How not to frame education policy

Unlike national policy, Karnataka must draft a model to foster inclusivity and constitutional values

Karnataka has established a committee to draft the state’s education policy. This move is not only a political response to counter the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, drafted at the behest of the central government’s ideological leanings, but also an academic initiative. The committee, chaired by Professor Sukhdev Thorat, an acclaimed academician known for his progressive views, is expected to create a draft that could serve as an exemplary model for national policy.

Karntaka’s state education policy must embody inclusivity, aligning with the ideals of “sabka sath, sabka vikas” in letter and spirit. It should begin by acknowledging constitutional values comprehensively, avoiding selectivity or evasion of the same. Notably, NEP 2020 omits the value of secularism entirely, without even a single mention in the whole document. By deliberately avoiding the term “secularism,” the NEP 2020 not only overlooked a crucial modern value essential for a cosmopolitan society but also rendered its lofty aspirations to make Indians global citizens hollow.

The state policy can learn from NEP 2020 on avoiding the arbitrary creation of new terms. The NEP 2020 neglects the nuanced lessons of social sciences and lumps together Dalits, OBCs, minorities, women, rural and urban poor, differently-abled individuals, and transgenders as Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs), categorising them collectively as minor groups. This approach ignores the fact that combining these diverse groups may result in outnumbering any other major group, if that exists. The NEP 2020 prescribes a uniform solution for all issues without analysing or comprehending the educational status of these groups. Furthermore, it does not formulate specific plans or suggestions for their improvement.

Drawing further lessons from NEP 2020, the state policy should not excessively depend on philanthropy. It must establish clear boundaries for the State to persist and operate as a welfare state, avoiding the delegation of its responsibilities to corporate social responsibility. While private entities contribute significantly to education during these liberal economic times, labelling their efforts as mere philanthropy undermines citizens’ right to equitable education and hampers the fostering of self-esteem.

The upcoming policy must address the academic chaos generated by the NEP 2020. It should distinguish between multi-intra-inter-trans disciplinarity, which NEP 2020 fails to discern by using these terms interchangeably and treating them as synonyms throughout the 66-page document, with more than 80 instances of such usage. The new state policy should critically examine the concept of multiple entries and exits in undergraduate programmes. Additionally, it should get its basic arithmetic right, a task overlooked by the NEP 2020 and the subsequent National Higher Education Qualification Framework, leading to graduates earning different credits for the same programmes.

Additionally, it should refine the distinctions between a PG diploma, a one-year PG degree, a two-year PG degree, and an undergraduate programme like BEd/LLB pursued after graduation, rather than placing them on the same level as done by national policy and the NHEQF. In its eagerness to promote Aatmnirbhar Bharat and Amrit Kaal, the national policy excessively emphasises research, infusing every programme with research components. This leaves little room for essential courses and readings at all levels, perhaps in an attempt to bypass the critical step of reviewing related literature, which can only be undertaken when students are adequately educated about it.

The Karnataka education policy must address concerns related to primary education. The national policy suggests relocating first and second standards from’schools’ to Anganwadis. Despite acknowledging that 85% of children’s brains develop during this time, NEP 2020 assigns this responsibility to Anganwadi workers rather than trained teachers in schools. Additionally, the national policy proposes’school clusters’ and encourages their adoption by private entities. In doing so, the policy takes a bold shift from philanthropy to privatisation in a brazen manner.

NEP 2020 has proposed the establishment of more than eight new institutions to regulate higher education and school education. It has also recommended the development of more than eight curriculum frameworks. However, having too many recipes, along with too many cooks, can spoil the food. The state’s policy must conscientiously address these concerns; otherwise, it may mirror the national policy with inherent contradictions. The failure of the policy could be attributed to the negligence and lethargy of teachers, as they are ultimately tasked with its implementation. The state’s policy drafters must recognise that a flawed policy cannot be effectively implemented, regardless of the intentions behind it.

(The writer teaches at the Department of Education, Central University of Himachal Pradesh)