New Education Policy backdrop

THE WHEELS OF A NEW EDUCATION policy (NEP) have been set in motion with the Union human resource development (HRD) ministry inviting public participation and initiating a consultation process œto ensure that an inclusive, participatory and holistic approach is undertaken. In the circumstances, it would be instructive to study the backdrop against which the new NEP is being formulated.
The 1986 National Policy on Education (NPE-86) very clearly called for a focus on learner attainments in addition to access. It stipulated that minimum levels of learning (MLL) should be prescribed for each stage of education. MLLs were delineated and implemented on a pilot basis for primary classes by the HRD ministry through 17 projects.
However, the MLL innovation was lost somewhere along the way, reportedly because it was œtoo restrictive and prescriptive, and hence, a hindrance to nurturing the inherent creativity of children! Yet the plain truth which somehow seems to have become obscured is that there™s more to elementary education than mere learning of the 3Rs. Moreover, vocational education and training (VET) ” working with hands ” has been totally ignored. Curiously, it hasn™t occurred to our education planners that it™s impossible to develop high-quality skilled manpower without introduction of VET in elementary education. Now we must in all seriousness correct this error.
A succession of government and NGO surveys including the Annual Status of Education Report 2014, lament poor learning outcomes, particularly in language and mathematics. The causes are ascribed to inadequate infrastructure, air nd the indifference, low qualifications and chronic absenteeism of teachers. But no survey discusses how cartels of private schools exploit teachers by paying less than the signed receipt. Young para teachers in government schools appointed on honorarium basis are also exploited inasmuch as they suffer the stress of job insecurity. In the circumstances, it™s naive to expect them to become fully involved in teaching and learning.
Even relatively better paid teachers in government schools have to manage over-crowded classrooms, political interference in recruitment and subsequently, in placement and transfers. This is a major factor responsible for the erosion of credibility of government schools and their unacceptable learning standards, even as demoralising corruption has become deep-rooted in Indian education. Meanwhile, the slow-moving bureaucracies of the Central and state governments rarely permit any innovation or experimentation which are the preconditions of improved learning outcomes.
In Tamil Nadu, ˜multi-age classrooms™ ” a rare innovation ” under which children are grouped not by age but by learning level attained, has resulted in a 15 percent improvement in primary/elementary learning outcomes as reported in ASER 2014 released early this year. This is  attributable to Tamil Nadu™s education officials who pioneered the idea of establishing District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) in the early 1990s. On the other hand, DIETs and other teacher training institutions are in a state of utter neglect in Bihar, UP and Madhya Pradesh. A total overhaul of DIETs, development of contemporary curriculums and systems for teacher training and recruitment, intensive participation of serving teachers in well-designed and widely available in-service training to acquaint them with new pedagogies, and the use of modern ICT (information and communications technologies) could still make a positive difference to learning outcomes in elementary education countrywide.
Another prime factor behind poor learning outcomes in primary education is that preschool education facilities are available only to children of the upper crust, creating inequality of opportunity right from the start of the education continuum. The Central and state governments ” and indeed academia and the intelligentsia ” are complicit in this conspiracy to deprive 158 million children of the poor in the 0-5 age group, of the right to early childhood education. Moreover only 48 percent of infants in the 0-5 age group are covered by the Central government™s Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) under which 1.6 million anganwadis ” nutrition centres for infants and lactating mothers ” have been established countrywide.
Clearly, all this requires the massive resources recommended by the Kothari Commission ” at least 6 percent of GDP ” for education way back in 1966. This is a necessary, though not sufficient condition, because critical aspects of education delivery such as child nutrition and teacher training also require finance and expert attention.
In a rapidly ageing world, people are excited by the demographic dividend that India could harvest by preparing a globally mobile workforce. But again, this requires special attention to improving the quality of elementary education, developing vocational ” motor-hand-eye coordination ” skills and values inculcation. These objectives can only be attained in an environment of total commitment to prepare the next generation for the newly emerging world of work ” and of life itself.
(J.S. Rajput is former director of NCERT and NCTE)