UGC Letter for Subject-wise Identifying Journals by the Universities

http://api.ning.com/files/S8fITn3IbtuZdtuWu97bI3dkRygQVzlCexlJq-FXT0z9oS29OvjjrdmqAi6P4KKeYg*BfSCs69LXsFnemI-te970UHQa6oNR/6414998_regProformaforJournals.pdf

How to improve education

There is no substitute to good teacher preparation; unless teachers are well prepared, their capacity to perform is limited 

There is hardly a country in the world that is not attempting to improve its school education. Countries like Canada and Finland, which already have excellent school systems, are still trying to improve. These countries have confidence in their own approach and remain committed to those fundamentals. Like top-notch sportspeople, they are only refining nuances, many of which most other countries have not even begun appreciating. 

Then there are countries like Estonia and Korea which have much improved systems, but they want to improve more, since in their assessment the situation is not fully satisfactory. These countries are sweating the details, and are also tweaking some of the fundamentals. 

And then there is the large majority of countries which are dissatisfied with the state of their school systems. They think that they need fundamental and big changes. This list is large and has a wide range, from countries as developed as the US, UK and Sweden to developing countries such as India, China and Malaysia—and also the most disadvantaged countries, for example, in sub-Saharan Africa. 

To be sure, this is a very rough categorization. It also doesn’t reflect many important dimensions of this issue, like the reasons for dissatisfaction, including high dropout rates, poor learning levels, overburdened children, a sense of getting “left behind” in the global school education “race”, etc. 

As can be expected, there is such enormous complexity in the efforts to improve school education systems that each country and society must be understood in itself. Any efforts to draw out commonalities is fraught with risks of oversimplification and over-abstraction. 

One of the very few things which are common across these efforts, and would attract neither of the two charges that I have referred to, is the importance of the teacher in school education and its improvement. The teacher is so central to education that this is not surprising. To deal with this centrality of the teacher, four broad approaches have been adopted.

The central idea of the first approach is that teachers must be incentivized to do a better job, which will then lead to improvements. This includes negative and positive incentives: for example, punishment for lack of improvement in learning levels of children or better pay for clear improvements. The hardwired “teacher accountability” versions of this approach (such as “No Child Left Behind” in the US) have only succeeded in causing deep damage to school education. Other variations, such as the attempt to incentivize teachers through market-based competition fostered by privatization have proven ineffective in improving learning levels in school systems, and have worsened inequity. 

The second approach has been to try and attract “better” people to become teachers. The issues that can be worked on to influence this matter—for example, reasonable compensation, good recruitment practices, conditions to support professional satisfaction—are important. However, the relative attractiveness of any profession is determined by a complex interplay of economic, sociocultural, geographic and historical factors, in addition to the characteristics of the profession. And given that the number of teachers is a significant proportion of the overall population in employment in any country, this matter is very hard to influence at a systemic level. 

The third approach is to carry out better teacher preparation. Since models of teacher preparation, including the curriculum and institutional design, are easily comparable, weaknesses (such as with the Indian Bachelor of Education system) are easily identifiable. Fixing all this, however, is another matter. It is about investing significantly more in teacher education and battling vested interests. This calls for political will. But there is no substitute to good teacher preparation; unless teachers are well prepared, their capacity to perform their roles is limited. 

The fourth approach is about developing the capacity of teachers currently serving in the system. It’s quite clear that unless this is done, education systems won’t improve for decades, even if other things are somehow done perfectly. Professional development of such a large and distributed workforce, involved in roles that are inherently creative and requiring human empathy, is very complex. But it can be done if attempted on the basis of sound principles and with an intent to empower. 

The incentives approach fails because, among other reasons, of the social-human nature of education, which demands the teacher to be creative, high-expertise, empathetic and ethical. This is almost the classical prototype of a role which can only be played effectively when someone has high capacity and is internally driven. While external conditions and incentives can certainly demotivate and derail, they can’t motivate. Far more effective than any such crude notion of incentives would be better organization of schools and the system, including elimination of corruption and political interference.

On attracting “better” people to teaching, we would do well to remember John Dewey’s wise and pithy comment: “Education is, and forever will be, in the hands of ordinary men and women.” To improve education we have to invest in teacher education and professional development of teachers. There are no shortcuts for improving education. 

Source | Mint – The Wall Street Journal | 18 August 2016

Students can access answer sheet under RTI: Supreme Court

Apex court asks CBSE to “scrupulously” follow its 2011 judgment

The Supreme Court has asked the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to “scrupulously” follow its 2011 judgment that it is a student’s “fundamental and legitimate right” to access his answer sheets under the Right to Information Act. 

The recent order by a Bench led by Justice Ranjan Gogoi came on a plea by two students, Kumar Shanu from Noida and Paras Jain from Delhi, seeking the court’s permission to initiate contempt proceedings against the Board for charging Rs.700 per copy of an answer sheet. 

Over and above this, students are compulsorily required to go through the process of verification of marks for which they have to pay another Rs. 300 as fee. Only then, would they be eligible to apply for a copy of their answer sheets. 

In short, they contended that a student ends up coughing up Rs. 1,000 to the CBSE to obtain a physical copy of his answer sheet. The information came out in a reply from the CBSE to an RTI application made by the petitioners. 

The CBSE, however, contended that the charges levied were incidental and not for profit. 

The petitioners contended that the practice was in contempt of a 2011 judgment — CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors — of the Supreme Court, which held that an “answer sheet is an information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and therefore, examinees/students have a fundamental and legal right of having access to their answer sheets under RTI Act.” 

Fiduciary relationship

The 2011 judgment had held that there existed a fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the student. 

The petitioners contended that the CBSE was levying these charges when the RTI Act had intended students to access answer sheets, which qualify as ‘information’, for Rs. 2 a page along with Rs. 10 for the RTI application. It had argued that students falling under the Below Poverty Line category were guaranteed free access to their answer sheets under the law. 

“It is ironical and astonishing that the CBSE, being an educational institution responsible for educating a large section of the society, is blatantly flouting the law laid down by the Supreme Court,” the petition said. 

Source | The Hindu | 19 August 2016

Fake Universities declared by UGC on 02 August 2016

State-wise List of fake Universities as on 02 August , 2016  

Bihar

1. Maithili University/Vishwavidyalaya, Darbhanga, Bihar.
   Delhi
   
2. Commercial University Ltd., Daryaganj, Delhi.
3. United Nations University, Delhi.
4. Vocational University, Delhi.
5. ADR-Centric Juridical University, ADR House, 8J, Gopala Tower, 25 Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110 008.
6. Indian Institute of Science and Engineering, New Delhi.
   Karnataka
   
7. Badaganvi Sarkar World Open University Education Society, Gokak, Belgaum, Karnataka.
   Kerala
   
8. St. John’s University, Kishanattam, Kerala.
   Maharashtra
   
9. Raja Arabic University, Nagpur, Maharashtra.
   West Bengal
   
10. Indian Institute of Alternative Medicine, Kolkatta.
11. Institute of Alternative Medicine and Research,8-A, Diamond Harbour Road, Builtech inn, 2nd Floor, Thakurpurkur, Kolkatta - 700063
Uttar Pradesh

12. Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (UP) Jagatpuri, Delhi.
13. Mahila Gram Vidyapith/Vishwavidyalaya, (Women’s University) Prayag, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
14. Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Prayag, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
15. National University of Electro Complex Homeopathy, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
16. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose University (Open University), Achaltal, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
17. Uttar Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya, Kosi Kalan, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.
18. Maharana Pratap Shiksha Niketan Vishwavidyalaya, Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh.
19. Indraprastha Shiksha Parishad, Institutional Area,Khoda,Makanpur,Noida Phase-II, Uttar Pradesh.
20. Gurukul Vishwavidyala, Vridanvan, Uttar Pradesh.
Odisha

21. Nababharat Shiksha Parishad, Anupoorna Bhawan, Plot No. 242, Pani Tanki Road,Shaktinagar, Rourkela-769014.
22. North Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology, Odisha.

* Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, UP - the matter is subjudice before the District Judge - Lucknow

Source http://www.ugc.ac.in/page/Fake-Universities.aspx

UGC's distance education degrees valid for central jobs

All distance education degrees, diplomas and certificates including technical education degrees and diplomas awarded through distance education mode by the universities with the approval of University Grants Commission (UGC) would be valid for central government jobs.

All distance education degrees, diplomas and certificates including technicaleducation degrees and diplomas awarded through distance education mode by the universities with the approval of University Grants Commission (UGC) would be valid for central government jobs.

The Ministry of Human Resources and Development has notified the rule in the gazette recently. The notification was necessitated due to several changes in the distance education sector. Earlier, the approval of all distance courses needed approval of the Distance Education 

The Distance Education Council which worked under the Indira Gandhi National Open University and worked as the distance education regulator was scrapped two years back and the whole gamut of distance education was shifted to UGC, the apex body of higher education.

"The central government hereby notifies that all the degrees/diplomas/certificates including technical education degrees and diplomas awarded through open and distance learning mode of education by the universities established by an Act of Parliament or state legislature, institutions deemed to be universities under section 3 of the UGC Act 1956 and Institution of National Importance declared under an Act of Parliament stand automatically recognised for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the central government provided they have been approved by the UGC," reads the gazette, dated 10 June 2015.

Source | Daily News Analysis | 21 September 2015

College teachers to protest for relaxation from mandatory NET

College teachers to protest for relaxation from mandatory NET

NEW DELHI: Thousands of college teachers from all over India will demonstrate outside the University Grants Commission (UGC) office on Monday demanding relaxation in eligibility norms for those who did their PhD before 2009 without qualifying for the national eligibility test (NET) or state level eligibility test (SLET).

The teachers, who have met HRD minister Smriti Irani and UGC officials, have said that without relaxation, nearly 10 lakh teachers all over the country will lose their jobs. Though Irani has promised to look into the grievance, UGC officials said it would be difficult to relax the criteria now. "Supreme Court has upheld our regulation," an official said.

The threat of job loss emanates from the Supreme Court order of March this year that upheld UGC's 2009 regulation on minimum qualifications required for teaching jobs in colleges and universities.

 

The apex court had said, "It is clear that the object of the directions of the central government read with the UGC regulations of 2009/2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of higher education. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibility condition of passing the national eligibility test is laid down. True, there may have been exemptions laid down by the UGC in the past, but the central government now as a matter of policy feels that any exemption would compromise the excellence of teaching standards in universities/colleges/institutions governed by the UGC. Obviously, there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in this. In fact, it is a core function of the UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted."

The SC had also set aside orders of several high courts staying UGC's 2009 regulation.

However, the agitating teachers pointed out that there was a tradition of relaxation given by UGC. Sunil Pant of Kumaon University said, "In 1992, the first relaxation was given and PhD holders without NET and SLET were allowed to teach. Another relaxation came in 2002 which was extended till 2006. Then came the 2009 regulation which apart from mandating NET/SLET also made entrance test and six months course work mandatory. Anyone who was awarded PhD before July 11, 2009 is considered ineligible."

Pant said this has created a piquant situation. "What happens to those who registered for PhD in June 2009 but were awarded the degree in 2014. Obviously, he did PhD under the old regulation so will he become ineligible?" he asked.

 

Source | Economic Times | 29 July 2015

UGC asks HRD Ministry to give breather to PhD holders

http://cbseugcnetforum.in/media/ugc-asks-hrd-ministry-to-give-breather-to-phd-holders/

UGC once again proposed to the HRD Ministry to provide certain relaxation to PhD holders registered before 2009, a move which could provide breather to thousands of candidates applying for teaching jobs in universities.

The relaxation would help thousand of PhD holders affected by the new UGC guideline in 2009, which had made NET and PhD a minimum eligibility criteria for applying for assistant professor in colleges and universities.

At the full commission meeting here today, UGC decided to request the HRD Ministry to issue a notification in this regard after an examination of the matter.

According to a commission member, UGC had in May last year had proposed the relaxation, but the HRD Ministry had failed to act on the proposal, triggering discontent among the candidates and confusion in the academic circles.

The guideline had, however, laid down a set of procedures like course work, external assessment and entrance test to recognise a PhD.

PhD aspirants registered before 2009 and not fulfilling the laid down procedures went on a war path and protested the move, seeking reprieve from the government.

The relaxation would pave the way for recognising the PhDs on par with those done after 2009.

The commission meeting today also cleared a proposal to appoint D P Singh, the vice chancellor of Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore as the new director of NAAC.

Singh, considered a right wing sympathisiser, had earlier served as vice chancellor of Banaras Hindu University and Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar.

The meeting also decided to derecognise Sikkim-based private university for alleged irregularities in opening campus abroad and offering sub-standard degrees, a public notice of which would be issued shortly.

The decision came after numerous complaints were received against the fraudulent practices of the university.

“A public notice would soon be issued about the UGC decision,” the member said.

UGC also cleared the establishment of a Buddhist studies (a demed to be university) in Ladakh.

(With inputs from agencies)