By H. Srikanth
Is there no need for any changes in educational policy in the state of Meghalaya? Are the educational standards in the state so satisfactory that we need no more reforms? Should we remain skeptical and resist all university and government initiatives for improving education standards in the state? The answers to all the questions are a big NO. Everyone in the state knows that there are serious problems in the education sector that need to be addressed. One should bring out reforms at all levels – at school, college, and university levels. There is indeed a need for updating the syllabus, introducing new relevant courses, increasing the number of teachers, improving infrastructure and re-haul the administration at different levels to bring about the desirable changes in the education sector. But what changes should be introduced would depend on an objective assessment of the ground situation? If the state is at the level of ABCD, it can move to EFGH, even try to jump to IJKL; but it cannot straight away aspire to reach the XYZ position.
The authorities aspiring to introduce the NEP 2020 immediately are committing grave mistakes again. A couple of years ago, they tried to push the CUET. The people who were not ready forced the government to seek exemption to the state from the CUET. Next, the University tried to implement the CUCET for the PG admission, again without thoroughly discussing it in the Academic Council. But when it was put into practice, it was found that the local students for whom the university was established hardly found a place on the list because of their unsatisfactory performance. The university was then compelled to announce an additional 40 marks to satisfy the local demands, making a mockery of the CUCET. Not learning from the mistakes, the university has taken up yet another decision to introduce the FYUP immediately from this year without proper preparations. The consequences of the hasty decision have now become apparent in the present stalemate.
It is unfortunate that the UG teachers have a limited representation in the AC. Majority of the AC members are from the University and they have little understanding of the difficulties of the colleges and the college teachers. The college representatives expressed their difficulties in the AC, but their objections were ignored by those who were bent upon pushing the FYUP from this year itself. The ordinance to introduce the FYUP was introduced only in June 2023. Only the syllabus of the first year was approved, and no one is clear about what papers will be introduced in subsequent years. But they are not enough. The move has to be accompanied by changes in the relevant statutes, ordinances and regulations relating to affiliation, teachers, teaching material, exams, evaluation, and a host of other related issues. The syllabus is prepared and approved only for the first year, just a couple of months back. It is most likely that the syllabus for subsequent years will be prepared in piecemeal every year and made known to the teachers a couple of months before the new system begins. That means neither the teachers nor the students are aware as yet, what all they would be studying under the FYUP. In the absence of a comprehensive syllabus, it is difficult to procure study material for new courses that are going to be introduced subsequently. At the PG courses, the teachers recommend scholarly books and articles. But in the UG courses, it is necessary to have standard textbooks in advance to ensure quality and uniformity across the colleges. How could the teachers prepare for the classes if they don’t have the complete syllabus or the study material? In the AC, the need for increasing the number of teachers was also highlighted. But it appears that no efforts are made in the ordinances and regulations to fix the number of teachers required for running the FYUP in the colleges. There is written commitment from even those college managements willing to implement the NEP from this about the number of college teachers. It is then natural that the college teachers who are already overburdened get agitated.
All this acrimony and stalemate could have been avoided had the university and the state government expected and deliberated all issues beforehand. It appears both the university and the state government were in a hurry to implement the NEP 2020. There was no need to rush, as the UGC has come out with the FYUP guidelines only at a fag end of 2022. Barring the Delhi University and a couple of BJP ruled states, the FYUP is not yet implemented in most states and universities in the country. After the state elections, even Karnataka, the first state to introduce the FYUP, is reconsidering the NEP 2020. The FYUP can be introduced for a trial in certain universities first and then replicate in all the states gradually later. Unfortunately, in Meghalaya, the university is a central university, but the colleges are administratively and financially under the state government. Hence, there are many loose ends which need to be tied before we plan to implement the FYUP in all colleges in the state.
One need not question the sincerity or integrity of the university authorities, the state government or the college managements who believe that the NEP 2020 helps the state improve the educational scenario in the state. One should not have any hesitation to acknowledge some positive initiatives taken at the university and the state levels in recent years to address certain long pending issues. But when it comes to the NEP 2020, I don’t have any hesitation to state that they have acted in haste. The consequences of their actions are likely to be disastrous, as neither the university nor the state government have the resources to implement them effectively. If all that one wants is the old wine in new bottles, we could bundle and fool ourselves and others. But, if we hope to contribute to meaningful changes in education that benefit all sections of the people, it is necessary to tread a cautious path, taking all stakeholders. The issues that the MCTA has raised are relevant and they need to be addressed and resolved before deciding to implement the FYUP. Let there be no ego issues. Education is a serious matter; it is not a game to be played for pleasing the superiors. Again, education is not a race; there is no one there in Delhi ready to give us an award or reward for being among the first to implement the FYUP. There is no harm in taking a little more time. Let all stakeholders play positive and responsible roles keeping in view the needs, interests and the ground realities in the state.