National Education Policy 2020: The Devil Lies in Implementation

Context: The proposed education policy changes could make designing curricula difficult while stifling student mobility across universities.

Issues with the New Education Policy:

• Implementation to be dependent on the States: Being a concurrent subject, the experience of earlier national education policies (1968 and 1986) suggests that in a federal system, implementation and coordination form a complex process.

• A myopic focus on education: while ignoring the economic, social and political contexts that have shaped outcomes. 

• The expected transformation cannot materialize unless we can create more equal socio-economic opportunities in terms of access to education.

• No Remedies for ailing government schools: The policy ignores the following adversities face by government schools:

• Teacher Absenteeism and lack of accountability: While most teacher remains absent; some take salaries without no accountability.

• Low learning Outcomes.

• Reinforced Coaching-syndrome: The proposed national aptitude test will become the new last-chance for school- leavers.

• Market and competition will ensure the coaching-syndrome and exam-tyranny return in a new incarnation.

• Reduced opportunities for school leavers: due to the lack of availability of seats in pockets of excellence like the Indian Institute of Technology and the Indian Institute of Management.

• Declining public university standards: also affects the job-employability of the candidates.

• Darwinian Selection Process: restricts the number of seats.

• Higher education in a pincer movement:

• Excessive reliance on the market and private businesses: in reforming the higher education may shut doors on the poor.

• Strangled Autonomy of the Universities: has led to the growing politicization and has stifled creativity without any accountability.

• Problems with the flexibility: ????lead to complexity.

• For E.g. If Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes can be either 3+2 or 4+1, the incompatibility will stop the mobility of students between universities.

• The provision of exit option each year would complicate the process of designing the curricula bot for the continuing and exiting students.

• Emphasis on the multidisciplinary approach is worrisome because, for undergraduates, learning is embedded in disciplines.

• Elusive Autonomy Provision: Unless the 4 verticals of regulation i.e. regulation, accreditation, funding and standards are differentiated, fear of centralization remains.

• The NEP hopes to make higher education institutions autonomous through an empowered Board of Governors by 2035, but there could be many a slip in the interim.

Conclusion: The NEP 2020 is an eloquent statement of hopes and aspirations. Alas, economic, social and political realities might play the serpent to a paradise it hoped for.