{"id":9638,"date":"2020-08-09T14:14:29","date_gmt":"2020-08-09T08:44:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/?p=9638"},"modified":"2020-08-18T21:00:44","modified_gmt":"2020-08-18T15:30:44","slug":"https-cpimwb-org-in-new-education-policy-2020-nep-response-from-cpim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/https-cpimwb-org-in-new-education-policy-2020-nep-response-from-cpim\/","title":{"rendered":"New Education Policy 2020 (NEP) – Response From CPI(M)"},"content":{"rendered":"

A. Introduction <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.     NEP 2020 is a\nvision document rather than a real policy document. Despite its impressive\nsugar coating, it lacks in details and a roadmap for implementation. Many\nspecific proposals of NEP contain are impractical and would cause enormous\ndisruption for institutions, students and teachers, and would require\nconsiderable increase in public expenditure on education which remains a\ndistant dream. NEP talks of gradually raising public investment in education to\n6% of GDP, but such promises have been around since the Kothari Commission\nReport 1966. Given the actual record of the present government, what is also\nrequired is a commitment to increase annual budgetary expenditure on education\nby the Centre. At the same time, this obvious vagueness in NEP and many other\nproposals, both in the text itself and reading between the lines, prompt\nserious concerns regarding a push towards increased centralization through a\nraft of Central Institutions to govern and regulate education undermining\nfederalism, and autonomy of  academic\nbodies, accelerated commercialization, deepening inequity in access, and RSS\nideology driven imposition of a straightjacket across the nation bulldozing the\ndiversity of the Indian reality regrettably by influencing the minds of\nimpressionable school children. This ideological drive seeks compliance of our\nchildren by promoting irrationality, in thought and action, in place of rationality;\npromotion of obscurantism and unscientific thinking rather than nurturing and\nstrengthening scientific temper amongst our children. This ideological drive\nseeks compliance of the younger generation, India\u2019s future, to be servile\nconformists.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 1.1.    Questions therefore arise about how NEP is\nexpected to shape education in India over the second quarter of the 21st\ncentury.  As discussed below, NEP will\nlikely reduce quality of education at all levels; widen disparities in\neducational facilities and opportunities; reduce educational access especially\nfor rural, poor, SC\/ST and other disadvantaged sections, with no mention of\nreservations or other affirmative action; increase costs of education across\nthe board; and fail to meet the aspirations of India\u2019s children and youth for\nall round knowledge and gainful employment in the modern, increasingly\nglobally-integrated knowledge- and skill-intensive economy. While the education\npolicy looks at the supply side of human resources, government needs to ensure\nthat sufficient jobs are created in a growing and modern economy. Despite the\nPrime Minister\u2019s \u2018perplexing\u2019 rhetoric of NEP producing \u2018job creators\u2019 instead\nof \u2018job seekers\u2019 , the tall claims of preparing our young people for the\nchanging world and its requirements , the existing horrific reality of\nunemployment will end up in large scale exit both from schools and higher\neducation with multiple formal points of departure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

B. Early Childhood Care, Development & Education (ECCE)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.     NEP Proposes to\nadd 3 years to a child\u2019s education through ECCE for the age-group 3-6 years. As\nper international norms, the idea is to prepare the child for primary school\nthrough play, activities, nutrition and care so as to aid cognitive growth and\nlearning abilities in a safe and caring environment. This requires adequately\ntrained persons who are given due recognition as professionals performing\nspecialized roles in the education and child care system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.1.     NEP proposes\nto do this both through the existing Anganwadi system as well as local primary\nschools. It would be preferable if Anganwadis were taken as the default focal\npoint, since they are situated locally at village level allowing parents to\nconveniently drop and pick up children, and enabling the Anganwadi worker to\nprovide at-home parental counselling. Whereas NEP states that Anganwadi workers\nwould be given necessary professional training through virtual learning\nplatforms along with periodic contact classes in nearby schools, no mention is\nmade of enhanced wages, working conditions or new title matching their\nprofessional status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.2.    Local\npanchayats and Anganwadi workers should also ensure that adequate additional\nfacilities are created for ECCE in Anganwadis with play and activity areas, and\nnecessary materials. Additional assistance to homes\/communities in the form of\nsanitation, clean drinking water, food security and maternal benefits should\nalso be ensured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

C.  School Education<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.     Whereas\nEducation is in the Concurrent List, the sharply increased centralization will\nseriously erode federalism and the rights of States, and will leave States to\nmerely implement centrally-imposed policies with little scope for State-level\nshaping of Education essential for a culturally and linguistically diverse\ncountry like India, especially in the School system. Already we are witnessing\nprotests in different States, for example from Tamil Nadu with respect to the\nlanguage policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.1     Specifically,\nNEP calls for National Textbooks with Local Content and Flavour (Para 4.31)\nrather than, as is the practice in most advanced countries, formulating a\nnational curriculum framework, leaving it to States to develop textbooks and\nother materials. This centralization exposes the educational system across the\ncountry to arbitrary and motivated actions as witnessed recently when\nsubjects\/chapters related to secularism, critical thinking and certain\nhistorical\/political figures were removed from the syllabus citing the Covid19\npandemic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.     With\nprivatization of schools already advancing rapidly, instead of extensive\nstrengthening and revitalization of public education, NEP opens the door for\nfurther extensive privatization, including schools run by so-called \u201ctrue\nphilanthropic institutions (8.4).\u201d NEP also provides for \u201calternate models of\neducation\u201d (Para 3.6), creating space for Sangh Parivar or affiliated\norganizations. NEP allows relaxations on inputs and self-regulation to all\nnon-governmental schools (8.5). All this will inevitably undermine the public\neducation system. It is also noticeable that NEP completely evades, and has no\ndiscussion on, the rampant commercialization and corruption that plagues\nprivate educational institutions in India, and simply leaves it to\nself-regulation and the absent conscience of private institutions to rectify matters,\npreferring to adopt a \u201clight but tight\u201d (9.3h) regulatory stance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.     NEP in effect\nproposes withdrawal of the State from its commitment to provide education to\nthe 6-14 years age groups as a right under RTE 2009 to a more vague assurance\nto \u201censure Universal Access to education at all levels from age 3 to 18 (3.1).\u201d\nThis is clear from discussions on school drop outs (3.2) where remedies such as\n\u201calternative and innovative education centres… in cooperation with civil\nsociety\u201d for children of migrant workers and other drop-outs are suggested,\nrather than ensuring enrolment and retention in the public education system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.1.    Similarly, NEP\nproposes (3.5) that Socio-economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDG), including\ndifferently-abled children, would be taught mainly through National and State\nInstitutes of Open Schools (NIOS\/SIOS), subjecting them to further\ndiscrimination and the digital divide rather than making special arrangements\nwithin the public education system.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.2.     A large number\nof government schools, especially those in small or isolated communities, are\nto be shut down (Para 7) in the name of efficiency, viability and resource\noptimization, meaning many teachers may lose jobs and affecting access of\nchildren who would have to travel longer distances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.3.    All past\nEducation Commissions and Policies have called for a publicly-funded Common\nSchool System based on Neighbourhood Schools. NEP 2020 seems to have now\ncompletely abandoned this basic goal, implemented by all major developing and\ndeveloped countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6.     For all the\ntall talk of a modernized flexible education system emphasizing learning\nprocesses and outcomes, NEP proposes common all-India exams at Grades 3, 5 and\n8, besides the existing Gr.10 and 12 Board exams (4.40). An additional\nall-India University entrance exam will be conducted in all subjects. For this\nanother Central body called the National Assessment Centre will be formed for\nPerformance Assessment, Review, and Analysis of Knowledge for Holistic\nDevelopment (PARAKH) (4.41).  In fact,\nthe school year is filled with semester-wise, course-wise and periodic exams,\nnot conducted internally by schools but by centralized authorities in States or\nat an all-India level. The role of all-India and State Boards is thus called\ninto question. This \u201cExam Raj\u201d runs counter to the entire argument of NEP 2020,\nand exposes the inherent haphazard and self-contradictory thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

a) NEP makes a determined push towards Sangh Parivar\u2019s\nperspective on Indian society and culture. For example, the word \u201csecularism\u201d\ndoes not occur even once, even though NEP speaks of promoting critical\nthinking, scientific temper and Constitutional values. Unspecified \u201cIndian\nKnowledge Systems\u201d would be taught (4.27), with a nod to tribal and indigenous\nknowledge, including through \u201cindigenous games.\u201d In language education in\nGrades 6-8 (4.16), NEP stresses the \u201cremarkable unity of most of the major\nIndian languages, starting with their common\u2026 origins\u2026 from Sanskrit,\u201d\ncompletely ignoring Dravidian, Adivasi, and other language groups in the\nNorth-East, pushing the Sangh Parivar idea of \u2018One Nation, One Language.\u2019 And\non India\u2019s classical and other Indian languages having rich literature and\nculture (4.18), mention is made of Pali, Prakrit and Persian, but strangely NEP\ndoes not at all mention Urdu!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

D. Teacher Education<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

7.     The well-known\nshortage of qualified and trained teachers, especially in the public education\nsystem and within that in tribal and remote areas, is recognized in NEP 2020\nbut is not addressed adequately. Some states have many teachers who are not\nprofessionally trained as per RTE. No solution to this problem is offered,\nexcept for the impractical and unrealistic NEP concept of \u201cschool complexes\u201d\nand sharing of teachers between schools (5.5). An assurance is also given to\nput an end to the rampant \u201ctransfer industry\u201d of school teachers, but this will\nrequire full cooperation of the States, which have otherwise been marginalized\nin NEP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8.     The centralized\n\u201cexam raj\u201d in NEP is again evident here in the provision for Teacher\nEligibility Tests (TET) (5.4) which are to be extended to all levels of\neducation from foundation to secondary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9.     Most\nproblematic is that all teachers for Grades Nursery to Grade -12 will require\n4-year integrated BEd degrees with one subject specialization(15.5). Earlier,\nteachers for Grades 6-8 could go through a B.El Ed (Bachelor of Elementary\nEducation ) course, while those for Gr.9-10 went through the 2 year  BEd and those for 11-12 were also required to\nhave a Post-graduate qualification. This enabled addressing the specific\nrequirements at each stage. Under NEP, Graduates with a 4-year degree could\ntake a 1-year course, those with a 3-year BA a 2-year course, giving\nunnecessary weightage to earlier academic qualifications rather than full-scope\ntraining in teaching skills. Finally short-term courses of 2 weeks to 3 months\ncould be taken by any person with or without adequate qualifications thereby\ncreating \u201cvolunteer\/ part-time\/assistant teachers\u201d undermining quality of\nteachers, and ample scope for commercialization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10.    The\nSWAYAM\/DIKSHA programmes for online training of teachers are proposed to be\nused, supposedly purely as a convenience (15.10) which completely ignores the\ndigital divide especially with regard to teacher-trainees from rural, tribal\nand remote areas, further affecting equity of access to both teachers and\nstudents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11.    With respect to\nSEDG and other special needs students, NEP does not adequately spell out\nprovisions for teacher training which, in turn, will affect the concerned\nstudent groups. Special concerns are that NEP does not specify the special\neducation teacher training in a systematic manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

E. Vocational Education<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

12.     Vocational\nEducation in India has for too long been mired in antiquated ideas about what\nit means for young adults to acquire skills and corresponding education of\nrelevant concepts and knowledge. This assumes even greater significance in the\nmodern economy with major technological and institutional changes in\nmanufacturing and services. In India\u2019s caste- and class-ridden society\nstretching back thousands of years, the middle classes\/upper castes received\neducation while lower classes\/castes received skills-training passed down from\nearlier generations. This conceptual framework persists to this day, where a\nvirtual \u2018firewall\u2019 persists between the education system and the skills system,\nwhich is ill-suited to a modern industrial economy where the work force\nrequires not only advanced skills but also corresponding levels of knowledge in\nrelated areas. It is estimated that only around 2% of the labour force in India\nhas had any formal training whatsoever, compared to 55% in China, 80-85% in the\nEU and S.Korea, and over 90% in Japan. International experience, in both\nadvanced industrial economies and \u2018emerging\u2019 developing economies like in\nSouth-East Asia, is that most countries consider Vocational Education (VocEd)\nas part of tertiary education after school, after either completion of a full\nsecondary education or achievement of some minimum levels there. Till now,\nIndia has vacillated between entry-level vocational skills at the +2 stage in\nschool, inadequate even to prevent drop-outs, and a weak system of ITIs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13.     Whereas Draft\nNEP 2019 was moving in a better direction, although with numerous problems\nthere too, suggesting that Vocational Education (VocEd) courses of different\nlevels and durations would be offered in Higher Education Institutions (HEI),\nwhich would tie-up with ITIs, industry and other practical training centres,\nNEP has reversed direction and also not provided details unlike earlier.  NEP states that VocEd would be fully \u201cintegrated\nwith the educational offerings of all secondary schools in a phased manner\n(16.5) and further, that towards this end, \u201csecondary schools will collaborate\nwith ITIs, polytechnics, local industry etc.\u201d This is a highly retrograde step\non several counts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13.1     Together with\nthe tacit acceptance in NEP of drop-outs after Grade 10, this prevents children\nfrom obtaining a full and well-rounded secondary education, considered by most\nmodern nations to be essential not only for a competent work force but for\nempowered citizens. Skills obtained here can only be low- and entry-level,\ninadequate for real-life industrial or service-sector jobs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13.2     Students from\nGr.9 onwards should indeed obtain exposure and foundation-level skills in\ndifferent modern trades, crafts and fields, but these are only introductory,\nenabling students to explore various options. However, professional\njob-oriented skills and commensurate tertiary education can only be obtained\nafter school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13.3     This schema\nalso hugely burdens the already stressed school system with additional\nresponsibilities, need for new teachers with adequate skills, experience and\nqualifications and, above all, hugely expensive infrastructure in\nequipment\/machinery in different trades\/vocations. It is doomed to fail due\nboth to practical unfeasibility to meet desired goals of complementing skill\nand knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

F. Higher Education (HE)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 14. Indian higher\neducation has already gone far down the path of privatization. Around 45% of\ncollege enrolment in 2018-19 was in private unaided colleges and another 21% in\nprivate aided institutions. In professional courses, as much as 72.5% of\nundergraduate and around 60% of post-graduate enrolment is in private unaided\ninstitutions. Even many public institutions, especially in professional\ncourses, have witnessed a significant increase in fees. While public\ninstitutions still dominate in University enrolment accounting for over\nfour-fifths of such enrolment, here too things are changing rapidly. Between\n2014-15 and 2018-19, 55 per cent of the total increase in university enrolment\nwas in private universities and another 33 per cent in public open universities\n(not regular Central and State Universities where enrolment has stagnated or\ndeclined). Private universities and other Higher Education Institutions (HEI)\nhave mushroomed, many with poor facilities and faculty, especially in\nprofessional and technical subjects, charging unregulated high fees and various\nunder-the-table charges, but still unable to ensure well-qualified and trained\ngraduates. On the other hand, public universities are starved of funds for\nteaching, leave alone research, and being compelled to raise fees or otherwise\ncommercialize. NEP 2020, however, not only has no solutions to this problem but,\ncouched in lofty phrases and flowery language, proposes a model that would\nfurther accentuate privatization, commercialization, inequity and huge problems\nof quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15.     The most\nnoticeable aspect of NEP is that it simply does not recognize the deep inequity\nin the higher education system and lack of access for the poor, dalits,\ntribals, religious minorities, girl children and otherwise marginalized\nsections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15.1    Yet the word\n\u201creservation\u201d does not appear even once in the entire document! While analyzing\nthe main problems in HE (9.2), NEP only mentions \u201climited access\u2026 in\nsocio-economically disadvantaged areas, with few HEIs that teach in local\nlanguages,\u201d but makes no reference to the glaring structural inequality that\nplagues HE in India with further damaging impacts in employment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15.2     Entrance to\nHEI would also be based on a new entrance test by National Testing Agency\n(4.42), but individual HEIs are free to use these scores as they like along\nwith any other criteria it may choose. As is well-known in all so-called\n\u201cmerit-based systems\u201d to date, this would further hurt prospects of SC\/ST and\nother disadvantaged sections and reinforce exclusionary practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15.3    Open Learning\nis in fact put forward as one major, if not the main, answer to the problem of\nequitable access and the main instrument for increasing Gross Enrolment Ratio\n(GER) (12.5-12.6), clearly because mainstream private HEIs would have become\nunaffordable, and even public HEIs would have raised fees beyond the capacity\nof most Indians to pay. The poor will gradually be shut out of HE and struggle\nwith Open Learning degrees, worsening the already poor GER of Indians in HE\ncompared to other middle-income countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15.4     The other\nproposal to offset socio-economic deprivation or other disabilities of the new\ncatch-all term SEDGs is the vague prospect of free ships\/scholarships with no\ndetails or assurances of government support. NEP also states that \u201cprivate HEIs\nwill be encouraged to offer larger numbers of free ships and scholarships,\u201d but\nagain without specific assurances. (12.10)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16.      The big\nproposal of the NEP on HE is to do away with affiliated Colleges and move\ntowards large, multi-disciplinary Universities or HEIs which would offer\ncourses across disciplines and categories, along with some Autonomous Colleges\nwith powers to grant degrees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16.1     Many\nquestions have been raised about the practicality and sheer scale of this\nexercise which may entail closure of many affiliating colleges and creation of\nnew large HEIs which would also be far away from students in rural and other\nremote areas, which would further raise costs to students and negatively impact\naccess. NEP also makes the peculiar suggestion that specialist technical\ninstitutions, such as IITs and presumably medical colleges would also have to\ntransform themselves in like manner! There are several other substantive\nproblems too with this proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16.2     These\nmulti-disciplinary HEIs would offer 4-year undergraduate courses with entry and\nexit points after each year with Certificates, Diplomas, Advanced Diplomas and\nDegrees. The entry points may be understood as a measure to facilitate\nlife-long learning and lateral entry after spells in industry. However, the\naward of Certificates and Diplomas after each year makes no sense.\nUndergraduate course curricula cannot be designed in such stand-along modules.\nHEIs in many countries offer short-duration Certificate\/Diploma courses,\nespecially linked to vocational education, but these are purpose-designed to meet\nspecific NSQF standards at different levels. Undergraduate Courses are\ncompletely different and cannot function this way. Such a structure would\nhugely diminish the pedagogic content and value of the degree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16.3     NEP also\nproposes that, within broad nationally-set frameworks, each HEI would frame its\nown curricula across disciplines\/courses making HE a laissez faire exercise.\nThere is no proposal for any kind of overall State direction-setting based on\nidentified educational needs of the country at different stages of development,\nor human resource requirements of the economy. All these are left to the wisdom\nof the individual HEIs, presumably guided by market signals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16.4     Broadly the\nsame pattern is followed for professional and technical HEIs, with the added\nweakness of there being no sign of any linkage with national scientific or\nindustrial priorities in determining courses, curricula etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16.5     The Graded\nAutonomy extended to the Colleges empowered to grant their own degrees would,\nas experience with Autonomous Colleges so far has shown, only mean more\nprivatization, higher fees and, with the freedom to offer tailor-made\nshort-term courses, further commercialization of higher education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

17.      The above\nproposals are linked to the regulatory structure proposed for HEIs. The broad\nframework in NEP is for a so-called \u201clight and tight\u201d framework. Supposedly\nthis means only setting broad academic frameworks and assessment systems for\noutcomes, both of which would supposedly be \u201ctightly\u201d monitored, while leaving\nalmost everything else such as curricula, fees, course structures, pay and\nworking conditions of teachers etc \u201clightly\u201d regulated, actually meaning\nunregulated and left to the HEIs. This is an open invitation to\ncorporatization, privatization and commercialization of higher education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

17.1     The\nsimilarity to corporate structures is underlined by the NEP proposal that each\nHEI will independently form its own Board of Governors which would then take\nfull control over all affairs of the university.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

17.2     Individual\nHEIs are required to raise their own funds from \u201cphilanthropic\u201d (read\ncorporate) sources and are also at liberty to fix their own fee structures,\nsupposedly within broad government guidelines, such that the \u201cfee determining\nmechanism will ensure reasonable recovery of cost.\u201d This is the same process\nfollowed in all other sectors of the economy such as electricity distribution,\nairlines etc where the State acts as a facilitator ensuring good returns for\ncorporate while providing a fig leaf of \u201cregulation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

17.3     This\nregulatory structure implies that government only exercises \u201clight\u201d regulation\nof standards, but takes no responsibility for funding HEIs to enable them to\nmeet such standards. There is no mention in NEP of how it proposes to fund\nHEIs, whether public HEIs would have any special privilege over public funds or\nwhether the promised level playing field applies to funds as well. In the\nabsence of adequate State funding, public HEIs would be driven towards adoption\nof norms of private HEIs with all its consequences for commercialization and\nlack of equitable access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

18.     There is\noverpowering centralization in all measures proposed in NEP, leaving little or\nno role for States in higher education except simple implementation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

18.1     Multiple\nCentral Institutions are proposed to be constituted with a Higher Education\nCouncil (HECI) at the apex accompanied by NHERC for regulation, NAC for\naccreditation, HEGC for grants and GEC to frame outcome standards. Assessment\nof outcomes would also be done centrally, which may well determine ratings,\naccreditation and funding. While there is much talk of educators and persons of\neminence being selected for these institutions, the heavy hand of the\nGovernment is obvious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

18.2     A national\nexamination for entrance to HEIs will also be conducted by a Central Agency,\neven though the worth of this exam is in question since HEIs are free to use\nresults of these tests for admissions the way they see fit. The relevance of\nState Boards, exams conducted by them are open to question. How State\nUniversities and other State-level HEIs are expected to function is not\naddressed by NEP, clearly implying that all HEIs in the country will be\ngoverned by these Central agencies operating under the Central Government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

19.     Within this\nneo-liberal landscape of privatized and corporatized HEIs, foreign universities\nare proposed to be invited to operate in India. While this may be seen as a\ncrass attempt to introduce the equivalent of \u201cmedical tourism\u201d in higher\neducation, it also shows some different considerations at work. It would\nimplicitly set a standard or role model for Indian universities to follow,\nincluding corporate style of governance, market-oriented course structures,\ncasual or contract employment of teachers, and high fees. It is indeed ironic\nthat \u201cvideshi\u201d universities are invited to act as beacons for \u201cswadeshi\u201d India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

20.     A centralized\nNational Research Fund (NRF) is proposed to be set up which would provide funds\nfor research to both public and private Universities. Again, as noted above,\nthere is no sign of national scientific or industrial priorities being set in\nthe NRF which, on the face of it, simply follows the trend of research\nproposals received. Secondly, there is again no sign of any movement of\nresearch priorities and agendas being shifted towards States, further widening\nthe existing gap between the Centre and States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

21.     Teachers are\nlikely to be major victims of the NEP, not to speak of students being the\nguinea pigs and those from the vulnerable sections being at the worst receiving\nend, through the proposed corporate-style governance of HEIs (13.4-13.7).\nTeachers\u2019 pay, type and tenure of employment, promotions and so on will all be\ndecided internally decided by the BoG of the concerned HEIs with no uniform\nstandards or norms prescribed by government. Performance assessment would be\nsubjective and free from any oversight or regulation.\n\n\n\n22.    \nThere is complete absence in the NEP of any structures for\ndemocratization of HEI academic or administrative management. No role is\nenvisaged for teachers, other employees and there is no mention of any role for\nstudents in academic or administrative bodies of HEIs.\n\n\n\n<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A. Introduction 1.     NEP 2020 is a vision document rather than a real policy document. Despite its impressive sugar coating,<\/p>","protected":false},"author":345,"featured_media":2205,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,4,6],"tags":[43,75,556],"class_list":["post-9638","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fact-figures","category-home-banner","category-press-release","tag-cpim","tag-modi-govt-2-0","tag-nep2020"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9638","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/345"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9638"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9638\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9796,"href":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9638\/revisions\/9796"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2205"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpimwb.glohtesting.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}