From NEP to SEP, state must craft a clear path for quality education

The subject of education is on the concurrent list of our constitution, allowing both central and state governments to sjape its course in a federal system. In July 2020, after a long gestation period of over fice years, NEP-2020 (National Education Policy-2020) was introduced, proposing sweeping changes across primary, secondary, and tertiary education, with a vision for the next 15 years.

The then-BJP government in Karnataka swiftly implemented NEP-2020 at the undergraduate level in 2020–21, earning the distinction of being the first state in the country to embark on this journey. However, this hasty switchover led to confusion and hardship for students and teachers alike, with most colleges ill-prepared and lacking adeuquate faculty and facilities. 

The new Congress government is certainly at liberty to conceptualise a fresh ‘State Education Policy’ (SEP) to replace NEP-2020 aligned with its 2023 election manifesto. Unlike its predecessor, this regime could benefit from a more consultative, deliberative, and phased approach to implementation. Here are a some key considerations:

The Expert Committee (EC) proposed to be constituted by the government, having knowledgeable individuals from various fields with pragmatic and progressive thinking, must review the scope of NEP-20 without bias, prejudice and blind loyalty to authorities. 

Colleges are distinctly different in their status in terms of faculty strength, infrastructure, finances, and governance. Hence, the ‘one size fits all’ formula, making it mandatory for every college to introduce SEP at the same time, is untenable. The less-prepared colleges should be given 2-3 years to align with SEP, similar to National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) and National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) evaluations.

The State Council for Higher Education must be revamped with distinguished academicians as vice chairman and members. Secondly, like the University Grants Commission, it could be renamed the State Commission for Higher Education, with a defined role for the sustenance of quality and implementation of policy. It should not be treated as an adjunct to the state department of higher education. There must be a State Assessment and Accreditation Wing akin to NAAC attached to the Council or Commission to periodically evaluate the performance of all colleges—government, aided, and unaided.

A four-year honours programme at the first degree level is one of the good recommendations of NEP-20. But this cannot be imposed on ill-prepared colleges. The dichotomy of undergraduate courses, as practiced by some American colleges, leads to a general and a special degree for job-seekers and knowledge seekers, respectively. Honours candidates are predisposed to pursue higher studies leading to master’s and doctorate degrees that will enable them to be professors, researchers, directors, and so on.

As it is difficult to make students job-ready at the end of their first year (with a certificate) or second year (with a diploma) by colleges with little or no skill induction facility, this proposal of NEP-20 could be dropped altogether.

It is a misnomer to name degree colleges as first-grade colleges. It is believed that someone in the past wrongly chose this prefix to distinguish degree colleges from pre-university colleges. We now know that in the practice of ranking and grading, due recognition has to be earned by subjecting it to external peer evaluation, not by arbitrariness.

The abolition of the archaic affiliation system recommended by the NEP-20 is in tandem with the current dictum of self-governance and self-reliance. If it so desires, the EC can consider this for implementation within a set timeframe. Secondly, this kind of ‘loose’ academic bonding does not exist in many parts of the developed world. However, the idea of constituent colleges by universities could be continued.

A priori, the filling of existing vacancies for teachers should be undertaken as per the UGC norms. Without qualified and competent faculty, no policy or scheme can bring about the desired changes.

All degree colleges in the future shall start functioning as autonomous colleges based on a set of norms (framed by the State Council / Commission) such as location, availability of land, infrastructure, finance, faculty, etc. They shall function freely for the first five years, at the end of which the State Council / Commission for Higher Education should assess their progress and permit only the performers to continue. Established colleges in the vicinity can act as mentors to new institutions in the formative period.

Private investment in higher education must be liberally encouraged, and the public-private participation (PPP) model should be adopted. It must be emphasised that our students need quality education regardless of who provides it and how it is provided.

To reduce the escalating cost of higher education, a new institutional financing scheme under the aegis of the ‘Karnataka Higher Education Development Corporation’ must be formulated to provide financial support to needy students as well as institutions. If the state government could materialise the proposal, it would probably be a pioneering effort in the country.

The current scenario of the vast majority of colleges functioning as ‘tutorial centres’ (preparing students for examinations and to obtain a degree with the aid of guest faculty) must change. Apart from academic vigour, colleges must adequately support co-scholastic pursuits such as sports, fine arts, cultural activities, yoga, meditation, etc. In addition, they should run finishing courses and those for all India examinations. A cell for on-campus placements is the need of the hour.

Frequent changes in policy matters will jeopardise the students’ future by creating confusion and apprehension. How fast one implements a new policy is less important than how it is designed to be implemented. Many policies in the past have failed largely because of a lack of proper preparedness. Whether NEP, SEP, or some other policy is implemented tomorrow, what is at stake is the future of students in terms of employment opportunities and career prospects. Higher education should enlighten as well as empower the youth in the age group of 18–25 years. It cannot simply be a political agenda.

(The writer is a former vice chancellor of the University of Mysore)