20 dr veena devi trivedi

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ VEENA DEVI TRIVEDI (3139-3144)

OCT-NOV, 2015, VOL. 2/12 www.srjis.com Page 3139

POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF RASHTRIYA UCHAATAR SHIKSHA

ABHIYAN (RUSA)

Veena Devi Trivedi, Ph. D.

Principal, Oxford Girls College of education, Uklana, Hisar, Haryana.

The success of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan

(RMSA) has laid a strong foundation for primary and secondary education in India. However,

the sphere of higher education has still not seen any concerted efforts for improvement in access

or quality. In the coming decades, India is set to reap the benefits of demographic dividend with

its huge working age population. International Labour Organization (ILO) has predicted that by

2020, India will have 116 million workers in the age bracket of 20 to 24 years, as compared to

China's 94 million. India has a very favorable dependency ratio an it is estimated that the

average age in India by the year 2020 will be 29 years as against 40 years in USA, 46 years in

Japan and 47 years in Europe. It would be a lost opportunity if this dividend is not converted

into an advantage. Herein lays the significance of higher education.

Key Words: Policy, Rashtriya Uchchattar Shiksha Abhiyan, Implications

Introductory Remarks:

Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com

Abstract

http://www.srjis.com/srjis_new/www.srjis.com

http://www.srjis.com/srjis_new/www.srjis.com



In the coming decades, India is set to reap the benefits of demographic dividend with its huge

working age population. International Labour Organization (ILO) has predicted that by 2020,

India will have 116 million workers in the age bracket of 20 to 24 years, as compared to China's

94 million. India has a very favorable dependency ratio and it is estimated that the average age in

India by the year 2020 will be 29 years as against 40 years in RUSA, 46 years in Japan and 47

years in Europe. It would be a lost opportunity if this dividend is not converted into an

advantage. Herein lays the significance of higher education. The success of Sarva Shiksha

Abhiyan (SSA) and Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) has laid a strong

foundation for primary and secondary education in India. However, the sphere of higher

education has still not seen any concerted efforts for improvement in access or quality. In the

coming decades, India is set to reap the benefits of demographic dividend with its huge working

age population. International Labour Organization (ILO) has predicted that by 2020, India will

have 116 million workers in the age bracket of 20 to 24 years, as compared to China's 94 million.

India has a very favorable dependency ratio and it is estimated that the average age in India by

the year 2020 will be 29 years as against 40 years in USA, 46 years in Japan and 47 years in

Europe. It would be a lost opportunity if this dividend is not converted into an advantage. Herein

lays the significance of higher education.

Higher Education in India at a Glance:

There are three broad categories of the higher education institutions in India, centrally funded

institutions, state funded institutions and private institutions. While the centrally

fundedinstitutions (Central Universities, IITs, NITs, IISERs, Institutes of National Importance

etc) receive generous funding from the center, they have a limited coverage in terms of

enrollment. About 94%of the students enrolled in state funded or state controlled private

institutions comeunder the state higher education system. It is worth noting that most private

educationinstitutions are affiliated to state universities. Thus, any efforts for development in this

sectormust recognize the importance of state higher education institutions and strive to improve

theirstatus. While state universities cater to a large number of students, their funding is only a

fraction of that provided to central institutions. Over the years most states have not been ableto

allocate enough funds to higher education; shared amongst a large number of institutions,these

meager funds are thinly spread. Plan expenditure on higher education in states is almoststagnant.


OCT-NOV, 2015, VOL. 2/12 www.srjis.com 141

As a result, the quality of infrastructure and teaching in state universities is far belowthe

acceptable levels. Shortage of funds and various regulations cause vacancies in facultypositions

and also compel the state public institutions to look for alternate funding options.Linked to

faculty quality and availability are the issues of quality of teaching, research outputand general

management; In order to raise funds, most universities rely heavily on the affiliation fees they

receivefrom affiliated institutions and on self-financing courses.

Treating affiliation fees as source of income and starting courses for revenue-generation have led

to further dilution of quality and perpetuation of inequity. Except a few institutions, most

affiliated institutions depend heavily upon the University for administrative, examination- related

and curricular matters. This adds to the burden of the university as it is reduced to an

administrative and exam conducting unit rather than an institution focused on promoting

teaching, research and faculty development of associated colleges. This system also takes away

the autonomy of affiliated institutions in teaching and conducting examinations. Instead of

increasing access in a positive way, the affiliation system creates a highly centralized and

inefficient institutional structure, which does not allow its constituents any room for creativity in

teaching, learning, curriculum development or research.

There is a lack of vision and planning for the development of institutions and the higher

education sector at the state level. Given the complexities of managing the access and equity

issues within and amongst states as well as the large number of institutions that already come

under the state university system, there is a crying need for planning in higher education focusing

on the state as the basic unit. This planning should be done by an autonomous body that can raise

and allocate funds from the state as well as central governments for higher education and also

explore options of revenue generation through research, consulting, and private and industry

partnerships.The State Universities are already provided some funds from the central government

through the University Grants Commission. However, UGC’s mandate allows it to fund only

alimited number of institutions that are Section 12B and 2f (UGC Act) compliant. This excludes

about 33% of the State Universities and 51% of the colleges under such universities.

RUSA Footprint across the States:

Under the RUSA scheme 316 states public universities and 13,024 colleges across India are

covered. Till date, 23 states and 4 UTs are covered under the scheme, with 1 state & 2 UTs still



not covered under the scheme. The states of Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Telengana

and Sikkim and Puducherry (UT) have shown their willingness to join the scheme. Their

inclusion is likely to be considered in the next RUSA Mission Authority meeting. Till date, 18

states have submitted their SHEPs.The SHEPs of 6 states — Himanchal Pradesh, Jammu and

Kashmir, Gujarat, Punjab, Nagaland and Manipur have been appraised and approved by Project

Approval Board (PAB) in May 2014. Nine SHEPs — (Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Odisha, Tripura,

Haryana, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Assam, Chhattisgarh and Mizoram) have been appraised

and placed for PAB’s approval Three SHEPs —Andhra Pradesh, Kerala & Karnataka are

currently in the process of being appraised. It is anticipated that the remaining states and UTs

(Maharashtra, Goa, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand,Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Daman

& Diu, Chandigarh and Dadra & Nagar Haveli) will submit first cut of their SHEPs soon.

Till date, 28 states have set up their SHECs across the country. The states of West

Bengal, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh have

their respective SHECs already in place. These SHECs were established through an act of the

state legislature prior to the official launch of the RUSA.

Gujarat also has set up the Gujarat Knowledge Consortia (instead of SHEC) through an

executive order. After the launch of RUSA, the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Assam,

Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Andaman and Nicobar,

Goa, Mizoram, Nagaland, Bihar, Haryana, Tripura, Jharkhand, Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh,

Uttarakhand and Telangana have formed their respective SHECs via an executive order. In the

twelfth plan period, funds amounting to approximately 197.8 crores for 68 MDCs have been

released till August 2014. Of the 60 MDCs approved in the twelfth plan, funds amounting to

177.1 crores for 45 MDCs have been released in the first installment. In the second installment,

funds equivalent to 20.7 crores for 23 MDC proposals have been released. Amongst all the states

and UTs, the majority of the funding under the MDC category has been received by Uttar

Pradesh amounting to approximately 101.4 crores for 26 MDCs followed by Odisha, Andhra

Pradesh and Tripura.

RUSA: The Road Ahead

After SSA and RMSA, the inception of a higher education focused government program

completes the entire lifecycle of a student’s formal education needs. RUSA has the potential of



becoming a major a critical milestone in our nation’s journey of reforming the higher education

sector. Yet, given its huge potential, the question on everyone’s mind is will this program make a

significant difference in the lives of our youth? Since its first year of implementation till date, the

RUSA has seen some progress with respect to preparations, groundwork and compliance

including submission of state plans. However, it has also started experiencing its share of

challenges and roadblocks. The states/UTs’ comprehension and adherence to the guidelines laid

out in the RUSA document is one such challenge, and a fundamental one. At this stage, to build

a strong foundation for RUSA implementation, the government needs to focus primarily on

monitoring and utilizing funds across the programme’s various components. Further strong

emphasis needs to be laid on the formation of SHECs and project directorates in line with the

benchmarks and guidelines defined in the RUSA scheme. The states/UTs also need to accelerate

the submission of the SHEPs. Rather than focusing on fund allocation, the need of the hour is to

stress on the effective utilisation of the funds at the state level. Further, close coordination and

two-way communication between the centre and the states/UTs will play a critical role in the

successful implementation of the scheme. RUSA is indeed a mission with a difference, holding

significant promise in its potential to transform the Indian education landscape. However, the

eventual mission of the RUSA can only be considered as accomplished when adherence and

compliance becomes the norm, when implementation becomes a reality on the ground and when

positive outcomes start appearing in the years to come. When India becomes globally renowned

as a strong, high-quality and accessible knowledge hub of higher education, RUSA would have

achieved its ultimate goal.

Concluding Remarks:

To sum up the key objectives of RUSA are to improve access, equity and quality in higher

education through planned development of higher education at the state level. Such planning will

create by creating new academic institutions, and expand the existing institutions, that are self-

reliant in terms of quality education, professionally managed, and characterized by greater

inclination towards research and provide students with education that is relevant to them as well

the nation as a whole.

Reference



1. Higher Education in India: Vision 2030 (New Delhi).

http://www.ey.com/IN/en/Industries/India-sectors/Education/EY-Higher-education-in-India-

Vision- 2030

2. GoI (2002). Report of the Committee on India Vision 2020. New Delhi: Planning

Commission. http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/publications/index.php?repts=pub

3. GoI (2002). 10th Five Year Plan (2002-2007). New Delhi: Planning Commission.

http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/default.html

4. GoI (2008). Twelfth Five Year Plan 2012-17. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html

5. GoI (2011). Mid Term Appraisal for Eleventh Five Year Plan 2007-2012: New Delhi:

Oxford University Press. http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/mta/11th_mta/MTA.html.

6. GoI (2013). Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017): Faster, More Inclusive and Sustainable

Growth. New Delhi: Sage Publication.

7. MHRD (2013).Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA)/National Higher

Education Mission. http://mhrd.gov.in/rusa

8. MHRD (2013). The Newsletter On Higher Education, Issue 1, 12, 13.

http://mhrd.gov.in/documents/term/144

9. Sharma, Kavita. A. (2013). Sixty Years of the University Grants Commission:

Establishment, Growth, and Evolution. New Delhi: UGC. http://www.ugc.ac.in/page/Other-

Publications.aspx [19]

10. Takwal, Ram. (2003). Challenges and Opportunities of Globalization for Higher

Education in India –Alternatives through e-Education.

http://mhrd.gov.in/rusa

http://mhrd.gov.in/documents/term/144

http://www.ugc.ac.in/page/Other-Publications.aspx%20%5b19

http://www.ugc.ac.in/page/Other-Publications.aspx%20%5b19

20 dr veena devi trivedi

Documents