We are too busy; do not have enough time to go through the pages of the draft report on New Education Policy.We have more important duties to perform like watching the world cup matches. And, some of us are too busy – attending the ‘protest march’ of some organisation or the other for a hundred rupee note, liquor and a plate of biriyani.
Why the hell should we read the report when ‘our leaders’ would do what is needed? To leave education in the hands of unscrupulous politicians is sure to have the most harmful effect on their future. Are we for it?
It is by now known to almost every one that education is the only saving grace to lift a family from out of poverty to social, economic freedom. But, the apathy among the public in matters of education has not diminished a bit and this negligence keeps ailing the society.
It is more than a week now since the draft report on new education policy was presented by the committee to the Government of India. Yet, nobody in the media is willing to know what the report says except that there is something in it that advocates compulsory Hindi!!!
Not a single word has been uttered by anyone about other recommendations of the committee. In a way, it is good because there are so many ideas that need to be strongly protested against as there are good ones too in equal numbers.
The draft report recommends a ‘truly revolutionising’ system of pedagogical structure. The report says the new one will be in place of the current 10+2 system of 1968. (if i am correct, this 10+2 pattern came into effect from 1978)
The committee has now come up with 5+3+3+4 design. Against 12 years of formal education, the report now suggests 15 years. Where do the ‘extra’ 3 years come from?
It is very simple. The new structure brings the 3 year old children into the formal education. It means that the curriculum or the pedagogy covers students from 3 to 18 years of age, as it is mentioned in the report. The committee calls it ‘developmentally appropriate curriculum’.
The report says – ‘based on natural cognitive and practical considerations regarding the optimal holistic development of students, the new curricular and pedagogical structure for school education will therefore be of immense value in truly revolutionising, and thereby making more effective, our school education system’. Is it suffocating? We can’t help it.
As we keep saying, the committee has displayed an utterly unfriendly approach in presenting the report in the lifeless bureaucratic language so familiar with the notifications / circulars of the Government departments. It is gruelling if not sickening. It need not have been so cruel. This is perhaps the reason why many ‘intelligent’ people do not venture into reading such scripts ever in their lifetime.
Coming back to the subject, is it really so ‘revolutionising’ as the committee so gracefully pats itself on its back?
The curricular and pedagogical structure is reconfigured to ‘5+3+3+4’ design, corresponding to the age ranges of 3-8,8-11, 11-14 and 14-18 years –as it is given in the report. Ok. Why is the change suggested? What are the reasons that necessitate a change? Believe me, it has not been explained.
The committee has not considered presenting a strong argument for a change in the current pattern of 10+2. All it says is that ‘to make them responsive and relevant to the developmental needs and interests of learners at different stages of their development, the structure is reconfigured’.
And..? Nothing else.
Is there any finding with the committee to substantiate the theory that the present 10+2 pattern would not suit the ‘developmental needs’ anymore? Is it really thecurrent ‘design’ that affects the ‘interests of learners at their development’? How can the committee jump into a conclusion without a solid evidence to support its claim? Is the system to be thrown away just because it is in practice for 4 decades? (it is NOT 50 years as the report says)
In stead of the current 12 years of formal school education, the new policy envisages a period of 15 years. Would a longer duration of education be helpful in sustaining the interests of the learners? It does not sound logical. Basic common sense of an ordinary citizen like me tells the opposite.
A change, that too, a ‘revolutionising’ one, when suggested, MUST have been fully supported by effective and forceful statements of facts and figures so that it could be accepted. Just a wilful presentation does not augur well for a committee of learned, esteemed personalities.
The recommendation might still be a very good one and may fetch good results too. All these things come at a much later stage when it is implemented. But at the time of ’recommendation’, is it not mandatory to present a detailed, well argued case for the change of pattern for something new?
Again, we do not question the ‘effectiveness’ of the new design. But is there a case for change really? The committee may perhaps decide to offer something more in the final report.
What does the new design mean?
5 years of Foundational stage – 3 years of pre-primary school and Grades 1 & 2.
3 years of Preparatory (or Latter Primary) Stage – Grades 3, 4 & 5.
3 years of the Middle (or Upper Primary) Stage – Grades 6, 7 & 8.
4 years of High (or Secondary) Stage – Grades 9, 10, 11 & 12.
The report says – ‘the Foundational Stage will comprise 5 years of flexible, multilevel, play-based, activity-based, and discovery based learning, continuously incorporating the latest research in ECCE as well as the various time tested Indian traditions for cognitive and emotional stimulation of children’. (P4.1.1.a)
Is there anything left? It is an excellent game of putting all the eggs into one basket. It is going to be ‘flexible’, multilevel, ‘discovery’ based, cognitive and emotional stimulation…. simply incredulous.
A recommendation can never be too idealistic. When it is so, it becomes more fictional than factual. What exactly are our plans to bring all these ‘qualities’ into the teaching materials or methodology to live up to this unreasonably tall order? Or, is it meant to be more of ‘guiding principles’ like Part IV and IV-A of our revered Constitution that is followed more in breach than practice?
The problem with the committee is that it has decided to proceed with a pre-conceived idea of ‘everything at present is bad’ and that there is something called ‘21st century demands’ and the whole system of school education has to be re-modelled to suit the needs of the day.
If one is to build a structure on a weak, crumbling premise of an illusionary ‘threat’, sorry to say, the ‘result’ just can not be formidable enough to stand against any ‘alteration’ at a later stage. The new ‘design’ thus leaves more questions than answers.
Is the committee aware of this inherent weakness of not having explained adequately to push for a ‘revolutionary change’?
The question remains – will there be an answer?
(to continue
-baskaran Krishnamurthy
Mail: [email protected]
WhatsApp us