NEP's private participation push, disregard for caste and gender show it as little more than echo of past policies

Last week, the MHRD minister Ramesh Pokriyal ‘Nishank’ along with the former MHRD minister Prakash Javadekar announced the new National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 at a press conference. The draft NEP 2019, which serves as the base to this document, was formulated by a nine-member team, all belonging to upper castes, headed by the former ISRO chief K Kasturirangan. The draft was first submitted to the MHRD on 18 December, 2018. The Kasturirangan committee report states the vision of the policy as “creating an India–centred education system which would help in transforming a nation into an equitable and vibrant knowledge society.”

All our previous education policies too have been centered on the very idea of nation.

This trend was set in the 19th Century by the British Education commissioner, Thomas Babington Macaulay, popularly known as Lord Macaulay. In some way, Lord Macaulay led the premise of an organised/formal ‘Indian education system’ in his infamous Macaulay’s Minute on education in 1835. It was his idea of centralising the education towards a common entity to create a class of people willing to serve in occupational capacities to larger authority. Based on the Reports of Kothari commission (1964-66),the then prime minister Indira Gandhi announced the national policy on education (NPE). The document claimed to maintain and protect the inclusivity and diversity of India by introducing the three-language formula (Hindi, English and regional language). The goal was to strengthen the idea of India. Whereas in 1986, National Policy of Education introduced by the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi promised social integration of women, STs and SCs , to ensure the participation of all communities in building of the nation. In 1992, NPE(2) was modified by the PV Narasimha Rao government. The idea was to centralise academic framework of education towards India. Therefore, a three-exam formula for engineering was formulated: JEE, AIEEE at the national-level and state-level entrances at the regional level. The NPEs mentioned above were clearly ‘India centered’ in their approach. Yet their failure in creating a vibrant and equitable knowledge system is clearly evident through the data mentioned in the new Kasturirangan report. The report cites that approximately “26 percent of the Indian population is illiterate (2011 Census).” This 26 percent is constituted of the economically disadvantaged and socially disadvantaged classes (SCs, STs, ,OBCs and BPLs).The committee though aware of this fact, has still contextualiSed its new patterns of education based on the archaic notion of ‘for India’. These patterns root for the inclusivity of a particular class of people, thus achieving little or non-useful success in their attempts. The new policy mentions as an objective, the fact, that “education must thus move towards less content and more learning, about how to think critically and solve problems, how to be creative and multi-disciplinary, to innovate, adapt and absorb new material in novel and changing fields.” This indicates an intent of inculcating a practice of ‘perceiving things’. But the policy also clearly states a decrement in the base, on which things will be perceived, i.e., ‘content’ and does not compensate for it in any other form. With scarce and selective content the students would only innovate, adapt and absorb things based on a limited access and a fixed rigid pattern. This policy boldly claims to be a first of its kind in 21st Century. It addresses the growing developmental imperatives of this country. Further, it points to the rich heritage of ancient Indian knowledge as the guiding light of this policy.

It may have been the guiding light for the policy but it does not have any scope of reflection in it.

Increased participation of non-educational stake holders under the categories of ‘business venture’ and introduction of foreign universities’ localised campuses hint at ‘colonial submission’ rather than deriving inspiration from our ‘ancient education system.’ The teachers and their conditions have been central to these changes as mentioned in the policy .Even though teachers are one of the most important elements of the education process, they have not been given special attention. Education is first and foremost for the receiver i.e., the student. If teachers’ position is compromised to the extent of non-existence, one ought to admit that the NEP is designed just to smoothen the operationalism of academia and not for the improvement of education. The NEP in its structure is very reflective of the previous NPEs. NEP 2020 extends itself as form of NPE 1986 by introducing the concept of ‘early childhood care and education.’ Under this concept MHRD, now Ministry of Education (still to be enacted) recognises children of 3 to 5 years as students and has instructed NCERT to form a curriculum for them. The policy classifies the children belonging to 3 to 8 years as primary receivers of education and has divided them into two categories, Pre Primary 3 to 5 years and primary 6 to 8 years. The reason cited by the policy for this early education is a research which states that ‘85 percent of a child’s cumulative brain occurs prior to the age of 6.’ While infusing a sense of institution in the mind of the child during its development, the initiative will remain successful till the institution has educational instincts, or else the development of the child can be manipulated and compromised. This process will have to be executed very carefully, keeping in mind the vulnerability of children. Last time, this research mentioned in the policy gained space in public forum was when a milk supplement, then available for elder children, tried to make a market among younger children. They claimed on account of this research that their supplement (a new one, specifically for 3 to 6 years old) will increase the efficiency of the child’s development. The Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, came into effect on April 2010 and almost 10 years later covers the entire school education system. Under the new academic circuit, the old 10+2 system is rejected and a new pattern of 5+3+3+4 (15 years) will be adopted. RTE will now cover this whole education spectrum. The report states that under ECCE, student up to Class 5 will be inculcated with ‘foundational literacy and numeracy.’ Elaborating this concept, the 2019 draft covers reading, writing and speaking of languages under foundational literacy, whereas ‘mathematical thinking and ideas are covered under ‘Numeracy’. This process is being portrayed as an activity whose primary aim is to inculcate ‘reading habits’ and ‘mathematical understanding’ among the children up to age eleven. Though the policy states the methods, it fails to mention the content that will be provided. For example, the kind of literature that will be provided to the students for ‘reading’ has not been revealed or discussed, not even as an example. One of the significant problems pointed out in the draft is that of non-willing dropouts. The gross enrollment rate for classes 6 to 8 is at 90.7 percent, but it drastically falls to 51.3 percent in classes 11 and 12. This trend of dropping out from school starts from Class 5 and increases drastically after Class 8. Unsurprisingly, the solutions stated in the policy echo its ancestors by pointing to ‘strengthening of infrastructure’. ‘Enlarging schools’ and ‘conveyance for girls’ are among examples listed as what constitutes ‘strong infrastructure’. Policymakers have discarded the impressively potent causes such as caste-based discrimination, financial setbacks and gender which come in the way of uninterrupted education. Another aspect on which the policy lays emphasis is ‘alternative education’. ‘Gurukuls, pathshalas, madrasas, home-schooling’ are cited as examples. Great move, one would think, unless the realisation of how the stake of the State is being compromised strikes. To cover the financial needs of this ‘alternative education’, the policy suggests corporate ventures such as philanthropic- public and public-private partnerships that will help the State share the ‘student boom’.

But the policy does not define the contributions and dynamics of this ‘sharing’, especially on the states’ part.

According to the eighth All India School Education Survey, alternative schooling in India has been a fad lately, with as many as 30,000 schools catering to almost 19 lakh students in the primary classes from 1 to 5. This comes to almost sixty students per school, and this is where the reason behind its success lies. The teachers have to handle fewer students and are therefore more comfortable and confident in the environment, resulting in effective teaching. The teachers are also paid well owing to the grand fee structures of such schools, with many K-schools demanding as much as 4 lakh per year from resident students and around 1 lakh per year from day scholars. Such a system is being desired for these partnership-based schools, but despite being teacher-strengthening, the policy hardly cares to address the large teacher-pupil ratio in the public schools, which tends to put more burden on a single teacher. The policy calls for a compulsory ‘fun year-long courses to be undertaken any time between classes 6 and 8’. The courses can be carpentry, electric work, metal work as mapped by the needs of the local community. The policy also makes much of setting the ground for ‘internships for Class 6 children.’ [caption id=“attachment_8683341” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Policymakers have discarded potent causes such as caste-based discrimination, financial setbacks and gender which come in the way of uninterrupted education. AkshayaPatra Foundation at Pixabay[/caption] Corporate culture has wanted internships since its inception but the absence of any laws on the amount of work and stipends have resulted in constant complaints by the undergrads who often term it ‘free labour’. In such a scenario, it is doubtful that teens would be able to stand up for themselves and protect their rights. Questions of safety, especially of young girls, also loom large. In conclusion to the school education segment, the policy declares the establishment of ‘National Assessment Centre for school Education (NACSE)’ under the Ministry of Education (MOE) for a more holistic evaluation. Following which the policy proclaims that henceforth board exams will allow students to choose from a wide range of subjects. Interestingly, one might point to a fact that wide ranges of subjects are already available to the students of ICSE or CBSE. For example, ‘graphic designing, carnatic music, bharatnatyam’  are all part of the many theory papers available to ICSE students. But they are much less relevant compared to history, physics or maths paper. Because of a general stigma attached to such subjects, there is a massive dearth of elements required for provision of such courses in schools, which often term them under the umbrella of ‘extra-curricular’. The responsibility of the interest in such a case is on the student and not on the organisation. Therefore, the conversation ought to move towards changing the fundamental viewpoint and setting the stage for ‘providing’ rather than widening the choices. Foundational pillars for the policy as mentioned in it are 1) access 2) equality 3) equity 4) affordability and 5) accountability. The policy in itself lacks newness. ‘Education for all’ and creation of bodies responsible for providing it has been the principle of NEPs since the Kothari Commission. The policy clearly refrains from finding contextual contemporary foundations and searches for them in the previous century. In aforesaid statement, the policy states that education is a great leveler, but it leaves it there in ambiguity. Neither does it define the ‘level’ nor does it care to mention ‘ who has to be leveled.’

All our education policies have been reflective of Macaulay’s idea of creating a class of people willing to serve a larger authority.

They all have attempted to reiterate his ways that which about the Western codes and morals. The appreciation of western ideals is still evident in how we perceive our education. Be it science, English or any other subject, we are very much dependent on the same Macaulay model, which although criticised, is never tackled. There’s no attempt by these policies to either acknowledge or move towards improving it. It is not a right-wing or left-wing problem per se. Be it Congress or BJP, both have followed the same model. These tendencies must be extinguished and fundamental questions about the philosophy of our education addressed before these policies can be anything more than just for show.