New Education Policy: States’ stance crucial

The Union Cabinet has finally given its approval for the New Education Policy (NEP). To arrive at it, the government had constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of former chief of ISRO, G Kasturirangan.

Let me first focus on the impact of the NEP on school education. The decision to impart education from standard 1 to 5 in mother tongue is a recognition of the feeling among vast sections of the people, especially the underprivileged who have clear disadvantages in learning if it is in English as is done in many parts of the country.

The government’s decision can also be seen as bowing to the demands of groups who have for long favoured teaching in mother tongue at the elementary level. There is a hint that this decision may be revised in course of time to include learning in mother tongue up to 10th standard. As of now, the government has towed a cautious line, which is welcome.

The announcement that this will be followed by both public and private schools sets at rest fears that it may be opposed by the latter. However, it remains to be seen how the ‘public’ international schools which have mushroomed in the country are going to respond to the government’s decision.

Senior officials of the government have struck a note of realism and caution by saying that since education is in the Concurrent List, and with most states having their own School Boards, the state governments will have to be brought on board for the actual implementation of the decision. How the whole thing unfolds needs to be seen.

The government seems to have handled the language issue in a mature way. The original draft which had called for mandatory teaching of Hindi to all school students, which had drawn widespread protests from South India, has been rightly dropped. The policy document makes it clear that there will be greater flexibility in the three language formula and that no language would be imposed on any state.

The three languages to be taught to children would be left to the decision of the state governments. A recognition of the federal principle indeed. The move to offer Sanskrit as an optional language was expected and is a wise decision. In any case, Sanskrit is being learnt by students in many states as one of the three languages.

Let us turn to the details regarding higher education. One of the key elements of the NEP is to introduce four years’ undergraduate degree courses with multiple entry and exit options. This is a welcome move, though the four-year courses are already in vogue in some parts of the country. The same is going to be a norm now.

Entry, exit options

Exit and entry options now introduced is a pattern in vogue in many western countries where students largely finance their education themselves, unlike in India where parents take upon themselves the burden of financing children’s education. The government’s move will impart self-reliance on students to take decisions appropriate their circumstances.

More than this, the four-year programme would allow a certain level of higher learning to students, who, along with the right skills, may not require postgraduate degrees to take up jobs. And those who feel the need for postgraduate degrees will opt for such courses. The five-year integrated programmes functional in many universities need to be continued.

The decision to move away from the existing affiliation system - a relic of the British Raj - in a phased manner is very much in order. In fact, the timeline of 15 years fixed is far too long. If anything, such a process should be speeded up, with accent on promoting more and more autonomous colleges, with power to chart out their own courses and examination system. The affiliation system has been largely misused in our higher education eco system.

With the postgraduate programme likely to be one year - though the government says it could be for two years if decided by states - the decision to do away with M Phil programme seems to be wise. Additionally, now that entry into teaching positions are based on national and state level entrance examinations (NET and SLET), the professional utility of the M Phil programme already stands eroded.

The most notable and welcome aspect of the NEP is the decision to enhance public spending on education to 6% of the GDP, something which is long overdue. With this, there will be an enhanced prospect for higher education to be more productive to serve the needs of the country. The decision to create a separate technology unit to develop digital education resources, specially in the wake of the prolonged Covid-19 pandemic, is the need of the hour.

The move to abolish UGC and the AICTE were doing rounds and the same has now been announced. The new body which will take over its functions, probably the Higher Education Council, will have onerous responsibilities in promoting and regulating higher education in the country. What shape will it take and with how much of functional autonomy, remains unclear as of now. The decision about medical and legal education being continued under separate regulatory authorities is pragmatic.

The proof of the pudding is in eating. The country would watch keenly how professionally the NEP is going to be implemented.

(The writer is former Professor of Political Science, Bangalore University and former Senior Fellow, ICSSR)