Autonomy under AICTE

In the tussle with MHRD during 2003-2004 the B-Schools were complaining about autonomy on the fee hike issue. Click on this image to observe whose autonomy was really at stake then:

The story is no different even now (circa 2008). A teacher's voice continues to be choked.

KIIT University hosted the one-day national seminar on “Role of Teachers in Professional Education in the Changing Scenario” on 19 October 2008 (Sunday). The event managers did what they are good at – hosting the event at a very short notice. However, while severe faculty shortage was identified as the key issue, little moderation was done in terms of consensus building with positive outcomes for the 200 odd participating teachers.

The AICTE Chairman, Prof. Yadav, cited the imbalance in our higher education system highlighting the brand equity of IITs and IIMs over the others. Perhaps he could have acknowledged that these brands were built over decades of government support with huge funding and much greater academic autonomy. The less privileged institutions which are being regulated sans any significant government fund are struggling against regulatory pressures to impart quality education. With global pressures mounting, we did see some references about dissolving the boundaries to accommodate interdisciplinary nature of academic activities. However, we are a long way from achieving the necessary conditions (let alone sufficiency).

The former Chairman, Prof. R. Natarajan’s earlier efforts in placing Design and Innovation courses in engineering schools is yet to be accepted wholeheartedly. Schools and colleges under AICTE still need to appreciate the fact that design is a multidisciplinary activity. To foster the design culture, therefore, we need to catch students young. This calls for some changes in the engineering and management courses. It is yet to be seen when AICTE will bring back its focus for a greater emphasis of design in engineering education. Engineers and managers should be able to assume ‘multi-partite roles’.

The AICTE representation was distinctly absent after the inaugural session, leaving the house open to the other speakers for sharing their views. Prof. Binayak Rath, Vice Chancellor of Utkal University and Prof. Omkar Mohanty, Vice Chancellor BPUT, seemed to be ventilating their frustrations with the Indian regulatory bodies. While the VC-BPUT went to the extent of labeling the teachers as “TEA CHERS”, he did suggest the use of quality assurance models for education. His suggestion for going through the models of ABET and MBNQA would have been more apt if it were made to the AICTE officials. The participating teacher was left to wonder if the theme of the seminar should have been “Role of Regulators in Professional Education in the Changing Scenario”.

Prof. Devi Singh, Director-IIM Greater Noida, did make some valuable suggestions about teachers taking a holistic view of the education system and regulators creating a competitive environment for improving the quality standards. Prof. Balaveera Reddy, Former VC, VTU, made an interesting presentation extolling the virtues of Computer-Based Teaching. He came close to convincing the audience about technology solutions for overcoming the capacity constraints. He suggested models for enabling the faculty to participate in meaningful content building exercises with technology aiding the process of dissemination and evaluation. He wondered why universities (such as KIIT) were not taking the lead in replicating such models within the existing boundaries of autonomous freedom.

With constructive moderation being distinctly absent, this platform could not be used for making recommendations to AICTE for creating the much needed framework for enabling teachers to perform. The idea of suggesting the teacher to first learn and then teach was not being seen as a bottleneck for inhibiting the progress of learner-centric models where the teacher becomes a facilitator (as well as a learner). The most important role of a teacher is to be able to articulate freely. AICTE’s role, therefore, is to create an enabling environment for the teacher to be a self-starter in enlarging this role further. The suggested models of “Training the Trainers” or “Mentoring the Mentors” are dated ideas which detract the system from being proactively learner-centric. An eager learner (be it a teacher, student or an administrator) needs a conducive technology-enabled learner-centric academic environment to be a self-starter.

Unfortunately, the voice of the teacher continues to be choked – even in the new millennium!! The participating teachers were hapless observers and found little scope for interacting with the speakers to develop a shared vision. They preferred to remain mute spectators till the end.

Finally, taking a cue from the well proposed vote of thanks by the Registrar, KIIT University – no one really seems to care about what a teacher “MAKEs”. I have dedicated this blog to make people see yet another viewpoint.