By H. Srikanth
NEHU is bracing to introduce the new NEP 2020 Curriculum in the UG colleges. The UGC has come out with national curriculum guidelines only at the end of 2022. Premier central universities in the country are still deliberating on the guidelines and no one has implemented it so far. NEP Committee, constituted by NEHU, has recently come out with a draft, which was discussed in an emergent AC meeting. The draft has some interesting proposals. It suggests the introduction of three streams of degree – 1. Three Year Multidisciplinary UG program, 2. Three-Year UG Degree with single Major, and 3. Four-Year Degree with / without Research. The draft talks about introducing multidisciplinary, skill / vocational, ability enhancement papers as part of the Degree curriculum. Number of core papers one has to study for Degree with Major increased to 15, and to 20 in case of a Four-Year degree. Presence of a minimum of two teachers with Ph.D. degree is specified as necessary for starting a Four-Year Degree course. The Exit and the Entry options are also specified. The draft talks about compulsory internship for a specified period for all students. Based on the feedback, the university is planning to come out with an ordinance and start the course from the academic year 2023-24.
No doubt, the draft curriculum of NEHU has certain positive points. Earlier, when NEHU dispensed with Pass Course and Honors degree compulsory in all degree colleges, the decision created problems for many suburban and city-based colleges which have limited infrastructure and resources. It compelled all UG colleges to offer Honors Degrees overlooking their capacities and interests. Introduction of the Three-Year Multi-disciplinary Degree will help to set right the earlier decision for a uniform PG degree. Multi-Disciplinary degree will be good for those who wish to have a degree at hand and try for competitive exams for jobs. Further, although the degree that NEHU offered was called Honors degree, there were eight core papers in each discipline, much less than what the students study in most UG colleges outside the northeast. No effort was made for over one decade to revise the syllabus. The new UG degree with one major compels the UG colleges to introduce more papers and also gives the opportunity to revise and update the existing papers. Contrary to the earlier assumption, the draft curriculum prescribes the eligibility criteria and prevents the colleges which don’t have eligibility from introducing the FYUP. The plans to introduce multidisciplinary, skill/vocational, and ability enhancement courses also help the students, provided they are taught professionally.
While admitting that some proposals are beneficial to the students in the long run, one should not be oblivious to the problems and challenges involved in introducing the curriculum without adequate preparations. It was informed that some college principals were consulted while preparing the draft. It is, however, not known whether the principals represent the wide range of colleges that exist in the state. Whether the principals are aware of the implications of introducing the new curriculum is not clear. The college management should realize that it is not possible to run the new UG curriculum with the existing number of teachers. The existing four or five teachers may be alright for handling a three year Multi-disciplinary Degree program, but that number is inadequate to teach a Three-Year Degree program with one major, or Four-Year Degree Program with Research. In the existing Honors degree program, only eight core papers are to be taught. But for the proposed Three-Year Degree with a Major program under NEP 2020, the number of core papers increased to 15 papers. Apart from the core papers, teachers will have to teach even minor papers. As the teaching load doubles, the UG colleges opting for Three-Year UG program cannot do justice to the program unless they double the number of teachers in each department. For those seeking FYUP, there should be at least two teachers with Ph.D. qualifications to guide the students’ projects. If the state government and the college management are serious about implementing the NEP 2020 Curriculum they should acknowledge the need for increasing the number of teachers in the UG colleges. In the interest of the students and teachers, NEHU should not permit the UG colleges which are reluctant to increase the number of teachers to start the Three-Year Major Degree program and Four-Year Research degree program.
As mentioned, the draft curriculum talks about offering different papers other than the core and minor papers. It is not yet clear which colleges would offer what papers under multidisciplinary ability enhancing, vocational, skill development categories. One does not know as yet who will prepare the syllabus; who will be asked to teach the papers, and whether those to whom the responsibility is entrusted really have any qualifications and experience. Also, one should have clarity about the internship. It is necessary to identify and seek cooperation beforehand in the institutions, industries, or organizations for offering internship. There should be clarity at university, college and government levels who would take what responsibilities.
The curriculum makes little sense if it is not accompanied by good syllabi. The existing UG syllabi are around 15 years old. There is a need for updating the existing syllabi and also coming out with appropriate syllabi for new courses that need to be introduced. The UG syllabi are to be framed in such a manner they have horizontal linkage with other UG departments in the colleges, and vertical link with post-graduate degrees. One should have a holistic approach to the syllabus making. Syllabus making is a serious business involving UG and teachers, and subject experts from outside. It involves identifying the topics, study material and relevant teaching methods. Syllabus making should not be done in a haphazard and piece-meal manner. If the university insists on implementing the NEP curriculum from this year, most likely the departments end up packaging the old syllabus in the new curriculum framework, as they did earlier. Serving old wine in new bottles, I suppose, is not the purpose of introducing the new curriculum.
Further, it is not clear whether those pitching for immediate implementation of the new UG curriculum have any idea about the changes that one should introduce in different ordinances and regulations of the university. It is not enough to bring an ordinance on the curriculum structure. NEHU has to amend existing university ordinances and regulations regarding the affiliation, exam pattern, number of teachers and other requirements. The UG colleges, depending on their infrastructure, human and other resources, should apply whether they go in for a multidisciplinary degree program, for Degree with Major program, or for Degree with Research Program. Any hurried decisions by the University or UG colleges will have adverse effects on the students.
Everyone acknowledges the need for educational reforms in the state. We need to introduce reform, not for appeasing any authorities, or for satisfying one’s ego. Receiving more funds or seeking a better ranking should also not become the argument for changing the curriculum. The primary motivation for introducing the new curriculum should be to provide a better education for the students of Meghalaya. Although the new curriculum is reasonably good, there are quite a few loose ends which need to be tagged before one goes for execution. How-so-ever good the curriculum is, it is bound to falter if one ignores the ground situation and does not address the problems. It is not enough to talk to select college principals. There should be a series of meetings and consultations with all stakeholders, including the teachers’ association and the student bodies, to make them understand the implications of the changes and find solutions to plug the loopholes. It is necessary to take preemptive measures to ensure that implementing the new curriculum is smooth and beneficial to the students.