Short Abstract:

This paper critically analyses National Education Policy 2020 (MHRD, 2020) to understand how capability is conceived and operationlised. In the specific context of massification and democratisation of access to higher education, the paper argues that the neglect of education's role in expanding capability poses challenges to achieving equity goals and upholding the intrinsic values of education.

Long Abstract:

Research Context

Affirmative action policies in India opened the doors of higher education to previously under-represented castes and communities. While social group inequality persists, India could achieve progress in expanding access to the masses. While facilitating access is a prerequisite, access is not an end in itself. Making education equitable implies translating progress made in access to quality participation and success. This paper critically analyses National Education Policy 2020 (MHRD, 2020) to understand how notion of capability (Sen, 2000;2009; Walker, 2005 ) is conceived in India's first education policy in the 21st century.

Globally, policy reforms in higher education place heavy emphasis on promoting competencies. Competencies are increasingly defined in terms of capacities to function per the economic production requirement (Lozano et al, 2012). Proxies for higher education quality and relevance are often labour market outcomes and wages. Competency-based education is thus primarily concerned with the instrumental values of education. The purpose of education is narrowly confined to preparing the workforce. Therefore, education policies have become a subset of the economic policies. This instrumentality in conceiving education contrasts with education's civilisational ethos and emancipatory potential.

The moral evaluative framework of development and human well-being offered by Amartya Sen (Sen, 2000; 2009) upholds the intrinsic values of education without negating the productive (economic) roles of individuals and the acquisition of competencies and skills. In contrast to competencies measured by external benchmarks, capability is internal to individuals. The Capability Approach (CA) focuses on autonomy one can enjoy, and opportunities one can choose from a combination of alternative functioning. Education is critical for expanding such capability sets (Walker & Unterhalter, 2007).

Methodology

The empirical base of the paper is discourse analysis of NEP 2020. The paper follows discourse analysis in order to understand use of languages and frameworks used to make sense of policy problem and propose policy prescriptions.

Analysis and findings

NEP 2020 has used the word capability in its ordinary sense and as a skill to be possessed by students and teachers. The word capability appeared 14 times in the entire document. Capability was narrowly defined as competency and skill. In the introduction, NEP states, "With various dramatic scientific and technological advances, such as the rise of big data, machine learning, and artificial intelligence, many unskilled jobs worldwide may be taken over by machines, while the need for a skilled workforce, particularly involving mathematics, computer science, and data science, in conjunction with multidisciplinary abilities across the sciences, social sciences, and humanities, will be increasingly in greater demand".

Analysis of the policy also reveals that the language of flexibility and choices serves the purpose of individualisation of inequalities (Gillies, 2005). While massification demands more public funding and support for the education of disadvantaged social groups, many of the provisions in the policy can act as exclusionary and disempowering measures. For instance, the choice to exit and entry, granting students to acquire credits from multiple sources and allowing students to study two full-time study programmes simultaneously. All these exacerbate capability deprivation faced by students from marginalised groups. Providing flexibility without resources does not offer the freedom to choose. It further leads to capability deprivation than capability expansion.

Conclusion

The policy text loosely uses the word capability as capacity or competency. It could be teacher and student competencies. Language competency and heavy emphasis on education's role in workforce preparation overlook the agential aspects of education as a means for expanding capabilities. An alternative narrative of competencies goes well with the changing nature of the welfare state. Distributive and redistributive dimension of policy appears to be missing in the loosely defined narrative of competency. More freedom and choice at the cost of capability expansion may fail to keep the lofty promise that NEP 2020 i.e ensuring equitable quality of education for all and inclusive human development.