The Curious Case of the 6%
Into the Financing of India’s National Education Policy
The National Education Policy (NEP) of the Indian Government has always been perceived as an essential action-plan for education in the country. It gives recommendations to the authorities to provide a direction to the development of education. As with everything due to mass public presence on social media, when the NEP 2020 was released, there were massive celebrations about how we finally have a new blueprint after 34 years (since the previous NEP came out in 1986). It did not seem to be a major concern that even though Education comes under the Concurrent List of the Constitution, the Union Cabinet approved it without adequate deliberation in the Houses of the Parliament or with the state governments.
Understandably, the Policy document has led to a lot of discussions, debates and analyses about its various provisions. Some key provisions in the document are fairly easy to understand:
- The attempt to ape the education system of USA- the 5+3+3+4 school system, the 4-year undergraduate degree as well as the discontinuation of the MPhil.
- The insistence on 3-languages (along with an undertone of glorifying Sanskrit)
- The clearing up of route for foreign private universities
- The inclusion of Early Childhood Care and Education, also referred to as ECCE, under the ambit of education (but without a mention of how the present haphazard bureaucratic fabric would be sorted)
- And an unfortunate silence on the accessibility of education for disadvantaged children, including those with special needs.
Curiously, what made a lot of well-intentioned people happy was the budgetary allocation of 6% of the country’s GDP given to education in the document.
“…this Policy unequivocally endorses and envisions an increase in public investment in education — by both the Central government and all State Governments — to reach 6% of GDP at the earliest…”
A review of our education documents over the years would help understand the story behind the numbers. NEP 2020 itself acknowledges that every education commission in independent India and their revisions have maintained the said figure. 6% of GDP being spent on education was a need envisaged in Kothari Commission in 1964 which led to it being considered as an important point in the education commission in 1968, reiterated in the New Education Policy of 1986 and reaffirmed in the 1992 review of the policy.
This shows a consistent lack of political will for public investment in education since despite repeated recommendations the actual number has never reached even close to 6%.
Moreover it inspires little confidence that the percentage of the budget allocated to spending on education has been declining in the current regime from 4.14% in 2014–15 to 3.2% in 2020–21.
The hasty passing of the policy as well as the hugely selective acceptance made of the suggestions to the draft last year also brings into question of the viability of the “Centre and state working together”. In fact, owing to the COVID-19 crisis, the budget expenditure on education is expected to fall further.
In its 66 pages, the policy gives no concrete and specific blueprint as to how the government (or the ministry) would increase public investment on education. Rather, the promotion of private philanthropic activity in the education sector can be seen as a step towards reduced commitment and role of government in education.
In an attempt to differentiate NEP 2020 from its predecessors, soon after the release of policy, the Education Secretary announced speedy implementation of those provisions that would not have immediate financial implications. While on the one hand it is difficult to fathom how that would exactly work out; on the other hand, if educational institutions have to fend for themselves to implement the said provisions, the pace of the ongoing process of privatisation of education will definitely increase.
There is a common understanding that the education space is going to change beyond recognition post-pandemic. Many haphazard changes that are being sought and implemented now will most probably become a permanent feature in our pedagogy. However, the policy seems bereft of the understanding. It is true that the document in itself was prepared pre-pandemic and thus, cannot be expected to take cognizance of the present situation. However, the release and the statements of it have happened during lockdown. In the very least, the timelines could have been amended accordingly.
Despite not going into the specifics about the finances or otherwise, many deadlines and timelines have been given. In case of higher education, academic credit transfers are expected to be put in place by December 2020 for select institutions; multiple exit and entry points into higher education will be available from 2020–21; the four-year degree programme will be introduced by 2021 for Central universities and for others by 2022; common entrance tests will be worked out by February-March 2021, and administered, possibly, by May 2021.
Further, there are more policy-oriented changes planned as well. These include:
- The formulation of a new and comprehensive National Curricular Framework for School Education, NCFSE 2020–21
- A Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education also by 2020–21
- A National Professional Standards for Teachers 2022, and
- The assessment system for schools may be transformed by the academic session of 2022–23.
However, this speed does not factor in the enormous strain that most educational institutions have faced during the pandemic, which is by no means over. Interestingly, the changes proposed in ECCE which have again been widely welcomed are not deemed as urgent as the aforementioned since they “must thus be achieved as soon as possible, and no later than 2030.” Even the Gross Enrolment Ratios have not been prioritised as much as the flexibility in the higher educational institutions (HEIs). Finally, again, none of these deadlines mentions the financial handling of the required changes. The expenditure of 6% of our GDP can, as stated, be saved for much later after these changes are already brought in with the help of private partners.
The policy mentions the drawbacks aplenty. It talks about the improvement needed in GER (Gross Enrolment Ratio) in schools, in teacher education and in research and higher education. But interestingly, it does not attempt to address the issues. While the proposed revamping of the school and college system as well as swapping of the UGC (University Grants Commission) et al for an HECI (Higher Education Commission of India) could be considered as the solutions; it does not look into the lack of access, the acute shortage of teachers, and the dismal quantity and quality of research in colleges and universities. What makes the point more provoking is that a document coming out in the midst of the COVID crisis does not address the problems of inaccessibility of online education, and the exclusionary bias of our system. It says: “Adequate and safe infrastructure, including working toilets, clean drinking water, clean and attractive spaces conducive to learning, electricity, computing devices, and internet, library and sports and recreational resources will be important to provide to all schools” but does not go a step further to explain how these resources could be provided.
The NEP, along with a repetitive emphasis on holistic and multidisciplinary education, has given some glimmer of hope with the goal of “inclusive and equitable quality education for all by 2030”. However, the question of implementation cannot be left to individual teachers or schools or institutions, or even the students or their parents. The government cannot shirk off its responsibilities after merely informing people what is right. They are liable to chart out a plan. The policy conveniently mentions that the 3-language exercise will be a problem in some cases- and then stops there. It does not explain how it would have to be tackled. It mentions that 6% of the GDP should be spent at the earliest, but it does not mention how and when. Same goes for the ECCE where it is neither related to the Right to Education (RTE) Act of 2009, nor is there an attempt to clear out the institutional discrepancies.
An ideal policy document would have put out some collaborative strategies in addition to romanticizing every aspect discussed. Even though the document makes it clear that it would like India to develop (and bring in) world class universities; the respect for knowledge, conducive sociopolitical environment and adequate funds required for the said are not given the required emphasis. To get an overarching insight into the whole policy document, NEP 2020: The mirage of inclusive and equitable quality education for all would be a good start. We will get more clarity as gradually the proposed changes get worked on. Till then, we hope to scrutinize every aspect of the policy document in a series of articles.
