UNIT 2

Access, Equity and Inclusion in Higher

Education
MALISH C. M.
Ashank Desai Centre for Policy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay.
Email: malishchirakkal@gmail.com

Introduction

Higher education plays a major role in creating humane and just society. While
duly recognising the social transformative potential of education in general and
higher education in particular, one should not forget that education is shaped by
socio-economic, cultural and political context in which it takes place. Viewing
higher education through the lens of development, and as a means for developing
collective capabilities among the population, enables us to understand the crucial
significance of promoting equity and inclusion in higher education. Driven by
principles of social justice and democracy, equality and inclusion interventions
aim to ensure that background characteristics, and should not impinge on one’s
access to and success in higher education. The organisation of this unit is as
follows. The second section provides the context of discussion on equity and
inclusion in higher education. Key concepts such as equality, equity and inclusion
are defined and elaborated in the third section. Three dimensions of equity are
also discussed. The fourth section is devoted to highlighting major
recommendations of NEP-2020 to promote equity and inclusion in higher
education. Strategies for promoting equity and inclusion are discussed in section
5. Concluding observations recapitulate the major observations.

Learning Outcomes

After completing this module, you will be able to

 Analyse the concept of equality, equity and inclusion in higher education.
 Describe the indicators for measuring access to higher education.
 Underline and discuss the broader framework of NEP-2020 for improving
equity and inclusion in higher education.
 Describe various strategies for promoting equity and inclusion. 1

1
Unit 2, Module 1: 'Foundations: Structure, Access, Equity, and Bhartiya Gyan Parampara', is part of
Professional Development Programme on Implementation of NEP-2020 of IGNOU, New Delhi under
PMMMNMTT. ©IGNOU, 2022

1
 The Context

It is widely acknowledged that globally poverty has been reduced but inequality
is widening (Piketty, 2018; UNESCO, 2021). Increasing inequality is
mansifetsted in all domains of human life, such as economic, social and cultural.
Various forms of disadvantaged identities intersect with each other and those who
are placed at the bottom of hierarchy face extreme forms of cumulative
deprivation. These forms of inequalities are humanely produced and inherently
social.

The Constitution of India is built on the principles of democracy and justice.

Along with promotion of rights of individuals, the Constitution emphasises the
need to promote wellbeing of the members of disadvantaged social groups and
minorities. Policy of reservation in education and employment is a constitutional
mechanism to redistribute resources and envisage an inclusive society. India is a
party to major international treaties and conventions upholding the dignity and
rights of individuals and communities. It includes Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (1948), UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education
(1962), and Sustainable Development Goals (2015).

Education provides opportunities to individuals to realise their full potential and

groups to develop collective capacities to advance social cohesion and
sustainability. Education can expand capability sets of individuals and contribute
to social justice (Sen, 2009). Education is critical for providing shared values and
capacity for associative living which are considered to be essential prerequisites
for democracy (Dewey, 1915). As higher education institutions are in public
sphere where public matters are discussed and debated and future directions of
society take shape, participation of people from all walks of socio-economic and
cultural strata is essential (Giroux, 2019). Inequality in access to higher education
may lead to inequality in other domains and intra- as well as inter-generational
inequalities. In the context of the knowledge economy, where higher education
qualifications are necessary qualifications to access decent employment,
democratisation of access to higher education has wider socio-economic
implications.

It is well acknowledged that background characteristics of individuals such as

place of birth, social group, gender, economic class and occupation and language
community have a strong bearing on one’s position in society, access to resources
and well-being. Education is one such domain which reflects social division that
exists in society. Much of the inequalities in access to and success in higher
education is structural in nature. Even the normal operation of society and its
institutions tend to perpetuate inequality. This is the context for demanding state
interventions for equalising access and providing opportunities for deprived
sections to succeed in higher education. Concepts of equality, equity and
inclusion are important in understanding the current state of affairs of how higher

2
education opportunities are distributed among diverse populations. It also helps to
develop effective interventions in order to ensure that one’s background
characteristics and life circumstances do not hinder aspirations to access higher
education and fully benefit from the opportunities provided by the higher
education.

Concepts and Meaning

Equality, equity, and inclusion are simultaneously and interchangeably used in

everyday conversation and some of the academic literature and policy documents.
It leads many to believe that they are the same. In fact, they are not the same
ideas. Conceptual clarity is essential due to two major reasons. Firstly, inadequate
understanding of concepts may lead to illogical conclusions and biased
understanding. Secondly, lack of clarity on conceptual categories may hinder our
capacity to diagnose the problem and its real causes and develop solutions in the
form of policies and interventions. Interventions can take the form of macro level
interventions in the form of legislations and regulations by the appropriate
authorities, institutional level policies and practices and classroom practices.

Equality as a Goal

Democratic polity envisages an equal and just society (Sen, 2009). Therefore,
equality is a goal to be achieved or is an outcome parameter. Theoretically,
equality can be fully achieved. But in practice, we will only be able to reduce
inequality. Efforts of the democratic countries are to reduce inequality as much as
possible. One of the key characteristics of equality is its blindness to differences.
In any situation, equality denotes an idea that all are treated equally (Arneson,
2001). Equality is more aligned to the idea of sameness. The idea of sameness is a
constitutive feature of citizenship, universal franchise and fundamental rights.

Utility of equality is context-dependent. There are instances where sameness is to

be acknowledged and promoted. Considering diversity as the hallmark of
humanity and socio-cultural world, sameness is not appreciated in all situations.
As far as distribution of basic resources is concerned, equality is an important
value. For instance, one chair for each student in a classroom is based on the
principles of equality. Ensuring every student to have access to electronic devices
and internet connection during Covid-19 is to promote equality as online mode
has become the only mode of teaching-learning during Covid imposed lockdown
period. Unanimously decided uniform in school and colleges is meant to convey
the message to all students that all are equal irrespective of their background
characteristics. The Common School System (CSS) is an idea built on the
principle of equality. CSS suggests that students irrespective of their income and
social status should undergo the similar type of education.

3
 Equity as a Process

Equity is a means to achieve equality in outcome. It is procedural in nature. As a

process parameter, equity comprises policies and interventions to achieve equality
in outcome. Since initial endowment of students belonging to various socio-
economic groups may vary, equal treatment of unequals may lead to widening of
inequalities (Varghese, Sabharwal & Malish, 2018). In other words, equity starts
with the recognition that there exists differences among the student body. These
differences can have major implications on the social and academic experience of
students in college life and career trajectory after college life. Therefore,
providing unequal inputs for disadvantaged students is a necessary condition to
promote equality. Equity is thus sensitive to differences among the student body.
The sensitivity towards differences in equity interventions contrasts with
blindness to difference in equality provisions.

Inclusion for Promoting Sense of Belonging

Inclusion is one of the means for achieving equity in education. Inclusion focuses
on enhancing students' sense of belonging in order for them to feel that they are
accepted and included in social and academic domains of campus. Literature on
student experience has convincingly demonstrated that the sense of belonging is a
crucial factor for shaping student experience and chances of fully enjoying
academic and social experience provided by higher education (Strayhorn, 2019).
Extending an invitation to all students to attend a cultural festival is a good
example of equity oriented actions. But there is a possibility that certain students
may not receive an invitation to attend cultural fest. Equity-minded institutions
make concerted efforts to ensure

Box 3.1: Warm calling vs cold calling in classroom

Making classroom inclusive is an important effort to promote learning of all

students. There are two different ways discussion in the classroom can be
promoted during classroom discussion. One strategy is to call students randomly
and persuade them to speak or share their views on the topic being discussed.
This strategy is called cold calling. Although this strategy may be effective to
make students attentive to the classroom, it may often put disadvantaged
students in difficult situations as their understanding of the subject and
articulation capacity may be slightly different from the rest of the class due to
prior educational experience and exposure. Particularly, at early days of the
session, this experience may lead them to feel embarrassed and alienated in the
classrooms. It would also negatively impact their morale and self confidence.
This is the reason why this strategy is called cold call. Another strategy is to
inform vulnerable students in advance that there would be classroom discussion
on a topic. Teachers can provide them study materials, if required. As a result of
this strategy, teachers’ call for discussion would not lead students to feel
embarrassed. Since they are prepared, they would confidently participate in the

4
 discussion. This experience would enhance their sense of belonging and
academic self confidence. This strategy is called warm calling. Compared to
cold calling, warm calling is desirable for students from non-traditional
backgrounds particularly at the early days of college.

that no one is left behind. Inclusion goes one step ahead and asks students from
non-traditional backgrounds to make a performance of her choice as part of the
cultural test. This effort of inclusion promotes fuller participation of students. In
case, such students perform a cultural form which is akin to the cultural tradition
they belong to, the campus cultural festival becomes more inclusive in all sense.
It further enhances the sense of belonging of not only one particular student but
the student community as a whole. Efforts of inclusion thus strengthen the
emotional and affective bond of students with institutions, peers and teachers.

Three Dimensions of Equity

There are three important dimensions for equity in higher education (Malish &
Ilavarsan, 2016). They are (1) access or equality of opportunity, (2) retention and
participation, and (3) student outcome or student success. We will discuss each of
the domains in detail as follows.

Access

Equal opportunity to access higher education is a precondition for promoting

equity. Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) is a widely used measure of access in
education (Malish, 2021). According to the UNESCO Institute of Statistics,
“GER represents total enrollment at a specific level of education, regardless of
age, expressed as a percentage of the total number of the age cohort
corresponding to that same level of education” (UNESCO, 2009, p.9). 18-23 age
cohort is considered for calculating GER in India. GER provides a broader picture
about the social nature of higher education access. For instance, GER of 50%
conveys that out of the total population belonging to 18-23 age groups, half of
them are enrolled in higher education institutions. GER for women, Scheduled
Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), religious minorities and income groups to
list a few and in each federal state provides a broader picture of participation in
higher education.

Classification of higher education development into three stages such as elite,

mass and universal is based on the GER. According to Trow (1973), higher
education enters a stage of massification when GER is below 15%, it is mass
when GER is between 15% to 50%, and it is universal when GER crosses 50%. It
is to be noted that stages are not sequential and features of one stage may coexist
with others. In an elite system, higher education remains as an elite preserve for
elite socio-economic strata. Massification is characterised by enhanced
enrollment of previously under-represented groups. There is a wider agreement

5
 on the ideas of elite and mass higher education systems. However, the universal
system has been subjected to critical scrutiny. As Marginson (2017) argues,
“universal” conceals the pervasive inequality in access faced by minority, women
and other disadvantaged identity groups. Magisnon calls such a system which
crosses 50% GER as a High Participation System (HPS).

In the context of massive expansion of higher education across the globe there are
three possible scenarios as far as equity is concerned. As Shavit and Gamoran
(2007) argue, if inequality in access is widening in an expanding system,
advantaged benefit more and if inequality is reducing disadvantaged benefit more.
If inequality indicators remain the same, both advantaged and disadvantaged
benefit equally from the expansion. In other words, achieving equity in an
expanding system such as India, where inequality is pervasive, demands higher
enrollment from disadvantaged groups. More resources and efforts may be
required to attain this goal.

McCowan (2016) elaborates the concept of equity and discusses its three
dimensions such as availability, accessibility and horizontality. These three
dimensions are mostly confined to the question of access. Unlike school
education, it is not necessary for each habitat to have higher education
institutions. However, an adequate number of higher education institutions must
be available particularly in regions which are predominantly occupied by
disadvantaged groups such as SCs, STs, and minorities. It is the major
responsibility of the state to identify regions where availability of institutions are
inadequate and establish higher education institutions in those regions. However,
it should not lead to a situation where students from underdeveloped regions
concentrate in colleges and universities established in underserved regions.
Adequate opportunity may be made available for aspiring students to take
admission in colleges and universities located in urban areas. A campus with a
diverse student body is the fertile ground for students to learn from and with
others. Homogeneity in the student body hinders students from benefiting from
the richness of diversity.

Availability of higher education institutions is a prerequisite for promoting equity.

But availability alone is not sufficient. Whether such opportunities are accessible
to students from diverse backgrounds is an important consideration. There are
many entry barriers which hinder aspiring students from accessing higher
education. The dimension of accessibility focuses on conditions which act as
constraints for students to take admission. For instance, even if colleges are
available, the high admission fee and cost of tuition make college inaccessible to
students from poor families. Similarly, lack of free or budget accommodation
facilities in or around the college would be a barrier for students who are coming
from remote villages and women from orthdox family backgrounds. Separate
entrance examinations and high cut off marks can also act as hindrance to
students from disadvantaged backgrounds. High positive correlation between
socio-economic status and scores in entrance examination tests suggests that

6
students from marginalised social backgrounds are in a disadvantaged position
when seeking admission in highly selective institutions.

The third dimension of equity in access is ‘horizontality’. Horizontality refers to

the availability of diverse types of institutions with equal prestige and
recognition. Diversification of institutions and study programmes is the hallmark
of massive expansion in India and elsewhere. When diversification leads to
vertical stratification of institutions, the nature of access to higher education
opportunities would be hierarchical. Students from privileged backgrounds are
more likely to take admission in institutions located at the top of the institutional
hierarchy and non-elite institutions would be the only resort for students from
underprivileged backgrounds. Although the overall scenario measured in terms of
GER may provide a cozy picture of equality of opportunities, institutional
stratification is a major threat for achieving equity. Adequate efforts must be
made to ensure that various types of institutions are located in a horizontal plane
of equal status and prestige.

Box 3.2: Concentration of under-privileged students in certain type of

institutions and disciplines
Analysis of enrolment estimates for the last few years suggests that inequality
in GER among deprived groups such as SCs, STs and women is gradually
declining in India. This is a progressive development. But aggregate estimates
of GER conceals how higher educational opportunities are distributed across
the privileged and underprivileged. Large scale national level study by
Sabhwarl and Malish (2016) suggests that students from marginalised social
and income groups are overwhelmingly enrolled in arts, science and social
science disciplines compared to professional disciplines such as engineering,
medicine and management. Underresourced universities and colleges are
predominantly occupied by students from underprivileged backgrounds. As
employment prospects and social prestige of study programmes vary according
to institutional types, stratified educational opportunities are not favourable for
envisaging an inclusive society. More efforts are needed in this direction.

Admission policies of public institutions are determined by the state and

individual institutions do not play an important role in advancing equality in
access. Some exemptions are the Deprivation Point system followed in Jawaharlal
Nehru University, Delhi and Gender Diversity Initiative followed in Indian
Institutes of Management. On the other extreme, private unaided institutions
contribute to increasing inequality in access (Varghese, Sabharwal & Malish,
2018) and disciplinary distortion in the system (Anandakrishnan, 2010).

7
 Retention and Participation

Admitting students from diverse backgrounds forms only a part of the equity
debate. The real challenge is to retain those students and ensure that they take
fuller advantage of opportunities provided by higher education. There are many
factors that constrain students' ability to sustain in the system and fully participate
in the campus. Disabling conditions could be social, economic, academic and
cultural. For instance, students may face challenges in terms of inability to afford
costs of education and lack of boarding facility in case of students coming from
far away places. If the financial and other basic needs are unmet, students are less
likely to continue in the system. Interventions including financial assistance in the
form of monthly stipend, fee waiver and opportunities for earning along with
studies are, therefore, important strategies.

Similarly, non-democratic campus spaces and prevailing forms of prejudices and

stereotypes may negatively impact students from deprived communities and
women (Sabharwal & Malish, 2016). This would lead students to withdraw from
college or university. It is to be noted that rather than voluntarily dropping out,
students are actually pushed out of campuses due to multilayered social,
economic and pedagogical factors. Creating enabling conditions in campus also
means that campus are welcoming to all type of students and campuse spaces are
discrimination free. Therefore, institutional level efforts are essential to ensure
retention of students from diverse backgrounds.

There should be some institutional mechanisms to oversee that campus is

inclusive in its structure and practice. Such a mechanism should also provide
opportunities for students to launch complaints in case they face any forms of
disrespectful treatment from co-students, teachers and administration. SC-ST cell,
Internal Complaint Committee (ICC), Anti Ragging Cell, Equal Opportunity
Office (EOO) and Students Grievance Redressal Cell, to list a few are
institutional level mechanisms to provide enabling conditions for students from
deprived backgrounds. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (IIT-D) has recently
constituted a Dean of Diversity and Inclusion. It is an important gesture towards
promoting equity. However, a study by Sabharwal and Malish (2016) suggests
that many of those institutional mechanisms for promoting equity are less
effective. One of the reasons for ineffectiveness of cells and committees is its
compliance mode. They are constituted due to the compulsion of regulatory
agencies such as University Grants Commission (UGC) or All India Council of
Technical Education (AICTE). The need for such mechanisms are not fully felt
by the wider spectrum of teachers and institutional leaders. This is a major
challenge to achieve equity.

Student Outcome or Student Success

The third dimension of equity is student outcome or student success. Student

success refers to academic success measured in terms of timely completion of

8
courses with adequate academic grades which enable students to access the labour
market or study further. Although interventions promoting retention and
participation substantially contribute to academic experience and academic
outcome, they are not sufficient. Students come to colleges with a variety of
educational experience and exposure. Not all students have enjoyed a similar type
of educational experience and access to material and symbolic resources which
are necessary for facilitating quality learning. Moreover, the result of the
qualifying examination or entrance test may not necessarily reflect the inherent
talent of students.
Addressing diversity of learning requirements among the student body is the
primary stemp to achieve equity. There are two important considerations.

Firstly, teaching-learning practices in general and classroom practices in

particular must be organised in such a way that academic strength of students
from diverse backgrounds is respected and promoted. Intellectual diversity
brought in by the student body must be seen as an asset in the classroom.

Secondly, provisions should be available for the needy to strengthen foundational

knowledge in the chosen disciplines. Some students may require additional
tutorial sessions and small group discussion in order to grasp some of the topics.
Provision for these kinds of additional learning input is integral to achieve student
success.

It is to be noted that the term remedial teaching is not appreciated due to its
deficit connotation. A study by Malish and Sabharwal (2021) suggest that
although demand for additional learning inputs is very high, UGC-funded
remedial coaching is not fully effective. There is immense scope for improving
the quality of such interventions.

Lack of competency in the language used as a medium of instruction is an

important barrier for learning. Students who studied in one of the Indian
languages as a medium of instruction are more likely to face severe challenges in
institutions which follow English as a medium of instruction. It often leads to a
situation where students from non-English language backgrounds fail to fully
understand classroom transactions and actively participate in classroom
discussions. Creating facilities for improving language competency is therefore
an important intervention to promote student success (see Box 3.3 for LEP in
JNU). Similar is the case of affordability of expensive study material. Book bank
facility for SCs and STs aims to address this problem.

Box 3.3: Linguistic Empowerment Cell

The Jawharlal Nehru University Delhi established a cell called Lingustic

Empowerment Cell (LEC). Considering the linguistic diversity of the student
body, core objective of the LEC is to provide training for students to achieve

9
 command over English language. Acquisition of fluency and command on
English language enables students from Indian language backgrounds to fully
enjoy social and academic opportunities of campus. LEC conducts diagnostic
tests, although it is not mandatory to take admission in such programmes offered
by LEC. Programmes for basic communication skills, sign language and
academic writing skills are offered by LEC. The LEC model has a potential to
be scaled up with requisite modifications in the modalities.

Considering the enrolment of a larger number of disadvantaged students, more

investment is required to develop library facilities and technology supported
learning.

Goals of NEP 2020

The National Education Policy-2020 suggests major reforms to promote equity

and inclusion in higher education. NEP is committed to Sustainable Development
Goals 4 which aims to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and
promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” by 2030 (UN, 2015). Compared to
past policies, NEP recommends expansion of the system and aims to achieve 50%
GER in higher education by 2035. In order to provide access to students
belonging to disadvantaged backgrounds, public higher education would be
strengthened. NEP envisages by 2030 every district will have at least one large
multidisciplinary higher education institution enrolling students in thousands.
This is to address unequal distribution of higher education institutions in the
country. In addition, the private/philanthropic higher education sector will be
encouraged to offer scholarships to needy students. A national scholarship portal
will be constituted to streamline disbursal of scholarships among the meritorious
students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

NEP (14.4.1) suggests the following steps to be taken by government to promote

equity and inclusion:

a) Earmark suitable Government funds for the education of SEDGs.

b) Set clear targets for higher GER for SEDGs.
c) Enhance gender balance in admissions to HEIs (d) Enhance access by
establishing more high-quality HEIs in aspirational districts and Special
Education Zones containing larger numbers of SEDGs.
d) Develop and support high-quality HEIs that teach in local/Indian languages or
bilingually.
e) Provide more financial assistance and scholarships to SEDGs in both public
and private HEIs.
f) Conduct outreach programmes on higher education opportunities and
scholarships among SEDGs.

10
g) Develop and support technology tools for better participation and learning
outcomes.

Institutional level interventions include (NEP, 14.4.2):

a) Mitigate opportunity costs and fees for pursuing higher education.

b) Provide more financial assistance and scholarships to socio-economically
disadvantaged students.
c) Conduct outreach on higher education opportunities and scholarships.
d) Make admissions processes more inclusive.
e) Make curriculum more inclusive.
f) Increase employability potential of higher education programmes.
g) Develop more degree courses taught in Indian languages and bilingually.
h) Ensure all buildings and facilities are wheelchair-accessible and disabled-
friendly.
i) Develop bridge courses for students that come from disadvantaged
educational backgrounds.
j) Provide socio-emotional and academic support and mentoring for all such
students through suitable counselling and mentoring programmes.
k) Ensure sensitization of faculty, counsellor, and students on gender-identity
issue and its inclusion in all aspects of the HEI, including curricula.
l) Strictly enforce all no-discrimination and anti-harassment rules.
m) Develop Institutional Development Plans (IDP) that contain specific plans for
action on increasing participation from SEDGs, including but not limited to
the above items.

Compared to earlier policies such as NEP-1968 and NEP-1986, a new equity

category called Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs) was created
by NEP-2020. SEDG is an umbrella term used to describe all types of students
facing multilayered challenges and deprivations. However, while discussing
promotion of gender equality through gender inclusion fund, NEP-2020
recommends that similar inclusion funds can be created for each of the equity
groups.

Providing an option for higher education institutions to offer open and distance
learning is conceived as a measure for enhancing GER target. Recommendation
for setting up of high quality support centres for promoting learning of students
belonging to disadvantaged backgrounds in colleges and universities is a
welcome step. NEP also ensures that adequate funding support and academic
resources are made available for such centres. Provisions for professional
counselling and career guidance can also contribute to achieving goals of equity.

11
 Strategies for Promoting Equity
In what follows, are a few strategies that are proposed to further strengthen
NEP’s proposal to promote equity and inclusion in higher education.

 National level exercise may be conducted to understand the nature of

stratified access to higher education opportunities such as concentration of
students with certain background characteristics in certain disciplines and
institutions. Private players are largely responsible for this trend. Adequate
measures need to be put in place to reduce such segregation.
 National level initiative may be launched to periodically collect information
on student experience. National survey can elicit information on student
experience in social and academic domains. It would help to better understand
problems faced by students and assess effectiveness of system and
institutional level interventions to promote equity.
 Proposals to establish institutions in underserved regions is a welcoming step.
However, adequate opportunities may be made available for students from
remote villages to study in colleges located in urban locations. It would help
to avoid gradual ghettoisation of deprived students in colleges located in
remote locations.
 Considering the unique type of challenges faced by each equity group,
targeted interventions may be more appropriate to promote equity.
 Teacher shortage should be addressed immediately. Filling backlog vacancies
for disadvantaged groups may be the first priority. Private institutions may be
encouraged to recruit teachers from diverse backgrounds.
 Many good universities abroad seek ‘Diversity Statement’ as part of faculty
recruitment in colleges and universities. Diversity Statements showcase
sensitivity of candidate towards issues of diversity, equity and inclusion and
proposed strategies to improve learning of diverse student body. Such
mechanisms may be explored in order to recruit teachers with empathetic
attitude and inclusive pedagogical orientation.
 More incentives may be provided to those higher education institutions which
admit students from diverse backgrounds and ensure their academic outcome
and transition to the labour market or higher studies.
 The Institutional Development Plan may consider incorporating activities for
promotion of equity. For instance, master time table may include class timing
for academic support programmes. Idea is to transform equity and inclusion
interventions into an institutional priority.
 Institutions need to make major efforts to identify academic and language
competencies of students at the early days after admission. Adequate care
must be taken to avoid stigmatisation of students. Rather than assessment of
learning, it should be an assessment for further learning.

12
 Based on the initial assessment, students may be provided required learning
inputs through student support centres. Potential of technology may be
explored without undermining crucial significance face to face mode of
teaching-learning processes.
 Lack of sensitivity among the faculty members and institutional leaders
towards equity and inclusion is a major hindrance to developing socially
inclusive campuses and inclusive academic spaces. Mandatory courses
required to be completed by teachers as part of career progression may
include modules on issues of equity and inclusion.
 It is desirable for each institution to move towards an Institutional Research
Model (IRM). IRM promotes collection and analysis of institutional data such
as student background and academic performance in order to contribute to
planning and management of institutions. IRM would help to make informed
decisions on implementation of equity and inclusion interventions.

Summary

The meaning and application of the concepts such as equality, equity and
inclusion are different. Conceptual clarity helps to identify the real problem and
challenges and develop strategies and interventions. As discussed, sources of
inequality in higher education can be social, economic, gender, regional,
language, family background, parental employment and schooling background.
Intersection of various forms of inequality makes the nature of vulnerability faced
by the student body complex. While some of the challenges can be commonly
shared by all, specific challenges need specific interventions.

Massification made significant progress in bringing students from diverse

backgrounds. Affirmative action policies have substantially helped to improve
equality of opportunities in access to higher education. However, progress made
in the access is not fully translated into improving student participation and
student success. Bringing students to colleges and universities is a preliminary
step. The question is how to promote their fuller participation in social and
academic domains and ensure their success. At the same time, new forms of
inequalities are taking roots due to institutional stratification and stratified access
to certain disciplines and fields. Further expansion of higher education requires a
larger share of school students to successfully complete secondary levels of
education. Strengthening of schooling has a direct implications on capacity to
further expansion of higher education.

As observed by Salmi (2018), equity interventions can be monetary and non-

monetary. Monetary interventions mainly address financial challenges faced by
students. Non-monetary interventions aim to create enabling conditions in the
campus and promote social inclusion and learning. It is non-monetary because the
objective of such interventions is not to address monetary challenges faced by

13
 students. Perhaps, non-monetary interventions may require more financial support
than monetary interventions.

To conclude, equity interventions need to address questions of access,

participation and student success. Equitable expansion of the higher education
needs heavy public investment and support. However, many of the changes that
are required to create enabling conditions for students from diverse backgrounds
may not require additional resources. Empathetic engagement of institutional
leaders, teachers, and staff towards the students from deprived backgrounds can
make transformative change in campus and classroom in favor of equity and
inclusion. NEP- 2020 provides a broader framework and principles for promoting
equity and inclusion. Effectiveness of emerging programmes of action and
commitment to such a course of action by the government and higher education
institutions will decide the success of policy in its action mode.

Reference and Resources for Further Learning

Anandakrishnan, M. (2010). Accountability and Transparency in University Governance.

University News, 8–14 November, 48(45), 18–23.
Arneson, R. J. (2001). Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. In Hajdin Mane (ed).
The Notion of Equality (pp. 237-253). Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1915). Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press.
Giroux, H. (2019). Neoliberal savagery and the assault on higher education as a
democratic public sphere. In Battacharya, Debadithya (Ed). University
untought:Notes for a future (pp. 222- 236). New York: Routledge.
Malish C.M. & Sabharwal N.S. (2021). Higher Education Success and Social Mobility: A
Study of the UGC Coaching Schemes. CPRHE Research Report. New Delhi:
CPRHE/NIEPA.
Malish, C. (2021). Measuring Higher Education Access. International Higher Education,
(106), 9-10.
Malish, C. M., & Ilavarasan, P. V. (2016). Higher education, reservation and scheduled
castes: Exploring institutional habitus of professional engineering colleges in
Kerala. Higher Education, 72(5), 603-617.
Marginson, S. (2017). Elite, mass, and high-participation higher education. Encyclopedia
of international higher education systems and institutions, 1-8.
McCowan, T. (2016). Three dimensions of equity of access to higher education.
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(4), 645-
665.
Piketty, T. (2018). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.
Sabharwal, N. S. & Malish, C. M. (2016). Diversity and inclusion in higher education: A
study of institutions in selected states of India. CPRHE Research Report. New
Delhi: CPRHE/NIEPA.

14
Salmi, J. (2018). All around the world–Higher education equity policies across the globe.
Lumina Foundation.
Sen, A. K. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.
Shavit, Y.A & Gamoran, A. R. (2007). Stratification in higher education: A comparative
study, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational
success for all students. New York: Routledge.
Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education.
Berkeley: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS). (2009). Education indicators: Technical
guidelines. Paris:UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for
education. Report from the international commission on the futures of
education. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations (UN). (2015). Sustainable development goals. Geneva: UN
Varghese, N.V., Sabharwal, N.S. & Malish, C.M. (2018). Indian Higher Education
Report 2016: Equity. New Delhi: Sage

15