Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: mbaroi.in

Context: The Parliament Standing Committee on Education, tabled a report on the "Implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 in Higher Education."

Details

• The Parliament Standing Committee report assessed the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) in higher education and examined the progress made so far.
• The panel consulted with representatives from State governments, Union Ministries, higher education institutions, and other stakeholders.

Key Issues Discussed

• Rigid Separation of Disciplines: The report expressed concerns about the inflexible separation of academic disciplines within higher education. It highlighted the need for more interdisciplinary approaches to foster innovation and creativity.
• Limited Access in Disadvantaged Areas: Limited access to higher education in socio-economically disadvantaged areas was identified as a significant challenge. The report emphasized the importance of addressing this issue to reduce educational disparities.
• Language of Instruction: The report noted the deficiency of higher education institutions teaching in local languages. This linguistic barrier could hinder inclusivity and accessibility for students from diverse linguistic backgrounds.
• Faculty Shortage: Concerns were raised regarding the shortage of faculty members in higher education. This shortage could impact the quality of education and hinder research endeavours.
• Institutional Autonomy: The report emphasized the need for greater institutional autonomy. It highlighted the importance of universities and colleges having the independence to make decisions to promote academic excellence.
• Emphasis on Research: The panel stressed the necessity to enhance the focus on research within higher education institutions. This emphasis on research can contribute to innovation and intellectual growth.
• Regulatory System: The existing regulatory framework was criticized as ineffective. The report suggested reforms to ensure efficient governance and quality assurance in higher education.
• Undergraduate Education Standards: The report pointed out deficiencies in the standards of undergraduate education. It underscored the importance of raising the quality of foundational learning experiences to better prepare students.

Committee made several recommendations, including:

• Funding for SEDGs: The report recommended allocating suitable funds specifically for the education of Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs) to address educational disparities. Adequate financial resources are essential to provide equitable opportunities.
• Enrollment Targets for SEDGs: Clear targets for increasing the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) of SEDGs in higher education institutions were proposed. This initiative aimed to enhance their representation and ensure equal access to higher education.
• Gender Balance: To promote gender equity and inclusivity, the report suggested measures to enhance gender balance in admissions to higher education institutions. This promotes equal educational opportunities for all genders.
• Financial Assistance and Scholarships: The committee recommended providing more financial assistance and scholarships to SEDGs, both in public and private Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). This was seen as a crucial step to alleviate financial barriers that hinder access to education.
• Inclusive Admission Processes and Curriculum: To accommodate the diverse backgrounds and abilities of students, the report emphasized the need to make admission processes and curriculum more inclusive. This ensures that education caters to the individual needs of all learners.
• Employability Focus: Recognizing the importance of graduates' employability, the report called for programs to have a stronger focus on practical skills and industry relevance. This helps students transition smoothly into the workforce.
• Regional and Bilingual Courses: To improve accessibility and cater to linguistic diversity, the report recommended developing more degree courses taught in regional languages and bilingually. This makes education more accessible and culturally relevant.
• Infrastructural Support for Physically Challenged Students: The committee proposed specific infrastructural steps to support physically challenged students. This includes making campuses and facilities accessible, ensuring that higher education institutions are inclusive for all students, regardless of physical abilities.
• No-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Rules: The report underscored the strict enforcement of all no-discrimination and anti-harassment rules. This ensures that learning environments are safe, respectful, and conducive to academic growth for all students, free from discrimination and harassment.

Funding

• Enhancing HEFA Effectiveness: The committee advised improving the effectiveness and impact of the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA). HEFA plays a pivotal role in funding higher education institutions, and its operations need to be optimized.
• Diversifying Funding Sources: To reduce dependency on government allocations, the report recommended diversifying funding sources. This diversification would entail exploring partnerships with private sector organizations, philanthropic foundations, and international financial institutions. Such collaborations can bolster financial stability and innovation within the higher education sector.
• Interest Rate Adjustments: The committee underscored the importance of reviewing and adjusting the interest rates on loans provided by HEFA. The goal was to make these loans more competitive and affordable for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), which would facilitate easier access to financing for educational projects and initiatives 

Multiple Entry Multiple Exit (MEME) system

• Concerns about MEME: The committee expressed reservations about the implementation of the MEME system in Indian educational institutions. MEME allows students to enter and exit degree programs at various stages, offering flexibility.
• Effectiveness in Western Institutions: While MEME has been effective in Western educational systems, the committee questioned its suitability for India's context. The Western model might not seamlessly align with the intricacies of the Indian higher education landscape.
• Challenges in Implementation: The report highlighted potential challenges associated with MEME, particularly in predicting student exits and entries. This unpredictability could disrupt the pupil-teacher ratio, making it challenging for institutions to plan and allocate resources effectively.
• Potential Implications: The concerns raised by the committee suggest that the MEME system's implementation might face practical challenges in India, such as maintaining resource allocation and ensuring educational continuity.

Conclusion

• The report addressed various issues related to the implementation of NEP 2020 in higher education and provided recommendations to improve access, quality, and funding in the sector while also expressing concerns about the viability of the MEME system in Indian institutions.

Must Read Articles:

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES: https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/parliamentary-committees-33

National Education Policy: https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/gender-inclusion-fund

PRACTICE QUESTION Q. What were the key issues discussed in the Parliament Standing Committee report on the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) in higher education, and what were the recommendations made by the committee to address these issues?