The draft of the New Education Policy prepared by a group headed by Dr Kasturirangan has been put in the public domain for seeking comments. The group was constituted a few years ago.
Earlier, another committee headed by the late T S R Subramanian had been constituted to work on a policy. The report submitted by that committee did not see the light of the day.
Before the recommendations are examined critically, the fundamental question that begs an answer is whether there is a need for a new education policy.
Considering the diversity of the country, is there a need for a well-defined action plan for each state clearly outlining what needs to be done, how it will be done, who will do it, and by when will it be done, to provide quality education to every child in the country?
The inclusion of pre-school education is welcome. It is well established that the initial years of a child are critical for his or her overall development.
However, this is nothing new. Provisions for early child education have already been adopted in “Samagra Shiksha”, which amalgamates the ongoing “Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan” and “Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan, apart from extending eligibility under the scheme to pre-school education and classes 11 and 12, which were hitherto not available for these segments.
The draft rightly reiterates focus on the teacher, who is at the pivot of school education. Issues relating to pre-service training, selection of teachers and in-service upgradation of skills have been highlighted in the report.
There is a mention about empowering the student to select the subjects of his choice and for making the curriculum more flexible for this purpose. These are useful recommendations. The emphasis given to vocational training is critical and finds space in the draft. However, these are neither new nor “out of the box”.
The revision of the National Curriculum framework, last formulated in 2005, has been long overdue. The draft suggests changes in the framework and lays emphasis on bringing in ethical content in the curriculum. However, should we wait for a policy to revise the curriculum?
There are recommendations relating to changes in the examinations conducted by boards as also introduction of examinations at various levels.
However, the feasibility of conducting such examinations has not been considered. There is also a mention of setting up a separate regulatory authority for school education. However, it is debatable whether such changes would help in qualitative improvements in learning outcomes.
The draft talks about “out-of-the-box” solutions to the problems that afflict the education sector. However, there are hardly any “out-of-the-box” solutions offered.
The draft misses out on the advantages of experiential learning that can make learning so very interesting. Having travelled all over, the committee would have come across a number of examples that could have been suggested for replication.
There is just marginal mention of non-governmental organisations that are playing a phenomenal role in transforming school education. NGOs like Kaivalya Foundation, Akshara Foundation and Sampark Foundation are doing phenomenal work that is being replicated. The need for scaling public-private partnership is missing from the report.
Migration from government to private schools is increasing by the day. The draft does not delve into the details of why this is happening and should it happen. Instead of mandating that private schools should not use the term “public”, efforts should have been made to get to the bottom of the problem.
Private schools are playing a critical role in imparting school education and will continue to do so. There are indeed a few issues, but they can be addressed. However, to do so we have to get over the “bias” that we have against them. There could/should have been out-of-the-box thinking in this regard.
The draft seems to place a lot of faith in the Right to Education Act (RTE). It recommends extension of RTE to all the remaining classes in the school.
The report does not examine the “benefits” accruing out of this legislation that seem to have done more damage to school education. This is evidenced by the assessment of learning outcomes since the enactment of the law. These assessments reflect a negative trend.
The “language” issue has already created controversy. Why was this issue considered at all in the first place in the draft? Can a “formula” be imposed on states? Should such a “formula” be imposed?
These aspects should have been looked into before making a recommendation. The draft does provide for an action plan, but it is perfunctory in nature. It accepts the fact that “the challenge is the ability to implement the policy”, but does little to address this part. Diagnosis and prescription are fine.
They are by and large known. The problem is of application. The draft neither analyses why such initiatives have failed in the past nor does it come up with specific recommendations on how to make it happen on the ground.
The draft policy doesn’t appear to have served any purpose except providing space for debates. The issues that beset education require to be addressed forthwith without waiting for a policy that may take a long time coming.
Action plans need to be prepared for each state, as have been worked out for Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir, and their implementation facilitated.