Envisioning Education Policy

Anjali Noronha

The National Education Policy 2020 was declared a few months ago. It has been in the making for the last three years. In the 73 years after independence, this is the third policy on education – the first was adopted in 1968, the second in 1986.

The education framework and policy of a nation are based on the visualization of the nation and its aspirations at a given time. At any given time, a nation is engaged in a discourse on the contending conceptualizations of a nation and the kind of education that would serve its ends. What happens on the ground – in schools and colleges – is a product of the interaction between popular notions regarding the nation and the formal policies and legal frameworks regarding the same. Hence, it is important for teachers and parents to understand policy and its history.

Context and process of Education Policy – 1968, 1986 and 2020
The three policies were made 18 and 24 years apart, in very different contexts. The context always informs any thought or philosophy and any policy is an embodiment of such contemporary thought and ideals.

The backdrop and process of the Education Policy 1968
The first Education Policy for independent India was placed before the nation 20 years after independence, under the government headed by Indira Gandhi of the Congress Party. India at independence had to deal with hunger and drought, setting up public distribution systems and not in the least, the aftermath of partition, which also left us with hostile neighbours and two wars. The discourse during the freedom struggle and the constituent assembly debates shaped the vision of post-independence India. Many of the leaders of the freedom struggle expressed their thoughts about the kind of education India should have. Among these were Gandhi, Tagore, Ambedkar, Sir Syed, Dr. Zakir Hussain and many others. In the initial years after independence, a number of commissions on secondary education (Mudaliar Commission) and higher education (Radhakrishnan Commission) had studied the situation and informed the making of the National Education Policy 1968 better known as the Kothari Commission Report.

The Education Commission headed by Shri D. S. Kothari was a comprehensive one. The Commission comprised 18 members all male, 6 were international experts, one Muslim and the rest were all (as far as one can make out from their names) upper caste individuals.

Its report runs into more than 800 pages and pays attention to a lot of minute details on which the first policy was based. The report of the Kothari Commission was widely discussed in various groups. After several discussions in parliament, its recommendations were accepted more or less in full. These were then put into a short Policy Statement – The National Education Policy 1968. The composition of the group that put the policy together is not known.

The context and process of the 1986 Policy
Even though in 1986 the Congress was still in power, under Rajiv Gandhi, the context and experience of the previous 20 years had changed a lot. The Bangladesh war, the Emergency along with its constitutional changes, rising terrorism that had taken the life of one Prime Minister, increasing world capitalism, the fall of Soviet Russia and the scepticism around the idea of equality, all formed the backdrop of the New Education Policy 1986. The secular nature of the State was beginning to be challenged and needed re-emphasis.

In 1985, as a prelude to the 1986 Policy on Education, an exercise to review the education scenario and formulate recommendations for the education policy was undertaken. A document called ‘The Challenge of Education’ was developed by the Ministry of Education, Government of India. Unlike the Kothari Commission, this was an internal exercise by the Ministry and the names of those who prepared it are not revealed. This document quite candidly and seriously acknowledges the weaknesses hitherto and recommends some future paths. Like the Kothari Commission Report, it was widely debated across the country, by organizing discussion groups in every state. It was also discussed several times in parliament.

It is through these discussions that the policy recommendations were formulated and passed.

The context and process of the 2020 Policy
While a lot had changed between the 1968 and 1986 policy in terms of the economic scenario, the political leadership was in the hands of the same party and in some sense still formed the basis of the vision of a social welfare state as the framework of the nation.

Post the 1986 Policy, globally, by the 1990s, this framework had begun to be challenged as a result of the pressures of global capitalism and neoliberalism where education as a social good could not be taken for granted. In the new millennium, increase in privatization of both school and higher education began to move very rapidly.

As the decade of the 90s began, a second Prime Minister had been assassinated, government had changed a couple of times, identity and communal politics had increased and had become established. On the positive side, in education, a number of commissions had brought the plight of school education, school teachers and higher education to the notice of society. By the beginning of the first decade of the new millennium, school education for children between 6 and 14 years had become a fundamental right. The school curriculum and teacher education curriculum frameworks had been newly made in 2005 and 2009. Digitalization and privatization of schools and higher education had increased manifold.

The National Education Policy 2020 is developed under the government of the Bharatiya Janata Party, and the leadership of Narendra Modi. A different party with a different vision for India as a nation and of Indian education from that of the Congress.

The process of the development of NEP 2020 has also been somewhat different from the earlier ones. There was no separate review of the previous 20-24 years. A committee was set up by the Ministry of Human Resource Development for the evolution of the New Education Policy under the chairmanship of Shri TSR Subramanian in 2015. Subsequently another committee to formulate the policy, headed by Professor Kasturirangan, was set up. Its members include two women and two Muslims. This committee consulted with a large number of people and took feedback.

The main thrusts of the policies as regards school education
The freedom struggle and the making of the constitution had thrown up the conflict between the feudal, caste and religious values of exclusion and hierarchy on the one hand and the ideas of equality of all citizens irrespective of gender, caste, religion and wealth, secularism and socialism on the other. This tension is evident in all the policies as well.

The following are the overarching aspects of every policy
• Vision and values underlying the policy – from the lens of inclusion, equity and democracy.
• A perspective on languages.
• A perspective on school teachers and their development.
• The academic structure of the school and higher education (school stages, subjects etc.).
• An institutional structure for school and higher education.
• The administrative and finance provision.

In this short paper, I will try to reflect on the first three issues and glean some insights.

Vision of education – inclusion, equity and democracy
In many ways, the 1968 policy set the trend for future policies. In the 1968 policy, the emphasis was on providing access to school education particularly to the deprived sections by decreasing drop outs and increasing access and quality to children up till the age of 14, including the age-group of 0 to 6, as per the Directive Principles of State at that time. It mentions the reduction in regional gaps, but there is not much on special provisions to SC and ST students. Scholarships and special efforts for students of all backward classes, specially tribals, girls and the handicapped are recommended. There is a small section on adult literacy and education – which explicitly indicates the inclusion of those hitherto excluded.

Though a common school system is recommended, it left space for privately managed educational institutions, both aided and unaided.

There is no separate recommendation regarding the education of values in the 1968 policy except for advocating meaningful work experience and community service. The Kothari commission, in its report, had recommended the inculcation of democratic values and an orientation about major religions, this was one of the recommendations, which did not find place in the policy. Science education was given priority across all stages of education, though the phrase scientific temper or scientific thinking does not find mention in the policy.

The 1986 policy recognizes two things right in the beginning – that in the last nearly 20 years, while education has expanded, it has not been able to meet the goals of universal education set out in the 1968 policy. Secondly, it expresses the realization that the values of socialism, secularism and democracy are under strain. (1.8 and 1.11 page 3) These realizations form the basis of the thrust on universalization of education (2.1) and on scientific and democratic values (2.2 and 3.4). “… values such as India’s common cultural heritage, egalitarianism, democracy and secularism… and inculcation of scientific temper. All educational programs will be carried on in strict conformity with the values of secularism.” It is in the 1986 document that we get a much clearer statement on inclusion as well as on values which are categorically democratic, egalitarian and secular along with scientific temper.

The 1986 policy recommends a “National System of Education” and throughout the policy, seeks to outline how this would be done – this is the strongest approach to inclusion among the three policies.

There is an entire chapter on education for equality – part IV, which recognizes the disparities and ways to address them. It includes separate sections on gender, caste, tribe, handicapped and minority deprivation and discrimination – these sections seek to specifically address the particular discriminations therein. There is renewed focus on adult literacy.

NEP 2020 envisages the right to education as the right of each child, for nurturing his/her full potential. This kind of overarching statement glosses over the contradictions and conflicts of providing such an education in a highly stratified society.

In selecting the emphasis on some of the values for its vision, it selects Fundamental ‘duties’ and constitutional ‘values’ but not fundamental and constitutional ‘rights’. The words ‘democratic’ ‘scientific’ ‘secular and equality’ are conspicuous by their absence in the vision statement. Some of these, however, are there in one of the 22 statements of principle which precede the vision statement, thrown in with other values like cleanliness, courtesy, spirit of service, but rights and secular are not included.

It does envisage a “system” of education but not as strongly as the 1986 policy. It leaves space for private schools, but encourages schools to be supported by “philanthropy” – of which many could be religious or ideology driven.

The different deprived sections of society, each of which have quite different specific issues, have been clubbed together under a single label called Socio Economically Deprived Groups (SEDGs). These include women, minorities, SCs, STs, differently-abled children – all together, thus reducing the specificity of the solutions necessary. It also shows that the priority of each of the subgroups is reduced.

In essence, the 2020 policy does not have anything new to offer in terms of a vision. Throughout the document it talks about ancient values, knowledge and wisdom, but fails to mention caste and discriminatory marginalization.

Policy on language(s)
The 1968 policy is quite clear on the language policy for schools. It calls for a three language policy – regional language (not mother tongue) as medium of instruction, Hindi as second language in non-hindi-speaking states, any modern Indian language, preferably south Indian as second language and English as third language in Hindi speaking states. Sanskrit as a second language is neither explicitly recommended nor excluded. The promotion of Sanskrit was recommended at the higher secondary and later stages.

The 1986 policy mainly endorsed the 1968 three language formula and resolved to work harder to implement it. (8.7 page 27).

The 2020 policy has paid a lot of attention to language and rightly so. That is its strongest contribution. While it moves ahead of the three language formula, introducing the paradigm of multilingual education, which is very necessary in a multilingual country like India, it is unable to resolve the tension between the three language formula paradigm, the pressures of classical and foreign languages, and multilingualism. Hence the policy on language(s) within NEP 2020, which started off with good intentions, has become quite confusing – the following are perhaps some causes of the confusion

• It is recommended that in the 5 to 8 years of elementary education, the mother tongue/regional language should be the medium of instruction. As we know there are more than a thousand mother languages in India and in more than 50 per cent of the classrooms, there would be 3 to 5 mother tongues – how will the different languages as mediums of instruction be provided and used in such a classroom?
• How will bilingual books in all mother languages be made and provided? How will the choices of medium of instruction be made?
• Sanskrit has been mentioned both as one of the three languages and as a classical language – and sought to be made available throughout the school – how will these two types of Sanskrit curricula be differentiated particularly at the high and higher secondary stages?
• Classical and foreign languages make up fourth and fifth languages – how will curricular load be negotiated? And how will teachers for each language be provided?

Teachers and teacher education
The 1968 policy is unequivocal and very specific in its recommendations about teachers.
• Teachers need to have a highly respected status and emoluments.
• They need to have academic freedom.
• They need continuous upgradation and inputs from in-service education.

Unfortunately, none of these recommendations have been universally applied across all the states, or else we would have gone a long way.

The 1986 policy made significant contributions to the institution of the teacher as well as of teacher education. It recommended an overhaul of the recruitment and promotion system of teachers and their connection with the community.

Simultaneously, it proposed the set-up of a whole new institution of DIETs and SCERTs across the country. This was followed by programmes of action, budgets and review commissions. The policy also recommended an all India and state education service.

Unfortunately, while putting it in place, less than minimum crucial inputs were made available and privatization was allowed for teacher preparation courses, drastically compromising its quality.

NEP 2020 recommends a shift to a four year integrated (dual degree) B.A. B.Ed, offered in multidisciplinary colleges by 2030, as the basic qualification for becoming a school teacher and a couple of variations on the same. This had been recommended by the Justice Verma Commission in 2012 and is a welcome move if it is backed by finance to build up public institutions of quality. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of recommendations for regulatory and standards mechanisms in the policy. There is a possibility of a path of regulation by private bodies; DIETs given to private institutions to convert into multi-disciplinary colleges may be taken. If so, its implications are difficult to anticipate.

In conclusion one can say that the 1968 policy laid the basic foundations of education in India. While it set the basis of a common school system, a language policy and the institution of the teacher, it failed to build a vision and institutional base for a secular democratic education. It did not clarify the value base of the education edifice of India. The value base was clarified to a fair extent by the 1986 policy and it also built the quality and institutional base for teacher education to a large extent.

NEP 2020 seems to be charting a different path, creating more space for a regulatory and accreditation framework and for the growing private institution base. All the policies have gaps in clarity and in addressing specifically, the issues that are necessary. This short article only tries to point to some issues on a few common aspects of policy as related to school education, it requires a deeper analysis of implementation in the context of policy.

The author is an M.A. in Economics from Delhi School of Economics and has nearly 40 years of experience in elementary education-in curriculum, program, teacher development and research. She has been on a number of review committees of government education programs. She has been instrumental in designing and giving direction to a number of curricular programs in Eklavya, M.P. She has experience of the school level, as well as university and policy contributions at MHRD, NCERT, NCTE, TISS, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chattisgarh, Assam, Ladakh. She can be reached at noronha.anjali@gmail.com.