Download
1 / 47
470 likes | 477 Vues
Educational Funding and it Quality. By Prof D P Agrawal EX Chairman , UPSC Founder Director , ABV-IIITM , Gwalior Former Professor and Dean, IIT Delhi.
E N D
Educational Funding and it Quality • By • Prof D P Agrawal • EX Chairman , UPSC • Founder Director , ABV-IIITM , Gwalior • Former Professor and Dean, IIT Delhi
Eduaction in India is on Concurrent List as per constitution. Meaning thereby , that both Central and state government can make policies , invest in upkeep and growth if HE as per the needs of the citizen
Meaning of education • Education is empowerment against ignorance. An educated person is an enlightened person who can make informed choice from the basket of opportunities. • Whereas, higher education is more of knowledge generation and skill development for specific task benefiting the individual directly in the form of higher earnings.
Higher education in India • HE is Education beyond 10+2 of school • Covers professional as well as Non professional programmes • It offers Under Graduate, Post Graduate and Doctoral Programmes of Study and alos Diplomas • GER Is 25.4%.Goal is 30% by 20-21. Most of it in UG . • Higher education is provided by many stake holders • Current Challenges are Equity, Quality and Cost • Last two decades have seen very high growth in HE especially in professional areas.
Higher education in India II • There are 843 higher education degree awarding institutions, 38056 colleges and 11922 stand alone institutions in the country. A break-up of the institutions shows at there are 74 institutions of national importance, 47 central universities, 123 deemed to be universities, 353 state public universities and 246 state private universities as on 30-09-2016. • Gross enrolment ratio (GER) is 23.6% percent for 18-23 years of age group. In distance education programs enrolment constitutes about 11.7 percent of the total enrolment, of which about 80 percent students are enrolled in UG programs and remaining in PG programs. About 0.34 percent of the total enrolment is in Ph.D. programs.
Higher education Scenario • The country’s comparative advantage in the service sector and in knowledge-based work depends on quality higher education. • The goal of the gross enrolment ratio of 30% by 2020-21. This means—accounting for population growth—adding about 19 million to the 28 million currently enrolled in higher education programmes. • Most of this addition will be in professional streams. Engineering and medicine constitute about 25% of total enrolment .These and other professional streams, including accounting, management, law, and information technology, are expected to displace the arts and sciences as the preferred higher education choice. • The professional streams are being fuelled by private sector participation. The share of the private sector in enrolment had risen from 32.9% in 2000 to 58.9%in 2012. • At the same time, the budgeted total government expenditure on higher education remaind around 3.5 % of GDP
Types of Institutes • Institutes of national importance • University • Deemed university • Autonomous • Others( stand alone)
Higher Education ownership • Central Government (Nearly 200 Centrally-funded institutions . Only about 10% students. Account for almost the entire funding of HE fundingof Govt.) • state govt. ( Nearly 94% of students of higher education study in State universities through affiliation system. They are starved of resources) • Govt aided • self Finance • trust society • company under section 25, ( 80 % of enrolments come from the last four categories. Rely mainly on student fees)
Higher education provides • Produce qualified human resources for the global work place be it in industry, Academia and /or in research field. • promote innovation and Research. • provide highly specialized training courses adapted to the needs of economic and social life; • Promote all views , so as to cater to the many aspects of lifelong education in the widest sense; • Promote international cooperation through internationalization of research, technology, networking, and free movement of persons and scientific ideas . • Provide employable skills, and • Produce cultural ambassadors and change agents in society ,
Quality in higher education • Quality is a very conscious and planned effort of all those who are involved and about every stage and component in this activity • Traditional notion of quality – quality as exclusivity , excellence and elitism – • Quality is fulfilling minimum standards – pass/fail, rankings, accreditation • Quality as perfection or zero defects. • Quality in education is achieved when education output conforms with the planned goals, specifications and requirements and . fulfilling its declared vision and mission • Quality education processes demonstrated that, the learner,s educational development has been enhanced . • They achieved the outcomes set for the programme of study. • They show ability to participate in reasoned discourse, of critical self- evaluation, and of coming to a proper awareness of the ultimate contingency of a thought and action” • consistency of quality culture, involving everybody in the organization . • Quality as value for money , fficiency & effectiveness, rankings, accountability
Quality in Higher education contd- • Quality is a continuous journey, and is not a destination in itself. The nature of the educational enterprise is complex, but certainly not immune to application of best practices from industry, • Leadership, academic freedom, and collegial decision making are some other concepts that influence quality in higher education. In educational institutions, everyone is a leader in their own sphere of work, and there are lot many freedoms, but still it is possible to have organizational policies aligned to improve quality. • The use of technology can create an open environment for learning and research and the transformation process and the engagement of the learner in the process . • Development of policy and capacity building of all stakeholders is a key to quality.
ACCREDITATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION • NAAC and NBA does Accreditation t in India. Each country has its own system of accriditation . But none are with Government. • NBA follows global standards being Washington accord member. • The processes of accreditation enables institutions to look internal systems and their interactions with stake holders out side. Filling the Self appraisal report is like stock taking and appropriately reflect achievements. • Indian higher education is concerned about rank in the Times Higher Education ranking and QS World ranking systems. In most of these rankings the quality of research is the main focus. These also look into the income from the industry and number of international students and faculty. Therefore, Indian universities are bound to face the difficulty of being on the top list. • NIRF has emerged in very brief time a most sought after attainment for Institutions. Over the next some years it will evolve to give a correct picture of Ranking. Special under university head where in Most of the universities the major population is UG of students. • In my view , it is better to focus on the processes than to the indicators of the ranking industry to create quality.
Regulatory bodies regulations add cost? • There are many regulatory bodies in India . These regulatory bodies lay down norms and standards. As processes of approval they specify input condition with out a regard for the efficiency and productivity by some. • To start an Institution one has to comply with a list of physical and human infrastructure demands, implying a large costs. I believe Certain aspects may be left for provider to address. Regulatory bodies may specify outcome basis for a per student and leave the provider to efficiently utilize the resources. A public disclosure on part of provider may be only requirement. • The regulations must be to an extent where the students get return on investment.
Inequalities in Higher education systems • There are a variety of providers of HE, The quality too is highly variable. • Institutions across the country, do not get equal treatment in terms of funds and encouragement for growth and excellence. So, our efforts to assess quality and ranking are filled with inherent inequality. • Location of the institute , available resources , Quality of students, quality of faculty , governance deficit are creating inequalities • The philosophy of continuous improvement is highly suitable to educational institutions, but to carry along drags is not sustainable.. • The concept of systems thinking is probably common to many of social systems, and higher education can be viewed as an open system that should be managed for excellence. Lack of leadership is barrier in this aspect
Quality of education contd- • quality is a continuous journey, and is not a destination in itself. • Regulatory bodies , policy makers , accreditation requirements and stake holders put certain conditions and strategies for the institutions to follow continuously to move towards the moving quality. • Leadership, academic freedom, and collegial decision making are some other concepts that influence quality in higher education. • The nature of the educational enterprise is complex, but certainly not immune to application of best practices from industry, despite its not so similar approaches. • Input alone are not sufficient . The transformation process and the engagement of the learner in the process are equally important.
Quality framework has eight key components • Higher Education policies and practices • Resources and funding • students • Faculty • Curriculum • Institutional Design and Strategy • Institutional Leadership • Open –System Thinking and Change
Institutional funding in India • Centrally funded • State funded • Grant and Aid • Privately funded through philanthropy • Through collection of fees
Education Finance some concern • Equity and inclusiveness require the participation by them in Higher education. This need to be achieved for the nations development by strong base of school education. Governments fund managers must understand the dilemma of needs of both sectors. • One may like to take a balance view of very expensive elite institution against the education for majority. • The public expenditure remains stagnamtaround 3,5 of GDP. At the same time the cost of higher education has increased leading to an increased focus on easing supply of credit for financing expenditure on higher education. • It is generally expected that the self financing higher education would discourage non serious candidates from joining it. In India the parents support higher education of their children for social recognition. Some of students are not fully committed to education. Such number are high in full fee institutions re affecting quality adversely .However, serious and meritorious student suffers in this milieu.
Financing issues continue • Does the high cost of Higher education is justified by the delivery of quality education and benefit to all stake holders. Can a full fee paying student demand quality education by law. • Need for funding policy in which all stake holders contribute towards funds generation to meet the requirements of the institutions • In a private education model the total cost of education plus profit component are transferred to students and parents, which not sustainable in the given socio-economic conditions of majority of the Indian middle class society.
Issues continue • Sustainable funding for higher education has to work in three ways: for students, for universities and for the tax payer. a delicate three-way balance has to be struck. • For students, sustainability essentially equates to upfront affordability and an assessment of likely longer-term reward. • There is plenty of data on the salary premium associated with going to university . Let us not forget the social, cultural and other wider benefits to individuals – a university experience really is much more than the sum of the time spent being taught.
Issues continue • It is right then that students should pay some contribution to their higher education. The questions then become how much should students pay and is that affordable? • The fees and loans system isn’t perfect, but it has allowed more students than ever before to study at university and in particular it has encouraged students from disadvantaged backgrounds to apply • study has shown that increasing loan and grant programs has largely resulted in corresponding tuition increases, with little net benefit to students and seemingly small increases in enrollment. • study in USA show that increases in Govt. funding for higher education have done little to make college more affordable. • It shows that average gross tuition and fees for undergraduate studies have increased more than three fold from 1980 to 2014.the grants have not kept pace.
Issues continue. • It is meaning full to create a robust parallel system of on-the-job training, apprenticeships, and youthful practical work experience and also rationalising the minimum wage for younger workers to attact interested learner to Higher education. • NPE 1986 suggested vacationalization of degreprogrammes. • It is important that all resources, Exchequer and non-Exchequer, are comprehensively recorded to ensure resources are targeted in the most effective and efficient manner.
Sources of Educational Finance • The main sources of finance for higher education sector are government grants in the case of public sector institutions and fee collection from students in the case of private sector self financing institutions. • However the resources crunch remains. The main governance issue with majority of the institutions is how to mobilize funds for maintenance of quality education as well as growth. • Seen in perspective higher education can be considered a commercial proposition and it must be treated as such.
Sustainable funding for higher education has to work in three ways: for students, for universities and for the tax payer. a delicate three-way balance has to be struck. • It is right then that students should pay some contribution to their higher education. The questions then become how much should students pay and is that affordable? • Typically in USA, the budgeted sources are fee from students (25%), government grant (25%), funds generation by faculty (25%), and contributions by top administration through donations, alumni support, industry contribution, establishment of chairs, etc., (25%).
Alternative models of finance 1. Deferred fee collections Model : In this case institute would not charge any fee from the students. Once the student joins job after completion of his education, the fee could be collected in installments. 2. The institution can raise the resources from the market by securitizing these future earnings. When institutes become the guarantor, more pressure is put on them because their credibility is also at stake. 3.The system New Zealand is replacing with free-tuition is what is currently seen as the best solution to higher education financing: income-contingent loans.
Other funding Opportunities • The government may announce to the society the real costs of higher education . The fees should be a fair reflection of the costs of higher education. However, the government may provide merit-cum-means scholarships to needy students identified on objective criteria to subsidize their fee payments. • Making higher education eligible for receiving corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds should generate money for academic chairs, departments, merit and means-based scholarships, and physical infrastructure. • Donations towards merit-cum-means scholarships should be made tax-exempt, addressing concerns about affordability of private sector higher education. • Earmarked funda from regulatory bodies • Earnings through Faculty and students Research • Donations from Public • Contributions from Alumni • Earning through IPR • Bank finance for professional courses will be critical in the future. Currently, less than 15% of the total enrolment in the higher education in the country is funded by bank loans. This should increase to at least 30% by 2020-21, implying annual growth of about 20%.
Other funding possibility • students can be provided with vouchers for say up to 90% of the fees. Private donors should also be encouraged to offer scholarships to the poor by giving them tax exemption on such donations.. • The government can encourage insurance companies to design products to be bought by educational institutions to protect themselves against the possibility of potentially jobless graduates not being able to repay their loans. • Non-professional courses may not attract business proposals since there is limited private willingness to pay for them. The perceived social benefits, on the other hand, may be high enough to justify state support through Grant –in –aid approach.institutions should be allowed to charge fees to match the GIA and cover their legitimate costs • Plan programme delivery in such a manner that students are able to combine jobs and studies.
Schemes of GOI • RashtriyaUcchatarShikshaAbhiyan (RUSA) • National Initiative for Design Innovation • National Research Professorship (NRP) • Indira Gandhi National Tribal University • Establishment of 14 World Class Central Universities • Setting up of 374 Degree Colleges in Educationally Backward Districts • Scheme for incentivising state governments for expansion of higher education institutions • Central Sector Interest Subsidy Scheme, 2009 on Model Education Loan Scheme of IBA • Construction of girls hostels • Supporting uncovered state universities and colleges • Additional assistance to about 160 already covered universities and about 5500 colleges • Strengthening science based higher education and research in universities • Inter universities research institute for policy and evaluation • Schemes Implemented through Autonomous Organisations
GOI schemes for Technical Education • Sub-Mission on Polytechnics for Skill Development • Support For Web Based Learning (NPTEL) • Indian National Digital Library in Engineering, Science & Technology (INDEST-AICTE) Consortium • National Programme of Earthquake Engineering Education (NPEEE) • Technology Development Mission • Scheme for Upgrading existing Polytechnics to Integrate the Physically Disabled in the mainstream of Technical and Vocational Education • Setting up of new centrally funded institutes in technical education • Supporting AICTE with view to enable it support quality of technical education through disburse of funds
RashtriyaUchchatarShikshaAbhiyan (RUSA) • A Centrally sponsored scheme to provide strategic funding to eligible State higher educational institutions’ The scheme is linked to reforms in the key areas of governance, learning-teaching outcomes, reaching out to the unreached and infrastructure support., under RUSA, States and institutions have to give an undertaking expressing their willingness to the idea of reform and agreeing to meet the States’ share of the cost. • Governance reform is central to the scheme. State Higher Education Councils (SHECs) with eminent academics, industrialists and other experts have been created, playing a major role, in the formulation of medium- and long-term State perspective plans .Mitigating the bane of the affiliation system is also a major objective. This is achieved through a reduction in the number of colleges affiliated per university by creating cluster universities and promoting autonomous colleges. An important precondition is the filling up of faculty positions . • there is an effort towards improving pedagogy by capacity-building of faculty, selecting teachers in a transparent manner, adopting accreditation as a mandatory quality-assurance framework, implementing a semester system, and involving academics of distinction in decision-making processes. • Visible change • An independent performance review done by IIT Bombay in 2017has shown a visible impact GER.on higher education. When RUSA began, the gross enrolment ratio (GER) was 19.4%, faculty vacancies were at a shockingly high level of 60%, and a large number of universities were bloated with a teacher-student ratio of 1:24. Today, the GER is 25.2%, faculty vacancies are down to 35%, the ban on faculty recruitment by States has been lifted, and and the teacher-student ratio is now 1:20. Several universities in Karnataka, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have been right-sized, and critical governance reforms such as the formation of the SHEC and merit-based appointments of vice-chancellors in Odisha, Goa, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu are visible. There has been an improvement in the number of institutions accredited
Funding Higher education Infrastructure through HEFA • Higher Education Funding Agency (HEF has been Established as a joint venture of MHRD and Canara Bank, as a not-for-profit non-banking finance company. With an equity base of Rs 10,000 crore to provide capital for infrastructure. • All higher educational institutions can borrow for infrastructure by submitting projects. Covering the cash flow stream from internally generated resources that it offers to service the loan. to ensure steady loans pyments. As per the original scheme, the interest burden on such borrowings was to be serviced through grants-in-aid by MHRD or UGC. The repayment of the principal was to be made by the borrowing institution over ten years in equal installments. • Realising the realities of the higher education, a new scheme called Revitalising Infrastructure and System in Education (RISE) by 2022 by providing project-based funding through HEFA. The interest burden on loan shall be serviced though grants from the respective funding agencies but classifies higher educational institutions into five categories with varying degrees of repayment obligation for the principal component of the loan. • Accordingly, while the technical institutions established more than ten years ago shall have to repay the whole of the principal portion of the loan through their internally generated resources, such of them which came into existence between 2008 to 2014 shall have to take care of only a fourth of the principal component and the balance is to be paid out of grants by the government. • There is a concern that the grants for servicing the principal and interest components of the loan shall not reduce or adversely impinge on the annual maintenance grants that they have so far been getting. • HEFA and RISE are new experiments to finance capital investment in education through extra-budgetary resources. Will take time to mature.
The (un)sustainability of free-tuition systems • Funding in free-tuition as well as low tuition countries the institutions suffer from funding freezes as well as cuts. In such countries the following options are possible. • The first option is to keep universities operating at smaller budget as in Germany or in Argentina. In Germany, the free-tuition system is accompanied by chronic underfunding, long time-to-degree and high drop-out rates. In Argentina, academic staff are underpaid and mostly work part-time only, while student drop-out is extremely high. • The second option to control the size of the public sector institutions. Brazil has a small, highly selective public sector. In Both the scenario the quality is casualty or access is denied • Free-tuition higher education policies is not sustainable as the governments do not have an infinite pool of cash with which to fund higher education and the money to replace tuition fees will be limited. • Funding decision : choose between the quality of their system and open access.
House hold Expenditure • The share of expenditure on higher education as a fraction of household’s total annual expenditure 2.62 per cent and 4.94 percent for rural and urban areas respectively . It is many times more for school education • Poorer households will have to spend a greater share of their annual total consumption expenditure on higher education. We find that the average expenditure per student is highest in private unaided institutions, followed by private aided ones. • The costs of pursuing higher education are steep for poorer households to afford . • Governments worldwide have sought to defray the cost of higher education by offering free or highly subsidized education, tuition waivers, and scholarships.
Additional income/funding other than public funding • Block grant: financial grants meant to cover several categories of expenditure such as teaching, ongoing operational costs and/or research. Universities are responsible for dividing and distributing such funding internally according to their needs (the flexibility may be curtailed by minor restrictions). • Co-funding: funding for which the main funder requires the beneficiary institution to raise a proportional amount of the full cost of the activity or project being funded, from its own budget or another public or private source. • Competitive funding: funds allocated to institutions through competitions following applications (proposals) submitted to a competitive selection process. These funds are usually attached to a project or are targeted towards the achievement of specific objectives or priorities defined by the funder. • Full costing: the term “full costing” refers to the ability to identify and calculate all direct and indirect costs of an institution’s activities including projects. • Funding formula: algorithm based on standard criteria to calculate the size of public grants to higher education institutions for teaching and/or ongoing operational activity and, in certain cases, research. Criteria include input components and/or performance indicators.
Additional funding contd- • Income diversification: generation of additional income (through new or existing funding sources) that contributes to balancing the income structure of the institution. • Indirect costs: costs that have been incurred for activities, but which cannot be identified and charged directly to each individual activity. A similar term is “overhead”. • Philanthropic funding: funding obtained from foundations, corporate donors, or individuals acting independently from government and for the public benefit by supporting the university’s activities through grants or non-financial means (donation of land, buildings…) or by operating their own programmes. • Project-based funding: universities apply for funds and the application is estimated on the basis of meeting the set of criteria and/or on the basis of competition between other institutions. • Student financial contributions: a generic term including both “tuition fees” as annual contributions paid by students to cover all or part of tuition costs in higher education; and “administrative fees”, as contributions of students to different administrative costs (entrance fees, registration fees, certification fees). • Targeted funding: funding earmarked for the achievement of specific goals set by the public • authorities. It may be allocated through competition or directly attributed to the university. Co-funding requirements may apply.
Status of Education Loans in Indian Context • The share of educational loans in total loans is highest in the southern region (4.16 per cent in rural and 5.90 per cent in urban) and lowest in the central region (0.48 per cent in rural and 1.85 per cent in urban).. • by 2009-10, the quantum of educational loans had grown faster and was at the same level as government expenditure on higher and technical education, it is also true that in 2009-10, only 9.3 per cent of students had availed loans for education . • It is estimated that a 1 per cent increase in India’s gross domestic product would be associated with a 5 per cent increase in education loan.
Education Loans • National Loans Scholarship Scheme was started in 1963. • From 2009–10 onwards the government also started to provide 100 per cent interest subsidy during the moratorium period on educational loans taken by students from families with income of less than Rs 4.5 lakh per annum. • The policy point was that educational loans became part of priority sector loans of banks. • As on June 30, 2012, the total outstanding cash loans for education stood at Rs 13,104 crores and Rs 26,787 crores in rural and urban India.
Technician Education Project (TECH ED) - I • As a follow up to the National Policy of Education (NPE), the Government of India, formulated the Tech. Ed I and Tech. Ed. II Projects to facilitate supply of technical trained manpower to the Industrial Sector and to make education the Polytechnics more responsive to the expansion of science and technology and the needs of the Industry & the rural sector through the introduction of new technology and training approaches in the Project States. Specifically the objectives were to : • Expand the capacity of the polytechnic education system • Improve the quality of polytechnic programmes • Enhance the efficiency of management and operation of the polytechnic system. Starting Date: December 5, 1990Completion Date: September 30, 1998 • States covered : 9 • Politechnic covered :280 • Total Project Cost: Rs 977 crore
Technician Education Project (TECH ED) - II • Background and specific objectives were same as Tech EDI • Starting Date: January 29, 1992Completion Date: October 31, 1999Total Project Cost: Rs 1097 crore • States covered : 11
Technician Education Project (TECH ED) - III • Starting Date: January 17, 2001 Completion Date: June 30, 2007Total Project Cost: Rs 386 crore • Polytechnics covered :19 • states of noth east, J&K and Andman and Nicobar
TEQIP-I: • TEQIP-I: Introduction • The Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme of Government of India (TEQIP), has been conceived in pursuance of the NPE-1986 (as revised in 1992). The Programme aims to upscale and support ongoing efforts of GOI to improve quality of technical education and enhance existing capacities of the institutions to become dynamic, demand-driven, quality conscious, efficient and forward looking, responsive to rapid economic and technological developments occurring both at national and international levels • TEQIP-I: Project Objectives • To create an environment in which engineering institutions selected under the Programme can achieve their own set targets for excellence and sustain the same with autonomy and accountability. • To support development plans including synergistic networking and services to community and economy of competitively selected institutions for achieving higher standards. • To improve efficiency and effectiveness of the technical education management system in the States and institutions selected under the Programme. • Signing of Programme Agreement with World Bank • 1st cycle States: February 04, 2003 • 2nd cycle States: April 12, 2004 • Effectiveness of the Programme : March 12, 2003 • Closing of the Programme: March 31, 2009
TEQIP (PHASE-II): Building upon the satisfactory completion of the first phase of TEQIP, its second phase (TEQIP-II) has been initiated. Around 200 engineering institutions are planned to be competitively selected to improve quality of Technical Education through institutional and systemic reforms. The second phase boosts efforts to prepare more post-graduate students to reduce the shortage of qualified faculty, and to produce more R&D in collaboration with industry. • TEQIP-II: Project Objectives • The Project will focus on the following objectives: • Strengthening institutions to improve learning outcomes and employability of graduates • Scaling‐up Postgraduate Education and demand‐driven Research & Development and Innovation • Establishing Centres of Excellence for focused applicable research • Training of faculty for effective teaching, and • Enhancing Institutional and System Management effectiveness
TEQUIP II • Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) with matching contribution from State Governments and Union Territories. • Project cost in the Government funded and Government aided institutions for all sub‐components will be shared between the MHRD and State and UT Governments in the ratio of 75:25 in all States except the Special Category States wherein the ratio will be 90:10. For Centrally Funded Institutions, 100% of institutional project costs will be borne by the MHRD. • Funding for private unaided institutions in all States and UTs will be in the ratio of 60:20:20 i.e. 60% funding as Grant from MHRD, 20% funding as Grant from the State and 20% funding from institutions.
TEQUIP II • Component ‐ 1 : Improving Quality of Education in Selected Institutions • This Component aims to strengthen around 200 competitively selected Engineering Education Institutions to improve learning outcomes and employability of graduates and scale‐up Postgraduate education, research & development and innovation and establishing centres of excellence. The faculty of these institutions will also be offered pedagogical training for effective teaching. • The objectives of this Component will be achieved through the following Sub‐components: • Sub‐component 1.1 : Strengthening institutions to improve learning outcomes and employability of graduates • Sub‐component 1.2 : Scaling‐up Postgraduate Education and Demand‐ Driven Research & Development and Innovation • Sub‐component 1.2.1 : Establishing Centres of Excellence • Sub‐component 1.3 : Faculty Development for Effective Teaching (Pedagogical Training) • Component ‐ 2 : Improving System Management • This Component aims to build capacity of Technical Education policy planners, administrators and implementers at the Central, State, and Institutional levels to effectively implement the institutional reforms and to introduce and sustain innovative systemic quality improvement practices It also aims to provide timely, sufficient, precise, and reliable information to improve and assess the performance of the selected institutions for effective Project Management through the following sub‐ components: • Sub‐component 2.1 : Capacity Building to Strengthen Management
TEQIP Phase – III • [A] Introduction : • The third phase of the project, TEQIP-III is a four year Central Sector Scheme (CSS) of MHRD, Govt. of India, to be started in the year 2017 and will be ended in 2021. • [B] Initial Project Strategy : • The TEQIP-III project will cover all Government Funded / Aided engineering institutions of the state including Affiliating Technical University of the State, as per the eligibility criteria prescribed in project norms in two rounds of selections i.e. Cycle -1 & Cycle -2. In the project TEQIP-III which is going to be implemented as a Central Sector Scheme (CSS), the total institutional funding will be provided by the Central Government without the inclusion of state share. • [C] Initial Project Design : • There are following two main sub - components of the project TEQIP-III :- • Sub-component 1.1 : Institutional Development Grants to all Government Funded / Aided engineering institutes in focus States/UTs. In Sub-component 1.1, the funding to the tune of Rs. 10.00 – 15.00 Crore for Govt. Funded / Aided engineering institutions. • Sub-component 1.2 : Widening Impact through Affiliating Technical Universities (ATUs) in focus States/UTs. In sub-component 1.2, the funding to the tune of Rs. 20.00 Crore for Affiliating Technical Universities (ATUs).
TEQUIP III • The Project will be implemented through the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) of the Government of India as a Central Sector Scheme (CSS), wherein 100% funds will be provided as grants to the States, Institutions& ATUs. • The Project will focus on the following objectives: • Improving quality and equity in engineering institutions in focus states viz. 7 Low Income States (LIS ), eight states in the North-East of India, three Hill states viz. Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Andaman and Nicobar Islands (a union territory (UT)) • System-level initiatives to strengthen sector governance and performance which include widening the scope of Affiliating Technical Universities (ATUs) to improve their policy, academic and management practices towards affiliated institutions, and • Twinning Arrangements to Build Capacity and Improve Performance of institutions and ATUs participating in focus states.
