Time to reform the regulatory framework in higher education

It was over a decade ago that the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) recommended the establishment of an Independent Regulatory Authority in Higher Education (IRAHE), to replace all the existing regulatory bodies in higher education, including the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The Yashpal Committee constituted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, ostensibly to counter or at least moderate this recommendation, too, reached the conclusion that the country needs a single regulator like the National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER), which should subsume UGC and AICTE. 

The idea was revived again with the Budget 2017 speech, announcing that the UGC shall be reformed and with PMO and NITI Aayog now pitching for a Higher Education and Empowerment Authority (HEERA), it seems that higher education shall soon see a new regulator replacing the existing ones, not all of them but at least those that are under the purview of MHRD i.e. UGC, AICTE, the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) and the Distance Education Council (DEC) presently operating as the Distance Education Bureau (DEB) under UGC.

Multiplicity of regulatory bodies has indeed been a major issue in reforming the regulatory framework in higher education and the idea of a single regulator, once fructified, shall be a relief for the higher educational institutions. But the real challenge shall be to give this new body a structure, organisation, system and procedure to make it more effective than the existing ones. This calls for a comprehensive understanding of the role that an effective regulator is expected to play and a thorough analysis of the causes of the perceived failure of the existing regulatory bodies. The presumption that the existing regulators suffer from design defect to cope with the contemporary and future challenges in higher education is only a part of the story; organisations may also fail due to the people they comprised and also because of the processes through which they operate. 

Unless designed thoughtfully and carefully, there is now every likelihood that the new regulatory body may come to suffer from the same deficiencies, which mar the older ones and the history of higher education in the country is full of such examples. UGC, which was almost the sole regulator in higher education since its establishment in 1956, was found lacking in providing direction to the rapid changes in higher education, particularly in the areas of technical and professional higher education, open and distance mode of learning and teacher education. The discovery led to the establishment of new generation regulators like AICTE, NCTE and DEC. The experience, however, tells us that these newer bodies did not prove to be any better, if not worse. 

India is too diverse and too large in its geography and demography and is unique in its socio-cultural and political context and what has worked in one country will not work at all in our context for the simple reason that what works in an individualistic society is not likely to work in a pluralistic society because such societies have their own compulsions. This effectively means that the scope of learning from other economies is only limited and the country shall have to experiment and evolve its own ideas and framework. The idea that organisations suffer on the count of people of which they are made of and that the new institution shall bring in better people, too, are fraught with limitations. Even in the new set up, people shall have to be drawn from the same national common pool and that there is every possibility that the newer institution shall soon be saddled with more or less the same kind of people. 

Thus the effectiveness of the new regulatory body shall significantly depend on its ability to simplify regulations and do away with unnecessary conditions and impediments in the entry and operation of higher educational institutions. In view of the mounting evidence to the fact that the quality of higher education is invariably inversely proportional to the intensity of regulation, it must empower universities and higher educational institutions to take their own decisions — academic, administrative and financial, albeit with a sense of responsibility, transparency and accountability. In fact, the ultimate objective of the regulation should be to build institutional capacity and effectiveness to attain and maintain highest academic standards and quality. 

Conventionally, a few regulators have also been involved in the financing of higher educational institutions, because it was seen as an instrument of effecting public policy. With the rapid rise of the private sector in higher education, this tool has become quite blunted, though the need for public funding to higher education shall continue to remain relevant and thereby making it imperative for the new regulator to evolve and implement a norm-based funding. Further, the new regulatory body must realise that higher education being in the concurrent list, the state government plays a critical role in the development of higher education and that they must be actively involved in the evolution of the new regulatory framework.

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