Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, was a great champion of skill-based education. His thoughts on skill education have been unswervingly resonated in almost every single policy document brought out by the successive governments in the post-Independence period. One of the major recommendations of the National Education Policy (NEP) 1968 was to make work experience and national service integral parts of education. The 1986 policy also recommended the introduction of vocational education as a distinct stream after the secondary stage of school education with some scope of making it available after grade eight. Of the two important recommendations it made, one was to provide generic vocational programmes that cut across several occupational areas and another was to ensure a vertical opening for school graduates at the tertiary level. It proposed that vocational courses should cover 10% of higher secondary students by 1995 and 25% by 2000. Somehow, the outcomes of the recommendations of both the policies have not been close to being good enough, primarily because of the failures in implementation. Thus, the conditions of vocational education across different stages of education in the country still leave a lot to be desired.
Like the earlier policies, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has also given a greater importance to the vocationalisation of education. It has aimed to provide every child the exposure to at least one vocation, commencing from the middle stage of school education, right up to higher education. The policy has recommended that, by 2025, at least 50% of students, both in school and higher education, would be given the exposure to vocational programmes, and for that, the possibilities of Open and Distance Learning (ODL) would also be explored and that the Ministry would constitute a National Committee for the Integration of Vocational Education (NCIVE). It has also recommended the revision of the National Skill Qualification Framework (NSQF), which would be required obviously for creating some more levels to accommodate the middle stages of school education and aligning different levels with the upcoming trades.
Since vocationalisation of education has not met with success thus far, it may be necessary to look into the times gone by with a view of removing the roadblocks that have frustrated the earlier efforts. The development of skilled human resources as a part of school education had been visualised through vocationalisation of education even during the colonial period. The Sadler Commission (1917-19) and the Sargent Commission (1944) made appropriate references to this aspect in their respective reports with no outcomes of any kind. In post-Independence India, the Secondary Education Commission (1952-53) emphasised vocational education through the introduction of a multipurpose system of education by converting 10-year high school to 11-year higher secondary school.
The diversification of education into academic and vocational streams as a part of school education was conceived after grade eight. The Education Commission (1964-66) suggested the 10 + 2 + 3 pattern of education for the national system of education and recommended the diversification of education into academic and vocational streams after grade 10. Notwithstanding the recommendations of both the commissions, the system could not provide proper orientation to vocational education.
Towards the success of the vocationalisation of education, Socially Useful Productive Work (SUPW) was made an integral part of school curriculum up to class 10 with the provision for pre-vocational courses. NCERT brought out quite a significant document on post-secondary education and its vocationalisation which provided an excellent framework for the implementation of the idea. The Education Commission (1964-66) emphasized the diversion of 25% of students into vocational streams at the school level. But the recommendations met with only sporadic success for a variety of reasons. First, the status perception of vocational education remained very weak in the minds of the school-going population. Second, schools were not equipped effectively to offer vocational courses except those relating to secretarial practice. Third, teaching and learning materials were not available in regional languages. Fourth, no formal teacher training in vocational education was put in place to prepare teachers to run vocation programs in schools. Fifth, regular teachers were assigned the job of handling the vocational courses without any orientation. Sixth, the Apprenticeship Act did not recognise the vocational programs offered in schools with those offered in industrial training institutes and polytechnics. Seventh, there was no vertical mobility for vocational pass-outs which created a serious handicap, except in a few states which provided entry to these students into engineering programmes.
The Focus Group on Work and Education developed by the NCERT as an input to the National Curriculum Framework (NCF), 2005 came out with a suggestion that vocational education would develop better outside the framework of the formal school system through industrial training institutes, community polytechnics and community colleges. Subsequently, the situation was sought to be remedied through the skill development initiatives under the National Vocational Education Qualification Framework (NVEQF) in 2012 and, later on, through the National Skill Qualification Framework (NSQF) in 2014. Alongside, the National Skill Development Council (NSDC) outlined National Occupational Standards (NOSs) to provide benchmark references for employable skills. It provides a good platform to implement the recommendations of the NEP, 2020.
The relevance of vocational education will continue to rise in times to come. It becomes all the more pertinent with the thrust of the NEP, 2020 towards the universalisation of school education, skill development and social justice through inclusive education and training. The focus of vocational education is to offer the youth with opportunities to choose programs of study in keeping with their aptitudes, interest and abilities. This obviously would increase their employability which would, in turn, provide the society with personnel which has a wide spectrum of knowledge and hands-on-experience. It also aims at the reduction and elimination of frustration among the youth which results from non-productive and aimless pursuit of academic education.
We need not just literate youth but to bequeath them with skills which can fetch them gainful employment across the globe. This would require the acquisition of skills and competencies comparable with international standards. As our economy and industry grow, there is likely to be an imminent shortage of skilled human resource. As a country endowed with huge human resources, we cannot afford to let this be a constraint. Earlier, things have not gone in the desired direction, but this time, the opening as envisaged in the NEP 2020 must not be allowed to slip. The bottom line is that the cause of partial success of this idea in the past will have to be kept in view to ensure that the handicaps experienced in achieving success earlier are overcome now.
The writer is former Chairman, UGC. The views expressed are personal.
