Conclusion of Privtization
Conclusion of Privtization
Conclusion of Privtization
Page No:
a) …………………………………………………………Introduction 3--5
b) …………………………………………………………Privatisation 5
c) ………………………………………………………..Concept of Privatisation 6
f) ………………………………………………………….Merits of Privatisation 9
g) ………………………………………………………….Demerits of Privatization 10
j) …………………………………………………………..Conclusion 14--15
k) ………………………………………………………….Recommendation 15
l) …………………………………………………..References 16
These have encouraged many forms of privatization and aided schools through
processes like rise in private tuition, subcontracting the publication of textbooks to
private agencies, selection and appointment of teachers by their own management
boards on their own terms and conditions, etc.
These processes have created new situations which in turn had brought both
opportunities and challenges to educational institutions in India. The process of
globalization has recently encouraged many foreign universities and educational
institutions of repute (e.g., Oxford, Harvard) to start exploring the possibilities of
establishing their branches in India.
All these shortcomings, along with the defective teaching system, have deleterious
effects on the education of students. Moreover, the procedure of appointment of
teachers in state schools is also very faulty. The truth is that politicians sell teaching jobs
for a handsome price. Such teachers, who are appointed for life, are protected and
believed that there is no need to teach. With such perverse incentives accountability
disappears.
India spends a respectable 4 per cent of GDP on education and even in the recent
budget proposals (2007), spending on education (and health and rural employment
schemes) has increased 35 per cent. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to improve primary
education is a success in numbers.
An IIM study of 13 states has found that the out-of-school population in the 6-14 age
groups fell from 28.5 per cent in 2001 to 6.94 per cent in 2005. The share of children
from Dalit and tribal communities in primary education has also gone up. Gender
disparities have also been reduced significantly.
The Kremer-Murlidharan survey shows that one out of four school teachers are absent
in state primary schools, and of those present one out of two is not teaching. Thus, the
heart of the problem is teacher’s accountability. This problem becomes more
heartbreaking when we look to the exalted status of the teacher as a Gum in Indian
culture.
Education and schooling both are changing very fast and also substantially by the impact
of information technology—computers, Internet and multimedia. Now-a-days,
gradually, school is becoming less and less important, because pupils can learn through
computers and Internet at home itself. This is creating an atmosphere of ‘classroom
without walls’.
Sometime back, there was good news that US children are taking coaching of
Mathematics and English by Chennai (India)-based teachers on Internet. New
technology will have radical implication for education. Scholars believe that they may
reinforce educational inequalities. ‘Information poverty’ might become added to
material deprivations.
In modern societies, virtually everyone can read and write. The printed word and
electronic communication, combined with the formal teaching provided by schools and
colleges, have become fundamental to modern way of living. Before independence,
formal schooling was available only to the few who had the time and money available to
pursue it.
India has a population of nearly one hundred and seven cores.In order to
provide to a large number of people more private institutions are needed. To
fulfill the demand for higher education of young people in the country
privatization of higher education is needed.
There is very little initiative from the public sector due to limited freedom.
Private institutions are free to initiate modern and advanced courses in order
to fulfill the demand for subjects which facilitate economic development of
the nation. The demands of the market and the times can be fulfilled. For this
privatization is needed.
subjects to students.
Competition.
procedures.
globalization.
3. Intercultural and inter social changes may take place which may not be easily
acceptable by Indian minds.
4. The public sector institutions at higher level have much better record of responding
to the societal needs of SC/STs and other backward sections of the society than the
private sector institutions.
5. There may not be any limitation in the fee structure and the fee structure may be
depending upon the richness of the institution.
6. With respect to the faculty selection, the private institution may acquire the right to
hire and fire both the academic staff. The same is case for the starting and stopping a
course.
7. Autonomy of students and teachers, teaching learning freedom and the democratic
set up may not exist.
economic gain
1. The expansion and establishment of education institution is increasingly high and the
same has been shouldered mainly by the state. A stage has now come when the state is
finding it very difficult to meet the democratic aspirations of the people for further
expansion of education system due to paucity of resources. It is therefore felt that the
private sector be inducted in education so that it can share the burdens in funding
education.
3. The world is passing through fourth industrial revolution. This consists of information
technology, bio-technology, nano-technology, robotics, application of lasers and new
industrial materials. The growth of satellite TV has further strengthened information –
5. Over years, the public sector has failed to generate resources from the recipients of
education, it has become more or less free public good and this has devalued the
education in the eyes of recipients. Privatization may lead to changing for the service
provided which is likely to generate great responsibility among the recipients of
education. This results in greater efficiency in teaching learning and improvement in its
quality.
6. Privatization by generating more resources from students’ fees will help to reduce
fiscal burdens of the government.
Whether we accept privatization or not is not a question. Rather, it is good for the
nation to experiment privatization in a rational and judicious way for a selected period
of time in selected areas and resources. But it is not advisable to keep away ourselves
from the process of privatization. When there are good role models of developed
nations, having become developed nations because of privatization. To put it in a nut
shell privatization is inevitable in this world of new industrial and technological
revolution and to meet the growing needs of human power.
The private initiative in education, especially higher education is not new to India. Some
of the leadinguniversities like Banaras Hindu University and Aligarh Muslim University
came up with the efforts,
Dedication and financial support of community and since 1990’s; trend towards
privatization has been on
a large scale. Providing free and compulsory education to all is a basic duty of
government and it cannot be neglected. So government has to invest more and more
funds in development of primary education. Hague cut in expenditure on higher
education by government is the direct outcome. But it doesn’t meanthat higher
education is not important. Government cannot absolve its responsibility of regulating
privateinstitutes. So, some regulating agencies have to be formed which assure quality
and transparency and prevent profiteering. There is an emergence need to regulate
quality but not growth of supply. There is also a fact that private investors would not run
an institute a loss.
j)Recommendations:
Recommendations Some Quotas can be ensured by the private schools, so
that there is no discrimination. There can also be public- private schools.
There should be effective regulatory body to monitor. Affordability and
accessibility should be maintained.
Thanks
Niaz Sahil
4. Harvey, David (1996) Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference (Oxford, UK:
Blackwell).
5. Held, David, McGrew, Anthony, Goldblatt, David, and Perraton, Jonathan (1999),
Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture (Stanford: Stanford university
Press)
6. Scholte, Jan Art (19960 “Beyond the Buzzword: Towards a Critical Theory of
Globalization,” in EleonoreKofman and Gillians Young (ed) Globalization: Theory and
Practice (London: Pinter).
7. Tomlinson, John (1999), Globalization and Culture (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press)