Malini Bhattacharya
The NEP 2020 is a much more concise, carefully written document than the Kasturirangan Report — the rough edges are smoothed and all the politically correct statements left out in the former are included. The substance, however, is not very different which we may miss unless we read and assess its drift in depth.
Unlike the K-Report, it does not brashly talk of earlier policies having neglected quality in their emphasis on equity. This document does talk of equity and inclusion several times and says it has dealt appropriately with the unfinished agenda of the 1986 Education Policy. It also talks of ‘rational thought and scientific temper’ more often than the K-Report did. Concerned with cutting drop-out rates, it proposes alternative education centres to bring them back to the mainstream. Breakfasts and mid-day meals are to be provided from the preschool stage. Vocational education is to be integrated into the mainstream. The document is also concerned with increasing efforts and funds for ‘SEDGs’ (Socio-economically Disadvantaged Groups) and unlike the K-Report specifies them as SCs and STs, women and students with special abilities. It talks of a Gender Inclusion Fund and of Special Education Zones in SEDG–dominated areas. It proposes special educators for children with disabilities. It emphasises teacher recruitment to fill all vacancies at the school level and promises to spare school teachers from non-teaching duties. It gives weightage to the home language in education and even talks of education being public service which cannot be commercialised or used to make profits. All this is unexceptionable. But the suspicion that many of these good intentions will remain unfulfilled rises from a deeper reading of the overall thrust.
Finances
This hollowness becomes evident in the short section on finances. It identifies thrust areas in funding as (25.4) early childhood education/ foundational literacy and numeracy/ resourcing of school complexes/ food and nutrition/ investing in teacher education/ revamping HEIs to foster excellence/ cultivating research. Well and good. But where is funding to come from for the ambitious proposals? The document only endorses and envisions an increase in investment by central and state governments to reach 6% of GDP at the earliest and 20% of public expenditure over a 10 year period’ (25.2). Unless the actual allocation is made, this is no more than what was promised in earlier documents. While proclaiming that education must not be a commercial activity, it encourages public institutions to raise funds from private philanthropic sources (25.6). Question is, whether this emphasis on private funding would have been necessary if adequate government investment was to be provided and why institutions should go cap in hand to ‘philanthropic sources’ for money looking for projects and schemes. Is it desirable that they should be occupied with such non-academic activities?
‘Traditional Education’
The document refers to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as the backdrop of the radical changes it proposes for the education system. Of course, this can only be done in the Indian context according to Indian needs. But while looking back to the ‘Indian traditions of learning’, very much in line with the K-Report, it talks glibly of ‘the Sanskrit Knowledge System’, of Taxila and Nalanda and Charaka and Aryabhatta, but misses out the heritage of Medieval times and Islamic knowledge systems as well as the development of national education as part of the anti-colonial struggle in modern times (p.4). Every time, Indian ethos, Indian art and culture in the document refer only to a very limited idea of India leaving out its rich syncretic heritage. In eulogising the vibrant linguistic traditions, it never once mentions the contributions of Urdu. But above all, this mystique of ‘rootedness and pride in India’(p.6) can be used to introduce unscientific, vague, superficial, even ‘fake’ pedagogic courses in the name of ‘value-based education’ (11.8) or ‘knowledge of India’, options to allow the student to garner easy credit without any effort on either side.
Crèche, Mid-Day Meals
The document envisages a ‘holistic’ system in school education from the pre-primary stage to Class XII. Already anganwadis and balwadis have a scheme for children at pre-school stage for crèche and play-learning. This is under the Women and Child Development (WCD) Ministry. This could have been strengthened and a universal crèche system put in place. Why is a three year-old child to be brought within the school system so early to be made ‘school-ready’ by the time she is six? Many educationists think of this as undue pressure. Then, anganwadi is an integrated scheme for nutrition and care of expectant mothers and new-born children until they reach school-going age. If a part of it is taken over by the school system and integrated into the school complex (1.6), what happens to the rest? Is it a pretext for dismantling or fragmenting this integrated nutrition and childcare scheme?
Mid-day meal is to be extended to pre-school and both breakfast and lunch are to be provided at the foundational stage. But these shall be provided from centralised kitchens in urban areas and identified rural clusters; otherwise ‘a simple but nutritious meal’ readymade will be provided (2.9). So instead of ensuring hot meals and regular staff to provide it, the debatable provision of readymade food or outsourcing of meals is being brought back. If school meals are taken over by big NGOs or big religious institutions, it is taken out of the hands of the local community and turns into a business on government money. Is that desirable?
‘Multilingualism’
Let us come to the point of ‘multilingualism’ at the preschool level. While this is placed in a much more muted manner than in K-Report, the ability of the child (2-8) to acquire languages from the environment at that stage is confused with language-learning (4.12, 4.13) and the proposal to ‘expose the child to different languages early on’ rubbishes the claim of giving particular emphasis to the mother-tongue and is liable to pressurise and confuse a three-year old child whose social environment does not allow exposure to many languages. Lip-service is paid to the three-language formula forgetting that educationists who have recommended it wanted it to be implemented in easy stages from Class V. It is obvious that priority will be given to English, Hindi and Sanskrit for such exposure. The enthusiastic plan for Sanskrit textbooks at the foundational stage (4.18) reveals the preponderant importance to be given to Sanskrit, not to encourage true learning, but to enhance the mystique around it. Putting such burden on a young child belies the claim of making the syllabus lighter and more enquiry-oriented. Anyway, since we have already experienced during the COVID-19 crisis what all would be dropped from the syllabus in the name of reducing burden, let us not put too much credit on that proposal.
‘School Complex’
The proposal to bring preschools and primary schools in a locality under a ‘school complex’ (7.1, 7.2) headed by one secondary (Classes VIII-XII) school for better governance and to enable integrated development planning is placed much more cautiously here than in the K-Report. But the physical distance of schools located in far-flung backward areas cannot be reduced by this and if inputs to such schools are not enhanced in the name of resource-sharing, then it is likely that ‘suboptimal schools’ will remain ‘suboptimal’ and the stronger schools will demand a larger share in the outlays because they have more resources to share.
Additional funds for schemes and projects to benefit the so-called ‘SEDG-dominated zones’ (6.6-6.9) and girl and transgender students in such ‘special educational zones’ sounds good as does more outlay for children with special abilities. This depends of course on the availability of funds. But also in the ‘school complex’ system it is likely that the needs of the ‘weaker’ schools where children from such specialised categories learn together with all other children in the locality — in other words, the ‘neighbourhood school’ — will still suffer from neglect. The purpose of such centralisation then remains unclear.
Board Exams, Assessment
Also apart from similar centralisation through a National Assessment Centre, there is a proposal for school students having to appear four times (Classes III, V, VIII and XIII) compulsorily in Board Examinations during their stay in school and twice every year optionally (4.38-4.43). Can the fear of a ‘high-stake’ examination be allayed merely by making the student appear before the Board again and again? Even if anonymity is maintained for results what will be its impact on the child in Class III or V? Would not a better-coordinated system of internal continuous assessment up to Class VIII and enhanced attention to those not making the mark to enable them to learn properly, be more appropriate? How will these changes help the student to cope better with the pressure and competitiveness of the neo-liberal era? University entrance examinations are also sought to be centralised through a National Testing Agency (4.43) forgetting the differences between states and regions and the specific requirements of various institutions.
Higher Education, Multidisciplinarity
Let us come to Higher Education. The goals are to bring 50% of the student population in India into higher education and to ensure that no student is left out of higher education due to financial reasons. The magic word here is ‘multi-disciplinary’. To end ‘fragmentation’, it is proposed that the system should consist ultimately only of large ‘universities, colleges, and HEI clusters/knowledge hubs’ with 3000 or more students (10.1). The examples of excellence are ‘Takshasila, Nalanda’ and the ‘Ivy League Universities’ of America with nothing in between! To emulate them, it is also proposed to ‘end harmful hierarchies’ in knowledge and to ‘break silos’ to achieve what is described as ‘multidisciplinarity’.
A different kind of hierarchy however is proposed: MERUs (Model Education and Research Universities), RUs (Research-intensive Universities), TUs (Teaching-intensive Universities) and autonomous degree colleges. While upward mobility within the hierarchy is not ruled out, it is detrimental to the whole idea of academics that teaching and research in Higher Education should be thus largely separated. Also, forcing smaller institutions offering fewer courses to expand or perish is a drastic measure which is going to kill together with some ‘un-viable’ institutions those in far-flung areas which are serving an essential purpose. Even professional institutions in medicine and technology have to enlarge themselves by turning ‘multidisciplinary’ whatever their specific expertise which have perhaps been cultivated over the years may be.
Let us try to understand what this ‘multidisciplinarity’, which in fact is to begin from the secondary school stage, signifies. All students and teachers know that in pursuing their studies in whatever discipline, there comes a time when it becomes incumbent for the creation of knowledge to access and understand the methods and the content of certain other disciplines, to turn ‘interdisciplinary’ in other words. But in this document, ‘multidisciplinarity’ stands for a medley of courses from various disciplines or ‘innovative’ courses like ‘value-education’ or ‘knowledge of India’ like a choice of dishes on the shelves of a cafeteria. The student can choose courses within a ‘choice-based credit system’, can enter and exit the cafeteria at any time culling points on the way and in accordance with the time spent (1-4 years) and credits obtained get a degree/diploma/certificate. This will turn the degree colleges, which are not to be affiliated with universities any more, into degree-giving shops and even in HEIs having some research facilities the atomisation of disciplines into credit-generating courses will completely destroy the entire purpose and content of education and the creation of knowledge as a joint activity of the academic community. With online distance education (ODL), the usefulness of which cannot of course be denied, becoming more and more popular, this tendency of devaluation of education will accelerate under the load of ‘multidisciplinarity’.
What about quality then? What about standards? Here again, we come across an all-powerful centralised body, the Higher Education Commission of India. The K-Report had made the Prime Minister the head of it, but this document prefers to see it ‘as a faceless and transparent regulatory intervention’ both ‘light and tight’. It would have four vertical arms for regulation, accreditation, funding and standard setting (19.1-19.10) and would ultimately decide these questions at the top level. A National Research Fund is also to be under its control.
Autonomy
There is much talk of autonomy, of empowering teachers and of participation in governance both in school and in HEIs. When it comes down to brass tacks, however, there is no provision for teacher representation in the governing of school complexes and the governance pattern in HE makes a gross mockery of autonomy. At the level of the individual HE institutions, ‘autonomy’ means concentration of power in the hands of a Board of Governors which will consist of ‘highly qualified, competent and dedicated individuals with proven capacities’ (20.2) — we are not even told if any of them will be academics — who will work ‘free of any political and external influence’. They will make all appointments including the ‘leadership’ in the HEI and even choose their own successors with the help of an Eminent Expert Committee appointed by them. They will be responsible for all matters of governance, framing of regulations and modalities of functioning. Democracy and participation of stakeholders within the HEIs are thus put completely into the back-burner. New teachers will be appointed on ‘tenure-track’, i.e. with ‘suitable probation’ for further excellence. Parameters for assessment of performance for the purpose of confirmed employment, promotions, salary increases etc. will be decided upon unilaterally by the ‘autonomous’ BoG (13.6). So much for the status and dignity of teachers!
Governance
Coming to the issue of governance, we find that with the new policy, the public HEIs will come to resemble private HEIs in structure and substance. Will it be a good thing? It will of course be ‘free’ from both external and internal ‘influence’ so that it may perhaps run smoothly without disturbance. But with the main stakeholders in the University, teachers, researchers, and students reduced to complete silence, will it not be some kind of a ‘zombie-land’? This also brings us to the cost of education, especially Higher Education, and its affordability for the ordinary student, not to talk of the much- highlighted so-called ‘SEDGs’.
The document emphasises that education is a public service and not to be commercialised and promises that all HEIs—public and private—will be treated on a par by the regulatory regime. Nowhere does it refer to a fee structure, however, apart from saying that private ‘philanthropic’ HEIs will be empowered to set their fees independently of course within certain norms, ensuring that 20% students get freeship and 30% some kind of scholarship. Financial assistance for needy students in public institutions and a National Scholarship Portal are promised (12.11), but the document refrains from saying whether the costs will be ‘affordable’ except for foreign students who might flock here seeing India in the role of ‘Vishwa-Guru’ (12.9). Of course, if the government is only thinking of fees ‘affordable’ according to the standard of foreign students, it is not going to be of relevance to our own students. But seeing that foreign universities will also be allowed to operate in India, the Indian universities will have to compete with them and then the market will automatically determine fees rather than the government.
In fact, the document talks time and again, both at the level of school education and of Higher Education, of ‘encouraging philanthropic funding’ for public education and also of the importance of private philanthropic educational institutions to provide competition to the former (8.9). In spite of paying lip-service to the RTE Act, it does mention that ‘requirements for schools’ [would be] ‘made less restrictive’ to favour such non-government philanthropic organisations (3.5). When talking of school complexes, it even mentions the ‘twinning’ of public and private schools’ (7.11) and of ‘public-philanthropic partnerships’ (3.5). The idea of treating private and public institutions ‘on a par’ is clearly not going to work in favour of public institutions. These ideas are not explained, but from our experience in sectors other than education, it may not be too far-fetched to suspect that in education too, the government is moving surreptitiously towards leaving the field open for the benefit of private players. This document is but a fig-leaf to cover it up. If this is indeed so, then needless to say, the struggle for the right to education, which has indeed made some advances in this country so far as scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, religious minorities, women and other disadvantaged groups are concerned, has now reached a crucial stage and must be directed towards resisting the entire design against these rights that the document embodies.
Malini Bhattacharya is the All India President of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) and a former Member of Parliament. She was also a faculty member at Kolkata’s Jadavpur University.
Read the Hindi version here: नई शिक्षा नीति 2020 के प्रारंभिक रुझान
Follow us for regular updates:
Telegram
https://t.me/studentstrugglein
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/studentstrugglemonthly
WhatsApp
https://chat.whatsapp.com/BvEXdIEy1sqIP0YujRhbDR