Opinion UGC’s clamp down on distance education goes against the spirit of NEP2020

UGC’s policy of territorial jurisdiction even for Open and Distance Learning runs contrary to the idea of open learning as the technology on which it rides knows no geographic or political boundaries.

Higher educational institutions (HEI) are required to adhere to the UGC’s policy of territorial jurisdiction even for ODL which on the face of it seems like an oxymoron. (Illustration by CR Sasikumar)

Ashok Thakur

S S Mantha

June 6, 2023 10:53 AM IST First published on: Jun 6, 2023 at 07:45 AM IST

When a reputed institution like Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) is taken head-on by a national regulator (UGC), it cannot but be noticed. Established in 1981, and given university status in 2003 under Deemed to be University (DU) category by the government, the institute ranked 51st amongst the management and ninth among private institutions in the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), 2022. However, an affidavit filed recently in the court by the UGC after an inspection claims that NMIMS started its sub-campuses in five different locations without requisite permissions. Earlier, it claimed that Delhi University was conducting its open and distance learning (ODL) courses in gross violation of the existing rules, and without permission. It gave a notice barring the university from admitting further students to ODL courses for the next three cycles.

At the risk of being charged with “whataboutry”, there are a few questions which need to be answered. Though the UGC’s decision sends a strong message that it will not tolerate violations of its regulations on ODL education, and also reminds students that they should carefully research distance learning or online courses before enrolling, it would have been more credible if this was done through a transparent process which assured that UGC was acting on similar indiscretions by other universities as well. Now that NMIMS has taken the UGC to court, one gathers that such an exercise has been put in motion.

Higher educational institutions (HEI) are required to adhere to the UGC’s policy of territorial jurisdiction even for ODL which on the face of it seems like an oxymoron. It runs contrary to the idea of open learning as the technology on which it rides knows no geographic or political boundaries. To artificially impose restrictions is like trying to stop winds from blowing across the open skies. How does one stop anyone from Delhi registering in Maharashtra? It is, therefore, time to have a re-look at this recommendation made in 2011 by the Madhav Menon Committee.

Institutions, no matter how rule-abiding, will be tempted to break them if the logic is weak. In the past too, this regulation caused several regular universities to lose their learning centres outside their state. Bharathiar University in Coimbatore was forced to discontinue around 450 franchises, 200 of which were located outside Tamil Nadu. Punjab Technical University centres had met a similar fate more than a decade ago.

Any regulatory system that thrives on inspections as a means to deliver on its objectives will suffer from subjectivity, arbitrariness and corruption. For AICTE, the watershed came in 2009 when it introduced complete e-governance resulting in transparency and accountability. UGC too must adopt technology rather than rely on inspections as a primary method of compliance. The inspection teams have often been reduced to a fly swot or a laundromat depending upon whether they want to kill or clear a proposal. Serious academics generally shy away from being part of such teams.

In a country where the number of seats in educational institutions is way short of demand, cutting off on an efficient alternative like ODL will be a major mistake and hurt the nation in the long-term. After all, is it not the responsibility of UGC also to ensure that the country achieves the target of 50 per cent GER by 2035 enshrined in NEP2020? As such funding of higher education by the state has gone down and the traditional brick-and-mortar campuses are too expensive.

Under the graded autonomy scheme of UGC, only institutions with a NAAC score of more than 3.26 on a scale of 4 (A+ grade) are permitted to start ODL courses. Unfortunately, there are not many institutions in that category in the country. In fact, Kerala does not have a single such varsity and consequently cannot run any ODL programmes. ODL remains restricted to a few universities which could lead to monopoly and cartelisation.

Since the DU regulations do not permit the setting up of off-campus centres, institutions like NMIMS which chose the DU route probably find themselves short-changed as many who came later via the state private university route are merrily expanding their network. They also find it galling that IGNOU and Institutions of National Importance (INIs) are not subjected to the same constraints.

On the other hand, nobody can deny that ODL courses are a major source of revenue for universities. Whereas the bigger players go on an expansion spree, adding new campuses, courses, disciplines, starting collaborations and thereby multiplying their incomes manifold, the others find it difficult to keep pace, being shackled by a host of regulatory compliances discussed above. Whereas AICTE allows one or two divisions of 60 students in an institution in an academic year, some institutes and private universities add more than 50 divisions in a particular branch when they see a potential for earning. With each division of almost 100 students, the intake can rise up to 5,000 in a single subject. This renders several neighbouring institutes, especially the rural ones redundant. Also, the low earning disciplines are arbitrarily closed. Although regulators like the AICTE, the Pharmacy Council and the Council of Architecture prohibit technical programmes to be conducted online, many of them conduct these with impunity. Such blatant infringements have to be curbed by the regulators.

Perhaps it’s time to call a spade a spade and revise our rosy notion about “education not for profit”. Even as it is inadvisable to foul the regulators, the money has to come from somewhere. If the state also does not provide resources then the burden has to shift to the students willy-nilly. There are no free lunches on the high table of the Indian HE system. Everything comes at a cost.

Thakur is Former Secretary, Education, Government of India and Mantha former Chairman AICTE