+

Rashtriya Uchchatar ShikshaAbhiyan

Ministry of Human Resource Development

+Context

GER today is 18.8%, target by 2020 is 30%

Access to higher education differs widely across social groups. Backward classes, women and marginalized sections require more support

Quality of the higher education system is mired by poor quality of curriculum, instruction, teacher quality

State Universities cater to about 94% of the students enrolled in higher education. State HE system needs reforms and strengthening

India’s GER over time

+ Growth of universities and colleges in India

+ GER of select countries[1]

*GER for India (15%) corresponds to 2007

[1] The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012, World Economic Forum, UNESCO Institute for Statistics (accessed May 4, 2011)

+ CPI for 374 districts with GER below national average (as of 2001)[1]

[1] Thyagarajan Committee Report on Model Colleges Scheme, 2009

Institutional Density by State]

(1) Refer to Annexure I: States at a Glance

GER by State[1]

23.90%24.50%

20.00%46.60%

39.90%20.30%

41.20%18.70%

18.10%9.00%

14.00%15.70%

19.80%26.60%

11.40%9.10%

10.20%12.80%

12.30%13.70%14.00%

20.50%15.30%

14.70%21.80%

5.90%23.60%

21.60%21.10%

50.30%4.80%

34.40%31.80%

46.70%14.40%

19.40%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%

Jammu & KashmirHimachal Pradesh

PunjabChandigarhUttaranchal

HaryanaDelhi

RajasthanUttar Pradesh

BiharSikkim

Arunachal PradeshNagalandManipurMizoram

TripuraMeghalaya

AssamWest Bengal

JharkhandOrissa

ChattisgarhMadhya Pradesh

GujaratDaman and Diu

Dadra & Nagar HaveliMaharashtra

Andhra PradeshKaranataka

GoaLakshdweep

KeralaTamil Nadu

PondicherryAndaman & Nicobar

TOTAL

[1] Estimated from unit level data contained in CD of NSS 66th Round of Employment and Unemployment by Bino Paul, Labour Market Research Facility, TISS

Enrolment in Public & Private Aided & Private Unaided[1]

[1] Ibid

Students transiting from higher secondary to higher education[1]

[1] Selected Education Statistics, MHRD

Gross Enrollment Ratio across categories[1]

*This data collected by the National Sample Survey Organization uses a different methodology for calculation of GER, the figures above may not be the same at those compiled by MHRD

[1] Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, MHRD Statistics of Higher & Technical Education as on 30th September 2009

GER for Male and Female[1]

[1] Estimated from unit level data contained in CD of NSS 66th Round of Employment and Unemployment by Bino Paul, Labour Market Research Facility, TISS

GER (18-23) and Inter Caste Disparities[1]

[1] ibid

GER among Religious Group[1]

[1] NSSO, 66th Round (2009-10)

GER – Rural v/s Urban

[1] NSSO, 66th Round (2009-10)

Gender Parity across States[1]

[1] Selected Education Statistics, MHRD

PhDs produced[1]

[1] Sunder. S. Higher Education Reforms in India. Yale University. 2010.

Share of World Researchers.[1]

[1] UNESCO Institute for Statistics, as accessed on 24th October, 2012

World publications of selected countries (in 000’s)[1]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

India Brazil Russia China United Kingdom

United States

Japan

2002

2007

[1] Gupta, B.M. & Dhawan, S.M. “Status of India in Science and Technology as reflected in its Publication Output in Scopus International Database -1997-2007”. India: Science & Technology. 2008

Major R&D Investments: Country Share[1]

[1] UNESCO Institute for Statistics as accessed on 24th October 2012

Trends in Publications[1]

1. Changing Trends in Number of Publications b. Trends in Global Share ofPublications

[1] Ibid

Comparison of Citation Impacts of Indian Publications with some Developed Economies[1]

[1] Ibid

Growth of Teaching Staff in Universities and Colleges

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

2354959673

128876193341

263125

411628

816966No

. of U

nive

rsiti

es

Year

Source: MHRD for 1950-51 & 1960-61 and UGC for 1970-71 *Provisional

Student-teacher ratio is selected countries[1]

[1] UNESCO Institute of Statistics as accessed on 24th October, 2012 and MHRD Statistics of Higher and TechnicalEducation in India, as on 30th September 2009

Proportion of Universities and Colleges accredited by NAAC

Expenditure on education as a % of GDP

Expenditure on Higher Education in India (As % of GDP)

3.643.4

3.77 3.85

1.14 1.091.23 1.25

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Expe

nditu

re (a

s %

of G

DP)

Expenditure onEducation (as % of GDP)

Higher Education as %GDP

Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education, MHRD

Government Expenditure on Higher Education in India

05000

1000015000200002500030000

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-200

020

00-2

001

2001

-200

220

02-2

003

RE20

03-2

004

2004

-200

520

05-2

006

2006

- 200

720

07-2

008

2008

-200

920

09-2

010

RE20

10-2

011

BE

Rs. I

n Cr

Year

State Union total

Figure: Government Expenditure on Higher Education in India

Share of Centre and State in Government Expenditure

0

20

40

60

80

10019

90-9

119

91-9

219

92-9

319

93-9

419

94-9

519

95-9

619

96-9

719

97-9

819

98-9

919

99-2

000

2000

-200

120

01-2

002

2002

-200

3 RE

2003

-200

420

04-2

005

2005

-200

620

06-2

007

2007

-200

820

08-2

009

2009

-201

0 RE

2010

-201

1 BE

Per c

ent

Year

State UnionFig: Share of Centre and State in Government Expenditture on Higher

Cost/ Expenditure per Student: 1990-91 to 2009-10

0.00

2000.00

4000.00

6000.00

8000.00

10000.00

12000.00

14000.00

16000.00

18000.0019

90-9

1

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-200

0

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

- 10

Expenditure per Student

Source: INCLUSIVE AND QUALITATIVE EXPANSION OF HIGHER

Plan funds (in crores) for Center and States[1]

2272 4233

34785

1724 3035 53423996 7268

40127

0

50000

IX FYP X FYP XI FYP

Centre

State

Total

[1] Planning Commission, as accessed on 24th October, 2012

Funding (in crores) state vs. central institutions[1]

[1] Annual Report 2010-11, University Grants Commission

Expenditure on Higher Education as a % of GSDP for States[1]

[1] Refer to Annexure I: States at a Glance

Coverage of colleges and universities by UGC

+State University: Governance Problems

University Governance Appointments of major administrative functionaries

Quality of teaching, research

Archaic, long-winding and inefficient internal processes

Political interference in University functioning

Sector governance State/central governments micro-manage University

Interaction with regulatory bodies etc is cumbersome and does not promote expansion of quality institutions

Quality assurance mechanisms are very weak

Financial planning and allocation not linked to performance

+State University: Financing Problems

Severe lack of funds

Lack of holistic planning, grants given on a ad-hoc basis

Funding not linked to performance and does not promote accountability or quality

No linkage between state and central sources of funds

Fees highly regulated, but fee regime neither allows institutions sufficient funds nor protects the most vulnerable students

+State University: Quality Problems

Affiliation related problems Model does not promote quality, divorces teaching from assessment,

reduces accountability for results and does not respond to varied needs of local areas

Encourages universities to multiply affiliated colleges to increase revenue

Increase in administrative workload of University officials

Institutional profile Single-discipline institutions don’t enable cross-cutting teaching to

produce rounded students or cutting edge research Separation of teaching and research through separate undergraduate

and graduate institutions does not promote quality teaching or give students access to research options

Small institutions are not viable as high quality institutions

+Rationale for a New Scheme

Success of SSA and RMSA leading to greater demand for higher education

Majority of students in state sector

Need for expansion, upgradation and quality improvement of higher education system

States not recruiting faculty in adequate numbers

UGC funding restricted to institutions under 12B.

Need for balanced growth of new institutions – spatial and need based planning

Need to rationalize and reform the existing affiliation system

A comprehensive scheme needed to address all these issues holistically

38

+RUSA: Overview

‘Bottom up’ approach

A new centrally sponsored scheme for funding the state universities to achieve the aims of equity, access and excellence

An umbrella scheme that would subsume other existing schemes in the area

The central funding would flow from MHRD through State Councils of higher Education to institutions

Funding on the basis of state plans of higher education - State’s strategy to address equity, access and excellence

Norm based and outcome dependent funding

Precondition of certain academic, administrative and governance reforms for receiving funding under RUSA

Centre-State funding to be in the ratio of 90:10, 75:25 and 65:35

Funding to private aided colleges – 50:50

39

+RUSA: Scope and Principles

Scope All state universities and colleges (Both 12B and 2f and

non-12B and non-2f) from all states and Union Territories

Cover about 316 state universities and 13,024 colleges

Principles Incentivizing and dis-incentivizing Apolitical decision-making Disclosure based governance Autonomy Equity based development Quality and research focus

40

+ Key Components

• Creation of new University and Colleges • Conversion/upgradation of HEIs.• Expansion of courses and disciplines• Research and innovation grants/funds• Creation of Research Universities

• Accreditation agencies• Infrastructural up-gradation of existing institutions • Addressing quality and availability of faculty• Sectoral reforms• Administrative reforms• Academic reforms• Affiliation reforms

41

Approach

42

+

Current system RUSA

Non-12B and non-12f Institutions excluded

Can only fund institutions

Ad-hoc funding

Weak quality assurance mechanisms

Non-12B and non-12f Institutions Included

Can fund through State Councils to facilitate

holistic planning

Norm-based and performance based, competitive funding

Improvement in quality with robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms

Paradigm shift

43

+RUSA:Prerequisites

States State Higher Education

Council State Perspective Plan State funding

commitment – share and timeliness

Filling faculty positions Affiliation and Exam

reforms Accreditation agencies Governance and

administrative reforms

Institutions– Institutional governance

reforms– Academic reforms– Examination reforms– Project Management Teams– Equity Commitments– Commitments on research

and innovation efforts– Faculty recruitment &

improvement– Establishment of MIS– Regulatory compliance

44

+ 45

Incorporation in RUSA

State Plan

Institutional Plan

Planning hierarchy

Perspective plan for all institutional components

Quantum of funding for the states and institution will be based on norms reflecting key outcomes/result areas

• Preceded by a baseline survey• Aggregation of institutional plan• Imposition of super layer of

relevant state level components

+PROCESS DESIGN

STATE PERSPECTIVE PLAN REFLECTING CONCRETE OUTCOMES BROKEN DOWN

INTO ANNUAL PLANS

STATE PLAN + AGGREGATED INSTITUTIONAL PLANS

INSTITUTIONAL PLAN

INSTITUTIONAL PLAN

STATE LEVEL INTERVENTIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PLAN

+ARCHITECTURE OF OUTCOMES

• IMPACT ON GER, GREATER ACCESS AND INCLUSION

• MEASURABLE RESEARCH OUTPUT AND PRODUCTIVITY

• QUALITY TEACHING AND LEARNING

• AUTONOMY + ACCOUNTABILITY + RESPONSIVE GOVERNANCE

GOVERNANCE REFORMS+

INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

FACULTY IMPROVEMENT+

ACADEMIC REFORMS+

AFFILIATION REFORMS

INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADATION +

NEW INSTITUTIONS+

EQUITY INTERVENTIONS

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

FOCUS + ACCREDITATION

48

RUSA:Preparation of State Plans

49

RUSA:Institutional Structure

+State Higher Education Council –suggested model

Chairman

Chief Executive

11 Members

Strategy & Planning

Monitoring & evaluation

Quality Assurance

and academic functions

Advisory functions

Management and

allocation of funds from State and

Center

Regulatory FunctionsFunding

Functions

50

+ 51

RUSA: Norm based funding

Eligibility Filter

• Non-Negotiables

Base Funding

• Student Population (18-23 age group)• Backwardness of State• Performance on Access, Equity and Excellence

index

Competitive Funding

• Score of institutions on all norms

+

52

Thank you