The Hindu : The future of open universities

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 23, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The future of open universities

By Amrik Singh

The IGNOU should be reorganised to assume full and ungrudging responsibility for the functioning of all open universities and other non-formal programmes run by the mainstream universities.

AS PART of the preparation for the Tenth Five Year Plan, an exercise was undertaken about a year ago in the Human Resource Development Ministry and the Planning Commission about the likely growth of numbers at the university and college level in the next five years. It was also to ascertain how many students would opt for the formal and the non-formal system respectively.

Currently, a little less than 20 per cent of students are enrolled in the non-formal system. So as not to overburden the formal system, it was calculated (how?) that, by the end of the Tenth Plan, about 40 per cent of the new enrolment should be in the non-formal sector.

Even then, the enrolment in the formal system was likely to go beyond the existing figures of 9 million-plus which would rise to 11 million-plus at the end of the Plan period.

But will those opting for the non-formal sector really come to 40 per cent of the relevant student population? Will the enrolment of students in the non-formal sector jump so much from the existing 7-8 per cent? The earlier experience and the current trends do not point to such a conclusion. There are three obvious reasons for this.

One, of the half a dozen open universities in the country, the biggest is the IGNOU with an enrolment of over 8 lakhs. Besides, none of the other open universities has so far got projected as a university which can be talked about. Whether it is in terms of resources, staffing, infrastructure, qualities of leadership or such other relevant considerations, hardly one of them comes across as a university with the potential to either attract or retain such a large number of students.

Two, in terms of the prevalent trends, the general perception is that the students unable to enter the formal system of education opt for the non-formal stream. The standards of performance in the open universities are not always satisfactory and are viewed patronisingly by others. Unless the non-formal universities function at a level where they, on their own steam, come across as being at least as good as the regular colleges, the situation would continue to be more or less what it is today.

By themselves, the half a dozen open universities do not involve more than 5-6 per cent of the total student population in this sector. The rest of them are enrolled in other mainstream universities which also run several distance mode courses. Some of the universities, particularly in Tamil Nadu, generate about Rs. 50 crores a year from these unorganised students. Of the revenue earned, only a small proportion is spent on those who pay; the rest is utilised as revenue income for the parent university to meet its other commitments.

This whole procedure is sanctified, so to speak, by the existing Tamil Nadu practice whereby non-technical universities in the State are given limited funding. The greater part of the university expenditure is met from the income garnered from the large enrolment of non-formal students.

Hence, the level of instruction imparted to the non-formal sector cannot but be substandard. The motive of these universities which run multiple courses and provide education in those particular sectors where the payoff is handsome is unabashedly commercial.

There is nothing secret about what has been stated above. Everyone knows about it and most people accept it uncomplainingly. These universities treat the distance education as a kind of milch cow for the formal system of education.

This brings us to the third point: how is the non-formal education sector organised and funded? Despite the systematic diversion of funds from the non-formal to the formal sector, the IGNOU, statutorily charged with the responsibility for non-formal education, has not intervened as decisively as it should have and indeed could have. Over the years, it has been worked out between the IGNOU and the UGC that the responsibility for non-formal education, even in respect of the mainstream universities, is that of the former and that the UGC would abide by the recommendations made by it. Why is the IGNOU not discharging this role properly?

The answer to this question is utterly unflattering to the HRD Ministry which oversees both these bodies. In the mid-1980s when the IGNOU was being established what governed decision-making was the fact that the then UGC Chairperson and the HRD Secretary were allergic to each other. The IGNOU Bill projected this university as an independent agency which was in no way a part of the UGC. More specifically, it was also given the responsibility of coordinating, promoting and funding distance education institutions. This scheme of things had the sanction of the precedent in U.K. which had established an open university more than a decade earlier. This university in Britain deals with the Government directly. The HRD Ministry was able to invoke this precedent and the proposal went through.

This is not to say that placing the IGNOU under the UGC would have been preferable. An independent organisation looking after a relatively independent sector of education with its unmistakable technical orientation and a separate identity of its own was a perfectly feasible proposition.

The real problem lies in the fact that the provision asking the IGNOU to look after and fund the other open universities seemed to have been put in as an afterthought. The IGNOU Vice-Chancellor appears to function on the basis that as long as the university campus is running well, there is nothing much to worry about the other dimensions of the mandate. Some funds are distributed to the rest of the open universities in an ad hoc manner. Often, the IGNOU Vice-Chancellor takes decisions on his own and without any close scrutiny of what is happening and, no less important, not happening.

The body dealing with other open universities is the Distance Education Council (DEC). It functions under the auspices of the IGNOU but the latter treats this responsibility as an additional, perhaps not all that important, part of its mandate. This may be putting it strongly but the fact is that no aspect of the IGNOU's working has received such a niggardly share of its attention as the DEC has.

The Vice-Chancellor devotes something like 10 per cent of his time and attention to the DEC, whereas it should be 50 per cent or so. Hardly anyone talks about this matter, much less grumbles about the other open universities not receiving their due share of attention and funding. In other words, except for the IGNOU, other open universities are treated as the stepchildren of the system.

The original scheme of the framers of the IGNOU Act should be evident from one single fact. The Act provides for up to six Pro-Vice-Chancellors (PVCs) so that work could be well delegated. Currently, this provision is being ignored. At present, almost everything is sought to be done by the Vice-Chancellor and two of his PVCs. Good performance implies delegation of power, not its over-centralisation.

It would be too much to assume that 40 per cent of the total enrolment at the university and college level would be in the non-formal sector.

This would be an instance of the triumph of hope over experience. The matter has to be scrutinised much more rigorously by the HRD Ministry and the Planning Commission. To take away this power from the IGNOU and vest it in the UGC, as mooted by some people, would not be a solution. Indeed, it can create a fresh set of problem.

The IGNOU should be reorganised to assume full and ungrudging responsibility for the functioning of all open universities and other non-formal programmes run by the mainstream universities. To create a healthy and functioning system of open learning is the need. With 88 per cent of the total enrolment at the undergraduate level, an acute imbalance has already arisen. Is it advisable to create a further imbalance?

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Yet another nuclear power

Chinks in disinvestment

The politics of our times

The future of open universities

Rise of the far right