National policy must promote cohesion

As states contemplate their own education policies, the Centre must address the complexities of implementing NEP across the country

Karnataka has joined the ranks of states that have expressed opposition to the National Education Policy (NEP 2020). A State Education Policy Commission has been established to thoroughly review school and higher education in Karnataka, aiming to suggest policies to enhance enrolment, expand education with improved quality and equal access, impart scientific knowledge, instill democratic values, enhance employability, and provide moral education to build citizenship.

Karnataka had implemented the policy, at least in part; it had formed cluster universities and announced the introduction of four-year undergraduate programmes with multiple entry and exit. The implications and implementation difficulties of these reforms were not carefully thought through, and stakeholders are now facing serious challenges in sustaining these changes and moving ahead.

They are genuinely concerned about the overall approach and specific provisions of the policy. Convincing stakeholders of the policy’s relevance to their context proves challenging. Content aside, the selective implementation based on convenient reading and interpretation of the text of the policy by the central regulatory authorities is at the root of their chagrin.

National policy formulation is an intricate process in countries with federal character. It is supposed to strike a balance between national priorities, fiscal prudence, and commitments to the concerns of all stakeholders. It must take the states along to make national policies instruments for unity and cohesion and represent the collective will.

This is particularly true in the case of education, which, being on the Concurrent List of the Constitution, is a joint and shared responsibility of the Centre and the state. The NEP 2020 recognises this, emphasising careful planning, joint monitoring, and collaborative implementation between the Centre and states. Implementation is starkly different. The policy assigns significant responsibilities to the states.

The policy makes early childhood care mandatory. This would happen only if states developed professionally qualified and competent educators. They have been charged with the responsibility of developing standard Indian sign language. The policy proposes courses in regional languages, which will be possible only if states invest heavily in preparing language teachers.

NEP holds states responsible for developing the textbooks for their curriculum and ensuring the timely availability of NCERT books in downloadable format. The education of all children with disabilities has been made the responsibility of the states.

States need clarification about where the resources for these initiatives come from, as the Centre has made no
commitment. The only assurance is that they will get allocations out of the Gender and SEDG Inclusion Fund created
by the centre for providing equitable quality education.

States have been mandated to ‘ensure that all schools follow certain minimal professional and quality standards’ for which they must set up an independent State School Standards Authority. It is unclear if the policy intends to absolve the centre from the responsibility of ensuring the minimum quality norms prescribed under the Right to Education Act.

While the policy ‘permits’ states to have their own curricular framework within the broad national framework developed by the NCERT, changes in textbooks without state consultation cause confusion.

NEP 2020 had assured that the Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE) would be ‘remodelled and rejuvenated’. States are yet to know the broad contour of this exercise and
are concerned that their representations in the body are at least maintained, if
not enhanced. 

In higher education, NEP pins high hopes on reforming the national-level regulatory framework. This was expected to happen before initiating any reform. A ‘light but tight’ regulatory framework was stated to be one of the fundamental guiding principles of the policy. The policy regarded the ‘ineffective regulatory system’ as a major problem ‘currently faced by the higher education system’.

The policy emphasised that the regulatory system must change ‘to ensure integrity, transparency, and resource efficiency in the educational system and... will encourage innovation and out-of-the-box ideas through autonomy, good governance, and empowerment. Three years on, regulatory reform is still awaited. Meanwhile, some existing regulatory bodies have become hyperactive with reforms, regulations, and guidelines, many of which are challenging to implement.

They impose many conditionalities and dos and don’ts on the state, with serious implications for governance, administration, and funding. Adding three years of pre-primary education entails enormous financial costs. Enhancing programme durations in higher education across the board poses serious logistical challenges and a great strain on the already stressed infrastructure. Besides, they have financial consequences for the institutions and individual students.

States are obviously feeling ill at ease. They do not know when the proposed Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) and its four verticals will see the light of day. What would be its structure? Will states have a larger say or enhanced representation in these bodies? They are particularly anxious because the regulatory reforms in medical education have not addressed their access and quality challenges. States are nearly the sole providers of school education. They are dominant players in higher education, not only in terms of institutions, enrollment, and faculty but also in terms of funding. They bear more than 77% of the country’s education expenditure. Their share in higher education expenditure is as high as 71.24%. The state-sector higher educational institutions account
for nearly 99.43% of all higher educational institutions in the country, catering
to 91.78% of the total enrolment in
higher education.

This is the first time in independent India that states are unhappy with the new education policy to the extent
that they are contemplating having their own state policies rather than implementing the NEP 2020. This must be addressed urgently.

India is a continent-sized country with unparalleled economic, social, linguistic, cultural, and educational diversity. A one-size-fits-all approach is least likely to work. Promoting and maintaining cohesion is critical. National policy formulations and their implementation must give paramount importance to this goal.

(The writer, a former advisor for
education in the Planning Commission, is a professor in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi)