NEP 2020, rooted in ancient Indian ethos and knowledge systems, aims to make India a Vishwaguru of the knowledge-economy-run modern world with the spirit of ‘light but tight’ control and regulation. Apparently, it believes that multiple frameworks, even if a few of them are disjointed, would make regulation tighter.
NEP proposes eight ‘frameworks’ with many sub-frameworks. These are to be developed by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), and the General Education Council (GEC). Since the GEC is yet to be born, the National Credit Framework (NCrF) and the National Higher Education Qualification Framework (NHEQF) have been drafted by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
NCTE is charged with the responsibility of developing the National Curriculum Framework for Teachers’ Education (NCFTE). SCERTs are told to evolve the School Quality Assessment and Accreditation Framework (SQAAF) to ensure that ‘minimal’ (?) quality education gets delivered at the school level in their respective states. A good chunk of the envisaged frameworks are to be designed and developed by NCERT. These include the National Curricular and Pedagogical Framework for Early Childhood Care and Education (NCPFECCE), the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE), the Adult Education Qualification Framework (AEQF), and the National Skills Qualification Framework (NSQF). The Open Distance Learning Framework (ODLF) for the school level is also to be developed by NCERT.
These frameworks intend to prescribe the minimum ‘learning essentials’ for all learners. Liberally mentioned ‘outcome-based’ approach, and the description of outcomes indicates that education is merely viewed as input for investment into developing human beings as economic resources. Rhetorically, though, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) has been renamed the Ministry of Education.
NCrF has already been circulated by the UGC, which delineates the need for and importance of the credit system in higher education. It is claimed to be a single meta-framework to seamlessly integrate all types and levels of credits earned by students. The document asserts that the policy would be a game changer as it would make education holistic, flexible, modular, and multidisciplinary. NCrF prescribes the core, compulsory, and optional courses and sets the minimum number of credits that an individual must obtain to become eligible for a particular level of education.
NCrF, together with NHEQF, may bring some clarity to the complexities of the education system in the country. Taken together, the two documents are spread over 160 pages and thus appear quite abridged in comparison to the draft NCFSE, which is elaborate, running into 628 pages. In comparison, NCERT’s National Curricular Framework 2005 was limited to 135 pages. Apparently, the present draft does not wish to leave much to the imagination and interpretation of states and schools.
Examination or assessment is not an end in itself; it depends on how we use the results. The draft document seems to overemphasise ‘learning’ and ‘assessment, which appear 961 and 451 times, respectively. The objective and objectivity for knowledge appear so heavy that the document misses the subjectivity and the word ‘knower’ for the learner alone. The framework is, however, less explicit about how an ‘objective’ assessment would be done in such subjects as music, fine arts, or skills.
The draft NCFSE suggests that a student will have to take two courses from eight generic curricular areas, that is, sixteen courses in IX and X, to earn a secondary certificate. Besides science, social science, the humanities, mathematics, and computers, these areas will also have physical education, vocational education, the arts, and interdisciplinary courses. So is the case with the theoretical or practicum questions that the test item developers would be expected to construct to account for individual learning and merit in these areas.
Similarly, in classes 11 and 12, out of a minimum of three or four of the above-mentioned curricular areas, a student has to opt for four disciplines to essentially study four courses in each discipline to qualify for a senior secondary certificate. This could be a problem for some, particularly those who choose the combination of physics, chemistry, and biology. They would probably be left with no choice but to opt for courses from two more curricular areas to complete the minimum of three discipline areas. This would make such students study 20 courses instead of 16. With this structure, a learner can select, at most, two disciplines from one curricular area.
Consequently, the emphasis would continue to remain on generic learning rather than deep and broad learning as envisaged by NCFSE. The module for on-demand examination appears progressive and learner-centric, but unless implemented thoughtfully, it may keep learners jittery and on edge throughout the year. The 2021 NCRB data reports reveal that over thirteen thousand students died by suicide in the country. This translates into 35 deaths by suicide a day. This is the highest since 1967. There is little indication that the draft NCFSE would lighten the burden on students and make learning a pleasurable experience.
While it was expected that NCFSE would emphasise learning, assessment, performance, and all-round development of children, it has sadly succumbed to the consumerist and market-driven model of education, which will marginalise them further in the arena of knowing and knowledge construction. Alas! The path to qualifying in such a scenario goes through learning with a marked disdain for knowing.
(Sharma teaches at the Department of Education, Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Dharamsala. Qamar is Professor of Management at Jamia Millia Islamia and a former Adviser for Education in the Planning Commission)