Programas de comunicación social

Following the success of the NPE, centralized agencies were established to improve standards and quality, and a ‘National Eligibility Test (NET), was established by the UGC’ (Ghosh 2007 p469), to regulate teachers in HE. The following International agencies were also given statutory authority:

‘National Assessment and Accreditation Council, (NAAC); the National Council of Higher Education (NCHE); the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE), and, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).’

(Ghosh, 2007, p469)

The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), originally established in 1945, became a statutory body by Act of Parliament in 1987, for technical education, which was ‘defined as programmes of education, research and training in engineering, technology, architecture, town planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts’ (AICTE, 2010).

37 The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) was established by the UGC in 1994, to assess and accredit Indian institutions of HE. The National Board of Accreditation (NBA), was also established in 1994, by the AICTE, to accredit and monitor the quality of technical Institutions. Powar (2002) demonstrates that, by December 2000, the NAAC had only ‘assessed 22 universities and 123 colleges’ (Powar, 2002, p238). It was also highlighted by the World Bank (2008), that in 2006 the NAAC, had still ‘only accredited 128 universities and 2879 colleges, and reaccredited 4 universities and 43 colleges (NACC website)’ (World Bank, 2008, p7). Powar (2002), also argued that ‘accreditation in India is in its infancy’ (Powar, 2002, p238), which may be one of the main reasons behind the levels of perceived poor quality of provision.

A higher education report on emerging issues related to access, inclusiveness and quality, from the Nehru Memorial Lecture 2006, clearly highlights some of these issues:

‘A substantial portion of colleges and universities are not assessed for quality and therefore we do not have a full picture of the quality and excellence of university and college sector engaged in higher education. 61% or equivalent to about 8500 colleges are without proper assessment for quality. We do not know much about the quality of these colleges. In fact accredited colleges constitute only 20% of the total colleges (that is 14000). Most of these colleges are self-financing and without permanent affiliation. It is therefore necessary to bring these colleges under the fold of quality assessment to improve the standard of college education in the country. As far as university sector is concerned about 50-60% of the universities are not assessed with elaborate criteria of NAAC.’

(Thorat, 2006)

Kaul (2006, p55), agrees with Thorat (2006), suggesting that:

‘While the bogus or poor quality colleges are a matter of concern for every regulator, the problem in India is that University Authorities do not have a proper monitoring and surveillance system for colleges.’

38 Some of the problems facing the NAAC are a result of the complexity of the HEIs, which are ‘functioning under contradictory and complex situations with regard to geographical, demographical, social, political, economic and cultural factors’ (Pillai & Srinivas, 2006, p95). The complexity is added to by the fact that each university and each state has its:

‘own policies in academic and administrative matters such as admission, curriculum design (for example an annual, semester or choice-based credit system), course structure, infrastructure, human resources, evaluation processes, recruitment, reservation policies (such as affirmative action for socially and economically disadvantaged groups), organization and management. This makes it extremely difficult to undertake benchmarking for objective assessment of institutions.’

It is also important to note that the central universities are ‘established by Acts of Parliament and regulated directly by the Ministry of Human Resource Development’ (Jayaram, 2004, p88). State universities are ‘regulated by an Act of the State Assemblies, and regulated by the respective State Governments’ (ibid).

This complexity is also a concern for Indian parents and students, as they compete for limited higher education places. As foreign universities are currently not legally allowed to establish institutions in India (Kapur and Mehta, 2004; Kapur and Mehta, 2007), save for a few UK and US universities which operate through non-formal arrangements (Agarwal, 2007), it has been suggested that the Right to Education Bill, which outlines access or inclusiveness for all Indians irrespective of class, caste, religion, gender or economic status (Thorat, 2006; World Bank, 2007), should be observed by all Indian private education and any foreign providers, which are non- Government funded, and they must make the provision to meet the Act and provide quotas for the underprivileged castes (Agarwala, 2008). Gupta (2008) argues that there is a lack of agreement between Government Departments on foreign provision, with some, i.e. Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), wanting India to benefit from the fees rather than foreign institutions, and, other Ministries, i.e. the Ministry of Commerce, only wanting to allow highly ranked foreign institutions to establish institutes in India (Gupta, 2008).

More private education is suggested as a way of increasing the supply of higher education provision, but there are debates about quality as well as control issues

39 (Agarwal, 2009). One of the many problems is that, as the private institutions and colleges offer their degrees through the universities, and because the universities set the curricular guidelines, there is limited development of new programmes, and few possibilities of any pedagogical improvements, due to state control over education policy (Kapur and Mehta, 2004).

Lall (2005) suggests that the results of the 1986 policy, were focused on ‘privatisation, and continued emphasis on secularism and science’ (Lall, 2005, p3). This resulted in independence for HEIs, but reduced funding by government and increased fees for students. Lall (2005), further contends that ‘the balance between public and private sectors becomes almost synonymous with a balance between excellence and access’ (ibid, p7).

2.27 1990s

When government changed to the National Front Government, under V. P. Singh, a policy review was implemented under Acharya Ramamurti, in 1990, and a Programme of Action was outlined in 1992, to improve access and participation in HE. However, due to political changes that again took place, the report was withheld (Ghosh, 2007; Powar, 2002).

Further political changes took place in the 1990s, and issues with the reforms and international policies of the eighties were reviewed. As a result, there were economic reforms and improvements in international trade, but little development of higher education. In India’s pluralistic society, with different religions, castes and views, and differing agendas, support for a decision on higher educational policy was not possible, and debates resulted in a lack of agreement and stagnation (Ghosh, 2007). Due to a lack of policy on HE, many institutions have emerged to meet the demands of the growing middle class, with little regard to quality standards (Altbach, 1993). Altbach (1993) also suggests that privatisation of HE stalled at this time, increasing the pressure on the Indian Government for greater access to higher education (Altbach, 1993). The bulk of the Indian higher education system became highly fragmented and was constituted by the affiliating system of university provision, which resulted in as many as 18,000 colleges, with approximately 300 affiliated colleges linked to some universities (ibid).The original

40 idea of affiliation was devised to improve quality of higher education provision, but this has not always been the case.

There were no private universities in the early 1990s, only some private, deemed universities. Due to the financial constraints on Government provision, private colleges grew in great numbers and were affiliated to existing or new universities (Agarwal, 2009). Some of these colleges are supported by government operating funding and are termed ‘private aided institutions’ (Agarwal, 2009, p68), e.g. IIMs. Other institutions which, are fully private are referred to as unaided private institutions (ibid), which as they have no government funding, are not subject to academic controls. Many of these colleges charge high fees, and have developed, as demand exceeded supply, but, due to the lack of government controls, some of these colleges are of dubious quality (Agarwal, 2009; Alexander, 1998; Gupta, 2008). Some of these private colleges and ‘deemed-universities’, previously affiliated to colleges, have been established by families, or groups of families (Altbach and Levy, 2005). A current example of the problems with these poor quality institutions was highlighted in the Times of India on line:

‘Centre to derecognize 44 deemed universities.

NEW DELHI: The Centre has told the Supreme Court that it has decided to withdraw the “deemed” status to 44 universities in the country alleging these were being run as family fiefdoms rather than on academic considerations. However, to avoid jeopardizing the future of nearly two lakhs students enrolled in these universities spread over 13 states, they would be allowed to revert back as affiliated colleges of their original universities, the Centre said in an affidavit. The affidavit filed by the HRD Ministry said the government has accepted the recommendations made in this regard by the high-powered P N Tandon committee and the Special Task Force set up to suggest measures to tackle the problem.’

(Times of India, 2010)