On July 29, the Union Cabinet headed by the Indian Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi approved the National Education Policy 2020 with transformational reforms in school and higher education systems in the country. Though not a binding constitutional document, the policy is aimed at envisioning the educational framework and orientation of the country in the upcoming years.
Background
Based on the recommendations of the Kothari Commission, the maiden National Education Policy was promulgated in 1968 under the Prime Ministership of Mrs. Indira Gandhi for introducing a comprehensive guideline for the modern Indian education system.
Consequently, another National Education Policy was issued under the tenure of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1986 and it was duly updated by the government under PV Narsimha Rao. In 2005, the National Curriculum Framework was introduced for the designing of NCERT textbooks.
Though NEP 2020 claimed to have been replacing a 34-year-old NEP, gradual updates and editions have been made to the previous documents to suit the evolving educational needs of the time.
The process of formulating the new education policy was initiated by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) in January 2015, taking more than 5-years for its fruitful declaration. Followed by the recommendations submitted by the committees under the former Cabinet Secretary Late Shri T.S.R. Subramanian in May 2016 and under the eminent ISRO scientist Dr. K. Kasturirangan in 2019, the Ministry prepared Some Inputs for the Draft National Education Policy, 2016, and the Draft National Education Policy 2019, respectively.
The Draft National Education Policy 2019 was given two-months of time after it being uploaded to the government website for public access inviting suggestions and comments from relevant stakeholders. Despite the brief window that was made available for submitting comments and opinions, “nearly over 2 lakh suggestions from 2.5 lakh Gram Panchayats, 6600 Blocks, 6000 ULBs, 676 Districts” were received.
The Welcome Moves With Slight Hitches
1. Increased Budget Allocation
The first among the positive policy prescriptions is the aim to increase the combined center and state public investment in the Education sector to 6 percent of the country’s GDP which, as of the current times, remains somewhere around 4.5 percent of the total GDP.
As per the latest Union Budget for the financial year 2020-21, India had allocated 4.6 percent of its total GDP on education and stands at 62nd position in the world in total public expenditure on education per student. Though experts have long recommended raising the allocation to 6 percent, it is up to the subsequent budget formulations to implement the raise envisioned by the policy document.
2. Universal Access to School Education
Emphasizing on “universal access to school education at all levels- pre-school to secondary” with infrastructural support and innovation.
With an emphasis on Early Childhood Care and Education, the new system introduces “12 years of schooling with three years of Anganwadi/ pre-schooling” and replaces the hitherto 10+2 structure of school curricula with “a 5+3+3+4 curricular structure corresponding to ages 3-8, 8-11, 11-14, and 14-18 years respectively”.
It expands the ambit of free and compulsory school education for students belonging to the age category between 6 and 14 years as has been envisaged by the Right to Education Act, 2009 to the age category between 3 and 18 years and hence, allows more students to reap its benefits. Arguably, despite given access to education at the age of 6, due to previous years of deprivation, the process of learning among many students render ineffective.
At the same time, the reform of the curricular structure requires substantial infrastructural boost on the part of the government in order to fully equip the schools logistically for fruitful implementation of the reform. In fact, if it becomes a pretext for the government to amend the coveted RTE Act of 2009 that specifies the minimum norms for elementary schools, the alterations made to the act are to be judged with caution and care.
3. Increased GER
NEP 2020 aims to bring back 2 crore dropout students into the fold of mainstream school education and attain 100 percent Gross Enrolment Rate in school education. At the same time, it “aims to increase the Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education including vocational education from 26.3% (2018) to 50% by 2035” while adding 3.5 Crore new seats to Higher education institutions.
As it aims to reduce the rates of dropouts among students, beyond doubt its practical implication may usher in positive changes in the country’s educational scenario. This stands hand in gloves with the provisions of equitable and inclusive education.
Also read:
How A Simple Initiative By This 28-YO Girl Is Reducing The School Dropout Rate In Varanasi
Though the policy envisions not to deprive students of education based on their circumstances of birth and announces a special focus on Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs) by expanding funding opportunities to them in both schools and higher education, no clear road map is chalked out towards achieving that.
What this policy envisages is no more than what the right to equality under the Indian Constitution promises in coherence. Despite constitutional provisions, the prejudices etched in Indian minds against students belonging to the marginalized communities are far-fetched and deep-seated and thus, the real challenge lies at the implementation of the policy recommendation in consonance with the fundamental rights.
4. Pedagogic Reforms
The pedagogic reforms related to the methods of instructions in the school curricula aims at the ‘holistic development of learners’ by inducing skills of critical thinking and experiential learning. Towards the attainment of the goal the policy introduces “increased flexibility and choice of subjects” with “no rigid separation between arts and sciences, between curricular and extra-curricular activities, between vocational and academic streams”.
The policy also prioritizes formative assessment (regular monitoring and feedback to enhance students’ learning and improve teaching styles) over summative assessment (High stake evaluation of student learning at the end of an instructional unit with standardized benchmarks) for improving analytical skills, critical thinking and conceptual clarity among students.
School-level summative assessments in the form of examinations are going to be for the students of Grades 3, 5, and 8, while the students of Grade 10 and 12 are to take Board exams under the aegis of respective central and state boards. The establishment of a new centralized National Assessment Centre is meant for overseeing the process and outcome of the student learning.
This outlook extends to even “Under Graduate education with flexible curricula, creative combinations of subjects, integration of vocational education, and multiple entry and exit points with appropriate certification” for providing holistic multidisciplinary education. Rather than focusing on stream-specific or subject-oriented institutions, Multidisciplinary Education and Research Universities (MERUs) allowing dialogic engagements among various streams and skill-sets are to be encouraged.
The two main advantages of this reform are of decrease in rote learning tendencies among students as the ultimate aim of learning does not relegate to taking examinations and increase in creative acumen allowing students inclined towards science and technology to be able to learn subjects pertaining to arts and humanities.
As this remains a welcome move, the question remains over the efficacy of its practical execution. Whether we like it or not the education system of the country caters to employment feasibility for many. Unless there is greater acceptability among the employers in employing students with flexible subject choices, the inherent stream related preferences and rigidities are not going to go away. In fact, the mushrooming of stream-specific private institutions over the past few years is capable of hindering the multidisciplinary educational approach, if not checked soon.
5. Undergraduate Education For 3 To 4 Years
“UG education can be of 3 or 4 years with multiple exit options and appropriate certification within this period. For example, Certificate after 1-year, Advanced Diploma after 2 years, Bachelor’s Degree after 3 years and Bachelor’s with Research after 4 years”.
The aspiring candidates of higher education in American universities may reap the greatest benefit of this policy recommendation. By completing 4 years of undergraduate at par with the American universities, they may be able to save a year that previously they had to devote to earning the post-graduation degree to fulfill the requirements of admission.
Alongside this, it provides greater flexibility for students to earn sessional certificates for the completion of each year of education and allows them to take a hiatus in between. As there are certificates to be issued for each year, amid dire familial situations the students may opt to take employment opportunities and come back later for the completion of the course.
Although it sounds excellent theoretically, the road map for the same remains unknown and hence, unreliable unless an execution plan is chalked out. How the educational institutions are to tackle these fickle movements by the students remain questionable.
6. Teachers’ Recruitment
The recruitment of permanent teachers through a transparent and robust process is desirable as has been envisaged by the policy. The practice of recruiting para-teachers and guest faculties in the schools and colleges with lower pay scales and equivalent responsibilities to fill the posts easily has been rampant throughout the country.
A common National Professional Standards for Teachers (NPST) in school education will promulgate a standardized selection procedure across the country. While the standardized procedure reduces the chances of discrepancy and favoritism and ensures regularity in the process, unless it is clear how equitably this is to be executed, a lot remains unclear. Especially, the model and conduct of the procedure with no specific language bias should be ensured.
Besides, the performance appraisal in both the school and higher education may pave the way for greater accountability on the part of the teachers. At the same time, given the existing political interventions in the educational field, the performance appraisal should not be used as a tool for unfair promotions and targeted demotions in school and higher education.
Major Concerns
1. The Medium Of Instruction In School Education
“The policy has emphasized mother tongue/local language/regional language as the medium of instruction at least till Grade 5, but preferably till Grade 8 and beyond”.
It is true that ‘learning English’ is not equivalent to ‘learning in English’ and thus, the policy does not altogether negate the need to learn English as a language. After all, the requirement of excellent speaking and writing skills in English is almost universal in the Indian job market.
While it highlights the need to emphasize on respective mother tongues by setting aside the English obsessiveness, it automatically puts the first-generation learners, especially belonging to the marginalized and lower-income groups, in backfoot. While those with a privileged background can ensure better English learning at home and through private tutors, the underprivileged may have a disadvantageous start whenever the medium of instruction shifts rapidly.
For all practical purposes, the majority of primary school education in the country is delivered in the local language due to the dearth of teachers well-versed in spoken English. Therefore, though not impossible for the students to cope, the levels of difficulty in grasping the instructions in English amid a swift change is undeniable. Additionally, with the high mobility and internal economic migration among the Indians, coping with the regional language may ultimately appear coercive and ineffective.
Besides, all schools are to ensure Sanskrit being offered as an option for students alongside other Indian classical languages. The explicit mentioning of Sanskrit points towards emphasizing the Vedic language with Hindu lineage while clubbing the rest under the ‘other’ category.
Logistically, if the schools are to employ as many Sanskrit teachers just for the sake of offering the language despite not having enrolled students on certain occasions, the worth of such recruitments at the school level renders questionable.
2. Faceless Intervention Of The Higher Education Commission Of India (HECI)
“Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) will be set up as a single overarching umbrella body for entire higher education” barring the jurisdiction over the Medical Council and Bar Council of India. The body will in fact be responsible with four independent verticals designated for regulation, standard-setting, funding, and accreditation.
This not only paves the way for high-level centralization but also may hinder democratic educational governance and decision-making. Its “faceless intervention through technology” invokes fear of educational institutions being singled out for realizing political vendettas and lacks a fair process of accreditation with no way of verifying the information provided by the institutions through human interactions.
3. Graded Autonomy Among Institutions
The policy refers to university as “a spectrum of institutions that range from research-intensive Universities to Teaching-intensive Universities and Autonomous degree-granting Colleges” maintaining a hierarchical order among the institutions. “Affiliation of colleges is to be phased out in 15 years and a stage-wise mechanism is to be established for granting graded autonomy to colleges” the policy prescribes alongside.
As much as the creation of the hierarchy is problematic in providing education if these prescriptions are to be read with the University Grants Commission (Categorization of Universities (only) for Grant of Graded Autonomy) Regulations, 2018, category I universities, the research-intensive ones especially, are expected to arrange revenue sources for its expansion without looking for assistance from the Government.
If one is to omit government sources of funding, the probable source of revenue generation may be heightening students’ fees which many in this country are unable to afford. This lessens and delimits the students from the lower strata of the society to access higher education in the premier institutions of the country. Therefore, the hierarchy created keeping in mind the quality of education may inadvertently reflect upon the socio-economic access to education.
4. Use Of Technology
“A dedicated unit for the purpose of orchestrating the building of digital infrastructure, digital content and capacity building will be created in the MHRD to look after the e-education needs of both school and higher education”, the policy enunciates. Additionally, the policy also prescribes “appropriate integration of technology into all levels of education”.
While keeping the present Covid-19 lockdown situation in mind this looks effective, the uncertainty remains over the over-emphasis on technology. Though digitization remains the talk of the town for quite some time now, the dire dearth of digitization especially among the rural and impoverished population of the country represents a stark picture of the Indian reality.
Unless equitable access is ensured among all the recipients of the education, the likely rise of digitization may definitely hamper the GER aims of the policy as many may drop out due to lack of access and the shame attached to it. Unless the government looks for a holistic digitization program even at the grassroots, the people belonging to the marginalized communities may get further marginalized due to a lack of access to digital modes.
5. Internationalisation Of Education
“Internationalization of education will be facilitated through both institutional collaborations and student and faculty mobility and allowing entry of top world ranked Universities to open campuses in our country”, the policy prescribes.
This has remained a long-standing debate of the Indian education system. On the face of it facilitating top-ranked universities may seem to have resulted in better access to world education, though the flip side gets often obliterated.
Not only does this policy prescription paves the way for commercialization of the Indian education sector but also due to the higher rates of education fees in these Indian branches of global education like Harvard and MIT, the marginalized communities belonging to the lower strata of the Indian economy get deprived of such opportunities.
Though the policy prescription does not enunciate on the modes of such internationalization, the inevitability of Indian campuses being relegated to lower categories of the Indian education system will impact the employability of many for whom these systems without adequate state-sponsorship are inaccessible and unaffordable.
Overall, these policy prescriptions show promises as well as disadvantages for carrying forward the Indian education system on the right path as foreseen. Though the fanciful wordings of the policy document are encouraging, unless proper enactments are in place at par with these prescriptions, they remain whimsical and without efficacy.
What is your opinion on the new National Education Policy 2020?