NEP 2020: Sweeping Education Reforms Stalled By Slow Implementation, Stakeholders Call For Urgent Action
· Free Press Journal
In the last more than ten articles, the status of implementation of major NEP 2020 recommendations were discussed; in all areas from school to higher education to other areas including integration of skills or IKS, the implementation process has been found to be slow and much below the target speed. Several deadlines and objectives have, therefore, not been achieved. It is a matter of concern for many of us in the academic world as we were expecting things to move much faster so that desired goals could be achieved.
Visit milkshakeslot.online for more information.
Pace of Slow Implementation:
It is difficult to assess the definitive reasons for the slow pace of implementation particularly for the “substantive recommendations” at the ground level. One reason could be lack of political will, which is difficult to agree with, as the government particularly at the central level has substantive majority and it is serious as well as sincere in implementing it. May be the country is too big, and it is not possible to implement any policy without active support from state governments. But even in many of the ruling party ruled states, the process is equally slow, and it is difficult to comprehend reasons for the same. The second reason that is more realistic is that the recommendations are not “incremental” but “sweeping” in nature and therefore, the implementation bodies are at a loss as to how to proceed. For example, making the “school education outcomes” across the School Boards equal in terms of skills and competencies is a complex task. It will require humongous changes in the syllabus, curriculum, and teaching pedagogies across the schools; neither the system nor the teachers are ready for such transformation and hence, the process is slow. In some State Boards, the syllabus is changed up to 2nd or 3rd standard till now and if the pace remains the same, it might take a decade before congruence in the curriculum of all Boards is achieved. We are not sure when the “specialization free” 11th & 12th standard education will start at school level. It might take years. Similarly, the proposed migration to 4-year degree course is proving to be non-starter in many universities / colleges. Either the students are not convinced about the utility of migration in terms of better career prospects, etc., or the system itself is not ready for the voyage because of lack of infrastructure, faculty readiness, among others. The resultant effect is felt on the ground through low interest of the students for the shift to the new system. One other weak area has been IKS. One of the critical objectives of NEP 2020 was to bring back Indian ethos in education system through integration of “Indian Knowledge System (IKS)”. Our interaction at various levels reveals that institutions are not adequately ready in terms of teaching preparedness of the various domains / subjects of IKS. And therefore, the process of implementation has been slow and lopsided. Similar is the case of integration of “skills” or “entrepreneurship” with education curriculum. Overall, there is lot of uncertainty and anxiety in the minds of teachers; there is lack of awareness among students.
Moving Ahead:
The situation described above is not a happy one as strategically we might get “stuck in the middle.” There is, therefore, a need to move strategically, cautiously but with a quick speed, and taking into confidence all the stakeholders, including at state level, education being in the Concurrent List. Private players like Higher Education Forum (HEF) should be taken on board for creating a “think tank” for implementation of all the major policies of NEP 2020 in a holistic and phased manner. The think tank should be broad based, and should contain sub-committees for implementation of all the recommendations in various domains. Awareness campaigns should be launched for students, parents as well as teachers to reduce the risk of resistance. Time bound goals should be fixed for quick implementation; the supporting finances including the cost of training faculty must be budgeted to effectively implement without any financial constraints. The most important aspect is that broader perspectives of reforms in terms of structure, policy, internationally competitiveness and bringing Indian ethos must not be compromised and upper time limit should be capped at next 4 to 5 years for “total implementation”. That by itself will make a delay about ten years. The earlier we understand the seriousness and move quickly, the better it will be for all of us.