HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY RECOMMENDATION FOR KERALA STATE — A SHORT ESSAY

Education is a domain which is very critical for any State. A well-educated population base is a huge asset to any State. Primary and elementary education is essential; but higher education is much more important for economic development and progress. Even for developing and sustaining good primary and secondary education, better higher education is a must.

Situation

Kerala is a state which has made very good progress on the education front. The primary and secondary education has very good coverage and quality given that Kerala ranks first in literacy rate. Female literacy rate is also much higher when compared to other states. The role of private participation is very important in Kerala’s education history. The early protagonists of the education sector were the Christian missionaries followed by other religious trusts and communities. The State government used to support these institutions through grant-in-aid. Hence there came about 3 different kinds of educational institutions — Public, Aided and Self-financing. In 1935, Education Reforms Committee of Travancore recommended to divest government schools as the expenditure committee found out that the cost to government for educating a student in govt. school is higher than the private equivalent [1]. In 1957, the first government of the newly formed Kerala State introduced the Education Bill through which they mandated a free and mandatory primary education, directed private management of aided schools to deposit all fees in the State treasury and agreed to pay-out salaries and all benefits for all teachers and staff of govt and aided schools.

Through the 1990s, the participation of private players in higher education has been significant but limited mostly to the Arts and Science streams. 80% of all arts and science colleges in Kerala was privately owned during the 80s. In 2001, the State government opened up the professional education sector to meet the higher demand for the same and to curb the flow of money to the neighboring states where Kerala students were going to pursue Engineering, Medical or Nursing courses. This was a major policy change which led to a complete change of the higher education scene in Kerala.

• Post 2001, a lot of unaided self-financing professional colleges started to meet the growing demand for professional degree courses
• Kerala was able to ride the IT boom owing to this important policy change which brought in significant economic impact also
• Kerala was able to reduce the flow of students (and money) into other states for higher education and reap the associated economic advantages
• The self-financing college management started levying much higher fees than the govt counterparts; Capitation fees came in
• Teacher appointments became a corrupt process in some of these colleges

The government tried to bring in some regulation through the Prohibition of capitation fees and procedure for admission and fixation of fees Act, 2004 through which capitation fees was prohibited, 50% seats reserved as government seats and fixed fees in merit seats.

Complication

As of 2019, there are 160 Engineering colleges, 37 medical colleges and 186 Arts and Science colleges in Kerala. The rate of increase of self-financing engineering colleges has been significantly higher compared to other streams. More than 70% of these institutions are managed by religious minority trusts/ entities. Policy failure has led to degradation of the quality of professional education in the state. Focus has shifted from desirable/intended outcomes to acquiring minimum information to get through a highly diluted examination system. These institutions rely fully on student fees for sustenance with no other source of revenue. Research and consultancy practices are not given any importance or consideration. The average pass percentage of self-financing engineering colleges is 30% with more than 35% seats vacant on average (Graph 1). There is a huge correlation between the Entrance Merit list and Pass percentage; admission of students with very low entrance ranks (to fill vacant seats) have led to significantly lower pass percentages in these colleges (Graph 2). Many of the institutions now are on the verge of shutting down since the demand has decreased exponentially. Nearly tenfold increase in the number of Engineering institutions within the short span of a decade has resulted in two contradicting results namely 1. Very desirable increase in the investment in Engineering Education and 2. Very undesirable fall in quality of the graduates. In 2015, Kerala government introduced the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act with which they brought in all the technical colleges in the State under a single university.

The over demand on the professional degree courses have led to a neglect of the traditional Arts and Science streams. The existing institutions lack innovation and quality. There is a huge need for a policy intervention to ensure quality and sustainability in the higher education scenario of Kerala.

Proposed Steps

• Remove entry barriers — Even though there have been policy changes which improved the private participation in higher education which has led to significant investments, the entry barriers stipulated is very restrictive. The AICTE norms for entry into higher education is so demanding that mostly entities with dubious intentions get approvals. A proposed policy change is to reduce the entry barrier into higher education so that real private participation can be ensured and individuals/ entities with serious interest in the area can also participate. This can even provide an exit route for the management of those institutions on the verge of closure. The State should perform an audit of all the policies currently applicable for entry into higher education and devise a new policy reducing/ relaxing the entry barriers
• Accountability — Redesign the accountability systems of the State for higher educationHistorically, accountability at the state level has for the most part monitored inputs, including infrastructure quality, fees, percent of faculty with PhDs, books in the library etc., to gauge the relative health of higher education systems. While it is important to know the inputs and track them, outputs/ outcomes matter most. Government should identify and outline the parameters which can measure the outputs/ outcomes (degrees completed, retention rate, research quality, teacher education, consulting efforts etc.) of these institutions. Assess the learning of college-educated students state-wide through professional certification and other assessments administered to a sample of students. Accountability that focuses on outputs as determined by state and national priorities represents a major shift from accountability mechanisms that monitor only institutional inputs
• Data and Transparency — Next step is the create systems to accurately measure, capture and monitor the outputs identified. Create state-wide data systems to monitor the abovementioned outcomes of institutions which can help with policy decisions. Accreditation to be based on these measured outcomes as well as inputs. Institutions to be accredited within 5–7 years of their existence. This data should be made publicly available
• Autonomy — Institutions should be given academic autonomy with respect to curriculum, research, consultancies, foreign university collaboration, student admission, fees structure and course structure. The new KTU Act has laid out better autonomy framework for technical institutions. Institutions can implement flexible credit system to allow slow learners to complete the degree in five, six or seven years. At the same time, promotions without completing the prerequisites and prescribed credits should not be allowed

References

1. Story of 1957 Education Bill in Kerala — D Dhanuraj
2. Good Policy, Good Practice II Improving Outcomes and Productivity in Higher Education: A Guide for Policymakers — Meghan Wilson Brenneman, Patrick M. Callan
3. https://www.ktu.edu.in/data/APJ%20Act%20Mal%20(2).pdf?=fWW5%2Bl21iiZJ%2BdF3Tsgh N3Y7%2Bgs3tWie7zjkPOaZwuo%3D
4. http://www.dtekerala.gov.in/index.php/en/extensions/circulars/1559-01feb16new
5. https://www.aicte-india.org/sites/default/files/APH%202018-19%20Modified.pdf 6. https://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Norms.pdf