This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Draft National Education Policy | |
|---|---|
| Name | Draft National Education Policy |
| Country | India |
| Date | 2019–2020 |
| Status | Draft |
Draft National Education Policy
The Draft National Education Policy is a policy document proposed to reform Ministry of Human Resource Development frameworks, addressing school and higher learning systems across India. It proposes structural change affecting institutions such as University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education, aiming to align with global models seen in United Kingdom, United States, and Finland. The draft draws on historical milestones such as the Kothari Commission, the National Policy on Education, 1986, and recommendations from committees led by T. S. R. Subramanian and K. Kasturirangan.
The draft builds on legacies including the Kothari Commission (1964–66) and the National Policy on Education, 1986, seeking to respond to critiques from bodies like the University Grants Commission and the National Council of Educational Research and Training. It references international reports by organizations such as the UNESCO and the World Bank and aligns with commitments in the Sustainable Development Goals and the Right to Education Act (India). Objectives include increasing access for underrepresented groups referenced in landmark rulings by the Supreme Court of India and policy shifts influenced by economic analyses like those of the Planning Commission and the NITI Aayog.
Provisions address curricular overhaul influenced by frameworks from the International Baccalaureate and models used in Singapore and Canada. The draft suggests governance reforms for bodies such as the University Grants Commission and the All India Council for Technical Education, and proposes assessment reforms echoing principles from the Graduate Record Examinations and the Programme for International Student Assessment. Teacher education reforms reference standards similar to those promoted by the National Council for Teacher Education and draw comparisons to practices in Finland and Japan. Vocational pathways cite institutions like the National Skill Development Corporation and partnerships with entities similar to the Indian Institutes of Technology and Indian Institutes of Management.
Implementation mechanisms propose phased timelines with oversight by a national commission analogous to models like the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan and institutional coordination among bodies including the National Council of Educational Research and Training and state education departments such as those in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Funding references include proposals for allocations comparable to budgetary debates in the Union Budget of India and borrowing instruments discussed in reports by the Reserve Bank of India. Capacity building invokes collaborations with universities including the University of Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and international partners such as University of Oxford and Harvard University.
The draft underwent consultations with stakeholders including teacher unions like the All India Primary Teachers' Federation, student organizations such as the All India Students' Federation, and institutional representatives from the University Grants Commission and State Council of Educational Research and Training. Public feedback processes resembled consultations held for revisions to the Indian Penal Code and proposed constitutional amendments debated in the Parliament of India. Revisions accounted for inputs from commissions chaired by figures like K. Kasturirangan and commissions modeled after advisory groups such as the Swarna Jayanti Fellowship panels.
Impact assessments referenced studies by the National Sample Survey Office and analyses by think tanks including the Centre for Policy Research and the Observer Research Foundation. Criticism arose from academic bodies like the All India Council for Technical Education and political parties represented in the Rajya Sabha, citing concerns similar to debates over the Right to Education Act (India) and reforms in higher learning seen in controversies involving the University Grants Commission. Legal challenges could draw on precedents from Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and rulings by the Supreme Court of India regarding affirmative action and institutional autonomy.
The draft explicitly references comparative systems from Finland, Singapore, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, and aligns some assessment proposals with standards like the Programme for International Student Assessment and accreditation practices observed in the European Higher Education Area. Influences include advisory work by multilateral institutions such as UNESCO and the World Bank and bilateral cooperation models previously executed with universities like University of Cambridge and agencies analogous to the British Council.
Category:Education policy in India