This is reproduction of an article published in July 2019 Issue of New Democracy by Mrigank
Brief Overview of New Education Policy
The
Modi led BJP-RSS Govt 2.0, immediately after taking over, announced a
100-day agenda which included drastic education reforms. It has come
out with a document called New Education Policy on June 1, which is
open for comments for one month, after which it will be finalized.
This document is different from what was proposed by the previous
Modi govt. The TSR Subramanian Committee, and ‘Some Inputs for
Draft National Education Policy, 2016’, were proposed earlier. This
latter was open to public for comment for some time but never
finalized, probably due to widespread protests. The present document
started getting prepared in June 2017 under the chairmanship of K
Kasturirangan. That was the time Minister of HRD, Prakash Javadekar,
said we will have a new education policy in a year. At that time, it
was thought that the final version of the earlier one will be
published by end of 2018. But that was not the case. Government
waited for general elections and now, with its strong ‘mandate’,
intends to bulldoze the new Policy.
This
new Policy seeks to revamp the entire education system right from pre
schooling to research level. This will be done on the lines of an
amalgamation of RSS ideology and WTO/WB dictates. This aim is
sugar-coated with expressions of concern about the reach of
education, quality of education etc, but what it proposes amounts to
destroying whatever pro-people element was there in the education
system, howsoever faulty this might have been. It also further opens
the avenues for privatization, commercialization and facilitating
foreign players on one hand while giving ample scope for pushing
through the vision of Hindutva on the other, i.e. saffronization. In
higher education, it is absolutely silent about continuing
affirmative action for addressing social backwardness and no doubt,
this will translate into doing away with all reservations on this
basis in toto. A definite reference was especially needed because
reservations do not apply as of now to private institutions and the
thrust of this Policy is on privatization and commercialization.
This
Policy makes lots of nice statements, touches many of the problems of
education today – that it is not reachable, not scientific, is
burdensome, heavily stratified, there is poor Pupil to Teacher (PTR)
ratio in schools etc. The writers have done some research in
substantiating the same but then this is not new. Earlier Reports too
have done the same. Many of the recommendations of earlier
commissions and committees have been reproduced, particularly those
of Yashpal Committee and some from Kothari Commission (as far back as
1966). It does not bother to investigate as to why those
recommendations were not implemented, why good sounding
recommendations remained in files only. It is the government of the
day which decides to prioritize the recommendations of a committee.
Govts choose to implement only selective parts, which correspond to
their own policy thrust and give emphasis as per their own
intentions. The current document restates the older positive
proposals with nice sounding words and apparent nice intentions such
as complete overhauling of the education system, development of
scientific temper, fun learning, making education less burdensome,
increasing PTR, schools within reach, multidisciplinary education
etc. But only actually those parts of the proposals which will bring
Education in accordance with the dictates of WTO and Hindutva will be
implemented. By Hindutva is implied an upper caste, chauvinist,
patriarchal outlook with the inevitable reflection in content of what
is taught.
Apart
from the lack of analysis on why earlier positive recommendations
failed, the lack of serious discussion on the financial implications
of the complete overhaul this Policy suggests and what outlay it
recommends in the Budget, makes the intention of actual
implementation of the positive suggestions doubtful.It proposes some
estimates but doesn’t dwell on the basis of the same. For instance,
it says that the filling of the vacancies of teachers will add only
up to 0.5% of the government expenditure last year. This looks very
meagre and also unlikely. There are many other measures that will
need large outlays if they are to be seriously implemented for
government schools, like school level options in foreign languages,
semesters in schools, high quality preschool education, etc. It
clearly means that good things suggested are mostly just for looking
good. In this respect it appears that actual measures for general
students are those suggested on the side, like open learning,
volunteer teachers etc. Rather, with proposals on merging primary
schools etc., the real result may be to decrease expenses on govt.
funded education. The highly stratified education system shall not
only remain so but surely get even worse.
There
is an emphasis on new books and education material. In an environment
where academic bodies are being rapidly stuffed with RSS
sympathizers, the content of such proposed material naturally seems
pre decided. Secondly, the Education policy of this Govt. should be
seen in the light of its policy initiatives for pushing through
privatization and commercialization in other sectors.
Here
attempt is made to make a quick overview of the Policy. Let us go
through some salient features.
Composition of Committee
The
drafting committee was headed by former ISRO Chairperson Dr. K.
Kasturirangan. Among its members are Leena Chandran Wadia from
Reliance funded Observer Research Foundation Mumbai; Anurag Behar,
CEO, Azim Premji Foundation & Vice Chancellor, Azim Premji
University, Bengaluru;Vinayachandra, Director, Veda Vignana Shodha
Samsthanam (VVSS), Bengaluru. It had a peer review committee which
included Mohandas Pai Chairman, Manipal Global Education, Bengaluru,
a private education corporate; J.S. Rajput India’s representative
to the Executive Board of UNESCO Former Director, NCERT during MM
Joshi era. Its technical Secretariat included Gowrisha, Head, New
Initiatives, Centre for Educational and Social Studies, Bengaluru.
CESS is again an institute with thrust in so called Indic Studies and
investigating philosophies of Sri. Aurobindo, Gandhi and Swami
Vivekananda. Also, this Institute is developing and theorizing Indian
Economic Model and Indian Management thought. All these are ample
indicators of the thrust of provisions to be expected in this draft.
Some Provisions of GATS
Some Provisions of GATS
UPA
Govt was stopped by people’s movements from signing GATS Agreement
under WTO as it included Education as a Trade, and this applied to
the BJP-RSS 1 Govt. too. Let us look in a nutshell at the policy
directives of GATS to appreciate this New Education policy’s
adherence to it. It has four modes. One is Cross Border Delivery:
i.e. delivery of education services via internet which covers
Distance education, tele-education, education testing services and
open education.This is the thrust of this Policy too. Second is
Consumption Abroad which covers Movement of students from one country
to another for higher education and foreign students in US
universities etc. This, too, is one of the strong proposals of the
current draft although this is garbed in other phrases. Third one is
Commercial Presence which means Establishment of local branch
campuses or subsidiaries by foreign universities in other countries,
course offerings by domestic private colleges leading to degrees at
foreign universities, twinning arrangements, franchising; presence of
sponsors of campuses and courses. Fourth is Movement of persons
meaning Temporary movement of teachers, lecturers, and education
personnel to provide education services overseas. We shall see that
all the four modes are embedded in the new policy draft with some
sugar-coating and camouflage of good intentions to drastically change
the current situation with respect to the aspects identified.
School Education
School Education
Let
us start from the beginning. It proposes a new terminology Early
Childhood Care & Education (ECCE) –a sobriquet for pre
schooling, nursery, Anganwadi etc. It cites a study to show that
children exposed to various ECCE schemes have a higher retention rate
and they learn better. Since large number of people do not have
access to quality ECCE or have no access at all, they lag behind in
learning from grade1.Financially well off have advantage of good pre
schooling and that is the reason for their faring better. Up to now
Anganwadis have functioned under the aegis of ICDS. It proposes to
continue it, but its contents are to be decided centrally by Ministry
of HRD. RTE (Right to Education) will also extend to include ECCE.
Let us have a look at its contents.
It
talks of children aged 0-3 years first. It talks about stimulating
inputs for learning through low-cost equipment like rattles made
using bottles etc. Second stage meant for children 3-8 years is
called Foundation Stage. This stage is meant for parents, anganwadis,
pre-primary schools, grades 1 and 2. Here they will introduce basic
learning including language and socio-emotive skills etc, but also
customs, moral development, what is right and what is wrong. This
will surely become one entry point for giving the content of the RSS
agenda of upper caste, chauvinist and patriarchal values, right at
the beginning. It even proposes to integrate and strengthen the
traditional role of family. It means the onus of education will be
transferred to the family of the children. The other important
proposal is that Anganwadi centres will be better equipped, more
trained manpower will be there, they will be co-located with primary
schools. It may imply lessening the number of Anganwadis. Even
pre-primary schools will be co-located. This is even now being tried
in the name of better allocation of resources.In actual practice such
co-locations will inevitably constrain parents from being able to
send children to places that may be far away. Recognizing this, and
especially the need to facilitate girl children being sent to school,
the emphasis upto now was always on neighbourhood schools as having
the maximum chance of ensuring that all children went to school.
Reversing that understanding in practice, the policy also proposes to
build standalone pre-primary schools. This ECCE system will have a
strong regulatory and accreditation mechanism. That means central
control and little freedom to reflect the diversity that is inherent
in our country. Central control, it is being seen in other such
bodies in education, means bodies with RSS idealogues as overseers
and advisors.
The
curricular framework it talks about for ECCE has certain points to
be pondered on. One is proposing that parents, Anganwadis and low
cost locally made tools to be part of this teaching. While it all
sounds good, the difference it has mentioned about learning
abilities of rich children and poor only get deeper here. Secondly,
it proposes a flexible course, which while it sounds good in theory,
paves the ways to have sub-standard education at certain places.
Thirdly, in NCF (National Curriculum Framework) itself, there is
provision for incorporation of various rich traditions of India. In
the name of traditions, it is not the democratic, people oriented
and enriching traditions which will find place, but rather that of
the ideology in power at the Centre.
It
also proposes that the Anganwadi teachers will be given 6 months’
time for CPD (Continuous Professional Development) to enhance
themselves. This could become a tool to reduce the number of
Anganwadi teachers, particularly old ones. Moreover, while doing all
this, it does not at all mention about what will happen to the
status of Anganwadi teachers. Currently they are given the status of
voluntary workers and instead of salary, given honorarium without
any other benefits mandated by the laws for regular jobs. With such
a change, there will be an obvious demand to make them regular
teachers. It conveniently ignores the financial implications of this
part unless it plans that they will be designated differently under
‘reformed’ labour laws.
Now
coming to schools. While it rightly recognizes problems faced by
students, the solutions it proposes are dangerous. It acknowledges
lack of school preparedness, poor PTR (pupil to teacher Ratio) etc.
It also acknowledges that teachers are less. To resolve this, it
does not emphasise hiring more teachers alone (it does that but
proposes other solutions too with the same emphasis, which give ways
to bypass that need), but wants community and peers to participate
in the same. It advocates what was proposed long back, but now has
come as matter of policy “each one teach one”. This is sought to
be justified by citing an Indian proverb that “Knowledge is the
only quantity that increases for oneself when one gives it away to
others.” NEP proposes that this can be done out of school hours by
volunteers or people passionate about teaching, under guidance of
teachers. This also clears the way for entry of NGOs (which can
later develop into PPP and
eventually Corporates can also enter in the name of CSR). Notably,
it says that vacancies of teachers should be filled ‘as soon as
possible”, and not ‘as soon as needed.’ It also talks about
recruitment of volunteers and social workers and encouraging large
scale community participation. The need to recruit trained teachers
for quality education is totally diluted and this dilution is going
to impact the children in govt. schools.
There
is proposal for Remedial Instructional Aids Programme (RIAP). It is
suggested that locals specially women will be drawn in to enable or
motivate students who have fallen behind. They will be given special
remedial classes by such voluntary teachers. Another similar idea is
National Tutor Programme (NTP). The best performing students will be
drawn to this programme. They will teach up to 5 hours a week and
these volunteers will be given certificates too. No mention is made
of remuneration. While doing away with permanent teachers it will
use the services of underpaid/ unpaid people who want to serve on
one hand, on the other hand perpetuate the stratified education
system.There is also a provision for ‘qualified volunteers’ for
both NTP and RIAP which will include retired teachers, good students
or other society members. This is also in consonance with GATS
policies as it is informal low-cost measure.
The
policy does talk of ensuring PTR under 30:1, vacancies to be filled
urgently, but without even estimating proper budgetary allotment and
along with giving scope of NTP, it looks obvious that NTP will get
precedence.
To
facilitate bigger coverage of students, Open Distance Learning
(ODL), using NIOS (National Institute of Open Schooling), e-learning
etc. will be used.So, all the good talk of school for everyone is
mostly for making the draft sound good. The bulk will be shifted to
Open schooling. Open, distance and online learning is the clear
dictum of WTO to reduce infrastructural spending.
It
suggests that distance will not be sole criterion for schools. There
are ideas of transport given by the Policy document, one of which is
novel to government schools. Modes of transport suggested are
bicycles, schools’ buses, apart from walking groups. But cycle
rickshaws are proposed to be provided to some parents, who will also
use it to leave children of the area to school as well as take them
home for fixed renumeration and then use the rickshaws to earn their
livelihood. It is clear that buses will rarely be provided.It
implies that while talking of new schools etc., basically there is
plan to reduce the number of schools and do away with many of the
neighbourhood schools even in existence.
Structure
has been revised into 5 + 3 + 3 + 4 system. It includes 5 years of
Foundation Stage (3 years of pre-school and grade I & II); 3
years of the Preparatory or Latter Primary Stage (Grades 3, 4, 5); 3
years of the Middle or Upper Primary Stage (Grades 6, 7, 8) and 4
years of the High or Secondary Stage (Grades 9, 10, 11, 12).From
grade 9 semester system will be introduced.
While
different methods and ideas are described for each stage, there is
no necessity to again explain why, in the current atmosphere where
education bodies and institutions are being packed with Hindutva
ideologues, the following statements do not portend well :
“All
stages will heavily incorporate Indian
and local traditions, as well as ethical reasoning, socio-emotional
learning, quantitative and logical reasoning,
computational thinking and digital literacy, scientific temper,
languages, and communication skills, in a manner that is
developmentally appropriate and in the curricular/pedagogical style
that is optimal for each stage” (emphasis ours).
It
also proposes that all activities will be considered curricular
rather than extra-curricular or co-curricular, including sports,
yoga, dance, music,drawing, painting, sculpting, pottery making,
woodworking, gardening, and electrical work. While it has been long
desired that all aspects should be included as a part of curriculum
so as to allow development of all facets of a child, there is
apprehension that in govt. schools this may allow neglect of
providing proper teachers and proper infrastructure and give a cover
for poor facilities as well as neglecting teaching of the core
subjects.
With
emphasis on multidisciplinary learning, distinction between arts,
science, vocational and academic is proposed to be blurred.The way
the stratified education system has worked till now, pushing
children from poor economic backgrounds towards vocational education
rather than giving all children equal opportunity and then
respecting their choice, raises the fear that by continuing and
intensifying the same stratified system, the Policy will intensify
this trend, In fact, the Document states that with rapidly changing
economic scenario, vocational courses are more relevant, and even
pre-vocational courses should be started at early stage. This may
mean government schools and thus invariably, students from poorer
background, will end up getting a lopsided education which will
dictate that they are left with no option but to enter the ranks of
skilled workforce. This will further enhance stratification in
education system.
“So
many developed countries around the world have amply
demonstrated,being well educated in one’s language, culture, and
traditions is not a detriment but indeed a huge benefit to
educational, social, and technological advancement.” While it is
good to be taught in one's mother tongue and know about cultures and
traditions, in multilingual, multi cultural India where will this
lead to especially when it is also decreed that textbooks will be
centrally prepared? The country has rich democratic, scientific,
pluralistic traditions; will these be reflected or will Hindutva
ideology become the order of learning? Secondly, it is important to
remember that books needed for higher education are certainly not
available in all languages of India.Third, set the proposal in the
frame of our stratified education system-it means the same will be
furthered.
There
will be teaching of moral and ethical reasoning. It will inculcate
“traditional Indian values of seva, ahimsa, swacchata, satya,
nishkam karma, tolerance, honest hard work, respect for women,
respect for elders,..”
There
will be full-fledged course on “knowledge of India”. While this
could be considered desirable from the point of view of emphasizing
certain developments in India missed by western historians
especially of science; but, given the political context, this is
more likely to lead to pseudo-science and chauvinism given the
orientation of policy and policy makers.
This
apart, Sanskrit will be given special emphasis as it is considered a
language where a great repository of knowledge including arts,
literature, science, mathematics and medicine, is there. It means
that knowledge which is centuries old will take precedence over
current knowledge. It may be good to mention many achievements as
part of history, but not as replacement of contemporary science and
other things.
The
proposed three language formula with Hindi as an essential element
to be taught from first stage has already met with enough resistance
for government to backtrack. It was an attempt to impose the RSS
idea of Hindi as “One nation one language” or “Hindi, Hindu
Hindustan”. There is talk of foreign language to be offered with
language options mentioned being German, French, Japanese, Chinese.
Today, these are courses offered only in private schools of elite
standing. Where are the teachers going to come from for government
schools if this is the routine option in schools? Will options be
given in govt. schools? There is likelihood that with such dramatic
difference in the wages of skilled personell in our country and
imperialist countries, this knowledge of languages will allow MNCs
coming to India to use this pool just as they use other skilled
personnel like scientists, IT personnel, engineers etc in their
overseas locations rather than the expensive personnel of their
parent countries.
A
National Curriculum Frame work will be designed to incorporate the
above policy points. The local variations can be there in additional
text books. Interestingly, while NCERT in consultation with SCERT,
will develop ‘high quality text books”, the local supplementary
or additional material will be prepared through PPP and crowd
funding.
While
rightly recognizing the burden Board examinations put on the
students and its uselessness, the solutions NEP proposes seem only
to confuse the situation. Going further, for university entrance a
National Testing Agency (NTA) is proposed. This is akin to the
Education and Testing Agency of USA which conducts various
qualifying exams like GRE, SAT, GMAT etc. We shall see later that
the idea in higher education is to replicate US system. Universities
will not be able to conduct entrances or have admission criterion as
per their mandate or vision. Such unification is also desired by
WTO.
There
are suggestions to change teachers’ selection processes too as
well as their training schedules. New four years' B.Ed. will be
introduced and no further recruitment from old system will be there
and para-teaching staff like Shikshamitra will be discontinued. For
promotional avenues,it proposes ”salary, promotion, career
management, and leadership positions in the school system and beyond
tend not to have any formal merit-based structures, but rather are
based on lobbying, luck, or seniority. An excellent system of
merit-based structures and reviews, with excellent enabling school
and school complex leadership and environment, is essential for
outstanding teachers to be incentivised and motivated to do, and be
appreciated for doing their highest quality work”. So there goes
affirmative action like Reservations! Besides, such proposed
measures, though they may appear all right in theory, always tends
to promote sycophancy and adherence to dominant line of ruling
section, while claiming to remove the same. InB.Ed.programmes too
“knowledge of India and its traditions” will be introduced.
The
Policy talks of job guarantee for B.Ed. pass outs, but again there
is no mention of how budgetary allocation will be met. At the same
time, it talks of sharing teachers in a school complex. There is an
inherent contradiction and it is seen throughout the draft. CPD will
be introduced and minimum of 50 hours a year will be expected. CPD
will also include cooperation of civil society, peer learning and
online resource learning. This means, while giving a window to
Hindutva committed elements as civil society, CPD programs will not
be manned by highly trained experts, but much will be left to peers
and online resources.
There
is a talk of making school complexes rather than more schools. Idea
is to have a senior school and various junior schools integrated
into one administrative unit and resource sharing. While the said
intent is to remove isolation of small schools, it risks doing away
with any autonomy of small schools. It would be far more desirable
to improve small schools and have proper infrastructure and
facilities there. Instead of that, in the name of resource sharing,
prospects are that many schools may fail to have any development at
all. As mentioned earlier teachers are proposed to be shared among
schools. It means not increasing teachers but increasing their load,
with a possibility rife that students have to go to distant places
to access resources. NEP states - “Adequate numbers of social
workers will be appointed to the school complexes ……… The
social workers will engage deeply with the community being served by
the school complex.” It implies an emphasis on doing away with
paid staff. Even PTR improvement is sought in school complexes. It
means same teacher will teach in different schools of that complex.
Not only it will burden a teacher, talk of better conditions and
more jobs will prove to be only an eyewash.
A
Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog (RSA) is proposed to be created for
accreditation and regulation of schools. NEP says - “This apex body
will be the primary institution for overall monitoring and
policymaking for continual improvement of the system”. This body
will not handle service provision.Similar bodies, Rajya Siksha
Aayogs(RjSA), are proposed at state level. We shall discuss RSA
later.
The
NEP also makes recommendation that no private school can have
‘public’ in their name as this is misleading. This is fine. But,
in the same breath, it gives full right for continuing parallel
stratified system of schooling by giving full right to private
schools to flourish. Thus every single apprehension expressed that
the whole Policy will be used to further dilute teachers, teaching
personnel level and courses and options for govt. school students is
fully justified. Specifically, the Policy proposes to encourage
‘public spirited private schools’, schools by ‘private
philanthropic organizations. Regulation criterion will be same for
both private as well as public schools.
Schools
are also given freedom to choose curriculum of their own, but in full
accordance with NCF or SCF, however, public (government) schools will
have stricter regulation. There can be multiple boards of assessment
at national level like CBSE, ICSE, NIOS. All schools will be
accredited and assessed, for which a School Quality Assessment and
Accreditation Framework (SQAAF) is proposed. It will have teachers,
parents as well as civil society organizations. Apart from some basic
parameters like basic facilities, PTR, etc., aspect of infrastructure
is left flexible. All this means that in name of flexibility,
different schools can have different infrastructure and deficiencies
can be justified. It should be obvious that all the Central boards
and regulatory authority will be staffed by those who share the
ruling RSS ideology.
Private
schools will have freedom to decide their fees as long as it is not
for profiteering. All it means is that some accounts have to be
managed to show no profit.
We
can see that while making so much of noise about high PTR, less
scientific education, responsibility of state to educate, the Policy
gives more entries to NGOs, corporate as CSR, and just changes the
names of schools from public to private and thus legitimizes,
validates and encourages private schools. For government schools,
particularly in remote areas, in places where poor children will go,
it only suggests informal education albeit in glorified ways.
In
Higher education too, the Draft Policy starts with lots of phrases
about failures or problems of education so far, followed by
suggestions to resolve them. But the intention remains the same.
Hindutva is amalgamated with WB/WTO dictates. There is a general talk
of Pan Indian traditions, talks about Takshashila and Nalanda and
description of Education in ancient times, which needs be replicated
in today’s scenario. It talks of 64 Kalas described in ancient
texts from music, painting to engineering, medicine, maths and so on.
It then proposes that Indian higher education should be
multi-disciplinary as that was the first concept of liberal arts. All
the future courses and Higher Education Institutions (HEI) will be
multi-disciplinary. It is important that such homilies for
‘multi-disciplinarily’ and ‘liberal arts’ be read in the
context of actual practice of the present ruling dispensation.
The
Policy proposes three types of HEIs. Type I will be Universities
doing research and offering both research and teaching; Type II will
be universities offering only teaching; and all affiliated colleges
will fall in Type III category. All will be autonomous. Members of
Type III too will gradually be made autonomous. All must be
multi-disciplinary(MD). Deemed universities,too,will come under one
of such categories and there will be no more deemed universities.
These norms will apply to private colleges as well. The direct
implication is that all mushrooming private colleges will have
authority to grant degrees of their own. All of them will gradually
move towards full autonomy- academic, administrative and
financial,implying that gradually all higher education will be
privatized and commercialized. That is the main drive.
Though
the Policy also talks of autonomy to formulate courses, freedom to
innovate etc. but one can see that with tight RSA and National
Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) sitting on their head,
the direction of courses will be pre decided. Moreover, with
financial autonomy (though graded and increasing with time), new
courses can only be those where rich can come and which will be
saleable in market. It advocates designing of new cutting-edge
courses and setting up career management systems. The development of
basic sciences, literature, philosophy, social science will
automatically get a back seat. The scope of dissent in practice and
in teaching and deciding differing types of course material will be
further curbed. Private institutions can have their own funding as
long as they disclose their accounts fully. Own funding means own fee
structure, and one hundred percent reservation for the rich and
privileged. All the courses are suggested to be capable of making the
students occupationally ready. This is not always a positive thing
though it may appear to be one, as it dilutes the importance of
pursual of basic science and humanities by those interested.
All
universities shall be enjoined to have a four years B.Ed. programme.
Idea is to prepare Multi-disciplinary (MD) teachers for schools.
While this is a replica of US system, autonomy of privatization is
in built in the policy which makes all the nice things it says about
reaching to the last person bogus and nothing but eyewash. It also
says focus of education will be on languages. This is in the name of
making it "engaging with world” and students can learn to
express in mother tongue. But it adds “This shall include India’s
deep traditions in the arts, music and sports, including the
numerous remarkable local and regional traditions. Yoga shall form
an integral part of such efforts as well. Institutions will be
encouraged and funded to offer full-fledged programmes and courses
in these areas”. NEP also promotes vocational courses and skill
developing courses to be an integral part of all courses. It is
advocating opening of five world class HEIs for liberal arts like
IITs, IIMs, ISERs to be “modelled after some of the best
universities in world history, such as Nalanda and the Ivy League
schools in the U.S.” The engagement with world and liberal arts
idea is either engaging with imperialism or with a phrase mongering
which appropriates everything in ancient India for it.
Even
professional HEIs like engineering/medical HEIs will be
‘liberalized’ and will not remain single field programmes. This
could be a welcome step, except for the ideological desperation
bringing it. It implies that above ‘values’ will be part of
every student seeking higher education and thus agenda of RSS will
have widest possible base in higher education as the content of
Education will be in the hands of the regulatory bodies finally.
While
talking of no student being deprived of higher education, it talks
of introducing certificate courses in vocational training. This
means that those not getting into proper courses, which shall be the
largest section of our population as all positive measures like
Reservations and Scholarships will be done away with. Also higher
education will be more and more privatized with fee structures
differing for courses. Thus largest number of students will have no
right of option and shall be deemed to be only skilled workers in
waiting for the success of Make in India.
As
far as Research is concerned, there will be single funding agency
called National Research Foundation, NRF. Others like DST and ICCSSR
etc. will continue but NRF will be the major agency funding all
arenas of research including science, history, culture, language
etc. NEP also states that “There will be a rigorous periodic
review (once every 5 years) of areas and fields of current national
importance, and of emerging fields, by a committee constituted by
the RSA for this purpose.” This should be viewed in light of the
recent order which states that research should be done on topics
relevant to national importance - the deliberate push on an
artificial history and on pseudoscience in national seminars and
scientific conferences shows what this means. In addition,
scientific institutions are already under pressure to do ‘’
commercially viable’’ research which gives marketable entities
rather than focussing on basic research.
The
Policy also talks about promoting mobility of students as well as
teachers. This is a clear condition of WTO to treat education as a
trade. It will mean foreign students will come to India to get
educated at lesser fees and at the cost of our students. RSA will
make a proposal and set up portals and other means to help foreign
students get visas, and will setup a Foreigner Registration Regional
Office (FRRO).Extension of stay and internship policies will be
simplified to attract high quality students from all over the world.
NEP
talks of internationalization of higher education, justification for
which has been invoked by citing example of ancient international
universities like Nalanda. Therefore, to attract others and to
prepare our students for global challenges, we must have
internationally relevant education. Same goes with teachers. they
too can move. It may mean that foreign teachers may eat our
vacancies. Again,this only implies succumbing to GATS and
facilitating foreign players in education business. This mobility
was a major condition of GATS.
Not
just this, it also proposes to invite select foreign universities
into India. The draft policy proposes that 200 foreign universities
will be invited to operate in India, for which legislative framework
should be made. It is worth noting that when the Vice Chancellor of
the famous Cambridge University was asked about going global with off
shore campuses, he said our prestige is from this campus and we are
not McDonald to distribute franchise in every street. We can
understand that only second grade universities; not world-famous
centres, but profit hungry education businessmen will enter to
disburse second grade education with high fees in the name of foreign
universities. It seeks to remove all the barriers so that the trading
is unhindered. Collaborations with foreign universities are also
encouraged. An Inter-University Centre for International Education is
proposed for this. Australian universities are not generally
considered very good, admission is easy and it gives a stamp of
foreign university, it may happen in India now.
Another
feature is emphasis on ODL and online courses.It proposes Massive
Open Online Courses (MOOC). While talking of establishing new
institutes, enhancing old, ensuring all get educated, it ultimately
comes down to saying that GER (Gross Enrolment Ratio) in ODL must
increase to 50%. Expansion of ODL must be encouraged. Regular
institutions of Type I and Type II should have programs for ODL,
supposedly to shorten the gap in quality of the two. But obviously,
it is to promote ODL. This means that the students from poorer
background will be sucked in for ODL and MOOC. The policy only
furthers the present system of differentiation. Both ODL as well as
MOOC are propositions of GATS to reduce infrastructural costs. They
also help to curb dissatisfaction, by allowing Govts. to claim all
have access to higher education, however stratified it may be.
Faculty
recruitment will include academic as well as some social work
(“Faculty recruitment will be on the basis of academic expertise
and depth, on teaching capacities and disposition for public
services”). This ‘social’ could imply in association with the
RSS outfits. Probation period for faculty will be five years! Their
promotion will be based on merit, feedback etc. A so-called robust
merit-based tenure track, promotion will be developed. It will amount
to furthering a policy of people not falling in line not being
promoted. Even downgrading and throwing out is also proposed. It will
mean toeing the government line or being out. A Continuous
Professional Development (CPD) will be compulsory and will include
this‘social work’ and ‘values’. The most important aspect is
that there is no mention anywhere that in teacher recruitments to
predominantly privatized education, will the Reservations which allow
some social justice to prevail, find any place?
Professional
education (medicine, architecture, agriculture, law and technical education)
will undergo a major revamp. It is proposed that all professional regulatory bodies
will come under RSA, NHERA, NAAC, HEGC. They will do the job of” governance,
regulation, accreditation, and funding”. Current bodies like UGC, MCI, AICTTE
will be only Professional Standard Setting Body (PSSB), setting standards for
courses etc.
Agricultural
universities are proposed to be given new vision. They will not concentrate on
just traditional agricultural subjects but will have to have strong linkage
with other national laboratories, in terms of start-ups, business incubation, etc.
meaning there by emphasis on commercialization of agriculture.
Technical
and vocational education will be given a thrust and B. Voc. type of courses
will start. This will produce workers in related professional areas like horticulture,
pharmacy, radiology, etc. In healthcare alone WHO estimate is cited of requirement
of 80 million jobs by 2030. It will be part of national skill development
program to produce skilled manpower which will be used primarily into the
private enterprises to dominate health due to other parallel policy initiatives.
Fees
for all professional institutions will be decided by the institution itself,
for both public and private enterprises. To enable access to poor students,
they will be required to provide scholarships. Minimum 20% should get 100% and up
to 50% “some degree of scholarships”. This has been the proposal of many
corporate lobbies even earlier. Do not regulate fees, but give some concession
to few. Such models are practiced in USA. It will ensure that a large section
of middle class is thrown out of professional education. And scholarship will
be for poor, from where anyway only a small section will be able to qualify.
There
is a proposed provision in the law curriculum that it should fall back on
culture and tradition. History of legal institutions and victory of Dharma over
Adharma are be taught. Classical law text should be taught. (it explicitly does
not say manusmriti though).
For Health,
it proposes a ‘pluralistic and holistic’ healthcare education and delivery.
MBBS should be redesigned. The first two years of education should be common
with all science graduates, after which they can opt for MBBS/BDS/Nursing etc. There
is also a provision for lateral entry for graduates from other medical
disciplines including dental/nursing into medicine. It proposes common foundation
courses based on “medical pluralism”. It means that all that are included in AYUSH
(Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) as well as
others will be mainstreamed and they are proposed to be bridged later when one
can select electives in later part of the course. This will also mean that
without creating proper infrastructure for better scientific medical education,
one can increase the numbers of doctors. AYUSH and scientific medical health
centre will be co located. These will be
the inputs into a healthcare delivery system differentiated by class. All this
must be seen in the context that the political class which swears by Ayurveda
and ancient medicine for the masses, goes to the top govt allopathic
institutions or to such ones abroad for their own treatment.
A
single final exam like single entrance exam like NEET is proposed called EXIT
exam. This exam will not only burden medical students, will also lower the
standard of education. This will be to facilitate lateral entrants to exit
gracefully. This will also serve as PG entrance examination. All this implies
that it will help to produce legitimized substandard pseudo scientifically
educated personnel for use in care structure for masses. Nowhere do RSS
functionaries go for treatment to AYUSH centrProfessional
education (medicine, architecture, agriculture, law and technical
education) will undergo a major revamp. It is proposed that all
professional regulatory bodies will come under RSA, NHERA, NAAC,
HEGC. They will do the job of” governance, regulation,
accreditation, and funding”. Current bodies like UGC, MCI, AICTTE
will be only Professional Standard Setting Body (PSSB), setting
standards for courses etc.
Agricultural
universities are proposed to be given new vision. They will not
concentrate on just traditional agricultural subjects but will have
to have strong linkage with other national laboratories, in terms of
start-ups, business incubation, etc. meaning thereby emphasis on
commercialization of agriculture.
Technical
and vocational education will be given a thrust and B.Voc. type of
courses will start. This will produce workers in related professional
areas like horticulture, pharmacy, radiology, etc. In healthcare
alone, WHO estimate is cited of requirement of 80 million jobs by
2030. It will be part of national skill development program to
produce skilled manpower which will be used primarily in the private
enterprises which are to dominate Health due to other parallel policy
initiatives.
Fees
for all professional institutions will be decided by the institution
itself, for both public and private enterprises. To enable access to
poor students, they will be required to provide Scholarships. Minimum
20% should get 100% and up to 50% “some degree of scholarships”.
This has been the proposal of many corporate lobbies even earlier. Do
not regulate fees, but give some concession to few. Such models are
practiced in USA. It will ensure that a large section of middle class
is thrown out of professional education. And scholarship will be for
poor, from where anyway only a small section will be able to
qualifyThere is a proposed provision in the law curriculum that it
should fall back on culture and tradition. History of legal
institutions and victory of Dharma over Adharma are to be
taught.Classical law text should be taught. (it explicitly does not
say manusmriti though).
For
Health, it proposes a ‘pluralistic and holistic’ healthcare
education and delivery. MBBS should be redesigned. The first two
years of education should be common to all science graduates, after
which they can opt for MBBS/BDS/Nursing etc. There is also a
provision for lateral entry for graduates from other medical
disciplines including dental/nursing into medicine. It proposes
common foundation courses based on “medical pluralism”. It means
that all that are included in AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga
Naturopathy,
Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy)as well as others will be mainstreamed
and they are proposed to be bridged later when one can select
electives in later part of the course. This will also mean that
without creating proper infrastructure for better scientific medical
education, one can increase the numbers of doctors. AYUSH and
scientific medical health centre will be co located. These will be
the inputs into a healthcare delivery system differentiated by
class. All this must be seen in the context that the political class
which swears by Ayurveda and ancient medicine for the masses, goes
to the top govt allopathic institutions or to such ones abroad for
their own treatment.
A
single final exam like single entrance exam like NEET is proposed
called EXIT exam. This exam will not only burden medical students, it
will also lower the standard of education. This will be to facilitate
lateral entrants to exit gracefully. This will also serve as PG
entrance examination. All this implies that it will help to produce
legitimized substandard pseudo scientifically educated personnel for
use in care structure for masses. Nowhere do RSS functionaries go for
treatment to AYUSH centres for major health problems. Nothing can be
a better example of amalgamation of imperialist dictates and Hindutva
in education.
Provisions of underprivileged sections
This
Policy does talk of Unrepresented Groups (URG) in education but is
absolutely silent on Reservation of any kind. For URG too, it only
says it will give emphasis in recruitment of teachers and volunteers,
and these can serve as role models for students from URG. With
privatization as major direction of thrust, virtually reservations
for SC/ST/OBCs and any special provisions for people from interior
areas, girls etc. are also done away with. Also, in URG, it equates
all SC, ST, OBCs, minorities, urban poor, girls, students with
special needs, transgenders etc. This is sociologically illogical. students with
special needs, transgenders etc. This is sociologically illogical.
Regulation & Funding
Rashtriya Siksha Ayog (RSA)
There
are proposals for various levels of regulatory structures and curbing
or redefining of existing ones. These new institutions include the
establishment, by an Act of Parliament, of an all-powerful Rashtriya
Siksha Ayog (RSA). It will regulate all education, from KG to
research. It will have the Prime Minister as Chairperson and will
have Vice Chairman of NITI Ayog as member and is to be run by
executive and advisory bodies that will consist of 50% of ministers
and another 50% of educationists, academics and civil society
members. Thus, education will be in the tight centralized control of
Government as well as, in the case of current Govt., Hindutva
subscribers (who can also flood Civil Society members even when not
in government). Also, private corporate organizations like Pratham,
Central Square Foundation etc. will get a say in these matters as
civil society. These NGOs are already there. Therefore, it will be
under the direct control of Central government and corporate (CSR).
As for NITI Ayog, it has already started interfering in education and
in many states promoted merger or closure of schools. It has also
called for scrapping RTE Act (as has CSF). What direction will it
give too can be seen soon.
National Research Foundation (NRF)
NRF
will be the major funding agency for research in the country. Its
Governing Board shall be appointed by RSA. It will fund research in
four major divisions- Sciences;Technology; Social Sciences and Arts
and Humanities - with the provision to add additional divisions (e.g.
health, agriculture, environmental issues),whenever it may be
determined to be beneficial by the Governing Council of the NRF.
Other funding agencies will remain.
The
arrangement will ensure that by grant of funds, choice of the “most
urgent national issues of the day” are regulated. We have seen that
recently a circular was issued to a central university to do research
only on issues of national interest. It will become national policy
now. Either do research in accordance with official line or do not
do.
There
is a suggestion that NRF will work as a liaison between government,
researcher and industry. Up to now government had no direct control
over funding, but funding agencies did this work, of course in
accordance with the governmental policies. Now this liaison will give
a more direct control. It also implies that now Industry can have a
say in deciding the funding of research. This is much in accordance
with WTO/WB. What is even more dangerous is that it speaks of
collaboration with other government agencies, industry and
philanthropic organizations. These philanthropic organizations could
be CSR organizations or RSS affiliated organizations. Already,
Hindutva subscribers are included in the academic bodies in govt.
institutions.
NRF
will also “create a mechanism for monitoring and mid-course
corrections.” It will have a governing body comprising of
academicians and professionals constituted by RSA. NRF will also fund
international projects. This will mean India will fund foreign
projects, where domestic research struggles for funds. There will be
‘no discrimination’ between public and private institutions.
While
it says that monetary benefits of intellectual property will be given
to researchers due to patents, government and the parent body shall
have licence to use it. And this will apply to private and foreign
bodies too. Since NRF will fund, without discrimination, both public
and private bodies it will mean that research will be funded by
government, and if there is any significant development, it will be
owned by private sector.
Many
such bodies are proposed. For instance, National Higher Education
Regulatory Authority (NHERA), Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC)
NAAC etc. NHERA shall be the sole regulator for higher education,
including professional education. Other bodies like UGC, MCI, AICTE
and others will serve only as PSSBs (Professional Standard Setting
Body) under the guidance of RSA. For this all existing laws, acts of
parliament etc will be appropriately modified. It will monitor and
audit finances and academic output with diversity of education as its
special emphasis. What shall be the nature of this diversity, has
already been discussed.
NAAC
will be there for accreditation and will accredit all the educational
institutes. Now instead of a grading system of accreditation, a
binary ‘yes or no’ will be introduced. Meaning thereby, fall in
line or perish (though a 10 years' gap period is there). This
accreditation will also facilitate transition to autonomy.
All
fund granting powers shall be transferred to HECG. It will be the
sole funder and gradually replace UGC. “HEGC shall focus its energy
on scholarships and on developmental funds to start new focus areas
in HEIs across fields and disciplines”; with HEIs being forced to
be financially autonomous, little funding can be expected from the
HECG. Since all these will be under direct supervision of RSA,
everything will be under tight control of the government, with not
just the incorporation of infamous HECI bill, but worse than that.
The
document has many more things which need a very detailed review and
deliberation. But we can see clearly that GATS has been introduced as
a matter of policy even without the government signing it. This
policy is to make Indian education accessible to private and foreign
education corporate and produce trained man power for them, make
education inaccessible to common folks, demolish the concept of state
funded free education to all. In fact, if we read this document along
with GATS or with six bills on education by Kapil Sibal, we shall
find stark similarity. At the same time infiltration of Hindutva
ideology at various levels shall come full throttle under different
garbs. Lest there be any illusions regarding the interpretations of
the policy proposals under taken above, please read it in conjunction
with the NITI Aayog policy recommendations on ‘Education and Skill
Development’ which is available from https://niti.gov.in/
writereaddata/files/coop/20.pdf.
It
is surprising indeed that all of this leaves scope in some quarters
for this policy to be read as ‘Too good to be true’! Anyhow, not
only should this draft be opposed tooth and nail; rather, it is our
bounden duty, for which outsourcing our concerns through petitioning
to various representatives of the ruling classes in different
political parties is certainly not the way forward. Powerful
movements of students and teachers, which seek to inform and educate
the common people of India of the dangerous portents is on agenda.
There is burning need too, for the people of India to come forward in
struggle against this document and all measures for commercialization
and privatization of education besides measures seeking to end
positive social action like reservations, without equitable changes
in the life of the people. The way forward lies in powerful broad
based struggles which must be followed in earnest.
