In order to facilitate implementation of NEP, Delhi University has constituted a small committee consisting of teachers and education administrators. Unfortunately, the committee is proceeding without paying attention to all the necessary aspects that must be taken into account during such an implementation. It must not be ignored that an institution as huge as Delhi University, has made several painful adjustments in the last decade till the implementation of the existing LOCF (modified CBCS) course structure. The university has very frequently been subjected to several half-cooked adventures in the names of Semesterization, FYUP followed by its withdrawal, CBCS and then modification of the same termed now as LOCF.
Fortunately for us, this time the changes are being
sought based on a complete document with a well discussed and a nation-wide
policy that has a plan and vision to affect reforms in this sector right from
pre-nursery level to the higher education stage.
Apparently, some of the members in the committee are
known to have expressed their reservations on the possible projections of this
National Education Policy and therefore has been working with a preconceived confusions
and misunderstandings. These misplaced academic activists are inexplicably convinced
that this policy has an ‘undisclosed’ aim of reducing the workload and thereby
enforcing abolition of teaching posts. With such a view, they are incapable of
visualizing a situation wherein the policy can be implemented without affecting
reduction in the teaching strength. I am completely taken aback at their
twisted estimates as when a switch from 3 year to a 4 year course should have
been ‘normally’ expected to result in increase of workload and requirement of
teachers, it is being spread as a measure to reduce the teaching strength. In
addition to this, a misleading fear is being allowed to make rounds that
introduction of online teaching will force working non-permanent teachers to
discontinue their jobs.
To just give everyone an overview of what do I mean to
convey, let me work out some average estimate that can give us the confidence
that such fears are completely unfounded are in all probably - politically
driven.
It will hardly come as a surprise that on addition of
one year study to a three-year program an increase of one third workload
requirement is only logical to get estimated. However, the fact that the government
has also asked the higher education sector to allow some component of online studies
for the undergraduate students, it can also not be denied that such a step has
a potential to reduce the workload. An intelligent implementor of the policy is
thus left with the sole task to use this reduction to balance the requirement of
increase in the workload due to an additional year of teaching.
To achieve this, I would suggest a 5-year strategy of
implementing this policy. In the first phase during the initial three years the
workload must be kept the same by not allowing online teaching. After that in
the fourth year when the students will reach their fourth year of studies, some
component of online teaching may be permitted in the first year to balance the
additional workload requirement for fourth year students. In the fifth year,
finally the desired 30 percent online component may be allowed so that it can almost
compensate for the entire increased demand of workload due to the introduction
of fourth year. This 5 year strategy will provide the education institutions
the adequate time to develop some additional infrastructural requirements if
any, visualized by them in this process. They will have enough time to plan to
deal with any eventuality during this transformation. Meanwhile, all institutions
can be assured in this strategy that their strength will remain the same during
and after the implementation of this policy and thus they may proceed with
their long pending demand of making permanent appointments. After all, the
National Education Policy has also emphasized the requirement of having
permanent teachers in the education institutions to make them keep their focus
on their students as per the expectations of the society.
After all, when the OBC reservation policy required 3-year for implementation, EWS reservation required 2 year of implementation, nothing should stop us from planning a five year implementation plan for a policy as important as the National Education Policy. NEP can potentially undo the damage caused to the education sector by several short-term and poorly planned reforms over the last decade. Let it be planned in a manner that will ensure a stable workload throughout the implementation period and after it, as per the table shown above.
