by Satvinderpal Kaur and Kanika Sharma
Abstract
An overview of the NEP 2020 document in the context of Socio-economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDG) is pertinent as it deals with the underprivileged sections of society. Various solutions provided in the NEP 2020 document, regarding the underprivileged sections, are stated as required for equity in educational opportunities. However, a deeper look into the same foretells another story altogether. The flat use of one acronym to describe a range of physically, socially, economically, and culturally different sections of society demands a critical analysis of the term itself. SEDG was conceptualised to cater solutions for the underprivileged sections, however, the lack of data-bound solutions has made it difficult to implement the solutions mentioned in the NEP 2020. Funding, another issue that torments the chances of educational opportunities for the underprivileged also demands critical scrutiny. Without a look into such fundamental issues, the term SEDG will not serve its purpose rather will eventually become a name without any meaningful impact.
Introduction
Education is fundamental for achieving full human potential, developing an equitable and just society, and promoting national development (National Education Policy, 2020:3). The first lines of the NEP 2020 document promise a better educational framework to the citizens of the country wherein education is seen as a liberator, deemed necessary for human development.
India is a country of great diversity where not only the food, language, climatic and geographical regions differ from one another, but also the cultural and social behaviour of people changes from place to place. Diversity imposes its own set of ideologies. Ideology is the means through which the dominant group imposes certain sets of ideas and beliefs on others” (Bhushan, 2023). It is, thus, difficult to understand each other across cultural boundaries (Sen, 2007, p.124). Cultural diversity can coexist harmoniously only when the government recognizes an informed consciousness of diversity and derives developmental policies from such consciousness (Kumar, 2007, p.77). “In Indian diversity, therefore, for a homogenous educational framework to exist, the central government in compliance with the educated class, has formed Education Commissions. It is through the combined efforts of the Education Commission, that the preparation and implementation of a national educational policy has been possible. UNESCO states ( Rangrajan, 2023) that it is warranted that an education policy “should be coherent, outline main goals and priorities, be built on evidence, be financially realistic, and enjoy agreement between the government and other relevant actors”.
Education Reforms in India
Ghosh (2023) states that to ensure all-round economic progress, it is imperative that an educated class exists in the labour force market. From the dawn of freedom, India has positioned its resources towards economic progress and has emphasised the education of the masses. Thus, since national independence, India has witnessed various Education Commissions, including the University Education Commission (1948), the Secondary Education Commission (1952), and the Indian Education Commission (1964-66). In response to the Indian Education Commission, ‘the National Policy on Education’ (1968) was formed followed by the ‘Draft National Policy on Education’ (1979). The National Policy on Education formed in 1986, included education to all sections of society- with a particular focus on scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward classes and women as its major objective. It was followed by the ‘National Policy on Education’ (1992). Along with all the educational policies available, the ‘Right to Education’ Act (2009) is one of the most significant Acts enacted concerning the educational upliftment of the masses in India.
With the propagation of educational services throughout the years, it was realized that education also “helps to overcome the traditional inequalities of caste, class, and gender” (Dreze & Sen 2005). Therefore, focusing on the weaker sections of society, the ‘National Policy of Education 1986 implement a stronger educational framework to inculcate them into the foray of educational attainment. The policy was successful in making a certain level of literacy achievement as the literacy rate of women jumped from 24.82% in 1981 to 64.63% in 2011 and the girls in 1981 comprising 70% of the total non-enrolled students turned into 101.4% gross enrollment ratio (GER) at primary level in 2014-2015. But, the need for a new Education Policy was always felt as India of 2020 developed for the better; from the India of the 1980s. The New Economic Policy of 1991, led India to enter a new globalized world and reap the benefits of its large demographic dividend. Accompanied by the IT boom of the 1980s, India progressed enormously. Moreover, the ‘Digital India’ campaign of 2015 added an incentive to become technologically advanced in terms of network connections and data usage of electronic devices.
Equity in education
A five-member committee for drafting a new education policy was, formed and T.S.R Subramanian was made the chairman of the committee. Stressing the need for a new education policy, even the report submitted discussed the immediate need for revamping and reforming the sector by eradicating social, economic, religious, and regional gaps. It was in response to this report that the National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP,2020) was created.
Dreze and Sen (2005) argued that “education is widely perceived by members of socially or economically disadvantaged groups as the most promising means of upward mobility for their children”. The term equity came into the limelight during the ninth five-year plan wherein the aim of higher education focused on equity as one of its main objectives.
One of the most intriguing aspects of the NEP 2020 document is the emphasis on equity for all the historically marginalized, disadvantaged and underrepresented groups. In the NEP 2020, statements like ‘Education is a great leveller and is the best tool for achieving economic and social mobility, inclusion and equity’ have been made (NEP, 2020:4). These aspirations can be reached only through a proper redressal of related issues. Thus, one of the principles of NEP 2020 i.e. “full equity and inclusion as the cornerstone of all educational decisions” in Indian society can be accomplished only by recognition of related issues and implementation of their solutions (NEP, 2020:5).
Although the female literacy rate was 91.95%in 2021 (Global Data, 2022) and 38.93% of all the graduates are women yet out of the 95.90%, 88.80% are in the unorganized sector (World Economic Forum,2022). This is in stark contrast to the claim that higher education enables an individual to obtain a salaried job more than others which will lead the individual to achieve higher income (India Human Development Survey, 2004-05). This implies that men hold privileged positions in a society wherein they attain better professional opportunities with lesser educational achievements in comparison to women. When some members of society, be it the female or the SC or the ST, lag behind due to the unavailability of opportunities they already are at a loss in terms of capital and class.
Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of capital and class distinction stresses the reinforcement of discrimination due to the presence of either economic, symbolic, cultural or social capital. The discriminatory notion is inbuilt in the societal system so much so that even schooling itself, reproduces some form of social inequality (Sharma& Qamar 2022). Because of the ingrained discrimination, the country loses out on human potential and talent that could have been utilized otherwise. Thus, there is an expectation from the NEP 2020 document to identify, isolate and define the issues troubling the weaker sections of society and provide enforceable solutions to eradicate them.
SEDG: Social Perspective
The NEP 2020 document has defined Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs), classifying all the disadvantaged groups under one umbrella term.
“ Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs) can be broadly categorized based on gender identities (particularly female and transgender individuals), socio-cultural identities (such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, and minorities), geographical identities (such as students from villages, small towns, and aspirational districts), disabilities (including learning disabilities), and socio-economic conditions (such as migrant communities, low-income households, children in vulnerable situations, victims of or children of victims of trafficking, orphans including child beggars in urban areas, and the urban poor).” (NEP, 2020:24).
The use of an umbrella term is in itself a frightening proposition. Instead of helping the groups concerned, an act of assimilation under one term will further aggravate the socio-economic bearings of the people concerned. People will further their cause despite other groups requiring dire help. The ‘National Policy of Education 1986’ had separate chapters dedicated to each sub-group mentioned under SEDG, ensuring that the problems plaguing them were stated impeccably and the solutions provided for them, were defined clearly. The lack of such provisions in NEP 2020 makes the SEDG term fall short of its expectation of reform related to the underprivileged in society. It also becomes problematic as India is a huge country and unless the steps for reform are clearly defined, the solutions provided might be misinterpreted with each educational entity implementing its version. SEDG, then, would become a bane rather than a boon in the educational domain.
In addition, the interaction of identities, making multiple identities a part of one single person has not been mentioned in the document. Various social dimensions exist in society, conforming an individual to carry multiple identities at the same time. The term SEDG takes away those identities and tries to box in a person with a narrow lens of one identity, which is not feasible in the practical world. Furthermore, this identity produces an entirely different effect from its progenitors. For example, a woman from the general category suffering from gender discrimination undergoes a different form of exploitation from a woman who belongs to a scheduled caste which makes her suffering deeper. She suffers double jeopardy, which is completely different from the discrimination of either of the progenitors. Raj and Bhanot (2020) specify that lower caste women suffer the discrimination of “two layers of inequality: caste and gender inequalities” and as such tend to be employed mostly in low-skilled jobs, such as Grade C and C jobs (clerical, maintenance and labour work). In this context, what type of identity would be selected for recognition of reform, is the question of the hour.
The section of the document dedicated to SEDG lacks data. Data is important as it helps define the issues causing real harm to the underprivileged and also justifies and clarifies the remedial solutions being provided for practical implantation. Thus, unlike the National Policy of Education 1986 where numerical figures about the issues of the underprivileged were mentioned with clarity, the NEP 2020 document does not provide any reference through statistics, causing the reader to misunderstand the educational scenario and question the solutions provided. For example, the National Policy of Education 1986 contained properly defined goals for the fulfilment, such as “75% of the children will have to be enrolled and retained in school”. The lack of statistical data in NEP 2020, makes the document have neither the predefined goals for achievement nor any viable statistics-bound target-oriented solutions to achieve them.
The solutions being provided can also be seen as not remedying the real issues. For example, the National Policy of Education 1986 document states that women teachers must be employed for greater enrollment of girls in education while the NEP 2020 document provides the gifting of a cycle as an incentive to join schools. Reducing the whole experience of schooling to mere attendance with no emphasis whatsoever on quality improvement in schools (provided in the mentioned solution), the solution being provided is not going to tackle the issue of girls’ education, rather it will produce students who know how to mechanically pass an exam but have no critical thinking of their own.
Socio-cultural identities comprising scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, OBCs and Minorities are far apart in their social and cultural conduct. Also, each identity’s population number is in disproportion with the other identity. The disproportionate distribution is visible from statistical data but the absence of data from the document makes the point invisible to the reader. For example, scheduled castes comprise 15.3% of the entire population while the scheduled tribes comprise 6.3% of the entire population. Similarly, minorities comprise 40.6% of the entire population, while the OBC population in India is 37.8% of the entire population (Census of India, 2011). The question of how limited resources will be allocated to these disproportionately distributed sub-groups is left ambiguous as it further accentuates the issue of one sub-group being favoured more than the other without any reasoned well-worked-out estimates.
At the same time, the identity demarcation of the subgroups is in itself a problem because, in reality, one person can suffer more than one identity crisis at one time. For example, recently there was a news headline stating, “The Tamil Nadu – Stalin govt. passes resolution in assembly to extend SC quota to Dalit Christians”. All around the world, Christians are either Protestants or Catholics, but in India, Christians also exist as their caste identity. As no remedial instruction is provided for such circumstances, the probability of their issues not being resolved becomes higher, causing more harm than help to the underprivileged sections of society.
The issues, thus, harming the underprivileged are further being accentuated by placing the underprivileged under the umbrella term of SEDG. Struggle for power determines the use of resources by one section of people over the other as resources are scarcely and unevenly distributed, especially in developing countries (Bhushan, 2024). Placing different identities under the same term SEDG will cause a struggle for power the underprivileged people will risk losing out on specific identity-related solutions, thereby bypassing the possibilities of practical solutions that could have been provided to every identity. Therefore, the NEP 2020 document’s claim that ‘it aims at producing engaged, productive, and contributing citizens for building an equitable, inclusive and plural society as envisaged by our constitution’ seems far away from reality (NEP,2020:5).
SEDG: The Economic Perspective
Statements like, “In essence, this Policy aims to eliminate any remaining disparity in access to education (including vocational education) for children from any gender or other socio-economically disadvantaged group” (NEP, 2020: 26) profess the commitment that NEP 2020 makes to ensure equity. However, the policy seems bleak to deliver when statements, such as the ones written below are looked into.
“To facilitate learning for all students with special emphasis on Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs). The scope of school education will be broadened to facilitate multiple pathways to learning involving both formal and non-formal education modes. Open and Distance Learning (ODL) Programmes offered by the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and State Open Schools will be expanded and strengthened to meet the learning needs of young people in India who are not able to attend school” (NEP, 2020:10-11).
These statements are not followed by any further explanation and so, demarcation of words like ‘formal education mode’ and ‘non-formal education mode’ cannot be fathomed. Formal Education is “an arrangement of events in order of occurrence” from pre-primary to the university level with a specified syllabus, set of examinations and working hours and days structured and institutionalized (Vidyamitra, n.d.). Coombs clarifies (as cited in Vidyamitra, n.d.) that non-formal education is an “organized systematic educational activity carried on outside the framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learning to particular sub-groups in the population”. As no incentives have been provided to either of the education modes, it is more likely that formal education will be preferred over non-formal education. If that becomes the norm, the concept of creativity and criticality being perpetuated in NEP 2020 will not become a norm among the students. Thus, as education modes come under the shadow of uncertainty, further concern that a lack of teaching-learning experience arises, ultimately leading to a student’s learning loss.
The Education Commission (1964-66) recommended a 6% investment of GDP into the education sector for the sector to realize its true potential. However, the Union Budget of 2023-2024 has slashed the overall allocation towards education to 2.9% of the Gross Domestic Product i.e. GDP (Bhattacharya,2024).,). Chattopadhyay (2020) comments on this phenomenon and writes that linking fees with quality accentuates the already existing differentiation in the higher education sector, promoting higher education as a status good or positional good “impeding the process of social mobility unless adequate safeguards are put in place to protect the underprivileged what the NEPs define as SEDGs, the socio-economically disadvantaged groups”.
In addition, the stipulated teacher-student ratio of 30:1 (Right to Education Act, 2002) is not available across the schools of India and if ever funding was to be gained, these schools would first hire teachers to fulfil the stated ratio. Thus, the funds provided are not only spent much less than required but when granted, these funds will move into maintenance of the school before any other additional financial activity and only after these basic requirements have been fulfilled, will the schools utilize them for SEDG upliftment. The need of the hour, thus, is to have a separate funding facility for SEDGs.
The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) document has recognized the issue and has the provision of separate funds, namely the ‘Gender Inclusion Fund’ and ‘Inclusion fund’. ‘Gender –inclusion Fund’ confines itself to girls and trans genders while ‘Inclusion Fund confines itself to socio-cultural identities, geographical identities, disabilities and socio-economic conditions. The reason for the formation of just two funds is not provided, alleviating the grievances of one identity over the other, in a situation where these identities are already fighting for resources. Furthermore, the issue of no demarcation of funding available (with no lower cap on expenditure and no higher cap on expenditure) is crucial. The lack of comprehensiveness shown and that too at the national level, will lead to the misuse of funds. Thus, the fundamental principle of, “recognizing, identifying and fostering the unique capabilities of each student” seems to be in jeopardy if the current economic situations prevail especially for the underprivileged sections of society.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In the NEP 2020 document, the term SEDG- defining all the underprivileged people- is not needed. It further aggravates management and cooperation among the underprivileged sections of society, leading them to a path of mistrust and tension towards each other. The issue of prioritizing one identity can arise at any point and will cause mayhem and confusion during the distribution of resources for solving any issue. The lack of data-based evidence disorients the achievement of result-oriented solutions and produces unfavourable practical problems during implementation. It appears that the paucity of funds along with its underspending on resources will become an unsolvable hindrance to educational equity if left unchecked. The proposition of misuse of funds is in itself an alarming issue and needs to be looked into urgently. If the funds do not reach their destinations, sections of society especially the underprivileged will undergo undue discrimination due to a lack of resources. The NEP 2020 document needs to revisit these pointers and reconfigure the solutions by making them more practically feasible. Thus, although the NEP 2020 document promises to take initiatives for ensuring that all students from underprivileged sections ‘are provided various targeted opportunities to enter and excel in the educational system’, the opportunities mentioned miss their mark in producing viable options for the entry of underprivileged sections into the educational foray
Professor Satvinderpal Kaur is the Chairperson of the Department of Education, Panjab University, Chandigarh. She has a post-graduate degree in Chemistry along with a Master of Education degree and a Ph.D.. Sociology of Education, Social and Educational Psychology and Inclusive Education are her areas of research.
Miss Kanika Sharma is a Research Scholar studying under the guidance of Professor Satvinderpal Kaur. She has a degree of Master of Arts (Education) from Central University of Himachal Pradesh.
References:
Bhattacharjee, S.(2019). Ten Years of RTE Act: Revisiting Achievements and Examining Gaps. Observer Research Foundation. https://www.orfonline.org/public/uploads/posts/pdf/20230915111854.pdf
Bhattacharya, S.(2024,1 31). Budget 2024:The educational angle. India Today. https://bestcolleges.indiatoday.in/news-detail/budget-2024-the-educational-angle
Bhushan, S.(2023). The Political Economy of Curricula in Higher Education Institutions. Economic and Political Weekly. 58(47). https://www.epw.in/journal/2023/47/commentary/political-economy-curricula-higher-education.html
Bhushan, S.(2024). The Governance Conundrum. Economic and Political Weekly.59(9).
https://www.epw.in/journal/2024/9/special-articles/governance-conundrum.html
Bhowmick, N.(2019). 10 Years of Right to Education: A progress Report. Reader’s Digest.
https://www.readersdigest.in/features/story-right-to-education-a-progress-report-125002
Chattopadhyay, S.(2020). National Education Policy, 2020: An Uncertain Future for Higher Education. Economic and Political Weekly. 55(46). https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/46/commentary/national-education-policy-2020.html
Choudhary, A.A.(2021, 10 7). Presence of SCs, STs in govt. jobs still inadequate, Centre tells Supreme Court. Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/presence-of-scs-sts-in-govt-jobs-still-inadequate-centre-tells-supreme-court/articleshow/86822033.cms
Dreze, J. & Sen, A.(2024). Basic education: India Development and Participation. Oxford University Press.
Economic Survey of Delhi.(2023-24). Poverty line in Delhi. Planning Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi. https://delhiplanning.delhi.gov.in/sites/default/files/Planning/chapter_20_1.pdf
Ghosh, J. (n.d.). Education for few Jayati Ghosh (JNU, Delhi). Education for All in India. https://educationforallinindia.com/education-for-few-by-jayati-ghosh/
GlobalData.(2024, 8 18). Female Literacy in India (2010-2021,%). GlobalData.
https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/female-literacy-rate-in-india/#pg-top
Indian Human Development Survey.(2004-05). Income, Poverty, and Inequality. University of Maryland, National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), Indiana University, and the University of Michigan. https://ihds.umd.edu/system/files/2020-03/02HDinIndia.pdf
Kumar, K.(2022). Technology and Education Today. Social Change.52(4).467-477.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00490857221134925
Kumar, S. P.(2007). Our Culture of Diversity. India International Centre Quarterly. 34(1).74-83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23006048
NACE.(2024, n.d.). Equity. https://www.naceweb.org/about-us/equity-definition
Now, T. (19 April,2023). Tamil Nadu: Stalin govt. passes resolution in assembly to extend SC quota to Dalit Christians. The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/tamil-nadu-stalin-govt-passes-resolution-in-assembly-to-extend-sc-quota-to-dalit-christians/videoshow/99610478.cms?from=mdr
Raj, A. & Bhanot, N.(2020). Tracing Decline of Female Labour Force Participation Rate to Caste Inequalities in Urban and Rural India. International Journal of Policy Sciences and Law Volume. 1(3). 1432-1433.
Rajora, S.(2024,2 28). Poverty Rate in India between 4.5-5% in 2022-23; rural poverty at 7.2%: SBI. Business Standard. https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/poverty-rate-in-india-between-4-5-5-in-2022-23-rural-poverty-at-7-2-sbi-124022800287_1.html
Rangrajan, R.(2023). Inclusion and Equity in India’s New Education Policy (NEP): an analysis using Context Led Model of Education Quality. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2295907
Sen, A.(2007). Critical Openness: The Argumentative Indian. Penguin Books.
Sharma, N. & Qamar, F.(2022, 12 18). To know or not to know. The Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/to-know-or-not-to-know-1172954.html
Vidyamitra.(2024, n.d.). Module-1 Concept of Non Formal Education. https://vidyamitra.inflibnet.ac.in/dataserver/eacharyadocuments/53e0c6cbe413016f23443703_INFIEP_32/9/ET/32-9-ET-V1-S1__module.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2022). Global Gender Gap Report 2022. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2022.pdfWebsites:
https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/data/census-tables
https://data.worldbank.org/country/india
https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/66054/Unit7.pdf
https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload-files/mhrd/document-reports/NPE86-mod92.pdf
