Education, the Nation and the State

The Hindu     3rd November 2020     Save    
QEP Pocket Notes

Context: The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 underestimates the problem of reconciling the three systems of education in India. 

The three systems of Education in India:

  • The Central System: running an exam board that has an all-India reach through a?liation with English medium private schools catering to region al elites. 
    • It also runs advanced professional institutes and universities that have greater per capita funding than its counterparts run by States.
  • The State System: which features provincial secondary boards a?liating schools teaching in State languages. 
  • The Private System: Internationally accredited school boards and globally connected private universities are part of this third system, having a new level of freedom from state norms.

Evolution of the system of education in India:

  • Recognition of provincial education: The Central Advisory Board of Education was created to coordinate regional responses to common issues and served mainly as a discussion forum.
  • Move towards centralisation: India chose to have a Ministry of Education at the Centre after the independence, with a role to articulate aims and standards towards nation-building and development.
    • Central institutions received higher investments than the States could afford.
  • Divergence between Centre and States: 42nd Amendment Act (1976) has put the education under Concurrent List and engagement with the States remained a function of the Planning Commission.
  • Education after Liberalisation: led to the rise of private-sector education due to the rapidly expanding urban middle class demanding private education.
  • The Right to Education (RTE): acted as the bridge between the Centre and State education system and called private schools to provide for social justice via quota route.

Issues with the education systems:

  • Unmanageable Coordination: Differences in marking standards and lack of adherence to social responsibilities have led to sharper inequalities (due to caste and economic status).
  • For, E.g. The recent attempt by Tamil Nadu to create a modest quota in NEET for students who attended government schools, shows mediation in order to provide equity.
  • Issue with the NEP: 
    • Functional Uniformity: guaranteed under the policy underestimates the problem of reconciliation between the three systems.
      • Difficulty in reconciling the push for equitable education and economic policy which favours private education.
    • Interpretation of Autonomy in terms of finances: will remain inadequate.
    • Proposes post-RTE structural shift: ignoring the fact that RTE itself has not been fully implemented.
    • States are approached for their consultation: rather than continued involvement.

Way Forward:

  • Strengthening the Social Vision
    • Education must mediate between different social strata: divided by caste and economic status through coordination and in adherence to social responsibilities.
    • Recognise States legacy and practices: States have their own social worlds to deal with and prefer legacy systems for e.g. even after the Kothari Commission, many states still continue to have intermediate or junior colleges.
  • Continued financial support for the implementation of RTE and policy guidance for its proper use, diminishing regional disparities.
  • A systemic vision both for recovery from institutional decay and for future progress is needed.

Conclusion: We must ask what kind of human being and society we want before we draft a policy in education.

- JP Naik, the architect of many national-level institutions

QEP Pocket Notes