90269 © 2014 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20433 USA Disclaimer This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgement on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax: 202-522-2422, email: pubrights@worldbank.org. Design and Printed by: Macro Graphics Pvt. Ltd. www.macrographics.com CONTENTS Preface v Synthesis Chapter: State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges 1 Introduction 1 Case Studies of Existing State Higher Education Councils in India 2 Observations from Indian Case Studies 3 Lessons from International Case Studies 5 Key Attributes of Effective SHECs 8 Recommendations 10 Annexure I: State Higher Education Councils in India 12 Andhra Pradesh 13 Gujarat 14 Karnataka 15 Kerala 16 Maharashtra 18 Tamil Nadu 19 Uttar Pradesh 20 West Bengal 21 Summary of State Councils for Higher Education in Eight Indian States 23 Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils 30 China – China’s Higher Education Governance since 1978 – Redistribution of Authorities and Duties among Central Government, Local Government, Higher Education Institutions and Public Bodies 30 England – The Development of Higher Education Intermediary Bodies since the 1970s 44 United States – State Higher Education Boards in the United States: Developments and Good Practices 49 Bibliography 54 Contents >> iii PREFACE T his report was prepared by a team led by Kurt Larsen (Senior Education Specialist) and consisting of Toby Linden (Lead Education Specialist) and the expectations of Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA). There is furthermore a compelling need to strengthen the role and as well an Jannette Cheong, Venkatesh Kumar, Aims functions of the existing SHECs as well as building McGuinness, Soumya Mishra and Nick Sanders sound legal frameworks for the new SHECs to (all consultants to the World Bank). The team be established. The report underscores the need would like to express its gratitude to all the eight for developing the skills and competencies of State Higher Education Councils in India, as well staff in order to carry out critical functions such as all their stakeholders who were interviewed as as planning and the use of data/information in part of gathering material for the this report. Their decision-making. The establishment of effective insights and willingness to share information were SHECs is an essential step for accomplishing the instrumental in drafting this report. goals of the RUSA scheme. The draft was reviewed by Prof. Anandakrishnan, Venkatesh Kumar and Soumya Mishra drafted the former Vice-Chancellor of Anna University and chapter on “State Higher Education Councils in former Vice-Chairman of the Tamil Nadu State India” (Annex I). This chapter is based on detailed Council for Higher Education; T.P . Sreenivasan, interviews with all the eight SHECs as well as the Former Ambassador and Vice-Chairman and higher education stakeholders that the Councils are Executive Head of the Kerala State Higher interacting with the analysis of the eight SHECs was Education Council; Professor N.V. Varghese, done until May 2014 and it has not been possible National University of Educational Planning and to take any new developments of the SHECs in to Administration; and Nina Arnold (Senior Education the report since them. Specialist) and Francisco Marmolejo (Tertiary Education Coordinator), both from the World Bank. Lessons from international case studies of higher The team is grateful for all the comments received education councils in China, England and the US which contributed significantly to the improvement that might inspire the Indian states in their effort to of the report. Amit Dar (Education Sector Manager) develop their State Councils, are provided in Annex II. provided overall management support and guidance A research team at Nankai University, with Ru Ning, throughout the process. Renu Gupta provided Chen Bateer, Song Qiurong and Liu Qinghua under excellent administrative support throughout the the guidance of the President of Nankai University, preparation and consultation phase. Gong Ke, wrote the China country case study; Jannette Cheong and Nick Sanders were in charge of This report analyzes the characteristics, main the England country case study and Aims McGuinness functions, as well as the key initiatives and results and Kurt Larsen of the US country case study. of the existing state higher education councils in India. The report reveals a significant gap between Part of the funding for this report was graciously the legal obligations and actual current practices of provided by the United Kingdom’s Department for existing State Higher Education Councils (SHECs) International Development. Preface >> v SYNTHESIS CHAPTER: State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges Introduction The RUSA Scheme is expected to deliver key academic, administrative and governance reforms in the state O ne of the pre-requisites of the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) Scheme requires that states form a State Higher Education higher education system during the 12th and 13th Plans. There are 16 RUSA objectives listed. The 16th is ‘Facilitate the creation of State Higher Education Council (SHEC). This represents a fundamental Councils (SHECs)’. The intent of RUSA is that SHECs change in Indian higher education policy, especially are to play a central role in the delivery of the in recognition of the role of the states as the unit RUSA vision “to attain higher levels of access, equity of planning, and the intent that multiple funding and excellence in the state higher education system streams to states (Central and State) be aligned with greater efficiency, transparency, accountability with the SHEC planning. However, beyond the and responsiveness.” The other 15 are high-level RUSA requirements, the scale and complexity of aspirational policy objectives – each one of which the Indian higher education system require that would most likely be viewed as medium- to long- the states play a more active role in planning and term goals in other countries. coordinating the system. To carry out this more active role, states must have effective State Higher It is foreseen that the SHECs will have the Education Councils. following planning, monitoring and evaluation, Excerpt from RUSA document The formation of SHEC forms the primary block towards building a sound planning and funding mechanism for higher education at state level. Given the number of state universities and the large number of students they cater to, it only makes sense to have state as the unit of planning for higher education. State universities, numerous as they are, cannot be monitored though a central system. Also, Center only has a partial role in funding these institutions while States provide the rest of the funding. The lack of coordination between States and Center produces an information gap that leads to faulty resource planning and allocation. The states have often expressed their need to stay informed regarding central allocations to state institutions. Thus, it is necessary to create SHEC as a body that is at an arm’s length from the state as well as center, synergizes their resources and fulfils these functions of planning, monitoring, quality control and co-ordination at the state level. The SHECs would be responsible for planned and coordinated development of higher education in the State and to foster sharing of resources between universities, benefit from synergy across institutions, lead academic and governance reforms at the institution level, establish principles for funding institutions, maintain a databank on higher education and conduct research and evaluation studies. Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2013 p. 149. SYNTHESIS CHAPTER: State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges >> 1 quality assurance, advisory and funding  Advising universities on statute and functions: ordinance formulation. Strategy and Planning Funding Functions  Preparing the State Higher Education Plan  Disbursing public funds to universities and (Perspective Plan, Annual Plan and Budget colleges on the basis of the State Higher Plan). Education Plan and transparent norm-based  Gathering state institutions’ inputs that will funding methodologies. contribute to the State Higher Education Plan. While the RUSA document lays out some basic expectations of SHECs, it will be the responsibility  Coordination between apex bodies, of state governments to establish their own SHEC, regulatory institutions and government. meeting their own specific needs. Monitoring and Evaluation To provide guidance to states implementing SHECs,  Monitoring the implementation of State this report draws on case studies of eight Indian Higher Education Plans. states with existing SHECs, and case studies of three countries: China, England, and the United States,  Creating and maintaining the Management each of which has had experience of SHECs. Information Systems (MIS).  Compiling and maintaining periodic statistics at state and institutional level. Case Studies of Existing State  Evaluating state institutions on the basis Higher Education Councils of norms and Key Performance Indicators in India (KPIs) developed. Several states have had prior experience with the establishment and operation of SHECs. The Quality Assurance and Academic National Policy on Education, 1986, recommended Functions the creation of SHECs as an intermediary body for  Encouraging and supporting faculty quality better planning and coordination of state higher enhancement. education systems, recognizing the size, scale and complexities of the Indian higher system.  Ensuring the integrity and quality of Following this recommendation, over the years examinations. eight states established SHECs. Seven SHECs (in  Ensuring that quality of curricula are Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, maintained. Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal) were  Promoting innovation in research. established through an Act of the legislature, while the state of Gujarat established its SHEC through  Protecting institutional autonomy of all state an executive order.1 institutions. Recognizing the central role that SHECs are to play  Approving new institutions/colleges. under RUSA, this project reviewed the challenges  Promoting accreditation reforms. facing India’s existing State Higher Education Councils in meeting the role and functions foreseen Advisory Functions  Advising the state government on strategic 1 Different states used various names for their body performing the investments in higher education. role of a state higher education council. 2 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges under RUSA2. The review analyzed the following Strategy and Planning questions: Most SHECs are authorized to carry out functions  What are the characteristics of the existing such as strategic planning including, preparation of councils (legal status, powers, membership, state higher education plans and regular interface record of performance, etc.)? with other regulatory bodies. However, in practice,  To what extent do the existing state councils the existing SHECs have not been involved in any conform to the RUSA requirements? kind of state-wide planning activities, and the direct and highly fragmented funding of institutions by  What lessons can be drawn from the Central and State funding bodies has taken place experience of the existing SHECs in making with little reference to coordinated planning and the transition from the existing state councils needs assessment at the state level. to councils that meet the RUSA requirements, or from the establishment of new state councils that meet these requirements? Monitoring and Evaluation Three states, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and West Observations from Indian Bengal provide for the SHEC to have a role in monitoring and evaluation. There are instances Case Studies in which the SHEC has played a meaningful role. The following section is organized according As examples, the SHEC in Gujarat has adopted to the major functions specified in RUSA. As a the Mission Mode Implementation program to general observation, the case studies reveal a ensure that all the initiatives are well developed, significant gap between the formal (de jure) state planned, implemented and monitored, even if its legal provisions related to SHECs’ functions and Council members have not met on a regular basis. the actual implementation (de facto) of these The planning and implementation of activities, provisions. Several SHECs have been bestowed information collection and dissemination are done with certain formal powers and responsibilities, using this structure. West Bengal has instituted an but in practice they have not exercised their full academic and administrative audit function within authority as can be seen from the summary of the institutions. In general, however, SHECs have not Indian SHEC review findings set out in Table 1. carried out a monitoring and evaluation function of Several of the SHECs have the foreseen RUSA either the higher education system or institutions. powers and functions (“Legal obligations – in One important reason for this is that none of the black”) but they are not applied in practice (“Current SHECs has a robust Management Information Practice – in red”). System (MIS) and the ability to compile and maintain periodic, reliable data, although the state Furthermore, the Council members of the SHECs of Gujarat has this as one of its stated objectives in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat of the Gujarat Knowledge Consortia. The SHECs have seldom met and essentially have not been have furthermore not developed a framework for functioning. Nevertheless, the Secretariats of these evaluation of institutions. There is an absence of Councils have been able to carry out some tasks norms and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to as shown in Annex I. However, the Department of evaluate institutions. Higher Education in Uttar Pradesh has in April 2014 through a Government notification reconstituted Quality Assurance and Academic its SHEC with the appointment of an academic as its Chairman. Functions Several of the SHECs have begun to address 2 For a detailed overview of the eight Indian SHEC case studies, some quality assurance and academic issues. please see Annex I – State Higher Education Councils in India. West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, SYNTHESIS CHAPTER: State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges >> 3 Table 1 Legal and “In Practice” Powers and Functions of State Higher Education Councils Establishment, Powers and Functions of Uttar Pradesh Maharashtra West Bengal State Higher Education Council Tamil Nadu Karnataka Pradesh Gujarat Andhra Kerala Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice Legal Legal Legal Legal Legal Legal Legal Legal Strategy and Planning 1. Preparing the State Higher Education       Plan (Perspective Plan, Annual Plan and Budget Plan) 2. Providing state institutions with inputs for      creating their Plans and implementing them 3. Coordination between apex bodies,          regulatory institutions and government Monitoring and Evaluation 4. Monitoring the implementation of State   Higher Education Plan 5. Creating and maintaining the  Management Information Systems 6. Compiling and maintaining periodic  statistics at state and institutional level 7. Evaluating state institutions on the basis of norms and KPIs developed Quality Assurance and Academic Functions 8. Faculty quality enhancement functions           9. Quality of examinations             10. Maintaining quality of curriculum             11. Promoting innovation in research             12. Protecting autonomy of state institutions       13. Providing approval for setting up of new         institutions/colleges 14. Promoting accreditation reforms     Advisory Functions 15. Advising state government on strategic     investments in higher education 16. Advising universities on statute and       ordinance formulation Funding Functions 17. Disbursing funds to state universities and colleges on the basis of the State Higher Education Plan and transparent norms 4 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges Andhra Pradesh and Kerala have taken some details of the international case studies, certain steps – such as updating of the curriculum, reform fundamental principles emerge as critical to the of examinations, and approvals to set-up new effectiveness of SHECs and which are likely to be institutions. relevant also to India. The Higher Education Funding Council of England Advisory Functions (HEFCE), a non-departmental public intermediary The SHECs’ advisory functions include providing body, functions within a comparatively mature legal inputs to the states through amendments to higher education system. It has operated for more the Acts and legislative formulations, and advising than two decades in its current form, having evolved states on strategic investments to institutions of from previous buffer bodies established early in the higher education. This function is assigned to three 20th century. Much effort from HEFCE and other non- SHECs (Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu). public bodies, such as the Committee for University Only the SHECs in these three states provide Chairs, has focused on strengthening the governance advice and support to institutions on issues such as of the higher education institutions in England. This formulation of statutes and ordinances for better is an example of the strengthening of institutional and effective functioning of the university system. autonomy and accountability running parallel to the Most SHECs seem to undertake work which strengthening of the role of intermediary bodies in largely makes recommendations, or is advisory the UK, and there is a similar trend in other countries. and more in the nature of organizing seminars Bodies such as SHECs in India are also moving in and conferences. this direction in the expectation that it will clarify the responsibility for defining institutional strategies Funding Functions and overseeing their implementation; for ensuring the effectiveness of institutional systems and for States have not empowered the existing SHECs benchmarking institutional performance. A number of with any significant funding allocation authority. other not-for-profit independent bodies in the UK link One reason the SHECs have not played a more to, or are independent of, the funding bodies, fulfill a significant role is that funding bodies (both Central range of other quality assurance, quality enhancement e.g. the University Grants Commission [UGC], and and higher education Information Technology (IT) State) allocate funding directly to institutions without management services and development functions. All any references to SHECs. Sometimes, the rules and of the functions carried out by several intermediary regulations of the funding bodies prevent them from bodies are key to improving outcomes of teaching channeling funds through State Councils since they and research and overall institutional development. are mandated to deal directly with institutions. In contrast, in India such functions all come under the In the case of West Bengal, its State Council has umbrella of the SHECs. been empowered to distribute limited resources through the West Bengal State Higher Education The SHECs in China are emerging in a dynamic, Council Fund and not as a basis of a state Higher rapidly developing system in which the role Education Plan. and functions of the Central government are increasingly being decentralized to the Provinces and Municipalities, as well as to the universities. Lessons from International Chinese higher education, at both the systems Case Studies and institutional level, has benefited greatly from the tremendous political, economic, social and SHECs in case study countries technological reforms and development in China, The governance structure and context of SHECs since 1978. Over this period, there is a significant in China, England, and the United States, differ shift from a highly centralized system to an significantly from India. However, beyond the increasingly dispersed model. National government SYNTHESIS CHAPTER: State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges >> 5 is still the ultimate authority for public institutions, Strategy and Planning though the current Chinese higher education reform has entered a new stage of comprehensive The first task for the SHECs in India is to draw reform,3 where the aim is to focus on administrative up State Higher Education Plans, in consultation systems reform, pointing out a need to “transform with the institutions and other stakeholders. government education administrative functions,” International experience, from the USA states in and “improve the contribution from intermediary particular, suggests that doing that well demands bodies and other education organizations, in expertise in assessing national and regional needs, respect of funding, monitoring and higher education setting targets, in assessing existing progress, in industry self-regulation systems.” resource allocation and in challenging assumptions about the adequacy of implementation The SHECs at the state-level in the United States arrangements, if the plan is to be more than evolved primarily over the last half of the 20th century just a list of aspirations converted into unrealistic in response to a demand for more systematic spending requests. development of higher education systems. The United States is a federal system in which both Indian SHECs will need to consider urgently what the federal government and states provide expertise they have available to them to provide funding for the higher education system. The the professional analytical services needed to establishment and functions of SHECs have been support effective strategic planning. influenced over the years by federal requirements that states establish planning commissions as a Monitoring and Evaluation prerequisite for receiving federal funding. The US, therefore, provides an interesting case of The international cases underscore the priority of not only the powers, functions and effectiveness newly established SHECs to work with partners to of SHECs, but also of the interaction between establish Management Information Systems (MIS). Central requirements and existing state-level These are needed to provide the essential data structures, cultures and practices. The US case for not only the analysis of need for the strategic also illustrates the challenges that states face in planning, but also for monitoring progress sustaining effective SHECs in the face of political in delivering the plans and reporting on the pressures, resistance to change from the higher performance and impact of the higher education education community, and realities. sector. This demands specialist expertise to setup the systems needed for data and statistical analysis over the long term. International experience from The task of developing State Higher Education both the USA and England shows what significant Plans demands expertise in assessing national and impact strong, reliable and auditable management regional needs, setting targets, in assessing existing information can have, and how it can support all of progress, in resource allocation and in challenging the functions of an “arm’s-length” body. assumptions about the adequacy of implementation arrangements. The SHEC will have a significant task in monitoring the State Plan in its final form. That will require expertise in financial management and The following are observations based on a monitoring, and in overseeing the arrangements comparison of key characteristics of effective SHECs for securing timely delivery of projects, and in in the case study countries and the findings from the achieving value for money from the investments. Indian case studies. And, if SHECs undertake funding allocation responsibilities, they will also require experience in 3 Conspectus of National Medium and Long-term Education Reform developing, monitoring and implementing funding and Development (2010-2020). methodologies. 6 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges for accreditation (of institutions and programs) India might consider the option of phasing in the and inspection, for example. implementation of quality assurance and academic functions and to investing further in staff with the expertise to carry them out. Another option is to Advisory Functions delegate responsibility for some of these functions to an The higher education entities in the US and independent body as is typically the case for accreditation England have responsibilities to advise both the (of institutions and programs) and inspection. government as well as institutions. For example, the state councils in the US advise governments Experience from the USA and England shows on long-term strategic plans, budget and finance the value of setting up small and highly expert policy, and other critical issues facing the state. teams to support the Council across each of these At the same time, these state councils have a planning, monitoring and evaluation functions. responsibility to provide guidance to institutions The leadership of each of those teams is crucially on the development of internal planning and important, not only to ensure proper planning, management capacity. Similarly, the Higher delivery, implementation and evaluation of Education Funding Council (HEFCE) in England services, but also to recruit, select and develop the have responsibilities to advise Government as well professional teams that are needed to carry out as to provide guidance and support to institutions this work. on developing effective governance and essential internal planning and management functions. Quality Assurance and Academic Functions In the Indian case, establishing new funding arrangements on such a demanding scale as RUSA, SHECs will also have key roles in quality assurance, requires investment in expertise at the Council research and innovation as well as accreditation level. But it is vital that the necessary expertise reforms. International experience suggests that one also exists at institutional level, especially as those option is to phase in their full range of functions, institutions move towards greater autonomy and and to invest further in staff with the expertise internal decentralization of functions, and that there to carry them out. State governments may also are clear systems of accountability established. consider whether it is appropriate and/or desirable The development of institutional development for such functions to be directly undertaken by the plans as foreseen in RUSA are the essential raw SHECs or, as is the case in many countries, this is material for state plans; and SHECs will need to a function delegated to a related, but at the same satisfy themselves that institutions build up their time, independent body – this is typically the case own planning, implementation and monitoring capacities and capabilities, driven by strong leadership and supported by good governance. The implementation of the RUSA reforms will Supporting the needs of individual institutions (as require investment in expertise at both the state and identified by their institutional development plans) institutional levels. For example, the development of institutional development plans as foreseen in RUSA are the essential raw material for state plans, and SHECs will need to satisfy themselves that institutions To have the confidence of state governmental build up their own planning, implementation and officials and agencies, state councils must have the monitoring capacities and capabilities, driven by staff expertise and competence to carry out funding strong leadership and supported by good governance. responsibilities. Ensuring objectivity and validity in There is a need for both bottom up and top down funding methodologies is a critical responsibility of planning and implementation considerations. most state councils. SYNTHESIS CHAPTER: State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges >> 7 with the wider needs of the sector and regional and what that degree of independence will mean development may also demand both bottom- in practice. The US case, for example, illustrates that up and top-down planning and implementation maintaining an “arms-length-relationship” requires considerations. maintaining a delicate balance between public and institutional perspectives. To be effective, SHECs must have a degree of independence from the Funding Functions state’s political leadership and state administrative The international cases make it clear that in order agencies. Nevertheless, the SHECs must at the to have the confidence of state governmental same time be recognized by the state leaders as a officials and agencies, state councils must have the trusted source of objective analysis and advice from staff expertise and competence to carry out funding a public interest perspective. SHECs that are seen responsibilities. Ensuring objectivity and validity in as tied too closely to institutional/academic interests funding methodologies is a critical responsibility of often have no credibility with public officials. At most state councils. the same time, SHECs that are too closely tied to The Indian case studies reveal that none of the existing state councils play a significant role None of the SHECs fully meets good international related to funding functions as defined under practice regarding an “arms-length” relationship RUSA. Even though RUSA sets forth limited, with state political leadership and state government defined responsibilities for the SHECs related to administrative entities. funding, the SHECs’ capacity to carry out these responsibilities will be critical to the integrity of political leaders will not have the trust and credibility the resource allocation process and the ultimate to work effectively with universities and colleges. credibility and success of RUSA. The England and US cases illustrate the inevitable tension between any “arm’s length” body and its Key Attributes of Effective funding sponsors. These tensions are made more complex in a federal system with funding from two SHECs levels. The precise degree of autonomy, and the In addition to the observations related to the matching accountabilities, can with advantage be functions, the international cases point to key spelt out not only in legislation but also in operational attributes of effective SHECs that operate with protocols when the Council is established, these will integrity and carry the public’s trust. include the importance of processes such as proper consultation with stakeholders when new policies and practices are introduced. Members of the Independence Council need to be clear about their own role and The RUSA Scheme makes it clear that SHECs should their personal accountabilities. Staff working for be “at an arm’s length” from both State and Central the Council need equally to be clear about their Governments. The international case studies own roles and their own accountabilities. underscore a first essential that all concerned must be clear about how to define that independence Experience from all three of the international country studies shows just how challenging it is to get the balance “right” between establishing A challenge states face is to get the balance “right” high-level national strategies and giving “arm’s between establishing high-level national strategies length” bodies the autonomy necessary to carry and giving “arm’s-length” bodies the autonomy out their different functions. China’s experience necessary to carry out their different functions. is especially interesting in that the process of Maintaining a delicate balance between public and gradual decentralization of powers and functions institutional perspectives is also important. from the central level to provincial and municipal 8 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges level as well as to the institutional level is still in integrity of appointments and the independence of transition. The US case illustrates the difficulties in the SHECs through such appointments. sustaining an appropriate balance in relationships over time and the need for periodic evaluation and adjustments to ensure continuing independence. Skills and Competences Crucially, the more autonomous the institution the of Professional Staff more the nature and impact of such relationships New SHECs need a clear set of priorities and a hinge on key drivers; such as the level of public clear plan on how they will deliver them. The staff funding available or the likely reputational gain or supporting the Councils need to have the necessary loss. Greater institutional autonomy also results in skills, competences and experience to make that a need for leadership to transfer from the state to delivery possible; and, especially in a complex institutions operating in an increasingly competitive federal system such as India’s, and with a plan as market. It is this competitiveness that invariably extensive and demanding as RUSA. The importance drives innovation and improved performance. And of professional staff with appropriate job and person this is where striking a balance between institutional specifications is emphasized at several points above, gains over public services becomes a challenge for in relationship to each of the functions. all countries.4 The case studies of Indian states suggest that The staff supporting the Councils need to have the none of the SHECs fully meets good international necessary skills, competences and experience to practices regarding an “arms-length” relationship make that delivery possible; and, especially in a with state political leadership and state government complex federal system such as India’s, and with a administrative entities. The SHECs in Gujarat, plan as extensive and demanding as RUSA. Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh are headed by either the Minister in- charge of Higher Education or by the Chief Minister. Internal Management of the SHEC In West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh, the SHECs are headed by academics. In the states where state Experience from the USA and England demonstrates officials now are in leadership roles, steps may the value of bodies like SHECs having detailed be needed to ensure increased independence as annual management plans for their own activities, required by RUSA. At the same time, in states where so that they have a clear set of development targets the SHECs are led by academics, changes may be for their own work and can consult institutions needed to ensure that the SHECs have credibility on and give them timely notice about changes with state officials as independent entities focused on in regulations. The experience equally shows the the public rather than special institutional interests. value of investing in modern program and project Furthermore, there is no established process of management techniques. selecting the chairperson and other members of the SHEC. For example, candidates could be drawn from SHECs should have detailed annual management a pool representing the key categories specified by plans for their own activities, so that they have a RUSA and vetted in terms of qualifications to serve. clear set of development targets for their own work These gaps raise concerns about the manner and and can consult institutions on and give them timely notice about changes in regulations. 4 ‘The challenge for governments is to ensure that increasingly autonomous and market-driven institutions respond to public interest agendas, at the national and regional levels, while also taking a greater responsibility for their own financial sustainability. The challenge for institutions is to manage a more complex Transparency portfolio of aims and funding; to differentiate themselves in an increasingly competitive environment; and to protect and maintain International experience demonstrates the value academic quality and their ability to deliver over the long term’ of transparency in the way in which “arm’s-length” OECD (2004). On the Edge - Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education bodies reach decisions, especially on resource SYNTHESIS CHAPTER: State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges >> 9  State governments should establish An essential prerequisite for an effective SHEC is SHECs by Legislative Act through transparency in the way in which the “arm’s-length” which the SHEC’s powers, authority, entity reaches decisions, especially on resource membership (composition and modes allocation, extensive consultation with institutions and other stakeholders, and especially in the of appointment), and relationships to governance of the SHEC itself. key state governmental entities and institutions are clearly defined. Clarity of roles and responsibilities will be critical allocation, extensive consultation with institutions to the successful implementation of and other stakeholders, and especially in the SHECs and the RUSA reforms as a whole. governance of the SHECs themselves. States should recognize the importance of a sound legal foundation for SHECs to The Indian case studies reveal that information serve the needs of the state from a broader disclosure by most SHECs such as agenda and perspective than the specific requirements decisions taken at their meetings is not a common to be eligible for RUSA funding. practice. Furthermore, only a few SHECs (e.g., Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Kerala) have  The RUSA Mission Authority should functional and updated websites, and most others insist that states abide by the core RUSA are still struggling to put basic information in the requirements regarding: public domain.  The “arms-length” relationship to state government. Impact Assessment  Integrity of the membership processes and procedures for both recruitment For the effective and transparent functioning of SHECs, and selection. it is important to do a periodic impact assessment of them in order that an informed decision can be Allowing states to participate in RUSA without taken on whether the Councils have performed meeting a minimum of core requirements will their stated roles and objectives. These assessments undermine the integrity and long-term impact of have not taken place. As illustrated by the US case, the RUSA reforms: maintaining effective state higher education entities over time requires continuing attention to ensuring  Both the central and state level governments independence and the skills and competences should recognize the need for phased necessary to carry out core responsibilities. implementation of SHECs: Developing this capacity will be important for the  Identify the key capacities that must SHEC’s long-term success and impact. be in place within the first year, second year and subsequent years of SHECs should undertake a periodic assessment of implementation. their impact in order that an informed decision can  Consider assigning some functions be taken on whether the Councils have performed such as quality assurance to other their stated roles and objectives. independent entities in order to allow the SHECs to concentrate on strategy and planning, and other critical functions in Recommendations the first years of operation. Taking into consideration the Indian and  As emphasized above, do not compromise international case studies, the Ministry of Human on fundamental requirements regarding Resource Development and the state governments “arms-length relationships” and clear may wish to pay attention to the following: roles and responsibilities. 10 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges  Focus on capacity-development for the  Invest in professional staff of both existing professional staff of SHECs in several and newly established SHECs. This could critical areas: include:  State planning: capacity to formulate,  Professional development workshops/ monitor and evaluate State Higher seminars on issues such as those listed Education Plans as specified by the above. RUSA requirement.  Networks among professional staff in  MIS development: developing the state- specific areas of expertise (e.g., state level data/information and analytic planning). capacity essential for state planning,  Opportunities for professional monitoring and evaluation. development/information gathering  Funding/resource allocation, and sharing visits to learn from national monitoring and evaluation: carrying and international experience in the out the coordinated/integrated establishment and operation of SHECs. funding requirements of RUSA  A national-level association of SHECs as in relationship to central funding a means for sharing best practices and agencies, state government, and providing for professional development institutions. opportunities for SHEC staffs. SYNTHESIS CHAPTER: State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges >> 11 ANNEXURE I: State Higher Education Councils in India The National Policy on Education 1986 recommended Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, that state level planning and coordination of Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal) were Higher Education would be done through a State established through an Act of the Legislature, while Council of higher education. The Council would the state of Gujarat established their SHEC through act as a link between the universities and colleges an executive order.6 and the state governments and work closely with the UGC in view of its statutory responsibility for Recognizing the central role that SHECs are to the maintenance and coordination of standards of play under RUSA, these eight SHECs are reviewed higher education at the national level.5 The UGC in the following sections, in terms of the structure, had in 1988 constituted a Committee to prepare functions, initiatives and results. A research team the guidelines for the establishment of such State carried out detailed interviews of all the eight Councils. It suggested that the Council would SHECs (both the Council Secretariat and individual consist of 10-13 members of which the chairman Council members) as well as the higher education would be a full-time position for maximum stakeholders that the Council is interacting with 5 years and the majority of members would have (e.g. Vice-Chancellors, Principals, Members of an academic background, and with representatives the Senate, key Functionaries at the Department from UGC, the Ministry of Education or Higher of Higher Education, etc.). The review covered the Education and the Ministry of Finance. The powers following questions: and functions of the Council would include  What are the characteristics of the existing planning and coordination, academic and advisory Councils (legal status, powers, size, functions, as well as administrative functions such membership, etc.)? as administering and releasing grant-in-aid from the state government to universities and colleges in  What are the main functions of the SHEC the state. As we will see in the following sections, in interaction with the state government and these guidelines were followed very differently in the higher education institutions? the states that chose to establish SHEC and all of  What are the key initiatives taken by the them decided to have significantly more members SHEC and what results were obtained? in the Board and that the Chair would be either the Minister of Higher Education or the Chief Minister. The following sections give an overview of the structure, functions, initiatives and Following these recommendations, eight states have results of the eight SHECs. More details established SHECs over the years. Seven SHECs (in 5 UGC (1988). Report of the Committee on Setting up State Council 6 Different states used various names for their body performing the of Higher Education. role of a state higher education council. 12 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges can furthermore be found in the Annexure, Functions on the structure, member qualification as well as powers and responsibilities of the eight SHECs. The APSCHE is acting as the regulator of all the private affiliated colleges (including engineering colleges and polytechnic colleges) besides all Andhra Pradesh affiliating state public university systems. The state universities and colleges as well as the private Structure universities are under the jurisdiction of State Higher The Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education Department. The Act provides for a wide Education (APSCHE7) is the oldest SHEC and range of planning, monitoring and academic was established in 1986-87, through an Act functions for the Council, including the creation of of the state legislature, as a direct result of the a Higher Education Perspective Plan for the state, recommendations of the National Education Policy. setting out principles for creation of new institutions, The Council consists of fourteen members. Eminent raising additional resources for the higher education academics are appointed by the state as Chairman sector, curricular development, teacher training etc. and Vice Chairman. There are four ex-officio However, it does not confer any financial powers on members of the council representing state and the Council. While the Council has been bestowed central departments and bodies. The government with planning and coordination, academic and appoints eight other members from amongst advisory functions, the Council’s performance is eminent educationists, industry representatives and closely scrutinized by the government. technical experts (detailed composition, powers and functions are appended in the attached Annexure I). In reality however, most of the functions such The Chairman and Vice-Chairman are the main as planning for the higher education sector are functionaries engaged in the daily management of undertaken by the government instead of the Council. the Council. They are hired full-time and receive Currently, the Council largely has an advisory role a salary. The Council benefits from its permanent in determining the amount of block grants to be secretarial staff, as it maintains the institutional disbursed and supporting new institutions, even if memory, and from the experience of the Chairman the Council according to its Act is supposed to have and Vice Chairman in the state university system. strategic planning functions as well. In practice, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of The Council can, however, liaise between the APSCHE have been academics, which is specified government and institutions in some matters. For in the Act as from among eminent educationists, instance, till 2004, it did not interact between the though the Act does not describe a process of state and institutions on financial matters. However, appointment leaving it to the government. Likewise, in 2004, the Council felt it necessary to pay attention all other ex-officio members (officials representing to the constant complaint of institutions regarding various government departments) and other the insufficiency of block grants given by the members (representatives from academia, industry government and set up a High Powered Committee and technical experts) are appointees of the to ascertain their needs. The Council successfully government. The power to remove them (except ex- lobbied with the state to get a substantial increase of officio) also rests with the government. Furthermore, almost 80% in the block grants to the institutions. the relationship and division of responsibilities between the state government and the Council is not elaborated in the Act, neither are the parameters Initiatives and Results for monitoring the performance of the Council. The Council is engaged in a large range of activities. The Council’s role includes conducting common 7 More information on APSCHE can be found on admission tests for undergraduate and graduate http://www.apsche.org/ admissions, forming oversight committees on Annexure I: State Higher Education Councils in India >> 13 affiliation by sending inspection teams to colleges, The Consortium is a loosely structured organization creating common statutes and ordinances for all with a wide range of representation but very few types of universities, and standardizing regulations post-holders with clear responsibilities. The large and developing guidelines for PhDs. The Council also and unwieldy structure raises questions about plans to develop mechanisms for greater financial the effectiveness of the decision-making and transparency in universities and colleges and to link implementation processes adopted by this body. financial incentives to academic performance. As It is also not clear on the number of meetings the part of its future priorities, it seeks to increase block Advisory Committee has had since its inception, as grants for institutions further and to address the both the agenda and minutes of the meetings are shortage of faculty that is plaguing many institutions not in public domain. in the state. Most of these initiatives are essentially stand-alone activities prompted by urgent problems Functions that needed to be addressed; they are rarely part of a coherent and long-term approach towards The Knowledge Consortium lays out five main areas improving the higher education system in the state. of its activities, namely:  Education: pushing academic reforms such Gujarat as implementation of semester system, choice-based credit system, grading and Structure continuous comprehensive evaluation. Gujarat has a body for coordination and quality  Research and Innovation: promotion improvement initiatives in higher education entitled of research through programs such as the Gujarat Knowledge Consortium.8 Though not training faculty in proposal writing, similar to the State Higher Education Councils in networking among research institutions, other states in terms of legal structure and functions, reforming libraries, publishing print and the Gujarat Knowledge Consortium is the main body e-journals etc. apart from the State Higher Education Department that is involved in all higher education activities.  Extension: Increasing the use of information technology in institutions, programs to The Knowledge Consortium has been established increase employability of students through by the Higher Education Department through an industry partnerships etc. Executive Order as a body that mainly takes steps to  Quality Assurance: Helping institutions advance higher education in the state. The Advisory conduct Academic and Administrative Audit Committee is a 49 member body consisting of (AAA) and promoting NAAC accreditation. representatives from Universities, expert members from education and reputed national institutions of  Training & Capability-Building: Conducting Gujarat. The Consortium is headed by the Minister capacity-building training courses for of Education (Chairman) and the Vice Chairman administrative and teaching staff at the (Advisor to Minister of Education). The Consortium higher education institutions. also has representation of the Vice Chancellors of 22 universities, Heads of Specialized Universities, Initiatives and Results Institutes of National Importance and research institutions (located in Gujarat). It also includes The Consortium has adopted the Mission Mode representation from the industry through Presidents Implementation (MMI) program for ensuring that of seven industrial/commercial associations from all the initiatives are well developed, planned, the state. implemented and monitored. MMI follows an 8 More information on the Gujarat Knowledge Consortium can be interesting implementation structure; the smallest found on http://kcg.gujarat.gov.in units are the 1032 colleges in the state, which are 14 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges combined into 286 clusters. The clusters form 57 Furthermore, the timelines for achieving the higher education districts, which again are clubbed anticipated results is not mentioned, neither is an into 5 zones. The planning and implementation of account of the activities of the Consortium available activities, information collection and decimation is publicly. There is thus little indication whether the done using this structure. above initiatives actually have been or are about to be implemented. The Knowledge Consortium mentions on its web- site a wide range of activities with a fair degree of structure in terms of rationale, strategies and plans Karnataka of implementation: Structure  Choice Based Credit System for universities The Government of Karnataka established and colleges. the Karnataka State Higher Education Council9  Information & Communication Technology on 15th July 2009 through an Executive Order. Project to promote e-content development. The State Council is constituted by the state government which consists of 14 ex-officio  Knowledge Management Programme for members, all Vice Chancellors of State Universities, Faculty to enhance the Quality of Faculty. 10 academicians of repute as members, besides an Executive Director as the Member Secretary  UDISHA: Increase employability through and an eminent educationist as Vice Chairman suitable training, increase placement and the Minister in-charge of Higher Education as opportunities for students and help bridge Chairman. the skill gap in the job market.  SANDHAN (Broadcast of lectures by experts The Executive Order was subsequently converted from across the state on specified topics, into an Act that came into effect from August 2010. which will be viewed live by students) – to The Act had three principle functionaries – the leverage the use of and widen ICT and its Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Executive Director access in Education. apart from other members.10 The procedure regarding these appointments has not been  Saptdhara: Holistic development of faculty specified in the Act. The Executive Director of the and students by nurturing their talents. Council should be a serving or retired administrative  UGC Schemes: To create awareness among officer, also appointed by the state government. colleges and faculties about the range of The Executive Director is in charge of coordinating provisions that fall under UGC Schemes the functions of the Council and has supporting for promoting quality in education and staff. A smaller executive committee consisting research. of ten members is empowered to take decisions and deal with administrative matters, subject to Based on the findings of the interviews with multiple ratification by the Council. The remaining members stakeholders, it was found that the Knowledge are not closely involved in the daily functioning of Consortium is merely a body to perform certain the Council. As per the Act, the Council will meet activities which ideally should be performed by as often as understood necessary. But it has to either the State HE department or by the institutions definitely meet twice a year. themselves. There seems to be a clear lack of clarity and understanding of the role that is expected of the Consortium. Therefore, there is a strong case for Gujarat Knowledge Consortium to revisit some 9 More information on the Karnataka State Higher Education Council of its aims and objectives which are at variance with can be found on http://kshec.ac.in the proposed objectives of the State HE Council. 10 Detailed composition is appended in the Annexure. Annexure I: State Higher Education Councils in India >> 15 Functions The Council has also been actively engaged in dissemination of information related to its activities The broad objectives of the Council are: through publication of newsletters and a user-friendly  Promoting academic excellence and social website which is also periodically updated. The justice by obtaining academic inputs Council has held meetings at least twice a year and for policy formulation and perspective has also produced three annual reports. These annual planning. reports highlight the key discussions in meetings of the Councils, decisions arrived and actions taken.  Ensuring the autonomy and accountability of all higher education institutions of higher The Council has created a Vision 2020 document education in the state as well as coordination in order to guide its future activities. The vision between them. document is a road map for the State Council as  Guiding harmonious growth of higher to what it should ideally be undertaking in the next education in accordance with the socio- 10 years. However, the corresponding actions taken economic requirements of the state. by the Council and/or the State Higher Education Department are not completely clear. The Act provides for a wide range of functions for the Council, including planning for the sector, taking Kerala steps for improvement of quality of higher education in the state and any other functions as may be Structure deemed necessary by the state. The Act gives the The first attempt to constitute a State Council of Council power to advise the state government on Higher Education in Kerala was made in 2000, when fund allocation to institutions and develop guidelines a Council was set up through an Executive Order. for the same. The Council does, however, not have In 2003, a Chapter on State Council of Higher any financial allocation powers to the institutions. Education was included in the Unified Universities The Act is structured such that it leaves a large Bill presented in the State Assembly. But the Bill was scope for the Council to take initiatives, yet it does not enacted. The government organized a one- not clearly identify any key deliverables, guidelines day workshop in 2005, involving vice-chancellors, for its performance assessment or separate the academics and administrators. On the basis of the functions which should be taken by the state and discussions held at the workshop, a draft Ordinance which by the Council. was prepared. The draft Ordinance was later replaced by a draft Bill. But this Bill was also not Initiatives and Results enacted. The issue was again taken up in 2006, by setting up a Higher Education Commission under In a little over the last four years of its existence, the the chairmanship of Dr. K.N. Panikkar for making Council has engaged in a number of activities such recommendations to the government for constituting as a proposal for creating a new state university a Higher Education Council. by including some areas under the jurisdiction of Bangalore University, conducting national and state On the basis of the recommendations submitted by level seminars on higher education, curriculum the Commission, the Kerala State Higher Education development, seminars and conferences on key Council Ordinance 2006 was promulgated and areas of higher education etc. The Council has the Council was set up on 16th March 2007. The given its opinion on acceptance of statutes and Ordinance was later replaced by the Kerala State regulations of the universities referred to it by the Higher Education Council Act 2007 (Act 22 of government, submitted preliminary reports in 2007)11 with no changes whatsoever. proposals for establishment of private universities, and recommended a draft proposal for establishing 11 More information on the Kerala State Higher Education Council is a faculty training academy. available on the following web-site http://www.kshec.kerala.gov.in/ 16 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges The Council has three distinct bodies: Executive Council. The State Council is appointed for a period of four years. All the three Councils  Advisory Council – an umbrella body are reconstituted every three years, including the which meets once a year and seeks to be Executive Council and the Secretariat that looks after highly democratic in nature through its the daily administration of the Council. This break composition. It has thirty-three members, in the tenure of all appointees limits the institutional headed by the Chief Minister of the state. memory of the Council and disrupts the continuity It includes nominees of state government and direction of its activities. from various academic and social fields. Governing Council: an intermediate body  Functions with the responsibility of taking major policy decisions. It is headed by the Minister for The broad aim of the Council is to bring about Higher Education and consists of twenty- synergetic relationships amongst government, one members (eight ex-officio and others academia, public intellectuals and people nominated by the government, as well as representatives by occupying an operational the Vice Chancellors of all institutions in the space between government and universities, and state. government and apex regulatory bodies to pursue the following objectives:  Executive Council: the smallest body of the three – is mandated to take care of  Provide academic input to the government the day-to-day functions after taking the and to the Universities, research institutions concurrence of the Governing Council on and other centers of higher education all matters which has policy implications. in the state for the formulation and It is headed by a Vice Chairman, an implementation of the policies on higher eminent educationist (preferably a former education and evolve a perspective plan for Vice Chancellor) appointed by the state the development of higher education. government. The other members include  Undertake human resources development one nominated by the state government, planning for the state and plan the growth Vice Chancellor, five educationists and development of higher education in appointed by the state and the Secretary, accordance with such planning. Higher Education Department.  Review existing guidelines and furnish The first two bodies have many members and recommendations for regulating admissions provide for a lot of representation from various to various courses and for appointments stakeholders. However, this tends to make them slow to the posts of teachers and teacher- and inefficient decision-making bodies that lack administrators in Universities, colleges and focus and unity of purpose. The State Council is not other institutions of higher education. insulated from the interference of political executive  Evolve general guidelines for the release of or the bureaucracy, the lack of a mechanism to grants by the government to Universities and make apolitical appointments can hamper the other institutions of higher education and to functioning of the Council. advise the government about the release of such grants to each university and other In practice, the Executive Council and the Vice institutions of higher education. Chairman are the chief actors in the State Council, as they work full-time for the Council throughout  Review periodically the Statutes, Ordinances their tenure. In practice, the Vice Chairman and and Regulations of the Universities the Member Secretary are the chief actors in in the state and suggest appropriate the State Council who are also members of the improvements for the realization of the Annexure I: State Higher Education Councils in India >> 17 objectives of social justice and academic Maharashtra excellence in education, and suggest the framework for new Statutes, Ordinances, Structure or Regulations for existing universities or The Maharashtra State Council for Higher Education other institutions of higher education or was set up as a sequel to the Maharashtra University new universities or other institutions of Act 1994. The State Council was created to be largely higher education. an advisory body. The composition and powers and functions of the State Council are detailed in the According to the Act, the State Council has a legal attached Annexure. The Council suffers from structural framework that enables it to take a broad range of deficiencies due to the fact that it is largely composed activities. of the political leadership and bureaucracy in higher education, with little representation for academics. Initiatives and Results Despite an explicit requirement of meeting at least The functioning of Kerala State Council for Higher twice a year, as per the Maharashtra University Act Education over the last six years has demonstrated 1994,12 the Council for Higher Education has not that it has been proactive in addressing some of had a single meeting since its formation, making it the important challenges facing higher education to be a dysfunctional body.13 in the state. The State Council has appointed In 2010, the Government of Maharashtra with several committees to carry forward the task a view to carrying forward the governance of bringing about large-scale changes to the reforms initiated in 2008 by the then Governor state higher education sector. It has brought out of Maharashtra, decided to set up a committee several reports namely: ‘Report on Kerala State to restructure and revitalize higher education in Higher Education Policy’, ‘Report on Kerala State Maharashtra. Consequently, a committee under the Assessment and Accreditation Council’, ‘Report on chairmanship of Dr. Anil Kakodkar was set up. One Industry and Academia Linkages’, which all have of the key recommendations of the committee was been submitted to the government for necessary to set up a State Commission for Higher Education policy intervention which is the prerogative of the and Development (which in effect seeks to replace government. In addition its report on ‘Choice- the existing State Council). The committees report based Credit and Semester System’, ‘Report on justifying the formation of such a body, states, Autonomy of Colleges in Kerala’ and ‘Report “Maharashtra Higher Education and Development on State Faculty Training Academy’ have been (MAHED) Agency shall be the body that would create submitted, approved by the government and a synergy between various stakeholders namely the action is now being taken to implement the state government, public and private universities, recommendations of committees. In addition, private skill education providers and industries. two significant reports reviewing the University MAHED would be reporting its activities and outcomes Acts and creation of cluster colleges have been to its apex advisory cum supervisory council and would drafted. draw upon expert advice given by the academic and development council.” While it is noteworthy to see the substantial achievements made by the State Council in The new agency that is proposed to be set up a short period of six years – which has been replacing the old one – (though no decision has possible due to the active support, cooperation been taken yet) – seems to be a better structure and responsiveness of the state government, the with well-defined powers and functions, since Council still lacks to apply all the powers conferred upon it as it is unclear to which extent the Council’s 12 Maharashtra University Act 1994, page 63, clause-5. recommendations are being followed up and 13 Kumar, Venkatesh B (2010). Implementation of the Maharashtra Universities Act. Economic & Political Weekly October 23, 2010 vol eventually implemented. xlv no 43. 18 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges it addresses larger questions of planning, Tamil Nadu monitoring, quality control and coordination of higher education at the state level, which is absent Structure in the existing State Council. The Government of Tamil Nadu decided to establish a State Council for Higher Education14 and it Functions came to being through an Act in 1992. The State The following functions and powers were foreseen Council is headed by the Minister of Education and in the Act: is composed of several representatives from the government as well as university Vice Chancellors and academics – all appointed-by the government. Planning and Coordination The current membership composition of the Council  Prepare programs in the various subjects in accords a greater representation to the state the sphere of higher education, keeping in government bureaucrats than representatives from view the overall priorities, perspective and academia. In order to have a constant and better needs of the society, and expectations from continuing interaction between the State Council higher education. and the Vice Chancellors, an Advisory Board of Vice Chancellors evolved (there is no mention in the act to  Consider and approve the developmental create a forum for Vice Chancellors to give informed program of the universities. inputs to the state council) was established in 1993, which can make suggestions and recommendations Advisory Functions to the Council for its consideration. The criteria  Advise the state government in respect of applied for the appointments and removal of State determining and maintaining uniformity of Council members are at the discretion of the state standards of education in the universities. government and do not seem to be completely transparent in the Act.  Recommend to the state government and to the universities the steps that may be taken to remove the regional imbalance, and to make Functions higher education available to backward The Act bestows a wide range of powers on the classes, rural and tribal communities, women Council. Among the important functions of State and any such specified groups. Council for Higher Education are developing  Advise on promoting co-operating and higher education plans in the state, formulating coordination of the various educational norms for starting new higher education institutions, institutions among themselves and explore suggesting ways to augment additional resources for the scope for interaction between the the sector, making suggestions to the government universities on the one hand and industry for determining block grants to the universities, and other organizations on the other hand. examining statutes, ordinances and regulations of the universities etc.  Suggest ways and means of raising additional resources for higher education There are certain critical gaps in the functioning from industry and other sources. of the Council; it has no established mechanisms for interaction with the central regulatory bodies Initiatives and Results such as the University Grants Commission. In practice, the Council also has a limited role in The State Council has not had a single meeting since the Act was passed. Recently however there are discussions about reviving the Council, given 14 More information on the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education can be found on the following web-site the opportunities that RUSA is providing. http://www.tnuniv.ac.in/ Annexure I: State Higher Education Councils in India >> 19 planning for higher education in the state. Apart Uttar Pradesh from disbursement of research grants received from national and international agencies, the Act Structure does not confer any significant financial powers on the Council. The Council operates on a very UP State Council for Higher Education was created limited administrative budget and has very few by an Act of the State Legislature in 1995. The means of influencing institutions through financial Chairman is nominated by the state government incentives. In the past, the Council has not adopted and has to be of the rank of a Vice Chancellor or consultative methods to engage with stakeholders Additional Secretary to Government of India, no while formulating policies or making decisions. other qualification or procedures of selection are This has hampered its ability to implement certain mentioned in the Act. The Council is comprised of reforms such as splitting Anna University into four ex-officio members representing other state six universities, a decision that had to be reversed government departments, three Vice Chancellors; later due to lack of acceptance. one Principal as well as one representative each, from the fields of education, law and industry are Initiatives and Results part of the Council, and one eminent industrialist. The appointments are made by the state government The State Council has taken steps to bring about and the criteria used to appoint members are not transformation in the higher education sector by specified in a transparent way. A team of secretarial implementing programs of academic excellence, staff assists the Council. As of 2007 the Council has manpower planning as well as allocating block been defunct as no appointments have been made grants to universities, and the future plans of the by the state to the Council. State Council seems encouraging. These include encouraging universities and autonomous colleges to evolve a uniform structure for various courses, Functions more institutions to get accredited, colleges to According to the Act the Council has the following apply for autonomy and assisting them in obtaining key functions: autonomous status and setting up of community colleges with a view to strengthening skill based Planning and Coordination education in the state.  Prepare perspective plans for development of higher education in the state. The State Council has in recent times undertaken a number of activities. These include coordination for  Submit to the state government, if so uniform fees structure across various universities, required by it, the development programs setting up of committees on various issues and of universities and colleges, along with its sharing the findings of the committee reports with comments and recommendations. the Vice Chancellors (however, these ideas needs  Promote co-operation of institutions of to be institutionalized), and a number of capacity- higher education amongst themselves building training programs for administrative staff, and explore the scope for interaction with including registrars and faculty. industry and other related establishment. It has been observed that though the existing Council  Formulate norms and principles for starting has reasonable powers to bring about significant new colleges and additional subjects and changes in the higher education landscape of the departments in the existing colleges in state, the past and existing State Council have not accordance with the guidelines issued by the been able to fully utilize the powers that have been state government and the University Grants bestowed on them. Commission. 20 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges Academic Functions of the Council separately from the functions of the State Higher Education Department.  Encourage innovations in curriculum development, restructuring and updating of However, in April 2014 the Department of Higher syllabi in universities and colleges. Education through a government notification has  Devise methods and steps to improve the reconstituted the State Higher Education Council in UP standards of examinations conducted by the with the appointment of an academic as Chairman universities and autonomous colleges and and three others as members. This is likely to be to suggest necessary reforms. a significant step in reviving the State Council for Higher Education after long years of being defunct.  Facilitate training of teachers in universities and colleges and to oversee the functioning of the academic staff colleges through West Bengal coordination, and to encourage publication of quality text books, monographs and Structure reference books etc. West Bengal State Council for Higher Education15  Develop programs for effective academic was established on 29th July 1994 by an Act of West co-operation and interaction between the Bengal State Legislature and started to function faculties in the universities and colleges, since April 1995. and to facilitate mobility of teachers and students in and outside the state. The government of West Bengal took a step to give more independence to the State Council by bringing Initiatives and Results about a change in 2007 in its composition by an amendment to the Act, through which the Chairman Since its inception until 2007 the State Council was a of the State Council ceases to be the minister in- functional body and undertook activities in keeping charge of higher education. The purpose was to with its mandate of maintaining and promoting make it a more independent and autonomous body the quality of institutions. Besides organizing with additional powers and functions. The Chair workshops, seminars and conferences for the benefit and Vice-Chair of the Council are academics and of colleges and universities for enhancement of the rest of the Council is composed of the Secretary quality, it has been involved in providing grants for of Higher Education, The Principal Secretary of setting up and monitoring the activities of Internal the Finance Department, 19 Vice-Chancellors, Quality Assurance Cells in institutions. It has also 6 eminent academics, 3 senior civil servants, 1 from been encouraging more institutions to undergo industry and 1 Principal. With the relatively large accreditation by NAAC through workshops. The number of members there is a risk that the Council Council provided minor research grants and worked is not an efficient decision-making body. towards the development of centers of excellence in various institutions. Functions The State Council has, however, hardly met since The statutory mandate of the State Council is: 2007, making it largely a dysfunctional body. An a. To oversee the academic standards of the analysis of the functioning of the Council since its state-aided and administered institutions. existence brings to fore the critical point that it is not an independent body. There is a significant degree b. To maintain quality of teaching, examination of political interference in the appointment or not of and research. the Council members as well as heavy dependence on the state bureaucracy which is also reflected in its 15 For more information about the West Bengal State Council for Higher Education please consult the following web-site composition. The Act does not clarify the functions http://www.wbsche.ac.in Annexure I: State Higher Education Councils in India >> 21 c. To channelize higher education in desirable calendar, syllabi, introduction of four-year direction on the socio-economic needs of graduation courses, implementation of choice- West Bengal. based credit system, promoting linkages among higher education institutions and industry, setting d. To strengthen the planning and coordination up of finishing schools in all district headquarters, of higher education programs with the state introduction of academic and administrative audit government, including with other academic in the institutions of higher learning, and providing regulators and administrators of the country. facilities for creating centers of excellence in frontier research areas. Initiatives and Results In the almost two decades of its existence, the State During the two decades of its functioning, the Council has made some significant achievements. West Bengal State Council of Higher Education has These are: demonstrated that it has been relatively efficient in supporting higher education reforms. It has a good  Supporting the establishment of new state- mixture of academic and senior functionaries and aided universities and colleges, private it is headed by eminent academic and professional universities and colleges, as well as other experts. The Council has had periodic meetings and such institutions of higher learning e.g. by the decisions mentioned above demonstrate that facilitating access to additional resources it has to a large extent fulfilled the purpose of its and UGC’s development programs. establishment. Furthermore, the State Council has  It has been involved in the preparation of been trusted with some financial empowerments drafting the University Act and it advised the provided by the government. The creation of a universities in drafting new statutes. West Bengal State Council of Higher Education Fund, which consists of grants from the government,  It has examined pending or unattended higher grants received from the central government for education reforms and taken a proactive higher education and such other funds received role in recommending the implementation of by the Council from other sources, helps in both these reforms to the competent agency. channeling resources and also for better monitoring  Held periodic meetings of institutional heads, of the resources spent. The State Council has also brought about implementation of academic been empowered to allocate grants to different audit and created a state university network universities and colleges. Furthermore, the State for better coordination and co-operation Council was appointed by the National Board amongst state universities. of Accreditation (NBA) to be the nodal center for West Bengal, Bihar and North-Eastern states for Some recent initiatives taken by the State Council mandatory accreditation of higher educational include bringing about uniformity in academic institutions offering professional courses. 22 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges Summary of State Councils for Higher Education in Eight Indian States Structure Qualification Powers & Responsibilities ANDHRA PRADESH Full time members Eminent educationists Planning  Chairman appointed by government  State plans – short- and long-term  Vice Chairman for a period of three years  Implementation of plans and shall be eligible for re-  Monitoring of plans appointment for a second term, provided such an  Coordination amongst state institutions appointee has not attained for curriculum quality and updating the age of sixty-five. Academic Ex-officio members Appointed by the government  Quality of examinations  The Secretary to Government, for a period of three years  Facilitate teacher training Education Department and shall be eligible for re-  Promote sports and extracurricular  The Secretary to Government, appointment for a second activities Finance Department term, provided such an appointee has not attained  Send reports on universities to UGC  The Secretary to Government, the age of sixty-five Advisory Labor, Employment and Technical Department  On the basis and quantum of block  The Secretary or any other maintenance grants office of the University Grants  Promoting research, setting up Commission not below the rank Research Board of a Joint Secretary nominated by  On statutes and ordinances passed by the Chairman, University Grants universities Commission  On setting up new institutions Other Members  Eminent educationists  Four persons to be appointed by the  Industry representative government  1 Technical expert  One person appointed by the  2 Other members government  appointed for a period  Three persons nominated by the of three years and state government shall be eligible for re- appointment for a second term, provided such an appointee has not attained the age of sixty-five GUJARAT KNOWLEDGE CONSORTIUM  Chairman  Minister of Education Provide a robust platform for the  Vice -Chairman  Advisor for Education to extensive sharing and dissemination  Co-Vice Chairman Honourable. Chief Minister of knowledge across all stakeholders  Principal Secretary of education in general and  Member Secretary Education Department higher education in particular:  All Vice-Chancellors of Universities  Commissioner  Introduce initiatives to increase access in Gujarat (22 as of Nov. 2013) Higher Education, and equity of higher education in the  Expert members from industries state and facilitate academic reforms (7 as of Nov. 2013) Gandhinagar in various spheres such as:  Expert members from the field of  Curricular aspects education (21 as of Nov. 2013) Annexure I: State Higher Education Councils in India >> 23 Structure Qualification Powers & Responsibilities  Members from reputed national  Capacity-building of teachers and institutions of Gujarat (5 as of principals through training Nov. 2013)  Teaching and learning: by  Other members (Directors, Provosts introducing educational technology- and Vice-Chancellors of institutions enabled innovative teaching, in Gujarat, 11 as of Nov. 2013) learning, research and extension activities  Evaluation reforms by introducing comprehensive continuous credit and grades based assessment  Increasing employability of students  Accountable governance delivery systems in higher education  Connect all universities, colleges, research institutions and libraries of the state with national and international knowledge networks  Facilitate interface among research scholars and faculties in the state and with visiting international academicians, particularly Non Resident Indians by arranging their visits to the universities/ Departments/colleges working in their area of specialization and also by arranging their lectures through SANDHAN initiative  Facilitate active collaboration among centers of excellence in the state with their counterparts in the country and beyond  Bridge the divide – linguistic, knowledge and digital – and also to promote capacity-building of the existing, faculties by equipping and honing their basic skills of English and Computers for better knowledge management  Preservation and promotion of Indian knowledge systems and knowledge manuscripts and act as the nodal agency for the National/Regional Knowledge initiatives  Act as the hub for translation of knowledge texts and prepare a repository of existing translations and translators  Act as a Resource Centre by preparing the data base of students/ research scholars/teachers and their publications and support surveys, studies, projects to realize the objectives of the Knowledge Consortium of Gujarat 24 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges Structure Qualification Powers & Responsibilities  Promote cutting-edge research and creation of knowledge – innovation and patenting by facilitating networking of individuals/ Institutions/agencies engaged in the above processes in accordance with Intellectual Property Rights. KARNATAKA  Chairman  Minister of Education  Promoting academic excellence and  Vice-Chairman  Eminent educationist who social justice by obtaining academic  Member Secretary is or has been the Vice- inputs for policy formulation and Chancellor of a university perspective planning  16 eminent educationists as nominated members or member of any apex  Ensuring autonomy and better body of higher education accountability of all institutions of  17 Vice-Chancellors of the state nominated by the govt. higher education in the state universities  Eminent educationist  Guiding the growth of higher  Secretary of Higher Education education in accordance with the  Secretary of Medical Education socio-economic requirement of  Secretary of Finance the state  Secretary of Law  Decisions on policy matters on  Secretary of Parliamentary affairs behalf of the Council subject to the  Chief Minister’s Adviser on concurrence of the Council, it is also Education the responsibility the committee to deal with certain administrative matters and Executive Committee also preparing the Annual Academic  Vice-Chairman of the Council is its Financial Audit report Chairman  The Executive Director is the Member Secretary  2 Vice-Chancellors of the Council nominated by rotation by the Council  4 of the 10 eminent educationists of the Council nominated by rotation by the Council as members  The Principal Secretaries to the Govt. Higher Education Dept., Medical Education Dept. are its Ex-officio members KERALA  Patron  Coordinate the roles of the  Visitor government, universities and apex  Chairman regulatory agencies  Vice- Chairman  Make State HE plans  Provide inputs to academic and research institutes on making and implementing plans  Undertake independent research for the generation of new ideas for the promotion of social justice and academic excellence in higher education Annexure I: State Higher Education Councils in India >> 25 Structure Qualification Powers & Responsibilities Advisory Council  Political representatives  Improving the existing and creating  33 members such as Chief Minister, new rules/statutes Education Minister,  Develop human resources in education Representatives of  Develop linkages between HE Members of Parliament, institutions and other govt. agencies Members of Panchayats,  Changes in curriculum Municipalities and eminent  Evolve general guidelines for the personalities release of grants by the government Governing Council  All Vice Chancellors of to universities and other institutions of  35 members chaired by Minister for State Universities higher education Education  Educationalists (with  To provide common facilities for the reservation for SC/ST and entire state by establishing centers, woman) namely:  Elected representatives of - Centre for Research on Policies in the Academic Councils of Higher Education state universities - Curriculum Development Centre  Nominated student union - Centre for Capacity-Building in representatives (with respect of faculty and educational reservation for women) administrators  Officials of the state (not - State Council for Assessment of below Secretaries and Higher Education Institutions Directors) - Examination Reforms Cell Executive Council  One full time member secretary. Five part-time - Human Resources Development,  9 members chaired by Vice- members Employment and Global Skills Chairman of Council Development Cell  One Vice-Chancellor  Coordinate between various state  Secretary, Higher institutions and councils Education MAHARASHTRA  Chairman  Chief Minister Planning and coordination  Vice-Chairman  Minister for Higher  Prepare programs in the various Education subjects in the sphere of higher Other members (with a term of years)  Minister for Medical education, keeping in view the overall  32 other members Education priorities, perspective and needs of the  Vice-Chancellors of all statutory  Minister for Sports society and expectations from higher universities, except the agricultural  Minister of State for Higher education university Education  Consider and approve the  Minister of State for developmental program of the Medical Education universities  Initiate inter-university program for  Four Members of Legislative Assembly various activities related to teaching, nominated by the Speaker research and extension in the field of of the Maharashtra higher education Legislative Assembly.  Take steps and recommend to the state  Two Members of the government and to the universities the Legislative Council steps that may be taken to remove nominated by the the regional imbalance, and to Chairman of the make higher education available to Maharashtra Legislative backward classes, rural and tribal Council communities, women and any such specified groups. 26 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges Structure Qualification Powers & Responsibilities  Ten eminent educationists or Advisory functions educational administrators  Advise the state government in respect nominated by the of determining and maintaining Chancellor, of which two uniformity of standards of education in shall be the representatives the universities of the Management  Advise on promoting co-operating  Two principals from and coordination of the various amongst the office-bearers educational institutions among or the members of the themselves and explore the scope for Executive Committee of state interaction between the universities on level representative body of the one hand, and industry and other principals nominated by the organizations on the other hand Chancellor  Suggest ways and means of raising  Two teachers from amongst additional resources for higher the office bearers or the education from industry and other members of the Executive sources Committee of state level  Advise on inter-university programs representative body of for various activities undertaken by teachers, nominated by the the universities in fulfilment of the Chancellor provisions of the Act  The Vice-Chancellor of all  Advise on programs for greater the statutory universities co-operation and interaction and other than Agricultural exchange of university teachers, Universities in the state college teachers and the teachers of  The Secretary, Higher and university departments Technical Education  The Secretary, Medical Education  The Secretary, Planning  The Secretary, Finance  The Secretary, Sports  Director of Technical Education Maharashtra State  Director of Medical Education Maharashtra State  Director of Education (Higher Education), Maharashtra State TAMIL NADU  Chairman  Minister for Higher Planning functions  Vice-Chairperson Education  To develop State Higher Education Plan  Member-Secretary and monitor its implementation Ex-Officio Members Academic functions  Secretary, Governor of Tamil Nadu  To maintain examination standards  Additional Chief Secretary, Higher  Identify Centers of Excellence in Education Department Universities for growth in particular  Principal Secretary, Finance disciplines Department  Training and development of teachers  Secretary, University Grants  Set up State Centre of Research Commission and coordinate activities between universities Annexure I: State Higher Education Councils in India >> 27 Structure Qualification Powers & Responsibilities  Director of Collegiate Education Advisory functions  Commissioner of Technical  Develop norms and guidelines Education regarding block grants  One Research Officer  To evaluate proposals for new institutes  One Accounts Officer  Suggest improvements and changes in  One Superintendent existing Statutes and Ordinances Funding functions  Administer grants-in-aid from government  Administer research grants received from national and international agencies  To identify and administer innovative programs for sustainable growth through self-generated funds from consultancy services to industries UTTAR PRADESH  Chairman  To be appointed by the Planning and coordination:  Member Secretary state government, an  Prepare consolidated programs in the  11-13 members eminent academician, sphere of higher education in the state who is or has been a keeping in view the overall priorities Vice-Chancellor or a and perspectives of higher education in senior administrative the state and the guidelines issued by officer, serving or retired, the University Grants Commission and not below the rank of to assist in their implementation Additional Secretary to  Assist the University Grants Commission the Government of India, in respect of determination and having aptitude and maintenance of standards and suggest experience in the field of remedial action wherever necessary education  Prepare perspective plans for  Principal Secretary/ development of higher education in the Secretary to the state state government in the  Submit to the state government, if Department of Higher so required by it, the development Education programs of universities and colleges,  Principal Secretary/ along with its comments and Secretary to the state recommendations government in the  Promote co-operation of institutions of Department of Finance higher education amongst themselves  Principal Secretary/ and explore the scope for interaction Secretary to the state with industry and other related government in the establishments Department of Planning.  Formulate norms and principles for  Secretary or any other starting new colleges and additional officer of the University subjects and departments in the Grants Commission not existing colleges in accordance with below the rank of a Joint the guidelines issued by the state Secretary nominated by the government and the University Grants Chairman of the University Commission Grants Commission  Suggest ways and means for  Director of Higher augmenting additional resources for Education, Uttar Pradesh higher education in the state 28 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges Structure Qualification Powers & Responsibilities  Director of Technical  Coordinate research funding at Education Uttar Pradesh; national and international level for three persons nominated promotion of scientific research in the by the state government universities and colleges from amongst the Vice- Academic Functions: Chancellors of the  Encourage innovations in curriculum universities development, restructuring and  Not more than three updating of syllabi in universities and persons nominated by colleges the state government  Coordinate the programs of from amongst eminent autonomous colleges and monitor academicians each in their implementation the field of Education, Engineering and Law  Devise methods and steps to improve the standards of examinations  One person co-opted by conducted by the universities and the Council from amongst autonomous colleges and suggest the principals of colleges. necessary reforms  One person co-opted by  Facilitate training of teachers in the Council from amongst universities and colleges and oversee reputed industrialists the functioning of the academic staff whose contribution to the colleges through coordination and cause of higher education encourage publication of quality text is significant. books, monographs and reference books etc.  Develop programs for effective academic co-operation and interaction between the faculties in the universities and colleges and facilitate mobility of teachers and students in and outside the state  Advice on regulating the admissions in the Universities and colleges;  Encourage sports, games, physical education, cultural activities and other extra-curricular activities in the universities and colleges WEST BENGAL Members  Reputed academician  Act as a liaison between UGC, state  Chairman appointed by government and universities for quality, service- related matters (teaching and non-  Vice Chairman  Reputed academician teaching staff), interpretation and  IAS Officer formulation of rules and statues  Member Secretary  Development of plans and control unplanned expansion  Curricular development, exam forms etc.  Examine proposals for new institutions, self-financing courses and institutions  Consider affiliation requests sent to each university  Monitor quality through state Quality Assurance Cell Annexure I: State Higher Education Councils in India >> 29 ANNEXURE II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils CHINA China’s Higher Education Governance since 1978 – Redistribution of Authorities and Duties among Central Government, Local Government, Higher Education Institutions and Public Bodies China’s Higher Education such HEIs are mainly run by the MoE, these are called Bushu Gaoxiao or Zhishu Gaoxiao, Governance – Structural/ although a few are run by other ministries Systems Level Reform for special reasons,16 named now Qita Bushu Gaoxiao. China’s Basic Higher Education  Provincial/local HEIs named Difang Gaoxiao Governance Framework are run by local governments. The diagrams below show the basic governance  Non-governmental-run HEIs are called framework of the higher education system in 1978 Minban Gaoxiao. This kind of institution did and today (2014) in China. In this framework, there not exist prior to the 1980s and China’s are three kinds of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) HE reforms of this period. Currently, non- classified according to their ownership: 16 governmental-run HEIs are administered by the relevant local governments.  Central Ministry run HEIs called Bushu Gaoxiao; in 1978 these were run by different Central Ministries including a few run by the MINISTRY OF Ministry of Education (MoE). While today EDUCATION (MoE) and OTHER PROVINCIAL MINISTRIES CENTRAL GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS MINISTRIES PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT Non-Government Local Government- DEPARTMENTS HEIs ‘Minban run HEIs ‘Difang Gaoxiao’ Gaoxiao’ LOCAL MINISTRY-RUN MINISTRY-RUN HEIs ‘Difang HEIs ‘Bushu HEIs ‘Bushu Gaoxiao’ Gaoxiao’ Gaoxiao’ China’s Higher Education Governance China’s Higher Education Governance Framework in 1978 Framework in 2014 16 For example, some institutes dealing witht defence technology are under the control of related ministries. 30 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges The HE system of P .R. China was established in  HEIs were small-scale, self-contained, the 1950s, based on the pattern that existed in with very low student-teacher ratios. the former Soviet Union during this period, which Statistics show that in 1992 most was characterized by a highly centralized and universities had between 2,000 and planned economy. At that time, not only were all 3,000 students, some of them (13.1%) production, investment, prices and incomes in had no more than 1,000 students. society determined centrally by the government, but  While the central ministries established also HE enrollments, subjects and curricula were and ran HEIs to meet their needs at all planned according to the demand of different the national level, local governmental industrial sectors; and all graduates were assigned departments were also running employment related to the government’s central specialist HEIs at the local level; this led plan. Though this kind of HE system helped China to the duplication of similar institutions, to meet its urgent demand for skills and capacity disciplines and specializations. to support the industrialization of the country,17  Former Vice-Premier Li Lanqing once nonetheless, there were also many drawbacks. likened this fragmentation of higher education resources to ‘a cake being Drawbacks of the ‘Soviet-pattern’ reduced to a pile of crumbs after Governance System being repeatedly sliced this way and that.’ Though these problems were Looking back we can see several drawbacks of the acknowledged and the national ‘Soviet-style’ governance system of higher education government had made many efforts in China: towards more rationalization in Mao’s a. Wasting of resources and inefficiency in time, this never really improved the the running of institutions: In the period situation because the problems were from the 1950s to the 1980s, HEIs were deeply rooted in the “planned economy” mostly specialist institutions supporting which existed at that time. different industry sectors – reporting to b. Narrowly specialized training: Because HEIs the appropriate ministries at the national were established to support industry’s level, or to different local government needs and run by different Ministries,18 this departments at the local level. These meant that curricula were designed to meet ministries or departments were established specialist professional job requirements, and to support different industrial sectors, e.g. the all-round development of students was the vehicle manufacturing industry, which ignored. This resulted in students lacking the was governed by the Ministry of the Motor ability to adapt to the market and society Vehicle Manufacturing Industry. This Ministry after graduation. This narrowly specialized also controlled the enrollment, curriculum HE system also hampered scientific and and the number of graduates assigned to technological development and the relevant HEIs which specialized in the motor cultivation of well-qualified professionals. vehicle manufacturing industry, like JILIN University of Technology, co-located with c. Lacking autonomy and vitality: Most of the largest Chinese vehicle manufacturing the powers in the education system were plant – the first of its kind in the city of concentrated at the government level, Changchun. The separation of the HE especially central government – higher sector into so many specialist institutions made China’s HE system inefficient: 18 Such as the Ministries for vehicle manufacture, coal mining, petroleum, ship-building, iron and steel, railway, highways, airplane manufacture, agriculture, agricultural machines, post, electricity, electronics, hydro-engineering, textile, light industry, 17 China was largely an agricultural economy at this time. broadcasting etc. Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 31 education institutions run according to the well as endowing autonomous powers to higher government’s policies and instructions, but education institutions. lacking even the basic autonomies and vitality. It is also important to remember This ‘Decision’ marked the beginning of China’s that Chinese universities had almost a higher education systems reform. However, the decade of stagnation during the period of most significant step was not taken until the early the ‘Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution’. 1990s, when China decided to adopt the “market Therefore, when China decided to ‘open economy” in 1992. its doors’ to the outside world in 1978, it carried not only the legacy of the Soviet- Exploring further reforms and development: style system, but also a lack of development 1992-1997: generally. Such had been the isolation in this period that HEIs did not have the right In 1993 the CPC Central Committee, and the State to conduct academic exchanges, or to Council issued the Programme for China’s Education sign cooperation agreements with foreign Reform and Development, which became the partners. However, on 6 December 1979, principal policy document guiding China’s higher the presidents of Fudan University, Tongji education reforms in the 1990s. University, Huadong Normal University, and Shanghai Jiaotong University jointly made In 1992, China clearly had set its goal of reform a statement in the China Daily newspaper, “to establish a Chinese socialist market economy.” appealing to the government to delegate These market reforms provided the practical autonomy to universities and, subsequently, conditions needed for the implementation of the changing the higher education governance higher education reforms. During the market reform, system became a matter of strong public Ministries of the State Council were largely reduced interest and concern. in size, many ministries (about 20) were even abolished, and hundreds of HEIs thus began to be detached from their original affiliated ministries and Evolution of the Reforms had to find their own way of surviving. Administrative The beginning of higher education reforms: responsibility for most of these institutions was 1985-1991 transferred to local government. For instance, the Tianjin Textile Industry Institute originally came under The opening and reform of China in 1978 meant the administration of the central Ministry of the that the Chinese government realized the whole Textiles Industry, but with the abolition of this Ministry, economic and social system should be reformed it was merged with another institution to form the to support China’s modernization. It was in 1985, Tianjin Polytechnic University, which is now under the that the Central Committee of the Communist Party jurisdiction of the Tianjin Municipal Government. of China decided to transform China’s economy Thus, with the restructuring of central government, from a highly centralized planned economy to during the introduction of market economy came a hybrid ‘planned’ and ‘market’ economy. ‘The the consequential restructuring of China’s higher Decision to Reform the Education System’ was education system. made in the same year, which stipulated that: the central government should change their role from During this period, except for a few former direct management to indirect management, that ministry-affiliated HEIs transferred to the Ministry is, focus on establishing guiding principles and of Education, most other HEIs were moved to general planning; encourage local government local government through direct transfer, merger, to run higher institutions and thereby establish “a co-operation, or in other ways. Meanwhile, new three tiered” governance system covering: central, universities such as Nanchang University, Shanghai provincial and main cities (municipalities); as University, Yangzhou University, Guangxi University, 32 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges Yanbian University etc. were formed as a result of powers owned (formerly by the Ministry mergers. These paved the way, and were good of the Textiles Industry) for the East China examples, for further reforms. Textile Industry Institute, the North-West China Textile Industry Institute and Tianjin All-round promotion of reform and development: Textile Industry Institute were all transferred 1998-present: to the Ministry of Education, the Provincial Government of Shaanxi and the Municipal The General Office of the State Council held four Government of Tianjin, respectively. symposiums on reforming the higher education  He Zuo (co-operation): some universities administrative system.19 These consultation meetings from the same location were encouraged to served to summarize and exchange experience, to share their strengths and resources, foster seek further consensus among various quarters, to inter-disciplinary co-operation in teaching push reform from a few pilot cases to the entire and research, do their best to run institutions higher education sector, and to lay a solid foundation in an open manner, and avoid duplicating for revamping the higher education administrative universities and faculties. For example, system on a large scale. Nankai University and Tianjin University were not merged together, but have close co- Vice-Premier Li Lanqing delivered an important operation including joint degree programs speech at the Fourth Higher Education Administrative and joint research laboratories, which are System Symposium held in January 1998, where he financially supported by the government. put forward the famous “eight character principle” (a four-point policy):20  He Bing (merger/consolidation): the merging of certain universities in the light  Gong Jian (co-construction): while some of local circumstances, to overcome the HEIs were transferred from previous host problems of over-specialized HEIs and to ministries to local government or the Ministry improve teaching quality and administrative of Education, the former host ministries or efficiency, allowing the merged universities relevant bodies (in the case of the ministries to have a multi-disciplinary structure and the that were abolished or merged) still provided faculties to make their resources mutually funds to the HEIs together with the HEIs new complementary and deliver efficiency host governmental body. For example, the benefits on an expanded scale that resulted University of Post and Telecommunication from the mergers. For example, the Beijing was transferred to the Ministry of Education, University of Medicine was merged with but the Ministry of Information Industries (the Peking University, Hangzhou University and combined Ministry by the former Ministry of Zhejiang Agricultural University merged into Electronics and the Ministry of Post which Zhejiang University. ran the university previously) still provides some funding to the university. These four policy ‘points’ became the guidelines  Tiao Zheng (re-adjustment): the administrative for further reforms. Since then, the pace of higher power of the HEIs was adjusted (i.e. education systems reform has accelerated greatly. transferred) to the local government or other ministries without any additional These four measures are by no means mutually conditions. For example, the administrative exclusive. Yet, in practice, Gong Jian and He Bing became pilot mechanisms to support changes to 19 Shanghai in 1994, Nanchang in 1995, Beidaihe in 1996 and the structure of higher education. Yangzhou in 1998. 20 Gong Jan, Tiao Zheng, He Zuo, He Bing are written using eight In this period, more than 1,200 institutions were characters in Chinese (but as can be seen represent four points of policy). radically changed through decentralization and Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 33 amalgamation. After painstaking efforts, in 2000, cooperation, human resource management, and Li Lanqing announced: that “the optimization of the the use of assets. According to the laws, at the same administrative structures of higher education has time as having these seven autonomous rights, been basically and successfully fulfilled”. During Chinese HEIs are also responsible (i.e. accountable) the restructure, 452 institutions moved from central for these areas. However, these rights did not entirely to local control. After restructure, the number of come into the hands of HEIs until recently. higher education institutions that remained under central control has decreased from about 400 to 113. Among them, about 70 flagship universities Localization and are now under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Diversification of China’s Education, while less than 40 higher education Higher Education institutions come under corresponding ministries for special reasons. Two Distinguishing Features of China’s Higher Education Structural Autonomy Reforms for Chinese Reform Higher Education Institutions To understand the evolution of these developments it In summary, since 1949, due to China’s highly is important to appreciate two distinguishing features centralized planned economy, all HEIs came under of China’s higher education structural reform. The the authority of central government. Up to the first distinguishing feature of the HE structural reform 1990s, although the government had policies and was localization; from a governance point of view, measures to give HEIs autonomous authority, these localization means that the governance authority policies led to failure, because there were insufficient was transferred from central to local government. social and economic reforms and mechanisms to This reform led to local HEIs making up the greater support institutional autonomy. proportion of the Chinese higher education sector, and consequently making a unique contribution to After 1978, the gradual establishment of China’s the democratization, popularization, regionalization market economy made it necessary to expand and diversification of China’s HE sector – for institutional autonomy – especially after December example, from 1978 to 2012 the overall scale of 1979, when the presidents of Fudan, Tongji and the Chinese HEIs increased from 598 to 2442, and other universities took the initiative to point out the that of the local HEIs from 343 to 2329 (including necessity for greater higher education autonomy. 706 ‘Minban’ non-government run HEIs, which However, in June 1983 the Ministry of Education also come under local government administration) issued a policy document that gave permission an increase of 57.34% in 1978 to 95.37% in to expand internal institutional administration to 2012. And, there is a clear path of localization or strengthen the vitality and responsiveness of HEIs. decentralization that can be observed by the transfer And, in 1988, the government began to implement of authority for higher education from central to the policy of “giving a fixed budget to HEIs, allowing local, and then to the HEIs themselves. residuals to be retained” to endow institutions more autonomy and encourage institutions to take their The second distinguishing feature of China’s HE own initiatives to improve the quality of teaching, structural reform is diversification. Again, from a learning and research. governance point of view, diversification means that governance authority is transferred from Then, in 1998, the “Higher Education Law” was a single body (central government) to multiple issued covering specific requirements for HEIs’ to bodies (different tiers of local government, social strengthen autonomy in relation to the following organizations (non-government), and HEIs seven areas: enrollments, course provision themselves), this leads to a shared governance (disciplines), teaching, research, international systems framework. 34 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges Along with localization and diversification, the c. To delegate the rights of academic degree growth of non-government run HEIs is also an conferment. important result of the reforms. According to d. To examine and approve the establishment national statistics, in 2012 there were 5.33 million and running of Chinese-foreign students enrolled in Chinese HEIs; more than 20% cooperative HEIs. studying in the 707 non-government run HEIs, and 1.2 million students graduated in that year (2012) e. To make HE regulations and policies. from non-government run HEIs, about 17% of the f. To develop a national HE development total number of HE graduates. This shows that plan including the size of the student body, non-government run HEIs have already played a and the structure of HE and different kinds significant role in China’s HE sector. of HEIs. Observations on the Transfer of g. To evaluate the performance of HEIs. Higher Education ‘Authorities’ Before the reform, these rights were mainly in the In the Chinese higher education administrative hands of central government, except the right a) to system, there are different bodies playing different establish and run HEIs, which was shared with local roles, the main bodies are: (1) government – both governments, but still subject to the examination and central and local, which act as “administrators” approval by central government. Now, these rights to HEIs and “owners” of government-run HEIs; except d) and f) are shared with local governments, (2) HEIs, no matter if they are government-run and in practice, governmental authorities are mainly or non-government, their principal function is as the local governments who provide administrative “executive authorities” of educational activities; (3) services to more than 95% of HEIs. The right to Social organizations or non-government and quasi- approve the establishment and running of Chinese- government bodies of different kinds, that carry out foreign cooperative HEIs (d) still resides with central a wide range of functions – the important ones are government, but is expected to be localized to some “evaluators” of HEIs’ performance, “overseers” extent in future along with the further opening up of the conduct of HEIs and governments, and and decentralization of China’s higher education. “owners” of non-government-run HEIs. Therefore, along with the reforms, HE authority is also being And it is worth stressing that, since the 1980s, non- transferred between bodies and their functions or government social organizations have obtained the roles, transforming a highly centralized system right to establish and run a HEI (a) with the approval to a decentralized system; resulting in a sharing of central or local government. For example, the of administrative functions between central Xian Institute of Language Translation, established government, local government, the HEIs themselves in 1987, is one of the earliest private HEIs. This and society – all working in partnership. means that the right to establish and run a HEI is divested to non-government bodies and is no more The Transfer of the Authority of a central “government authority,” but a right of any person who meets the legal requirements. Administration (Governmental Authority) The right to evaluate a HEI’s performance is now The Authority for administration of HEIs includes delegated from the central and local government principally the following powers and rights: to non-governmental organizations. NGOs also have the right to assess the performance of a a. To establish and run an HEI (to appoint and HEI, independently. This indicates that the right to dismiss Heads of Institutions). evaluate a HEI’s performance is not an exclusive b. To examine and approve the establishment right of government bodies, but shared with other and running of HEIs. bodies in society. Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 35 The Transfer of Executive Authority the examinations and the setting of the minimum (Operation) of Educational Activities level scores for recruitment, and HEIs decide on their plans for recruitment and the thresholds for (Institutional Authority) different disciplines. Executive Authority includes the right: a. To recruit students. The Transfer of Authority for Fiscal b. To recruit and promote faculty and staff. Management Authority for fiscal management includes the c. To conduct teaching. following rights: d. To conduct research. a. To invest in a HEI and its activities. e. To conduct exchange and co-operation with b. To raise funds and receive donations. domestic and foreign partners. c. To control the HEI’s salary levels. f. To establish and run a HEI’s internal academic and administrative system. d. To determine the budget of the HEI. e. To determine the level of tuition fees. According to the 1998 Higher Education law, these rights are regarded as an institutional authority f. To use and manage the property, including (i.e. executive authority for the whole institution), the IPR. but historically most of them were regarded as a government authority. For example, until the late Before the reforms the government ran all HEIs, 1980s a quota for the recruitment and promotion and strictly controlled the revenue of HEIs as the of faculty had to be obtained in advance and finally “owner” with responsibility for all aspects of higher be approved by government, and the government education. After 30 years of reform, the situation controlled the salary of HEI staff, too. The HEI could has changed greatly in the following ways: not set its teaching programs or sign research 1. Not only governments but also other bodies contracts on its own, but had to undergo the have the right to invest in HE. examination and approval by government, even teaching materials were centrally compiled by 2. HEIs have obtained the right to raise funds central government. and receive donations. 3. Salary levels are no longer controlled Since 1985, these rights have been gradually by government, but by HEIs themselves, transferred to HEIs, such as: following guidelines laid down by the  The right to recruit and promote faculty and “owners”. other staff. 4. Budgets can be determined by HEIs with the approval of its funders, but for government-  The right to decide the academic curricula run HEIs the investment in infrastructure is and approve research contracts. still controlled by the government.  The right to set up internal academic and 5. The right to determine the level of tuition administrative departments and appoint fees has been transferred from central to their heads etc. local government with a certain flexibility for HEIs to set their own tuition fees within a The right to recruit students is now shared; central given framework. government sets the overall number for the total recruitment of students and the quotas for HEIs. 6. The HEI has the right to use its property Provinces, i.e. provincial governments organize for teaching, research and other academic 36 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges purposes, and to own any relative IPR (which University’s institutional responsibilities regarding was previously owned by government). autonomy and accountability. As Nankai However, government still carries the right University is a MoE directly affiliated HEI, the to approve the transfer of the property to MoE is the main stakeholder and evaluator in others. relation to the institution’s autonomy and accountabilities. The trend of further reforms is to separate the role 1. Autonomy and accountability in respect of of “owner” and “operator/manager” according raising funds and their use to government-declared guidelines for the reform of state-owned property management, so that it is Autonomy: At the beginning of China’s expected that HEIs would have more authority to reform and ‘opening up’ in 1978, the manage their property and assets. institution’s funding was only provided by the central fiscal fund. There was no autonomy in the use of the funds and in the Autonomies and handling of assets. After the mid-1980s, Accountabilities of China’s with increased diversification of institutional Higher Education Institutions funding, (including the central fiscal fund, (HEIs) research fund, tuition fees, social donations and other earnings), institutional autonomy Despite all of the reforms the present systems support was strengthened. Nowadays, the university from quasi- or non-governmental public bodies is has the right to create its budget according still inadequate, and there are few mechanisms to its strategic plan, but this is subject to the that properly support the management, evaluation examination and approval by MoE. In the and leadership needed by HEIs. At the same time, budget, the institution itself can decide on HEIs are unable to benefit fully from the greater the salary of its staff according to within- autonomy they were given in the 1998 Higher government guidelines and can allocate Education Law, which requires the further reforms funds to different disciplines according to its by government itself and the further development institutional strategy. of the HEIs’ internal systems of accountability to demonstrate that they can effectively and efficiently Accountability: The institution has to use manage themselves. Therefore, despite the the government fiscal funds and the tuition contributions of non-governmental public bodies’ fees according to the approved annual to the administrative development of HEIs, and budget and is accountable to the MoE Chinese HEIs themselves having gained seven (the MoE audit directly and/or delegate areas of autonomy, in reality government is still independent auditing firms to audit and carrying the major authority for oversight and monitor the university). The utilization of evaluation of Chinese HEIs until there is a more research funds should strictly follow the effective development and implementation at both approved budget set by the relevant funders institutional and systems level. of research. Donated funds must be used according to the donor’s requirement/ Institutional Case Study: specification. If the university does not The Implementation and Effectiveness use the funds properly and in accordance with the budget, it will be penalized by of Nankai University’s Autonomies a reduction of its appropriation and/or and Responsibilities the stopping of related projects, and the The following seven areas will demonstrate the relevant persons in charge will also be implementation and effectiveness of Nankai subject to penalties. Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 37 2. Autonomy, accountability and responsibility to study according to their own personal for enrollments interests, which can contribute to the release of their potential ability and creativity and it Autonomy: Nankai University has a certain can also help students arrange their campus autonomous authority for student enrollment year independently according to their based on the national entrance examinations personal study, ability and living conditions. organized by provincial governments and restricted additional examinations organized Accountability: The university has the by the university itself. It can self-regulate responsibility to ensure its teaching quality the student enrollment ratio for different and is subject to periodic assessment by specialities/disciplines within the total accreditation bodies. Since 2012, the number decided by MoE and according to university has had to publish its Teaching the list of specialities/disciplines for which the Quality Report on its public website to provide authority of degree granting was delegated public access, as a MoE requirement. to the university. 4. Autonomy, accountability and responsibility Accountability: The MoE controls the total related to scientific research number of enrollments. The whole process Autonomy: Research funds are not of enrollment is overseen internally by a joint appropriated from the MoE to the university committee comprising staff from relevant but applied for competitively by faculty to executive offices, the supervisory inspector different research funders based on their appointed by MoE, representatives of the academic interests. However, the university students, faculty and alumni, externally by does use part of its funds to support selected the examination body, the MoE and local studies according to its academic development governments (from which the students will be strategy and to reward faculty with good enrolled), and finally by the public directly, research achievements. Since 2010, the MoE as a result of the promulgation of the name has allocated a special fund to the university list of enrolled students with their related for supporting its own research initiatives and exam scores and the related speciality for for young faculty to start their research. The every province. Parents and the media also university controls this fund within a MoE- closely ‘monitor’ enrollments through their approved and allocated budget. keen interest in enrollment processes and procedures. Accountability: During the process of 3. Autonomy, accountability and responsibility completing the projects, the university, as for Teaching one party of the research contract, has the responsibility to oversee and assist teachers Autonomy: Since the 1980s, Nankai has and researchers and ensure that projects are gradually gained the autonomy to decide carried out according to project-set goals its own teaching activities, select teaching and to ensure research integrity. If there is material, design syllabi, determine the misuse of funds, or a violation of research length of different study programs within a integrity, the university would be penalized 3-6 year period and make its own semester accordingly. plan etc. For example, in 1985, the university 5. Autonomy, accountability and made its own decision to introduce a credit- responsibilities for Human Resource based system. Undergraduate students can Management change their speciality, or can study for a double degree when meeting the university- Autonomy: In the late 1970s, the university’s set criterion. The above system frees students human resource management system was 38 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges managed by the MoE – i.e. all planning, programs, which are periodically evaluated recruitment, promotion, supervision and by the Chinese Academic Degree evaluation. Today, the university itself has Programme Evaluation Centre established the autonomous responsibility for its human by the MoE. The evaluation results are resource management (though taking published in the public media to provide account of set quotas). public access to this information. If any program does not meet the standard set by At present, within the quotas provided the State Committee of Academic Degrees, by MoE, Nankai University autonomously the university will be penalized by stopping evaluates the professional titles of teachers; any new student recruitment to the program appoints the leaders of its internal academic for a certain period, or by withdrawing the and administrative departments; employs right of conferment of academic degrees for teachers and support staff, and decides on related disciplines. teachers’ performance pay. 7. Autonomy and accountability in international exchange and co-operation Accountability: The university has the legal activities responsibility for staff employment, and to guarantee the rights of its employees. The Autonomy: Since the reform and opening MoE supervises the university’s human up of Chinese higher education in 1978, resource management system and retains Nankai and other universities have gradually the authority to appoint the Head of the been given the autonomy to communicate University, special staff such as the supervisory and co-operate with foreign HEIs and other inspector, and the Head of Finance. academic institutions as well as corporations and NGOs, including the authority to 6. Autonomy, accountability and recruit foreign students, to invite foreign responsibility related to the authorization experts, and to send teachers and students of degree programs abroad etc. However, holding international Autonomy: The university has the autonomy conferences and to establish collaborative to set up and approve its bachelor, degree programmes with a foreign university master’s and doctoral programs, by setting have to be approved by the MoE. recruitment criteria, designing course plans, setting credit requirements and research Accountability: The university is responsible standards, etc. for different disciplines, for ensuring the quality of any exchanges once the rights of conferment of the related and co-operations, and also any related academic degrees of those disciplines legal responsibilities. have been delegated by MoE. In 2012, Nankai University became one of the pilot From the above we can make the following universities to undertake further reform conclusions. Up to now, although the autonomies, of the governance of China’s academic accountabilities and responsibilities of Chinese degree study system, i.e. to approve two (the HEIs are yet to be enlarged and improved, and number is very limited for it is just a piloting the effective engagement of those with appropriate trial) new doctorate programs with positive experience from all walks of life to participate in the external assessment by experts qualified by management of HEIs yet to be properly established, the MoE, and obtained the right to confer (and the fact that the Chinese government is still the related degree automatically. the ultimate principal supervisor and evaluator of Chinese HEIs’ autonomy and accountabilities) – the Accountability: The university is responsible case of Nankai University shows that institutional for the quality of its academic degree autonomy has greatly benefited institutional Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 39 development and progress, supporting the funding, maintain a civil service rank, even if they teaching and research, international collaborations are officially retired from government and and aspects of university management and are paid independently from the non- administration. It has also stimulated and motivated government organization. an enthusiasm for teaching and learning made  Voluntary organizations are organizations the university better able to adapt to the needs with charitable status, also called foundations. of society and ultimately contribute to the further Besides the educational foundations set up by improvement and achievements of China’s higher HEIs themselves, well-known foundations like education sector. Shao Yifu Foundation, Li Jiacheng Foundation, Zeng Xianzi Education Foundation, Tian The Role of Non-Government Jiabing Foundation, Ho Yingdong Education Organizations (NGOs) as foundation, Wang Kuancheng Education Foundation, Baogang Education Foundation, Public and Intermediary etc. are foundations set up by Hong Kong Bodies Participation’s in celebrities or overseas Chinese and big Higher Education Governance corporations, and such foundation donations are an important supplement to national With the development of the socialist market education funding. E.g. hundreds of HEIs economy system in China, non-governmental all over China have a Shao Yifu Library, and quasi-government organizations offering benefitting millions of students. public services as intermediary bodies have been introduced in China, though such organizations as  Foreign NGOs, like the Ford Foundation, a whole have relatively limited power and influence and the Fulbright Foundation, also have in the whole HE governance structure. an active role in Chinese higher education by making awards to outstanding teachers and students, supporting research and The Main Types of Non-Government promoting international cooperation. Organizations Relevant to Higher  Private educational training organizations Education have developed rapidly since the 1990s, In the field of higher education, there are six types such as New Oriental, Ambo, Tomorrow of non-government organizations: authorized Advancing Life, Xueda Education, which organizations (public intermediary bodies, or quasi- are ‘for-profit’ companies. Today, just for governmental bodies), voluntary organizations (not- foreign language training alone, there for-profit), autonomous organizations, international are more than 55,000 private institutions organizations, private training organizations and in China. And, there are organizations distance education service organizations: serving distance education for universities by providing facilities, learning instruction,  Authorized organizations are the quasi- examination and teaching/discussion governmental public intermediary bodies places, etc. The most famous distance with authorized functions by central or education service organization in China is local government, such as the National the Centre of Aopeng Distance Education Examination Centre, the Educational founded in 2002, which established more Admissions & Examinations Institutions of than 1,000 learning centers and accepted the provinces and cities, Chinese Academic commissions for adult diploma education Degrees & Graduate Education Evaluation by more than 30 top universities. Centre, etc. All of these public bodies are legally independent, but the government  Autonomous organizations are small in authorizes their functions and officers still number, but some of them have a rather 40 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges big influence on the society and also on government institution. This Centre is authorized HEIs. For example, the Guangdong Institute by the MoE to undertake periodic evaluation of of Management publishes a list of annual the academic performance of HEIs based on rankings of Chinese HEIs, which has a strong disciplinary development, and the evaluation results influence on Chinese families when they are published in public media, thereby having a select an institution for their children, and wide impact on the institutional reputation; and has an indirect impact on the government- the recent results of its evaluation in 2012 have organized evaluations of HEI’s academic been used by central government to adjust the performance. Similar organizations, such appropriation to the central government-run HEIs as Netbig, make other kinds of rankings of in 2013. In a similar way, the Chinese Higher HEIs, and consequently also influence HEIs’ Education Teaching Evaluation Centre carried out stakeholders. evaluations to every HEI’s undergraduate programs periodically; 592 universities’ undergraduate programs have been assessed up to 2008, and The Duality of Government and the next round of assessments will start in this year Society (2014). The results from these assessments are Although such organizations in society have likely to be used by the MoE and local governments developed very fast in recent years, most of them do to adjust the enrollment quota. Taken as a whole, not play important roles in terms of higher education this Centre’s evaluation has helped universities set governance. The governance roles of public bodies more appropriate goals and standards, thereby are mainly played by those with the dual function of improving the teaching facilities, establishing a government and society, the quasi-government and more efficient teaching system and a more effective semi-civilian-run organizations. supervision system. Though, at present it would be fair to say that, most teachers and students do not The most influential Chinese quasi-government fully appreciate the impact of the evaluations on organizations are the National Examination Centers their teaching and learning. and the Educational Admission & Examination institutions of the provinces and cities, which The majority of such organizations compete for the were established by government and act as semi- public funds they receive, as well as earn income government institutions. They play a very important from the services they provide, and the trend is for role in the reform of China’s college entrance them to become increasingly self-financing. Most examination system – and are an important are led by officers with a background in education bridge between institutional practice and public administration and who are, or have been, civil administration. The legitimacy of such institutions servants (i.e. with a government rank and salary). lies in the fact that they are legal testing institutions that also guide the development, and protect the However, the impact of these non-governmental standards of basic education, as they are also the organizations, especially through the evaluation legal supervising institute for the HEIs’ enrollment of HEI’s different performance, is getting stronger. on behalf of all educational administration bodies. The China Management Science Research Institute Their role is to act as the public administrative published the earliest university rankings in China authority, which supervises higher education in 1987. Nowadays, there are more than 30 such admissions, examinations, and the government, in rankings, which have been published by 14 non- turn, supervises them. governmental bodies. Among the highly influential ones that influence public opinion is the ranking The other influential quasi-governmental (authorized made by Mr. WU Shulian and his research group organization) is the Chinese Academic Degree and of Guangdong Institute of Management since 1993, Graduate Education Evaluation Centre, which was and the ranking of HEI’s academic reputation by also established by government and acts as a semi- China Youth Daily co-opted by Netbig since 2000. Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 41 Compared with the government authorized Such organizations will have more independence evaluations, these non-governmental bodies to set up organs for local government, employ published assessments have less substantial effect staff, raise funds and participate in governance on the resource allocation by government, but they by undertaking the supervisory and evaluation do have a growing impact on public opinion, and an authority currently offered by central and local indirect effect on the “official” evaluation, and even governments. This could include monitoring a direct impact on university’s ability to raise funds. and evaluating all levels of government duties stipulated in the laws and regulations as well as the implementation of related tasks such as: The Developmental Trend of Chinese monitoring and evaluating HEIs’ teaching and Public Bodies Involvement in HE scientific research quality, teaching and research Governance conditions. The most important decision made by Chinese Pay More Attention to the Fairness and Efficiency government recently is “to let the market play a of Intermediary Bodies and Non-Government deterministic role for resource allocation,” and Organizations’ Governance to largely remove the government’s authority on examinations and approval, or transfer them into After 30 years since the reform, China’s authorized lower-tier government or other non-government intermediary HE public bodies and non-government organizations, consequently changing the organizations, especially the test institutions and functions of government in these important areas. evaluating institutes, have created a bridge between The coordination of this tripartite relationship the government and educational services, and are “government-society-HEIs” is expected to make an important channel for governments to provide further progress in China in the future – especially public products and public services to HEIs and in the following areas. society. Public bodies will have greater autonomy and Currently, the active participation in HE governance accountability for governance of non-government or quasi-government organizations, and their awareness of the The logic of independent quasi-governmental importance of providing services in support of the intermediary bodies and other organizations’ HE sector are gradually improving. It is expected participation in the governance of Chinese HEIs that the functions and efficiency of such bodies will results from the government’s decentralization or be strengthened to provide better public trust in the power separation, and fundamentally meets the products and services delivered by such bodies, needs of market economic system reform. and ultimately enhanced benefits to society, thus supporting a fairer, as well as more efficient In 2013, the Chinese government declared its system. recent goal of educational administrative reform to separate the roles of administration of HEIs, Pay More Attention to the Intermediary Bodies the operation of HEIs, and the evaluation of and Social Organizations’ Professional and Legal HEIs – to make the legal autonomies of HEIs a Construction reality (⭆ⴕ▤≆孬ಽ⑮㧘⪭⭆㜞ᩞ≆ቇ⥄ਥ㛫), and also give the public bodies a bigger HE governance must also be based on legal opportunity to play a greater role in the systems academic and administrative authority, which takes development and ultimately the governance of into account the HEI’s academic nature. Therefore, HEIs, as well as shoulder greater responsibilities in order to improve teaching quality, strengthen themselves. the supervision of financial management, the 42 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges legal status and professionalization of non- sector – there are also similarities with other countries government and quasi-government organizations in terms of the challenges as well as wider goals must be strengthened, and such organizations and objectives. “The challenge for governments need to improve their professional capacity and is to ensure that increasingly autonomous and administrative excellence and authority. market-driven institutions respond to public interest agendas, at the national and regional levels, This is the basic experience of such organizations’ while also taking a greater responsibility for their participating in HE governance. The current own financial sustainability. The challenge for Chinese HE reform has entered a new stage of institutions is to manage a more complex portfolio comprehensive reform, “Conspectus of National of aims and funding; to differentiate themselves in Medium and Long-term Education Reform an increasingly competitive environment; and to and Development” (2010-2020) focusing on protect and maintain academic quality and their administrative systems reform, pointing out ability to deliver over the long term.”21 a need to “transform government education administrative functions,” “improve the contribution There are key challenges for all stakeholders – from intermediary bodies and other education governmental and non-governmental bodies organizations, in respect of funding, monitoring and HEIs – to focus on strengthening systems and HE industry self-regulation systems. Actively support as well as institutional effectiveness. This develop the roles of industrial associations, is clearly what the reforms are expected to achieve professional societies, foundations, and other kinds in the next phase of development for the Chinese of social organizations in the public governance higher education sector. It is clear that China of education.” Along with the establishment of the has made major and important policy decisions National Advisory Committee on education and the that are opening up and encouraging a wider National Advisory Board of HE funding, the effect engagement with a range of stakeholders. To will be to promote and improve the governance of what extent will greater autonomy demonstrate China’s HE to a new level with a more beneficial greater transparency, fairness, effective and and rapid development. efficient accountability; not just for HEIs but also for all the public bodies – is the key question of this next phase of development. The very public Conclusions on Higher bodies envisaged will also be contributing support Education Governance and/or delivering services on behalf of all their Reforms in China stakeholders: government, the wider society, institutions and most importantly – the students. Chinese higher education, at both the systems As can be seen, localization and diversification and institutional level, has benefited greatly from have taken place and is continuing. Public bodies the tremendous political, economic and social will be key, but as a whole, they are at present, reforms and development that has taken place relatively weak in terms of their influence on higher since 1978. Looking back over this period, there education institutions in the whole HE governance is a significant shift from a highly centralized structure. Their challenge will be to set up efficient system to an increasingly dispersed or delegated systems that give good quality services that can model. cater to the needs of students and their institutions, and yet remain flexible enough for them, and the Reforms have clearly increased institutional HEIs, to cope with a rapidly changing world. autonomy and, in so doing, have promoted more effective systems of accountability. While it is clear that China, like all other countries, will find their own way to achieve greater effectiveness 21 OECD (2004). On the Edge – Securing a Sustainable Future for and efficiency of their higher education Higher Education, Paris. Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 43 ENGLAND  The need for high quality management information systems and high quality data. The Development of Higher  The importance from the HE institutional view Education Intermediary of securing a balance between autonomy Bodies in England since and accountability which will enable the institutions to achieve high standards. the 1970s Summary These characteristics will be further elaborated and exemplified in the following sections. This case study is about England. It focuses on the role of intermediary bodies in the oversight, funding and administration of Higher Education (HE). It is Development of Intermediary Bodies divided into 5 sections: When compared with similar institutions in other countries, universities and colleges in England  Development of intermediary bodies enjoy considerable academic, financial and  Teaching funding managerial autonomy. That has not always been  Research funding so. The historic universities have a centuries-long tradition of autonomy, but they are complemented  Quality assurance by many institutions that were originally subject  Institutional governance. to much greater regulation, and which became successively polytechnics and then universities in It seeks to identify characteristics of efficient and their own right. There has been a unified HE sector, effective intermediary bodies and of the way in with the Higher Education Funding Council for which they work, which may also be of general England (HEFCE: www.hefce.ac.uk) as its principal relevance for other countries. Those characteristics intermediary funding body and extensive autonomy of efficient and effective intermediary bodies for all institutions, since 1992. include: Over the last 50 years the HE sector in England has  A clear and explicit definition of intermediary faced the twin challenges of increasing participation bodies’ roles and of the boundaries to from 5% to over 40% and at the same time those roles. expanding the volume and sustaining the quality  A clear and explicit statement of the way of research. The principal motive in each case has in which intermediary bodies are expected been economic. There has been a parallel process to relate to other stakeholders and to HE of shifting the cost of undergraduate teaching from institutions. the taxpayer to the graduate through the increased use of student loans, first for living costs and more  A clear and explicit statement of each recently for tuition fees. That has led to a substantial intermediary body’s accountabilities. shift in the role of HEFCE from a funding role to a  The importance of transparency in the way regulatory one. in which intermediary bodies do their work. Universities were for much of the 20th century  The importance of extensive consultation funded by the University Grants Committee about future plans. (UGC), which was established in 1919. It was very  The need to staff intermediary bodies with largely independent of government. Perhaps the people who bring the necessary balance most significant political event which led to reform of skills, knowledge and expertise and who of the UGC was the impact of public spending have personal integrity. cuts in 1981. The UGC implemented those cuts 44 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges by maintaining the level of funding per student It should be noted that there are a large number and reducing student numbers and by making of other stakeholders at the national level with a selective and deep cuts in some universities. direct interest in HE. They include, for example, That set of decisions was very controversial. professional and statutory institutions in fields such Later in the 1980s, the polytechnics, which were as engineering, medicine and architecture, and subject to much more detailed controls than the government bodies such as the UK Border Agency, universities, urged the government to give them the Charities Commission and the Health and autonomy comparable to universities. The result Safety Executive. There is in practice a complex web of the political pressures taken as a whole was of stakeholders at the national and local levels. a staged transition to the current unified sector, with HECFE as the single principal intermediary The statutory foundation for this structure is quite funding body. succinct. The key provision, which gives legal force to the so-called “arm’s-length” principle That consolidation has been accompanied over of separating central government from detailed time by a significant growth in the number of control over HE institutions, is that when the other national bodies with specific functions in government gives grants – in the case of HEFCE relation to higher education.22 The first of the it may not attach conditions to those grants which seven Research Councils – which distribute public concern particular courses of study, or criteria funding for research – was established in 1920. for the selection and appointment of academic Over the last 25 years successive governments or staff or the admission of students. The HEFCE the universities and HEFCE acting together have Board has by law between 12 and 15 members, set up, for example, the Student Loans Company divided in practice approximately equally between (www.slc.co.uk), the Quality Assurance Agency senior academic members and those from a wide (www.qaa.ac.uk), JISC (www.jisc.ac.uk) founded variety of other backgrounds. The “arm’s-length” as the Joint Information Services Committee to set principle is also put into practice by appointing the up the IT network for HE, the Higher Education government representative on the HEFCE Board Statistics Agency (www.hesa.ac.uk), the Office of as an assessor rather than as a full member, and the Independent Adjudicator (www.oiahe.org.uk), this practice is replicated on the Boards of other which deals with student complaints, the Office for National Bodies. The assessor does not have a vote Fair Access (www.offa.org.uk) and the (subsequently in Board meetings and is invited to speak on issues abolished) Teacher Training Agency. There is also of concern to the government. an independent national body – the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (www.ucas.com) – HEFCE’s role has changed in response to changes which administers undergraduate admissions to HE in the way in which English universities are funded. across the United Kingdom. But some of its characteristics remain unchanged, and they exemplify all of the items in the list set Any country reorganizing its HE intermediary bodies out in the summary above. The basic role of the might with advantage reflect on the balance between Council is set out in statute. Each year it receives a multi-purpose and single-purpose organizations. formal letter from the relevant government Minister The experience in England suggests that there are setting out the funding to be made available and often advantages in establishing single-purpose the priorities which the government wishes to see bodies where expertise can be concentrated and implemented. HEFCE has a set of detailed and where the leadership can focus on a single mission public documents setting out its relationship with and complement rather than compete with other the institutions it funds. It is accountable to the national bodies. government and to Parliament, and also – for example by holding an Annual Meeting open to 22 Almost 30 within the UK – seven of which are related bodies to all institutions – to the universities and colleges that HEFCE and the other UK Funding Councils. it funds. Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 45 Its processes are very transparent and any changes and all of the decisions about course content were are subject to detailed and public consultation. taken at institutional level and overarching higher Over the years it has built up considerable analytical education policy decisions are (rightfully) taken by and statistical expertise and has established a very government. But it has always also had the role strong data infrastructure relating to the funding of of being a regulatory body and of overseeing the institutions. health of institutions. It has carried out that role by a combination of system-wide monitoring, especially of All of these processes are designed to support financial health, and of targeted visiting and, where the significant degree of autonomy which the necessary, of targeted intervention. For example, HE institutions enjoy. While HEFCE was the main HEFCE requires institutions to submit audited annual funder of teaching, for example, the great majority accounts, their own audit committee’s annual report, of its grants were so-called block grants, giving their own internal auditor’s annual report and an the receiving institutions considerable freedom annual assurance return. There have been a very to spend the money to meet their own priorities. few cases where institutions have found themselves, Institutions were and are expected to have their own for whatever reason, in significant difficulties. In strategies. HEFCE controlled the overall number of such cases the “arm’s-length” principle means that undergraduate places (because of the potential government Ministers look to HEFCE to take the consequences for student support costs) and the necessary action without being controlled by the balance between cheaper and more expensive relevant government department. courses. But institutions have the freedom to shift undergraduate places from one subject to another; HEFCE currently has some 250 staff. Over the and they have complete freedom to set their own years it has built up notable expertise in funding number of postgraduate places and the levels of related strategies and methods. Such processes fees for postgraduate courses. They have complete have evolved over time as the function of HEFCE freedom to appoint staff, with no political scrutiny and its predecessor bodies has developed following let alone interference. changes in relation to higher education policies. The Government of the day is responsible for public Institutions have freedom to generate funding from policy decisions for higher education. It devolves commercial and other sources and to spend that the responsibility for determining how funds should money to meet their own priorities; and, subject to be distributed to HEFCE and other agencies. Bodies HEFCE approval when the cost of servicing loans is such as HEFCE could not carry out their work a significant proportion of their total income, they without an extensive electronic MIS infrastructure, have freedom to borrow money. which serves both to record the way in which grants are distributed and to identify potential Over its lifetime HEFCE has used a variety of stresses in individual institutions. Much of the wide funding methodologies, including significant range of data collected is published by HESA: numbers of competitive funding streams aimed at see www.hesa.ac.uk. systemic developments and reform using a small proportion23 of its total grant, where institutions have Teaching Funding to put in bids which are judged centrally. These are further examples of the importance of transparency, As participation in HE has grown in England, fairness and integrity. central government has taken the responsibility of setting overall UK and EU undergraduate student HEFCE has always described its role as that of a numbers. Within those totals, and subject to controls funding body and not a planning body, because over a very few components such as medical most of the decisions about which courses to offer student numbers, HEFCE has had responsibility for distributing teaching funding without government 23 At present just under 10 per cent. intervention. This approach has been based on a 46 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges strategy of giving institutions considerable freedom Research Funding to respond to student demand for particular subjects and particular courses. The structure of government research funding in England and the UK is unusual by international Institutions, in contrast to the home undergraduate standards. Since the 1920s there has been a so- positions, have complete freedom to recruit called dual funding system. The majority of the international students for courses at all levels and money is distributed by central bodies – now the very considerable freedom to recruit postgraduate seven Research Councils – to fund specific projects. students, whether from home or abroad. All of But there is also a separate funding stream which these freedoms combined with the bulk of funding is distributed by HEFCE and is intended to be spent coming from either block grant or tuition fees on research infrastructure not linked to individual means that institutions have considerable internal projects. The rationale is that this second funding freedom to spend teaching income as they see stream enables universities to build up research fit, and in particular to cross-subsidize between capacity which can be applied to a variety of projects. different activities when they so choose and The dual funding system has been very frequently the conditions attached to particular funding challenged and reviewed, but has always been kept streams allow. in place because it is seen to be the basis for an increasingly impressive research performance by As noted above, the growth in participation has universities in the UK. been accompanied by a shift from HEFCE teaching funding to variable tuition fees with a nationally- In a direct analogy to the “arm’s-length” principle set maximum fee level for home students. described above, research funding decisions are Undergraduate students can take up loans to cover taken by the Research Councils, taking account the cost of their fees; those loans are repaid after of government priorities but with no government graduation as a fixed proportion of income once influence over the distribution of funds between an income threshold is reached, in what is in effect projects, which is determined solely on the basis a form of graduate tax. These developments have of research quality: this is known as the Haldane greatly increased the role of the Student Loans Principle.24 Company as an intermediary body in managing university funding. The University Grants Committee first made an explicit distinction between teaching and research In recent years central government has attached funding in 1986, at the same time as introducing considerable importance to widening participation the first Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). The in HE for students from social or ethnic backgrounds RAE, repeated every six years or so, is an extensive with historically low participation rates. Another review of the research performance of universities, central body – the Office for Fair Access – has been subject by subject, on the basis of detailed established to oversee this process. It agrees targets information supplied by the institutions to subject with each institution and monitors their progress, panels which produce grading for each submission. again with an emphasis on both transparency and Those gradings in turn determine the distribution by consultation. HEFCE of its stream of research funding. Universities have always had their own degree- The RAE, and its recent development into the Research awarding powers and polytechnics were given Excellence Framework (REF), have been the subject those powers when they assumed their present status in 1992. Some smaller colleges still have their 24 In British research policy, the Haldane principle is the idea that decisions about what to spend research funds on should be made degrees validated by universities, but unlike many by researchers rather than politicians. It is named after Richard other countries there is not a national accreditation Burdon Haldane, who in 1904 and from 1909 to 1918 chaired committees and commissions which recommended this policy. body. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane_principle) Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 47 of much debate. Against the list of characteristics Council (established by the then Universities UK set out in the summary, the exercise demonstrates in respect of institutional audit). Later, from 1997, the value of explicit roles and the combination of both strands were amalgamated into the Quality transparency, consultation, appropriate expertise, Assurance Agency (QAA). It is not necessary to go integrity and fairness. However debatable the precise into the detail, but undoubtedly the most influential details may be, the repeated RAEs undoubtedly initiative was the exercise to review teaching quality show the potential impact of a new and strongly in all institutions, including observing teaching competitive funding government policy directive and taking place as this was the first time in UK history how this is developed (by the intermediary bodies) that teaching and learning in all higher education into evaluation and funding methodologies. institutions in the UK were externally assessed under one umbrella body. This placed a considerable At the same time the history of the RAE demonstrates premium on both the integrity of the review process the need to monitor the impact of new initiatives and and on transparency, since the results were made to guard against undesirable consequences – in this publicly available. particular case including the potential for generating unhealthy competition and for overcomplicating Over time the balance has shifted away from detailed funding exercises. It follows that intermediary review of teaching and learning by external peer bodies have a responsibility to consider the overall review teams towards placing a greater emphasis effect of their work and to modify their approach if on gathering and publishing students’ views. Since necessary, and most of the developments between 2005 there has been a National Student Survey, one ‘round of assessments’ and another focus on commissioned by HEFCE from Ipsos MORI, a such considerations. That having been said, most multinational market research/survey company. dispassionate observers would regard the RAE as a The National Student Survey is now an increasingly powerful example of the way in which performance important factor in influencing institutional behavior. can be improved over many years by targeted The results are available by course for all institutions. funding strategies. This, too, has been the subject of vigorous debate, but has brought out the variation of performance within as well as between institutions. The use of Quality Assurance Student Surveys is another model used in the UK A national system with extensive academic autonomy and other countries to stimulate progress. and with, except for professional subjects, no accreditation activity as conventionally understood needs one or more effective quality assurance Institutional Governance mechanisms. In England this issue has been a Putting the student voice in a central position is also controversial one, not least because the older- reflected in governance development in the UK. established universities had no tradition of external The fact that students are members of governing quality assurance. The polytechnics were much bodies of UK HE institutions as a matter of course more used to having their qualifications validated and that they are expected to take an active role in by an external body and indeed, were subject to both governance and management means that the inspection by independent Inspectors (appointed by student voice is heard at all levels in universities and the Queen in Council (the Privy Council – hence, colleges, to the considerable benefit of everyone. Her Majesty’s Inspectors). Autonomous institutions need strong governance as Following political debate in the 1980s a national well as strong leadership. In England the history is initiative on teaching quality assurance began in again divided into two streams, brought together the early 1990s, under the auspices of the newly in the 1990s. Universities traditionally had strong established HEFCE (for subject-based teaching Senates (composed exclusively of academic staff) assessments) and the Higher Education Quality and large governing bodies whose role was relatively 48 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges limited. Polytechnic governing bodies were smaller UNITED STATES and had a strong local government voice. After unification of the higher education sector and the State Higher Education bringing together of the two groups of institutions, there was a need to establish principles of good Boards in the United States: governance. Much of that work was carried out by Developments and Good a national review of HE, chaired by Lord Dearing, Practices in 1997. In the following, we will give an overview of the That review concluded among other things that historical development of State Higher Education governing bodies should not have more than 25 Boards in the US as well as give examples of members; that they should always have a majority how these intermediary bodies can support good of external members; that there should be a clear practices in higher education governance. limit to the length of service of members; and that all governing bodies should review their own Development of State Higher effectiveness regularly. Education Boards The strengthening of governance at the institutional The United States is a federal system in which level is a highly desirable complement to the both the federal government and the states play redefinition and strengthening of the role of important roles in higher education policy. The intermediary bodies in the UK and in other federal government provides substantial funding countries – including India and bodies such as through student financial assistance (grants and SHECs, because it clarifies the responsibility for loans) and support of research. It is the states, defining institutional strategies and overseeing however, that are responsible for establishing, their implementation; for ensuring the effectiveness supporting and overseeing the development of of institutional systems and for benchmarking public colleges and universities. The states are also institutional performance, all of which are key responsible for approving the operation of private elements in improving outcomes.25 institutions, both not-for profit and for-profit. To be eligible for federal funding, all institutions, both The development of higher education intermediary public and private, must be licensed by the states in bodies in England since the 1970s has recognized which they operate. the increasing complexity of the task of leading and managing universities and colleges in the The principal development of State Higher modern world. It has increasingly focused on Education entities in the US occurred in the strengthening leadership, management and 1960s as the country experienced a dramatic governance as inextricably linked activities, so that growth in enrollments and expansion of the English institutions can exploit their relatively high nation’s higher education system. Most of the degree of academic, financial and management funding for this expansion came from states, autonomy by international standards, raise not the federal government. Along with standards of teaching, learning and research, rapid expansion came major concerns about and at the same time be accountable to their uncoordinated development of new institutions and stakeholders. duplication of high-cost facilities and academic programs. In response to these concerns, states established statewide coordinating councils and 25 The general principles underlying those conclusions and the accumulated experience of effective governance in UK institutions other mechanisms charged with overseeing are similar to those in a number of other countries and align with the orderly development of higher education the conclusions set out in the Good Practice Guide for Governing Bodies published by the World Bank’s TEQIP II Project. institutions. Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 49 As in the case of the UGC in the UK, the higher history, and size. Three states did not form a special education coordinating entities in the US were statutory agency with authority to coordinate the designed explicitly to maintain a delicate balance state system. These states continued to handle between the state and higher education institutions. statewide higher education issues through existing They were governed by councils or boards governing boards, informal coordination, and direct composed of leading civic leaders and, in some involvement of the governor and state legislature.28 cases, academic leaders, and were granted a The remaining 47 states have state-level structures degree of independence from direct control of the (intermediary bodies) to carrying out their higher state governor and legislature. At the same time, education responsibilities, There are basically they carried out their responsibilities in a manner two broad categories of state higher education which respected institutional autonomy but insisted structures: (1) statewide university system governing on institutional accountability.26 boards (23 states); (2) and statewide coordinating boards (24 states). The basic differences between The federal government influenced the development these types of state structure are as follows: of state higher education councils. The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 (and subsequent Statewide university system governing boards: laws enacted in 1965 and 1972) required states Under this structure, all public post-secondary to establish or designate state higher education institutions are organized within/under one or more commissions as a condition for eligibility for statewide system governing boards that encompass significant federal funding. The federal law all the public institutions within the state. No specified that the commissions should be broadly intermediary entity exists between the system board representative of the general public and of public and the state government. Typically responsibilities and private institutions within the state. States that of system governing boards include: 1) strategic had already established state coordinating entities planning, budgeting and allocation of resources designated these existing entities but were required between and among institutions within the system; to make changes in entities’ membership and 2) appointment, compensation, and evaluation powers to comply with federal requirements. Other responsibilities for system and institutional chiefs; states established entirely new entities either by 3) advocating the needs of the institutions within enacting a statute or by the Governor’s executive the system; 4) academic policy including approving order. Those state commissions established by new academic programs, awarding degrees, law tended to have a lasting impact while those and awarding tenure to faculty/academic staff. In established by executive order either were repealed most of these states, there is no intermediary body or given a limited role once federal funding was between the university system and state government eliminated.27 except for higher education service agencies with limited administrative and regulatory authority. Types of State Boards Coordinating boards: Coordinating boards are By 1974, all but three states had established a intermediary agencies responsible for overseeing statewide coordinating or governing entity. Most decentralized systems in which the responsibility of these entities remain today, but their roles and for governing institutions is assigned to multiple functions have evolved significantly. The specific system and institutional boards. Coordinating powers and functions of these entities vary greatly boards do not govern university systems or depending on the state’s governmental structure, institutions. Therefore they do not have any role in the appointment of institutional chief executives 26 Berdahl, R.O. (1971). State Coordination of Higher Education. Washington D.C., American Council of Education. 28 McGuinness, Aims (2010). The States and Higher Education in 27 McGuinness, A., McKinney, H., and Millard, R. (1974). Changing American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Map of Postsecondary Education: Implementation of the State Political, and Economic Challenges, 2nd Edition, Altbach, P ., 1202 Commissions. Denver: Education Commission of the States. Berdahl, R. and Gumport, P eds. John Hopkins University Press. 50 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges Examples of Statewide System Governing Boards California All California public institutions are under the jurisdiction of one of three state boards: the Board of Regents of the University of California governs 10 universities and 3 research centers, the Board of Trustees of the California State University governs 23 universities, and the Board of Governors of the California Community College System oversees 109 community colleges. No intermediary body exists between the three system governing boards and state government (the Governor and State Legislature). North Carolina All North Carolina public institutions are under the jurisdiction of either the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina governing 16 universities and or the State Board of Community Colleges governing 59 colleges and technology centers. No intermediary body exists between these system governing boards and state government (the Governor and State Legislature). and in institutional policy and management. In capital (investment) budgets for the higher this respect, coordinating boards carry out their education system. Recommending formulas responsibilities in ways that respect and support the and other methodologies for allocation of autonomy of the institutions within their jurisdiction. state funding among public institutions. The powers and functions of coordinating boards  Policy analysis: Conducting special analyses vary depending on the circumstances of each state. to support policy-making by the Governor Common functions include: and State Legislature.  Strategic long-range planning: Developing  Maintaining comprehensive data/ and periodically updating a statewide plan information systems: Maintaining data/ setting forth goals related to access, student information systems to support strategic success, responding to labor market needs, planning, policy analysis, and hold and linking research and innovation to the institutions accountable for progress toward state’s competitiveness. statewide goals.  Academic program review and approval:  Administration of state student financial Ensuring that academic programs respond assistance (grant and loan) programs. to state priorities and avoid unnecessary duplication of high-cost, low-demand  Project administration: Administration of state programs. and federal programs intended to address access, quality or other critical issues.  Budget review and resource allocation methodologies: Reviewing institutional  Regulation of non-public institutions: budgets and making recommendations licensure and approval of non-public to the state government on operating and institutions to operate within the state. Examples of Coordinating Board States Texas The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is responsible for overseeing a highly complex system of six system governing boards, each responsible for multiple universities; three universities with single governing boards; and 50 community colleges organized as multi-campus and single campus institutions. Virginia The State Council for Higher Education in Virginia is responsible for coordinating a highly decentralized system of 16 universities each with its own governing board (board of visitors), and 23 community colleges governed by the statewide Board of the Virginia Community College System. Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 51 The state role in the US has evolved over the past  Recognition of distinctions between 50 years from an emphasis on centralized planning, statewide policy – and the public entities regulatory control and accountability for inputs and policies needed to accomplish it – and toward a focus on strategic planning, increasing institutional governance. institutional autonomy, and holding institutions  The role of statewide policy leadership is accountable for outcomes. Finance policy has distinct from the roles of institutional and shifted from detailed cost-based enrollment-driven segmental governing boards. formulas to allocation based on performance and  Information gathering and analytical outcomes such as degree completion. capacity to inform the choice of state goals/ priorities and to interpret and evaluate statewide and institutional performance in Good Practices of State Higher relation to these goals. Education Boards  Capacity to bring coherence and coordination in key policy areas, such There is widely consensus that because the context as the relationship between institutional and structure of each country’s or state’s higher appropriations, tuition, and financial aid. education system is unique; it is not possible to identify specific geographic places as complete  Capacity to influence the direction of state examples of good practices in higher education resources to ensure accomplishment of governance. Nevertheless, there are certain these priorities.29 characteristics of policy leadership in higher education that can be related at least indirectly to No state structure in higher education is thus their performance over time. Good practices in perfect or easily transferrable; it is the product statewide coordination of higher education is closely of the state’s unique culture and challenges. linked to strong leadership seeking to address the However, the higher education literature does key issues of access, affordability, quality, relevance note characteristics of effective state coordinating and completion of higher education. The National boards: Center for Public Policy and Higher Education is  Independence - The capacity to gain the trust suggesting the following key characteristics of that and respect of both academic/institutional political leadership: leaders and state political leaders for the  A broad-based public entity with a clear quality and integrity of analysis and decision- charge to increase the state’s educational making processes. attainment and prepare citizens for the  Professional staff capacity related to: workforce.  Strategic planning: developing broad  Strength to counter inappropriate political, consensus among stakeholders on long- partisan, institutional, or parochial term goals and strategies. influences.  Use of data/information systems  Capacity and responsibility for articulating to inform strategic planning, policy and monitoring state performance development and public accountability. objectives for higher education that  Developing and recommending finance are supported by the key leaders in policy to state leaders (e.g. budgets the state; objectives should be specific and resource allocation methodologies) and measurable, including quantifiable aligned with the state strategic plan. goals for college preparation, access, participation, retention, graduation, and  Leading state initiatives that cut across responsiveness to other state needs. sectors aimed at addressing critical state-  Engagement of civic, business, and public 29 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2005). school leaders beyond state government “State Capacity for Higher Education Policy”. A Special Supplement and higher education leaders. to National Crosstalk. 52 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges level issues related to access, quality, issue is a lack of connection between and system efficiency/performance. the allocation of public funding and  Holding institutions accountable for accountability, on the one hand, and the long- contributions to state goals. term goals set forth in strategic planning, on the other. Public funding continues to be  Consistency and integrity in values, focus, allocated with no reference to expectations policy development, and communications. for performance related to long-term goals. Accountability requirements remain focused The Challenge of Sustaining Effective on narrow input measures, not on indicators State Coordination of effectiveness or efficiency. In practice, sustaining effective coordinating  A workload dominated by bureaucratic agencies meeting the points of “good practice” is regulatory functions and not providing a continuing challenge in the US. Common issues policy leadership toward long-term include the following30: goals. A number of state coordinating entities have drifted away from playing a  Lack of balance in policy-making. central role in policy leadership (strategic Several state coordinating entities have planning, strategic budgeting, and leading failed to maintain a balance between system change) to a passive bureaucratic, responsiveness to the demands of the state regulatory role. As a consequence, the political leadership, on one hand, and agencies have neither the credibility nor the demands of academic/institutional capacity to play a significant role in shaping representatives, on the other. State or implementing state higher education governors in some states are exerting policy. increased control with the result that the agencies have lost their independence and  Lack of professional staff competence. credibility within the academic community. Effective performance of state coordinating The agencies’ ability to sustain attention functions requires a professional staff with to a long-term agenda is undermined by a high level of technical competence (in short-term political agendas and changes areas such as strategic planning, policy and in political leadership. In other states, financial analysis, and data/information higher education institutional interests systems). It also requires professional staff dominate the agencies’ agenda and with exceptional skills and professional they have limited credibility with the state experience in working both with institutions, political leadership. The agencies are seen as well as with political leaders and state more as advocates for special interests agencies. It is difficult to find individuals rather than for the broad public interest. with the requisite skills and experience to fill these positions. Low salaries and  Weak membership. The members of most political intrusion in making appointments state boards are appointed by the state undermine the ability of agencies to governor. In several states, governors have recruit staff. not appointed prominent individuals with the leadership experience and pre-eminence Sustaining effective state coordinating agencies necessary to carry out major changes in in the US requires on-going attention. Agencies the state’s higher education system. The recognized as the best in the country at one point agencies’ actions are ignored by both have de-generated over time into weak, ineffective political and academic leaders. entities for the reasons summarized above. Other  Lack of coherence in policy-making and agencies have gained in strength over time because implementation. The most serious common the states have taken deliberate steps to implement the points of “good practice” summarized above. 30 Perna, L, and Finney, J. (2014). The Attainment Agenda: State Policy Leadership in Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Periodic review and renewal are the key to sustaining University Press. an effective agency. Annexure II: Country Case Studies of State Higher Education Councils >> 53 BIBLIOGRAPHY Berdahl, R.O. (1971). State Coordination of Higher Education. Washington D.C. American Council of Education. Kumar, Venkatesh B (2010). Implementation of the Maharashtra Universities Act. Economic & Political Weekly October 23, 2010 vol xlv no 43. Mc Guinness, A., McKinney, H., and Millard, R. (1974). Changing Map of Postsecondary Education: Implementation of the State 1202 Commissions. Denver: Education Commission of the States. Mc Guinness, Aims (2010). The States and Higher Education in American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, 2nd Edition, Altbach, P., Berdahl, R. and Gumport, P eds. John Hopkins University Press. McGuinness, A. (2014). State Policy Leadership in the Public Interest: Is Anyone at Home, Goodchild, L. et. al., eds. Public Policy Challenges Facing Higher Education in the American West. The Palgrave Macmillan. Ministry of Human Resource Development (2013). Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan. New Delhi. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2005). “State Capacity for Higher Education Policy”. A Special Supplement to National Crosstalk. Perna, L, and Finney, J. (2014). The Attainment Agenda: State Policy Leadership in Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. OECD (2004). On the Edge – Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education, Paris. UGC (1988). Report of the Committee on Setting up State Council of Higher Education. World Bank (2012). TEQIP Good Practice Guide for Governing Bodies. New Delhi. 54 << State Higher Education Councils in India: Opportunities and Challenges