स्वास्थ्यकारी A2 बनाम रोगकारी दूध A1

Higher Education: Need For Consultative Regulation with Negotiated Rulemaking

Higher Education: Need For Consultative Regulation with Negotiated Rulemaking

High quality teaching-learning is critical to creating future leaders and problem solvers for the nation and society. Quality in education needs fine tuning of diverse aspirations of all stakeholders, comprising students, parents, industry, education providers, society, government and the nation. In view of the plurality of stakeholders and their aspirations, the regulators need to tread their path very cautiously to ensure quality and excellence in teaching, invoke world class standards in research, maintain sectoral sustainability and uphold confidence of different stakeholders in a country like India characterised by heterogenity of differentially circumstanced education providers and education seekers. Only a consensus-based regulatory mechanism can provide fair, just and equitable playing field for the differentially circumstanced education providers and education seekers in the country, with genuine autonomy and reasonable academic freedom, imperative in a country like India composed of highly stratified range of education providers comprising the IITs, NITs, IIMs, Central Universities, State (Public Funded) Universities, State (Privately Financed) Universities, Government Colleges, aided colleges, autonomous colleges and unaided private colleges. The Euro-American tradition of consultative regulation and negotiated rulemaking can offer a suitable alternative over the existing "approve or reject" style of regulating education providers in India, based upon officially mandated rules. Thopugh strange to hear in India, the negotiated rulemaking is not very new in the US, where it was mandated long ago by law. It was in vogue even earlier since 1983, and thereafter the US Congress has formalized it in 1990, by enacting Negotiated Rulemaking Act on January 23. The Act was reauthorized in 1996 and thereafter in 2013. In the US all changes in the regulations for programs, authorised under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 of the US are brought only through regular annual negotiations among the stakeholders. So, in the US consensus based regulation is a normal practice.

Likewise, now in Europe the regulators, instead of insisting over "one size fits all", endeavor to customize norms for equitable playing field for differentially circumstanced education providers and education seekers. The Higher Education Commission of UK, in its report on higher education, has even devoted one full chapter, the Chapter 6 on how to replace level playing with an 'equitable playing field', by encompassing the realities of all categories of education providers. The UK government's higher education white paper also therefore, states that "all higher education providers, whatever may be the type of course to offer, must be able to compete on a level playing basis". The Higher Education Commission further underlines the need for placing the traditional institutions and alternative providers as well, on a 'level' footing. Instead of a 'one size fits all' criteria, duly customised regulatory requirements are applied to institutions, on the basis of status of the institution and the courses designated for different sections. David Willets even therefore asserts to create a "genuinely open system that can offer the student, real choice and exciting institutional competition leading the overall race to the top."

Indeed, the consultative regulation, based upon consensus of all stakeholders, arrived through negotiated rulemaking in Europe and US has inter alia helped the Euro-American education providers to monopolize over most of the top slots of world class universities. The UK and US alone hold 9 slots out of top 10 universities of the world and almost half slots, numbering 48, in the top 100 universities of the world. In the total 959 top QS slots, the Europe and US alone have cornered 523 slots, with US having 144, UK 76, Germany 45, France 39 and so on. The US and Europe together have 79 slots out of 100, whereas, population-wise we are 128% of the combined population of the US and entire Europe. But, we have only 20 slots out of 959 and they too towards the tail end. The US and UK therefore, also enjoy the prestige as the top destinations for international students. India does not figure anywhere in the top 20 international destinations, despite of a very vast network of higher education system, comprising IITs, IIMs, NITs, Central Universities, State (Public Funded) Universities, State (Private Funded) Universities, Deemed Universities and 45000 colleges including autonomous colleges. The top 20 destinations are the US, UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Russia, Canada, China, Japan, Italy, South Africa, Austria, Netherland, Singapore, Ireland, UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arab. Countries like UK, very proudly assert that "the UK has very significant global prestige in the academic world, when they say that the UK is making up only 1% of the world's population, yet has been earning 12% of international research citation. The US ranks at number one in the international research citations, followed by China at number 2, with the UK at number 3 in international research citations. India has around 3.4% of international research citations, while we constitute 16% of the global population and equally large student populaion. India has 3.5 crore students in higher education, almost equal to the population of Canada, enrolled in more than 800 universities or similar degree awarding autonomous institutes, along with 45000 colleges. So, there is an urgent need to revamp and broad base the regulatory mechanism, capable to nurture, support and enable the institutes of higher learning to enhance the standards of education and the level of competence of Students graduating from each of the universities Central or State, public or private and deemed or full. Indeed the existing 'Approve or Reject' style to regulate or score based ranking process cannot take care of the 'Capability deficit' of any category of education providers.   

In this regard, it would also not be out of place to mention that in the US proper benchmarking and quality of intake is ensured by redressing capability deficit even at the school level, through the 'Every Student Succeeds Act' (ESSA) of 2015 and its precursor "No Child Left Behind Act" (NCLBA) of 2001, which mandates 'intermittent' and 'exit-time' assessments of school students from 3^rd to 12^th standards, to ensure that all students touch the benchmark of knowledge, intellect, linguistic skills and mathematical capabilities even at the time of entry into higher education. The federal government disburses liberal grant to states and local education agencies for remedial support, without discriminating between public or private institutes,  wherever the students are found to be having academic and intellectual deficits. So, by virtue of the ESSA in the US, every student passing out from the schools is well capable and above the national benchmark at the time of entering into higher education. In India, to the contrary, probably while emulating the American ESSA, under  the Right to Education Act, made it other way mandatory to pass every student without regard to his/her performance in examinations up to 8^th standard and allowing the option to take school level exam in 10^th standard, instead of sitting in the examination of the central board. So, we had moved in opposite to quality benchmarking.

Today, when India is experiencing a strong revolution of privately funded universities, the entire higher education system, is poised to churn out largest stream of graduating students in the world. The students has a choice to exercise. So, at school level around 62% and at higher education level around 50% of the students are opting or seeking admission in unaided private institutions. Moreover, with over 1.8 million sanctioned engineering seats, by virtue of which, India tops worldwide as the largest producer of technical manpower, the 3/4^th of these seats come from the privately funded institutes/ universities. But, almost 50% of these seats (0.9 million) are lying vacant for want of paying capacity with the students, unless a system of subsidising or reimbursing the fee is evolved. At a time when, half of the students enrolled in higher education are in the private unaided institutes, some mechanism has to be worked out to reimburse or subsidise such students too, who seek admission in cost based institutes or who forego higher education for want of capability to pay cost based fee. In lack of fiscal support to education seekers pursuing education in private unaided institutions, almost half of the students’ community pursuing studies in self financing institutes are devoid of any fiscal support of their education. students are the best judge of quality and opt for the best of the available options hence such students should also get fiscal supports coming back to the issue of regulatory mechanism, where there is vast heterogeneity of education providers, the regulatory mechanism, instead of a rejection criteria support the institutes with capability or academic deficit. In a country with paucity of resources and extremely low gross enrolment ratio (GER) in place of the colonial style of approach of ‘approval or rejection’, ‘support programme based regulation’ has to be put in place. Looking at the vast number and heterogeneity of education providers, a consultative support and mentoring system for counseling and monitoring of education providers for ensuring quality becomes imperative to make them sustainable and competitive. For strengthening consultative support system, unilaterally enacting, promulgating or mandating regulations cannot be of any avail. All regulations need to be more realistic and consensus based. So, consultative regulation, with negotiated rulemaking can enable the education providers to scale up and escalate on the quality ladder. As a prelude, for evolving regulatory consensus a hexapartile brainstorming of representatives of education providers, faculty-fraternity, regulatory authorities, parents, industry chambers, and research bodies of the country along with the Union HRD Minister at the centre and with the state level education ministers at respective state levels can be made an annual feature. All the stakeholders need to be more pragmatic inter se, instead of contempt towards any. Various categories of education providers too should have reciprocity in recognizing the dignity of every category of education providers. The tendency to view different categories of education providers and their graduates, with contempt through a colonial or feudal stratification should also cease to exist, even when we have a heterogenous mix of institutes comprising the IITs, IIMs, NITs, Central Universities, State (Privately Funded) Universities, Deemed Universities, Government Colleges, Private Aided Colleges and Private unaided colleges. The regulators have to be more considerate and supportive counsel for all kinds of institutes, whether public funded or privately financed one. Indeed, if education is aptly leveraged with appropriate policy interventions, at a time when a strong revolution of privately funded education-providers is strongly supplementing the well laid network of fairly developed public funded institutes or universities, with rich experience and heritage. 

A new tradition has to be set for counseling for a proper blend of pedagogical, andragogical, heutagogical and peeragogical approaches of teaching-learning, along with advisory and expert support for institutional capacity building for quality teaching and research is more imperative for institutes with deficit. So, in place of mere inspection based regulation to approve or reject, a system of counseling based regulation for capacity building is more imperative to support the differentially circumstanced education providers to scale up to the top. In this regard, all inspections, whether for affiliation, accreditation or approval, may be also be made participatory, with one or two members of the institute concerned. The rules as well as regulations too need to be made, after open discussions inter se all stakeholders. The project specific grants, research grants, conference grants and scholarships as well may be thought to be made open-competition based and be disbursed on the merits of the proposals, without discrimination between privately or publicly funded institutes. Idea of ESSA type of assessments of students in the mid of a course as well as at the time of

exiting may also be introduced with supportive grants for remedial programmes to overcome the academic deficit. Idea of self regulatory councils, with a fair representation of the stakeholders, including the teachers and education providers on the pattern of the Bar council or Institute of Chartered Accountants of India can also be thought of, for better participatory regulation. India has reached at the threshold to take a quantum leap, with its vast demographic dividend. The universities of Madras, Mumbai and Calcutta were founded as early as in 1857 and the Nalanda, Taxshila, Navadeep etc. have a heritage of more then two millennia. India has to aspire to regain the same historic glory. It can be achieved with consultative regulation, negotiated rulemaking and self regulatory councils.