Representative image of a classroom.
Credit: iStock photo
As the debate for and against NEP-2020 continues, the common man wants to understand this better. Academicians and administrators often deliberate on the merits and demerits of the policy, generally in terms of logistic glitches, while politicians, depending upon their proximity to or distance from the ruling central government, accept or reject it ostensibly for political considerations. Some states ruled by opposition parties are now planning to develop their own ‘State Education Policy (SEP)’ three years after the acceptance of NEP by the Parliament. Whether NEP or SEP, the action must be in the interest of stakeholders and the nation.
The primary merit of NEP lies in providing a ‘vision’ for future education, while demerits revolve around logistics. Understanding why India needs to reform its education system is crucial for stakeholders and the common man. In brief, this century is witnessing rapid changes following the digital revolution that arrived swiftly. Human life now revolves around the internet, the Internet of Things, People, and Services, and in reality, the Internet of Everything (such as smart cities) .
Similar to the three previous industrial revolutions (textile, mechanisation, and automation—IRs 1.0–3.0, respectively), the recent digital revolution (IR 4.0) has caused numerous job disruptions. Such technological advances demand a disruption of the existing education system, and the evolution of new strategies to promote creative thinking, critical thinking, problem solving, and entrepreneurial skills, and the habit of making innovations in learners to stay relevant despite rapid global changes. Millennial learners will only thrive with global standards of education. Therefore, NEP-2020 advocates the adoption of modern teaching-learning-assessment processes practiced worldwide and the complete transformation of the existing education system without wasting time. This is irrefutable, regardless of whether we opt for the NEP or SEPs.
Quality is the key to overcoming job disruptions and meeting unforeseen demands. Merely tinkering with syllabi or embellishing trivial issues will not yield tangible dividends. Curriculums need to be transformed by integrating inter- and intra-disciplinary areas and creating new courses to promote sound foundational knowledge and open up new horizons. Evolving novel curricula is akin to the metamorphosis of larval forms into adults. Refusing to metamorphose, the larva remains a larva and prevents the emergence of a colourful butterfly! The creation of new courses should be the core theme of any education policy. For instance, various biological subjects can be integrated to form ‘Modern Biology’. Sociology, social anthropology, and social work can be combined as ‘Human Sociobiology’. Tailor-made courses in mathematics, statistics, and AI are needed to strengthen foundational knowledge in all streams. Courses in the liberal arts are essential for the all-round development of learners (25% of total classes).
The second important issue is ensuring the credibility of credentials (certificates and degrees) that prospective employers value. This calls for building brand names for institutions (from schools to universities) that currently lack quality teachers, infrastructure (high-speed Wi-Fi, modular class rooms with adequate space, etc.), and context-based curriculum with clear content delivery mechanisms and assessment processes. Academicians and policymakers must seriously consider building brand names for State educational institutions with an open mind. Thirdly, regulatory bodies, political leaders, and governments should grant total autonomy and act as facilitators. Many educational institutions are in a poor state and weak. They now need funding.
In Karnataka, NEP-2020 was adopted too hastily without adequate preparations and the involvement of senior/eminent academicians in service and superannuated. This was a mistake. Let us not make another mistake by totally discarding NEP. All concerned must swiftly grasp the central theme of NEP, refine it, and use the ‘Guidelines and Frameworks’ already prepared by various regulatory authorities. Criticising NEP-2020 based on logistical difficulties or political considerations will only diminish the urgency of restructuring the entire education system. Often, difficulties constitute 80% trivial issues and 20% vital issues (Pareto’s 80/20 Principle). The states should focus on the key issues and move forward, reserving the rest for later contemplation.
Finally, any education model should enable our youth to face the national/global challenges of the 21st century.
(The writer is former VC of Karnatak University, Dharwad)