By Anubhav Misra and Sam Verma
If there is one subject that commands consensus among teachers, students, the government authorities, and the general public, it is that our education system needs a revamp and a new perspective. As the country develops, there is a need for innovation and in achieving full human potential. 21st century India has a great demographic asset with over half of our population below the age of 25. To maximise the future decades of growth, there is a need for a transformative change in our education to boost human capital development. Most importantly, a system where education moves away from rote learning.
School is one of the most memorable times of your life. It is fondly remembered or cherished across all ages. As school progresses, it becomes much harder to cope with, especially with the looming approach of college applications and entrance exams. Anyone who has been in high school has conflicted between the streams and been frustrated with the groupings of subjects, longingly looking at a subject belonging to another stream and has been unable to take a subject has demanded a new flexible system. Not anymore though, thanks to the New National Education Policy 2020.
The First Step
Educational reforms require tremendous political will because while there are significant advantages to the society and the nation, there is little or no electoral dividends, especially in India. Firstly, educational reforms are carried out primarily in the interest of students or minors, who cannot vote. So not only does a poor policy lack electoral scrutiny, but a good one is not an electoral agenda either. Moreover, educational reforms are controversial by nature since there is a requirement of federal cooperation with a unitary bias, and this bias is almost always problematic. Thus, an initiative deserves to be appreciated.
On July 29, the Union Cabinet approved a new ‘National Education Policy 2020’, which is meant to provide for a new outlook and revamp the existing framework. However, this policy is not a law, rather it is an advisory that requires legislation and subsequent regulations by both the Centre and the States to come into effect. The Draft new National Education Policy was formed by a committee led by Dr. Kasturirangan, the former chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO).
These policies are formulated after consultations with all stakeholders to bring about certain crucial changes in the education system. The first National Policy on Education was formed in 1968 in the Indira Gandhi administration, based on the recommendations of the Kothari Commission. The 1968 policy pushed for universal education up to 14 years of age and focussed on a ‘three-language formula’. In 1986, the second policy was formed by the Rajiv Gandhi-led government (with a slight modification in 1992) to promote inclusive education and increase educational opportunities for the weaker sections. The present model of education stands greatly influenced by this 1986 Policy.
Key Transformations and Implications
The 2020 National Education Policy has been released after a gap of 34 years and although several arguments can be made for its betterment, it embodies the spirit of change. The policy acknowledges the lack of public investment in education and reiterates the 6%-of-the-GDP target (rather ironic that it was first recommended in 1968). It recommends changing the name of the Ministry of Human Resource Development to the Ministry of Education and proposes minimum degree qualifications for teachers. The policy has a timeframe of 20 years till 2040 and outlines several time-bound aims like improving the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) for Secondary and Higher Education (to 100% and 50% respectively).
It recognizes the importance of early education, bringing children of ages 3 to 5 under formal education, and replaces the 10+2 system with a 5+3+3+4 system. It introduces technology with a theme of inclusion to bridge the digital divide in the country. The proposals for setting up of ‘Inclusion Funds’ and ‘Special Educational Zones’ for the advancement of social-economically backward classes (including women and transgenders) are powerful messages towards equitable distribution of education. The policy also emphasizes on vocational education and extra-curricular activities to allow an all-round development of the students. To enforce this, a new accreditation framework and an independent authority for schools have been proposed.
It also changes the framework for higher education, with greater emphasis on research and vocational education especially with the introduction of 4-year undergraduate courses with the last year dedicated solely to research. A multi-disciplinary approach and the creation of an Academic Bank of Credit to digitally store academic credits are steps towards providing more flexibility. The aim is to create an umbrella regulator for all higher educational institutions and increase the degree of autonomy to these institutions for better governance with a ‘light but tight’ regulatory approach.
As students, we see it as a practical policy with definite goals and the political will to achieve this. Allowing the students to choose a system of multidisciplinary learning and a flexible framework translates into better learning. Removing strict divisions among the streams in schools and universities enables the students to engage better with their choice of subjects. The growth of technology will undoubtedly help all stakeholders, provided if done inclusively. It is also relieving to see that the policy recognizes education as a ‘public good’ and strongly recommends against the commercialization of education, rather promotes a ‘not-for-profit’ and philanthropic model for education. The time-frame seems to be honest and ample because some changes require extensive legislative procedures and such a paradigm shift in a crucial sector such as education cannot be rushed into. However, politics has found its way into it, this time through an unnecessary and impractical ‘Language Question’.
The Language Dilemma
Firstly, it is the debate on whether the mode of instruction should be in the vernacular language or if it should be in English. There is uproar from parents and conflicted arguments from experts’ end, far before the schools can even implement this policy. What is the point of enrolling your child in an English medium school if they will not be taught primarily in English? How will this problem be tackled in cosmopolitan cities like Mumbai, home to people from all backgrounds, and mother tongue? What if the subjects are taught in Marathi and the learners are non-Maharashtrians, how will they cope? What if a child speaks Marathi but has to move to another state, let us say, West Bengal? From the scripts to the multitudes to the pronunciation, Indian languages are quite different, and it will be extremely overwhelming for all members involved, whether it be the school authorities, the parents or the subject or the child.
Kavita Phandse, from Mumbai, whose child studies in Class 5, added: “What is the point of an English medium school if children are taught in their mother tongue? I mean it is good to explain the concepts to them in a language they best understand, but if teaching happens in the local language, when will my child learn English? You cannot grow and prosper in today’s world without learning English.”
Jessie Joseph from Ernakulam, Kerala, said: “I studied in a Malayalam medium school till Class 4. I learnt my first English alphabets in Class 5 and will not shy away from saying that I did have issues picking up English later in my life. My parents are both Malayalam speakers, so I did not have that environment at home.”
Observers, who have studied in regional languages till Class 5, in the past say this new policy will be a bigger problem for underprivileged families or those who do not speak English at home. A class division emanated from the medium of instruction policy is not just counter-productive, but equally impractical.
The core issue is the denial of the importance of English or worse, an ‘English-phobia’. We live in an age of globalisation. Studies have shown that, by the 5th grade, that is when the children are around 10 years old, it is easiest to become fluent in a language till the age of 10, and while it is still easy to absorb languages up to 18, a child will have a lot going on in their life, especially with the introduction of regular board exams.
Several Asian countries are a testimony to the ill-effects of an ‘English-phobic’ policy. Take the example of Korea, where English is not encouraged in schools but, South Koreans spend ₩18 trillion ($18 billion) on education, a third of that solely being spent on learning English. On average, English tuition rates are about $20 per hour. Many people are fluent in English and find it profitable to get a Bachelor’s degree in any subject, move to an Asian country where English lessons are in high demand and earn an impressive minimum of $20,000 per month.
This advisory might just remain a ‘lip-service’ against political reservations against English. Even though such a policy might be supported by pedagogical reasoning, in the Indian context, the English language is an indispensable asset to the nation owing to the diversity. English education has substantial benefits in a globalized world as well. More importantly, whether it is politically correct or not, English has become the language of socio-economic mobility. The government’s argument that students learn better when taught in their mother tongue and metropolitan cities parents speak in English and this scheme benefits those in rural areas has a few faults to it. Leaving it to the parents will lead to unjust responsibility and a disparity of knowledge among students. Children in rural areas were already being taught in their rural language, or a bilingual manner. Peer learning to is primarily in local languages. This scheme just imposes itself on metropolitan cities where it is too impractical to follow in the first place. Even the Central Government’s own Kendriya Vidyalayas have expressed reservations against the idea.
Furthermore, an obsession with the Sanskritization of the education system, especially at a higher level seems counterproductive. Firstly, it seems that the government seems to underestimate the difficulty of learning a language, especially in the proposed three-language formula. Despite all of these introductions, entrance exams remain, and they will continue to haunt students due to their difficulty level. To expect a student to learn three languages and perform well in all of those seems like overkill. It also shows a North Indian bias in a supposedly pan-India policy.
Puducherry Chief Minister, V. Narayanaswamy said, “What is relevant for Northern states cannot be taken as suitable for the Southern states,” and he added that the Centre “imposing Sanskrit” through National Education Policy will only lead to “confusion”.
Ideally, it should be the choice of the student whether they wish to learn Sanskrit or not. The benefits of being an adult are that you get to decide on what is best for you. The exposure of language, art, culture, literature is only fruitful when the students are interested in it. You cannot become a “Global Knowledge Superpower” when propaganda is shoved down your throat because everyone knows that you simply cannot enjoy and see the value of something if you are forced to value it from a different person’s perspective. Note that this rebuttal does not suggest that the youth of India reject their own culture and literature, but rather as an assertion that the Government should let the youth embrace the gifts of India and her history on their terms. The government’s role should be limited to promotion and awareness, beyond that, the young citizens must be empowered to make a choice.
It is also interesting that despite Mandarin still being taught in schools, it has not made it onto the list of foreign languages by the Government, especially given the political climate and the strained India-China relations. Critics were quick to point out that the Government’s political agenda should not make its way into education. Education has to be unbiased and to remove Chinese as a language detrimental in principle. Mandarin is the most widely spoken language and it has been the language exchanges that have been largely a result of years of diplomatic negotiation. Geopolitics is also not a good reason to remove Mandarin from the list. On the contrary, having a good knowledge of the Chinese and their language provides us with a better understanding of the people and their policies as a whole.
Education, Society, and The Ignorance
Often, we are mistaken to view education as an individual asset and ignore its broad influence over society. As rightly stated in the new National Education Policy, “Education is a public service”. India has an extremely strong society, unlike China (which has a Leviathan State) or the Western democracies (where societies tend to be fairly more individualistic), thus India needs a vision and a holistic approach in terms of education. Education is the foundation of the fundamentals of any society, but it is hardly even acknowledged. A civilised and orderly society is not possible without an educated people and this education is not just degrees handed out for rote learning, but rather a creative and humanistic approach to social problems and national needs.
Education is the bedrock of democracy. India’s strong society and her aspirations need a robust educational framework that allows the students to realise their potential and build a future. Unfortunately, the framers of our future have never seen education as a subject at par with dirty and communal politics, and the reason is fairly simple, no one holds the policymakers accountable for a terrible education system. For all reforms ranging from equality to accountability, the foundation lies in a fair and robust education system. To have a law-abiding and disciplined citizenry, learning must be prioritized.
The Twin Problems +1
Our educational policies are extremely outdated. Broken national schooling is not the fault of teachers, students, nor the schools, but rather the outdated policies themselves. Just a glance at the models of 1968 and 1986 provide the evidence. While these policies modernized Indian education for late 20th century needs, they prove grossly inadequate in the 21st century, where we require a new vision, not a slight change of rules. Unfortunately, a 1986 policy continues to remain the nucleus of our education system. Neither does the policy have the necessary regulations for the present technological applications in the education sector nor was it created for a liberalised and globalised world. The old model served a centralised command economy well, but the future requires creativity and innovation. A country that does not revise its primary education policy for 34 years cannot remain competitive in a globalized world. While a new policy is welcome, one needs to understand why it took 34 years just to bring a new one. And this popular ignorance brings us to the second problem.
The politics that surround education are largely linguistic and populist. The medium of instruction is always the focal point of educational reforms and it hamstrings the government’s ability to think beyond populist measures. However, political parties do not deserve the whole blame. There is simply a lack of acknowledgment among the people, especially those who prefer gibberish on prime-time shows and ignore the value of education in society. Education is never an electoral issue because the general public lets it remain that way. It is for this ignorance of the average Indian voter that educational reforms have always remained a top-down affair. The students have been left at the mercy of the government for providing the right tools to build a future with no scrutiny. In years of politics and election, the only election that had education as a focal point for the right reasons was the 2020 Delhi Legislative Assembly election.
As we march into a new era of prosperity in the ‘Asian Century’, our human development must be on par with our ambitions. For Asian countries, our population is our greatest asset, and unity our greatest strength. Unless education policies are revised periodically and access to quality education is enhanced, India’s fuller economic potential is hard to achieve. An underfunded public education system systematically denies opportunities, and quality private schooling is beyond the reach for most. If the foundation is as flawed as this, the results are bound to be dreadful. Encourage spending on education, a rupee invested in education has a much higher value when compared to futile tax cuts and mere advertisements for propaganda. For a country, education is its best investment and also the best bet for its future, with guaranteed returns.
References
1. National Education Policy 2020: https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf
2. Sengupta, M. (August 3, 2020). National Education Policy: The Hits and Misses. BloombergQuint. https://www.bloombergquint.com/opinion/national-education-policy-the-hits-and-misses
3. The Hindu Editorial. (July 31, 2020). A Long Road: On National Education Policy 2020. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/a-long-road-the-hindu-editorial-on-national-education-policy-2020/article32233472.ece
4. Jebaraj, P. (August 2, 2020). What has the National Education Policy 2020 proposed? The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/education/the-hindu-explains-what-has-the-national-education-policy-2020-proposed/article32249788.ece
5. Staff Writer. (August 7, 2020). PM Narendra Modi says New Education Policy will shape the future of this century. LiveMint. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/narendra-modi-live-nep-2020-is-foundation-of-new-india-of-21st-century-11596777124250.html
Comments