Examining Meritocracy: Implications and Challenges in National Education Policy 2020

In the Rise of the Meritocracy, Young had argued that meritocracy would only perpetuate inequalities. There is the growing trend of inequalities in both developing countries and developed countries. In the recent working paper ‘Income and Wealth’ by World Inequality Lab had claimed that India’s top 1% income share is among the highest in the world. 

Merit is the measure of ability plus effort. Social status is directly link to this ability and effort, hence the expression of intellectual worth. The question of merit and its critical role as the principal source of legitimation in a field inevitably marked by discrimination and exclusion of various kinds. Merit usually refers to a certification of competence, aptitude or knowledge acquired through an examination of some kind. Merit functions as a kind of entitlement, a moral claim on society. Marc Galanter in, Competing Equalities: Lawand the Backward Classes in India had pointed out three kinds of resources which are necessary to produce the results (that is merit), first, economic resources, second, social and cultural resources (that is network) and third, intrinsic ability and hard work. It is combination of these that allows people to acquire merit. 

The National Education Policy 2020 has emerged as a focal point of widespread discourse within educational circles. The policy’s conspicuous use of the term ‘merit’ has drawn considerable scrutiny. This term is applied indiscriminately across various facets of educational governance, ranging from leadership appointments to the evaluation of students, including those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. The policy’s reliance on merit-based criteria for career advancement has been identified as a longstanding issue within the education sector. For instance, within the framework outlined in the Teachers- Recruitment and Deployment section, provisions are made to facilitate the entry of meritorious students into the teaching profession, particularly from rural locales, through the establishment of numerous merit-based scholarships. However, it is noteworthy that such initiatives, despite their intended objectives, are not without drawbacks. Moreover, the historical precedent of bureaucracies grounded in meritocracy, notably exemplified in the United States, known to be ‘spoil system’ has been subject to criticism and eventual abandonment.

The policy makes provisions for high-quality summer programmes for secondary school students, this would give students a platform to learn new skills through experiments, but the clause of admission process with rigorous merit-based with equitable admission process questions the what does ‘merit-based’ mean. Every student is different and so differently have to be guided, consulted and taught, summer schools can be the platform to achieve the educational goals. It is disturbing to see the provisions of summer programmes is to be arranged based on ‘merit-system’. It should be open to all, as summer schools are not only based on academics but also on sports, interests and much more. NEP clearly draws the sharp line between meritorious student and non- meritorious students.

Research funding allocated solely based on merit perpetuates systemic biases and disadvantages marginalized groups who may lack access to resources or opportunities. It undermines the principle of equity by prioritizing individuals who already possess advantages, further widening the gap between privileged and marginalized researchers. Additionally, a merit-based system overlooks the diverse perspectives and innovative ideas that emerge from different backgrounds and experiences. True progress in research requires inclusivity and diversity, where funding is allocated based on the potential impact and novelty of the proposed research rather than on individual merit alone. Therefore, the establishment of a National Research Fund should prioritize equitable distribution of resources, ensuring that all researchers, regardless of background or status, have equal opportunities to contribute to knowledge generation and innovation.

The concept of merit pay is relatively simple. If teachers are paid based on their performance in the class-room, they will work harder and become more effective. But this argument is flawed. There are many reasons why this system has failed. Merit pay plans fail because there are several issues, some notable are lack of agreement on what constitutes efficient teaching, no reliable instruments for assessing teaching efficiency, destruction of teacher spirit of teaching, prevention of the expression of teacher individuality, hindrance of the relationship between teachers and supervisors, unionization, and ostracism of teachers who receive merit. 

Robinson in his work of ‘Incentive pays for teachers: analysis of approaches’ has found that many school districts had dropped merit plans for a variety of technical, organizational, and financial reasons. Some of the specific problems cited were difficulties in evaluating personnel, failure to apply evaluative criteria fairly, teacher and union opposition, poor morale, staff dissension and jealousy, failure of the plans to meet their objectives, changes in school system philosophy or leadership, collective bargaining, funding shortages, overall expense of the programs, and the recognition that merit pay bonuses did not provide incentives to teachers. Robinson however concluded- that merit pay did not serve to motivate teachers. 

Merit pay and system will generate unhealthy competition and destroy the collegiality that is requisite for the school environment. Teachers are not motivated by monetary rewards, but by the pride they take in their positions of influence and leadership over the citizens of the future. Even if teachers were motivated by money, most merit pay increments are so small that they have little or no bearing on the financial status of the individuals who receive them. The number of failures of merit pay plans far exceeds the number of successes.  With the merit system, which is alone the basis of recruitment not only jeopardizes but questions the reality of affirmative actions.

The word ‘merit’ is complex, discriminatory and ambiguous, as merit can be purchased based on its own capabilities. The student or individual working with proper guidance, with economic resources readily available and the network available to higher social standing can easily outshine an individual who works without guidance, who does not have any economic resources mostly belonging from depressed classes. Bringing merit will do great injustice to hard work of the individual who lacks the resources. NEP does provide the provisions of some equitable provisions and some provision for welfare of socially depressed classes, sounds more of sympathy but introducing the term merit, leaves empathy miles away.