NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY VS. PEOPLE’S EDUCATION POLICY

NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY VS. PEOPLE’S EDUCATION POLICY

H. Srikanth

In response to Toki Blah’s article, “The Story of Learning in our Tribes” (ST, June 3), Glenn C. Kharkongor came out with the piece, “NEP 2020: An Education Policy for Our Times and Our People” (ST, June 24).

Contesting Toki Blah’s support to the People’s Education Policy (here after PEP), Kharkongor defended the NEP 2020.

While agreeing to the PEP’s views on budget allocations and national entrance examinations for admissions, Glenn Kharkongor opined that the PEP is “caught in a time-wrap, hanging on to outdated precepts and practices”.

To him, NEP 2020 is a visionary document that serves the needs of the tribals in the state. Keeping in view the interests of the tribal people of Meghalaya, we need to keep alive the ongoing discourse on the NEP 2020 and the PEP 2025.   

The draft Peoples’ Education Policy never claimed that the state of education in the country was better before implementing the NEP 2020. There were indeed serious problems concerning the quality and reach of education, which needed attention. The NEP document, in fact, mentions several problems afflicting education in the country. But the question is whether the NEP has offered any solutions.

Take, for example, the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) which Glenn Kharkhonger mentions. In its recent report ASER says that around 49 percent of students studying Class V cannot read the textbook of Class II. The problem of comprehension is acute among the rural poor students coming from marginalized communities.

Can we improve the quality of school education in the country without the government allocating more funds and coming in a big way to start more schools, improve the infrastructure and quality of teaching in the schools? Instead of improving the conditions, the governments are busy closing many schools in the remote areas in the name of rationalization. 

The PEP therefore suggests that there should be more schools with trained teachers. No detention policy followed in many states adversely affected the quality of education. Hence, PEP proposes to introduce the pass-fail system providing special attention and remedial classes for those who lag in the studies.

Glenn Khankhongor welcomes the NEP’s proposals, such as multi-disciplinary education, multi-modal forms of teaching and academic banking. The PEP is opposed to such proposals for valid reasons. What the NEP advocates in the name of multi-disciplinary education is nothing but a cafeteria model where students, as buyers, choose different subjects, just as we chose different food items in buffet party.

 Student’s knowledge will not increase if he or she takes one paper from physics, one from literature, one from history, and another from music. This model only produces jacks of all trades and masters of none. What we need at a higher level of education is to master one subject and its allied disciplines. The PEP proposes an inter-disciplinary approach to multi-disciplinary education. 

A student studying political science should become familiar with public administration, political economy, political sociology, and international relations. Similarly, a student studying biology should become familiar with knowledge of bio-chemistry, bio-physics and bio-informatics. Expecting a student with a humanities background to study physics or mathematics makes little sense. 

The PEP is not against the use of digital technology in classrooms. But it insists that technology should sub-serve, not replace the teachers. We all know how education went for a toss when everyone had to rely on online teaching during the Covid pandemic. Taking MOOC courses involves additional expenditure, which most students cannot afford.

Further, ideas like Academic Bank make little sense in a country where the universities vary considerably in terms of quality and infrastructure? In the absence of equivalence of academic standards, will the students of Ashoka University come and study in the private universities in Meghalaya, or will our students be allowed to gain credits in JNU and IISc?

When the NEP proposes drastic changes in the structure of education, first one should state what is wrong with the time tested 10+2+3 pattern. Can’t we improve the quality of education within the education structure with which we are familiar? What reform is that which replaces the three-year degree with the Four-Year Undergraduate Program (FYUP) and proposes to reduce the two-year PG to one year?

If what we study in the fourth year of the Four-Year Undergraduate Program (FYUP) is the same as what we teach in the first year of the PG program, what the students gain by changing the structure? As possessing a degree is the minimum qualifications for most jobs, what do the students gain by one-year certificate and two-year diplomas?

Again, how does it make sense to introduce the research component prematurely at the degree or PG level, when most colleges do not have teachers who have experience in research? Since appointing teachers with Ph.D. qualifications is difficult, it makes sense to revive M.Phil program. The PEP is critical of NEP 2020, not because it is conservative, but because they are impractical and are against the interests of the poor and middle-class students.

Glenn Kharkhongor claims the NEP is sensitive to the concerns of tribal people and the NEP’s idea of the Indian Knowledge System (IKS) takes care of tribal knowledge systems as well. True, the NEP document makes references to tribal languages and tribal knowledge. But we need to go beyond the document and see what the government is actually doing in the name of the NEP 2020?

More than developing the tribal languages, the government is making efforts to impose Hindi and replace English. The terms such as social justice or secularism hardly find a place in the NEP document. It may talk about tribal knowledge systems, but what the government is actually promoting in the country in the name of IKS is Yoga, Hinduism and Sanskrit.

Can we ignore the fact that the CBSE books have removed lessons on the Mughals and introduced lessons on Kumbh Mela, etc.? We are novice if we separate the NEP 2020 from the politics of Hindutva that the rulers in Delhi practice.

Some intellectuals, carried away by neo-liberal arguments against the state intervention, view privatization as the panacea for the ills affecting public education. They forget that the state played a positive role in laying the foundation for universal and secular education in many advanced capitalist countries.

In India, it is the public universities and the institutions like IIT, IIM and AIIMS, which laid the firm foundation for education and enabled many people from marginalized background to have access to higher education. But by reducing the allocation for public education, the NEP is favoring the private universities, whose number has increased exponentially in the last two decades. 

Majority of the private educational institutions are started only to make money. Indeed some of these institutions have better infrastructure and they offer  better options for the rich students to pursue studies. But they have little relevance to majority of the students from the poor and marginalized sections who cannot get admission in those elite institutions which charge lakhs of rupees as fee.

Hence, the PEP opposes privatization and commercialization of education. It demands that the government should intervene to ensure that the private schools and universities don’t become ruthless mercenaries.

 Future of the nation is not safe in the hands of those who view education only as a commodity to be bought and sold in the market. At the same time, the PEP underscores the need for preserving and expanding public education to realize the principles of equity and justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

H. Srikanth, Prof of Political Science, NEHU

This article first published on Shillong Times

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.  You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com (For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.