[lg policy] India: School education in light of NEP-2016

Mon Dec 12 18:09:44 UTC 2016

School education in light of NEP-2016
THE HANS INDIA |   Dec 10,2016 , 03:28 AM IST

------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
[image: .]

.
Like our FB page
Follow us on Twitter
Follow @thehansindiaweb <https://twitter.com/thehansindiaweb>
It has been nearly five decades since the first National Policy on
Education (1968) was framed. A committee constituted in October 2015 by the
Government of India, under the chairmanship of TSR Subramanian, a former
Cabinet Secretary, for evolution of a National Education Policy (NEP-2016),
submitted its report to MHRD on 27th May 2016. This report was not made
public. Instead, interestingly, a document titled “Some inputs for the
draft New Educational Policy” was posted all of sudden on the MHRD website
seeking suggestions from people and organizations, by September30.

The 43-page document organised into five chapters, namely, preamble, key
challenges in the education sector, vision-mission-goals and objectives of
the National Education Policy, policy framework, implementation and
monitoring, attempts to frame general education at all levels right from
pre-primary to research, categorised into school education and higher
education. In its preamble, the document narrates the evolution of
education system from ancient era to post independent era, the key issues
and challenges, the chronicle of a few education committees, and the need
for new educational policy.

One witnesses its tall recognition of education as the most potent tool for
socio-economic mobility, for building an equitable, just and human society,
promoter of social cohesion and national identity, and facilitator to
amalgamate globalisation with localisation. NEP-2016 is supposed to provide
a framework for the development of education in India over the coming
several years. It chooses to continue addressing the unfinished goals and
targets set in the previous policies on education along with the current
and emerging new challenges.

The policy initiatives for a few creditable issues like Protection of Child
Rights and Adolescent Education, Literacy and Lifelong Learning, Teacher
Development and Management are counterproductive and fraught with
imperfections. Educating and recruiting teachers with genuine teaching
aptitudes without any prejudices is a first step in ensuring quality
education. Then, affirmative actions like continuous monitoring,
motivating, and endeavoring to reform, nurture them to be regular,
disciplined and responsible.

Interference of politicians and school management committees in assessing
teacher and school performance is detrimental to peaceful running of
schools. Malnutrition and anemia can be addressed by neither physical
education nor yoga nor any co-scholastic activity, but by the affirmative
actions like free provision of nutritious breakfast, lunch and evening
snacks.

Although the document seems to have rightly identified the pre-school
education, as a universally accepted imperative for child’s mental and
physical development, assurance to provide pre-school education as a part
of school education under the same ministry for all children between 0-6
years is most desirable. Since, fostering the child school-ready at that
tender age is sensitive and responsible task, it must be carried out with
the help of diligently trained staff only. Entrusting this job simply to
Anganwadis or their gradual conversion into pre-primary schools, without
any constitutional guarantee or legislation provision, will prove to be
futile.

The document wrongly diagnoses the reason for the poor learning outcomes in
elementary education as the existing non-detention policy. Strangely, it
says poor academic performance is at primary level and treatment of
detention policy is said to be restored at upper primary level. Detention
policy punishes largely the students of disadvantaged groups for the fault
of education system. Chances are more for increased early-drop-outs and
their derailment from mainstream quality higher education.

The proposed open school system at elementary level legitimises the child
labour, violating the constitutional right to life, and furthering the
dropout rate. The very idea of centralisation as has been evident in higher
education with CBCS pattern, in school education fully in Mathematics,
Science, English and partly in Social Sciences disregards the diversity of
India.

On-demand board examinations like Part-A and Part-B exams in class-X,
conveniently ward off the students of underprivileged sections. Students at
that level are not mature enough to make decision as to what to do after
class X. Moreover they must be delivered quality curriculum upto class-X.

Irony is quoting Swami Vivekananda as “education is not the amount of
information put in brain” on one side, and the overstating of information
and communication technology (ICT) as though an alternative for a teacher
on the other side. It is menacing when the document says ICT is used for
remedial education, teacher training, adult literacy and skill education.
ICT can never be a substitute for either a well-trained teacher or a highly
skilled instructor. Haphazard use in place of judicious use of ICT anywhere
ruins the purpose rather than energising it.  Before that, a perfect
ambience for establishment of ICT machinery as well as its sustenance must
be ensured.

The wrong perception of the purpose of school education as making student
job-ready brings forward the idea of creation of skill schools, skill
development programs. There are no jobs for already vocationally,
professionally trained students. The variation of employability, several
studies report, between professional and general graduates is not much
pronounced.

Now, by introducing skill courses in general education right from upper
primary, where do these general stream students with haphazard skills have
to find jobs? When all the subjects upto Class X, along with co-curricular
activities, are taught properly, students are sure to be equipped with a
lot many skills necessary in any sphere of life. Avocation of integration
of work-experience in general education by Phule, Gandhi and Kothari must
not be misconstrued.

The idea of vocational-skill-based specialist-programmes conveniently
branches off the so-called meritless, and confines them to either
caste-based vocations or low-level global market jobs well before they
enter higher secondary education only. Clarity is always needed in
understanding the language policy in India, amongst the general public and
policy makers alike.

Importance of ‘English-as-a-communicative language’ and significance of
‘English-as-a-medium of instruction’ up to a certain class is to be
unambiguously distinguished. For want of perfect language policy, local
aspirations and preferences are misguided by education traders. The
document proposes that those states and UTs which so desire may provide
primary education in mother tongue, otherwise any (English) medium they
wish.

What stops the government from making it a mandatory the mother tongue as
medium of instruction upto elementary level, just like RTE up to class
VIII? Curricular and procedural reforms of the policy only do no help
realise the objectives of education. They ought to be augmented with proper
support and delivery system in action, and continous and spirited
monitoring system with time-bound feedback analysis.

One of the appropriate measures could be to make the entire
education-sector autonomous to prevent subjectivity associated with the
ideologies of bureaucrats, parties, and governments. (Writer is an
Assistant Professor, Kakatiya Government College, Hanamkonda)

*By Bairy Satyanarayana*
http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/News-Analysis/2016-12-10/School-education-in-light-of-NEP-2016/268014
-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or
sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write
directly to the original sender of any offensive message.  A copy of this
may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20161212/d3729fa9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list