The cynosure of the new National Education Policy (NEP 2020) is the Multiple Entry/Exit System (MEES) in higher education. Even left-wing intellectuals, vehement critics of the NEP, seem to be impressed with the concept of the MEES and believe that it will be of great benefit to economically and socially disadvantaged students.
What is meant by MEES? It allows a student to drop their course and resume it when convenient. A student unable to continue his/her studies due to financial difficulties can exit to find a job and make money so that the studies can be resumed. In other words, the MEES is an opportunity for financially challenged students to complete their studies on their own. Probably the economic factor is only one among many that causes dropouts in higher education.
Other reasons like social, familial, religious, etc., are also prevalent in India. For example, girls who get married early or are pregnant while pursuing a degree and those who are experiencing physical hardship due to accidents or diseases will see the MEES as a blessing. But a more in-depth analysis of the concept shows practical complications and the attempt to turn education from a social responsibility to a personal responsibility.
Though enrolment in higher education in India is only about 26%, the dropout rate is low compared to the school level. The latest figures show that the dropouts in higher education over the past few decades have been contained. According to figures released by the Minister of Education in Parliament in February 2020, the dropout rate in IITs is just 1% in 2020. In 2015-16, it was 2.25%. The dropout rate in IIMs decreased from 1.04% in 2015-16 to 1% in 2020.
At the university level, the dropout rate was 7.49% in 2015-16 and it declined to 2.82% by 2020. But with the implementation of MEES, this is likely to rise sharply. The concept of multiple exits legitimises student dropouts. It is ironic that the NEP vows to raise the enrolment to higher education to 50% by 2030 on the one hand and legitimises dropouts on the other. The MEES does not have the provision to ensure that the students who exited will join back. Therefore, only those who return voluntarily are likely to become beneficiaries of the multiple entry option.
It is quite natural that a large segment of people planning to return may postpone it, even for trivial reasons. Only those who have made a very strong decision to learn by overcoming the pressures of the job environment are likely to return. Otherwise, the vast majority is likely to fall into the trap of deciding to go as far as possible with the work they are currently doing and the pay they are getting out of it. Fatalism is a major driving force for a majority of Indians.
Educational institutions are likely to face a lot of glitches while implementing the MEES. One of the main problems would be determining the number of students to be admitted each year. For example, suppose the total intake of a degree programme is 30 students per year for a college. If, by the second semester, 10 students exit and about 20 students who dropped out years ago are in queue for entry at the same time, it will upset the teacher-pupil ratio and infrastructural facilities available.
What is likely to happen, naturally, is restrictions being imposed on the number of students likely to resume their studies each year. So, MEES would not ensure entry according to the will of the students, but on the conditions of the institutions. At the same time, multiple entry admission in government colleges and universities can be given only by following reservation policy. Private institutions, on the other hand, would deem this a good opportunity to charge exorbitant fees from those students who seek entry back to resume their studies.
There are some dangers lurking in the glorification of the economically self-reliant studenthood. Education is a social responsibility. That is why governments undertake the responsibility of providing free and compulsory education to all. The 1990 declaration of the Jomtien Conference on ‘Education for All’ was warmly welcomed and sought to be implemented by the nations of the world, including India, with the conviction that education is a social responsibility.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment in Unnikrishnan J P vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Others in 1993 held that education is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21. Thus, the 86th amendment provided for a follow-up legislation for the Right to Education Act, 2009. In line with this legislation, the government’s project to universalise higher education, the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA), was implemented in 2013.
Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen reminds us that money spent by governments on education is not an expenditure, but an investment. MEES may appear to be a student-friendly policy, but it implies that education is a private responsibility. While no child in a financially secure home will drop out of college due to the want of money, MEES, if implemented, will result in a distorted educational experience for financially disadvantaged students.At present, there are many schemes like scholarships in place to help students with higher education.
However, with the general consensus that students can study on their own, it will be a good justification to withdraw all such scholarships. Though we have mark sheets and CGPAs about the achievement of students in various courses, we lack a similar one that has a critical role in bolstering the students to gain these achievements. An economic status card should be introduced for every student who is pursuing higher education in India.
This would help the institutions monitor the financial crunch that a student faces while pursuing a programme. This card should be maintained by educational administrators or local bodies that support education. Will our educational authorities dare to maintain an economic status card of every student? If so, this would be a revolutionary change in the advancement of a welfare model of education.
NEP 2020 has to be revised to include schemes to ensure that no student exits due to lack of money. Every student who is forced to exit shall be bolstered by a financial package to continue their studies in the same institution. An amendment of NEP 2020 in this direction would be a good gesture from a welfare state.
Amruth G Kumar (amruth@cukerala.ac.in)
Head, School of Education, Central University of Kerala