Yes,
indeed. It does.
It
aspires transformation as policies in all areas, in all countries, in all ages
do. Aspiring transformation is in the nature of policy; is the purpose of the
policy.
Policy
derives from the experience of the past, stands in the present and paints the
future. Changing the present to the future is transformation. It is true,
whether it is education, agriculture, industry, health, or any other field.
Education evolves; its aspirations are equally evolving. Every new aspiration
stands on the shoulder of the previous aspirations, including the unfinished
agenda.
Aspiration
to transform is equally true across the
countries. NCLB and ESSA of the USA, 2012 policy of Finland, Singapore’s
4-stage plan from 1997 to 2015, and many others – all aspire transformation.
The aspiration to transform is the reason for the policy. If the policy does
not aspire transformation, it doesn’t qualify to be a policy.
The
policies use different words to express their intent of transformation. First
Indian National Education Policy of 1968 expressed its intention with the
strong word, ‘radical change’. 1986 policy expressed the same intention with a
modest matured expression that ‘only a comprehensive policy’ would be able to
achieve the transformation necessary.
There are
also differences in the ways the policies
are made -- across the countries, and within India. Research, diagnosis
and consultation of stakeholders are three pillars of all scientific
policymaking. The 1968 policy was formulated based on the basis of the recommendations
of the Kothari Commission. The largescale consultations, a huge amount of
serious research, and expert-authored position papers spread over a period of
two years, 1964-66 were the inputs to the report of the Commission. It was a
landmark. Commission went round the country consulting all possible
stakeholders. The Commission was chaired by no less than a scholar of the
stature of Prof D.S. Kothari with Sri J. P. Naik another architect of Indian
education as the Member Secretary. And, it was the first National Policy. It
had to pioneer both the process of policy making in Indian education and the
product. There was no precedence; it had no shoulder to stand upon.
The 1986
policy took off where 1968 policy left. It was developed in a very different fashion.
It started with developing a diagnostic document -what has been achieved,
what have been some of the missed opportunities, and what can be done. The diagnostic
document titled, The Challenge of Education was debated extensively all over the
country. Several hundred well-documented reports were received in NIEPA that
was entrusted to carry out the content analysis and derive policy implications
from the collective wisdom of all stakeholders in the country. Based on
the analysis, a draft policy was developed that went into another round of
extensive discussion with all stakeholders before finalizing. Prime Minister
himself participated in several discussions (one was chaired by Dr. Malcolm
Adisesiah) during the policy formulation; he also reviewed the entire policy document
word by word and commented before it was finalized (as professor of NIEPA,
then, I witnessed).
As the
World Wide Web or the Internet was still to be born (1990-91), 1968 and 1986
policy had no opportunity for online consultation.
Both the
1968 and 1986 policies went to the Parliament for debate and approval before the
declaration of the National Policy on Education.
2020
policy was developed still differently. A Committee was set up under Sri TSR Subramaniam in 2016. The committee submitted its report in on
7th May 2016. Another committee was constituted under the
chairmanship of Dr Kasturirangan in 2018. The committee submitted its
report on 31st May 2019. Taking full advantage of development of ICT
and well developed network of institutions, there was extensive consultation on
the Subramaniam report and then on the draft document. With the vibrant World
Wide Web, there was large scale online consultation. Prime Minister took keen interest in the
policy making and the aftermath. The President and the Prime Minister actively
engaged themselves in public speaking on the policy.
One
indication of the aspiration of the national policies is the active involvement
of the highest executives, namely the prime ministers in the country.
Diverting
for a moment. The three practices provide important research opportunities for
policy research. There is research on impact of sample size on research outcomes,
e.g. beyond a size of the sample (large sample), cost of research increases
without increase of the worth of the research findings. I didn’t come across
any research on scale of consultation and quality of outcome in the context of
policy making. This provides and opportunity for research. Similarly, another research opportunity is on
the online consultation. Online consultation, like online surveys, divide the
prospective sample into respondent and non-respondent samples. This division is
on the basis of enthusiasm and voluntariness to share the viewpoints; and not
the knowledgeability on the subject of the discourse. The issue remains unexplored – what would be
the result if non-respondent knowledgeable sample would have responded?
Consultation
is necessary, but not end of the road for policy formulation. The policy is a political
statement on the subject by the political party in power (in case of
democracies) or the ruler (in autocratic states). Hence, the views of the ruling dispensation
are important for any policy.
There is
some common core of aspirations across the countries. As Tan[1],
analyzing the tensions in Chinese education policy mentioned, educational
policies derive from educational theories and best practices across the
countries. For example, student-centric education, higher-order cognition,
technology-enabled/integrated education are the common core of educational policies
across the countries; also reflected in NEP2020. I have personally seen the
schools that India aspires to create as described in NEP 2020 in Singapore,
Japan, China, UK, USA and Canada. I have also seen some Indian
schools that fit into the aspired framework of the imagined schools of the
future.
Comparing
new policies with the previous ones is not very relevant. 1968 policy was
developed in a context that changed by 1985. 1986 policies derived the
advantage of the implementation of 1968 policies for little more than 15 years.
Similarly, the 1986 policy was formulated based on the developmental context
that existed then. 2020 policy derives the benefits of implementation of 1986 policies
over the last 34 years that has substantially changed the context. The quality
of aspiration needs to be tested laterally with contemporary policies in
comparison to other countries like E-9 countries.
Every
policy stands on the shoulder of the previous policy(ies). Barack Obama’s Every
Student Succeed Act (2015) stood on the shoulder of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2002. Singapore’s four-stage plan leading to the ambition of
making “Lifelong Self Learners” was a step by step progression from 1997
to 2015 and now. Finland’s Phenomenon-based Learning policy is not disconnected
from its experience and achievements. NEP 2020 had the privilege and advantage
of standing on the strong shoulders of 1968 and 1986 policies.
In 1947, India inherited 19% literacy; a total of
241,369 students registered across 20 universities and
496 colleges. NEP 2020 takes off with 77.7% literacy, 37.4
million students across 993 universities, 39,931 colleges, and 10,725
stand-alone institutions, (according to the AISHE-2019) at 26.3% GER in higher
education.The situations are totally different. Things are different.
Aspirations have to be qualitatively different.
Questions that need Answers
Unresolved question is whether and how NEP2020
responds to the 4-layer knowledge taxonomy with the dimensions of policy
vision, professional development, curriculum, Pedagogy, assessment and
institutional organization?
1.
Is it contemporary?
2.
Is it Futuristic?
3.
Is it optimistic enough to be
inspiring?
4.
Is the aspiration rooted in
reality to be implementable?
5.
Would it enhance global parity?
6. Would it
reduce in-country regional disparities?
For example, India ranked 129 among 189 countries in the world on HDI in 2019. India lifted 271 million people out of poverty between 2005-15; but remains home for 364 million poor people (28%) (UNDP 2019 report). Many questions would appear on the way from 2020 to 2040. How does NEP 2020 aspire to lift the poor and ensure the quality of life, social justice and all that have been enshrined in the Indian Constitution? How would GER help in improving HDI, or what percentage of GER is the minimum threshold for lifting India’s poor and illiterate out of the situation where they are. How would NEP 2020 change or contribute to the improvement of Quality of Life Index of India and also its ranking in the world? Would it help change the Pareto Principle of 20% Indians amassing 80% of the wealth to assuring better distribution of wealth ensuring End of Poverty[3]?
Conclusion
1986 policies weathered 34 storms, scorching
summers and freezing colds offering a solid ground for NEP2020 to stand upon.
NEP 2020 is a new-born spotless baby fresh from the garden. We welcome and
celebrate her appearance as heartily as India did to its pioneer 1968 and
predecessor 1986 policies.
[1]Tan, Charlene. (2016). Tensions and challenges in China’s education policy borrowing. Educational Research. 58. 1-12. 10.1080/00131881.2016.1165551.
[2]Kozma, R. B. (2011) A Conceptual Framework: The Knowledge Ladder. In UNESCO (2011).Transforming Education: The Power of ICT Policies. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Dakar/pdf/Transforming%20Education%20the%20Power%20of%20ICT%20Policies.pdf
[3]
Please see The End of Poverty: How We Can Make It Happen In Our Lifetime by Jeffrey Sachs (2005).
No comments:
Post a Comment