Quality of Higher Education in India and Pay Scale Revision as per Sixth Pay Commission

The Sixth pay commission and its implementation by the Government (Center as well as State) in higher education in India has left the academic community completely divided and de-motivated. Attracting talent and promoting merit are two pariah terms in higher education today. For last two years, though ideally we should talk from the year 2006 (hence four year in reality), this process has undergone numerous changes through government orders and memorandums, all of which could have been avoided by a single comprehensive order had it not been for the fact the priorities were not lop sided. As of today the law favours those who have joined higher education in colleges and universities of India in 1992 or prior to that. Irrespective of their academic background (was far less stringent then due to absence of UGC NET), achievement (like Doctoral research and project) all teachers of colleges and universities are best placed in terms of their designation and pay packet. This has become possible because AIFUCTO, one of the highest and most powerful teachers body in the country, contrary to erstwhile role of protector of the benefits of teachers, have taken up the cause of those who have been least productive during their academic tenure.
The initial recommendation had suggested a four tired structured – Assistant Professor (present Lecturer and Senior Lecture), Junior Associate Professor (Selection Grade Lecturers-those who have not done their PhD and will have to end their career at that stage if they do not complete their PhD), Associate Professor (Reader), and Professor. This structure was formulated after a teacher’s performance and commitment to higher education was taken into consideration. However, this structure was allegedly scuttled by AIFUCTO to ensure that teachers without any research do not get differentiated nor they are held accountable for their inertial/inaction/academic impotency. Redrafted notification of UGC/MHRD, allegedly on the initiative of AIFUCTO, brought back the structure to three tires, clubbing together Associate Professor (Selection Grade Lecturers-those who have not done their PhD), Associate Professor (Reader), not foreseeing that a huge number to teachers are going to get unnecessarily penalized for it.
The complications that arose from the above notification, and intransigence of the Higher Education Departments, Governments both at Center and State of India:
1. It may be noted that re-designation process is yet to start of any where within the state run Universities.
2. New recruit teachers in the open-post of Reader after 2006 are being deprived of all the benefits of Pay Revision citing the clause that the person have remain three years in the post to claim the post of Associate Professor. Better eligibility/performance record allows a person to seek employment through open advertisement so that they can pace their advancement. Initiative and enterprise of such candidates are being trampled by promotion of academic impotency of senior teachers. This has resulted in a divide and animosity and a forced neglect among many teachers.
3. New recruit teachers in the post of Professor, after 2006, are also deprived of full pay under similar lackadaisical formulation of regulation and misinterpretation of the regulation by the UGC/MHRD/Department of Higher Education in States.
4. Those who are in-job/incumbents, and have already become readers under old regulation (after 09 years and have a PhD degree), this three year period of waiting (for completion of 12 years regular service), has placed them in an untenable situation. Reader post being abolished from 2006, they will be/are being down graded to Assistant Professor pay band (III), and no body knows what will be their designation
5. Another issue of concern and great de-motivation has been the clause regarding awarding additional increments to teachers who have been awarded PhD degree following new regulation or the then regulation (law of the land) applicable during the time of the individual teachers’ registration for PhD Degree. After all, every university functions under the prevalent regulation of the UGC, therefore a teacher who is completing PhD work now or is being awarded now cannot retroactively apply present regulation. Furthermore, if it is argued that only those who do their PhD following present format are eligible, then it is a huge “motion of no-confidence” on the seriousness and competence of the individual candidate, his/her supervisor, approval authorities like the PhD Committee, Court/Council/ Syndicate, the University as well as the recognizing body of the same University, namely, the UGC. So it is not merely a matter of pay increment but also the reputation and integrity of all concerned involved in the process is being questioned and subjected to humiliation. Therefore, there is a confusion regarding the teachers who are in service and are completing/have recently completed PhD are neither being given the three advance increments (under old regulation) nor five increments (under new regulation). It is important to take appropriate action to not only rejuvenate young teachers by recognizing their hard work under same parameters, but also save the PhD program from ill-repute.
6. Differential treatment of institutions of higher education in India has complicated the matter further. Blue chip Institutes like IIT/IIM get more attention than mainstream Universities though in terms of criteria for entry point qualification and career advancement there is no difference. The Central Universities on the other hand are flush with benefits and funds though management of the same has been dismal.

Most of the State Teacher’s Bodies have agitated for implementation of the HRD Ministry notification in toto, including enhancement of retirement age, adequate funding for university and colleges in the light of pay revision, release of arrears, filling up of vacancies in the higher education system CAS, cause of librarians of colleges, full pension on completion of 20 years of service and an end to contractual appointment in accordance with the advice of the HRD Ministry. The agitation of the teaching community seems to have been forced upon them because they have to wait longer period than that of central/state government employees for implementation of revised pay scales; refusal of the MHRD to accept/implement the UGC recommendations based on consultation with the teaching community across the country; unreasonable and intransient nature of the offers/diktats made by the MHRD at every stage, relatively less attractive monetary compensation; withering central assistance to states, limiting promotional opportunities for teachers in University vis-à-vis Colleges. However, what is seen is that various issues raised are used one against the other for not implementing any one issue. For example, arrear payment is now linked to the age of retirement of the teachers. Each issue is separate and requires detailed consideration, therefore, needs to be implemented on the basis of relative merit of the issue. Linking one with the other is a motivated act on the part of the Government to delay and deprive.

In context of Primary Education in India, Dr Niranjan Aradhya and Aruna Kashyap (2006, The ‘Fundamentals’. Right to Education in India, Centre for Child and the Law, National Law School of India University, Bangalore, p.16) correctly raise the issue of ‘content of law’ that seems appropriate for Higher Education in India also, esp. in context of the subverting merit in recent regulation regarding pay revision of teachers.
“The content of the right is left to be regulated by law. In order to implement the fundamental right to education through a rights-based model of legislation, one needs to determine the features of such a model. However, before examining the elements of a rights-based model of legislation, it may be apt to briefly discuss Amartya Sen’s caveat with respect to legislating for the implementation of a human right. He points out that legislations, which go a long way towards ensuring enforceability of specific minimum entitlements, may also have the negative effect of giving restrictive or limited interpretations of the content of the concerned human right. Legislations may also give rise to policy inaction on the ground that specific legal rules have been complied with.36 For example, if a law lays down that the duty of the State is to ensure x, y, z, then the State will restrict its activities to ensuring x, y, z without looking beyond that framework. Therefore, while legislation is certainly a welcome development, it should not be treated as the only vehicle of implementing human rights. The legislation should also be supplemented by other non-coercive rules for effective implementation of the human right…This caveat needs to be taken into account during legislative processes and adequate safeguards need to be built into the law. While there cannot be a fool-proof mechanism of countering negative outcomes of law, the identifiable negative outcomes may be mitigated. For instance, governmental inaction could be countered through institutionalised periodic review of policy as well as law to ensure that progressive changes are made to both from time to time.37 In addition to such periodic review of policies, there should also be an institutionalised periodic review of the implementation of not only the policy but also the law. Furthermore, the quality of elementary education also depends on the quality of teaching staff, non-teaching staff, sensitivity and awareness of administrative staff in the various government departments Therefore, training and developing the capacities of such personnel is a critical component of elementary education.”

In the meantime, one must worry about super-ordinate role of the commerce ministry of Government of India in recent year vis-à-vis the HRD ministry that defines education policy. The potentiality of higher education in India as a big business has attracted foreign players (can be allegedly translated into FDIs and kickbacks?) and they want to gain a share of this lucrative pie by establishing their own institutions. Overspending Governments find this as an easy avenue to spruce their coffers by allowing these players access to the Indian market. The question is at what terms?, and normatively should that be the primary focus of higher education policy in India?, esp. in context of the fact that it is the desi-higher education institutions over the last five decades have served not only the country but also far off places like the Silicon Valley in US. The dilemma of democracy in juxtaposition with a free trade regime is another area to delve into. Dweep Chanana (September 14, 2006, India's Higher Education Policy-New Rules, The Hindustan Times) correctly points out that:
Public spending on education is similar to spending on healthcare or infrastructure. From an economics perspective, it is a public good. From a social contract perspective, it is the reason why government exists. The priorities of the commerce ministry are, unfortunately, driven by neither perspective, but rather by a short-term financial perspective. Financial sustainability is important, but cannot and should not be the overarching goal of a country-wide education policy. Governments make investments in public health, education, and infrastructure not because they will generate a financial return but because they are essential to the State's development. The purpose of government is to serve its people, and providing education is one of its functions. If not, we get the sort of twisted logic the ministry has used in encouraging private sector spending: "Public spending on higher education should be discouraged since private benefits outweigh social benefits. Subsidising higher education benefits the rich more than the poor." It is true that education, particularly higher education, generates both individual and public benefits. That, however, is not the same as saying that 'private benefits outweigh social benefits'. And to go as far as saying that such spending benefits the rich more is utter nonsense.

It seems that the above is one of the most important causative factors for the widening regional disparities in higher education in India. With a motive to enhance the chances of foreign institutions in higher education in India we see evidence of retrogression of the central and state finances. Core to this financial constriction at the Centre as well as in the states has been the rise of powerful vested interests that appropriate a major share of public finances to the disadvantage of the rest of the society and economy at large. What is being ignored is the fact that these powerful lobbies do a great harm to the public exchequer by ensuring maximum private gain from public expenditure with minimum returns. The principal vested interests operating in this field could be broadly characterized as the desi industrialists in association with their foreign masters, the farm lobby, the bureaucracy with an eye for fat-pay employment in these private institutions after superannuation, and the political class. Pay revision in higher education in India this time indeed has become a victim of a strong and often unholy alliance between the ruling politicians and these vested interests to their mutual advantage.

Prashant Gupta’s (in “Making Tigers of Dinosaurs: Roadmap for Reform of Indian Universities to create Sustainable Knowledge Capital in the era of Globalization”
http://www.prashantgupta.info/tigers.pdf) views, if taken into consideration, may improve the vision of administrators and politicians at the helm of higher education in India and reduce their value deficiency:
“There are today 200 universities, 8,000 colleges, 5 million students, and 27,000 teachers in higher education. The figures are high and impressive, but the first casualty of the expansion phenomenon is the quality. In the post-Independence era, the Indian Institutes of Technology, consciously patterned after the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the U.S., received substantial overseas help right from the outset. With support from four donor nations, the five IITs benefited from guest faculty from outside of India, the ability to send Indian faculty for training abroad, and contributions of modern laboratory equipment and facilities. The Indian Institutes of Management established similar international links: IIM/Ahmedabad, for example, still maintains strong connections with the Harvard Business School. Except these APEX Quality Institutions, more than 90% Universities are providing paper degrees mainly to meet qualification criterion in government jobs and such education cannot be considered knowledge capital. Perhaps the most recent innovation in Indian higher education, the Indira Gandhi National Open University (together with similar, state-sponsored Open Universities), drew heavily on the UK experience with distance education and the Open University concept. But majority of institutions of higher education in India are suffering…Three main issues are absence of strategic planning; resource model inadequacies; and course planning, resource crunch & selection of students…University needs to transform into developers and disseminators of knowledge in the emerging medium. The mission of the research university may be expanded from the theoretical goal of increasing knowledge to one actively concerned with both increasing knowledge and sharing the benefits of that knowledge with its immediate community Here are four ways to improve: 􀂙 PURPOSE: the separate community, industry and education missions into a cohesive whole that seeks to benefit the development of society for e.g. better understanding of use of country’s resources tied with scientific & economic progress. 􀂙 SPEED: Harness the intellectual capacity at the University to encourage the systematic development and innovation of digital media in teaching and learning.
􀂙 DISTRIBUTION: Build educational resources meant for distribution beyond campus & licensing University content to start-ups for development of knowledge-based resources. 􀂙 COLLABORATION: Joint research and greater interaction between scientists and academic community. The idea is to promote greater usage of the more expensive labs which are not being used much; while facilities which are not so expensive and are being used need not be shared. The aim is to pool in resources for maximum efficient use Understanding India's education systems contributes to the larger understanding of this complex nation's diverse society. General trends and averages concerning social conditions on a national level may not adequately describe how human activity is expressed spatially and temporally in specific areas. The great variations in local environmental and social conditions require that national and state or union territory programs aimed at improving the quality of life not adhere too strictly to any one standard plan. Local climate, topography, and drainage patterns all need to be considered in terms of how they relate to local forms of land use and ethnic and linguistic groupings. Increasing urbanization in India also complicates efforts at monitoring local conditions. Only with the full support and understanding of India's many rural and urban residents will new ways of focusing India's immense human resources toward the goals of developing and conserving renewable natural resources, limiting population growth, providing increased health care, and achieving education for all be successful.”

The complications, if not resolved, will not only de-motivate academicians with initiative and ambition, but also may ensnare the whole process of pay revision in higher education into legal whirlpool. The logic forwarded by K R Shyam Sundar (August 15-22, 1998 Teachers' Strike: The Larger Agenda, Economic and Political Weekly, p. 2213-2214) more than a decade back still holds well when he says: “It is well known that teachers do not enjoy the kind of perks that even bankers do, not to speak of those enjoyed by civil servants. The absence of perks needs to be compensated in direct money terms. Critics point out that teachers spend less time in the campus, which itself is a perk. Teachers do spend time in extra curricular activities and in research and general reading apart from preparing for the lectures. Secondly, considerations of quantity are not an appropriate yardstick to judge the teachers' work; this ignores quality. If quantity is a criteria, then the watchman should be more than a part time teacher. Again, a carpenter, a coolie or the construction worker should be paid at least as much as a software engineer: the bias against brawn work in favour of brain work then would need to be rectified. Finally, the limited promotional opportunities for teachers would place them in the long run in an unfavourable position as compared to civil servants.” One opinion making the rounds is to reward teachers based on their classroom performance, as measured on standardized student achievement tests and principal evaluations. This merit pay argument is designed to provide appropriate financial incentive for teachers to improve student outcomes, to encourage the retention of proficient teachers, and to attract high-skilled individuals to the teaching profession. However, according to Richard Buddin and Others, in a Working Paper, August 2007, “Merit Pay for Florida Teachers. Design and Implementation Issues”, Florida Education Association, contend that “the design and implementation of merit pay faces several key challenges. First, student outcomes are difficult to define and measure. Second, the contributions of individual teachers to student outcomes are difficult to disentangle from student background and prior achievement. The analysis shows serious deficiencies in several measures of teacher performance. Policy makers should be wary of adapting any measure without careful analysis of its properties and a plan to monitor how it is performing. The key issue is whether the incentive and sorting effects of an admittedly imperfect merit pay system can improve the quality of the teacher workforce.” The professed claim of all stake holders that higher education in India can improve qualitatively only if best students could be attracted to the teaching profession will remain a cherished dream only that got trampled under the juggernaut of mediocrity and poverty of philosophy.