Nep 2020 academic challenges bureaucracy
NEP

Academia & Bureaucracy Drift: NEP 2020 India

Old order changed, yielding place to new!

Preface

National Education Policy 2020, a new era of meaningful coordination and cooperation is not sought, with due reflection, between and among the top bureaucrats in the UGC and the ministry of Higher Education, the academia (especially of the NAAC’s “White Paper”) and the authorities of NAAC, then no academic challenge will be successfully faced by the Indian academia.

These days, the three main areas that should worry us all the most are the NAAC White Paper, the UGC, and the National Education Policy NEP 2020 India Higher Education Policy. It is now necessary for the NAAC authorities, the White Paper’s creators, the UGC’s top bureaucracy, and the Ministry of Higher Education at the Centre to unite and take coordinated action. This has never occurred before in India’s history of higher education since independence.

However, it is imperative that at this critical point, the most important inquiry be precisely what modifications have been made to the Dr. Kasturirangan Committee report of NEP-2020 (HE) and by whom. The true problem with our higher education system rests in the two documents—the initial draft that was approved by the centre and the covert revisions made by the officials.

 

Click here to Read: Understanding National Education Policy NEP 2020

 

Function of bureaucracy in the formulation of higher education policies since independence

Since independence from the Kothari Commission to the Dr. K. Kasturirangan Committee Report, including the two Reports of the National Knowledge Commission headed by Dr. Sam Pitroda, the gulf between academia and the top bureaucracy has been well-known. It is customary to keep academia out of the real decision-making process. After their reports are turned in, their work is over. Subsequently, academics are seldom given much weight when making decisions. The senior bureaucrats oversee that procedure, and it is precisely here that they impose their own guidelines and rules—which are typically unknown to the report submitters. The criteria of NET/SET for employment of college instructors, the varied dates indicated for exemption, the vast number of court cases afterward, the number of teachers suffering by the regulations and the waste of time, energy and money. It worries no one in the UGC. One such law is the Right to Education Act of 1992. For the last thirty years, there have been ongoing legal issues. The bureaucrats have been imposing their own rules and requirements that the Parliament never even considered or debated. The government was forced to change the legislation in 2002 and 2005 owing to bureaucratic situations, which made the 86th constitutional amendment mandatory. In 2012, the 93rd constitutional amendment was made again because of article 14 in the statute.

The National Research Foundation (NRF) problem is crucial in the current environment. In a piece published in the Indian Express on November 8, 2021, Dr. Ramanand Nand, the director and founding member of the “Think Tank” called “Centre for Policy Research and Governance,” expounded on how the bureaucracy has replaced the original NRF philosophy and concepts that Dr. Kasturirangan discussed in his report with their own rules and regulations. Disregarding the highly acclaimed fresh suggestions in the study, the bureaucrats have appropriated templates from the National Science Foundation in the United States. Dr. Nand states that the NRF document, which was created by bureaucrats, has fallen short of its initial goal and does not inspire optimism or desire among researchers.

He claims that the bureaucratic system is “rife with workplace favouritism and biases.” The original NRF draft is broad and intended for study across various fields and specialties. However, the government policy only permits the Department of Science and Technology (DST) to receive about 90% of research funding. Furthermore, it has established the need (regulation) that the NRF chairperson’must’ come from the Department of Science and Technology (DST) alone. Reviving old Indian culture, literature, languages, humanities, and social sciences has been largely ignored, and research in these fields has been hindered, according to the K. Kasturirangan Report.

The importance of STEM in the current competitive global knowledge society should not be underestimated. However, that does not imply ignoring other facets of life. Indian literature and culture are equally important for leading a decent life. The Kasturirangan committee adheres to the G-20’s “Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam” doctrine and bases our bureaucracy on the Kim science and technology mindset of North Korea. It’s necessary to get the two back in balance.

Our Academia should take on (examine) the first intellectual challenge that our bureaucrats have presented to us. Actually, the difficulty facing academia is equally the challenge facing bureaucracy. It’s best if they recognise it sooner. They will also be held accountable for the failure of NEP-20 if they disregard this challenge, as is their true tradition. This will not be allowed to happen again.

The Significance of the White Paper

Considering the foregoing information, we must give the NAAC’s White Paper, which was released on July 13, 2022, immediate consideration. “Reimagining Assessment and Accreditation in Higher Education” is the title of the article. Physicians Bhushan Patwardhan and K. P. Mohanan are the document’s principal editors. The NAAC working committee has fully and completely approved of it. Thirteen renowned Indian specialists in higher education have been approached by the two editors to collaborate. Eleven more seasoned professionals in higher education reviewed the draft in the first round, and a second panel of seventeen experts reviewed it in the second round. Drs. K. Kasturirangan, Anil Kakodkar, and the current UGC chairperson, Dr. M. Jagdesh Kumar, conducted the third review. This ambitious, contemporary document has historical significance and is strongly tied to the NEP-20 idea. Its distinctive collection of fresh ideas on the role and objective of higher education in India today is its most significant characteristic. The focus on “Academic Intelligence and Higher Order Cognitive Capabilities” (P. 17).

“The wellbeing of the individual, society, nation, and human species and of the planet with all its creatures” (P. 15) is the stated goal of higher education. Education’s purpose is to enable the youth to work towards their personal well-being as well as the well-being of their community, country, species, and the earth and all its inhabitants (P. 16). These notions are closely related to what is meant by “academic intelligence.”Under four headings, the White Paper provides a detailed explanation of the notions of “Higher order cognitive abilities and Academic Intelligence.” They can be briefly described in the order listed below:

  • Independent learning, reading, comprehension and communication (all the skills)
  • Information and understanding (with its relevance and intelligent application).
  • Construction and Evaluation of knowledge.
  • Attitudes, values and habits of mind (PP. 17-18)

 

Click Here to Read the NAAC White Paper

Academic challenges

The report then offers a few extremely important “recommendations.” The true intellectual problems that lie ahead of us are these. Here are a few of them:

A series of nationally accredited online courses and programmes will be created to assist all students in developing the “capacity for higher order cognition.” This calls for all topics to have new curricula or syllabi, as well as interdisciplinary courses, foundational and skill-building programmes, and courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. In actuality, it is improbable that any of our Boards of Studies in any of our HEIs could up to this intellectual challenge.

To evaluate students’ “Learning Outcomes”—that is, their real attainment of higher order cognitive capacities—a nationwide exam is being developed. This calls for several examination modifications that we haven’t yet considered.

For the faculty members who would serve as mentors for the courses on higher order cognitive skills, a professional development programme should be created. It implies that the other instructors will receive training after the mentors. The AISHE report for 2020–21 states that there were 2,36,000 instructors at our universities and 15,51,0170 teachers in our institutions. Even in the context of online professional training, this poses a significant intellectual obstacle. It also comes down to testing or confirming the outcomes of such a significant and costly endeavour. The quality declines with an increase in number.

To inform them on the new ideas and objectives of HE, the White Paper suggests holding workshops or seminars for vice chancellors, principals, management staff, and government administrative workers in the HE sector. This is a massive effort in and of itself, including much academic practise. This presents a problem. Academic programmes will now receive a “grade” determined on the evaluation of their learning objectives. It is quite difficult academically to build up a formal system for this sort of accreditation and assessment.

The establishment of “Multi-Accreditation Agencies under NAC (not NAAC),” or the National Assessment Council, as advised by the White Paper. In India, there are currently about 45,000 colleges and over 1150 universities. It is indeed a tremendous intellectual task to analyze, evaluate, and accredit all of the academic programmes at these HEIs every five years. There are yet more proposals of this kind that are difficult to put into practice.

Mutual respect and collaboration are essential.

Associations of Principals and unions of college and university instructors exist. It is understandable that they have all been battling for the resolution of their complaints and the improvement of their working conditions and pay scales. They haven’t collaborated before to address any issues with our HE system, though. It is now imperative that they all get together and collaborate to address the academic issues that were briefly stated before. They need to have a substantive conversation with our highest level of bureaucracy. If it does, it will mark the start of a new age of collaboration and coordination necessary to ensure the success of NEP-20 (HE). However, this in and of itself poses a problem to the bureaucracy and academia right now.

 

One thought on “Academia & Bureaucracy Drift: NEP 2020 India

Comments are closed.