You say potato, I say poh-tah-toe

One paragraph from the recent circular to all higher education institutions stands out. It says,

To simplify, this directive says two things:

1. Third-party edtech platforms like UpGrad and its ilk cannot use the word “degree” or “diploma” in their advertising material.
2. Doing this constitutes “franchising” in the regulator’s eyes. Basically, taking a degree course from an institute and running it through an online medium, where the institute is paid a commission for its brand, content, etc.

The government thinks it’s made cut-and-dry rules. In practice though, things have gotten really messy and complex.

The first thing to understand here is that the Modi government itself is a HUGE proponent of online education. They’ve launched a gazillion online platforms for students and teachers during the pandemic, partnered with the likes of Byju’s to offer free licenses, and peppered the National Education Policy with policies that put technology front and center. At the higher education level, they’ve introduced a four-year undergraduate programme and an Academic Bank of Credits so that students can continue learning even outside the physical constraints of a classroom.

Behind the scenes though, it’s a plain and simple turf war. On wordage, and jurisdiction.

This is a problem for the regulators. Because while they have full jurisdiction over a physical college, its teachers, its curriculum, and can conduct spot checks to ensure there are no discrepancies, this is, arguably, much harder to control when a course is being offered online. Online democratises things, but by virtue of being a democratic medium, it also pushes the boundary on “control” for old-school regulators.

That’s why franchising, in the way that Starbucks or Haldiram's do, is a complete no-go for institutes that offer degrees.

But there are about 50 shades of grey between outright franchising and what edtechs, in association with universities, are trying to do.

This brings us to the second definition problem.

No more poh-tah-toes at all

The regulatory duo, UGC and AICTE, made a progressive decision in 2020 and 2021 to etch out what they wanted. If you were a university wanting to start an online-only degree or diploma, there are a set of rules to follow and criteria to meet. Chief among them are quality parameters like placing in the top 100 in the NIRF rankings (National Institutional Ranking Framework), or being accredited with a score of over 3.00 out of 4 by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council. So far, the UGC has come out with a list of 42 universities who can offer online courses.

When these criteria have already been set up, what’s the challenge with putting the approved courses on an edtech platform?

The industry wants the regulators to treat edtechs as a “virtual real estate”, with all the infrastructure available to make an online degree more palatable. (It can be argued that with their millions, edtechs can also create better marketing pulls for aspirants). But regulators don’t see edtechs as mere real estate or a platform.

They see them as co-conspirators who can help universities get away with franchising.

Dumdumdum.

So, the easiest thing to do here is to just pull the plug. Or rather, reinstate the plug. “The government has always been very clear. Use your own platforms to offer online degrees. But don’t put it on any other platform,” says Akshay Munjal, the president of the BML Munjal University and CEO of Hero Vired, a platform that offers online certifications in subjects like data science and financial management.

Munjal says there are no fine lines, no grey areas, no confusion: no for-profit entity is allowed, by law, to offer a degree or diploma to a student. This can only be done in India through a vehicle called a Section 8 company, or a non-profit. If an edtech platform wants to partner with a university and offer a course, says Munjal, the writing on the wall is clear.

Do it as a Section 8 aka non-profit company.

China feels.

What regulators have done, argues Munjal, is to underline a level-playing field. There has to be “sanctity”, he says, to the online degree, where edtechs can’t circumvent the tight set of rules that physical, classroom degrees have to adhere to. Things like a 60-student/class cap, quality of faculty, how to promote this faculty, and so on.

So far, it seems, edtechs and their university partners have followed a more liberal interpretation of the online degree rules—assuming that once a course has passed regulatory muster, the real estate is just a technicality. The government, though, has hardened its stand behind its cut-and-dry definitions, re-drawing its jurisdiction over the vast world of online higher education.

Some edtechs will be looking askance. As startups and unicorns, they’re touted, feted, and celebrated as job-creators. As new types of education platforms though, they are an easy target for regulatory zeal and bureaucratic overreach. Instead of going after specific instances of misleading ads or where franchising has occurred, the industry is worried that every edtech will be painted with the same wide brush.

The government must ultimately decide how it wants to define these edtechs. And then maybe adapt rules that protect the sanctity of a degree without hurting business outcomes.

Till then, the cold snap is here to stay.

Breathing life back into Indian education

by Arpit Arora

Rising cases, closed schools, online classes, learning loss, repeat.

[Source: UNESCO]

Schools have attempted a shift to online education, but this has come with its own set of challenges. One study on Early Childhood Education (ECE) by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy focused on data from Maharashtra between April and June 2021—the height of the second Covid wave. “Enrollment in virtual classes fell by 30-40%, while the class size for those regularly attending and engaging in ECE in virtual classrooms fell by up to 60%, compared to pre-pandemic class sizes,” the report noted. 

[Source: Starting from Scratch | The Role of Parents, Teachers, and Tech in Early Childhood Education during Covid-19]

Now, the learning loss is not ideal. But all of this is being done because studying from home is safer for the children right? Well… about that.

The Indian Association of Preventive and Social Medicine (IAPSM) issued an advisory last September stating that the gains from resuming academic activities far outweigh the risks involved. The government, it said, must not wait to vaccinate children before resuming classes. The IAPSM also recommended safeguards that schools could implement such as teacher training to identify Covid symptoms and ensuring proper ventilation in the classroom.

But what does a properly ventilated classroom look like?

[Source: Why Opening Windows Is a Key to Reopening Schools, The New York Times]

The public education system in India may not actually be that far behind in some places. Central and state governments have issued guidelines that include screening for Covid-19 symptoms, a 50 per cent cap on classroom capacity, physical distancing, etc, to make classrooms safer for children at schools. “Government schools in Bengaluru fare much better in critical pandemic-related infrastructure like ventilation compared to most affordable private schools, which are extremely under-resourced,” says Manish Shetty, program lead at non-profit Teach for India.

There are other resources we can use to make classrooms safer. For instance, a web application built at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) lets you simulate the conditions inside a classroom and calculate the safe occupancy rates based on conditions such as room specifications, human behaviour, age group, viral strain, etc. 

[Source: COVID-19 Indoor Safety Guideline]

Though the outcomes may differ a bit in actual classrooms, the results indicate that there is clear potential to bring students back to school—even if this might be via a hybrid online/offline model.

Repeated school closures have stretched schools thin, exacerbated the learning gap, and driven students further away from sustainable solutions. But that doesn’t need to be the case. 

It is time the education system finds its second wind.

Back Bench

With a fresh US$100 million in funding, LEAD, a “school edtech” company has joined the coveted unicorn club. It’s entry marks a difference in the mix—it's the first edtech to not target the tuition, test prep, or upskilling crowd. LEAD’s valuation may have jumped up in the last year, but the company has been pretty vocal about the erratic reopening of schools across the country, which has had a devastating impact on learning and socialisation for kids. But it’s also tricky to run a school-focused business without schools opening.

***

After a year full of pandemic- and reservation-related delays, NEET-PG counselling finally kicked off across the country on 12 January. But all students aren’t out of the deep waters yet; there are some new challenges. 

With the new reservation quotas, students are unsure if their ranking will get them into the desired college anymore. And with NEET-PG counselling dates overlapping with the 2022 exam dates, they might have to reattempt the exams and lose out on the counselling fees. If that wasn’t enough, students also faced delays in securing their mandatory 10-month internships due to the pandemic and might not be able to finish before the new terms begin!

That’s all for this week folks. Do write in and tell us what you think is going to happen next in the edtech regulation saga. Are customers happy? Are investors worried? Are founders now rueing their marketing decisions? 

Never a dull day in education!

And as always, please do share the newsletter if you liked reading it.

https://the-ken.com/edsetgo/dont-say-the-d-word/