Introduction
India’s 2020 National Education Policy was developed as a means to actualize the attainment of the country’s full social, economic, and political development potential. The National Education Policy (N.E.P.) is based on the country’s four global education development objectives stipulated in its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDG4) in 2015. These include improving the country’s human capital, developing an equitable society promoting balanced national economic development, and fostering universal access to quality education which is pivotal in the country’s growth in democratic governance, social justice, equality, national integration, scientific research, and development, and cultural preservation. In addition, the National Development Policy seeks to address several challenges that limit India’s accession to global economic dominance, such as insufficient human capital, inefficiency in the distribution of learning resources, and other performance-related shortcoming emanating from its traditional national education framework. To accomplish these objectives, the National Education Policy 2020 reconfigures India’s education system to support and foster learning and satisfyingly address the challenges that India’s population encounter due to recent changes in the employment landscape and overall global economic ecosystem. To better understand the elements of an effective education policy, this study critically analyzes the content of the National Education Policy 2020 (N.E.P.), published by the Government of India through the Department of Human Resource Development. The analysis focuses majorly on the applicability of the policy across foundational, preparatory, middle, and secondary stages of learners’ cognitive, social, and emotional stages of development.
Theories of Education
The Human Capital Theory
Human Capital is one of the theoretical prepositions adopted between 1950 and to 1960s. Proposed by Howard Becker and Theodore Shultz, the human capital theory describes education as a form of investment that has a substantial impact on economic growth; and whose return cannot be accounted for by increases in labor, physical capital, and land (Little 2003: 437). The theory is based on the belief that skills, a form of capital people need to be economically productive, can only be acquired by investing in education. In other words, a country that invests substantially in education amplifies its ability to produce a qualified, sufficient, and well-compensated workforce (Little 2003: 437). This is true because, according to a statement issued by Schultz (1961: 313), the total output that human capital produces surpasses the total output produced by other investments combined. This means that a government can apply cost-benefit analysis to quantify returns to its investment in education the same way it would apply profitability analysis to evaluate returns on physical capital (Little 2003: 438).
The Learner or Child-Centered Ideology
Commonly referred to as Self-Actualization, experimentalist, and humanist; the Learner or Child-Centered Theory of Education emphasizes the needs of children and individuals in schools when developing a learner-based curriculum. As per Schweisfurth (2013: 21), the phrase “Learner-Centered Education” (L.C.E.) cannot be confined to a simple single-line definition as there are many terms associated with it, such as problem-based, progressive education, constructivism, inquiry-based learning, and child-centered learning. Most frequently, these terms are used interchangeably even though each targets learners in different levels of education (Schweisfurth 2013: 21). For instance, the problem-based learning teaching approach adopted in higher education institutions helps learners to solve real-life challenges utilizing evidence-based strategies. The child-based learning, on the other hand, is an approach where teachers use different models of childhood to meet the needs of learners within a given age bracket. This differs from progressive education, which, according to Schweisfurth, means “a positive modern alternative to traditional pedagogues”; and fosters contributions of various social movements in promoting social reforms and egalitarianism (2013: 21).
The Liberal Theory
The liberal theory describes education as a learning strategy that empowers learners and prepares them to deal with complex and route life challenges resulting from various social dynamics such as diversity and economic and political developments. As per Scott (2014: 1), the liberal theory of education accomplishes this by helping learners develop a sense of social responsibility and encouraging them to not only develop important life skills such as communication, scientific research, and problem-solving skills but also apply them in resolving real-world problems. By doing this, the liberal theory prepares students to be responsible global citizens, register better academic performance, and be actively involved in creating a more sustainable global economy. In addition to this, the liberal theory of education enables students to seek clarification on questions they do not understand which as per Scott (2014: 1), will help them develop a more positive perspective on matters threatening global social well-being.
Despite the massive benefit that liberal theory impact on the global education system, there is a need to redesign both general and liberal education programs for students to produce better outcomes at undergraduate levels of study. As per a study conducted by Scott (2014: 1) to investigate the philosophy of liberal education; its structure; the objectives of general education, and how it meets the goals of liberal education and as per the findings, the overdependence of the traditional learning mechanism was identified as one of the primary factor limiting the fulfillment of the objectives of the liberal educations (Scott 2014: 11). This is because traditional learning strategies that do not leverage on the modern technologies such as online learning increase not only the cost of education but also limit social interactions among learners. This negatively impacts students’ sense of diversity, cultural integration, and overall global economic, social, and political perspectives.
The Social Reconstruction Theory
The progressive movement developed the social reconstruction theory of education in the 19th century, a group of American reformers formed in the late 1950s. Based on the movement’s goal to reform government, society, economy, and the global education system, the social construction theory outlines the relationship between democratic governance and education and their role in fostering socioeconomic development. As per the perspective offered by John Dewey between 1859 and 1952, the Pedagogic Creed in 1897, and the School and Society in 1900, democracy means more than a form of government; it is a way of life in human society that must be passed from one generation to another through education.
Over the years, however, philosophers have expressed their conflicting opinions regarding social construction theory. As per Giroux (2006), the role of educators in the struggle for social and economic justice is to help students apply what they learn in class in resolving challenges affecting the global society, especially those threatening democracy. As per McLaren (1988), however, the role of educators is to empower the powerless and provide solutions to problems contributing to social injustice and inequality.
The Social Efficiency Theory
The social efficiency theory was developed between the 1910s and 1920s by social scientists who aimed to create a stable and harmonious conservative society (Giroux 2010: 361). The theory was later advanced by philosophers such as Benjamin Kidd, John Hobson, John Dewey, Lester Ward, and David Snedden. Based on science and technology, the social efficiency theory emphasizes the need for efficiency in all aspects of society, including education, governance, and economic production (Giroux 2010: 362). As far as education is concerned, Green (1990:309) maintains that to foster efficiency in the national education system, there is a need for nations to provide trained administrators, military personnel, and engineers who can promote the dominant national cultures and ideologies of nationhood. As per Klikauer (2015:1104), however, organizations have different sizes and needs as far as skills and knowledge are concerned, and given such, the belief that the performance of all organizations can be optimized by the application of generic management skills and theories is misleading.
Policy Analysis
As per the National Education Policy 2020 document, the government of India aims to create an education system that applies propositions made in several theories of education. As per section 8.6, the Indian Government aims to create an education system that adopts culture, structure, and systems that provide the resources schools, teachers, communities, institutions, and other stakeholders need to build a conducive learning environment (Policy, 2020: 31). To achieve this; the government encourages stakeholder and participants in the Indian education to perform their responsibilities with integrity, commitment, and accountability. From a personal point of view, accountability, integrity, dedication, and proper work ethics are some of the elements presented in the social efficiency ideology.
Per Dryzek and John (2009), the social efficiency ideology aims to identify causes and relationships that can be manipulated through public policy and central and coordinated readership. A national education policy is an example of a tool that policymakers can leverage to achieve social perfection. In addition to this, India’s national education policy incorporates concepts addressed in the social efficiencies theory, such as managerialism, social engineering, and educationalization, all of which form the foundation for better academic performance and efficient management of school resources in the Indian education system as per the social efficiency theory (Giroux 2010: 381). For instance, in section 8.6, the policy requires teachers and administrators to conduct a developmentally oriented assessment of students based on the established academic expectations. In addition, the policy requires teachers to be promoted and their accomplishments assessed based on their performance (Policy, 2020: 32). These are examples of ways of fostering efficiency in a national education system per the social efficiency theory.
Section 8.7 of India’s National Education Policy requires private and public schools to be assessed and accredited using similar criteria, processes, and benchmarks. In addition, all schools will be held to similar standards during a financial audit. This is aimed at protecting parents from arbitrary increases in tuition fees as per the document (Policy, 2020: 32). As per the social construction theory, subjecting both private and public schools to similar standards fosters a positive performance while ensuring equitable access to education for all learners in the Indian education system. Education is the first step to freedom, as per Giroux (2010:177). To foster equality in the Indian education system, the government ensures that all students have the skills they need to compete effectively in the global labor market, irrespective of their socioeconomic backgrounds. In addition to this, section 8.7 of India’s National Education policy emphasizes that education institutions are non-profit entities. As a result, any profit that they make must be reinvested in the education sector (Policy, 2020: 32). As per the human capital theory, reinvesting in education is essential in ensuring that learning institutions have sufficient resources to hire adequate and qualified labor force; construct classes rooms and foster health and safety of students. Per Schultz (1981), investing in education benefits the overall global society through improved health and nutritional outcomes.
The Learner-Centered Theory of Education (L.C.T.) is well applied in India’s National Education Policy 2020. The areas where L.C.T. is satisfyingly used in the document include performance assessment for students, teachers, and education institutions; fees and tuition payment, regulatory framework; health, safety, child rights, and gender equality. In the L.C.T. approaches to education are based on the needs and interests of the learner and as a result, this influence the teaching methods, learning philosophies, beliefs, and motivations that teachers adopt. As per John Dewey, child-centered learning tactics aim to produce thoughtful, critically reflecting, socially and economically active citizens and which can resolve numerous economic challenges facing India.
As far as assessment is concerned, performance in India’s National Education Policy is outcome-oriented. As per section 8.6, the policy recognizes that performance is subject to several external factors, all of which the system prioritizes during promotion and students’ graduation (Policy, 2020: 32). In addition to this, the policy provides multiple sources of feedback and assessment to provide a wider overview of the country’s overall performance. As per Scotland (2008:39), the role of institutions of higher learning as a senior phase of learning is to ensure that an education system best meets the needs of young people. To accomplish this, the Indian National Education Policy provides a learning framework and an assessment system that evaluates performance at different stages of study to ensure that students have qualifications suitable to their needs.
The Plowden Report (1967:9) explains the child’s role in an education system, stating, “at the heart of the educational process lies the child. No advances in policy, no acquisitions of new equipment have their desired effect unless they are in harmony with the nature of the child unless they are fundamentally acceptable to him.” This belief is well reflected in India’s National Education Policy 2020. For instance, the policy put the necessary mechanisms in place to ensure education institutions, both private and public, are accredited; their performance is evaluated, and their financial records audited to ensure learners are not exploited through misinformation or unjust fees and tuition increases (Policy 2020:32). As far performance is concerned, India’s National Education Policy 2020 ensures that student in private and public schools have an equal competitive advantage in the country’s local employment sector. To accomplish this, the document requires all schools to publish public disclosure on their official or SSSA websites. In such disclosures, schools must provide information on the number of classrooms students, the subject taught, the number of teachers, total fees, and their overall student performance in standardized examinations such as S.A.S. and N.A.S. (Policy 2020:32). From a personal point of view, providing such information enable student make more informed choices as far as their professional interests and learning environment are concerned.
Health, safety, child rights, and gender inclusion are among the factors that the Indian Ministry of Education considers in its 2020 National Education Policy 2020; all of which are important elements in a learner-centered education system. As per Scotland (2008:39), an effective national education system should prioritize promoting active social and economic participation, healthy lifestyle, and appreciation of culture, environment, and the world. To accomplish this, the Indian National Education Policy 2020 provides a curriculum and a list of regulations governing accreditation, governance, and student health and safety. As per the document, for instance, the government pays attention to students’ health, safety, and rights, particularly girls, and numerous challenges that students face, such as drug and substance abuse, discrimination, harassment, and violence. To address this, the government establishes efficient mechanisms for reporting such concerns, and they are well known to all students (Policy 2020:33).
Dominant Theories in India’s National Education Policy
Human capital and learner-centered are the dominant ideologies in India’s National Education Policy 2020, as they are captured in most sections of the policy. For instance, prepositions made in the human capital theory are the foundation of promotions, performance evaluation, reinvestment of proceeds realized by private and public schools, and accreditation, among other aspects of the Indian education system. In addition, the policy identifies students’ performance as the primary measure of return on the government’s investment in education. This confirms the relevancy of Woodhall’s (2001: 6952) statement identifying the government’s investment in education as a representation of its commitment to expanding a nation’s human capital.
The application of the learner-centered theory is most dominant in sections 8.6; 8.7; 8.8; 8.9; 8.10, and 8.11. These are the sections that define culture, structures and distinctive features of the country’s education system; roles and responsibilities of teachers; school administration and other stakeholder; established performance assessment and reporting systems; health, safety, gender inclusion and preservation of students’ rights; certification; work ethics; promotion of staff and requirements that students need to meet to advance from one academic level to another (Policy, 2020:32).
Political, Social and Economic Factors Influencing India’s Adoption Of 2020 National Education Policy
The Indian Ministry of Education; the body responsible for the development, implementation, and evaluation of the country’s National Education Policy, aims to accomplish a number of social, economic, and administrative objectives through the proposed curriculum. As far as the economy is concerned, the curriculum aims to ensure India produces sufficient and qualified and globally competitive workforce; promote efficient utilization of education resources, foster professionalism and collaboration among teachers, parents, students, school administrators, and other stakeholders. As far as learning is concerned, the ministry intends to establish a strong foundation of learning from childhood, high school, college, university and professional levels. This is made to ensure that India’s workforce adopts to current changes in the global labor market.
Access to healthcare, poverty, illiteracy, pollution, disease and infections, high cost of education and gender disparity are some of the leading social concerned that the ministry of education aims to resolve through the recently adopted national education policy. For instance, as per a study conducted by Mangla (2022:95), findings revealed the government’s failure to offer sustainable solutions to problems affecting households and bureaucracy were identified as major barriers to social reform in India. In addition to this, the unemployment rate in India increased from 5.27% to 8% from 2019 to 2020 (Urban, 2023). As per a survey conducted by the National Statistical Office (N.S.O.), about 12.6% of school dropout in India, about 19.8% and 17.5% of them discontinued education at secondary and primary levels respectively (Walia, 2020). from a personal point of view, therefore, high school dropout rates, the rising unemployment rates, change in technology and demand for sufficient and qualified human capital, and other social and economic concerns facing India are the primary factors influencing the adoption of the 2020 National Education Policy.
Bibliography List
Policy, N.E., 2020. Ministry of human resource development, government of India. Retrieved August, 30, p.2020.
Mangla, A., 2022. Social conflict on the front lines of reform: Institutional activism and girls’ education in rural India. Public Administration and Development, 42(1), pp.95-105.
Urban (2023). India Unemployment Rate 2023, Complete State-wise List – urbanaffairskerala.org. [online] urbanaffairskerala.org. Available at: https://urbanaffairskerala.org/india-unemployment-rate-2023-complete-state-wise-list/#:~:text=Unemployment%20Rate%20in%20India%20Year%20Wise,-India’s%20unemployment%20rate&text=The%20unemployment%20rate%20in%20India%20in%202021%20was%205.98%25%2C%20down,%2C%20down%200.06%25%20from%202018. [Accessed 11 Jan. 2023].
Walia, P. (2020). School dropouts in India: the causes and prevention – Turn The Bus. [online] Turnthebus.org. Available at: https://www.turnthebus.org/blog/school-dropouts-in-india-the-cause-and [Accessed 11 Jan. 2023].
McGonigal, J., Doherty, R., Allan, J., Mills, S., Catts, R., Redford, M., McDonald, A., Mott, J. and Buckley, C., 2007. Social capital, social inclusion and changing school contexts: A Scottish perspective. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(1), pp.77-94.
World Bank (2018). What is the World Bank’s Human Capital Index? | World Bank Group. [online] olc.worldbank.org. Available at: https://olc.worldbank.org/content/what-world-banks-human-capital-index [Accessed 9 Jan. 2023].
Worldbank.org. (2018). Human Capital Index (HCI) (scale 0-1) – India | Data. [online] Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/HD.HCI.OVRL?locations=IN [Accessed 9 Jan. 2023].
Little, A.W., 2003. Motivating learning and the development of human capital. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 33(4), pp.437-452.
Schweisfurth, M., 2013. Learner-centred education: Definitions and provenance. In Learner-centred Education in International Perspective (pp. 21-32). Routledge.
Schweisfurth, M., 2013. Three justificatory narratives: Cognition, emancipation and preparation. In Learner-centred Education in International Perspective (pp. 33-48). Routledge.
Schweisfurth, M., 2013. Contexts for learner-centred education: Global, national and local. In Learner-centred Education in International Perspective (pp. 49-70). Routledge.
Scott, R.A., 2014. The meaning of liberal education. On the horizon.
Giroux, H.A., 2010. Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paulo Freire and the promise of critical pedagogy. Policy Futures in Education, 8(6), pp.715-721.
Knoll, M., 2009. From Kidd to Dewey: The origin and meaning of ‘social efficiency’. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(3), pp.361-391.
Scotland, E., 2008. Curriculum for excellence. Building the curriculum 3: a framework for learning and teaching.
write