The New Education Policy (draft)
proposed by a committee constituted by the Government of India with Prof. K.
Kasturirangan, former Chairman of the ISRO, as its Chairman has been put to
public debate. Fifty long years after Kothari Commission report (1968) and
after the NEP 1986, this document puts across certain recommendations which are
appear to be responses to the dynamics of change that impact the way we learn
and the way we run the learning organizations. It must be acknowledged that the
commission appears to have examined several explosive issues as well as the
administrative ills and inadequacies that haunt the education system and its
ethical edifice. In this article, I intend to focus only on its recommendation
relating to the School systems. Others would be considered in subsequent
articles.
Some of the recommendations of the
commission are well thought of, keeping in view the concurrency of the subject
and the challenges of co-existence between the Central and the State forces
that deal with them. Though the recommendations have been largely kept in mind,
the superiority of the national demands over the states, it has certainly not
ignored the local interests. Nevertheless, some of the recommendations appear
to be demolishing the citadels of Power that commanded the lobbies of
educational institutions with their authority and the mandate for “Inspection
Raj”- be it in the field of school education or higher education. One has to
keenly watch how these power centres who viewed the subject of educational
administration from the chambers built in their ivory towers would respond and
react is anybody’s guess, as no one would like to lose the ‘power’ and the
‘revenues’ gravitated by these powers.
To be precise, some of the
following suggestions call for close watch with respect to the reactions they
would get from the market place.
1. The
establishment of Rashtriya Shiksha Ayog (National Education Commission) as the
supreme body for all educational policies with a specific recommendation that
it may be headed by a person at the level of the Prime Minister. Further, the establishment of State Shiksha
Ayogs reporting to the RSA and following its guidelines.
2. The
restructuring of the pattern of education from 10 + 2 to 5 + 3 + 3 + 4 which
does not appear to any marginal adjustment of the educational hierarchy but is
associated with an entire gamut of inputs that impact the thought architecture
of their relevance, role and implementation. This also calls for a
re-engineering of the curricular architecture and the pedagogical methods in
delivering and managing education. Though one may not see any negative
responses, the time and level of preparation required to move to new portals is
indeed a challenge.
3. The
elimination of the idea of “Higher secondary” and “Junior college” as the
culmination of a schooling process is certainly likely to challenge both the
eco-systems and the ego-centricity of those who run institutions using such
brands. Making the four-year schooling process as ‘secondary’ would require a
cultural shift in the administration of these institutions and several
businesses carried out at these levels for preparing the learners for their
onward journeys.
4. The
redesign of the Boards of Education as “Boards of Assessment’ depriving them of
several functions like affiliation, accreditation, regulation and others is
like asking someone to vacate and handover 90 percent of the place they have
occupied for several decades. This shift is very bold but needs to be handled
with the sensitivity it needs. To add, their role and occupancy in conduct
examinations continuously and periodically with several refocused themes to
relieve the pain of rote-learning, requires a large-scale preparation both in
their thought leadership and in preparing human resources who would understand
and facilitate such processes.
5. The
suggestion to give a better and a holistic meaning to the word “Curriculum” by
removing the ‘co-curricular’ and ‘extra-curricular’ activities and making the
curriculum more synergetic and synthetic, is proof enough to a forward and
wishful thinking. Neuro-cognitive researches have always indicated that
learning is a holistic process and is not a piece-meal activity. Integrated,
inclusive and multi-disciplinary approach to learning and the curricular architecture
is indeed the foundation to creative, constructivist thinking in a connected
world. The efforts required to put this process in place is indeed
mind-boggling, but if the system engages to give thrust in this direction, I
think the future generation of learners would be fortunate.
6. The
commission has acknowledged in no uncertain language the evils that seem to be
haunting the teacher empowerment including the award of teacher degrees,
teacher deployments, the poor quality of the inputs that go into developing the
human resources, their deployment to non-teaching engagements and several
others. Though it has called for a fresh thinking in the recruitment drives for
teachers, it has suggested shifting the teacher training programs to
multi-disciplinary colleges and universities from a host of private
institutions which seem to playing fake games in the conduct and award of such
degrees. Indeed, it would be a step in the right direction. Further, the
curriculum and method of teacher development courses require updates relevant
to the modern schooling systems
7. The
proposal to have a ‘two semesters’ approach to the secondary curriculum with
examinations at each stage, however giving opportunities for flexibility in the
choice and study of subjects is a positive Moe to shift the learners from the
rat-race competition and the stress-prone dynamics of learning. However, it has
to be articulated with technology enabled transparent systems in place.
8. The idea of
“School Complex” suggested by the commission is towards facilitating and
optimising the resources of the governance to ensure their maximum utility and
reach. While in terms its ideals it is commendable, the practicalities
associated with its organization, operation and accountability has to be
closely examined so that the real benefits of such a system reach the consumer,
and it does not remain as non-operative shared vision.
9. While the
document has spelt in clear terms that its focus will be India-centric, and
would encourage the understanding of heritage, legacy, culture and native life
styles, it is equally important to have a global perspective. Any ‘myopic’
vision would be disastrous. The commission also states in clear terms the need
to promote all Indian languages with a multilingualism, the political sensitivities
in the issue of administering languages in schools has always been sensitive
and needs to be handled with care.
10. There is adequate mention about digital
literacy and taking the learners to the world of future. But somewhere there
appears to be absence of clarity in putting things in their right perspective.
There are a
large number of issues which one could pick up from this document which concern
the future of the learning universe either directly or indirectly, but they
need to be examined much more closely.
Drafting an
education policy for a country like India with its multi-lingual,
multi-cultural spectrum is indeed a challenging task. The commission has
reasonably done a convincing job. Yes, certainly it is not an old wine in a new
bottle.
No comments:
Post a Comment