Trends, insights and research to inform growth and innovation strategies in international higher education.

May 30, 2010

Published in EDU on international collaboration

Published an article in EDU magazine on the approaches for identifying international higher education partners.

Read More »

May 26, 2010

Is India ahead in industrialization of education?

Here are two very interesting videos highlighting the need for an education system that builds on the strengths of a student and not necessarily mass produces them through a factory line. First, Sir Ken Robinson urges to break the industrial model of education and move to agricultural model. Industrial model pursues "linearity" and "conformity" while agricultural model accepts diversity of talent and creates enabling environment for growth.

Second, video from a New York Times story, is about what every college aspiring Indian student knows--how competitive it is to get into top professional colleges. This directly proves how Indian education system is truly "industrialized" and how middle-class children are tunnel-visioned in terms of career options. It seems India is definitely more industrialized at least by the definition of Sir Robinson as linearity and conformity are very deeply ingrained throughout the educational pipeline.

What are the solutions? What new learning models exist or should exist for education innovation?

Dr. Rahul Choudaha



Read More »

May 19, 2010

NCHER Bill India 2010- Need of transparency, not control

Here is a copy of the draft National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) Bill 2010 . The bill is being hotly debated on several levels and current discourse looks more like power struggle rather than attempt for quality assurance.

State governments are arguing that this is leading towards centralization of power and is taking away their autonomy of approving institutions through legislation and appointment of Vice-chancellors. Other debates are focusing on should professional field like medicine would be under the NCHER umbrella or not? There is also a discussion to delink the funding mechanism with the regulatory powers where NCHER will focus on regulation and there will be a separate body overseeing funding process for institutions.



The primary purpose for NCHER bill is to ensure quality and accountability in higher education. However, in this power struggle, the purpose is getting lost. My most important critique of the bill is that it has not leveraged the power of transparency in bringing accountability and improving quality. For example, the bill states vaguely that the Commission would "monitor, through a national database, all matters concerning the development of emerging fields of knowledge, balanced growth of higher educational institutions in all spheres and academic quality in higher education and research" [24(ab)]. Although it does not clarify the form and function very well, one of the highlights of the bill should have been the establishment of a national database of institutional performance as compared to the whole section devoted to establishment of a database of VCs [26].

Let us consider the case of regulation in financial system. How is transparency ensured in publicly traded companies?  Apart from the regulator (SEBI) there is easy availability of audited financial reports of organizations. But there is no availability of parallel information of institutional performance in higher education. Further, the primary role of SEBI is to "...to protect the interests of investors in securities" while protecting the interests of students does not seems to be on the priority for NCHER. This is one of the most important functions NCHER should pursue i.e. to protect the interests of students by ensuring correct data reporting by institutions, aggregating it in a standard format and disseminating it to the public.

For example, in the US, "The National Center for Education Statistics fulfills a Congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report complete statistics on the condition of American education; conduct and publish reports; and review and report on education activities internationally." Currently, AICTE has the mandatory disclosure requirement however, it has serious limitations in terms of the kind of information collected and presented. It is very hard to compare several institutions in a easy to use format and hence students cannot use it for informed decision-making. Many other times, institutions continue to fudge information, hide these pages or other times do not update them.

Imagine a scenario where, anyone can see all the approved institutions and their programs with their performance on various parameters of quality. When students start using this information for decision-making or regulators for funding decisions or policymakers for future policy directions, institutions will have no option other than working towards improving those metrics.

This raises another question, wouldn't institutions fudge data? This is where the investigative power of NCHER as an enforcer of quality comes into play. It should have the power to audit and investigate financial and academic records of any institution (of course, based on the grounds of sufficient evidence and proper process). For example, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has the powers to demand for "information and record from any bank or any other authority or board or corporation established or constituted by or under any Central, State or Provincial Act in respect of any transaction in securities which is under investigation or inquiry by the Board."

To sum up, NCHER bill is a positive step in reforming higher education, however, it is limited by its political approach of using control as the way of ensuring quality rather than transparency.

What are your thoughts? Share them through the comments link below.

Dr. Rahul Choudaha
Read More »

May 03, 2010

Foreign Universities Bill, India 2010

Here is a copy of the Foreign Universities Bill 2010 presented in the Indian parliament. Apart from the critique, corpus fund requirement of 50 crore rupees (~US$11m ) has already received, there are two other clauses which I find troublesome:

1. Distant/online learning is not welcome: The bill defines foreign institution as one offering "conventional method...not including distant mode." Given that Indian higher education needs innovation, cost-effectiveness and accessibility and distance/online learning technologies are well placed to address some of the these issues, this restriction seems out of context. Here it is also important to note that quality of distance education in India is very poor and hence introduction of new foreign partners may help improve the quality. Government need to define measures of quality for assessing good online education providers and not necessarily eliminate the whole channel.

2. Intent to limit institutional autonomy: The bill states that foreign institution need to publish information about "the number of seats approved by the statutory authority in respect of each course or programme of study." This is again a regressive way to rationing and regulating enrollments and it directly impacts innovation, growth and feasibility of new projects. Current policy structure with AICTE etc. was also having the similar problem of trying to control the demand instead of creating standards of quality and competitiveness in the system.   

The current form of bill is taking a parochial view on two primary aspects
1) diversity of global higher education institutions
2) measures of institutional quality
It is encouraging to see that the bill is moving forward, however it needs to evolve significantly to maximize the benefits for stakeholders.

I have also published an article in EDU magazine on the segments of foreign universities seeking to engage with Indian higher education. There are three primary segments and each has different needs, challenges and opportunities for entering India. Policymakers and institutions interested in partnering with foreign universities need to better understand the landscape and segment of foreign institutions to build effective international academic collaborations.

1. Prestige-enhancing (top-50 research universities)
2. Prestige-seeking (next-tier of 100 universities)
3. Revenue/profit maximizing (universities beyond top 150)


Any thoughts/comments?

- Dr. Rahul Choudaha
Read More »

Connect

info@DrEducation.com

Get in touch with Dr. Choudaha for speaking opportunities, consulting engagements, and media inquiries.

Follow by Email

Translate

Blog Archive