Why NEP’s Promise of Student Autonomy Remains Unfulfilled
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has been widely promoted as a shift toward child-centric education, focusing on holistic development, flexibility, and creativity. However, despite its rhetoric of reform, the policy largely preserves the existing top-down administrative structure, restricting genuine student autonomy.
Expanding Bureaucratic Control Under Reformist Language
While the NEP claims to move away from rote-based learning, it introduces prescriptive measures on how students should learn rather than fostering self-directed education. Concepts like social-emotional learning and creativity—though valuable—are being institutionally dictated rather than naturally integrated into students’ learning experiences.
A truly learner-centric approach would prioritize student agency, allowing flexibility in pacing, curriculum choices, and learning methods. However, the NEP continues to reinforce administrative authority by maintaining a structured framework where policymakers and institutions dictate educational pathways.
The Reality Behind Promised Flexibility
One of the NEP’s key highlights is its promise of flexible subject selection, allowing students to explore interdisciplinary education. However, systemic constraints make this flexibility largely theoretical rather than practical.
- Rigid school structures prioritize administrative efficiency over individual learning needs.
- Fixed schedules and subject limitations prevent schools from offering diverse courses.
- Standardized testing and college admission norms continue to dominate student evaluation, leaving little room for personalized education.
A widely circulated YouTube video from Fixing Education showcased the extensive subject options available under NEP. However, thousands of students commented that their schools never offered these choices—either due to resource constraints or lack of institutional willingness to implement them. Schools often select courses based on faculty availability rather than student demand, contradicting the NEP’s vision.
Why NEP Remains Child-Centric in Name Only
A genuinely child-centric approach requires deeper structural reforms beyond policy rhetoric. Meaningful reforms should include:
- Student-Designed Learning Pathways: Enabling students to co-create their curriculum based on interests and career goals.
- Self-Paced Learning Models: Moving away from rigid grade-based learning to accommodate diverse learning speeds.
- Flexible Attendance & Mental Health Considerations: Allowing students to manage their learning schedules without academic penalties.
- Redefined Assessment Methods: Reducing reliance on high-stakes exams and incorporating diverse evaluation metrics.
The Need for Honest Educational Discourse
Labeling reforms as “child-centric” when they remain institutionally driven creates a false sense of progress. Instead of redefining education to empower students, the NEP largely expands administrative oversight.
For education to truly center around students, reforms must challenge systemic barriers rather than merely repackage existing structures. Until then, student autonomy remains an unfulfilled promise, with flexibility and choice existing more in policy documents than in real classrooms.
