New Education Policy - Kuhuo Bajaj

The Union Cabinet has approved the new National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 with an aim to introduce several changes in the Indian education system – from the school to college level. The NEP 2020 aims at making “India a global knowledge superpower”.

The NEP cleared by the Cabinet is only the third major revamp of the framework of education in India since independence, after the education policies introduced in 1968 and 1986.

The New Education Policy aims to facilitate an inclusive, participatory and holistic approach, taking into consideration experiences, empirical research, stakeholder feedback, as well as lessons learned from best practices. It is a progressive shift towards a more scientific approach to education. The prescribed structure will help to cater the ability of the child—stages of cognitive development as well as social and physical awareness. If implemented in its true vision, the new structure aims to bring India at par with the leading countries of the world.

From a 10+2 school structure, the policy shifts the education system to a 5+3+3+4 structure. This shift gives more importance to the uncovered age group of 3-6 years under the school curriculum, which has been recognised globally as the crucial stage for the development of the mental faculties of a child. This Anganwadi/ Pre-school structure would also enable parents from rural and economically underprivileged households to drop off their children at safe learning spaces and increase the number of their working hours. This would not only reduce their burden but would also ensure a surge in school enrolment ratios.

The NEP has been critically analyzed by various researchers, experts and committees. There are certain common key areas of concern and interest. The first such area of interest is Language. NEP focuses on promoting primary education in the mother tongue. It is well-understood that young children learn and grasp nontrivial concepts most quickly in their home language/mother tongue. The Policy recognises the large numbers of school students going to classes that are being conducted in a language that they do not understand, causing them to fall behind before they even start learning. The new curriculum encourages a flexible language approach in the classroom where teachers will be encouraged to use a bilingual approach with those students whose home language may be different from the medium of instruction to ensure a smoother transition from the home language to the medium of instruction.

The problems that may arise here range from the availability of human resources equipped with adequate knowledge to the structural and transitional nuances on behalf of children belonging to different linguistic backgrounds studying together. There is a problematic teacher-to-student ratio in India, thus introducing mother languages for each subject in academic institutes can be a major human resource issue. Moreover, the transition from studying all subjects in their mother tongue, to studying them in English or any other standardized language might be difficult, especially for migrants. The policy doesn’t account for such outlying cases and communities. Languages and linguistic sentiments have always played an important role in determining administration, patriotism and harmony in India. More often than not, ignorance of linguistic minorities have led to protests, revolts and even violence. If NEP ambitiously wishes to form a linguistically inclusive curriculum, it needs to be sensitive towards the fact that students from all languages study together and thus one language cannot be imposed upon them claiming to be the mother tongue of that region.

Along the lines of language, but on a different note, the NEP promotes standardization of Indian Sign Language (ISL) and the inclusion of textbooks in accessible formats such as large print and Braille across the country. National and State curriculum materials will be developed for use by students with hearing and visual impairment. This is a commendable initiative for the education of children with special needs.

The second area of interest is the introduction of mandatory 4 years undergraduate programmes. NEP claims to have a liberal and holistic undergraduate education with a flexible curriculum of 3 or 4 years, with multiple exit options and appropriate certification within this period. But on grounds of technicalities and standardization, students wishing to complete their graduation have to study for four years. This prolonged undergraduate degree might cause students to leave the course midway due to financial, socio-economic or familial circumstances. NEP seems to be to combine the distinct (and often conflicting) needs of vocational education, general education, and advanced training into a single omnibus curriculum. However well-intentioned it might be, the decisive argument against such a scheme is that it is quite difficult to design a single curriculum such that (for example) the first and second years fulfill vocational requirements, the third addresses general education needs, and the fourth year takes care of those headed for further studies. Further, there might arise a conflict between keeping vocational training and requirements specific (narrowing down the scope of education, but paving the way to specialization) or generic.

The third key area is a revision of syllabi and the integration of different education boards to some extent. NEP lays emphasis on the Indian education system. In most cases, the Indianisation of the education system has meant removing chapters that portray India in a bad light, addition of over-glorified historical events which can imbibe feelings of patriotism or the inclusion of scriptures to their education system to impart “moral education”. Due to its subjectivity, these additions and deletions have been deemed to be controversial and political by the masses. Recently, the deletion of chapters on the Mughal Empire sparked many debates arguing that by deleting history, we are taking away the opportunity to learn from both the good and the bad policies, decisions and events that took place in that era.

So far, the Centre has had no supervision over any board except the Central Board of Secondary Education as state boards are autonomous and regulated by state governments. The NEP proposes a central regulator for all school boards, meaning the state education boards will be regulated by a national body headed by the Union human resources development minister. This body will regulate assessment and evaluation norms and standards, and ensure that the assessment patterns of the different boards meet the skill requirements of the 21st century and are in consonance with the stated objectives of this policy. However, having one central body supervising all boards might end up defeating the purpose of having different boards catering to diverse course structures. Further, it may not do justice to the social, cultural, geographic and linguistic diversity of different regions.

The approval of the new National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 by the Union Cabinet marks a significant step towards transforming the Indian education system. In essence, the NEP 2020 heralds a visionary stride towards enhancing education accessibility and quality. Yet, translating these aspirations into effective action demands a sensitive approach that addresses the nuances of linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic diversity. The successful implementation of this policy rests on meticulous planning, resource allocation, and continuous evaluation while realizing educational aspirations.