A Requiem For UGC

in India — by K M Seethi — July 1, 2018

If the Modi Government’s first year of its rule was marked by the burial of an important institution of national importance—the Planning Commission of India—with the launching of the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog), its last year in office is likely to witness another interment of a Statutory body of national importance—the University Grants Commission (UGC)—with the notification issued by the Union Ministry for Human Resources Development (MHRD) for setting up Higher Education Commission of India (HECI). The notification says that Government “has embarked on a process of reform of the regulatory agencies for better administration of the higher education sector.” It further notified that “several reform measures” have already been put in place such as the “reform of NAAC, Regulation for grant of Graded Autonomy to Universities, granting of Autonomous status to colleges, the Regulation for Open Distance Learning, Regulation for Online degrees etc (India, Ministry of Human Resource Development 2018a). The Draft Act notified (India, Ministry of Human Resource Development 2018b) “is in accordance with the commitment of Government for reforming the regulatory systems that provide for more autonomy and facilitate holistic growth of the education system and which provides greater opportunities to the Indian students at more affordable cost.”

However, the Government does not have any inhibition in declaring that the ‘transformation’ of the regulatory body is in tune with a typical neoliberal motto—‘Less Government and more Governance’ (Modi’s ‘minimum government and maximum governance’ rhetoric may be kept in mind). The notification says that the one of the underlying principles of this change is “downsizing the scope of the regulation,” ensuring “no more interference in the management issues of the educational institutions.” What does this mean? Obviously, it is nothing short of a roll back of commitments on the part of the Union Government. On the other side, it amounts to appropriating an important function of the regulatory body in place (or in the making) by declaring that “the grant functions would be done by the Ministry (MHRD), and the HECI would focus only on academic matters.” The new legislation thus enables the Union Government to centralize and control the universities and colleges across the country by monopolizing the grant distribution function. The draft legislation is also envisaging an “end of inspection raj” stating that “regulation is done through transparent public disclosures, merit-based decision making on matters regarding standards and quality in higher education.” How can the new body ensure ‘standards and quality’ without proper academic auditing and inspection?  If the HECI is entrusted with “the mandate of improving academic standards with specific focus on learning outcomes, evaluation of academic performance by institutions, mentoring of institutions, training of teachers, promote use of educational technology etc..,” what mechanisms are in place to offer ‘merit-based decision making’? If the whole purpose of the new system is to ensure these objectives, the regulatory body already in place, too, has these objectives and it has its own mechanisms of monitoring and control, howsoever limitations and drawbacks there are. Then, the whole purpose of the scrapping the UGC is palpable enough—downsize the financial commitments for higher education and keep the door wide open for corporate/private sector to reap the windfall of the ’knowledge economy.’

It may be noted that the new body (HECI) under consideration would have ‘a doyen of industry’ as one of the12 members (see section 3-6(b) of the Draft Act, India, Ministry of Human Resource Development 2018b). The HECI would be completely dominated by the representatives of the Union Government and its yes-men. Interestingly, the draft legislation also talks about a provision for “temporary association of persons” with the Commission. As per Section 13 (1), the Commission may associate with itself, in such manner and for such purposes as may be determined by regulations made under this Act, any person whose assistance or advice it may desire in carrying out any of the provisions of this Act.” Though such ‘persons’ shall not have a right to vote at Commission meetings, they will “have right to take part in the discussions relevant to that purpose…”  Who are these people likely to be invited by the Commission and what purpose they are expected to serve in a statutory body like this?  If we go by the logic of “merit-based decision making,” it purportedly sets a red carpet for corporatism. If we read the functions of the Commission, as envisaged under Section 15 of the Draft Act, we can find the resonance of corporate-friendly construct in every sentence.  For instance, Section 15 (2) says that the Commission shall “take measures to promote the autonomy of higher educational institutions for the free pursuit of knowledge, innovation, incubation and entrepreneurship, and for facilitating access, inclusion and opportunities to all, and providing for comprehensive and holistic growth of higher education and research in a competitive global environment” (emphasis added) (India, Ministry of Human Resource Development 2018b).

The ‘autonomy’ is a pet word frequently (and liberally) used by successive governments to denote the retreat of the State—from an interventionist role to the emerging role of a facilitator. This has been the practice of all governments in India since 1980s. The National Education Policy, 1986 and the 1992 Programme of Action were the harbingers of such a new regime of education (India, Ministry of Human Resource Development 1992).

Thus, the present move—amounting to rolling back the State from higher education—can be seen as the culmination of a series of moves underway since 1980s. And higher education had already become an inevitable prey to the structural adjustment programme (SAP) and the new economic policy (NEP) regime since then—with a renewed commitment to the global trade in services (Seethi 1992; Seethi 1993).  Correspondingly, many neoliberal educational reform measures have been put in place such as the Private University’s Act,1995, Foreign Education Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operations) Bill 2010, Prevention of Malpractices Bill and the Education Tribunal Bill 2010, National Accreditation Regulatory Authority Bill 2010 and Higher Education and Research Bill 2011 (HE & R) etc. However, due to several reasons, the Congress-led UPA Government could not fully realise the goals of SAP-NEP induced reforms.  Having understood several challenges, the Government had set up a UGC Review Committee also, in 2014, to revisit the Commission’s regulatory role and functions.

Earlier a theoretical setting was provided by the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) which, in its Report (submitted during the UPA government) sought to justify the changing role of education. It underlined that “knowledge has been recognised as the key driving force in the 21st century and India’s ability to emerge as a globally competitive player will substantially depend on its knowledge resources. To foster generational change, a systemic transformation is required that seeks to address the concerns of the entire knowledge spectrum. This massive endeavour involves creating a roadmap for reform of the knowledge sector that focuses on enhancing access to knowledge, fundamentally improving education systems and their delivery, re-shaping the research, development and innovation structures, and harnessing knowledge applications for generating better services. Such a knowledge revolution that seeks to build capacity and generate quality will enable our country to empower its human capital – including the 550 million below the age of 25. Our unique demographic dividend offers a tremendous opportunity as well as a daunting challenge which requires creative strategies for a new knowledge oriented paradigm” (India, National Knowledge Commission 2009).

The NKC also noted that the “higher education system needs a massive expansion of opportunities, to around 1500 universities nationwide, that would enable India to attain a gross enrolment ratio of at least 15 per cent by 2015. The focus would have to be on new universities, but some clusters of affiliated colleges could also become universities. Such expansion would require major changes in the structure of regulation (61).  There is a multiplicity of regulatory agencies where mandates are both confusing and overlapping. The system, as a whole, is over-regulated but under-governed. NKC perceives a clear need to establish an Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE). The IRAHE must be at an arm’s length from the Government and independent of all stakeholders including the concerned Ministries of the Government” (Ibid).

It was almost at this time that the Yashpal Committee brought forth its Interim Report in 2009 and subsequently its final Report on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Universities. One of the major recommendations of the Committee was the winding up of UGC and all other regulatory bodies (such as AICTE) under a Commission of Higher Education (India, Ministry of Human Resource Development 2013).  The T.S.R. Subramanian Committee, entrusted with preparing a new education policy for India,   had also recommended (in its National Education Policy) that the UGC Act should be allowed to lapse and replaced by a new National Higher Education Act (India, Ministry of Human Resource Development 2016a). The Chairman, T.S.R. Subramanian was a former Cabinet Secretary and the Commission, overloaded with bureaucrats, naturally brought forth a report appropriate to the Union Government. The role of academics in such committees has been progressively reduced, over years, to cater to the needs and demands of the corporates and the neoliberal raj.

Rajan Gurukkal, currently Vice Chairman, Kerala State Higher Education Council, had written sometime back that “the UGC has many limitations such as red tape, bureaucratic delay and distributive injustice, most of which are inherent in its secretarial structure. “ But he agreed that “it is a relatively democratic consortium of experts in diverse disciplines, which discharges its regulatory and distributive responsibilities over universities and colleges of general subjects in a remarkable way.” Gurukkal says that how “to make the UGC more democratic, open and predictably error free is not the concern for the ‘experts’ who want to scrap the institution, for their criticisms hardly mean anything beyond a justificatory rhetoric. Most of their allegations are ironical and self-contradictory as exemplified by the one accusing the UGC for not regulating “private, not-for-profit entities in higher education and for not suggesting any measures to curb commercialisation!” According to him, “what irritates the neo-liberal reformers in the committee is the UGC’s regulatory intervention in the privatization and commercialisation of higher education.” Hence the “UGC is an institution of nuisance for them and hence its de facto removal their main target” (Gurukkal 2015:26).

The UGC has indeed become a ‘burden’ for the Union Government in terms of holding financial commitments vis-à-vis universities, colleges and research institutions. Even the UGC Pay Commission recommendations for teachers have now been attuned to realise this objective of downsizing commitment. The latest Pay Commission package is a clear indication of ‘no more burden-sharing’ on the part of the Union Government, on a long-term basis. Over years, the UGC has been changing regulations of ‘minimum standards,’ reducing research grants, fellowships etc even as new innovative schemes have been put in place (Seethi 2000). By arbitrarily fixing ceiling for research supervision, the UGC had already put a seal on commitments. This has considerably reduced the intake of researchers in universities across the country. Less researchers means less financial burden.

With the winding up of the UGC, the entire monitoring-control matrix of higher education will be taken over by the Union Government. It will result in a situation of the new body having only advisory and recommendatory functions, particularly on financial matters. This will have very deleterious impact on the functioning of universities and colleges across the country. And they would be forced to generate finances to run programmes/courses and provide salary for teachers. The concept of ‘autonomy’ (and the ‘graded autonomy’) is a strategic tool to contract out this power and responsibility—notably in the name of establishing ‘world class’ institutions (India, Ministry of Human Resource Development 2016b). This will again result in a mushrooming of private universities and a surfeit of contract-teacher system—having a decisive impact on the quality and standards of higher education. The death of a regulatory body like UGC means a blot on the very fabric of ‘inclusive and democratic’ education.

In fact, the first Commission for reforms in education, after independence, was set up in 1948 under the chairmanship of S. Radhakrishnan, a noted educationist and later the President of India, which submitted its report in August 1949.  The Radhakrishnan Commission had noted that there was a University Grants Committee even before independence though it was meant for the Central Universities. The Committee was formed in 1945 to deal exclusively with the three Central Universities, Aligarh, Banaras and Delhi. The Report, however, noted that “A Committee or Commission for  allocating both recurrent and capital grants to universities from the Centre is so fundamental to our proposals for improving and developing our universities that if it were not in existence we would have had to invent it” (India, the Ministry of Education 1962: 356).  The Union Government, then, resolved that all matters relating to the allocation of grants-in-aid from public funds to the Central Universities and other Universities and Institutions of higher learning might be referred to the University Grants Commission. Accordingly, the UGC was formally put in place by the then Minister of Education, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, on 28 December 1953. But it was formally institutionalised only in November 1956 as a statutory body of the Government of India through an Act of Parliament “for the coordination, determination and maintenance of standards of university education in India” (University Grants Commission 2002).  With a view to ensuring an “effective region-wise coverage” across the country, the UGC even decentralised its operations by establishing six regional centres at Pune, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Bhopal, Guwahati and Bangalore (University Grants Commission 2018). Now that the Union Government is set to dismantle the UGC, the role of the new agency will be different—a totally centralized mechanism without any regional operating structures.

The MHRD notification for repealing the UGC Act has come at a critical juncture in the contemporary Indian history. Many institutions of higher learning in India are under threat of saffronisation and appropriation by communal/fascist forces. As Nandini Sundar writes, academic freedom is increasingly under attack from authoritarian regimes across the world. India is no exception. She says that though “academic freedom was critical to earlier visions of the Indian university,” it has become “increasingly devalued in favour of administrative centralisation and standardisation. Privatisation and the increase in precarious employment also contribute to the shrinking of academic freedom” (Sundar 2018). Kothari Commission had noted that in the realm of university education, the “pursuit of truth and excellence in all its diversity” needs “courage and fearlessness” (India, Ministry of Education 1966: 274). It is this “courage and fearlessness” that the higher education sector in India is now missing with increasing centralisation and gross interference. The new Act will only add irreparable insult to a festering injury.

References

Gurukkal, Rajan (2015): “Scrapping the UGC: Corporate Agenda under Knowledge Economy,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. L (18), 2 May: 26-31

Gurukkal, Rajan (2011): “Foreign Educational Institutions Bill: The Rhetoric and the Real,” Economic and Political Weekly, 9 July, Vol XLVI (28).

India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (2018a): The Higher Education Commission of India (Repeal of UGC Act) Act 2018, http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/PN_HECI.pdf

India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (2018b): Higher Education Commission of India (Repeal of University Grants Commission Act) Act 2018, Draft, http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/HE_CoI_India_2018_act.pdf

India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (2013): Renovation and Rejuvenation of Universities:  Report of ‘The Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education in India,’  28 October,http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/YPC-Report.pdf(Yashpal  Committee Report).

India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (2016a): National Policy on Education 2016, Report of the Committee for Evolution of the New Education Policy, http://www.nuepa.org/New/download/NEP2016/ReportNEP.pdf (T.S.R. Subramanian committee Report)

India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (2016b): UGC (Declaration of Government Educational Institutions as World Class Institutions) Guidelines, 2016 (for providing regulatory structure for enabling higher educational institutions to become world class teaching & research institutions), http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/ugc_guidelines.pdf

India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (1992): National Policy on Education1986:Programme on Action 1992,http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/npe.pdf

India, National Knowledge Commission (2009): National Knowledge Commission: Report to the Nation 2006 – 2009, https://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/nkc.pdf

India, The Ministry of Education (1962): The Report of the University Education Commission (December 1948–August 1949), volume I, First Reprint Edition, http://www.educationforallinindia.com/1949%20Report%20of%20the%20University%20Education%20Commission.pdf

India, Ministry of Education (1966): Report of the Educational Commission (1964–66): Education and National Development, chaired by D S Kothari, Ministry of Education, Government of India, New Delhi.

Seethi, K.M (1992): “Education: On the Threshold of Change,” The Hindu, 1 December.

Seethi, K.M (1993): “Universities in a Melting Pot,” Mainstream, 23 October.

Seethi, K.M (2000):  “UGC’s Disincentives for PhD,” Economic and Political Weekly, June 3.

Sundar, Nandini (2018): “Academic Freedom and Indian Universities,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 53(24), 16 June.

University Grants Commission (UGC) (2018): “Genesis,” https://www.ugc.ac.in/page/Genesis.aspx

University Grants Commission (UGC) (2002): “The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (As modified up to the 20th December, 1985) And Rules & Regulations, under the Act,” https://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/ugc_act.pdf

The author is Professor, School of International Relations and Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. He can be reached at kmseethimgu@gmail.com

SCHOOL EDUCATION IN INDIA

India’s Schools Are Letting Down Their Students

in Life/Philosophy — by Moin Qazi — April 23, 2018

The true teachers are those who help us think for ourselves

–Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

India’s education sector has expanded rapidly in the last decade but the quality of learning remains pathetic on account of unimaginative and misguided policies. The Modi government’s budget  this year was a mixed basket for the education sector, which is bogged with several serious issues aside from the overall lack of funds. The government has allocated Rs 85,000 crore (US$13.26 billion) for education, with Rs 50,000 crore for schools and the rest for higher education. This was an increase of just 8% over last year. The allocation for secondary education rose by a similar ratio, from Rs 3,900 crore in 2017-18 to Rs 4,200 crore for the 2018-19 fiscal year. India’s overall allocation to this important sector over the last decade has hovered between 3.8-4.0% of total expenditure, as against Brazil’s    5.5% of its GDP, Russia’s 4.4%, China’s 4.3% and South Africa’s 6.5%.

According to IndiaSpend, between 2010-11 and 2015-16, the number of private schools in India grew 35 per cent from 220,000 in 2010-11 to 300,000 in 2015-16. By contrast, the number of government schools in the same period grew just one per cent, from 1.03 million to 1.04 million, while the amount the government spends on education increased by just 0.2 per cent of GDP since 2010. All this, despite the introduction of the 2009 Right to Education Act, according to which all children between the ages of six and 14 should be provided free and compulsory education.

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Education for All programme is India’s first tentative stride towards embracing universal elementary education. It is a key component of the Right to Education Act. It caters to more than 200 million children across a million habitations in the country, making it   the largest elementary education programmess in the world .it was a sensible  attempt to deliver quality and equitable education to every child but  on accent of the greater emphasis on enrollment levels and infrastructure standards , it was ineffectual in  desired  in providing an adequate focus on quality in education The RTE Act has been quite successful in achieving three broad objectives: higher enrolment, lower dropout and completion of mandatory basic education. Though India may have achieved near universalisation of primary education, enrolment and retention outside of primary education are low and attainment remains a critical gap. .According to the Annual Survey of Education Report (ASER) 2017, enrolment in secondary schools almost doubled from 11 million to 22 million over the last decade but  actual learning has sharply diminishedparticularly n abilities in reading, writing and other comprehensive skills despite completing eight years of elementary education, students are not able  to apply literacy and numeracy skills to everyday tasks such as tallying weights or decoding instructions on an ORS sachets .The usual reasons are: teacher absenteeism, poor student attendance, bad infrastructure, inadequate teacher preparation programmes and rote learning practices. While these issues are valid, they do not fully explain the learning crisis apparent in our classrooms. The government hopes that private schools will take up the slack of public schools. But private schools are not affordable for poor people, who often are faced with a difficult choice between paying for private education and covering necessary expenses like food and health.

India must reorient its education policy which is very results oriented, is very system oriented, is very policy oriented. But just not too child oriented. it risks squandering the  future  of millions of children, as well as the entire country’s economic  prospects Formal teaching needs to be supplemented by in-school pull-out programmes, after-school reading classes and summer camps by voluntary organisations using innovative pedagogies. There has to be a direct teacher-development pipeline and evaluating systems for monitoring and upgrading teaching skills. There is a dearth of ideas for reform to address fundamental flaws in the system.

India’s emphasis on rote learning and its rigid examination system do not encourage creative thinking. instead of just  focusing  on results learning should also foster  intellectual, spiritual and social growth more Indian children are in school today than ever before, but the quality of public schools has sunk to abysmally low levels, as government schools have become the reserve of children at the very bottom of India’s social ladder. According to the World Development Report 2018 “Learning to Realise Education’s Promise”, India ranks second from the bottom after Malawi in a list of 12 countries where some Grade 2 students were found to be unable to read a single word from a short text. India also tops the report’s list of seven countries in which some Grade 2 students could not calculate simple two-digit subtractions.

The fragile foundation of basic education augurs a dim horizon for India’s future human capital. We must understand that education is the most potent tool for reducing the glaring inequalities in society. In Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014), French economist Thomas Piketty writes, “Historical experience suggests that the principal mechanism for convergence (of incomes and wealth) at the international as well as the domestic level is the diffusion of knowledge. In other words, the poor catch up with the rich to the extent that they achieve the same level of technological know-how, skill and education.”

Sadly, 53 per cent of school children in India are at least three years behind expected learning levels. According to a 2015 Brookings Institute report on primary education in India, 29 per cent of children drop out before completing five years of primary school, and 43 per cent before finishing upper primary school. High school completion, according to the report, stands at only 42 per cent.

These figures are a serious concern in a country where only 74 per cent of its 1.2 billion inhabitants are literate, making India home to the largest illiterate population in the world. We all know that a sound and productive education system needs to focus on science, math engineering and technology — the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill jobs right now and in the future.” Inefficient teaching methods, such as rote learning, which focuses on memorisation as opposed to critical reasoning, are still widespread at the primary and secondary school level. The rote teaching methodology has demonstrated shortcomings. Studies by the Programme for International Students Assessment, an OECD initiative, and Wipro found that students at the primary and secondary school level have fallen back in math, science and reading literacy in recent years.

Teacher salaries in government schools are relatively high in India at three times per capita income compared to China, where it is about the same as per capita income. However, we lack a culture of accountability for performance. Learning outcomes are generally better in private schools where average teacher salaries and costs per student are less. A break-up of government spending shows that only 0.8 per cent goes towards capital expenditure, while 80 per cent goes towards teachers’ salaries, leaving little to be spent on infrastructure creation. Teacher absenteeism continues to plague the system,

If India is to truly rise as a global economic power, the policymakers and education specialists must focus its efforts on developing its public schools into a world-class education system.  Catchy announcements like ‘blackboard to digital boards’ will have relevance only when we translate rhetoric into commitment and into genuine action. Goals without actionable strategies are just good intentions. The proof should come by first addressing the fundamental concerns of public education .Nelson Mandela famously said: “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”Adequate resources, higher standards for teachers and the flushing out of corruption must all be part of a reform package that seeks to make Indian education the nation’s top priority.

Moin Qazi is the author of the bestselling book, Village Diary of a Heretic Banker .He has worked in the development finance sector for almost four decades .He can be reached at moinqazi123@gmail.com

Share this:

UGC move to grant Autonomy: Jeopardising Accessibility, Equity and Quality in India — by Dr Parth Sharma

The recent UGC move to grant autonomous status to 62 educational institutions have been hailed in various quarters. MHRD has praised it and have equated the move to grant autonomous status to Universities with “New economic policies of 1991”. The new move has been hailed as tectonic shift away from the archaic system, a eureka moment for universities. As per this new move,universities who have been granted autonomous status would now be in a position to launch new programs, design new syllabuses, decide their admission procedure, fee structure, enrol foreign students and faculty members.

What Autonomy Really means?

When we talk about autonomy it encompasses academic, administrative and financial autonomy. Academic autonomy is something which the universities have been craving for long. So it must be welcomed. However, the current move is not so much about academic freedom i.e. teaching, learning and sharing of new ideas rather it is more about giving financial and administrative freedom to educational institutions. Government basically wants to shrug off its responsibility of funding public higher educational institutions. It is basically a step towards privatisation of higher education. The institutions which have been given autonomous status could now launch new courses, design their own syllabuses, open off campus centres, enter into collaborations with foreign universities so long as they are not asking UGC for money.Under the new guidelines, the government has devised a 70/30 formula whereby the central government would be bearing just 70 percent of the total cost incurred after the 7th pay commission is implemented. The rest 30 percent would have to be beard by university themselves. The government have already slashed down the budget for RUSA(RashtriyaUcchtarSikshaAbhiyaan) from Rs 1300 crore to Rs 200 crore. RUSA is a centrally sponsored scheme which was initiated in 2013. It aims to provide strategic funding to higher and technical institutions.JNU, India’s top research university, has seen a massive cut in MPhil and PhD seats by 80 per cent. All these moves clearly signify government’s intentions i.e. “rolling back of state from Higher education” Despite repeatedly being emphasised by various commission’s on education including Kothari Commissionno government till date have spent 6 percent of national income on education.

The freedom to launch new courses, collaboration with foreign universities, generating private funding, enrolling foreign students, appointment of foreign faculty, all these moves apparently look quite rosy but there is flip side to it as well. one need to ponder how it would be done? The answer would be definitely; through promoting the “self-financing mode” for new courses, hiking student’s fees, admitting more foreign students who in turn would be charged more tuition fees, asking teachers to take corporate consultancies, tailor-making courses in a manner so that they are in consonance with the markets etc. All these measures will take a toll on much cherished goals of Indian education system i.e. Access, Equity and Quality.

Accessibility, Equity and Quality

Accessibility, Equity and Quality are the dominant themes that have been reverberating whenever there is debate on education policy in India. Diversity and plurality are considered to be important component of any university. University is considered to be a space where students of different cultures, communities, backgrounds and regions interact. The current UGC move would place these things on the backburner. Gross enrolment ratio in higher education in India is 24.5 percent currently much less than even some of the developing countries. Although, India aims to attain a GER of 30 percent by 2020 but the current UGC move could prove to be a deterrent against enhancing GER  as it would further discourage Indian students especially from marginalised sections to take up higher education with increasing tuition fees. The current UGC move would kill social diversity in public funded institutions. As the government is still not clearly spelt out how in these so called ‘autonomous institutions ‘reservation policies ‘would be implemented.

The biggest defence given in favour of ‘Autonomy’ is quality.  The question that needs to be asked is that: Do all public institutions offer exemplary higher education? No, but neither do all private institutions guarantee the same. However, public institutions trump private ones on grounds of affordability and equality, as they do not cater to the affluent and middle class alone.

It has been argued thatquality of education would improve with the coming of Foreign teachers as students would get global exposure. However, with the Foreign University bill pending in parliament this move could be seen as a backdoor entry for foreign faculties who are not getting a ‘tenured posts’ in their respective countries. A government which is harping so much on nationalism this moves seems very hippocratic because this move will reduce the existing job pool for Indian academicians.

The move is likely to give a fillip to ‘Contractual Appointments’ instead of ‘Regular Appointments’. We have already seen how ‘guest faculties’ and ‘Adhoc teachers’ are exploited. They have no ‘job security’, ‘no increment policy’, they are not entitled for even basic rights like ‘maternity leave’. This in turn would mean teaching profession would no more be considered a viable ‘career option’ by youths.

The current UGC movewill force universities to reorient there courses in line with the demand of market. The impact of the current move would be felt more over disciplines like Social Sciences, Humanities and Basic Sciences as these do not have a direct link with the market. But one needs to remember that these disciplines perform a very important purpose of creating a critical citizenry which in turn is very lifeline of a democratic nation.

The crux of the matter hinges upon a basic fact that how you consider education. If it is considered a tradeable commodity privatisation is not a problem but if it is considered a public good, as a tool to social empowerment and to fight existing inequalities. Then this move is going to a disaster in the long run. This move is going to dilute the very basic principles of Accessibility, Equity and Quality. The current UGC move would prove detrimental to the two biggest stakeholders of any University i.e. Students and Teachers.

Dr Parth Sharma is Senior Assistant Professor in School of Law at University of Petroleum and Energy Studies. He holds a doctorate degree in India-China relations from Aligarh Muslim University. He had published research papers in international and national journals of high repute. He is a gold medalist and has qualified UGC (JRF-NET) in Political Science. He also had participated in various workshops and conferences organized by U.G.C, British high commission and premier think tanks like Centre for Policy Research New Delhi. His area of interest includes International Politics, Strategic Affairs, Political Theory, Politics of Development, Issues concerning Higher Education. etc.

Hidden agenda in the New Educational Policy?

Hidden agenda in the New Educational Policy?
       It is true to say that all educational policies serve certain ideological purposes or, put another way, serve to embody and promote certain developmental ideas of the government of the day. In that sense, one could say that the Education Policy of 1968 sought to build a largescale school education programme and a higher education system aimed at producing the scientific, technical, managerial and academic needs of India’s then growing state-sector and private industries, visualized as constituting the basis of India’s planned economic growth with the public sector at the commanding heights. The Education Policies of 1986 and 1992 were designed to cater to the demands of an economy being liberalized and globalized, with greater role for private enterprises, market forces and managers suited for this environment. The NEP 2016 is based on a neo-liberal policy frame and an economy clearly operating under the LPG framework which requires an educational system that not only caters to, but is also itself governed by, market forces and a globalized economy. In the present context, it is visualized that need is for professional and managerial personnel particularly for the burgeoning service sector, as well as skilled and unskilled workers again including the service sector. The corporate sector both Indian and foreign/MNC is constantly complaining about the shortage of skilled workers and professionals in India as required for this kind of economy, and that the products of the existing higher education system are not employable without a huge amount of retraining by user-entities in the absence of a suitably structured education system. Added to this is the demand by Hindutva forces to take advantage of a BJP-majority government to impose that ideology throughout the country utilizing the educational system and cultural institutions. Experts have argued that the era of globalization of capital brings in its train a process of the destruction of education understood in its broadest sense as a system for promoting broad-based knowledge, critical thinking and innovation in all spheres. In India, the destruction of education occurs from two directions, the commoditization of education, and the “saffronization” of education. It is significant that almost every document prepared by the present government on education emphasizes the need for privatization, and for “public-private partnership”. Education is thus being converted into a commodity sold by private profit-making institutions and conversion of the educated into products that are socially insensitive and thus open to “saffronization.”
Corporate capital requires “skills” not “knowledge,” the latter being essential for critical engagement of the world. Hence, the world over, there is a neglect of the social sciences and the humanities right from the school curriculum, and an overemphasis on mechanical application of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) skills. Serious reservations have also been expressed by educators and intellectuals on the rowing trend of stifling dissent, free thinking and pluralism in Universities across the country. This on-going endeavour by the ruling dispensation is aimed not only at imposing a singular view  of Indian history and culture, nationalism and the “idea of India,” but also at crushing all efforts at building and promoting critical thinking, a scientific outlook and pluralism of thought and action, the very foundations of a modern, democratic society. It is noteworthy that targets include all manner of progressive ideas and concepts promoting social justice. The crushing of discussion for a run by the Ambedkar Study Circle at IIT, Madras, and the series of events at Hyderabad University culminating in the tragic suicide of Rohith Vemula are just a few examples. The students’ resistance movement in Delhi, “occupy UGC”, aimed precisely to protect social justice in higher education and publicly-funded socially useful research which the government was terming “unproductive.” The prolonged struggle against victimization, saffron intimidation and false allegations of “anti-national” behaviour by students and faculty of the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi is another example of the destructive and pernicious attitudes and actions of the Hindutva forces as well as a tribute to the fighting qualities of the broad democratic movement against the efforts of the present ruling dispensation to crush all criticism and to enforce the neo-liberal system on the educational system.

Role of the People’s Science Movement PSM has been intervening in Literacy and Education since its inception. The National Educational policy-2016 is detrimental to our educational system in numerous ways, and to our very democracy itself. PSM should oppose the NEP 2016 and fight for inclusive education with critical thinking and a scientific temper.

New National Education Policy

New National Education Policy (NEP) ::

      The present Central Government has drafted a new National Education Policy 2016 based on a report submitted by a committee headed by retired bureaucratic T.S.R.Subramanian. Our understanding and critique of the suggestions made in this Report are briefly presented below, along with reasons for such a critique and alternate viewpoints that would support universal, quality education in India. 

Performance & Merit Performance of the student and of schools should be determined not only in terms of learning outcomes based on examination scores. Instead, quality should be assessed, prospectively, by the process through which the child acquired her knowledge and skills, and also the ability to produce new knowledge and, retrospectively, by the way in which she reproduces her knowledge in actually existing social conditions of life and work. The concept of merit in fact contains hidden biases, for example variations in the social and family background of the student, and in the learning environment at school and at home including the additional assistance available to the student from parents or private tutors. Often “merit” reflects examination performance of the urban elite rather than of the average student especially in rural areas. High quantitative scores in controlled examination conditions based on stereotypical questions and rote learning can also be manufactured by   training and coaching prior to actual testing, itself a big business, from small towns to metropolitan cities and “coaching malls” in special service centres like Kota. Thus “merit” as defined in the NEP supports only one kind of learning, rather than the well-rounded accrual of knowledge and life-skills.

Value education 

Value education is addressed as religion and religious morality, rather than the principles and values of secularism, freedom of religion, pluralism and freedom of opinion, democracy and critical thinking as called for in the Constitution, and not a word is said about academic freedom stressed by all educational thinkers. No mention is also made of the fact that in some States such as Gujarat and Rajasthan, Hindu scriptures and mythological epics have been introduced into school curricula and textbooks, and observance of Hindu rituals and quasireligious performances such as recital of Vande Mataram, performance of Surya Namaskar and Yoga are being made compulsory, even though there are many cross-cultural and non-sectarian prayers, cultural performances, observances, parables and lessons in humanistic ethics and morality that could have been included in school curricula and routines. The effort to impose majority community Role of Students’ Unions In a country where voting age is 18, where multi-Party democracy prevails, and where participation of citizens in governance and policymaking is norm but a duty or responsibility, active participation of college and university in student union and other such representative bodies is natural and should be welcomed. However, despite the fact that all political parties have links with student bodies on college and university campuses, at the government level and among the bureaucracy there has always been an active dislike for student unions. This is reflected sharply in the TSR Subramanian Committee’s recommendations towards the NEP, as well as in the prevailing Lyngdoh Committee’s rules regulating students’ union functioning, elections etc. This aversion is partly based on the perception that students unions divert students away from their primary academic responsibilities by encouraging them  to “engage in politics,” and often mirror party politics even with active engagements of Political Parties including in conduct of elections, and thus bring in various malpractices associated with party politics in India.

It must be made clear that there is nothing wrong in principle with students “engaging in politics,” if politics is understood in its correct sense of the conceptual underpinnings of governance, policy-making and civil society. All aspects of social, economic, cultural and civic life involve politics which guides the very functioning of nations. In democracies in particular, it would in fact be unnatural if any section of the citizenry, especially adult and enlightened students, did NOT engage politically with all issues including those they study and those they observe and interact with outside their classrooms. Indeed, as we have seen in this booklet, educational policy is a deeply political subject. Party politics is only an organized reflection of politics in general. If students aged 18 and above are expected to understand issues and vote intelligently in national elections, they there can be nothing wrong in their having an active political engagement with issues within their campuses as well. The NEP visualizes various administrative measures to “deal with” this problem, On the contrary, all experience show that selfregulation by the student body along with the academic community at large is the best defence against undesirable elements or activities on campuses. Recent events in various Universities and Institutions of higher learning in India, such as in JNU, University of Hyderabad, IITs in Chennai and Mumbai, and the Film & TV Institute in Pune only highlight the contrast between the enlightened and vibrant participation of student bodies in the democratic life of the country, and the draconian and bureaucratic measures taken by the political leadership to crush opinions they do not like. India Education Service The NEP recommendations include the suggestion to form an elite cadre called the Indian Educational Service (IES), similar to the IAS, to administer and over see educational policy. While a prestigious cadre of teachers and educators would indeed serve the cause of education well, it is highly doubtful that an administrative cadre would achieve the desired results. This is part of a number of administrative measures advocated in the Report, clearly revealing its bureaucratic inclinations and a perception that sees educational institutions as administrative entities with teachers and students at the bottom, governed from above by such an elite cadre, perhaps drawing from the role the Committee sees being played by the IAS “ruling” over the general population In fact, such bureaucratic functions will not serve the very principles of academic freedom and autonomy of higher education institutions that numerous expert committees have recommended and which the government itself professes to agree with. Centres of Excellence The Report has no specific recommendations to improve the functioning of state Universities. Instead, the Report recommends the establishment of new “centres of excellence” that provide quality education and facilitate. This proposal, made earlier too under the UPA government, has not led to either more research or innovation Instead, such centres have caused State Universities to follow their own paths, often leading to loss of direction, faculty members leaving, and the decay or death of many departments. Innovation is used here as a catch-word for outputs that could be patented and commercialized. Such programmes leading to innovation have long been recommended by various bodies, but no assistance has been forthcoming from the Government especially to State Universities and other Institutions to build an ecosystem necessary for truly encouraging students, researchers and faculty to explore new ideas, question established notions, and engage in critical thinking and problem-solving. Instead of supporting a lower-grade kind of interaction with industry and defining “excellence” accordingly, efforts should be made to stimulate knowledge creation in existing Universities and reward the display of exemplary capabilities, especially of those from downtrodden classes and rural areas. A policy that nurtures special “centres of excellence” contradicts the vision of a socially inclusive and democratic system of Higher Education in which all citizens get equal opportunity to access the best quality of education. Such a proposal will promote an unwarranted hierarchy in the quality of education and training in institutions, and freeze exclusivity in students and faculty.

Teacher Quality The NEP Report has suggested putting in place a mechanism of assessment of academic performance of teachers including peer review so as to ensure academic accountability of public-funded institutions. The Report also suggests assessment of teacher performance by looking at the examination performance of students. However, an enlightened education system would have a more rounded assessment methodology looking at all aspects of the study environment along with teacher and student performance judged over a period of time. Judging teachers purely by examination performance of students may, in fact, put a premium on the teaching methods of coaching malls as in Kota and reduce teachers to mechanical operators! Teachers are induced to reach their full potential in an environment of democracy, operational freedom and freedom of expression befitting an academic professional. And students would reach their full potential when provided with quality teaching, a challenging learning environment and encouragement to question, apply acquired knowledge to solve problems, and invited to open up the horizons of her curiosity. Pre-school education One welcome recommendation is that pre-school education be declared a right, and that cadres of pre-primary teachers be developed. Similarly, pre-primary education also does not require a common curriculum, as indicated by the Report, but a common perspective based on Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) for which specific curricula will have to be devised as per concrete local conditions by States. The common schools will be the mainstream of school education at the secondary level as well, the role Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), Indian Council for Secondary Education (ICSE) and other streams will have to be regulated on the basis of a common concept based on the RTE, instead of being indiscriminately organized as they are today.

On Curricula

 Given the diversity of the education system in different States and between different types of schools, it is clear that a centralized curriculum is not feasible. Only curricular guidelines should be worked out at the central level, with the States being asked to develop detailed curricula. For Higher Education, the same task should be entrusted to the Universities as is the practice today. Regulating Higher Education The NEP recommends a “comprehensive new legislative framework” for regulating higher education, the underlying principle of which would be to provide financial support and full autonomy to institutions ranked at the top and “to weed out institutions, which are on the lowest rung of the scale.” Autonomy for highly ranked institutions would mean providing incentives “to raise additional resources by starting new programs on cost recovery basis, employment of parttime and contractual staff on market-determined salaries, optimum use of buildings and other assets, and regular increase in fees without Government approval”. This virtual division of higher education institutions into an elite category that would be financially supported and encouraged including through autonomy, and an ordinary category that would be slowly weeded out or in other words closed, would mean a sharp restriction of access to higher education, as discussed under “Centres of Excellence” above and “Accreditation” below

New approach to Accreditation 

So far, the concept of accreditation and quality evaluation was aimed at deciding eligibility for Government grants, as the NEP 2016 itself records. Now it recommends a reorientation towards assessment of quality and the promotion of competition between institutions for funds. This means needs of institutions w would be ignored and, instead, focus would shift to their ability to raise funds which may be attracted for a number of reasons unrelated to quality of education provided. Such accreditation would also work against the effort towards social inclusion. For instance, public-funded colleges and universities are required to function in very different conditions compared to wellfunded private or foreign universities. The former admit more students, have typically under-funded infrastructure and under-staffed labs, libraries and offices. Yet, they play an important role towards ensuring a more inclusive environment for both students and faculty, which should be encouraged. The social, cultural and intellectual diversity in these institutions should be utilized to lay firmer foundations for social justice and democracy. Accreditation as proposed in the NEP Report will effectively push public institutions towards privatization due to the very criteria of ability to attract funds. In fact, if Government notes that certain institutions are not well managed, it should take appropriate measures to rectify the situation and improve these Institutions instead of devaluing them and permanently relegating them to some inferior grade. Right to Education (RTE)

If one accepts the spirit of the RTE act and wants to implement it seriously, then the only possibility that emerges is that the entire education from 6 to 14 is integrated under a framework of common schools, without gradations such as KVs, Navodaya Vidyalayas, various transitional schools to CBSE and other Board examinations and so on. The common school, will strictly work on a neighbourhood principle admit all children without caste, class, gender, religion or region teach children in the mother tongue as the medium.. Furthermore, worldwide the common school has helped society advance and provide quality institutions for all the people. Two other suggestions also militate against the spirit of the RTE. The NEP Report attempts to make a proviso that all minority schools should admit 15% of students from economically weaker sections which, minority institutions assert, will work against their minority character and dilute it. On the contrary, effort should be to actively assist the endeavour of minority institutions to reform and improve themselves instead of imposing external conditions. The second is to amend the no detention policy, with the policy being limited up to the fifth standard, and after that a suitable form of remedial teaching being adopted for children who lag behind. Such compromises are cumbersome and unwarranted. Over-centralization and bureaucratization India has come a long way as regards the organization of its education system. One of the dominant trends has been to gradually centralize the system with the Union Government playing an ever greater in framing the system and regulating it. This trend is further accentuated in the NEP Report which seeks to centralize all ideas and processes, based on the premise that performance of State governments is poor and that only the Centre can deliver. The Constitution provides considerable autonomy to the States in education and this need to be safeguarded If left unchecked, this trend will be a major impediment in the development of local and regional initiatives which are very important in the growth of education in a country of great diversity such as India. This becomes even more important as education is a field that is essentially participatory and democratic, which cannot be carried out without the active participation of the teachers, students and the neighbourhood community. The very dynamics of this process is  impeded if the whims and fancies of a group of individuals in the capital are imposed on the States, however brilliant or innovative these individuals may be. In the present context, this also sharply increases the dangers of imposition of a saffron agenda with religious, linguistic and caste-based biases being thrust upon States, regions and communities with very different cultures and backgrounds. Disturbing trends along these lines are already visible in both school and university education. For instance, the emphasis being put on Sanskrit and Vedic– Puranic traditions, with both being associated exclusively with ancient Indian culture to the exclusion of all other cultures and traditions, is a dangerous trend. An understanding of the ancient Indian civilization which consists of many religious and cultural strands, and includes both indigenous and international inputs, are extremely important for cultivating a multi-cultural pluralist national identity and building a humanistic value-system for India’s precious democratic system. Imposition of an idea of India based on unitary conceptions of Indian religion, culture and language, and a false history deliberately constructed to promote such a view point, is not only contrary to the real history of the Indian civilization and nation, but also to the direction in which modern India needs to go. The educational system in India must be protected from such wrong ideas so that the citizens of tomorrow are not brought up on distorted ideas. The New Education Policy as currently structured does not offer a new vision of the school and university as required for playing a critical role in the development of a modern India.

Higher Education

Higher Education 

There are three segments in higher education viz: ?central institutions, which account for 2.6% of the total enrolment? state institutions which account for 38.5% of enrolment, and ? private institutions that cater to the remaining about 60% of students Expansion of higher education during the Eleventh Plan (2007-12) was led by the private sector which now accounts for 58.5% of enrolments. Numerous reports on higher education have been submitted to the Government in recent times. Of these, the report submitted by the Yashpal Committee of 1993 took cognizance of the varied conditions of educational development and suggested a degree of autonomy in the functioning of Universities and decentralization of power. Regrettably, it was here that the concept of foreign universities starting collaboration with Indian private educational institutions was seeded. The idea was that India has low costs of living which would help    attract foreign students to study in this country which could thus earn foreign exchange while bringing in top quality education. The 12th Plan document therefore contends as follows: “Private sector will be encouraged to establish larger and higher quality institutions in the Twelfth Plan. Currently, for-profit entities are not permitted in higher education and the non-profit or philanthropy-driven institutions are unable scale up enough to bridge the demand-supply gap in higher education. Therefore, the “not-for-profit” status in higher education should, perhaps, be re-examined for pragmatic considerations so as to allow the entry of for-profit institutions in select areas where acute shortages persist”. Clearly, educational institutions would in future work mainly with a profit motive. In order to guard against the apprehension that mediocre educational entrepreneurs will invade the country, the Report recommends that investment be sought from the “best two hundred Universities” (as per various rating agencies in the World). There is no indication regarding what such Universities are going to do in our education system, and how such investment is going to benefit the average student, who admittedly still suffers from lack of quality and access. Inevitably, this will lead to creating a few islands of “premium” education accessible only to those with ability to pay huge sums as fees, and about whose quality or relevance to Indian conditions nobody has any idea. This will further exacerbate the inequalities already prevalent in the Indian educational system as regards both access and quality. This is a completely unacceptable policy, and must be vigorously opposed. Other reports too have drifted in this direction. The Birla-Ambani Report says Higher Education is not a public good but a private good! The National Knowledge Commission Report and the recommendations by N.R. Narayanamurthy have treated higher education as a money-spinning enterprise which places knowledge and expertise in the marketplace, and treats students and the feeder community as consumers.The growing emphasis on so-called self-financing educational institutions, which further means high fees and hence providing access only to the better-off, is very much like the slogan of “user charges” in health services and public utilities such as water, power and other infrastructure. These are all part of the neo-liberal policy framework wherein the state withdraws from services for the common good, and instead leaves it to corporate bodies guided by market forces, which inevitably pushes these services towards higher-paying sections of the population and exacerbates inequalities in society. This increase of highfee higher education institutions, aided and abetted by central apex bodies such as the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), Indian Medical Council (IMC), National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) and National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) have rendered higher education out of reach for students who find it difficult to take loans. Even those middle-class students who do manage to take loans, get tied up for many years in repaying the loans. Such policies have wreaked havoc in developed countries including the UK and USA. In the US, total outstanding student loans have crossed $1300 billion (Rs.90 lakh crores) and students often have loans hanging over them for over 25 years! The NEP Report has recommended merit-cum-means scholarships covering fees and living expenses for up to 10 lakh needy students, but this is not expected to meet real needs or alter the basic problems outlined above. Such market-led higher education is also killing the diversity desired in higher education. There is a kind of “academic cloning” now taking place, where the same kinds of courses in disciplines such as engineering, medicine and management were being cloned and taught everywhere in an attempt to capture the cream of the “student market”. In the process, other important forms of knowledge such as basic sciences, social sciences, humanities and languages have lagged behind, because they are not thought of as commercially attractive, where students will not pay high fees and not take large loans for fear of being unable to pay them. Even major Universities are being forced to run or recognize only the former types of “new generation courses.” This trend mirrors similar trends in the US and Europe where the same neo-liberal policies hold sway.

      Studies on the academic performance in such courses have demonstrated an absolute decline in quality, indicated by a sharp fall in examination results, in spite of such screening processes such as entrance examinations. In fact, the admissions processes in the numerous selffinancing institutions that have sprung up everywhere have become so complicated that entrance examinations do not serve as a screening instrument anymore. This is further complicated by the emergence of numerous ‘coaching malls’ that openly resort to malpractice. Strategies of “quality assurance” such as accreditation and rating devices have not helped in improving the conditions of higher education. Many colleges and Universities have managed to get high ratings, but only in order to attract more funds, not to improve the teaching-learning process or to ensure academic excellence.

No amount of “corporate social responsibility” or corporate profit recycling can hope to replace the role played by the State in the running of an education system that caters to interests of the Indian population and society as a whole. Corporate funds and “for-profit” institutions by their very nature will move according to the profit motive, not as per the greatest social good. No wonder moves are under way to make education a tradable commodity and place education among services governed under World Trade Organization (WTO)

Vocational Education

Vocational Education 

  The Central Government had initiated vocational secondary education from 1988, but this programme has never shown appreciable results. In its present form, Skills Education has been conducted since 2009. In order to make the secondary level more inclusive, the idea of vocational education to go along with Socially Useful Productive Work (SUPW) is being given importance these days. Educational experts have been emphasizing employability as a criterion along with equity and excellence in education, but experience over the past quarter century has not been good. Unfortunately, this experience in vocational education has not been reviewed and researchbased policy directions have not been developed. There have been major problems with integrating the vocational stream with the academic stream. In fact the numerous streams of vocational education, technical and polytechnic training and recently introduced skills training have only  added to the confusion and lack of purpose of vocational education at this important stage of human life. Higher education is primarily tasked with creating a cohesive and well-integrated citizenry that will help sustain the values of democracy, secularism and scientific temper in our nation and society. It is not meant to instill a narrow emphasis on physical skills to the detriment of intellectual knowledge. In fact, in the modern high technology environment, physical skills without intellectual advancement will never deliver what is required in different categories of the working population. Just think of information and communications technology, bio-technology, nanotechnology, renewable energy and so on which are at the cutting edge of industries and therefore integral to the advancement that counties want to pursue. Skills in any of these disciplines can be acquired only by combining technical knowledge with physical skills. Therefore, a narrow emphasis on physical skill-training is inimical to the very essence of higher education in a society that is modernizing and looking ahead to the future. The proposed NEP adopts and recommends a narrow interpretation of “skills” and “training” as if these are disconnected from “education” whereas “know-how” and “know why” are equally components for modern vocations. Emphasis on physical skills and professional competence cannot be at the expense of Critical Learning Skills.

Quality Education

Quality Education 

     The character of education in India assumes interesting dimensions when we take into account quality rather than quantity alone. The results of the recent National Achievement Surveys of the NCERT (National Council for Educational Research & Training) conducted in 2010 show that learning abilities of children at the primary level leave a lot to be desired. Results show that about 31.5% of children surveyed scored less than 40% in language, 35.8% failed in mathematics and 35.1% failed in environmental studies or EVS. Even in Kerala, a state with otherwise creditable educational achievements, 39.6% of students scored less than 40% in Mathematics and 29.7% did the same in EVS. Interestingly, only 2.7% in Mathematics and 2.9% in EVS respectively scored more than 80% (which is about one-sixth of the National average at the same score which itself is poor)! It is clear that when the quality at the foundational levels is average or poor, quality at higher levels is likely to be abysmal. Data also shows great diversity among different regions and States in India, both in terms of access and quality. In general, both the Southern and North-Eastern States have performed better, whereas Northern India has lagged behind. This diversity is nothing new, but government policies during the past quarter century has done nothing to change the pattern, which shows that the malady lies deep in the economic and socio-cultural structures in these regions rather than in the education process alone. In fact, the performance of Uttar Pradesh, where only 15% of students scored   less than 40% marks overall, in the National Achievement Survey illustrates this point. Such diverse performances also beings up the question of the overall centralization of curricula, management, and policy directions visible in recent policy documents, as they tend to ignore such economic and socio-cultural variations in different regions and often tend to underplay regional initiatives in favour of central policies or programmes. Whether such policies have themselves contributed to continuation of disparities needs to be examined. Unfortunately, this element never finds itself seriously considered either in the educational literature or in the documents of policy makers. Diversity of our national economic and cultural forms finds expression in the use of language, environmental knowledge and even in computation. Other elements of social knowledge have been ignored in the educational system even by NCERT. It appears that policy makers do not care whether children know the history of their own land, understand their living conditions or know their Government. This means that the great diversity of Indian population can be safely ignored by the policy makers, educational institutions and even teachers and students. From such a position, “quality education” can be enjoyed only by a privileged few termed as “meritorious” students, and even the present set of documents call the real problems of Indian education mere “gaps.”

Education today

Education today: moving towards commercialization and saffronization

Since the early periods of human society, education has been a tool to set norms and values according to societal demands. At first it was learning to hunt, then to rule the land, and now to be able to participate in a democracy Education is not just a process aiming to achieve a single concrete goal, but a transformative process for constructing equitable and sustainable social development. Education

should promote nation building, upholding constitutional values of secularism and non-discrimination between different religions, languages and ethnicities that form part of Indian democracy.

Education is therefore a process that is fundamentally societal in the broadest sense of the term. As experts have said, “within the highly complex world of human activity in the given social environment, the child enters into an infinite number of relationships, each of which constantly develops, interweaves with other relationships and is compounded by the child's own physical and moral growth."

However, archaeological, documentary and other historical evidence tells us that education in earlier centuries was very elitist and biased in favour of upper echelons of society especially so-called higher castes. Teachers belonged only to some sections or castes, and students from some sections were privileged enough to receive any form of education. Contemporary education is, or should be, in principle accessible to all sections of society so that society as a whole, rather than just a small elite section, can benefit. Rather than advancing this goal, and striving to overcome the many barriers to widening the social base of education as will be discussed in this booklet, the New Education Policy recommendations of the TSR Subramanian Education  Committee as released by the present government seeks to put the clock back, hailing Vedic Education and the Guru-Shishya Parampara as an example of “knowledge sharing between the teacher and the student.”

         The British colonial period saw modern public education controlled by the Inspectorate. The Macaulay Commission framed a new educational policy for British India with the objective to “do our

best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.” The freedom struggle and its stalwarts like Gandhi, Tagore, Aurobindo, Ambedkar however threw away the colonial yoke and called for a National Education system.

After Independence, Dr.Radhakrishnan’s University Education

Commission (1948-49), National Science Policy (1952), Sri Mudaliar’s

Secondary Education Commission (1952-53), Dr. Kothari’s Education

Commission (1964-66) which was made into National Policy on Education (1968), the National Commission on Teachers I & II (1983- 85) and The National Policy on Education 1986 (revised in 1992) were the major government policies in education. Now the Government is preparing a new National Policy on Education-2016, thirty years after the last policy. Despite the many efforts made, the effort for education in India to be inclusive for women, dalits, adivasis and minorities has remained

a distant dream. The earlier Reports and policy documents stressed the role of education as a process of human liberation and all-round social development, dissemination of scientific temper, secularism and

democracy and advancement of the knowledge, skills and capabilities of all sections of population. Education was seen as primarily the responsibility of the state, with private institutions playing their role.

However, a shift could be seen in the later documents. Under the growing influence of the neo-liberal ideology permeating governance systems in India, the government began to gradually withdraw from its

responsibility and private institutions, particularly those with an entrepreneurial disposition, being assigned major responsibilities. Considerable changes have taken place in the structure and functioning of the education system during the past two decades. However, an examination of the actual performance of these schemes shows that there is much to be desired.

Literacy

According to government data, literacy rose from 52.2% in 1991 to 64.8% in 2001 and further to 74% in 2011. The Peoples Science Movement in India, and its specially-created arm the Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samiti, played a seminal role in placing literacy as a paramount agenda of the nation. A huge public mobilization campaign was organized all over the country through a Total Literacy Campaign which resulted in seeding the government’s National Literacy Mission in the 1990s. The number of illiterates declined in absolute terms by 31 million and the number of literates increased by 218 million. Literacy rate of India in 2011 was 74.04%. The Male literacy rate is 82.14% and Female literacy rate is 65.46% according to the Census. Increase of Literacy rates for women reduced the male-female gap from 21.59% in 2001 to 16.68% in 2011. Yet these figures show that a substantially large number of children are still first generation learners. Gender and regional disparities in literacy continue to remain high.

School Education

Most people have had an average of only 5.12 years of school education in India. This is well below comparable figures in other emerging economies such as China (8.17 years) and Brazil (7.54 years)

and significantly below the average of all developing countries (7.09 years). Enrolment of children in primary classes has picked up, particularly since the implementation of the Right to Education (RTE)

Act, but the drop out rate is still high. Gross and Net Enrolment Ratios continue to fall sharply after Class 8, showing that a number of children drop out after primary education or when they complete 14 years, and presumably thereafter enter the labour market to financially assist their families. The drop out rates is sharper among SCs and STs. There has been an improvement in the enrolment of girls into primary education, but drop out rates after primary education is still high. This shows that the stress on UEE (Universalization of ElementaryEducation) has not resulted in establishing education as a continuous

process such that all children reach a socially acceptable level ofknowledge and practical skills so as to play useful productive roles in society.Despite the stress on a ‘mission’ approach, various centrallysponsored schemes and substantial intervention by NGOs and privateagencies, achievements have been less than expected.Even though the 1986 Education Policy statement stressed access

to education, the bedrock of programmes for realization of Educationfor All, access is not 100 percent. Further, States that have been backward, still remain backward in terms of access.

****next on Quality Education