NEP 2020: Bold in intent; Broad in scope

The reforms proposed in the National Education Policy 2020 are transformative, visionary, progressive and in line with global standards. The biggest positive is the student-centric model leaning towards horizontal, outcome-based learning – a marked departure from the age-old linearized, pigeon-holed approach to education. Among the several inclusions, the following five are significant and noteworthy from a systemic standpoint:

One, the overhauling of the current 10+2 structure and replacing it with 5+3+3+4 with a clear-cut categorization into four distinct age groups (3-8, 8-11, 11-14 and 14-18) brings greater clarity and sharper focus to learning schedule. Importantly, by moving away from the decades old text book-oriented closed learning to a flexible, multilevel, activity-based and experiential learning along with a subject-oriented pedagogical style, the policy is expansive in scope. There is also greater emphasis on critical thinking, greater attention to life aspirations and wider choice of subjects – all considered core to building a modern, high-quality education system that is well-equipped to meet the dynamic, ever evolving needs of the current day economic systems. Clearly, a welcome move.

Two, assessment patterns to become more flexible, broad-based and modular as against the stressful, rigid annual examination model currently followed. This essentially means adopting a more holistic, 360-degree, multidimensional approach to assessment based on parameters such as analytical skills, critical thinking/reasoning, scientific temper and conceptual clarity. To succeed and thrive in life, beyond a high-flying career, requires problem-solving and knowledge application in real-life situations, than rote learning. In this regard, this is a remarkable, well-thought out change.

Third, the policy aims to introduce multidisciplinary courses from schools to undergraduate, postgraduate and to PhD level, thereby doing away with the water-tight compartments between streams/subjects. For example, a student can opt for Biology as a major and choose Literature as minor. This truly empowers students to work to their talents rather than to an administrator’s diktat. Further, by encouraging vocational training alongside academic pursuits, it broadens the scope of development. Proponents of micro-specialization might not like this, but generalists are as much needed to run the show as specialists, more so in the era we live in where technology is blurring the lines between verticals and horizontals.

Fourth, the multiple entry and exit options for higher education along with Academic Credit Bank, makes it easy for students to leave the course in the middle and re-enter at a later point in time. A tiered certification system with a professional certification on completion of first year, a diploma after the second year and a degree at the end of the program would mean no disincentive for the effort/time put in by the students. Further, those who drop out of the course in middle can have their credits transferred to a digital academic credit bank – meaning they can resume their program later on without having to take fresh admission. This also gives true freedom to find their best fit, ensuring any uncertainty or adversity does not derail their learning goals.

Fifth, for offering universal access to education, one of the key principles is disability inclusion. The NEP aims to enable children with special abilities to enrol and participate in the regular schooling process with support of educators, accommodations, assistive devices and digital tools. Holistic grooming and development of this hitherto neglected section, is very important to build the new, aspirational, skilled India.

Notwithstanding the positives, there are a few gaps and shortcomings. One, multilinguistic learning is not doubt good, but making home/local language the medium of instruction until Grade 5 is restrictive, and perhaps regressive. For a country as diverse as India, local language offers less room as a link language for pursuing pan-India opportunities. While this may lead to better learning outcomes, English serves to bring social and economic mobility, in addition to being a prerequisite for those harbouring global aspirations. And two, the impetus to digital learning is good in intent, but so far as it is educator-led. Else, this may lead to falling into the dangerous trap of ‘means becoming more important than the end’, if left to the technologists to drive the curriculum.

While the policy undoubtedly appears ambitious and in some cases idealistic – a lot depends on execution to realize the results. This would require a concerted effort among the academia, regulators and technologists to make the transition smooth and hassle-free. For now, the conversation has just begun.