Educational Policy: Constructive ideas as the report moves higher – Part VIII

Share

Tweet

Share

Share

Email

Comments

It is surprising if not mysterious that nobody is prepared to discuss about the draft report in its entirety. Eminent scholars and the so called educationists keep confined to one or two areas of their ‘interest’ and make all sorts of comments carrying their personal wishes and expectations. It is high time that we apply a holistic approach towards ‘Education’.

Normally, an issue for contention will have two sides representing two different / divergent parties to it. One can say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and may even stay neutral keeping a more or less an equidistance from both sides. But, ‘education’ is totally different because it has so many ‘players’ and it has many, many dimensions with as many preferences and perceptions.

There are teachers, students, parents, policy makers, administrators, school owners, educationists, sociologists, psychologists and of course the inevitable evil – the politicians. All these do have a role to play in shaping an appreciable system of education in the country.

Education as such is a personal, domestic, social, economic and political issue that can never be addressed by any single block. When it is as much a personal / domestic issue, have we have ever thought of going to the mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers to have their views too?  

If so, i.e. in the event of the committee having gathered the opinions / views of the domestic members as well, is it not the duty of the committee to have given the details in its report? Sadly, there is no mention about it anywhere in the report which means that no such interaction has ever taken place.  What ‘study’ is this then?

It has never once happened in independent India to have the referendum of the people on any of the issues concerning their well being; that affects their day-to-day life in more ways than one. The standard ‘procedure’ all along has been to thrust the decisions of the authorities on the public and every citizen is bound to obey the orders.

Education, particularly the pre-school or elementary education, is all about what the children have to undergo in their prime, precious childhood days. But, these children have no role to play in deciding about it. Naturally, they cannot. In that case, our responsibility has to be all the more crucial, not all the more cruel my friends.

When we design a ‘course’ for the children, we have to think, as far as possible, from the position of the children; from their point of view. To say that ‘it is for their good; they have to bear with it’ is simply unacceptable. It is brutal; it is cruel; it is unjustifiably harsh; it is nothing short of bureaucratic arrogance at its worst best.

About the foundational stage, to be mandatory for children of 3 years, the report speaks about ‘cognitive and emotional stimulation of children’. What does the term ‘stimulation’ mean? Oxford dictionary says it is ‘to animate, to excite, to arouse’.  Are we able to comprehend the inherent danger? It is NOT going to be the natural hunt or a search of the child. It will be something thrust upon them.

A child of 3 -7 years, to be brought under the foundational stage, may have a WORLD of his/ her own imagination. This would be his / her own domain for every child. This is a territory very much of their own that should not be breached by any authority that includes the parents. This is where the child grows ino an individual. This ‘world’ has no rules; this is not the stereotyped life. Here, everything is new; fresh; original; unadulterated.  

That is why i keep repeating it in my talks with the parents whenever i get an opportunity interact with them – ‘all parents are same; but, every child is different’. 

We can see ourselves that two children of the same parents, even in the case of twins, think, behave and live differently. When that be the case, a formal education, aimed at ‘stimulating’ their ‘cognitive’(?) and emotional skills would be a severe blow to all that is original in a child.

Is it not a blatant violation of the rights of the children? Yes – and there can be no doubt.  Am sure this recommendation just cannot stand a legal scrutiny by any Court of Law. Wish someone take it up.

Well. We have said and spent so much on the pre-school education. Let us move on.

Preparatory stage will have activity based pedagogical and curricular style education, gradually beginning to incorporate textbooks. ‘There would mostly be generalist teachers with the possible exception of some specialist language and art teachers’. The Middle Stage will have ‘more abstract concepts across sciences, mathematics, arts, social sciences and humanities.’ Nothing new; nothing objectionable; and so, it seems to be very much acceptable, though there is nothing particularly appreciable as well.

The Secondary Stage will have 4 years of ‘multi disciplinary study and will build on the subject oriented pedagogical and curricular style of the Middle Stage, but with greater depth, greater critical thinking, greater attention to life aspirations, and greater flexible and student choice’. What we understand is that everything will be ‘greater’ and, yes, it has to be so.

The idea is good and the mention of ‘greater attention to life aspirations’ is really an appreciable move. ‘Flexible and student choice’ must also be too beneficial provided this can be implemented to the extent it bears the fruits at the expected level. There is no reason to be sceptical. As a recommendation, it is a great step forward to making the curriculum more relevant and more ‘rewarding’. It is good.

In fact, as we move higher from the Foundational Stage to the Secondary Stage, the report appears to be more constructive and more ‘cognitive’ as the committee would love to call it. The ideas and suggestions seem to carry a definitive purpose and follow a certain principle of utility-based realistic approach to higher studies.

The best, most constructive part comes here. The report says – ‘Each year of the Secondary Stage will be divided into 2 semesters, for a total of 8 semesters. Each student would take 5-6 subjects each semester. There will be some essential common subjects for all, while simultaneously there will be a great flexibility in selecting elective courses (including in the arts, vocational subjects, and physical education) so that all students can expand their horizons as they see fit and explore their individual interests and talents. A system of modular Board examinations – restructured to test only core concepts, principles, critical thinking and other high order skills in each subject – will help pin down the common courses, while great flexibility will be offered for remaining courses.’  ( Part -4.1.1.d)

The parts under the head ‘Holistic development of learners’ (4.2) and under the caption ‘Reduce curriculum content to enhance essential learning and critical thinking’ (4.3) are well written. They provide necessary insights required to work out a strategy to reach the desired target.

Part 4.4 of the report is easily the best of all. What does it say?

(to continue…

Baskaran Krishnamurthy

Mail: [email protected]