National Education Policy, 2020 Long on Rhetoric and Short on Substance

Given the universally acknowledged importance of good quality, universal education in the overall well-being of an economy and society, it is a truism that governments need to be committed and proactive in ensuring relevant, robust policy frameworks and their adequate provisioning. India has now got its new National Education Policy (NEP) after a gap of 34 years. This article engages with some crucial aspects of the NEP 2020, which merit urgent attention. In particular, our focus is around issues of universal and equitable access, public provisioning for education and the challenges of privatisation. The policy is finally in place after a lot of prevarication in the recent years; two previous drafts were submitted by two committees, namely the Subramanian Committee (May 2016) and the Kastu­rirangan Committee (May 2019). In an earlier article in this journal, we had highlighted some of the salient features of both these drafts (Jha and Parvati 2019).

At best, the NEP 2020 is a collection of some clearly stated measures, several feel-good intents, and a few broad-brush strokes of ideas underlying potential policies, along with selective sprinkling of a few logistical details. For instance, there are 22 fundamental principles outlined in the document (National Education Policy 2020: 5), which seem to traverse a dissonant canvas of ambitious wishes and fuzzy action plans. The absence of operational details is most glaring in the last section of the NEP, titled “Making it Happen,” that deals with important “how to” questions of strengthening Central Advisory Board of Education, financing mechanisms and implementation plan. Before we engage with some of these concerns, we mention some of the welcome proposals in the NEP.

The policy envisages that the curriculum and pedagogy must develop amongst students a deep sense of respect towards fundamental duties and constitutional values; such clearly articulated salutation to the Constitution is timely and relevant. We welcome that the NEP reiterates the centrality of principles of universal access and equity as the cornerstones of previous education policies and aspires to advance towards achievement of these principles (p 4). To the limited extent that it recognises these as critical, it is a welcome step. The inclusion of the early childhood care and education (ECCE) of children in the 0–6 age group within the education system is laudable and has come about as a result of concerted advocacy by educationists and concerned social movements. However, the way forward is still not clearly articulated and merely suggesting that a special joint task force be formed to integrate ECCE into school education hardly addresses the conundrum of coordination amongst government agencies.¹

The provision to allow for the medium of instruction until at least Class 5, but preferably till Class 8 and beyond, in the mother tongue/local language, wherever possible, and to be followed by both public and private schools is a step in the right direction. The constitution of a gender inclusion fund to “build nation’s capacity to provide equitable quality education for all girls as well as transgender students” is a welcome step. However, we remain sceptical about its intent and mechanics when we note that the fund is to be made

available to States to implement priorities determined by the Central government critical for assisting female and transgender children in gaining access to education (such as the provisions of sanitation and toilets, bicycles, conditional cash transfers, etc). (section 6.8, p 26)

Whether it is going to be yet another tool to merely implement the union government’s ad hoc decisions that may not resonate with the state-level realities is a question that remains unanswered. Another welcome step worth noting is standardising Indian Sign Language (ISL) across the country, along with development of national and state curriculum materials. In this context, it is important to stress here that education falls within the concurrent list allowing both the states and the union government to legislate given the federal structure of governance. Introduction of proposals such as the three-language formula without adequate discussion in Parliament and with state governments goes against the principles of federalism. Further, the proposal to shift from the earlier 10+2+3 to the new structure seems to have been made in haste. Any alterations to the existing system should have been made after in-depth discussions with the state governments as well as with the wider citizenry.

The Idea of Indianness

These are some of the policy intents that seem broadly in the right direction and for reasons of space, we are not cataloguing here a few other promising features of the NEP 2020. For us, however, serious concerns far outweigh the afore-mentioned proposals. Again, for want of space, we briefly flag only a few of these here. In outlining its principles, the policy mentions “a rootedness and pride in India, and its rich, diverse, ancient and modern culture and knowledge systems and traditions” (p 6). It is extremely important to unpack the idea of “being rooted in Indianness,” which, at best, is ambiguous and, at worst, could degenerate into narrow-minded pursuits that Rabindranath Tagore was apprehensive about and cautioned us against 110 years ago in the visionary poem, “Where the mind is without fear.” Such an apprehension has a strong basis given the experience of highly questionable interventions in curricula, functioning of educational institutions, and academic decision-making at large, which have generated lot of concerns.

It is worrisome that the NEP may, at its worst, be a nod to a deeply problematic ideological world view, wherein respect for sociocultural diversity of the country and the quest for inclusiveness may get marginalised. This is evident when we note suggestions, such as: children to “trace origins and sources of vocabularies from Sanskrit and other classical languages under the Ek Bharat Shrestha Bharat initiative” (section 4.16, p 14); the emphasis on promoting “Sanskrit as a modern language offered at all levels of school and higher education, including as an option in the three-language formula” (section 22.15, p 55). Further, it seems strange to us that in spite of all the talk of constitutional values, secularism does not find any mention in the document, or for that matter, there is no engagement to locate education policy in the domain of fundamental rights. While it is important to educate students about fundamental duties, the complete omission of fundamental rights from the project of education is telling. We now focus our attention on three critical concerns as mentioned earlier.

Equitable Access to Education

The policy states that the gaps in education can be addressed by “undertaking major reforms that bring the highest quality, equity, and integrity into the system.” It aims for “India to have an education system by 2040 that is second to none, with equitable access to the highest-quality education for all learners regardless of social or economic background” (p 3). A reading of the policy gives mixed signals as to how the critical challenges of equity and inclusion might be addressed. One of the proposals is to create special education zones (SEZs), where all the schemes and policies are implemented to the maximum through additional concerted efforts (section 6.6, p 25) in areas where there are large populations from educationally disadvantaged socio-economically disadvantaged groups (SEDGs). Apart from the coinage of this new catchphrase, there are no details to explain its mechanics. What is also worth noting is that the NEP, in addres­sing the lag in participation and access by religious and linguistic minorities in school and higher education, makes no mention of minority institutions. The policy also seems to be geared towards creating newer schemes to address challenges faced by marginalised groups such as Dalits, Adivasis, and minorities (section 6.8, p 26). This is confusing given that recent efforts have been made to rationalise the number of existing centrally sponsored schemes in order to ostensibly implement them more effectively (GOI 2016). Instead, adequate financing and effective implementation of existing programmes would go a long way in bolstering equitable access for the most marginalised.

The policy aims to make changes to bring in an inclusive school curriculum. To cite from the NEP,

the school curriculum will include, early on, material on human values such as respect for all persons, empathy, tolerance, human rights, gender equality, non-violence, global citizenship, inclusion, and equity. It would also include more detailed knowledge of various cultures, religions, languages, gender identities, etc, to sensitize and develop respect for diversity. Any biases and stereotypes in school curriculum will be removed, and more material will be included that is relevant and relatable to all communities. (section 6.20, p 28)

It would be worthwhile to view how these lofty ideals translate into reality, even as recent development belie our expectations. Specifically within higher education, the policy aims

to increase access, equity, and inclusion through a range of measures, including greater opportunities for outstanding public education; scholarships by private/philanthropic universities for disadvantaged and underprivileged students. (section 9.3, p 34)

Instituting scholarships funded by private/philanthropic universities seems to be a tacit move to defund existing government schemes, such as the Post-matric Scholarship (PMS) for Scheduled Castes (SCs), PMS for Scheduled Tribes (STs), PMS for minorities, etc. This would prove disastrous for students belonging to SC, ST and minority communities as private-run schemes would be devoid of any safeguards, leaving students at the mercy of profiteers.

Disturbing also is the obsession to convert everything into online capsules and employ methods that cater to the online platforms. Discussions have noted how, in the times of COVID-19, students, when pushed to online schooling, find that the barriers that constrained their access earlier have only exacerbated and are compounded by infrastructural challenges of electricity and internet penetration (Jha and Ghatak 2020). The policy privileges online education in a seemingly unmindful manner, which is indeed undesirable.² This does not bode well for furthering universal equitable access to education. There is also a clear and unapologetic push towards promoting voluntarism in the NEP, in the garb of peer tutoring to be taken up as a voluntary joyful activity and recruiting trained volunteers from the local community and beyond to participate in this large-scale mission (section 2.7, p 9). On the one hand, the policy pays lip service to the central role played by teachers in the education system, but then assumes that the important task undertaken by a well-trained, qualified teacher can be taken up by a volunteer. These proposals resonate what Nobel laureate Amartya Sen (2015) said that “India is the only country in the world which is trying to become a global economic power with an uneducated and unhealthy labour force.”

Good Quality Universal Education

The promise to spend 6% of gross domestic product (GDP) towards education remains a promise even after 54 years; the NEP 2020 mentions this again but with considerable ambivalence. It states that “the centre and the states will work together to increase public investment in education sector to reach 6% of GDP at the earliest” (section 26.2, p 61). Even as all policy directives come from the union government coupled with the fact that states are dependent on union government transfers as their revenue mobilisation options are limited, it is imprudent to affix equal responsibility on the states. The onus must be on the union government to make good on this longstanding promise. The policy also calls for increasing efficiency in using available budgets by suitable policy changes (section 26.5, p 61). Improper planning and design of schemes, rigid guidelines imposed by the union government determining how states spend their available budgets, budgetary bottlenecks at various stages of implementation, and inadequate provision for monitoring and oversight are some of the key factors inhibiting spending by states and leading to inefficient expenditures (Jha and Parvati 2014). That the policy makes no note of these critical factors reflects its limited engagement with this important aspect.

While the policy is cognisant of the role played by Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 in the school education sector, there is no discussion on how it is to be taken forward and what is required to strengthen the legislation, which is riddled with flaws (Jha and Parvati 2010). Earlier, the RTE was diluted by subsuming Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) into the umbrella Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan under the garb of expanding and streamlining school education sector. Despite the fact that two decades ago the SSA was launched, and more than a decade now since RTE was enacted, barely 10% of schools in the country are RTE norm-compliant. This clearly reveals a need to strengthen the existing legislation rather than undoing all the work done thus far. As part of the enterprise to provision for universal education and in order to bring back into its fold the 3.22 crore children that are out of school in the age group of 6 to 17 (section 3.1, p 10), the policy sets itself out to “re-establish the credibility of government schools” (section 3.2, p 10). It is bewildering then that the policy observes that the requirements of schools be made less restrictive, making it easier for government and non-government philanthropic organisations to build schools and to allow alternative models of education (section 3.6, p 11). Watering down regulatory guidelines that are, as it is, almost non-existent is hardly the approach to re-establishing the credibility of any institution. Or is it the case that such dilutions are merely a facade for the third concern we flag, namely an unbridled push to wards privatisation in all its avatars?

Push to Wards Privatisation

A worrisome endorsement in the NEP is the push to wards private sector players to finance public education, at almost all levels: school, higher, technical, vocational, research and innovation. To cite from the NEP,

substantial investment in a strong, vibrant public education system as well as the encouragement and facilitation of true philanthropic private and community participation. (Principles of the Policy, p 5)

The Policy also calls for the rejuvenation, active promotion, and support for private philanthropic activity in the education sector. In particular, over and above the public budgetary support which would have been otherwise provided to them, any public institution can take initiatives towards raising private philanthropic funds to enhance educational experiences. (section 26.6, p 61)

The NEP thus makes large strides from its earlier versions that had favoured more timid, indirect routes to privatisation. Our concerns not only remain but are deepened by this unambiguous path to private sector promotion. This articulation finds resonance across the policy document along with newly devised mechanisms. With the stated intent to

further enhance cooperation and positive synergy among schools, including between public and private schools, the twinning/pairing of one public school with one private school will be adopted across the country, so that such paired schools may meet/interact with each other, learn from each other, and also share resources, if possible. (section 7.10, p 30)

These proposed collaborations between underfunded public and profit-oriented private schools do not bring to mind any past precedents. Even more obfuscating is the expectation that they share resources. Are they to share their infrastructure or personnel, either of which would only imply further dilution of the public school system? The NEP opens up the higher education sector to foreign players apparently to encourage the top 100 global universities to open campuses in the country. The policy also mentions that it will explore opportunities for higher cost recovery without affecting the needy or deserving sections, particularly in the case of higher education institutions (HEIs). What this might lead to is a policy nod to manifestation of all kinds of student loans making it doubly difficult for students belonging to SEDGs to repay and thus perpetuate a vicious cycle of indebtedness, poverty and vulnerability.

Conclusions

There remain several other points of concern that we are unable to pursue presently. However, it is worth reminding ourselves of the Article 41 of the Constitution: “State shall, within limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing right to work, to education.” Clearly, the founders of our Constitution were seized of the importance of public provisioning for basic goods, such as education, health, work, etc, very much in a rights framework. It is also worth recalling that the Karachi Declaration of 1931 had similarly stressed the importance of public goods in a rights framework unambiguously. The core question that arises with respect to NEP 2020 is: Are the policymakers reneging on the promise of education in a rights perspective as enshrined in our Constitution?

Notes

1 In provisioning of ECCE, a truly transformative step would have been to formalise the cadre of Anganwadi Workers into the government system, as they continue to shoulder all the burden without adequate recompense currently.

2 A quick search of the NEP 2020 document reveals that the term “online” finds mention 48 times

Published in EPW