If governance can be likened to a journey, people are the passengers wanting to reach a destination, facilitating institutions are the vehicles used, processes adopted are the drivers of the vehicles, and the pathways to the destination are the policies followed. How safely, successfully, comfortably and timely the passengers complete their journey depends on the people at the helm and the strength of policies and processes adopted. Policies and processes are like relationships. They require constant attention and calibration. Taking them for granted would derail the journey, putting all at risk and discomfort. At present, the passengers destined to reach online degree programs (ODP) find themselves at crossroads, aboard wobbling vehicles driven by people of varying calibre.
In the higher education sector, policies are primarily the responsibility of the regulators and the processes are that of the educational institutions. Educational outcomes are heavily influenced by the interplay of policies and processes. This piece covers the policy pathways where hurdles, which could have been dismantled when the pandemic began its onslaught, are still galore.
One interesting characteristic about technology is that while it catalyses many changes in society, it undergoes constant mutation itself. When technology remains in a state of perennial flux, policymakers dealing with technological usage are caught in a catch-22 situation. Given the humongous challenge, our policymakers deserve immense appreciation for their efforts in introducing course credits via massive open online classes (MOOCs) in 2016 and later permitting universities to offer ODP. They also merit kudos for frequent policy infusions concerning online and open & distance education even during the pandemic.
The lapse, however, was neither inaction nor proaction, but in not heeding to the law of returns to scales. When the pandemic situation demanded a massive transformation, what was delivered was frequent incremental changes. When the first wave of the pandemic started to wreak havoc, online delivery of education became the only viable option. With the classes and evaluations getting held virtually in the last academic year, the higher education system got completely digitised. Juxtapose that with the latest norms: only institutions with at least 3.26 NAAC score or within the top 100 in NIRF ranking can provide ODP and institutions are allowed to have up to 40 per cent of the total courses in a programme as MOOCs courses in a semester (deserves separate discussion on another occasion). While the moves, though a tad belated, are welcome, the dosage is not enough.
The number of universities is 1019. The number of universities with NAAC score of 3.26 or above is just 84. Considering this and the top 100 of NIRF, it is very likely that only 100-odd universities are eligible to offer ODP, barring almost 90 percent of the universities from providing ODP. Further, the eligible universities too can offer only 3 UG and 10 PG ODP.
To give another perspective, there are no eligible universities in the States of Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. The entire North-Eastern States are unrepresented. Interestingly, there are 114 universities whose scores range between 3.01 to 3.25, which includes universities from the States of Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Uttarakhand, and UT of Puducherry. Reflecting on the extant eligibility norms, the following questions arise:
With private online education providers coming up with customised ODP, it is only a matter of time before the market recognises them for employment purposes on a massive scale. It is for the regulators to lead the show or be led by chaging market dynamics.
Views expressed by the author are personal and need not reflect or represent the views of Centre for Public Policy Research.
Featured Image Courtesy: Economics Times