NEP 2020: From promise to classroom reality

Practically every learned deliberation on education today makes reference to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, its well-articulated mission, vision, objectives, and goals. In its second paragraph, the Policy refers to its being in total sync with the UN’s global education development agenda, reflected in Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which seeks to "ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all" by 2030. The NEP 2020 also expects education to move towards "less content" and greater emphasis on learning how to think critically and solve problems. It asserts that learning must primarily focus on nurturing critical thinking and sharpening analytical skills.

It then goes on to list several related expectations, taking note of the swift changes taking place all around us, particularly in areas such as data science and creativity, while emphasizing multidisciplinary, integrated, learner-centred, discussion-based, discovery-oriented, flexible, and enjoyable learning. Having been associated with education policy formulation and implementation for over five decades, one invariably recalls both the achievements and the persistent drags that have impeded the realization of stated goals in several areas.

Six years after the NEP 2020, an extensive yet swift national-level review would therefore be in order. Such a review could bring forth the corrections and strategic changes that are needed and, where necessary, even provide the basis for a fresh formulation of certain aspects of the Policy. 

The positives have indeed been overwhelming. Beginning with a literacy rate of barely 12 per cent and extending educational access to more than 80 per cent in the face of a population increase of more than a billion, India’s educational expansion is an unmatched achievement in the post-independence era. India successfully envisioned the future national needs and aspirations of its people and created institutions of higher learning. Yet, whenever large-scale and inevitable expansion takes place in any system-particularly in education-quality can suffer, as can work culture.

This is one of the fundamental issues before the Indian education system and its policies today. The rise in enrolment in schools and universities, as well as the increase in the numbers of teachers required, deserves appreciation. But does this expansion necessarily indicate an enhancement of quality? It remains the constitutional responsibility of the State to ensure that everyone is included in education. Increased numbers are, therefore, fully justified as evidence of India’s onward march towards becoming a fully literate nation. They also indicate that India is conscious of its rising population and the consequent responsibility to prepare it and ensure the benefits of the demographic dividend.  

Things are to examined in light of the fact that a wide gap exists in the Indian education system that impedes the education of a large number of young persons because of their economic positioning.  The challenge before the nation can therefore be understood through a fundamental question: Is India providing every learner with adequate opportunities to nourish and nurture talent, refine skills, and prepare to make creative contributions to society in every relevant area, including emerging sectors?

In an age when cognitive capital is increasingly taking precedence over fiscal capital, nurturing talent becomes one of the most valuable fundamental entitlements of every child. It is, obviously, a prime responsibility of a welfare state. Unfortunately, the condition of government schools, even after six years of NEP 2020 implementation, remains far from encouraging. These schools are often the only alternative available to those who stand 'last in the line'. 

 The media frequently report the persistent lack of basic amenities in government schools. Such reports, however, have increasingly become routine and rarely stir the conscience of those who have the authority and capacity to make a difference. Even minor positive changes are welcomed by the public. Teachers, for instance, have appreciated reports indicating that the proportion of schools with computer facilities rose from 57.2 per cent to 69.9 per cent, while those with internet facilities increased from 53.9 per cent to 67.4 per cent. Such increases are certainly welcome.

One can only hope, however, that the computers are functional, that trained teachers are available to use them effectively, and, most importantly, that the facilities are genuinely accessible to every learner. Could schools also be authorized to extend the use of such facilities to children in the neighbourhood who may not be enrolled in that particular school? Such an arrangement could become a small but highly meaningful step towards reducing the digital divide. The major concern before the nation is quality enhancement. One is reminded of what Albert Einstein observed more than a century ago: "To me the worst thing seems to be for a school principal to work (chiefly) with methods of fear, force and artificial authority. Such treatment destroys the sound sentiments, the sincerity and self-confidence of the pupil. It produces the submissive subject." Having seen and observed educational processes closely, one could argue that the visible change in this regard remains, at best, minimal. Einstein had something more to say about the purpose of education: "Personally, I never clutter up my memory with facts I can easily find in an encyclopaedia.

One should never cram young minds with facts, names, formulae.... Education should be used only to teach young people to think and to give them this training, which no textbook can replace." The NEP 2020 is, in essence, reiterating the same fundamental principle when it calls for a shift towards critical thinking and analytical skills. The challenge is not in restating this principle on umpteen occasions, but in translating it into everyday classroom practice.

The availability of essential financial and professional resources in government schools can provide children from weaker sections with opportunities that might otherwise remain beyond their reach. But resources alone cannot transform education. The teacher matters most. India has umpteen examples of committed and competent teachers who have transformed their schools, often with little more than professional commitment, community goodwill, and local support, taking them to levels of achievement that were previously considered impossible.

From schools to higher education institutions, teachers are, at one stage or another, subjected to excessive bureaucratic control. For more than five decades, the creation of a much-needed professional cadre of educational administrators has remained a neglected requirement. The absence of professionally prepared educational administrators has serious consequences for educational governance, institutional autonomy, academic leadership, and accountability. The education system cannot be transformed merely through policy declarations. Nor can the objectives of NEP 2020 be realized simply by expanding enrolment, constructing infrastructure, distributing devices, or introducing new curricular frameworks. 

Education policy implementation must ultimately translate into pragmatic practices in classrooms, outside the classrooms, in the shape of better institutional cultures, visible emphasis on values, empowered teachers, and improved learning outcomes.