the selected States. Does this pattern suggest that political
leadership and leadership of education institutions in these States had
comparatively better entrepreneurship qualities and, therefore, so far have
been quick to grab and experiment with such an important quality intervention
initiative of the apex statutory body?
Apparently this postulate seems to hold water as generally the
educational institutions located in the southern states (50 percent of the
autonomous colleges are located in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu
alone) are known to have sustained quality improvement endeavours and as a
result have attracted more than the proportionately sizable share under various
heads/ schemes/ programmes of higher education sector. One may even plausibly argue that the
leaderships of many of such educational institutions had ventured to implement
the autonomy scheme primarily to attract more financial support from funding
bodies to supplement and further consolidate their financial health and gain
credibility and thus enable them to branch out in the hitherto unknown fields
of higher education. Anyway whatsoever
were the field of higher education in the country and leaving many other behind
to follow them. In this context, the
lukewarm response of the otherwise known progressive and prominent State like
Delhi, Punjab and Hariyana and a big State like Uttar Pradesh is really
astonishing. This situation certainly
calls for an in-depth introspection as if such States have so far been
reluctant in accepting the scheme, then how the culture of the autonomy will
spread and get momentum in the country so necessary to meet the target set for
the Plan.
Financial Support
To meet their additional and
specific needs under the Scheme, financial assistance is available to
autonomous colleges offering not fewer than six programmes, of which two may be
at post-graduate level. In addition to
the autonomy grants, the autonomous colleges are also eligible for admissible
grant under other schemes of the Commission subject to fulfillment of
prescribed conditions. During the Ninth
Plan period alone, grants amounting to Rs. 2009.82 lakhs were released by the
UGC to autonomous colleges for carrying out the assigned
function/responsibilities:
Table 2: Grants released by UGC for Autonomous Colleges
With a view to give boost to the
prospects of the scheme in the Tenth Plan, ceiling of financial assistance has
been enhanced by about one and a half time of the Ninth Plan assistance
level, For the single faculty under
graduate colleges, the ceiling is no. Rs. 5.00 Lakh per annum and for more than
one faculty colleges, it is Rs.7.00 lakh per annum. Both for under-graduate and post-graduate
colleges, the revised ceiling for single faculty is Rs. 6.00 lakh per annum and
for multi-faculty is Rs.12.00 lakh per annum.
In addition to this, UGC will also provide VSAT to each autonomous
college for Internet connectivity.
Increase in the quantum of annual assistance and provision of VSAT
facility are expected to play as strong motivating factors to attract potential
colleges to the scheme.
Radical Departure: Affiliated to Autonomous
The concept of ‘autonomy’ is a
radical departure from the existing affiliating system. It means self-governance i.e. teacher
oriented system. The basic premise is
that the college conferred with the status of autonomous college shall exercise
complete academic freedom in its functioning and for this purpose shall be
required to perform many of the functions of its parent university. Devising / innovating / restructuring
curricula, designing new courses, working out its own assessment / examination
/a evaluation system and declaring addition to these functions, an autonomous
college shall have to carry out many other ancillary functions, which were
hither to being performed by the affiliating university. Since this change in the role of the college,
from affiliated to autonomous is not gradual, the college generally finds it
extremely difficult to cope with the new roles and responsibilities envisaged
under the scheme. It has often been
observed that an autonomous college, though having requisite enthusiasm and
initiative, finds it difficult to do justice to its changed role for want of
necessary experience of handling such situations independently. Lack of necessary infrastructure facilities at
its commend further aggravate the situation.
What adds to the problems of most of the principals that often they fail
to muster willing support from their colleagues and secretarial staff at the
crucial junctions? Initial enthusiasm
and support gradually fades away and often the principals are virtually left alone to carry on the
enormous responsibilities, each one demanding equal attention. Once granted autonomy, generally the parent
university keeps itself aloof and leaves it to the college to run the show at
its own. Visualizing such problems /
pitfalls, guidelines of the scheme have provided that autonomous college will
have freedom to draw upon the expertise available with different departments of
the parent university to continuously update curricula and devise innovative
methods of teaching, examination and evaluation. The university will accept such changes /
innovations adopted by the college and will facilitate / encourage it to
develop its own academic programmes and also improve the faculty. However, this resolution needs to be
translated into reality.
A complete change in the psyche of
all concerned, adequate academic preparations, and stong support of the
management to realize and accept the implications of such a changeover are
crucial pre-requisites for successful implementation of autonomy granted to the
college. Incidentally this is not
happening to the desired extent, in a fairly large number of the cases due to
variety of reasons. Objective
identification of potential colleges for including the selected colleges is
bound to result into tangible improvements in the quality of higher education. This requires intellectual honesty, a high
degree of emotional commitment and administrative competence.
Symbiotic Relationship
The guidelines envisaged that it is
the academic autonomy empowering the college to experiment with innovation
switch renewed vigor and vitality and thus attain quality in higher
education. Healthy rivalry or cutthroat
competition in matters related to academic performance and governance is
welcome in the larger interest of promotion of excellence in higher education. In fact it will be a rewarding learning
opportunity, if both the parent university and its autonomous colleges are a
supplementing and complementing each other’s endeavours in the much interest of
promotion of quality of higher education in the region. Timely necessary academic, administrative and
other supports of the university will not only enable the autonomous college to
function effectively and efficiently but also the feedback received about the
functioning of the colleges will be mutually beneficial. Ironically, the parent university is
generally found lukewarm in its response and reluctant in providing necessary
academic and administrative support to such colleges and often treats them as
its rival drawing advantage at the cost of the University. The suggested symbiotic relationship is
possible only when there is mutual respect in the minds of leaderships of such
institutions and each one is utmost willing to give its best to the system
under the synthesis of dynamic leadership and academic acumen.
Gray Areas
To ensure effective implementation,
the Scheme has undergone review and revision from time to time. However, the focus so far has been on
problems relating to innovations and changes under autonomy, administrative and
financial matters, etc., so as to make the concept of autonomy popular in the
academic circles. The gray areas still
exist which call for serious dialogue for removing unfounded apprehensions in
the minds of teachers, managements and the governments, mainly about the
service conditions, security of jobs and proper implementation of the scheme,
and the college-university – State Government – UGC relations. Changes in acts
and statutes of the Universities are also needed to provide them necessary
powers to confer autonomous status to the identified and selected colleges. Matters falling in the gray areas are
generally open for multiplicity / duplication of efforts by more than one
stockholder and, therefore, call mutually acceptable approach. Such areas include criterion about admission
of pass out graduates of the autonomous college in the post graduate programmes
being run by the parent university on its campus and merit position secured in
the university by the students of autonomous colleges. It has often been reported that students of
autonomous colleges are treated ‘les than equals’ by their own university. In the mind of the university there is a
general feeling that due to obvious reasons performance of the students are not
evaluated by the autonomous colleges on the same set of parameters as applied
to the parent university. Such
suspicions / apprehensions, unless based on ground realities, bring down the
reputation of the institution in the eyes of the public, which in turn
demoralizes institution management and the students. Such sorts of suspicions / apprehensions need
to be re resolved. The existing
ambiguities often lead to certain amount of misunderstanding leaving a bad
taste in the mouth.
Networking and Monitoring
Timely review for extension of
autonomy is utmost necessary as in the absence of autonomy status and
admissible autonomy grants, it becomes virtually difficult for the college to
maintain the tempo of initiatives with the same sense of commitment and
dedication. Timely nomination of experts
on different committees is also very important to enable the college to
transact its business smoothly. Long
delay in such matters deadly slowdowns the pace of the working of autonomous
colleges.
Instances of leakage of examination
papers, unfair evaluation criterion, subjective practices resulting into
favoritism and nepotism etc. be taken care seriously for appropriate
intervention before they rolled into snowballs.
In few cases recurrences of such instances had compelled students and
faculty to openly charge the college management for adopting unfair practices in
the name of autonomy and have even demanded for withdrawal of the autonomous
status of the college.
In case of government colleges are
conferred with autonomous status, the State has added responsibility. It should equip such colleges with necessary
faculty and infrastructure support facilities to implement the scheme
successfully. Transfer of faculty of
such colleges be resorted to only as the last measure and that too only under
exceptional circumstances. State’s
efforts should be to ensure uninterrupted continuity of the functioning of the
autonomous college. To augment it
further, services of the highly qualified, experienced and motivated faculty be
placed at the disposal of the autonomous colleges to enable them to serve as
centers of excellence.
It seems that the most crucial
missing component of the scheme has so far been its poor monitoring. A Regional / State level monitoring mechanism
through networking may provide practical solutions to many of the problems
being encountered with by the colleges during the implementation of the
scheme. Cross fertilization of ideas
between and among the autonomous and non-autonomous colleges, at regular
intervals, and also about the ‘successful’ and ‘not so successful’ innovations
made by the autonomous colleges may improve quality of higher education as such
interaction may provide much deeper insight into the problem areas and after
alternatives to the existing remedial / correctional practices. This exercise may also motivate others to
seek autonomy status in due course of time in the interest of improvement of
higher education.
Last but not the least, prior to
deciding to bring 10 per cent of the eligible colleges under the ambit of the
scheme by the end of the Plan, a status paper on the working of the autonomous
colleges in the country could have been brought out for wider circulation,
consultation and discussion. This would
have given a fairly good insight to the States, universities and the hitherto
non-autonomous colleges about the working of the autonomous colleges and helped
them to make up their minds to go for autonomy.
Moreover, prior to widening the network of autonomous colleges in the
country, which would call huge budgetary allocation under higher education
sector, attempt could have been first to consolidate the gains made so far
under the scheme, document it and then bring the potential and aspirant
colleges to the take off stage, i.e., affiliated status to the autonomous
status. Initially the best 100 colleges
in the country be selected and their universities be impressed upon to
encourage such colleges to apply for autonomous status. Once this is done, other colleges would be
motivated to join the elite group.
Summing Up
Conferment of autonomous status to
a college, like AICTE’s accreditation to a programme, is initially for a period
of five years which may be extended further subject to the satisfactory
performance of the college / programme.
Therefore, it is the august and pious responsibility of State, Parent
University, college management, teaching and non teaching staff and students
not only to continue to maintain quality / standard of education but also make
sustained efforts to improve the same by plugging the loose ends. Withdrawal of
autonomy of college / accreditation of a programme will not only be a serious
blot on its public image but will also demoralized the all concerned, This will also make them to think several
times for implementing any innovative areas / scheme in future of betterment of
the standard of higher Education.
However reasons for not getting/withdrawal autonomy be communicated to
the concern institution, parent university and the State so as to give clear,
transparent and impartial indications of the strengths and weaknesses of the
institution. This may help them to take
necessary remedial measures and submit the matter at an appropriate stage for
reconsideration.
0 comments:
Post a Comment