How new is the New Education Policy (specially senior secondary level) and is it practicable and beneficial for students?

I wish to suggest new topic for discussion. How new is the New Education Policy (specially senior secondary level) and is it practicable and beneficial for students?

• Initiator: Mr. S. C. Vohra

• Reply: Azeez

There are some other areas crying for attention to bring much required reforms...

Cry 1: GER

The Gross Enrolment Ratio from preschool to secondary education should be 100 per cent by 2030. (GER is defined as the ratio of the total enrolment in education – regardless of age – to the official population in a given school year, expressed as percentage.) 

The policy states that universal participation in schools shall be achieved by tracking students and their learning levels to ensure they are enrolled and attending school, and have suitable opportunities to re-join or catch up at school in case they have dropped out or fallen behind.

South Indian states, Tamilnadu, Kerala, Telengana... achieved GER 48% now whereas other states of India are at GER 26% and the deadline is fixed to achieve it is 2030. Till then what will these achievers do?  They reach it in a few years GER 100%. Does this policy pull these states down or hold them to not to improve their GER. Or to fix different states for different GER or different deadline?

Cry: 2

Public and private schools – except the schools that are managed, aided or controlled, by the central government – will be assessed and accredited on the same criteria, benchmarks, and processes.

Solid assessment plans and criteria for the process are not given in the policy. Whether Assessment is results oriented or skills oriented. If it is results oriented, then rote learning is the way which is not supported by the policy. If it is skills oriented, then what are the tools for skills measurements? Or any other secret criteria is hidden behind? If so, trust is not assured. And why not the same criteria will be followed for central government owning schools?

Cry:3

The policy suggests establishing ‘school complexes’ consisting of a secondary school and other schools offering lower grades of education – including anganwadi centres – in a radius of 5 to 10 kilometers. Such a complex will have “greater resource efficiency and more effective functioning, coordination, leadership, governance, and management of schools in a cluster."

We all know how difficult it will be to run a residential school or school of a higher standard with a huge population. Man power, coordinators, VPs, admins, managers.... are required. State Governments are dividing schools, district education offices.... for the better and smooth administration. Union government is dividing states, States are dividing districts for smooth and quick and quality management. Now bringing them back under one umbrella. How will administration be?

Cry 4

All education institutions shall be held to similar standards of audit and disclosure as a 'not-for-profit' entity, says this policy. If the institution generates a surplus, it shall be reinvested in the educational sector.

What about private schools? Will they exist or only government schools exist? Or all schools be run by MN companies?

Cry:5

The medium of expression until at least grade five – but preferably till grade eight or beyond – shall be the student’s mother tongue, or the local or regional language. The ‘three-language formula’ will continue to be implemented in schools, where two of the three languages shall be native to India.

• Local language/Regional language/Mother tongue in India (Details)

There are 121 languages which are spoken by 10,000 or more people in India, which has a population of 121 crore, it said.

The Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, said since a household may consist of persons related by blood or of unrelated persons or a mix of both, it is absolutely necessary to ask every person about her or his mother tongue.

It was required because the mother tongue of each member of a household need not necessarily be the same — these may be different for different members in the household.

The number of such raw returns of mother tongues has totalled 19,569, the report of the 2011 census said. However, 96.71 percent population in the country have one of the 22 scheduled languages as their mother tongue.

Since mother tongues, as returned in the census, are basically the designations provided by the respondents of the linguistic mediums in which the respondents think they communicate, they need not be identical with the actual linguistic mediums, it said.

For assessing the correlation between the mother tongue and designations of the census and for presenting the numerous raw returns in terms of their linguistic affiliation to actual languages and dialects, 19,569 raw returns were subjected to thorough linguistic scrutiny, edit and rationalisation.

This resulted in 1,369 rationalised mother tongues and 1,474 names which were treated as “unclassified” and relegated to “other” mother tongue category.

The 1,369 rationalised mother tongues were further classified following the usual linguistic methods for rational grouping based on the available linguistic information. Thus, an inventory of classified mother tongues returned by 10,000 or more speakers are grouped under appropriate languages at the all-India level, wherever possible, and have been prepared for final presentation of the 2011 mother tongue data.

The total number of languages arrived at is 121, the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, said.

The 121 languages are presented in two parts — languages included in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, comprising 22 languages and languages not included in the Eighth Schedule, comprising of 99 languages plus the category “total of other languages”, which includes all other languages and mother tongues which returned less than 10,000 speakers each at the all-India level or were not identifiable on the basis of the linguistic information available.

The number of scheduled languages was 22 at the time of presentation of the 2001. The same 22 languages are maintained in 2011 census also.

The non-scheduled languages are 99 in 2011 against 100 in 2001. The decrease in the number is due to exclusion of Simte and Persian, which were not returned in sufficient numbers as 2011, and inclusion of Mao, which has returned more than 10,000 speakers at the all-India level at 2011 census.

Of the total population of India, 96.71 percent have one of the scheduled languages as their mother tongue, the remaining 3.29 per cent is accounted for other languages.

There are total 270 identifiable mother tongues which have returned 10,000 or more speakers each at the all-India level, comprising 123 mother tongues grouped under the scheduled languages and 147 mother tongues grouped under the non-scheduled languages.

Those mother tongues which have returned less than 10,000 speakers each and which have been classified under a particular language, are included in “others” under that language.

The Eighth Schedule of the Constitution consists of the following 22 languages –Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, Bodo, Santhali, Maithili and Dogri.

Of these languages, 14 were initially included in the Constitution. Sindhi language was added in 1967. Thereafter three more languages viz., Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali were included in 1992.

Subsequently, Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santhali were added in 2004.

________

Medium of Instruction in schools should be of local language or mother tongue - the policy says. How to address this issue? Which language to follow for the medium of instruction now. Teachers get confused. Appointing so many language teachers for few learners in every language is a herculean task and expensive too. Some of our local language has no script used for reading and writing.

Meanwhile non-Hindi speaking states in our country are more than 20%. Again language protection issues come up.

3 language systems are wonderful and acceptable also. But choice should be given to choose languages. An example, In a non Hindi speaking state, first language is regional/local language, the 2nd language would be English and the 3rd language would be Hindi. Now in Hindi speaking state, first language Hindi, 2nd language English and what would be their 3rd language? Again Hindi or some other language.

Any language would be called as regional language if 10% of speakers are. Otherwise it won't be considered as the regional language of 

the particular state. 

Now what would be our choice to choose a third language. Parents again get confused. The issue of children’s ‘mother tongue’ and home language being different from the local language used for instruction in schools, especially in the case of migrant and Adivasi families, has not been addressed. There is no definitive decision or guideline around the language of instruction. 

For example, the policy says to use local languages ‘wherever possible’, which leaves a lot of room for the status quo—which is the existing three language formula—to continue, especially in the case of the high-performing government run school systems such as Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs).

Cry 6

The policy asks educators to integrate ‘Indian knowledge systems’ covering subjects like yoga, Indian philosophy, and Adivasi/indigenous ways of learning, in the syllabus. However, upskilling educators, who presently struggle even to teach the basic syllabus, to integrate these complex ideas in a secular and inclusive manner, is definitely a challenge. Such a challenge to face, we need multifaceted teachers trained in Apex educational institutions. Every teacher cannot face it. All our top level students are joining professional colleges and none wish to be a teacher. Because they knew the difficulties of a teacher. Low payment, no job security.....

Cry:7

Testing and assessments

Focus on measurable learning outcomes at all levels of the newly proposed schooling system, with testing at 3rd, 5th, and 8th grade levels.

Promoting formative assessments (those that are conducted on an ongoing basis covering smaller portions of the syllabus), peer assessment, and holistic progress reports, to measure the ongoing academic progress of the children.

Student choice to be incorporated in the 10th and 12th grade board exams. The policy suggests doing so by offering freedom of subject choice, allowing best of two attempts, and choice of difficulty (standard and higher level).

Misses:

The policy suggests formation of two new agencies: PARAKH and NTA—Performance Assessment Review Analysis of Knowledge for Holistic Development and National Testing Agency, respectively. These new agencies could lead to over-centralisation, and potentially, over-testing of children at national and state levels. 

Overlap between importance given to 12th standard board exams, as well as common university entrance examinations after 12th standard.

Funding linked to performance of states may actually result in low-income and low-performing states being strapped for central funding in the future, leading to further stratification. 

The policy suggests the development of a holistic progress report card for students and parents, that can be accessed through an AI based software for periodically tracking their growth. However, it does not clarify how the existing glaring digital divide will be bridged. 

The policy language mentions the focus on ‘gifted students’ to increase admission into IITs/NITs via promoting Olympiads and other competitive testing. 

Poorer families cannot afford preparation and exam fees for Olympiads, and if premier institutes include them in their admissions criteria, as suggested by the policy, it would deepen existing social inequities in higher education. The hardest task that NEP 2020 had set itself is the all-important one of “transforming the culture of assessment.” To our utmost disappointment, we find that no intrinsic change has been proposed in the mode of assessment.

The policy mentions a centralised examination structure and a declaration that examinations would not require rote learning. This is very welcome as a distinction should certainly be made between the requirement (as now) to retain and recall data, and the necessity to acquire and assimilate knowledge. 

Further, NEP 2020 mentions that the syllabus would be reduced to accommodate only “core essentials” in order to make the board exams “easier.” 

But we teachers have our reservations as we strongly feel that the rigour of learning should not be completely done away with. The question of “core essentials” have to be discussed here.

On a large scale how to maintain secrecy of the question papers. It would be a big task of protecting from leaking question papers...The proposal in NEP 2020 to set examination papers at two levels, ‘standard’ and ‘advanced’—“beginning with Mathematics”—is an excellent idea. 

Since students have a stronger aptitude for certain disciplines and have a dislike for others (or for some reason are unable to perform well in them), it makes sense to have two levels of exams in different subjects. 

With a combination of standard and advanced level courses in different subjects, all students would at least have a basic knowledge of the core subjects up to the secondary level. 

This would make allowance for differences in aptitude among students and would definitely help a large number of “math-phobic” students, who could take the “standard” level of exams in mathematics. 

This is necessary to prevent a ‘skewed’ educational foundation, in which students leave school with inadequate numeracy skills.

So narrow and specialised studies are not necessary at secondary level of education. For few who are called as gifted could enjoy discrimination of this kind. While the examinations proposed by NEP 2020 in classes 3, 5, and 8 may be necessary “to monitor and develop” the school system, they will not be viewed as such. 

Children will continue to be under constant pressure to ‘perform’, now at three more levels of exams.

In Tamilnadu and Andra Pradesh, School children are appearing 10th, 11th and 12th as board examinations. Continuous and constant pressure on school children in the name of the board of examination is a kind of mental harassment and against human rights. Added to which NEP brings additional 3 board examinations.

Bringing children to an edge where no option except quitting from studies.

In order to realise the objective of transforming the culture of assessment, depends on changing a mindset, We need to change the attitude of adults, especially that of parents and teachers, towards assessment so that children are enabled to take tests in their stride.

Why do we speak much about assessment culture in NEP 2020?

Reason is:

The worth of a student is mostly measured in terms of examination results (so too the worth of a school).

[During the secondary school years, students’ creativity and thirst for learning beyond the syllabus are … killed]

Therefore the second half of a student’s school life is currently mainly devoted to securing good results. 

Consequently, these ‘wonder years’, when they should be learning joyfully and exploring the world with uninhibited curiosity and sense of adventure, are drearily spent preparing for exams.

The nature of each examination – irrespective of the affiliated school board – is such, that students have to learn vast amounts of data, and stock questions have to be answered in set ways.

During the secondary school years, students’ creativity and thirst for learning beyond the syllabus are also killed. The learning time for students who are not examination candidates is also affected since a large part of the teaching force is otherwise busy, having been requisitioned to help in carrying out this mammoth yearly exercise. 

Moreover, every year the absurdly inflated marks that students score in the high school board exams dent the credibility of the assessment system.

Yet in the opinion of many school educators, the success of the curriculum policy will, in turn, hinge almost entirely on the success of this single reform of the assessment system.

Cry: 8

What should set off alarm bells about NEP 2020 is the statement that all officially prescribed text books would contain “only essential core material”. 

The definition of “essential” is relative. The fear is that the content of a textbook may not be accepted by all as “essential” or that what is deemed “essential” by many, may be missing altogether from the textbooks. 

Therefore, clarity about “core essentials” is vital as experience indicates that unless a topic is included in the syllabus that is to be tested, it is unlikely to be taught or learnt.

Cry: 9

Learning by the book

Closely associated with the issue of assessment and examinations is the matter of textbooks. 

NEP 2020 has announced the intention of publishing “high quality and energised books”. 

What is high quality and energised books? 

Of course, nobody wishes to compromise on the quality of textbooks, especially in a country where, unfortunately, the reference point for most learning and assessment thereof, is the textbook. (Incidentally, what does the term “energised textbook” mean?)

Since private schools and colleges find a respectable place in the general scheme of things, private publishers should also be permitted to publish school textbooks. 

This gives out the wrong signal that everything a student should know about a subject, in a given class is encapsulated in a single book. 

A specific textbook may be prescribed by the school but schools, teachers and students should have the freedom to refer to any book of their choice from among a wide and rich variety of textbooks. 

And Other learning sources such as reference material should also be readily available.

It goes against all educational principles that the schoolchildren of a whole country have to learn from a single set of textbooks. 

What is imperative is the availability of a wide range of textbooks that also cover the experiences and conditions of different states.

{See this contradiction: What should set off alarm bells about NEP 2020 is the statement that all officially prescribed text books would contain “only essential core material”}

Teachers should also refrain from referring to a single text book in class. In any case, students must be weaned away from text-book-oriented learning. I have a feeling that the problem of heavy schoolbags will disappear if teachers stopped insisting on children bringing their textbooks to school.

What should set off alarm bells about NEP 2020 is the statement that all officially prescribed text books would contain “only essential core material”. The definition of “essential” is relative. The fear is that the content of a textbook may not be accepted by all as “essential” or that what is deemed “essential” by many, may be missing altogether from the textbooks. 

Therefore, clarity about “core essentials” is vital as experience indicates that unless a topic is included in the syllabus that is to be tested, it is unlikely to be taught or leant.

Cry 10

Improving standards

NEP 2020 states that “public and private schools (except the central government schools) will be assessed and accredited on common minimum criteria.” It is not clear why central government schools have been excluded from this assessment, but the policy clearly states that common standards would be established for public and private school education.

Statistical data indicate that about half of India’s school going children attend private schools in spite of the higher cost of such schooling. This is because of the perception (justified or not) that private schools are better run than government schools. Besides, the importance given to the teaching and learning of English in private schools is a powerful factor in their favour since it is generally believed that competency in English is a basic requirement in the job market.

In order to achieve the same standards, the policy states that teachers of public schools would be adequately trained and given a conducive working environment. Their professional development would be continuous and incentives would be offered throughout their career. There would be a School Quality Assessment and Accreditation Framework (SQAAF) developed by SCERT & NCERT. We look forward to the day when all schools will be of a high standard whether public, private, or run by the central government.

Many school educators feel that one of the most laudable features of NEP 2020 is the focus on ‘learning outcomes’. Hitherto, the concern had been mostly about enrolment and the number of ‘out of school’ children. The quality of learning was ignored. Even the number of toilets in a school seemed to receive greater attention. Hence it was no surprise when Pratham’s Annual Status of Education Report (ASER)disclosed the shockingly poor learning levels at every grade.

Therefore, the proposal of NEP 2020 that there would be continuous tracking of each child’s learning outcomes is reassuring. In fact, the purpose of the proposed examinations in classes 3, 5, and 8 is primarily to track learning outcomes, and to introduce remedial measures and course correction where required. Course correction would include revision of course content in terms of depth and breadth and revision of teaching strategies and goals.

Conclusions

It must be confessed in conclusion that in spite of the many welcome changes that have been envisaged by the new policy, a couple of nagging fears persist in many of us.

Will the standardisation and centralisation that is implied in the structure and governance of school education be appropriate for the widely diverse student population of our country? Will the bid to elevate the level of education quickly and efficiently by adopting a uniform approach, radically change our precious multi-layered and intricate cultural fabric?

In sum, it can be stated that two vital conditions are required if the much-vaunted NEP 2020 is to succeed. The first is the transformation of mindsets; the second is the immediate availability of competent teachers who are central to the whole project.

[T]here is no clarity as to who will train and develop this vast pool of extraordinary teachers that is expected to emerge in the course of the next two years to shape the future of India’s children.

It is difficult to fathom where the teachers will come from to make this miracle happen. At the moment, not only is there an extreme dearth of skilled schoolteachers throughout India, there is also a crucial shortage of teaching staff of any kind in public schools. 

Expectedly, a study conducted by a child rights NGO states that “quality education is a far cry for children”. According to reports of a 2018 study by Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability and Child Rights and You, there is a shortage of more than 500,000 teachers in elementary schools and 14% of government secondary schools do not have the prescribed minimum of six teachers. 

Many schools employ contractual teachers or underqualified para teachers.

The plan for the professional growth of teachers and their retention, as spelt out in NEP 2020, is commendable in parts. But there is no clarity as to who will train and develop this vast pool of extraordinary teachers who are expected to emerge in the course of the next two years to shape the future of India’s children.

The National Education Policy of 2020, has set out to fulfil the aspirations of many Indians and has succeeded in dazzling many school educators. In the end the efficacy of any policy is measured by how it is implemented. NEP 2020 is an exception: it can be critiqued even before it is implemented. This is because of the unrealistic timelines that have been drawn up for meeting far-reaching goals. 

Overall, NEP 2020 appears to be absurdly overambitious.