Assignment II NEP
National Education Policy (2019)
Higher Education: Comprehensive Report
Lalhriatpuii Fanai
Ph.D. (Psychology)
1951066
The Draft National Education Policy 2019 was established by the MHRD on 1st June 2019, a day after the new government was sworn in. The policy was signed on 15th December 2018. According to All India Survey on Higher Education, the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in Higher Education in India has increased from 20.8% in 2011-2012 to 25.8% in 2017-2018. The Committee identified lack of access as a major reason behind low intake of higher education in the country. It aims to increase GER to 50% by 2035 from the current level of about 25.8%.
In general, the first question that comes to mind is why the changes now and why the government is in such a hurry to implement this policy? The second question is, is it possible to respond to a policy that is 484 pages in a meaningful and uniform way in such a short time that was given? The decision to call for submissions in one month is a hasty decision and denies the opportunity to primary stakeholders. At first glance, the ideas appear very refreshing, the approach mentioned seems realistic and more flexibility in terms of choices. The institutions are given autonomy, the affiliating system will be abolished, and the colleges will be awarding degrees and will have the liberty to form their own curriculum, and promotion is to be based on merit. So, another question arises; What is the problem with this draft education policy? At a deeper reading of the Policy, it is frightening to see that there may be greater consequences that could hinder the education system (higher education) in the future. If the draft is passed by the Parliament, I believe, it will be the end of universal education that is available in India today. While the policy is aiming for modernization, technology-oriented education and so on, one fails to understand the sudden changes. The Draft policy hands over the entire education system into the hands of the Central government and has little regard for the autonomy of the states.
Therefore, the draft raises many fundamental questions. The production of the draft report did not follow democratic and inclusive processes and is not representative of the concerns of the majority of people/regions of the country. The recommendations made have serious implications for Federalism (autonomy and rights of states) and the concurrent status of education. It also reported major restructuring of the educational system and its governance with an overarching centralized structure such as Rashtriya Shiksha Ayog (RSA) which can have serious negative implications for the Constitutional Foundation of our nation. The draft report did not take any robust analysis of the current education system to address the existing inequality, segregation, discrimination, privatization, and commercialization of education. With this view in mind, at the outset, I am a bit skeptical about the recommendations made especially pertaining to my own discipline i.e., Psychology.
I would like to place the following core concerns I have for larger debate:
Psychology in India is a growing domain in education, with more and more demand of the course as well as the need of professionals in our every day-to-day life. In India, the recognition for the subject has not been long, and the management of the course is unethical. Rehabilitation Council of India manages the licensing of "Clinical Psychologist" in the country by making MPhil the requirement for getting specialization as well as the license to practice. RCI has also made it mandate that students in this field are required to study only under their "recognized" institutions to get the license. Hence, the draft recommendations for stopping the MPhil course contradicts this rule. I believe the government did not fully make the draft inclusive of all educational spheres. With this being said, the government should look into the management of "psychologists" in our nation by providing a different Board for Psychologist in India, to make it uniform and ethical in our practices. If this matter is not looked into, there could be a greater negative impact in the fields of our own practices.
In terms of employment, on a general note, our nation still lacks in providing jobs for millions of qualified students. To curb this issue, the policy-makers should integrate a more sustainable approach for all spheres and domain. With respect to psychology, the current scene in our nation lacks uniformity in terms of employment since there isn't a proper regulatory board to assist and make the structure more stringent. With the demand for mental health professionals, it is of utmost importance to set up a different regulatory board for Psychologists to serve better in the society.
With respect to the 'special population'/ 'clinical population', the Policy thus talks about the need to bring the "unrepresented groups" into school and focus on educationally-lagging 'special-education-zones', it misses a critical opportunity of addressing inequalities within the education system. It fails in providing solutions to close the gap of access to quality education for special education.
The Policy also talks about multidisciplinary institutions which will have arts, science, and technical studies like engineering and medical education. "Professional education will be an integral part of higher education". (10.d) (Committee for Draft National Education Policy, 2019) With this thought in mind, it is also suggested to have 200 international institutions to be invited to start educational institutions of their own, in our country. There are several questions raised in this regard. Mr. V. Raghunathan; Director, Schulich School of Business, India, mentioned "In our education system, there is no lack of regulatory bodies, but lack of effective implementation and coordination among all oversight bodies that are supposed to deliver but they don't. Be it the UGC, AICTE, MCI, CBSE, HRD or a whole lot of others, including the ones in the states. Prima facie, it is difficult to see why RSA should succeed where rest of all failed". He talks about greater accountability structure. Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to have a few nationally competent universities running into hundreds? Wouldn't it be better to have five Universities in the top 200 than have 200 new universities? The idea of having multi-disciplinary Universities which are large will eventually result in the closure of government-run institutions and colleges in rural areas. This could result in a way, pushing the marginalized out of the higher education system. It is rather cynical when the policy says that the institutions thus closed will become 'libraries" or "skill-training centers".
The National Higher Education Regulatory Authority will act as the only regulator for all higher education including professional education, says the draft policy. It will be headed by the Prime Minister. According to the Constitution, it is the right of the State to set up and monitor higher education in the country. In the draft policy, the States are reduced to merely an advisory role. It is clear that this policy is attempting to have one country, one culture and one language in the country. But, it is ironical that while the State government has to spend 80% of the educational budget, the Central government will have all the authority to regulate higher education in the country. The division of power and authority between the two might pose a threat to the educational institutions and ultimately to the quality of the education provided. Hence, without a proper board(s) to facilitate various disciplines, our country, no matter how many new international institutions are set up, will remain in dire straits.
References:
ANI. (2019, June 1). New Draft Education Policy calls for overhauling of education structure, RTE expansion. New Delhi, India: Times of India. Retrieved August 16, 2019, from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/new-draft-education-policy-calls-for-overhauling-of-education-structure-rte-expansion/articleshow/69608013.cms
Bhaswar Kumar. (2019, June 19). NEP 2019's 'excellent' early education reforms face significant challenges. New Delhi, Delhi, India: Business Standard. Retrieved August 16, 2019, from https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/nep-2019-s-excellent-early-education-reforms-face-significant-challenges-119061900335_1.html
Committee for Draft National Education Policy. (2019, May 31). https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_HI.pdf. Retrieved August 16, 2019, from https://mhrd.gov.in/: https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_EN.pdf
Prashant K.Nanda. (2019, June 12). Draft new education policy is robust, but has its limitations. New Delhi, Delhi, India: Livemint. Retrieved August 17, 2019, from https://www.livemint.com/education/news/draft-new-education-policy-is-robust-but-has-its-limitations-1560282687888.html
Comments
Post a Comment