Action plan needed, not policy

The draft of the New Education Policy (NEP), prepared by a group headed by K Kasturirangan, has been placed for comments by the government. This group was constituted a couple of years ago.  

However, when the NDA had come to power in 2014, another committee headed by former Union cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian had been constituted to work on a policy. That committee also submitted its report, but it never saw the light of the day.  

At the outset, there is a fundamental question that deserves an answer: is there need for a New Education Policy or, considering the diversity of the country, is a well-defined action plan for each state that clearly outlines — what needs to be done, how it is to be done, and by who, — more appropriate?

However, since a draft is on display, let us look at what it has to offer in the context of school education.

The inclusion of pre-school education is a welcome recommendation, as it is well-established that the initial years of a child are critical for his or her overall development in future.  

However, this is not new. Such provisions have already been adopted in Samagra Shiksha that sought to amalgamate the ongoing Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA). They also extended eligibility under the scheme to pre-school education and classes 11 and 12 that were hitherto not available for these segments.  

The focus on the teacher has been talked about for a while and the draft reiterates that. Various issues relating to pre-service training such as selection of teachers and in-service upgrade of skills have been highlighted.  

The draft also recognises the role that “DIKSHA” (a portal already in place for teachers) can play in the context of teachers. There is a mention about empowering students to select the subjects of their choice and for making the curriculum more flexible for this purpose. The emphasis given to vocational training is critical and finds space in the draft.  

However, none of this is neither new nor out-of-the-box.

The revision of National Curriculum Framework has been long overdue. It was last formulated in 2005. The draft suggests changes in the framework and rightly emphasises on bringing in ethical content in the curriculum. It recommends large scale changes in the examinations conducted by the various Boards as also introduction of examinations at various levels.  

There is also a mention about setting up a separate regulatory authority for school education. However, it is moot point on whether such changes would help qualitative improvements in learning outcomes.

Right at the beginning, the draft talks about out-of-the-box solutions to the problems that afflict the education sector. However, there are hardly any solutions offered.  

In fact, it misses out on the advantages of experiential learning that can make assimilation a very interesting experience. 

Some out-of-the-box approaches could have been suggested after travelling all over the country, as there are a number of examples that could have been adopted for replication. NGOs like Akshara Foundation, Sampark Foundation and Kaivalya Foundation are doing great work.  

There is just a marginal mention of the role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that are playing a key role in transforming school education. The need for scaling public-private partnership is missing from the report.  

The number of students migrating to private schools is increasing by the day. The draft does not delve into the details of this process. Instead of pushing private schools to not use the term “public”, efforts should have been made to get to the bottom of the problem. Is the growth of private schools necessarily a problem? They could have possibly come to a different conclusion. Private schools are playing a critical role in imparting school education and will continue to do so. There are indeed a few issues with private schools, but they can be addressed.  

The draft also seems to place a lot of faith in the Right to Education Act and recommends its extension to all the remaining classes in the school. But, there is no examination in the draft of the ‘benefits’ accruing out of a legislation that seems to have damaged school education. This is evidenced by assessing of learning outcomes since the enactment of the law. These assessments reflect a negative trend.

The ‘language’ issue has already created a huge controversy. Why was it considered in the first place in the draft is a question that needs to be asked, because no ‘formula’ can be imposed on the states.

Most importantly, the draft does not provide for a definitive and time-bound action plan. It accepts the fact that “the challenge is the ability to implement the policy”, but does precious little to address this part. There is, indeed, no dearth of diagnosis and prescription. 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.

It doesn’t appear to have served any purpose except providing space for debates and polemics. The issues that beset education require to be addressed forthwith without waiting for a policy that may take a long time coming. What is required is to prepare action plans for each state, as have been worked out for Uttar Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir and facilitate their implementation.

Writer is former secretary, Government of India, and author of ‘Not Just a Civil Servant’