A PM Modi Fan’s reply to the 2020 National Education Policy’s Critics

 

A PM Modi Fan’s reply to the 2020 National Education Policy’s Critics

 

“The principal goal of education in the schools should be creating men and women who are capable of doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations have done.” —Jean Piaget

 

The National Education Policy 2020 was brought in to catalyze innovation by strengthening the link between the Academia and Industry needs.

 

The NEP 2020 has been a favorite topic among the PM Modi’s critics. A lot of Political Parties have criticized the NEP 2020.

Unlike the various opposition parties in India, the CPI (M) criticized the NEP 2020 more on the basis of logic and lesser on the basis of the intent to settle political scores with the BJP.

Despite this, the CPI (M) managed to be the fiercest critic of the NEP 2020.

 

This article is written to respond to criticism by the CPI(M) with respect to the NEP 2020.

 

https://cpim.org/pressbriefs/cpi-m-response-new-education-policy-2020-nep

Above is the link to CPI(M)’s criticism of the NEP 2020

 

The points under CPIM criticism are :

1.    The CPI (M) begins its criticism of NEP 2020 by raising concerns about increased centralization and commercialization of education- “this obvious vagueness in NEP and many other proposals, both in the text itself and reading between the lines, prompt serious concerns regarding a push towards increased centralization through a raft of Central Institutions to govern and regulate education undermining federalism, and autonomy of academic bodies, accelerated commercialization”.

 

Before NEP 2020, all main functions of governance and regulation of the school education system -

namely, the provision of public education, the regulation of education institutions, and policymaking - were handled single handedly, by the Department of School Education or its arms.

This lead to excessive centralized concentration of power in the hands of the DSE.

The regulatory regime that existed before NEP 2020, failed to curb the commercialization and economic exploitation of parents by many for-profit private schools.

Also, it discouraged public-spirited private/philanthropic schools with excessive regulation.

 

The private schools were left with no other option than to exploit the loopholes of the previous regulatory work under the DSE.

 

Under the NEP 2020, The DSE will possess the power only for policy-making.

For every state, a State-wide, body called the State School Standards Authority (SSSA), will be established for schools to take care of regulation of schools in each state.

Academic matters, including academic standards and curricula in the State will be led by the SCERT (with close consultation and collaboration with the NCERT).

 

Thus, the criticism that the NEP 2020 encourages the centralization of power is incorrect. 

 

CPI (M) Criticism of Early Childhood Care, Development & Education (ECCE)

2.     “NEP Proposes to add 3 years to a child’s education through ECCE for the age-group 3-6 years. As per international norms, the idea is to prepare the child for primary school through play, activities, nutrition and care so as to aid cognitive growth and learning abilities in a safe and caring environment. This requires adequately trained persons who are given due recognition as professionals performing specialized roles in the education and child care system.”

2.1.     “NEP proposes to do this both through the existing Anganwadi system as well as local primary schools”.

In the above-mentioned criticism of NEP 2020, the CPI (M) accepts that the NEP is aimed at preparing the children from primary school through play, activities, nutrition and care to aid cognitive growth and learning abilities in a safe and caring environment and accepts that this provision is in compliance with the international norms.

 

“The system of early-childhood education institutions that consist of (a) standalone Anganwadis; (b) Anganwadis co-located with primary schools; (c) pre-primary schools/sections covering at least age 5 to 6 years co-located with existing primary schools; and (d) stand-alone pre-schools - all of which would recruit workers/teachers specially trained in the curriculum and pedagogy of ECCE. 1.5. For universal access to ECCE, Anganwadi Centres will be strengthened” – NEP 2020.

 

To prepare an initial cadre of high-quality ECCE teachers in Anganwadis, current Anganwadi workers/teachers will be trained in the following manner :-

Anganwadi workers/teachers with qualifications of 10+2 and above shall be given a 6-month certificate programme in ECCE;

 Those with lower educational qualifications shall be given a one-year diploma programme covering early literacy, numeracy, and other relevant aspects of ECCE.

For running these programmes DTH channels as well as smartphones, will be employed for the digital / distance mode to enable teachers to acquire ECCE qualifications with minimal disruption to their current work.

The Cluster Resource Centres of the School Education Department will hold at least one monthly contact class for continuous assessment of the Anganwadi teachers.

In the longer term, State Governments shall prepare cadres of professionally qualified educators for early childhood care and education, through stage-specific professional training, mentoring mechanisms, and career mapping.

Necessary facilities will also be created for the initial professional preparation of these educators and their Continuous Professional Development (CPD).

 

CPI (M) Criticism of School Education aspect of the NEP

 

 

C.  School Education

 

3.     Whereas Education is in the Concurrent List, the sharply increased centralization will seriously erode federalism and the rights of States, and will leave States to merely implement centrally-imposed policies with little scope for State-level shaping of Education essential for a culturally and linguistically diverse country like India, especially in the School system. Already we are witnessing protests in different States, for example from Tamil Nadu with respect to the language policy.

Before NEP 2020, all main functions of governance and regulation of the school education system -

namely, the provision of public education, the regulation of education institutions, and policymaking - were handled single handedly, by the Department of School Education or its arms. This lead to excessive centralized concentration of power in the hands of the DSE.

The regulatory regime that existed before NEP 2020, also has not been able to curb the commercialization and economic exploitation of parents by many for-profit private schools, yet at the same time it has all too often inadvertently discouraged public-spirited private/philanthropic schools with excessive regulation leading to the Schools to exploit the loopholes of the previous regulatory work under the DSE.

A State-wide, body called the State School Standards Authority (SSSA), is to be established for schools in each state to take care of regulation of schools in each state.

Academic matters, including academic standards and curricula in the State will be led by the SCERT (with close consultation and collaboration with the NCERT).

 

 

 

Three Language Formula

The intent behind introducing the 3-Language Formula under the NEP 2020 is to combat the divide among states on linguistic grounds that continues even after the end of The British rule over India.

With the 3 Language Formula, a foundation is being set where all the Indian languages are treated as sister languages.

The Modi Government recognizes the fact that the linguistic divide can be bridged based on not just acceptance and mutual respect, but on the basis of celebrating all Indian languages.

3.1     Specifically, NEP calls for National Textbooks with Local Content and Flavour (Para 4.31) rather than, as is the practice in most advanced countries, formulating a national curriculum framework, leaving it to States to develop textbooks and other materials. This centralization exposes the educational system across the country to arbitrary and motivated actions as witnessed recently when subjects/chapters related to secularism, critical thinking and certain historical/political figures were removed from the syllabus citing the Covid19 pandemic.

The answer to this point is in the answer to the point that precedes 3.1

4.     With privatization of schools already advancing rapidly, instead of extensive strengthening and revitalization of public education, NEP opens the door for further extensive privatization, including schools run by so-called “true philanthropic institutions (8.4).” NEP also provides for “alternate models of education” (Para 3.6), creating space for Sangh Parivar or affiliated organizations. NEP allows relaxations on inputs and self-regulation to all non-governmental schools (8.5). All this will inevitably undermine the public education system. It is also noticeable that NEP completely evades, and has no discussion on, the rampant commercialization and corruption that plagues private educational institutions in India, and simply leaves it to self-regulation and the absent conscience of private institutions to rectify matters, preferring to adopt a “light but tight” (9.3h) regulatory stance.

 

The above-mentioned point from the criticism by the CPI (M) is answered previously.

 

5.     NEP in effect proposes withdrawal of the State from its commitment to provide education to the 6-14 years age groups as a right under RTE 2009 to a more vague assurance to “ensure Universal Access to education at all levels from age 3 to 18 (3.1).” This is clear from discussions on school drop outs (3.2) where remedies such as “alternative and innovative education centres... in cooperation with civil society” for children of migrant workers and other drop-outs are suggested, rather than ensuring enrolment and retention in the public education system.

Till date the governments have implemented “various successful policies and schemes such as targeted scholarships, conditional cash transfers to incentivize parents to send their children to school, providing bicycles for transport, etc., that have significantly increased participation of SEDGs in the schooling system in certain areas”. – NEP, 2020

There are certain measures which particularly have proven to be effective for certain SEDGs.  Providing bicycles and organizing cycling and walking groups to enable access to schools lead to increasing participation of female students - even at lesser distances. They provide convenience to female students and ensure safety for them.

“One-on-one teachers and tutors, peer tutoring, open schooling, appropriate infrastructure, and suitable technological interventions have proved to be effective for certain children with disabilities” - NEP 2020.

 

“Meanwhile, counsellors and/or well-trained social workers that work with and connect with students, parents, schools, and teachers in order to improve attendance and learning outcomes have been found to be especially effective for children in urban poor areas” – NEP 2020.

Free boarding facilities will be built - matching the standard of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas - in school locations which are far from the areas home to socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas will be expanded to encourage the participation of girls (up to Grade 12)  from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Additional Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas and Kendriya Vidyalayas will be built in aspirational districts, Special Education Zones, and other disadvantaged areas, to ensure no student from SEDG backgrounds is deprived of the opportunity to gain education.

Pre-school sections covering at least one year of early childhood care and education will be added to Kendriya Vidyalayas and other primary schools all over the country, with preference to be given to disadvantaged areas.

 

 

For children that belong to the families of migrant labors and / or are drop-outs, the proposal for alternative and innovative education centers in co-operation with civil society is not a bad idea.

Even before the NEP 2020, a lot of NGOs have been teaching students who dropped-out of schools due to various reasons and / or belong to migrant families to fill the gap dropping out of school created between these students and those who are attending schools without dropping out.

 

5.1.    Similarly, NEP proposes (3.5) that Socio-economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDG), including differently-abled children, would be taught mainly through National and State Institutes of Open Schools (NIOS/SIOS), subjecting them to further discrimination and the digital divide rather than making special arrangements within the public education system.

 

The schools/school complexes will be provided with the resources for the integration of children with disabilities, by adopting the following methods :-

1)     Recruitment of special educators with cross-disability training,

2)     The establishment of resource centres, wherever needed, especially for children with severe or multiple disabilities.

3)     Barrier free access for all children with disabilities will be enabled as per the RPWD Act.

4)     Schools and school complexes will work and be supported for providing all children with disabilities the accommodations as well

5)     “In particular, assistive devices and appropriate technology-based tools, as well as adequate and language-appropriate teaching-learning materials (e.g., textbooks in accessible formats such as large print and Braille) will be made available to help children with disabilities integrate more easily into classrooms and engage with teachers and their peers” – NEP 2020.

6)     This will be extended to all school activities including arts, sports, and vocational education.

7)     NIOS will develop high-quality modules to teach Indian Sign Language, and to teach other basic subjects using Indian Sign Language.

8)     Adequate attention will be paid to the safety and security of children with

disabilities.

5.2.     A large number of government schools, especially those in small or isolated communities, are to be shut down (Para 7) in the name of efficiency, viability and resource optimization, meaning many teachers may lose jobs and affecting access of children who would have to travel longer distances.

 

The above-mentioned point from NEP 2020 criticism by CPI (M) has been answered partly in the above points

The Central Government as well as the State governments in India (irrespective of the fact that which party is in government at the centre and in the states, including the communist parties) do not intend to close government schools. The NDA Government led by The BJP, aims at strengthening the schools in small and/or isolated communities, by creating school complexes, and clusters.  

Building additional quality schools in areas where they do not exist, and providing safe and practical conveyances and/or hostels, especially for the girl children, so that all children have the opportunity to attend a quality school and learn at the appropriate level is a commitment of the Modi Government with guaranteed fulfillment.

All past Education Commissions and Policies have called for a publicly-funded Common School System based on Neighbourhood Schools. NEP 2020 seems to have now completely abandoned this basic goal, implemented by all major developing and developed countries.

Construction of neighborhood schools had been proposed in education policies of previous governments, too. But this was never implemented.

To ensure that the goal of neighborhood schools is met, the NEP 2020 will include building up of school complexes and clusters.

 

The following steps will be taken for the same : -

(a) The services of adequate number of counsellors/trained social workers and teachers (shared or otherwise) for teaching all subjects including art, music science, sports, languages, vocational subjects, etc would be employed

(b) library, science labs, computer labs, skill labs, playgrounds, sports equipment and facilities, etc. will be developed in the school complexes and / or clusters

(c) To bring a sense of community to overcome the isolation of teachers, students, and schools,

             (i)joint professional development programs,

             (ii)sharing of teaching-learning content,

             (iii) joint content development,

             (iv) joint activities such as art and science exhibitions, sports meet, quizzes             

             and debates, and fairs

     will be facilitated.

(d) cooperation and support across schools will be ensured for the education of children with disabilities will be ensured.

(e) Systems and processes to improve governance of the schooling system will be put in place

- NEP 2020.

With privatization of schools already advancing rapidly, instead of extensive strengthening and revitalization of public education, NEP opens the door for further extensive privatization, including schools run by so-called “true philanthropic institutions (8.4).” NEP also provides for “alternate models of education” (Para 3.6), creating space for Sangh Parivar or affiliated organizations. NEP allows relaxations on inputs and self-regulation to all non-governmental schools (8.5). All this will inevitably undermine the public education system. It is also noticeable that NEP completely evades, and has no discussion on, the rampant commercialization and corruption that plagues private educational institutions in India, and simply leaves it to self-regulation and the absent conscience of private institutions to rectify matters, preferring to adopt a “light but tight” (9.3h) regulatory stance.

A large number of government schools, especially those in small or isolated communities, are to be shut down (Para 7) in the name of efficiency, viability and resource optimization, meaning many teachers may lose jobs and affecting access of children who would have to travel longer distances.

The above-mentioned criticism by the CPI (M) has been answered previously.

For all the tall talk of a modernized flexible education system emphasizing learning processes and outcomes, NEP proposes common all-India exams at Grades 3, 5 and 8, besides the existing Gr.10 and 12 Board exams (4.40). An additional all-India University entrance exam will be conducted in all subjects. For this another Central body called the National Assessment Centre will be formed for Performance Assessment, Review, and Analysis of Knowledge for Holistic Development (PARAKH) (4.41).  In fact, the school year is filled with semester-wise, course-wise and periodic exams, not conducted internally by schools but by centralized authorities in States or at an all-India level. The role of all-India and State Boards is thus called into question. This “Exam Raj” runs counter to the entire argument of NEP 2020, and exposes the inherent haphazard and self-contradictory thinking.

The common all-India exams at Grades 3, 5 and 8, are proposed to be introduced for tracking and reviewing the learning progress of students while they are in the school life.

The exposure to these exams will ensure that students do not face stress when they appear for board exams in the later stages of their school-life, particularly during the Class X and Class XII.

These exams at different stages of a student’s school – life would enable these students to figure out their areas of interest and the development of expertise at various stages of their student-life in order to pursue their areas of interest.

This will help students decide the path they want their careers to pursue, to avoid deciding the same at the later stages of education, career, and/or rest of life.

The term, “Exam Raj” used in the above lines stems from paranoia, because The NDA Government led by The BJP has an ideology different from that of Communist Parties.

 

CPI (M) criticism of TEACHER EDUCATION

The well-known shortage of qualified and trained teachers, especially in the public education system and within that in tribal and remote areas, is recognized in NEP 2020 but is not addressed adequately. Some states have many teachers who are not professionally trained as per RTE. No solution to this problem is offered, except for the impractical and unrealistic NEP concept of “school complexes” and sharing of teachers between schools (5.5). An assurance is also given to put an end to the rampant “transfer industry” of school teachers, but this will require full cooperation of the States, which have otherwise been marginalized in NEP.

 

8.     The centralized “exam raj” in NEP is again evident here in the provision for Teacher Eligibility Tests (TET) (5.4) which are to be extended to all levels of education from foundation to secondary.

The answer to this point under the CPI (M) criticism of the NEP 2020 is the same as the answer for the term “Exam Raj” used previously was

9.     Most problematic is that all teachers for Grades Nursery to Grade -12 will require 4-year integrated BEd degrees with one subject specialization(15.5). Earlier, teachers for Grades 6-8 could go through a B.El Ed (Bachelor of Elementary Education ) course, while those for Gr.9-10 went through the 2 year  BEd and those for 11-12 were also required to have a Post-graduate qualification. This enabled addressing the specific requirements at each stage. Under NEP, Graduates with a 4-year degree could take a 1-year course, those with a 3-year BA a 2-year course, giving unnecessary weightage to earlier academic qualifications rather than full-scope training in teaching skills. Finally short-term courses of 2 weeks to 3 months could be taken by any person with or without adequate qualifications thereby creating “volunteer/ part-time/assistant teachers” undermining quality of teachers, and ample scope for commercialization

“To ensure that outstanding students enter the teaching profession - especially from rural areas – a large number of merit-based scholarships shall be instituted across the country for studying quality 4-year integrated B.Ed. programmes”.

“In rural areas, special merit-based scholarships will be established that also include preferential employment in their local areas upon successful completion of their B.Ed. programmes.”

“Such scholarships will provide local job opportunities to local students, especially

female students, so that these students serve as local-area role models and as highly qualified teachers who speak the local language”.

“Incentives will be provided for teachers to take up teaching jobs in rural areas, especially in areas that are currently facing acute shortage of quality teachers”.

“A key incentive for teaching in rural schools will be the provision of local housing near or on the school premises or increased housing allowances”. – NEP2020

 

“By 2030, the minimum degree qualification for teaching will be a 4-year integrated B.Ed.

degree that teaches a range of knowledge content and pedagogy and includes strong practicum

training in the form of student-teaching at local schools”.

“The 2-year B.Ed. programmes will also be offered, by the same multidisciplinary institutions offering the 4-year integrated B.Ed., and will be intended only for those who have already obtained Bachelor ’s Degrees in other specialized subjects”.

“These B.Ed. programmes may also be suitably adapted as 1-year B.Ed. programmes, and will be offered only to those who have completed the equivalent of 4-year multidisciplinary Bachelor’s Degrees or who have obtained a Master’s degree in a specialty and wish to become a subject teacher in that specialty.”

“All such B.Ed. degrees would be offered only by accredited multidisciplinary higher

education institutions offering 4-year integrated B.Ed. programmes. Multidisciplinary higher

education institutions offering the 4-year in-class integrated B.Ed”.

 – NEP 2020

 

10.    The SWAYAM/DIKSHA programmes for online training of teachers are proposed to be used, supposedly purely as a convenience (15.10) which completely ignores the digital divide especially with regard to teacher-trainees from rural, tribal and remote areas, further affecting equity of access to both teachers and students.

 

The Modi Government has employed the following policies to combat the digital divide in India :-

(i)               BharatNet

(ii)             Common Service Centers (CSCs)

(iii)          Digital India Campaign

(iv)           Pradhan Mantri Gramin Digital Saksharta Abhiyan (PMGDISHA)

 

11.    With respect to SEDG and other special needs students, NEP does not adequately spell out provisions for teacher training which, in turn, will affect the concerned student groups. Special concerns are that NEP does not specify the special education teacher training in a systematic manner.

The answer to the above-mentioned point under the CPI (M) criticism is in the reply to point number 5.1 from the CPI (M) criticism of the NEP 2020.

Vocational Education

12.     Vocational Education in India has for too long been mired in antiquated ideas about what it means for young adults to acquire skills and corresponding education of relevant concepts and knowledge. This assumes even greater significance in the modern economy with major technological and institutional changes in manufacturing and services. In India’s caste- and class-ridden society stretching back thousands of years, the middle classes/upper castes received education while lower classes/castes received skills-training passed down from earlier generations. This conceptual framework persists to this day, where a virtual ‘firewall’ persists between the education system and the skills system, which is ill-suited to a modern industrial economy where the work force requires not only advanced skills but also corresponding levels of knowledge in related areas. It is estimated that only around 2% of the labour force in India has had any formal training whatsoever, compared to 55% in China, 80-85% in the EU and S.Korea, and over 90% in Japan. International experience, in both advanced industrial economies and ‘emerging’ developing economies like in South-East Asia, is that most countries consider Vocational Education (VocEd) as part of tertiary education after school, after either completion of a full secondary education or achievement of some minimum levels there. Till now, India has vacillated between entry-level vocational skills at the +2 stage in school, inadequate even to prevent drop-outs, and a weak system of ITIs.

 

NEP states that VocEd would be fully “integrated with the educational offerings of all secondary schools in a phased manner (16.5) and further, that towards this end, “secondary schools will collaborate with ITIs, polytechnics, local industry etc.” This is a highly retrograde step on several counts.

 

“Beginning with vocational exposure at early ages in middle and secondary school, quality vocational education will be integrated smoothly into higher education. It will ensure that every child learns at least one vocation and is exposed to several more. This would lead to emphasizing the dignity of labor and importance of various vocations involving Indian arts and artisanship” – NEP 2020.

The Vocational Education will target particularly the skills gap between the skills that the students have and the skills the industry demands, with special focus on utilizing the local opportunities.

The curricula, and pedagogy for Vocational Education will be prepared after consultations with experts from various walks of life.

The point where it is written that secondary schools will collaborate with ITIs, Polytechnic, Local Industry is not retrograde as The CPI (M) criticizes.

The NEP 2020 will ensure that students, irrespective of their socio-economic backgrounds, who want to gain education till the highest level (as per their wishes) will be facilitated to do so. 

However, in case of students who wish to work at skill based jobs early in their life, they will be facilitated to gain vocational education, too.

Vocational education does not necessarily always mean jobs related to labor such as plumber, gardener, driver, cook, etc., but also jobs such as accountant, stenographer, clerks, telephone operators, store-keepers, supervisors, translators, instructors, technical assistants, programmers, counselors, etc.

The schools' collaboration with ITIs, Polytechnic, Local Industry, will support students to join the workforce with expertise at a relatively younger age than they earlier used to.

Not just students from Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups, (SEDG), but every student will be empowered with expertise at at least one skill, providing them with exposures to vocational education.

Skill based jobs also include jobs such as Mechatronics Engineers, Dentists, Journalists, Aritificial Intelligence Experts, Control Systems Engineers, Ophthalmologists, etc.

 

With the emphasis on vocational education, the government intends to empower each section of the Indian society for job-readiness to not just prepare an army of skilled employees (as the Indian economy is transitioning from a Knowledge Based Economy to a Skill Based Economy), but also an army of equally skilled job creators.

India, in the coming years, will require more skill-based jobs and the pool of employees and employers armed with skills will steer India forward on the path to progress.

Higher Education (HE)

Indian higher education has already gone far down the path of privatization. Around 45% of college enrolment in 2018-19 was in private unaided colleges and another 21% in private aided institutions. In professional courses, as much as 72.5% of undergraduate and around 60% of post-graduate enrolment is in private unaided institutions. Even many public institutions, especially in professional courses, have witnessed a significant increase in fees. While public institutions still dominate in University enrolment accounting for over four-fifths of such enrolment, here too things are changing rapidly. Between 2014-15 and 2018-19, 55 per cent of the total increase in university enrolment was in private universities and another 33 per cent in public open universities (not regular Central and State Universities where enrolment has stagnated or declined). Private universities and other Higher Education Institutions (HEI) have mushroomed, many with poor facilities and faculty, especially in professional and technical subjects, charging unregulated high fees and various under-the-table charges, but still unable to ensure well-qualified and trained graduates. On the other hand, public universities are starved of funds for teaching, leave alone research, and being compelled to raise fees or otherwise commercialize. NEP 2020, however, not only has no solutions to this problem but, couched in lofty phrases and flowery language proposes a model that would further accentuate privatization, commercialization, inequity and huge problems of quality.

 

The criticism under this point has been answered above

 

15.     The most noticeable aspect of NEP is that it simply does not recognize the deep inequity in the higher education system and lack of access for the poor, dalits, tribals, religious minorities, girl children and otherwise marginalized sections.

 

15.1    Yet the word “reservation” does not appear even once in the entire document! While analyzing the main problems in HE (9.2), NEP only mentions “limited access… in socio-economically disadvantaged areas, with few HEIs that teach in local languages,” but makes no reference to the glaring structural inequality that plagues HE in India with further damaging impacts in employment.

 

Steps to be taken by Governments as per NEP 2020

(a) Earmark suitable Government funds for the education of SEDGs

(b) Set clear targets for higher GER for SEDGs

(c) Enhance gender balance in admissions to HEIs

(d) Enhance access by establishing more high-quality HEIs in aspirational districts and Special

Education Zones containing larger numbers of SEDGs

(e) Develop and support high-quality HEIs that teach in local/Indian languages or bilingually

(f) Provide more financial assistance and scholarships to SEDGs in both public and private HEIs

(g) Conduct outreach programmes on higher education opportunities and scholarships among

SEDGs

(h) Develop and support technology tools for better participation and learning outcomes.

 

Steps to be taken by all HEIs as per National Education Policy 2020

(a) Mitigate opportunity costs and fees for pursuing higher education

(b) Provide more financial assistance and scholarships to socio-economically disadvantaged students

(c) Conduct outreach on higher education opportunities and scholarships

(d) Make admissions processes more inclusive

(e) Make curriculum more inclusive

(f) Increase employability potential of higher education programmes

(g) Develop more degree courses taught in Indian languages and bilingually

(h) Ensure all buildings and facilities are wheelchair-accessible and disabled-friendly

(i) Develop bridge courses for students that come from disadvantaged educational backgrounds

(j) Provide socio-emotional and academic support and mentoring for all such students through

suitable counselling and mentoring programmes

(k) Ensure sensitization of faculty, counsellor, and students on gender-identity issue and its

inclusion in all aspects of the HEI, including curricula

(l) Strictly enforce all no-discrimination and anti-harassment rules

(m) Develop Institutional Development Plans that contain specific plans for action on increasing

participation from SEDGs, including but not limited to the above items.

- NEP 2020

- The answer above is taken from the NEP 2020 Document.

15.2     Entrance to HEI would also be based on a new entrance test by National Testing Agency (4.42), but individual HEIs are free to use these scores as they like along with any other criteria it may choose. As is well-known in all so-called “merit-based systems” to date, this would further hurt prospects of SC/ST and other disadvantaged sections and reinforce exclusionary practices.

The admission to HEIs is to be done based on an entrance test by The NTA, which is a good move. The students won't have to prepare for multiple entrance exams, as used to be the case before NEP 2020.

Different Entrance Exams, taking place on different dates, with different syllabus, seeking students with different qualities used to be no lesser than a harassment for students.

For example, if a student wants to pursue MBA or PGPM or PGDM, he or she had to appear for CAT, CMAT, MAT, SNAP, NMAT, XAT, TISSNET, and many other exams.

With a common exam by NTA, students will be relieved of this harassment.

If a student aspiring to pursue an MBA or PGPM or PGDM does not score well in the NTA Exam, he or she might not make his / her way to the top IIMs.

But, if an institute like TISS finds in that student the qualities needed to be a leader in the world of HR, TISS would have an option of selecting that student, too, irrespective of his score, and he / she can ultimately turn out to be a leader in the world of HR based on his/ her qualities and the education gained at TISS.

 

This would mean that not just the Score in an Entrance Exam, but the qualities in a student that support him or her to make a career in a field, can help him or her make a career equally rewarding as that of a top scorer at the NTA Exam.

As far as students from the SEDG are concerned, meritorious students exist in all categories, which include the SEDGs as well.

No HEI would let go of an opportunity to select meritorious students just because they come from SEDG backgrounds.

The most prestigious HEIs in India gained prestige because they selected meritorious students.

For Example, the IITs are known all over the world for their excellence, but IITs gained this prestige because they select the best students among the bests.

Had the IITs not been selecting meritorious students, they would not have earned the reputation they maintain today.

 

15.3    Open Learning is in fact put forward as one major, if not the main, answer to the problem of equitable access and the main instrument for increasing Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) (12.5-12.6), clearly because mainstream private HEIs would have become unaffordable, and even public HEIs would have raised fees beyond the capacity of most Indians to pay. The poor will gradually be shut out of HE and struggle with Open Learning degrees, worsening the already poor GER of Indians in HE compared to other middle-income countries.

Open Learning at higher education is meant to support students who drop out from HEI due to reasons which include the opportunity costs of pursuing higher education and cannot afford / manage to attend regular classroom programs at HEIs as they work to support their family (and / or passion in case some student is gifted with special talents).

Steps to be taken by all HEIs as per the NEP 2020

(a) Mitigate opportunity costs and fees for pursuing higher education

(b) Provide more financial assistance and scholarships to socio-economically disadvantaged students

 

15.4     The other proposal to offset socio-economic deprivation or other disabilities of the new catch-all term SEDGs is the vague prospect of free ships/scholarships with no details or assurances of government support. NEP also states that “private HEIs will be encouraged to offer larger numbers of free ships and scholarships,” but again without specific assurances. (12.10)

To ensure that no student is deprived of the opportunity of availing Higher Education is a commitment of the government in power today and the governments that would succeed the current government.

Although Higher Education Financing Agency or HEFA was established before the NEP was adopted by the Modi Government, the HEFA can be expected to continue as the body that would ensure Higher Education is availed by every student.

The possibility of the establishment of other bodies and / or systems in place to facilitate students receiving higher education even if other parties form governments in India cannot be ruled out as the constitutional values of India consider Education necessary for nation-building.

16.      The big proposal of the NEP on HE is to do away with affiliated Colleges and move towards large, multi-disciplinary Universities or HEIs which would offer courses across disciplines and categories, along with some Autonomous Colleges with powers to grant degrees.

Multi-Disciplinary education is necessary for any country to keep pace with the fast progressing world - as employers prefer employees with specialized skills and a significant level of command over another skill.

The Multi-Disciplinary education would empower.the students.with knowledge related to other fields too, in order to.ensure they have an all-rounder personality (to the extent possible, as per capabilities of students) and are enlightened enough to perform their role not just as employees or employers, but as.responsible citizens too.

16.1     Many questions have been raised about the practicality and sheer scale of this exercise which may entail closure of many affiliating colleges and creation of new large HEIs which would also be far away from students in rural and other remote areas, which would further raise costs to students and negatively impact access. NEP also makes the peculiar suggestion that specialist technical institutions, such as IITs and presumably medical colleges would also have to transform themselves in like manner! There are several other substantive problems too with this proposal.

The Modi Government is already building schools and colleges in rural areas of districts that have previously not had the access to educational institutions and considers making education accessible to students residing even in the remote areas a commitment to be met with guaranteed fulfillment.

The Multi-Disciplinary Education at IITs and presumably medical colleges would facilitate students at these HEIs to build an all-rounder personality, too

The above-mentioned point has been answered partially while answering the criticism from CPI (M)

16.2     These multi-disciplinary HEIs would offer 4-year undergraduate courses with entry and exit points after each year with Certificates, Diplomas, Advanced Diplomas and Degrees. The entry points may be understood as a measure to facilitate life-long learning and lateral entry after spells in industry. However, the award of Certificates and Diplomas after each year makes no sense. Undergraduate course curricula cannot be designed in such stand-along modules. HEIs in many countries offer short-duration Certificate/Diploma courses, especially linked to vocational education, but these are purpose-designed to meet specific NSQF standards at different levels. Undergraduate Courses are completely different and cannot function this way. Such a structure would hugely diminish the pedagogic content and value of the degree.

The multi-disciplinary HEIs would offer 4-year undergraduate courses with entry and exit points after each year with Certificates, Diplomas, Advanced Diplomas and Degrees. The entry points may be understood as a measure to facilitate life-long learning and lateral entry after spells in industry, as mentioned in the CPI (M) criticism of NEP 2020.

However, multiple exit points are meant to facilitate students who cannot afford and / or manage to attend all the four years of UG Education due to opportunity costs related with Studying a four-year honors degree by attending the classrooms on a full-time basis.  

However, the award of Certificates and Diplomas after each year is meant to ensure that the students' efforts don't go wasted in case they exit the course after a year or two or three.

They would be provided with certain level expertise, too, and would be able to use that expertise as they work in the industry or run a business.

16.3     NEP also proposes that, within broad nationally-set frameworks, each HEI would frame its own curricula across disciplines/courses making HE a laissez faire exercise. There is no proposal for any kind of overall State direction-setting based on identified educational needs of the country at different stages of development, or human resource requirements of the economy. All these are left to the wisdom of the individual HEIs, presumably guided by market signals.

The sentence where it is mentioned that each HEI would frame its own curricula across disciplines / courses is not a bad decision.

They would be freed from the control of the Bureaucrats for setting their own curricula, so that they can align their curricula with the industry needs based on how they see industry needs.

Bureaucrats’ controlling the setting up of curricula for all the HEIs would lead to all HEIs working to satisfy the needs based only on the bureaucrats’ perception and not the perception of any other stakeholder from the industry.

This would kill the expertise in multiple areas that can be achieved by all HEIs setting their own curricula based on their own strengths and weaknesses and opportunities, along with innovation that can be paved way for by this provision under the NEP 2020.

16.4     Broadly the same pattern is followed for professional and technical HEIs, with the added weakness of there being no sign of any linkage with national scientific or industrial priorities in determining courses, curricula etc.

The above-mentioned point from CPI (M) criticism has been answered previously

16.5     The Graded Autonomy extended to the Colleges empowered to grant their own degrees would, as experience with Autonomous Colleges so far has shown, only mean more privatization, higher fees and, with the freedom to offer tailor-made short-term courses, further commercialization of higher education.

The above-mentioned point from CPI (M) criticism has been answered previously

 

17.      The above proposals are linked to the regulatory structure proposed for HEIs. The broad framework in NEP is for a so-called “light and tight” framework. Supposedly this means only setting broad academic frameworks and assessment systems for outcomes, both of which would supposedly be “tightly” monitored, while leaving almost everything else such as curricula, fees, course structures, pay and working conditions of teachers etc “lightly” regulated, actually meaning unregulated and left to the HEIs. This is an open invitation to corporatization, privatization and commercialization of higher education.

The above-mentioned point in the CPI (M) Criticism of NEP 2020 has been answered previously.

17.1     The similarity to corporate structures is underlined by the NEP proposal that each HEI will independently form its own Board of Governors which would then take full control over all affairs of the university.

The independently formed Board of Governors at HEIs is meant to provide more autonomy to HEIs as far as administrative matters of the HEIs are concerned.

17.2     Individual HEIs are required to raise their own funds from “philanthropic” (read corporate) sources and are also at liberty to fix their own fee structures, supposedly within broad government guidelines, such that the “fee determining mechanism will ensure reasonable recovery of cost.” This is the same process followed in all other sectors of the economy such as electricity distribution, airlines etc where the State acts as a facilitator ensuring good returns for corporate while providing a fig leaf of “regulation.”

The above-mentioned point in the CPI (M) Criticism of NEP 2020 has been answered previously.

17.3     This regulatory structure implies that government only exercises “light” regulation of standards, but takes no responsibility for funding HEIs to enable them to meet such standards. There is no mention in NEP of how it proposes to fund HEIs, whether public HEIs would have any special privilege over public funds or whether the promised level playing field applies to funds as well. In the absence of adequate State funding, public HEIs would be driven towards adoption of norms of private HEIs with all its consequences for commercialization and lack of equitable access.

The above-mentioned point in the CPI (M) Criticism of NEP 2020 has been answered previously.

18.     There is overpowering centralization in all measures proposed in NEP, leaving little or no role for States in higher education except simple implementation.

 

18.1     Multiple Central Institutions are proposed to be constituted with a Higher Education Council (HECI) at the apex accompanied by NHERC for regulation, NAC for accreditation, HEGC for grants and GEC to frame outcome standards. Assessment of outcomes would also be done centrally, which may well determine ratings, accreditation and funding. While there is much talk of educators and persons of eminence being selected for these institutions, the heavy hand of the Government is obvious.

The above-stated point from CPI (M) criticism itself explains that there will be different bodies employed at the Central Level to regulate the HEIs.

"The heavy hand of government" is obvious even if the above-mentioned regaulations are done by the different state government bodies for HEIs at different states, where the heavy hand would belong to separate state governments.

To look at any regulatory mechanism by either the Central Government or by State Governments in different states is an unjustified suspicion based on unjustified reasons as the government at the centre is headed by the BJP that has an ideology different from those of the Communist Parties.

Also, there are several states in India that have state governments formed by parties (other than BJP) that differ with ideologies of the Communist Parties.

In case the central or state governments run by parties other than the Communist Parties misuse their power, the Communist Parties can be trusted to pressurize these party or coalitions of these parties doing so to be pressurized to correct such wrongdoings which would ultimately strengthen the reliability of the Communist Parties.

18.2     A national examination for entrance to HEIs will also be conducted by a Central Agency, even though the worth of this exam is in question since HEIs are free to use results of these tests for admissions the way they see fit. The relevance of State Boards, exams conducted by them are open to question. How State Universities and other State-level HEIs are expected to function is not addressed by NEP, clearly implying that all HEIs in the country will be governed by these Central agencies operating under the Central Government.

The above-mentioned point from CPI (M) criticism is already answered previously

19.     Within this neo-liberal landscape of privatized and corporatized HEIs, foreign universities are proposed to be invited to operate in India. While this may be seen as a crass attempt to introduce the equivalent of “medical tourism” in higher education, it also shows some different considerations at work. It would implicitly set a standard or role model for Indian universities to follow, including corporate style of governance, market-oriented course structures, casual or contract employment of teachers, and high fees. It is indeed ironic that “videshi” universities are invited to act as beacons for “swadeshi” India.

The Foreign Universities are encouraged to set up campuses in India as they would add their expertise in addition to the expertise provided by the Universities in India.

The Universities that have always been in India might not necessarily follow foreign universities as their role model.

The Co-existence of the two above-mentioned types of universities in India would complement each other instead and the foreign universities would add a new dimension to the higher education system in India.

20.     A centralized National Research Fund (NRF) is proposed to be set up which would provide funds for research to both public and private Universities. Again, as noted above, there is no sign of national scientific or industrial priorities being set in the NRF which, on the face of it, simply follows the trend of research proposals received. Secondly, there is again no sign of any movement of research priorities and agendas being shifted towards States, further widening the existing gap between the Centre and States.

The above-mentioned point from the CPI (M) criticism of NEP 2020 stems from the thought that the priorities for research should be set by the government at the center and the governments in states.

The universities should be free to set the priorities for the research, and this is part of the vision behind NEP 2020.

 

The HEIs would be freed from the control of the Bureaucrats for setting the priorities of the research that takes place on their campuses respectively so that they can align their priorities with the industry needs based on how they see industry needs.

Bureaucrats’ controlling the setting up of priorities of the research that takes place in the campuses for all the HEIs would lead to all HEIs working to satisfy the needs based only on the bureaucrats’ point of view and not from the points of view of any other stakeholder from the industry.

This would kill the expertise in multiple areas that can be achieved by all HEIs setting their own priorities for research based on their own strengths and weaknesses and opportunities, along with innovation that can be paved way for by this provision under the NEP 2020.