In News:

The UDISE+ report for 2023-24, released by the Ministry of Education, presents key insights into India’s school education system. UDISE+ serves as a comprehensive database, tracking student enrolment, school infrastructure, and other educational parameters, enabling efficient policy implementation and gap identification.

Key Findings:

• Decline in School Enrolment: Enrolment figures in Indian schools have witnessed a significant decline for the first time in recent years. The total enrolment dropped from 26.36 crore (2018-22 average) to 25.17 crore in 2022-23 and further to 24.8 crore in 2023-24, marking a fall of 1.55 crore students or nearly 6%. This drop is attributed to the improved data collection methods which helped eliminate duplicate entries, especially students enrolled in both government and private schools.
• Gender and School Type-wise Trends: The enrolment drop was observed across both government and private schools. Government schools saw a decline of 5.59%, whereas private schools experienced a 3.67% reduction. Gender-wise, the enrolment of boys decreased by 6.04%, while girls’ enrolment dropped by 5.76%, compared to the 2018-22 average.
• State-wise Data: The enrolment drop was not uniform across states. Bihar recorded the largest decline, with a loss of 35.65 lakh students, followed by Uttar Pradesh (28.26 lakh) and Maharashtra (18.55 lakh). In contrast, states like Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, and Telangana saw an increase in enrolment during the same period.
• Level-wise Trends: The most significant declines were recorded at the primary (Classes 1-5), upper primary (Classes 6-8), and secondary (Classes 9-10) levels. However, enrolment in pre-primary and higher secondary (Classes 11-12) levels showed an increase in 2023-24 compared to the previous average.
• Impact of Data Refinement: The implementation of Aadhaar-linked student data collection has enhanced the accuracy of enrolment figures. The de-duplication process helped remove cases of students being enrolled in both government and private schools. This revision is expected to provide more accurate data for targeted educational schemes and improve the effectiveness of government programs like Samagra Shiksha and PM POSHAN.

Challenges in Education

Despite the improvements in data collection, several systemic issues persist:

• Access and Retention: High dropout rates, especially at the secondary level, remain a challenge for sustained student retention.
• Disparities among Marginalized Groups: Enrolment among SC, ST, OBC, and minority communities showed a notable decline, reflecting existing inequities in the education system.
• Infrastructure and Teacher Training: Uneven distribution of resources and insufficient teacher training continue to hamper educational outcomes, affecting quality and student engagement.

Way Forward

To address these challenges, the following steps are critical:

• Strengthening NEP 2020: The National Education Policy aims for universal Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) by 2030, with a focus on skill-based learning and inclusive education.
• Teacher Capacity Building: There is a need for targeted interventions to improve teacher quality and address gaps in the student-teacher ratio.
• Infrastructure Optimization: Schools should optimize their resources based on enrolment trends to improve access and address disparities.
• Data-Driven Monitoring: Continuous monitoring using student-specific data will help identify dropouts and allocate resources efficiently.

In News:

The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (also called the Madarsa Act), while striking down certain provisions related to the granting of higher education degrees. The Court overturned the Allahabad High Court's previous decision, which had deemed the Act unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the principle of secularism.

What is the Madarsa Act?

The Madarsa Act provides a legal framework for regulating madrasas (Islamic educational institutions) in Uttar Pradesh. The Act:

• Establishes the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, which oversees the curriculum and examinations for madrasas.
• Ensures that madrasas follow the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) curriculum for mainstream secular education alongside religious instruction.
• Empowers the state government to create rules for regulating madrasa education.

Allahabad High Court's Ruling

In March 2024, the Allahabad High Court declared the Madarsa Act unconstitutional, citing:

• Violation of secularism: The Court argued that the Act's emphasis on compulsory Islamic education, with modern subjects being optional, discriminated on religious grounds, violating the secular nature of the Constitution.
• Right to Education: The Court also claimed that the Act denied quality education under Article 21A, which guarantees free and compulsory education to children.
• Higher Education Degrees: The Act's provisions allowing the granting of Fazil and Kamil degrees were found to conflict with the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which regulates higher education.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court overturned the Allahabad High Court's decision on several grounds:

• Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court clarified that the basic structure doctrine, which applies to constitutional amendments, does not apply to ordinary legislation like the Madarsa Act. Therefore, a law cannot be struck down simply for violating secularism unless explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
• State's Authority to Regulate Education: The Court held that the state has the right to regulate education in minority institutions, as long as the regulation is reasonable and rational. It emphasized that the Madarsa Act does not deprive these institutions of their minority character.
• Right to Education for Minority Institutions: Referring to a 2014 decision, the Court ruled that the Right to Education Act (RTE) does not apply to minority institutions, as it would undermine their right to impart religious education and self-administer.

Striking Down Higher Education Provisions

While upholding most of the Act, the Supreme Court struck down the provisions related to higher education degrees (Fazil and Kamil). It ruled that:

• Section 9 of the Act, which allowed the Board to grant these degrees, is in conflict with the University Grants Commission Act, which only permits degrees to be awarded by universities recognized by the UGC.

Implications of the Ruling

• Regulation of Madrasa Education: The ruling affirms the state's authority to ensure quality education in madrasas, balancing religious instruction with secular subjects.
• Protection of Minority Rights: By upholding the Madarsa Act, the Court protected the rights of religious minorities to run educational institutions while ensuring they meet educational standards.
• Focus on Inclusivity: The judgment emphasizes the integration of madrasas within the broader educational framework, ensuring that madrasa students receive quality education.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision supports the regulation of madrasa education while safeguarding the rights of minority institutions, except in areas related to the granting of higher education degrees, which remain under the jurisdiction of the UGC Act.

Why is it in the News?

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has been issuing regulations, guidelines and directives at breakneck speed that some of the important ones miss drawing the attention of the higher education community.

Context:

• The University Grants Commission (UGC) has introduced Mulya Pravah 2.0 to enhance the ethical landscape of higher education institutions.
• This evolved guideline, succeeding its 2019 predecessor, aims to instil human values and professional ethics, actively combating unethical practices that have permeated various institutions.
• The primary focus involves constructing value-based institutions that resonate with fundamental duties and constitutional values, urging a commitment to integrity and ethical conduct.

What is Mulya Pravah?

• Officially notified in 2019, Mulya Pravah aims to instil human values and professional ethics within higher education institutions.
• Its explicit objective is to cultivate value-based institutions by guiding individuals and institutions toward fostering profound respect for fundamental duties, constitutional values, and a strong connection with the country.

What is Mulya Pravah 2.0?

• Mulya Pravah 2.0, a revised guideline by the University Grants Commission (UGC), is designed to foster ethical practices and human values within higher education institutions.
• Its inception was prompted by revelations from a survey among human resource managers, uncovering unethical practices like favouritism, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination in various organisational processes.
• The primary objective of this guideline is to construct value-based institutions by nurturing a sense of respect for fundamental duties, and constitutional values, and fostering a connection to the nation.

Key Features of Mulya Pravah 2.0:

• Addressing Unethical Practices: Mulya Pravah 2.0 confronts the prevalent unethical practices identified in higher education institutions, as uncovered by a survey involving human resource managers.
  • These malpractices encompass favouritism, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, inconsistent discipline, lack of confidentiality, and unscrupulous dealings with vendors for personal gain.
  • While acknowledging that such issues may extend beyond higher education, this guideline serves as a commendable initiative toward fostering ethical conduct.
• Emphasis on Transparency: A pivotal aspect of Mulya Pravah 2.0 is its advocacy for absolute transparency in administration. Decision-making within higher education institutions is expected to be guided solely by institutional and public interest, free from biases.
  • The guideline stresses the elimination of discriminatory privileges and underscores the importance of penalizing corruption.
  • It urges the establishment of a conducive culture and work environment, aligning actions with the best interests of the institution.
• Guidelines Emphasize Upholding Values: Mulya Pravah 2.0 mandates that higher education institutions uphold values such as integrity, trusteeship, harmony, accountability, inclusiveness, commitment, respectfulness, belongingness, sustainability, constitutional values, and global citizenship.
  • This intervention is timely, considering the diminishing prevalence of these values. Officers in universities are entrusted with ensuring strict adherence to these values both in letter and spirit.
• Guidelines Remind Institutions to Act in the Best Interest: Mulya Pravah 2.0 serves as a reminder for stakeholders to act in the best interest of their institution, fostering a conducive culture and work environment for teaching, learning, and research while developing the potential of the institution.
  • It explicitly states that officers and staff must refrain from misappropriating financial and other resources.
  • Additionally, it calls for a refusal to accept gifts, favours, services, or other items from any entity that may compromise the impartial performance of duties.

What are the Challenges in the Effective Implementation of Mulya Pravah 2.0?

• Sincerity and Commitment of Higher Education Regulators: The mere issuance of guidelines may prove insufficient if higher education regulators lack sincere commitment to enforce the provisions of Mulya Pravah 2.0.
  • The UGC must demonstrate unwavering determination, setting a precedent by exhibiting zero tolerance for any form of corruption or ethical violations within the academic sphere.
• Institutional Resistance to Change: Established norms and practices within higher education institutions may resist the infusion of Mulya Pravah 2.0's principles, as institutional cultures can be deeply ingrained.
  • Overcoming institutional inertia requires proactive efforts by university administrators, faculty, and other stakeholders to embrace and implement the ethical guidelines.
• Lack of Monitoring Mechanisms: Effective implementation requires robust monitoring mechanisms to track and evaluate adherence to the guidelines at various levels.
  • The absence of a comprehensive monitoring framework may lead to laxity, allowing unethical practices to persist unchecked.
• Resistance from Internal Stakeholders: Faculty, staff, and student unions might resist the guidelines, perceiving them as an imposition on their autonomy or a threat to established practices.
  • Overcoming resistance necessitates effective communication, collaboration, and building consensus among all internal stakeholders.
• Balancing Transparency and Confidentiality: The guideline's emphasis on maintaining confidentiality might clash with the broader societal demand for transparency in higher education institutions.
  • Striking a delicate balance between the two is crucial to avoid potential conflicts and ensure the right to information is not compromised.
• Undefined Parameters and Ambiguities: Some aspects of Mulya Pravah 2.0, such as what constitutes a dignified manner for raising issues, lack clear definitions.
  • Ambiguities in the guideline could lead to misinterpretations, allowing room for manipulation and misuse.
• Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring that institutions adhere to the legal and regulatory framework while implementing Mulya Pravah 2.0 is essential.
  • Non-compliance or overlooking legal aspects may render the guideline ineffective or subject to legal challenges.
• Cultural and Regional Variations: Higher education institutions exhibit diverse cultural and regional variations, influencing the reception and interpretation of ethical guidelines.
  • Tailoring the implementation strategy to accommodate these variations is vital for the guidelines to resonate across different contexts.
• Inadequate Training and Awareness Programs: The success of Mulya Pravah 2.0 depends on the understanding and active participation of all stakeholders.
  • Insufficient training and awareness programs may result in a lack of clarity regarding the guidelines, reducing their impact.

What Steps Can Be Taken to Improve Governance in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)?

• Addressing the Issue of Confidentiality: The guideline should advocate for institutions to promptly publish agendas, proceedings, and minutes of meetings held by their decision-making bodies, sub-committees, and standing committees.
  • Furthermore, institutions are encouraged to make their annual reports and audited accounts accessible to the public.
  • This proactive disclosure can act as a deterrent against malpractices and contribute significantly to rebuilding public trust in institutional operations.
• Addressing Teachers’ Associations: Recognizing the significant impact teachers have on students' character, personality, and careers, Mulya Pravah 2.0 emphasizes that teachers should serve as role models.
  • This involves exhibiting good conduct and maintaining high standards of dress, speech, and behavior for students to emulate.
  • While the guideline underscores the expectation for teachers to adhere to university rules and policies, it does not explicitly address the role or function of teachers' associations, which warrants attention for a comprehensive approach.
• Clarity on the Definition of 'Dignified Manner' for Unions and Support: Mulya Pravah 2.0 anticipates the support of staff and student unions in development activities while urging them to raise concerns in a dignified manner.
  • However, the guideline lacks a clear definition or explanation of what constitutes a 'dignified manner.'
  • This absence leaves room for potential misuse, allowing the provision to be wielded in ways that may threaten, silence, or undermine the collective voices of stakeholders.
  • A clear definition is crucial to avoid such misinterpretations and promote a healthy collaborative environment.

Conclusion

Mulya Pravah 2.0, introduced by the University Grants Commission, represents a commendable stride in instilling ethical values within higher education. Nonetheless, addressing its challenges necessitates inclusive discussions with all stakeholders. Effective implementation is imperative for realizing its potential to enhance the quality and sustainability of decisions within the educational sphere.

Why is it in the News?

The Education Committee of the Parliament has just presented a report about how the National Education Policy (NEP) from 2020 is being put into action in higher education.

Assessment in the report:

• The report checks how well the National Education Policy (NEP) from 2020 is being used in higher education and what progress has been made.
• In India, there are currently 1043 universities.
• Most of them, around 70%, are run by state laws, while about 18% are managed by the Central Government.
• When it comes to students, 94% of them study at state or private institutions, and only 6% are in central institutions.
• The report says that more students are going to college now compared to a few years ago. This is measured using something called Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER), which has gone up from 24.1% in 2016-17 to 27.3% in 2020-21. It's also improved for ST and SC students during this time.
• GER is like a way to see how many students in the right age group (18-23 years) are in higher education compared to the total population.

Report's Status of Implementation:

• Things are going well with the implementation of NEP 2020, thanks to different initiatives like PM Schools for Rising India (PM SHRI), e-VIDHYA, and NIPUN Bharat. The goal is to change higher education to be more inclusive, flexible, and meet global standards.
• Jammu and Kashmir is leading the way by being one of the first places in India to start using NEP 2020 in all Higher Education Institutions starting from 2022.
• NEP 2020 wants students to become more creative and innovative. It encourages connections between colleges and industries and works on joint programs.
• Indian universities will get more freedom to set up campuses in other countries and welcome top 100 universities from around the world to work in India.
• NEP 2020 also allows students more flexibility with something called "Multi Entry and Multiple Exit (MEME)" options, which gives them more choices in their education.

Issues Related to NEP:

• Accessibility: Some students in economically disadvantaged areas can't easily access higher education because of money problems, where they live, and because they might feel like they don't belong due to stereotypes.
• Multiple Entry And Multiple Exit (MEME)System: Even though the MEME system seemed flexible, the report suggests it might not work as well in India as it does in Western countries.
• Language Barrier: Most higher education institutions use English to teach, but not many teach in local languages. This can be a problem for students who are more comfortable in their local language.
• Lack of Funding: India needs to spend more on education. Right now, it's only about 2.9% of the country's total income (GDP), but experts say it should be 6%. This means there's not enough funding for education.

Way Forward

• By 2030, the goal is to have at least one multi-purpose higher education institution in every district in India. And by 2035, they want 50% of students to be in higher education, including vocational training.
• They want to focus more on research and innovation to help India file more patents and improve its global ranking.
• To get more money for education, Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) should look for funds from sources other than the government, like private companies, foundations, and international banks.
• They plan to make better use of technology in education. Creating a National Educational Technology Forum (NETF) will help expand digital resources and make India a top place for knowledge.
• They also want to make it easier for students who study different subjects to get credit for their work. This will help them move between schools and colleges more smoothly.

National Education Policy (NEP) 2020:

• The National Education Policy, created in July 2020, shows what India's new education system will look like.
• A group led by Shri K. Kasturirangan made this policy.
• NEP 2020 has five important ideas: making education affordable, easy to access, high-quality, fair for everyone, and making sure everyone is responsible for learning.
• It's like a big plan to change both basic and higher education in India by 2040.
• This is the third big education plan since India became independent. The earlier ones were made in 1968 and 1986.
• The new policy focuses on things like studying different subjects, using technology, writing well, solving problems, thinking logically, and getting experience in different jobs.