By Dr MC Mahato
The National Education Policy 2020 is accepted, authorized, and adopted by the highest executive body (Parliament) of the country after supposedly detailed deliberations. It reflects the vision, thinking and ideology of the majority of the lawmakers of the country. We are bound to follow the policy document in NEHU. It is a 65-page long document consisting of an Introduction and the rest is divided into 4 parts titled: Part-I School Education, Part-II Higher Education, Part-III Other Key Areas of Focus and Part-IV Making it Happen. In order to discuss science education in NEHU following NEP-2020, a focus on the Introduction part and on part II will suffice.
The Introduction part is really puzzling in its logical contradiction and inconsistency. But it in a way decides the fate of science education, especially the university science education, in the country. The vision of the policy is to instill among the learners a deep-rooted pride in being Indian, not only in thought, but also in spirit, intellect, and deeds, as well as to develop knowledge, skills, values, and dispositions that support responsible commitment to human rights, sustainable development and living, and global well-being, thereby reflecting a truly global citizen. The rich heritage of ancient and eternal Indian knowledge and thought has been a guiding light for this policy. For, the aim of education in ancient India was not just the acquisition of knowledge as preparation for life in this world, or life beyond schooling, but the complete realization and liberation of the self (from this mundane life in this world). I really wonder how these vision and guiding light can be in conformity with some of the principles of the policy, namely, to develop rational thought and action, and scientific temper! (Italics in this paragraph are mine.)
Some of the fundamental principles of the document are, however, relevant for our discussion, namely, (a) No hard separations between arts and sciences, between curricular and extracurricular activities, between vocational and academic streams, etc. and (b) multidisciplinary and holistic education across the sciences, social sciences, arts, humanities, and sports for a multidisciplinary world in order to ensure the unity and integrity of all knowledge. These principles are elaborated upon in Part II: Higher Education.
The higher education must enable an individual to study one or more specialized areas of interest at a deep level, and also develop character, ethical and constitutional values, intellectual curiosity, scientific temper, creativity, spirit of service, and 21st century capabilities across a range of disciplines including sciences, social sciences, arts, humanities, languages, as well as professional, technical, and vocational subjects. In short, an individual pursuing higher education must not only be conversant in all kinds of knowledge humanely thinkable in the world of our 21st century but also have acquired knowledge at a deep level in one or two subjects.
NEP-2020 policy document (Sec. 9.2 and 9.3) lists several major problems currently faced by the higher education system in India and also advances suggestions to remove the problems. Here we mention some main problems and their solutions relevant to our discussion as itemized in the following.
(a) Problem: A rigid separation of disciplines with early specialization and streaming of students into narrow areas of study.
Solution: Moving towards a more multidisciplinary undergraduate education.
(b) Problem: Limited teacher and institutional autonomy.
Solution: Governance of higher education institutions (HEI) by high qualified independent boards having academic and administrative autonomy.
(c) Problem: An ineffective regulatory system.
Solution: “light but tight” regulation by a single regulator for higher education.
Section 12.2 prescribes how to achieve such goals. First, in order to promote creativity, institutions and faculty will have the autonomy to innovate on matters of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment within a broad higher education qualifications that ensures consistency across institutions and programmes and across the open distance learning (ODL), online, and traditional ‘in-class’ modes. Accordingly, curriculum and pedagogy will be designed by institutions and motivated faculty to ensure a stimulating and engaging learning experience for all students. Sections 13.2 and 13.3 describes ways to motivate the faculty. As the most basic step, all HEIs will be equipped with the basic infrastructure and facilities, including clean drinking water, clean working toilets, blackboards, offices, teaching supplies, libraries, labs, and pleasant classroom spaces and campuses. Teaching duties also will not be excessive, and student-teacher ratio not too high, so that the activity of teaching remains pleasant and there is adequate time for interaction with students, conducting research, and other university activities. Before we discuss about institutional autonomy and acquiring deep knowledge in one or two subjects let us ask ourselves whether NEHU and its affiliated colleges are ready to implement NEP-2020 recommendations.
The plain truth is that at least NEHU physics department does not fulfil the most basic minimum requirements. The university does not supply clean drinking water, there is no adequate faculty or laboratory facilities. Let us examine whether the affiliated colleges are ready to start 4-year undergraduate degree course in physics. Consider St. Anthony’s College, Shillong, as an example, being one of the best equipped colleges with permanent affiliation from NEHU. The college admits about 50 students for physics major. Let us assume that 30 of them continue up to VI semester. Suppose that out of 30 only 15 opt for 4th year B.Sc. Physics Honours course. There are 7 faculty members in the physics department out of which only 3 are having Ph.D. degree and hence qualified to supervise research which is an integral component of the course. Unless the number of students opting for the course comes down to 6 or less it will be very difficult for the college to provide necessary faculty and required infrastructure to continue the course. This is no alarmist talk. I myself would find very hard to find simple problems to more than three students at a time. Because the problems have to be solvable in six months given other kinds of workload. Therefore, at least for the next five years implementing a quality 4-year degree course is ruled out in NEHU and that too unless a massive investment is made on faculty up-gradation and other infrastructure facilities.
Giving due respect to all the rhetoric about the desirability (also necessity) of interdisciplinary studies, I beg to differ in the details. I am a modest physics teacher with little exposure to teaching methodologies of the advanced countries. Yet, I can claim with confidence that if one has deep knowledge in a particular discipline it is always easier to navigate to other disciplines as and when demand arises and make substantial contributions. Such examples are many in the history of science. Many physicists and mathematicians have made fundamental contribution to the advancement of biological sciences in spite of having no prior formal training in biology. As recently as last year half of physics Nobel Prize (2021) was shared by Professor G. Parisi for his contribution to Environmental sciences. He is a hard core physicist and his contribution to the field of environmental sciences was nominal compared to his contribution to other branches. Yet his contribution was counted as worthy. A deep understanding in a particular discipline helps contribute in other discipline as well: for a meaningful success in research the necessity of a well prepared mind is a rule, serendipity is not. Therefore advocating for deep knowledge in one discipline but giving less than a minimum weightage to the discipline in favour of other interdisciplinary subjects in higher education is counter-productive. It is going to adversely affect the science education in a country where science education is gradually getting less than required support. Let us have a quick look at what NEHU is proposing for undergraduate studies.
The façade of academic autonomy is already thrown in to the winds. We are being told to change our mindset and follow the syllabus structure recommended by the UGC.
A comparison of credit hours allotted for physics major in the present syllabus and the credit hours NEHU is set to allot in the proposed (NEP-2020) syllabus assuming that NEHU will have a three-year undergraduate course is presented in tabular form. I have counted the minimum possible number of credit hours for the laboratory (P) courses in the present syllabus while preparing the table. The paper codes in the proposed syllabus are as per the recommendation of the NEHU implementation committee and for each credit 15 class-hours are allotted. Clearly, in the proposed syllabus structure a total of only 530 credit hours are permissible for a physics major compared to a minimum 1080 credit hours at the present. Even if we include 120 (unreasonable) credit hours of Introductory Vocational Courses IC(VS) as part of physics (accepting the literal meaning of there being no hard separation between vocational and academic streams) the proposed credit hours (maximum) turns out to be 650 only. My experience of post-graduate physics teaching in NEHU tells me that even with these 1080 credit hours of undergraduate teaching the students are hard pressed to cope with the present PG syllabus which itself is quite basic in nature. We shall have no other alternative but to dilute the post-graduate syllabus to a large extent. We are, in effect, going to sacrifice deep knowledge for multidisciplinary generalists in science. The claim that with the proposed syllabus structure (NEP-2020) we shall be second to none in the world in the coming years is just a pipe dream because the premise itself in wrong and the introductory preamble is coloured. In the past we at least had the academic autonomy to frame our syllabus. The time is not yet over and if we are not unduly eager to implement the recommendations of UGC dictum to the letters in a hurry we will still have some chance to decelerate the decline in science education. However, that chance seems somewhat remote given the eagerness among the academic fraternity to acquiesce to the dictum and bizarre unconcerned silence of the actual stack holders in the present-day country. I wish people like Professor Satish Dhawan were there to lend us some courage. I close this note with the heartfelt wish of not having to witness the final rote in science education.
(The writer teaches Physics in NEHU)