Single regulatory body can fix problems in higher education

A regulatory body, by whatever name it is called, is essentially an organ of the State to give effect to the public policy and higher education could be no exception. Questions about the effigy of the regulation of higher education, particularly about the way the regulation has been effected so far, notwithstanding, the need for regulation in higher education shall continue to remain a reality and higher education being too important to be left to market forces, the State shall have to play a critical role.

The regulatory body is expected to frame rules of the games for the entry and operations of the institutions under its purview; set standards of operations and performance; monitor progress and performance against the stated standards; take corrective action against institutions found faltering on adhering to norms, standards and benchmarks set for their operation and accomplishments; and deter misuse and malpractices so as to safeguard the interests of the stakeholders, including the larger public interest. Additionally, a few regulatory bodies in higher education have also been charged with the responsibility of funding and grants in aid. Given the gamut of roles and functions described above, the following may have to be addressed in the new regulatory body being in higher education:

Presently, these functions are being performed by as many as 14 different regulatory bodies and professional councils - just a few under the ambit of MHRD and the rest under various other Ministries/Departments. The new generation regulator can, at the best, remove multiplicity of regulatory bodies under MHRD. This would effectively means that the multiplicity of regulatory bodies, which have been a major bane of higher education regulation, shall continue to exist and interfere with higher educational systems and processes.

The challenge could be overcome by empowering the new regulator as the sole regulator of higher education and thereby rendering the remaining bodies as only professional councils responsible for setting and enforcing the practice of their respective professions. At the most, the Professional Councils may provide input to the new regulator for setting standards and benchmarks for such qualifications and degree that are the minimum prescribed entry qualification for registration and licensing for practice of a profession. Further, the representatives of the professional councils could be involved as a member of the peer team for institutional and programme accreditation of higher educational institutions. This will effectively means an end to multiple peer team assessment, evaluation and inspection of higher educational institutions by different agencies.

Existing regulatory bodies in higher hardly engage with the States, which account for an overwhelming proportion of enrolment in higher education, leading to a gap between the national level policies and programmes and the practices and requirements at the provincial level. The disconnect could be addressed by providing for a coordination and consultation council as the top policy, planning and regulatory standards. The council could comprise of the office bearers (Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Members) of the new regulator, experts drawn from different disciplines, representatives of the professional councils and representatives of State, preferably the chairperson/vice chairperson of the State Council of Higher Education (SCHE). All policy decisions should be taken in consultation and coordination with this council and effected by its office bearer supported by its bureaucracy.

With the institutional accreditation having been made mandatory and the national rankings catching up fast, the regulation of higher education need to be linked with these two such that the regulatory body prescribes the minimum norms and standards for the entry and operation of the higher educational institutions in the country in as much detail as possible and should monitor their implementation and progress in terms of the performance of higher educational institutions in accreditation and ranking. Institutions would register themselves with the regulator and should be free to function without the requirement of inspection and approval by the regulatory body so long as they undertake to comply with the prescribed norms and standards. The new regulatory body would act , and act decisively and drastically against an institution which is found to be defying or deviating from the prescribed norms and standards. With such a division of roles and responsibilities whereby the monitoring could be done through accreditation and action to be taken by the regulatory body, the rules of game shall be well laid out.

This leaves us with the funding functions and grants in aid. As per the present scheme of things, the state universities and their colleges are getting funds from the respective state governments and the central funding is being routed through Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA). The centrally funded technical institutions, are funded directly by MHRD. The central universities which are being presently funded by UGC, a regulator in higher education, could also be disbursed funds directly by MHRD and the process could be facilitated greatly if a norm-based funding model could be evolved. This shall free the the regulator to focus on setting norms, standards and benchmarks and shall enable the higher educational institutions to enter and operate autonomously, of course within the bounds of the norms and standards so set.  

The author is the Secretary General, Association of Indian Universities. Views expressed are personal.