TN syllabi-tweak: Consult stakeholders
Academics and educationists in Tamil Nadu are currently up in arms against the state government’s decision to impose a uniform syllabus on higher educational institutions. In March, the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education (TANSCHE) issued a circular stating that autonomous institutions could create 25% of their syllabus, but 75% would be common across institutions in the state. Last week, higher education minister K Ponmudy—under the scanner of the Enforcement Directorate—said that the common syllabus would be imposed from the current academic year.
The state government claims the decision allows students to transfer across institutions with ease, ensures quality education across the board, and sees that the syllabus is in tune with industry requirements. However, teachers and educationists say the syllabus framed by TANSCHE is grossly outdated and of poor quality. Though the minister claimed to have consulted 900 academicians in the framing of the syllabi for all subjects, faculty associations across the state question why the government failed to take all stakeholders on board in deciding to impose a common syllabus and why it did not conduct wider consultations to frame the syllabus itself. The state has 13 universities which function under special acts. The move infringes on their autonomy to decide their syllabi. Further, with TN’s State Education Policy (SEP) in the works, stakeholders wonder at the government’s haste, given that the syllabus must be updated once the policy is framed. The minister is now conducting meetings with various institutions but does not seem to be in the mood to back down.
Ironically, the DMK-led state government strongly opposes the National Education Policy (NEP) because it encroaches on states’ autonomy and imposes a homogenous vision of education on the entire country. The question arises if the government’s move is a bid to impose its educational values on institutions lest autonomous ones decide to adopt the NEP before the SEP is in place. Nevertheless, without properly consulting a broad section of stakeholders, the state’s plan is unlikely to help improve the quality of higher education. The government should heed its critics, as it has done in the past. It must revisit the issue and chalk out the best plan to meet its goals without unduly affecting institutional autonomy.