NITI Aayog – Higher Education Vision and Strategy in Brief

Niti Aayog in a recently released Three year action agenda, has said that less regulation and more focus on autonomous governance, transparency and outcomes are critical components of a vibrant and successful higher education system. These Ideas should be the basis of our strategy in higher education, The document also said that the country has made significant progress in increasing enrollment-the GER in tertiary education has risen from 20.8% in 2011-12 to 24.5% in 2015-16 and is more than double what it was 10 years ago. However it said, we need to drive higher quality in the education system.

NITI Aayog – Higher Education Vision and Strategy in Brief

Document quoted assessment of 150,000 Engineering graduates by aspiring Minds in 2016, which found that only 18% of engineers were employable in the software services sector in a functional role, only 41% in non-functional Business Process Outsourcing and only 4% in software engineering start-ups.

The report of NITI Aayog listed 5 major actions to be completed in the next three years to improve the education sector, these 5 major actions are:
Higher Education Action Agenda – What Do We Seek to Accomplish?
1. Designation of World Class Universities
2. Autonomy for top colleges and universities
3. Reform of the regulatory system- A tiered system of Universities
4. Establish of Project/Research specific research grants
5. Increased focus on vocational and profession led education.

Designation of World Class Universities. Identify 20 universities (10 public and 10 private) that can be immediately moved out from the regulatory system. Creating world-class universities requires autonomous governance, focused funding, and oversight based on independent outcomes like world rankings. Here we can learn from China’s and Singapore’s attempt to create world-class research universities. China chose a tiered system under which two Tier 1 universities – Beijing and Qinghua – received significantly higher funding. Singapore too funded its top two universities – National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University – very liberally. We too should be careful that we do not spread available funds too thin. Instead, we should adopt the tiered funding model for public universities whereby the two best public universities are provided significantly higher funding (with commitment to deliver correspondingly large improvements in performance) than the remaining eight chosen public universities. The most promising candidates should receive the most funds and be accountable for outcomes, while receiving the same flexibility in governance as any university worldwide. Chosen private universities should also be provided the same level of autonomy though no public resources need be offered to them.

Autonomy for top colleges. More established colleges should be brought under the autonomous colleges scheme to take them out of the centralized control of their university and provide greater flexibility in academic matters. Selectively, we should also offer colleges with postgraduate teaching, excellent track record and commitment to promoting excellence in teaching and research the option to convert into unitary universities. This will allow the colleges to develop their brand name and compete more effectively for good students and teachers. The Presidency College, which recently converted to Presidency University, offers a good example in this respect.

Reform of the regulatory system – A tiered system of universities. The University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956 is in dire need of reform. The UGC’s position as an overarching regulator of every aspect of higher education from student fees to curriculum to teaching and course hours keeps India’s higher education system from responding to the changes and challenges that it faces in a fast evolving world. Various professional councils further complicate the regulatory environment in higher education. We should introduce a system of regulation that focuses on information disclosure and governance rather than micro management of universities. This requires an overhaul of the UGC as a regulatory system and a rationalization of the role of professional councils.

But even within the existing legal framework, it is possible to make progress. We should introduce a tiered system whereby the top research-focused universities, which promise to compete globally, are given full autonomy and promised additional resources based on significant improvements over time. These universities may be subject to high standards of transparency with full freedom granted in operational matters such as courses, curriculum, teaching hours and pedagogy. Quality should be enforced through periodic third party assessments. As mentioned in the Science and Technology chapter as well, the universities must also be given autonomy to attract research staff from abroad or local research bodies to create a critical mass of research faculty in specific areas. They must also be encouraged to compete for research projects from industry. The objective should be to eventually move research from falling solely under the purview of research institutes and councils to also being encompassed by research universities

Establish a system of project– and scholar-specific research grants. A system of public funding for research in specific areas of public importance has driven much of the innovation in science and technology in other countries. A similar system should be set up in India with funding to specific scholars, thus, providing both maximum flexibility and accountability for results. Another model that should be adopted is the ‘prize’ system with funding going to research/innovation groups that deliver solutions to clearly specified problems. Such a system can be used in the future to drive innovation and research, solve pressing problems, and provide a mechanism for competition and quality assurance.

Increased focus on vocational and profession led education. We should establish and promote norms/standards and/or outcome based certification for institutions that focus on skills and trades closely tied to employment. We should also include vocational subjects in mainstream universities to allow for greater acceptance and utility for vocational learning. We can focus more in particular on those skills that are expected to be in high demand from the public sector in the coming years. Examples include public health workers, foundational skills teaching, nursing and paramedics.

NITI Aayog reports can be seen here: http://niti.gov.in/content/three-year-action-agenda-2017-18-2019-20