Policies & principles

 

The NEP is selectively invoked to justify any plan that strikes the Union government’s fancy. The text lends itself to such opportunistic use. Its broad principles can apply to any policy

Bengalis may take comfort that the epicentre of Centre-state wrangles about education (and other issues) has passed for now to the southern states, Tamil Nadu in particular. The National Education Policy of 2020 is a favoured weapon of war.

The NEP has become the flavour of all educational seasons. It is invoked for all deeds of commission and omission. Few citizens actually read it; I wonder how many officials do. Yet it is available on the education ministry’s portal, and is a remarkably short document given
its compass.

Its first incarnation was a weighty exercise of 477 pages, prepared under the chairmanship of Dr K. Kasturirangan, former chair of ISRO. The only cavil against such a distinguished and respected choice might be that he has not worked hands-on within the public education system. His team members might have made good much of this deficit; but there was at least one crucial absence, of an expert in elementary education and childhood care.

The draft NEP was a serious, substantial proposal. It paid rare attention to the training, status and working conditions of teachers. It declared education to be a social not a private good, to be supported primarily by the State. It made a momentous proposal to combine anganwadis with pre-primary and early primary schooling. In higher education, it advocated the liberal arts (which embrace the basic sciences) but provided no roadmap. However, it said astonishingly little on science education or even computer skills, while laying stress on Indian knowledge systems. Almost the only reference to mathematics was in two pages on arithmetical riddles for children.

In a word, despite its size, the draft NEP was patchy and sometimes low-keyed. The admirably serious commitment did not crystallize in enough concrete recommendations or attention to ground realities. Moreover, it sparked a controversy that foreshadowed things to come. The section on Indian languages was seen as a ploy to advance Hindi. The document was re-issued with the offending section redrafted.

The final NEP is a horse of a very different colour. It is as brief as the draft was long: it gallops from childhood learning to doctoral research in 65 pages. Thereby hangs another tale. When the document was released, two versions appeared within days of each other without a word of explanation. The most glaring difference is a proposal in the later text for a Higher Education Commission of India controlling
all other regulatory bodies. There was no whiff of this in the earlier avatar.

The drastic abridgement concealed many compromises. The draft’s detailed and humane treatment of school dropouts was reduced to a single bald sentence implying that all children need not attend physical schools. Another unfortunate sentence (taken from the draft) advocates “less emphasis on input and greater emphasis on output potential”. Translated, this means schools in poor and remote areas will receive less funds and infrastructure. Yet just three paragraphs earlier came a pious resolution: “all students [will] have access to safe and engaging school education at all levels”, even by “building additional quality schools in areas where they do not exist”.

So far the NEP has been selectively implemented for cosmetic tinkering, political point-scoring and structural changes involving no expense — or, worse, requiring funds that are not provided. The four-year degree course has been introduced without any additional staff to tackle the 33% extra teaching load. The biggest potential game changer in the entire policy, the merging of anganwadis with early primary school, remains unaddressed.

Instead, the NEP is selectively invoked to justify any plan that strikes the Union government’s fancy. The text lends itself to such opportunistic use. Its broad, pious principles can apply to virtually any policy. As the above example shows, there are also hidden contradictions from which one can pick the convenient alternative. The NEP has become an all-purpose tool to impose the Centre’s will in any educational matter.

An apparently marginal issue has had dire consequences for West Bengal. Under the Union government’s scheme ‘PM Schools for Rising India’, the Centre will fund the development of 14,500 schools in India (less than 1% of the total number) for five years. The follow-up, and all responsibility for the other 99%, rests with the state governments. The lucky schools must prefix the acronym ‘PM-SHRI’ to their names. The Bengal government declined this bizarre bargain. The Centre has thereupon blocked all funds under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan — effectively all Central funds for school education — on the charge that the state is not complying with the NEP.

PM-SHRI was launched in 2022: it is obviously no part of the NEP document of 2020. With questionable logic, any Central move on education is now linked to the NEP. Even so, PM-SHRI is a specific funding scheme which a state may or may not avail of. If it does not, it can hardly be charged with flouting national policy.

Education is the concurrent responsibility of the Union and state governments. For virtually all schemes including PM-SHRI, the cost is shared 60:40. Yet invariably, the schemes are devised unilaterally by Delhi and thrust upon the states on an ‘Obey or else’ basis. Education has been fashioned into a weapon of political power.

Tamil Nadu too finds Central funds blocked for an opposite reason, a policy long predating the NEP. The three-language school curriculum has been a staple of Indian education virtually since Independence. The NEP repeats the prescription. As recounted above, the language issue created a furore even at the draft stage. Tamil Nadu alone has consistently followed a two-language model, eliminating the third language which would very likely be Hindi. It insists on continuing the practice.

This may or may not be a good idea. The fact remains that Tamil Nadu is educationally among India’s most advanced states. If the Tamils are to change tack, it will only happen through more interaction with India’s other languages and cultures. Instead, the issue has spawned new conflicts. These are sad times when a national policy ends up dividing the nation.

Sukanta Chaudhuri

Source: The Telegraph, 7/04/25

NEP 2020: Absorb ancient Indian knowledge, but view it critically

 The University Grants Commission (UGC), the apex regulator of universities in India, just concluded the Akhil Bharatiya Shiksha Sangam, a three-day education summit, in Varanasi. The summit, held from July 7-9 and inaugurated by none less than Prime Minister Narendra Modi, brought together over 300 heads of higher education institutions to deliberate on strategies, success stories, and best practices in implementing the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

Nine themes were taken up for discussion, ranging from ‘Holistic and Multidisciplinary Education’ and ‘Quality, Ranking, and Accreditation’ to ‘Research, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship’. Experts and educators deliberated on these themes for three days.

So, what is the likelihood of progress in India’s higher education after this summit?

If we can focus on one of the themes taken up for the discussion, it may help us get a glimpse of what UGC plans to do vis-à-vis what could be of value to us.

Let’s take Theme 7, ‘Promotion of Indian Languages and Knowledge Systems’, and subject it to a bit of scrutiny.

Focus on Indian Knowledge System

The summit wants the ‘discontinuity’ in the Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) to be bridged by integrating it with curricula at all levels across humanities, sciences, arts, crafts, and sports. Every UG and PG programme will have a mandatory IKS component.  The UGC has constituted an experts’ panel to set the guidelines for teacher training and ‘orientation’ in IKS. The focus seems to be on finding out sets of knowledge claims in ancient texts, accepting them across domains, and then integrating them with current curricula in universities.

While anyone would agree that there could be valuable lessons to be drawn from IKS, there is one critical part that is missing in UGC’s action plan: encouraging critical examination of material from IKS and accepting only those that get sifted through the filters of reasoning and evidence.

Ayurveda as example

It might help to further narrow our focus and consider a single branch of IKS in some detail to understand its usefulness in the contemporary context. Take Ayurveda, for example. The way it is being practised in clinics and taught in Ayurveda medical colleges is that the wisdom of the ancient texts cannot be questioned.

However, according to a paper titled ‘Bridging Ayurveda with evidence-based scientific approaches in medicine’ by former UGC vice-chairman Bhushan Patwardhan, “Ayurveda lags far behind in scientific evidence in quantity and quality of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. For instance, out of 7,864 systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library, Ayurveda has just one, while homeopathy and TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) have 5 and 14, respectively. Substantial grants have been allocated to ambitious national projects involving reputed laboratories. However, the design, methodology, and quality of clinical trial on Ayurvedic medicines seem to lack the expected rigour.”

(Cochrane Library is a collection of six databases that contain different types of high-quality, independent evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. Cochrane Reviews are globally accepted as the highest standard in evidence-based healthcare.)

So, how do we go about injecting rigour into this traditional system and align it with modern medical practice, using a scientific approach?

For that, we need to get a glimpse of what Ayurveda was like in the days of Caraka (pronounced Charaka), a master physician and principal contributor, along with Susruta and Vagbhata. The treatise, Caraka Samhita, attributed to him, forms the bedrock of today’s Ayurvedic practice.

Herein lies a stark contrast. Dr MS Valiathan, a renowned cardiac surgeon and author of the book The Legacy of Caraka, says: “Caraka described the practice of medicine in his time (1st Century CE) in North-West India, which was reason-based in contrast to the faith-based practice during Atharva Veda (1500 BCE). He even gave yukti (reason) an independent status as a pramana (proof) in acquiring knowledge. In Caraka’s time, mantras and rituals had largely disappeared from medical practice.”

However, over centuries, reason has been replaced with blind faith in the system. In a sense, we seem to have come to a full circle – from faith to reason and then back to faith.

Look with a critical eye

In a kind of double whammy, this comes at a time when reason, which made major advances possible two millennia ago, is perhaps no longer enough. We need evidence-based medical practice, which Ayurveda seems to fall behind significantly compared to Western medicine. Nudging it back to a reason-based medical system would involve examining concepts in ancient texts, including Caraka Samhita, with a critical eye. Obsolete concepts may have to be discarded. Some concepts may need to be modified – marginally or significantly – and amalgamated with modern medical practices. All possibilities exist.

But the bottom-line is scanning texts like Caraka Samhita with a fine toothcomb using critical thinking combined with what we now know about human anatomy and physiology, in contrast to what Caraka knew. In short, reviving the spirit of Caraka without uncritically accepting the principles in Caraka Samhita and other ancient texts.

THE WAY WE HAVE ASSIMILATED THE MONUMENTAL WORK ASHTADHYAYI, THE WORLD’S EARLIEST KNOWN TOME ON LINGUISTICS, BY GRAMMARIAN PANINI, IS A POINTER TO HOW WE SHOULD TREAT IKS TEXTS.

There is at least one ancient IKS that has the potential to show the way. The way we have assimilated the monumental work Ashtadhyayi, the world’s earliest known tome on linguistics, by grammarian Panini, who is said to have lived between the 6th and 4th century BCE, is a pointer to how we should treat IKS texts. No one questions the contribution of Panini to linguistics. He is widely labeled as the father of linguistics. But the discipline itself has progressed beyond Panini. Can what happened in linguistics happen in other IKS domains too?

The issue of language

The second part of Theme 7 deals with the ‘Promotion of Indian Languages’. UGC lists initiatives such as the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), the apex body that controls technical education in India, approving 20 institutes in nine states to conduct engineering and technology courses in regional languages. AICTE is undertaking technical book writing and translation into 12 Indian languages.

Now, this does not amount to pushing the frontiers of knowledge in technology. This seems to be a recipe for converting AICTE, or at least one of its wings, into a translation bureau.

In which language should higher education be is more a function of the availability of resources and opportunities – for both jobs and research – in that language. A century ago, German was the language of physics. The most famous physicist of the last century, Albert Einstein, wrote his papers on relativity in German.

However, as the US gained prowess to become the most important force in science, as well as the preferred destination for top scientists, German lost out to English. Now, German universities, in their attempt to attract overseas students, advertise saying that the courses in their institutions are taught in English.

Closer home, in September 2019, the government of Andhra Pradesh announced that English would be the medium of instruction in all government schools. Of course, Telugu would be still taught as a subject, but that’s about it. Expect this to become a trend in other states too. In short, a realistic option for higher education institutions is to focus on improving the quality of content delivered rather than re-create content in an Indian language.

However, in universities, even if the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against regional languages in favour of English, there could be a few realistic options for promoting Indian languages – such as initiating online courses that address students bi-lingually, allowing students to write exams in a mix of English and regional languages. But that is about it.

We have examined just one theme in some detail. What seems true of  ‘Promotion of Indian Languages and Knowledge Systems’ could be true of the other eight themes taken up at Akhil Bharatiya Shiksha Sangam as well.

Overall, UGC has a task cut out. Begin prioritising and implementing proposals with tight deadlines, and tell the world about the progress and what the outcomes are (for the students), before moving on to the next summit and more proposals.

(Sriram Naganathan is a core team member of ThinQ (www.thinq.education). He can be reached at srihamsa@gmail.com)

Source: The Federal, 15/07/22

A staggering crisis of education confronts the country

 We went from one ruin to another. One, magnificent and resonant with the wonder that it once was. A centre of learning with over 10,000 students, 1,500 years ago. The other, a centre of learning today, with 300 students. The classrooms surrounded by rubble, overgrown with thorny bushes. Locked up for most of the past 21 months because of the pandemic. The one room that was clear of bushes and rubble was being used as a vaccination centre. That is what I had gone to see. But in the fading light of the winter evening, it was three boys playing cricket near the boundary wall that captured my attention.

I asked for the bat; I do this often in the many cricket games that I encounter in the villages and kasbas that I visit, and have never been refused. We talked as we played. “Which classes are you in?" Fifth, 6th and 7th. In three different schools. “So, you were in 3rd when the schools shut, and you were in 4th; what do you remember from those classes?" Two of the children just smiled. “Do you understand the material you are being taught in the current class?" The two kept smiling. “Darrte ho kyaa, bolte kyon nahin?" Are you afraid, why don’t you speak? I asked. The conversation was all in Hindi in that ‘interior village’.

“We must have the courage to speak the truth. Always," the eldest said. “We are not able to understand anything in class, sir. We have lost almost 2 years of school." He said it exactly like this, in English. The boy’s firm, clear voice and his conviction and language were incongruous with the ruins we stood amid; the ruins, an apt metaphor for the state of much around in that part of the country.

The child’s simple principle of truth is hard to live by. But let’s try, if only momentarily, at the beginning of 2022. Not for everything, or even where it is perhaps needed more, but only for education.

Our education system is a mess. Children are not learning what they should. And there are deep inequities of access, resources and outcomes—often rooted in geographic, social and economic disadvantages.

Learning in India lags on every dimension of capacities and values that we want education to develop: Basic literacy and math, any real understanding of the subjects, deeper capacities such as critical thinking and creativity, core human values, and more. Higher education, unfortunately, is in even worse shape than school education.

So, our education system is failing in all its roles. Inadequate in helping develop the individual for a good life. Inadequate in its contribution to a changing society, which must become more equitable, humane and just. Inadequate as the foundation of a constitutional republic.

Without doubt, there have been improvements in the past decades: on access, on enrolment, on equity, and more. But we will short-change the potential of our nation and perpetuate injustice on hundreds of millions if we take this progress to be enough. Our nation’s children, our nation’s future, deserve much better.

The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) is a comprehensive road-map for improving Indian education. I suspect that those who oppose it most vehemently have not read it. I run into many such individuals. Or, do so only because it has been developed by the current Union government. Constructive critiques would help the NEP’s implementation. This is really the key now—and will require sustained effort, with the states and the Union acting in tandem for the next 10 years.

The messy reality of our politics, governance and culture will present obstacles to the NEP’s implementation. Inspired leadership within state institutions and citizen engagement can help. There is a tumultuous path ahead. But given where we are today, the best chance that education has would be in the NEP’s implementation in its true spirit.

We must not forget the lessons of the past 15 years. The abject failure of three things that were touted as solutions to India’s (and others’) education problems must be put in the corner they belong. Proliferation of private schools does not help; they do not provide better education than public schools. The massive increase in private-school enrolment in the past 15 years in India has not improved Indian education a wee bit. Technology is not effective in the core process of teaching-learning; imagining that it will cure the ills of education is delusional. The covid pandemic has hammered this point home tragically. Testing and then more testing doesn’t help; that is like measuring someone’s temperature repeatedly in the hope that it will cure a fever, and when it does not, punishing the person for not getting cured.

A staggering crisis in education confronts us today, one that is unprecedented in India’s education history. Over 200 million children have lost two years of learning and more. If the states—which run our schools—do not address this adequately, as they must, we will have a learning-lost generation.

In those ruins in the nowhere of India, that most incongruous of theatres for a performance of moral clarity, I asked the child, “How, where did you learn all this?" “My teacher, sir," he said. “He says that we must learn everything, including English, and even more importantly must become a good Indian. Even when the school has been shut, he has been teaching us."

And so, the last truth. There is hope, because there are remarkable people. Unseen, uncounted, unnamed, but holding the world together, and moving it on.

Anurag Behar is CEO of Azim Premji Foundation

Source: Mintepaper, 20/01/22

In higher education, it is time to prioritise Indian languages

 

Teaching in the mother tongue/ regional language will help in building an equitable education system

Indian languages have never got the importance they deserve in the higher education system. Teaching and learning have largely been in a foreign language. But a change is in the offing, with the advent of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi recently tweeted: “Taking inspiration from the National Education Policy, it will now be tried to teach all technical courses including medical, engineering in mother tongue.”

It is time we focused on the use of the mother tongue or regional language as a medium of instruction in higher education. The discussion on the use of the mother tongue in education goes back to the time of Lord Macaulay. This debate continued in post-independent India with the release of the Radhakrishnan Committee report of 1948-49, known as the Report of the University Education Commission. It recommended that English be replaced by an Indian language as the medium of instruction for higher education as early as practicable. This was followed by the Official Language Commission, Emotional Integration Committee, NEP (1968), NEP (1986/1992) and NEP 2020.

Each report also pronounced that Indian languages are a sine qua non for educational and cultural development since they strengthened equity in education.The current NEP recommends that higher education institutions should use the mother tongue/local language as a medium of instruction, and/or offer bilingual programmes. This will help provide quality teaching to more students and thus increase Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education. It will also promote the strength, usage, and vibrancy of all Indian languages. This way, private institutions too will be motivated to use Indian languages as a medium of instruction and/or offer bilingual programmes. This will ensure that there is no difference between government and private institutions.

The teachers’ training programme, the four-year Bachelor of Education dual degree, will also be bilingual. This will facilitate the training of cadres of teachers across subjects. Science and math teachers will also adopt the bilingual approach to teaching.To translate recommendations into action, high-quality learning and print material in Indian languages, including textbooks, workbooks, videos, plays, poems, novels and magazines, will be developed. This will be done by creating quality programmes in translation and interpretation. To this end, an Indian Institute of Translation and Interpretation (IITI) will be established. This will employ numerous scholars in Indian languages, subject experts as well as experts in translation and interpretation. Technology will be used to aid in these translation and interpretation efforts.

Teaching in the mother tongue/ regional language will help in building an equitable education system. The ministry of education will work to develop an equitable system based on the principles of fairness and inclusion. For the system to be fair, we should ensure that the personal and social circumstances of students should in no way be obstacles to realising their full academic potential. At the same time, to ensure inclusion through the use of the mother tongue/ regional language, we should set up a basic minimum standard of education which eliminates all disparity.

While it is necessary to strengthen Indian languages as medium of instruction while enhancing the principle of equity in education to improve educational standards, it is equally imperative for students to have a good command over the English language since they are global natives in the 21st century. But this cannot be at the cost of Indian languages as a medium of instruction. Indian languages must be supplemented by English. It is heartening to note that institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology, Kharagpur and Roorkee, and Banaras Hindu University, among others, have come forward to promote the use of Indian languages. These initiatives will prepare students to live in a local, national and global society utilising a harmonious blend of Indian languages and English as recommended by NEP.

Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank is the Union education minister

Source: Hindustan Times, 2/12/20

The missing links in National Education Policy

Though ambitious, it doesn’t address problems of inequality, risks over-centralisation?

The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) champions many ideals which, if realised, can truly transform our declining education system. However, it does appear to be somewhat limited in the operational details and some of its analysis.

Apart from “fundamental literacy and numeracy” and “overall cognitive development”, the NEP envisions “imparting 21st-century skills”, “well-rounded character building”, “critical thinking”, “holistic, inquiry-based, discovery-based, discussion-based and analysis-based hands-on learning”, “greater flexibility in choice of subjects” and “learning through innovative and experiential methods”. It also emphasises “scientific temper and evidence-based thinking; creativity and innovativeness; sense of aesthetics and art; oral and written communication; health and nutrition; physical education, fitness, wellness, and sports; collaboration and teamwork; problem-solving and logical reasoning; vocational exposure and skills; digital literacy, coding and computational thinking; ethical and moral reasoning; knowledge and practice of human and constitutional values; gender sensitivity; fundamental duties; citizenship skills and values; knowledge of India; environmental awareness, including water and resource conservation, sanitation and hygiene; and current affairs and knowledge of critical issues facing local communities, states, the country, and the world”. In a very welcome step, it also talks about strengthening the anganwadis and the mid-day-meal scheme. It, however, falls short in identifying what exactly has prevented us from achieving these ideals. It also fails to evaluate the risks in some of its recommendations.

First, it is not clear how such transformations may be brought about in a society, which has little respect for argumentative discourse, and instead treats education as synonymous with examination. We have made an industry out of coaching, tuition, “notes”, “practice problems” and “finishing the syllabus”. Even our elite institutions often fail to acknowledge that marks are random samples drawn from unmodelled probability distributions, and, as such, sorting them in order for ranking or admissions through competitive examinations — without any calibration or even any well-articulated admission objectives — is conceptually flawed. It appears unlikely that mere changes in syllabus or even structure can bring about fundamental changes in the mindset. Something more ingenious may be required for introducinSecond, the NEP has failed to boldly address the two main problems that plague our society and education system — inequity and inequality. Though the NEP addresses the issue of dropping out of schools at some length, and suggests strengthening infrastructure and accessibility as a remedy, it does not investigate the structural causes that may be rooted in inequality and discrimination.“scientific temper” in our education system.

The NEP advocates that early education should be in one’s mother tongue. This welcome suggestion, however, should not result in underemphasising English, which is a great equaliser in our society and opens up the world for many. That may turn out be discriminatory for some because the privileged will learn English anyway. There are similar risks with the seemingly innocuous and welcome step of introducing optional vocational training in schools, and it should not turn out to be merely an exit route for the underprivileged. Both require careful balancing to avoid unforeseen behavioural adaptations, causing them to end up as tools of exclusion and denial of opportunities.

Also, reservation has undoubtedly worked wonders in our country and has empowered many over the years. However, it has not been all smooth sailing, and there are some manifest structural problems. On the one hand, it is undeniable that it curbs opportunities of choice to many ready, eager and qualified young students, which is undesirable in any free society. On the other hand, it projects some students assessed to be at handicap by extant evaluation systems into environments which are often insensitive, disparaging or discriminatory, and which continue to use the same yardsticks of evaluation – often blindly – without any structural changes or effective remedial measures. The NEP needed to address this headlong.

Third, education is a state subject in our federal structure, yet the NEP approach is suggestive of over-centralization. It may be all right for the NCERT to provide broad curricular and pedagogical suggestions, but the guidelines should not become overbearing. Otherwise, there may be definite risks of stifling local cultures and contexts in the curricula. Indeed, the exposure to fundamental science and engineering concepts in our schools has become somewhat hand-me-down and bookish, and it is imperative to fall back on local experiential contexts and heritage — at least, at the initial stages — for innate understandings to develop. Perhaps, the same holds true for history, civics and sociology as well.

Finally, the NEP has not effectively addressed the over-specialisation that happens too early even in our college education. As a result, we not only have many students of science, engineering and medicine devoid of any understanding of social and political contexts, but also have many students of the social sciences and humanities without even a rudimentary understanding of the sciences, mathematics and computing. Both are severely limited for the modern world, and this cannot be easily fixed by just adding some “liberal arts” type of courses in the curricula of disciplinary silos. Also, the introduction of advanced specialised concepts too early — sometimes even from Class IX in school as the NEP envisages – often makes real assimilation difficult. What we perhaps require is at least two years of common broad-based college education, where a larger number of students can learn about the basics of everyday sciences, foundational engineering, literature and ethics, mathematics, computing, history, sociology, economics and political science interspersed with socially-oriented hands-on projects, surveys and fieldwork. That should prepare some of the students adequately for gainful employment and some others for more specialised follow-up education in the sciences, humanities, law, social sciences, mathematics, computing, engineering and medicine.

The NEP is a tremendously important exercise. It is important that the initial conceptualisation is refined further through an inclusive process of feedback and wide public consultations involving communities, regional representations, school and college teachers and also the general public.

The writer is professor, department of computer science and engineering, IIT Delhig greater 

Source: Indian Express, 12/11/20

Conformity and inequality are wired into our education system

 

It’s time that we reflect on the kind of world we are creating through our system of “formal education, assessment and rewards” and its implications on young students.

What is actually frightening has now turned into a joke — “It is probably easier to gain entry into heaven than admission into a prestigious Delhi University college.” Lady Shri Ram (LSR), a popular women’s college in New Delhi, this year announced a cut-off of 100 per cent for three of its courses, evoking awe, surprise and even cynicism. It led to questions like: Is it possible to get such scores? Is it even desirable to numerically quantify “learning” in this manner? In a one-correct-answer format, what is the scope for valuing diverse responses or perspectives? Who are these students and where do they come from? Are these marks a fair indicator of one’s ability, competence and merit? How do they gauge competence or aptitude of a student to study a particular subject in a specific college? What is the role of tuitions in escalating exam scores?

Rather than seeking answers to these questions, it’s important to recognise that board exams bring together students belonging to diverse family backgrounds, with unequal social and cultural capital and those studying in starkly different schools in terms of resources, quality of teaching, etc., on the same platform, to judge, rank and award them. Ignoring fundamental differences among students in terms of their social locations, it treats everyone uniformly, giving a false impression of impartiality, thereby legitimising both success and failure while individualising structural limitations. So, a student with 99 per cent marks on being turned away by LSR may feel sad, but not enraged or cheated because she regards the system as being essentially just. In a situation where aspirants far exceed opportunities available, board exam marks are used to eliminate some students from accessing certain educational degrees and spaces, such that students themselves ungrudgingly accept their failure as a result of their own inadequacy or incompetence.

It can be safely assumed that most high-scorers are from families equipped with social and cultural capital, are highly motivated, and proactively supported (or arranged for) in their studies. Most of them study in schools with good infrastructure and qualified teachers who also recognise the importance of marks in these exams, and, most importantly, they have acquired the “smart” way of “learning and writing” exams. Debating over whether these students are academically brilliant or not is not important. But the one thing which is certain is that in an education system where all knowledge is quantified, subject to being memorised, evaluated and ranked, these students know how to learn and present their answers. Even among the socially-culturally disadvantaged groups, the better-off ones make it to this privileged category of high scorers.

Schools in our country are either affiliated to central, regional or international boards of examination. There are variations in the socio-economic backgrounds of students studying in these schools. In addition, there are discrepancies in marks allotted to students among these boards due to policies adopted by them, impacting the future trajectories available for students. For example, even the UP board topper this year, with a score as high as 97 per cent, will not be considered eligible by LSR for some of its courses.

So, a relatively homogenous group of students gets into a particular college. Differences in caste, religion and ethnicity often get submerged under the umbrella of academic excellence.The college further ensures its exclusive status, highlights its differences from others, exerts pressure on students to secure positions in university exams, hankers after awards in inter-college competitions, aspires for top rank in college ratings and abhors weakness/limitation/failure of any kind on part of either the student or college. This leads to: Blocking a heterogenous group of students from studying together; mitigating differences, if any, and ensuring commonality; promoting a tendency among students to hide their identities; commodification of education as a brand; celebrating elitism among a select few and alienation among most others. By the time these students complete their education, most of them not just think but act alike. It won’t be an exaggeration to state that even from a distance, one can actually identify the college that a group of students belong to.

It’s time that we reflect on the kind of world we are creating through our system of “formal education, assessment and rewards” and its implications on young students. A pandemic like COVID-19 should have been a good opportunity to do that. Instead, we have preoccupied ourselves with adopting more exclusionary devices to teach students, ignoring the larger aims of education and its relationship with society.

This article first appeared in the print edition on October 29, 2020 under the title “Another brick in the wall”. Nawani is professor and dean, school of education, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai

Source: Indian Express, 29/10/20

NEP 2020 ignores crisis in education among the marginalised majority in rural India

 In its orientation and strategies, the National Education policy 2020 (NEP) is a layered document that recommends significant structural changes to the education system, dips into the constructed imaginaries of a past glorious India that can be retrieved via education, co-opts some progressive ideas for elementary education, and overall acts as a guiding star for the aspirations of the urban middle-classes. But either deliberately or by the limited understanding of the committee members, the NEP overlooks the complexity of contemporary rural India, which is marked by a sharp deceleration of its economy, extant forms of distress, and pauperisation of a majority of its citizens.

Although the NEP claims to “bridge gaps in access, participation and learning outcomes’’, it overlooks the fact that poor quality education marks and mars the lives of rural citizens. Neglecting to engage with any idea of fostering equality of educational opportunity with equality in quality education, the NEP fails to address the growing school differentiation in which government schools are now primarily attended by children of disadvantaged castes and Adivasi groups, while a mushrooming of private schools caters to the aspirations of the more advantaged castes and classes. That such school differentiation defies the idea of education as a leveller and the possibility of schooling acting as a shared experience that forges social coherence is an issue that the NEP committee seems to be oblivious of.

Growing privatisation of education along with no assurance of quality is placing a huge burden on citizens and the report takes no cognisance of such trends. The fact that rural candidates are finding it increasingly difficult to gain entry into professional education and the lack of fit between their degrees and the job market means that several lakhs of them find themselves both “unemployable” and unemployed. These are issues that find no mention in the report.

Overlooking the general adverse integration of the rural into the larger macroeconomy and into poor quality mass higher education, the report calls for the “establishment of large, multi-discipline universities and colleges” and places emphasis on online and distance learning (ODL), without paying attention to the fact that correspondence courses and distance education degrees have become a source of revenue generation for universities and institutions and are run without guarantees of quality. The report fails to take into account the impact of poor-quality higher education on rural youth who, in many ways, are manifesting signs of alienation from their roots, are disaffected and amenable to being recruited into violent anti-social activities.

Recent reports of increasing suicides among youth are another indicator of the deep distress that they are experiencing. The NEP calls for higher education institutes to promote and support the teaching of “lok vidya” and it highlights the importance of yoga, AYUSH, and Sanskrit, which can be taught along with Artificial Intelligence, machine learning and digital learning, so that youth can be prepared for a global economy. In this narrow perspective, there is no scope for considering the establishment of smaller regional learning centres in which the youth can be taught a range of revamped older knowledge systems along with newer skills and knowledge.

The possibility of forging and promoting environmental studies for local ecological restoration and conservation, agro-ecologies that can draw on the varied sophisticated regional agricultural knowledge and practices, reviving local health and healing traditions from the vast repertoire of medical knowledge, or recognising vernacular architectural traditions and skills, and a range of artisan and craftsmanship to use local resources and thereby generate both employment and revive regional economies finds no mention at all in the NEP.

Such measures can create a pool of skilled and employable youth who may make meaningful lives in the rural itself rather than become part of the tide of migrant labour whose insecure and precarious lives were all too evident during the lockdown return migration. The NEP draws on its neoliberal economic ideas and moots the possibility of establishing “Special Education Zones” in disadvantaged areas and in “aspirational districts”. But the report provides no details as to how such SEZs will function and who will be the beneficiaries of such institutions. Will such institutions be based on the models of Kota’s entrance exam coaching industry or will it be like the way in which Challakere, a pastoral region 120 km from Bengaluru, was carved out by displacing local pastoralists and fauna, and establishing a “Science City” that combines a solar energy field, a nuclear processing site, and a campus for undergraduates of the Indian Institute of Science?

Although the report claims that the purpose of education is to achieve “full human potential, develop an equitable and just society and promote national development”, it fails to cater to the needs of rural India’s marginalised majority, who in so many ways are rendered into being subjects rather than citizens.

This article first appeared in the print edition on September 15, 2020 under the title ‘Missing in NEP: Rural youth’. The writer, a social anthropologist, is based in Karnataka

Source: Indian Express, 15/09/20

NEP’s vision for drawing foreign universities to India requires fine-tuning

 

The ideas outlined in the NEP require fine-tuning. The first challenge will be to widen the scope of internationalisation.

The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP), announced by the government in the last week of July, is a product of prolonged consultations and deliberations. The debates and discussions on the policy are likely to be much richer. In the coming weeks and months, the section on the internationalisation of higher education in India could be the focus of much scholarly attention. For good reasons. With more than 1.5 million schools, over 40,000 colleges and close to 720 universities, India has the second-largest education system in the world after China. India has entered into the stage of massification of higher education with a gross enrollment ratio of 26.3 per cent, which is fast increasing. This could make it a lucrative destination for foreign universities.

The idea of internationalisation of higher education is based on the mobility of students, faculty members, programmes, and institutions across countries. Before the NEP, two types of mobility were in vogue, that of faculty members and students. This movement of students and faculty has informed the NEP’s section on internationalisation. The attempt to attract foreign universities can also be seen in the context of earlier collaborations with institutions outside the country. In 2015, the Ministry of Human Resource Development implemented the Global Initiative of Academic Network (GIAN) to enable the country’s higher education institutions to invite world-class scholars, scientists and researchers. More than 1,500 courses have been completed at Indian higher education institutions in collaboration with international faculty members. In 2018, the Scheme for Promotion of Academic and Research Collaboration was launched to promote joint research and collaboration with top 500 QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) ranking institutions. The same year, the Study in India programme identified 30 Asian and African countries (now 42) from where meritorious students would be drawn to study in top 100 NIRF ranked institutions.

The NEP aims to attract top 100 QS World Ranking universities to open offshore campuses in India. The foreign universities would bring in programme and institution mobility. There are two views on opening foreign campuses in India. Those in favour argue that first, it would reduce the migration of Indian students and give those who cannot afford to go abroad an opportunity to study in foreign universities at home. Second, foreign campuses would bring knowledge, technology and innovative pedagogy to the country and set new standards in higher education, spurring Indian institutions to improve. Those cautious about the move argue that it would increase the cost of education and widen the already existing disparities in matters of accessing quality and affordable higher education. This, in turn, could accentuate the existing hierarchies in the country, and have a bearing on the diversity on campuses. There could be a scramble for meritorious students with the lion’s share going to foreign campuses.

There is, however, a need to look beyond these binaries. There is no doubt that the increase in the gross enrolment ratio in higher education institutions calls for more such institutions. The invitation to foreign universities in the top 100 QS world rankings could ensure the entry of quality institutions to meet this demand. The collaboration between Indian and foreign higher educational institutions would enhance India’s exposure to global intellectual resources. Nearly 30 years after the move to open up the economy, a policy to attract foreign universities in the country was, perhaps, inevitable. Moreover, some Indian higher education institutions do have offshore campuses in places such as Dubai

However, the ideas outlined in the NEP require fine-tuning. The first challenge will be to widen the scope of internationalisation. Several world-class institutions such as the Max Planck Institute could fall through the policy’s cracks because they do not participate in any world rankings, let alone the QS World Ranking. Second, there is a growing body of literature critiquing the world rankings. Third, STEM and professional courses have greater market value compared to social sciences and humanities. There is thus a possibility of foreign campuses turning their back on disciplines in these streams.

Fourth, vocational and skill education — on which the NEP lays much importance — cannot be internationalised in the same manner as academic education. Finally, we do not know if the foreign varsities actually agree with the overall vision of NEP.

This article appeared in the print edition on September 4, 2020 under the title ‘Open campus challenge’. The writer is Deputy Adviser, Unit for International Cooperation, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, Delhi. Views are personal.

Source: Indian Express, 3/09/20

New Education Policy will ensure our higher education system remains a client of global science

The absence of data is noted and the concerned national institute, NIEPA, is pulled up. However, the question of how we have produced millions of unemployable graduates is not addressed.

The National Education Policy (NEP) document is now up for discussion. The section on higher education starts with the agenda of a “revamp” of the sector to build a “world-class multi-disciplinary” system with a gross enrollment (GER) target of 50 per cent by 2035. Yet, it offers no guidance on what will happen to all these graduates or any analysis of employability.

Advertising

The absence of data is noted and the concerned national institute, NIEPA, is pulled up. However, the question of how we have produced millions of unemployable graduates is not addressed.

The NEP does offer the vision of India as a cultural, scientific and economic power. The task is of preparing well-rounded and creative individuals, who will also be ready for multi-disciplinary jobs. It says faculty and students will work with the community on real-world problems and also be aware of national issues and concerns of the day. It lists some of the hurdles in achieving this.

They are the usual, except that the “lack of transparent and competitive peer-reviewed research funding” is noted. Missing in this list are the two elephants in the room: The hostile takeover of science and society by competitive exams and coaching classes, and the hijacking of curricula and research agenda by central agencies. A cursory analysis of the first elephant is offered and it is delegated to the National Testing Agency, another MHRD outfit.

The NEP has proposed a consolidation of the 40,000 odd colleges into effectively a three-tier system of 12,000 multi-disciplinary institutions. Colleges (or institutions) are to be classified as type I, which are primarily research institutions, type II, which do both teaching and research, and, type III, which will only do teaching.

There is also an implied hierarchy based on “quality of research” — type I institutions will be role models for type II, and they in turn for type III. Finally, type I institutions must do “cutting edge research” and “become world-class universities” achieving global recognition. As it transpires, type I institutions are largely the existing “central institutions”, the IITs, IISERs, TIFR, etc., and type II are the state universities. Type III are obviously our local colleges, the dispensers of hand-me-down knowledge for the bottom 80 per cent. This is how types become tiers and our higher education system remains a client of global science.

Then there is the National Research Foundation (NRF), tasked with “permeating a culture of research and innovation” and addressing societal challenges. However, its project-proposal based design is similar to say, the Department of Science and Technology (DST).

There is no mechanism, such as innovative curricula or extension units, for tier II or tier III institutions to work on local problems. It has no access or accountability to people or their representatives. Given its “competitive” nature and the absence of state representation, as with DST, funds may largely go to tier I institutions to follow “world-class research”. This will neither permeate to local colleges nor change state agencies or improve drinking water.

BEST OF EXPRESS

LIVEKarnataka floor test: Will Kumaraswamy's 14-month-old govt survive?

Kulbhushan Jadhav 'guilty of crimes', will proceed further as per law: Imran Khan

Virat Kohli won’t have a say in choosing new coach

A full chapter is devoted to the liberal arts university, which is modelled after the Ivy league universities in the US or large monastic gurukuls such as Nalanda, or the modern JNU. This is a top-down approach to learning. There is no pedagogical vehicle provided, e.g., the case study, which is accessible to the common student. Thus the opportunity of making the lived reality of the public hospital or imported ganapatis worthy of liberal study is lost.

There are other parts — on regulation or governance, etc. — that reflect deep centralised thinking. For example, the pedagogy of social engagement is not interpreted as a systematic probing of the immediate vicinity, for instance, of documenting a taluka bus depot or preparing a watershed plan, but is dissipated and emasculated into volunteerism and “tutoring groups”.

For all the talk of autonomy, the education secretary of the state is not made any more accountable. It is also peppered with many references to 21st century themes of the “new knowledge society” and “the fourth industrial revolution”, while the problems of 19th century shackle us.

In short, the document fails to state clear and measurable strategic objectives of higher education and research, or a plan to achieve them. This will only consolidate an elite-vaad of global jobs and global science as the agenda for higher education. It will also perpetuate the aspirational trap that our youth are in. The vikas agenda once more, will be relegated to social mobilisation, community service and volunteerism, rather than formal academic and professional work. This is precisely why problems such as drinking water or public transport, and sustainability in general, have become intractable.

MORE EXPLAINED

Taking stock of monsoon rain

Indeed, the demands of development are urgent and require the highest intellect and competence and the ability to work across disciplines and agencies. The necessary institutional and individual skills are simply not there. The NEP could have provided a road map to get there, of delicate decentralisation, innovative pedagogies and partnerships between central and state institutions and regional agencies. Moreover, many new challenges, such as climate change, require collaborative thinking and collective action right down to the community level. Rather than recognise the importance of state colleges as our primary agents of change, the report proposes to entangle them in a bureaucratic web of NTA, NAAC, NHERA and others.

Thankfully, the NEP is still a proposal. Parliament should request the committee to rework the three basic instruments along the above lines. Next, bring more accountability to type I institutions, and build more direct linkages between the three types of institutions, development agencies and funds. Lastly, consider a few models of decentralisation of MHRD, DST and other agencies.

Finally, a word to the student. Development is not only about the expectation of better public amenities, but is also acquiring skills, knowledge and agency to deliver them. The next wave of companies will not only have gadgets and equipment to offer, but also developmental services. They will want graduates who are not only competent in their disciplines, but who also understand the broader society, the importance of field work, measurements and documentation. So demand such a training from your college. For that is the future of jobs and the way out of the current aspirational trap.

Source: Indian Express, 18/07/2019