Part-1: MANIPUR EDUCATION SERVICE: MES or MESS?
By T. Vunglallian
I
There is quite a bit of talk that ‘Manipur Education Service’, MES, is in the offing … taking shape quietly in the backrooms of the much clichéd corridors of power. If that be true, then i have to be blunt and say: It should be stopped. Stopped at all cost!
My outright objection is because this proposed ‘service’ was mistakenly thought by its earlier champions of the ‘90s and early 2000s to be the panacea for the ills of higher education, as provided by the Government of Manipur. The move was scuttled, for reasons given below.
Permit me to quote eleven lines from the ‘Report of the Manipur State Higher Education Commission 2003, Part I-II’, published by The Department of University and Higher Education, Government of Manipur. Page-83, Chapter VII, ‘Other Recommendations’, regarding ‘Manipur Education Service’ the Report says:
7.13. The Commission is aware that the idea of having a Manipur Education Service has been floating for a long time in Manipur. It is to facilitate the appointments of academicians to higher non-teaching, administrative posts in the Department. It is based on the assumption that academicians would know better and hence do better on the job. The Commission would not go into the premises of this Service. However, it appears that the cadre strength of this service will be too small to warrant a separate Service if it is meant for just non-teaching posts in the higher education structure. If teaching posts including that of Principals are to be included, its ramifications in the context of UGC schemes for teachers need careful examination by an expert body.
Reference today’s MES, i for one, have my doubts if there is any ‘expert body’ examining UGC – and a whole lot of other – ramifications. The absence of an ‘expert body’ alone ought to be enough reason to put all things to do with MES on hold, before closing it down forever. Yes, ‘forever’.
Secondly, if our-powers-that-be (who i am certain will not call themselves an ‘expert body’) care to call for the above mentioned Report, and to at least go through pages 18-20, Chapter III, ‘Status of Higher Education in Manipur’. There, the Table 3.07: ‘The Colleges’ gives a comprehensive picture of all the colleges in Manipur, and the obviousness of the needlessness of MES.
It will be found that in 2002*, out of a total of 70 colleges in Manipur, 25 were Government Colleges providing General Education; 02 were Govt. Teachers’ Training Colleges and 01 Govt. Law College … totaling 28 Government Colleges in all.
The remaining colleges, 70-28=42 colleges comprise of – Private Aided-Colleges (07, all providing General Education) and 35 Other Colleges/Institutions (Of these 35 Other Colleges/ Institutions 26 were Private Colleges providing General Education, 02 Private Law Colleges, 01 Private Teachers’ Training College, 01 Private College of Physical Education, 01 Private Aided Art College, and, significantly, 03 State Govt. Technical Education Institutes and 01 Central Govt. Medical College.
The same Table, on page 19, also shows the December 2002 Degree Students Enrolment as totaling 28,670 only!
The next Table shows Staff Strength (sanctioned posts) as 2,229 (in Govt. Colleges and Directorate), 195 (in Private Aided Colleges), and 561 (in Manipur University), totaling 2,985. (Of course Staff In Position had 2,045 (in Govt. Colleges & Directorate), 192 (in Private Aided Colleges) and 495 (in Manipur University), thus totaling 2,732 (indicating a shortfall of 253 Teaching Staff for In Position in 25/28/? – this is unclear – educational institutions).
Significantly, (a) there is no data on the number of the Teaching Staff engaged by 31 Private Colleges! (b) Nor do we know how many of the 28,670 students belong to the 31 private institutions. (Please note that the above figures are and has been the ones supplied by MU, with whom all degree students of all MU-affiliated colleges have to register. So there is no fudging, here).
*The above figures, no doubt, are data of 2002, and 10 years have passed. Latest data would surely throw up a different set of statistics, starting with bigger numbers. But ‘improved’ numbers would be more to do with private institutions and their student enrolments and performances, with nothing of much significance as far as government institutions go. The important thing, however, is that the core findings would not really alter. Hence much to be thought of …
FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
(i) 2,732 government higher education teachers/lecturers and 28,670 college students (still including, remember, private enrolment) gives a wonderful ratio of, say a maximum 1 teacher :11 students! Wow!
(ii) Needless to say, this ratio would have been the envy of any educational system in the whole wide world. And naturally, such a ratio would not only have assured quality education, but any problem that crop up would be solved through so many other ways within the system … anyway, anything but the creation of a separate ‘service’ like the MES being conceived here!
(iii) Now, the crorepati question that arises before us is, would one, therefore, need an entirely new Service to manage/administer 28 government colleges/institutions?
(iv) Further, in an imaginary ‘MES Manipur’ can one picture a generalist MES administrator looking after any one of the 03 technical institutes or the medical college, or MU? Or vice versa? Or a science college in the hands of a generalist Arts – even if a Doctorate-MESer/ MES-wallah?
(v) Here, two posers:
(a) Less the technical, medical institutions and MU, the number 28 drops to 23. Thus making the whole thing even more ridiculous, i.e. MES for 23 colleges?!
(b) Not only that, what of the administration of the 03 technical and 01 medical institutes, and MU? Hope the idea of MES-champions isn’t Separate Cadre – nay ‘cadres’ – within MES?! Like, one cadre for the schools, one for general colleges, one each for the 03 technical institutes (as each is very different from the other), and the less said about the medical institute(s) and MU the better. That is because our MESes, no matter how well trained, cannot include RIMS or a Central University bound MU … already with its VC, Registrars, Deans, HODs and so on.
(c) An aside: Knowing the way we think, our State’s MES if bulldozed through today would one day try to set the tip of their toes inside these institutions! God forbid!
(vi) The creation of MES would open up, literally, a pandora’s box of woes, for which our already impoverished state would have to pay dearly. In fact – MES – would be truly a big MESS, with even the ‘something’ … Hope … that was left, fortunately for mankind, in the hastily shut pandora’s box. In our case Hope too would have surely slipped out!
(vii) Ah! How do today’s champions of MES think an MESer or MES-wallah (i prefer to use ‘wallah’ because one is uncertain what those who make it and are justified to append MES to their names, will call themselves … MES Officer /Teacher /Assoc.Prof/Prof./ Director/ Principal /Headmistress /Headmaster … as surely the ‘identity’/’ego’ crisis will loom sooner than later!
(viii) Lastly, ref. (i) above, is there an element of government employees and institutions riding piggy-back on statistics provided/made possible by private ‘donation’ of student enrolment and performance?
Anyway, and whatever, for a small number of government backed general education colleges numbering 23, expecting an MES – even an unified one – is asking for the moon!
II
One notable difference between the championing of MES in 2003 and today, in 2012, is that today’s reasons for creating MES has brought into its ambit the numbers available in ‘lower education’ … (Oops! Sorry about that. It is just that since my junior school days i was taught that where there is ‘higher’ there is a ‘lower’ … so ‘lower’ came automatically when i simply meant to say … ‘school education’ because of ‘higher edu’/college+ edu. Sorry. No hard feelings?) … What i am saying is that this time round, the proposers have clubbed government school education and ‘higher’/college education together, in order to get the necessary ‘bloated’ figures in the attempt to justify MES. Diversionary tactics, no?
That gives me at least two hot and spicy curries to complicate the digestion of an otherwise bland and poor diet.
1. i take it that this inclusion of ‘schools’ means the interested parties/champions did read the last Draft of the ‘Report of the Manipur State Higher Education Commission’ that was circulated in mid-November 2003, to the Members of the Commission, prior to the final print of the ‘Report’. In the second last page, C.81, under the sub-heading ‘Manipur Education Service’ are these words:
There may be a Manipur Education Service for appointments to administrative, that is, non-teaching posts. As the cadre strength will be too small if confined to the Higher Education Department, within its scope may come the School Education Department.
If teaching posts are included, there may be conflicts with UGC guidelines. The issue of Manipur Education Service needs careful consideration of all its implications.
Judging by the ongoing push for MES, the powers-that-be and their backroom boys (who cannot be called an ‘expert body’) have simply – not even cleverly – selected the weakest point in the above five lines to try justify MES in 2012/13! The ‘weakest point’ being- As the cadre strength will be too small if confined to the Higher Education Department, within its scope may come the School Education Department. (Italics and bold, mine)
2. To support my use of the words ‘weakest point’, i will ask one or two small questions only, namely:
(a) Can an MES ‘Headmaster’ of a high school be, one day – as a matter of routine posting –be posted as ‘Principal’ of a college (of ‘higher’ education?!) Or, vice versa? (Note: i am not even bringing up the issues of UGC guidelines, or the exacting requirements of technical and medical institutes!)
(b) Are today’s MES-champions again resorting to riding piggy-back on the enrolment-cum-performance ‘donation’ of statistics from private schools to bolster chances for justifying creation of MES … through a more impressive and convincing set of numbers?
NOTE: Suffice it to say that this habit of riding piggy-back, upon sincere scrutiny, actually undermines ventures based on false premises. Surely, today’s MES-champs ought to know that!
Meaning, if we could ever get the Directorate of Schools to put out, in the public domain, the number of teachers employed by the government and the number of students enrolled in government schools, so as to arrive at a student:teacher ratio, we’d find ourselves shocked and shamed! Actually, if the sought stats in the public domain were ever possible, Manipur’s schools – like its ‘higher’ education counterpart – would again have a fantastic and most enviable ratio! Of course, that would necessitate the very difficult and delicate separation of government and private statistics.
But having said all that that sounds like going all out against government schools, you must believe me when i say i, in point of fact, am one who believes that Education in Manipur can only do justice to the fair and promising name of Education if, and only when, government schools and colleges wake up, put their shoulders to the wheel and extricate themselves from the rut.
Mind you, this fantastic ratio – though sounding like a slap in the face – is in reality a positive that could re-invent government backed education.
If we have the will and the vision! However, beware MES is no vision.
<Over to Part-2, later in the month>