In one of the responses to my write-up last week, a long serving academic -   
now in his sweet seventies – known for his abiding concern for education and 
social well being, wrote:

I endorse whole heartedly the concluding statement that “the vital role of 
teachers needs a lot of improvement in it in terms of accountability, training, 
motivation”.  I live near the Salem belt where schools “drill” students to mug 
up answers and vomit them back in answer books so that they can score 100 % 
marks and gain entrance to professional colleges. The Salem–Rasipuram schools 
have specialised in this routine.  The teachers there are well versed in making 
the students capable of learning by heart passages in the books.  Their 
services are demanded and get a premium. In one sense, the commercialisation of 
education has improved standards.  In another, it is disrupting the very 
purpose of education.  I hope that you would be touching on this dilemma in 
your second part.

This paragraph succinctly sums up what struck the learned Professor as four of 
the glaring problems of the present education system at the school and college 
levels, namely, students being forced to “mug up”, unwholesome competitiveness, 
commercialisation, and how commercialisation has been disrupting the very 
purpose of education. There are several other problems as well. There cannot be 
any educational reform even in higher education without addressing these 
problems effectively.

The competitiveness is not because the education system is of high quality; it 
is because of demand-supply mismatch, location problems, the inherent 
deficiencies of the system related to financing, quality control, lack of 
regulatory mechanisms, and so on. Whichever way one sees the system, it cannot 
be gainsaid that while school education is the backbone of the entire education 
system, teachers are the backbone of the entire school education system.

In the report, Learning: The Treasure Within, submitted to UNESCO, by an 
International Commission on Education for the twenty-first century, declaring 
education as “the principal means available to foster a deeper and more 
harmonious form of human development and thereby to reduce poverty, exclusion, 
ignorance, oppression and war,” Jacques Delors, chairman of the Commission, 
wrote:

In a troubled and constantly changing world much is expected and much demanded 
of teachers. The importance of the role of teacher as an agent of change, 
promoting understanding and tolerance, has never been more obvious than today… 
The need for change places enormous responsibilities on teachers who 
participate in the moulding of the character and minds of the new generation 
(UNESCO, 1996, 141-2).

Closely related to these observations are those of Federico Mayor, 
Director-General of UNESCO, in his Foreword to World Education Report: Teachers 
and Teaching in a Changing World (the fourth in UNESCO’s series of World 
Education Reports, UNESCO 1998):

The world we leave to our children depends in large measure on the children we 
leave to our world. The world’s hopes for the future rest with today’s young 
people and their readiness to take up the challenges of the coming century. On 
the threshold of the twenty-first century, the education of the young has never 
been more in need of our commitment and resources. Our teachers have never been 
more crucial to our collective future.

These observations have greater relevance to India whose youth account for 
about two-thirds of its population; and yet many of them remain illiterate or 
semi-literate because of the deficiencies in the education system, a system in 
which many teachers do not teach and many students do not learn, and which is 
often characterised by what Ivan Illich termed in a different context   as    
“pedagogical hubris”.

Childhood is the most critical stage in human life. As Russian educationist V 
Sukhomlinsky  observed,  in  the context of the  importance and significance of 
 the  mastering  of knowledge, the  kind of man the child of today turns  into 
is  determined  above  all  by the kind  of  childhood  he  had (remember the 
adage “the child is father of man”).  But lack of access to   education 
deprives many children of even elementary access to the pleasures of, in 
Sukhomlinsky’s metaphor, that fairy tale palace that we call “childhood”. The 
result  has been  a  vicious  nexus and  vicious  circle  between  illiterate 
childhood  and  illiterate  adulthood  consigning   most  of  the potential 
beneficiaries of knowledge to the dung heap of  society,  their  intellectual  
and social  emasculation  and  psychological impotence; their  related  
“culture  of silence” or briefly,  the stifling   of  the social intellect,   
through both overt and covert operations of a formidable array of undesirable 
societal mechanisms.

In Indian context the sleaze in education is not only at the higher levels: it 
is pervasive, starting from the pre-KG making school education itself a den of 
corruption, malfeasance, and malpractices. If experience is any indication, 
there is a lot to be said against Indian school system which often produces 
educated illiterates; gradually snuffing out the spirit of learning and 
curiosity of children by the very same schools which are expected to encourage 
them in developing both.

To give some instances, in one case, when a three year old boy was taken to 
school for admission to the pre-KG, out of curiosity, on his own he went and 
sat with other children of similar age who were sitting in open space under a 
tree (the school was then in a dilapidated “palace” run by its Rani, and the 
main buildings were added later. The school is in the “elite league” of Chennai 
with swimming pools, playgrounds, and so on, inviting editors-in-chief of 
“India’s national newspapers”, film actors, and so on, for its annual public 
show, and has now up to Standard XII, and even a women’s college with about 
5000 to 6000 students in the school  alone. Sadly, however, far from fulfilling 
its proclaimed mission of imparting quality education it has been a 
money-spinner.

The boy mentioned, continued his education here with all his playful innocence 
and passed out Standard XII. As he reached Standard VIII or so, his parents 
discovered that Maths was his enemy number one. There was no way of shifting 
him to another school as the education system lacked, as it still does, the 
required flexibility. By the time he reached Standard X, Tamil Nadu was in the 
thick of a language controversy, with the government insisting on Tamil as the 
medium of instruction even in matriculation schools and the matter reaching the 
Madras High Court. I had a two-part article on this, “The language muddle”, in 
the leader page of The Hindu, on December 29-30, 1999. After a year or so, the 
boy had to choose between matriculation and CBSE which the school offered.

By this time following a government order the school shifted its matriculation 
stream to another campus. When the boy decided to opt for matriculation and 
wanted to shift to the other campus, the management insisted on capitation fee, 
treating his admission as fresh. Considering that he had spent about thirteen 
years in the school, the   demand for capitation fee was seen as unfair by his 
parents. His father contacted his media friends to bring the issue to public 
gaze. But the response was one of helplessness. “How are we to prove this”? 
“One of our own colleagues gave a similar amount in the same school” and so 
went the response. To cut a long story short, his parents refused to pay the 
capitation fee, and wanted his son to continue in the same school which 
retained the CBSE stream on its old campus. But there was again a catch. He, 
like many other students, was forced to write a “qualifying” internal exam, and 
when he was about to be admitted, the school insisted on additional payment on 
some pretext. The helpless parents made the payment.

When the boy’s sister, five years younger to him, was taken to the same school 
for admission, the principal insisted that she be admitted to the newly started 
Montessori system and charged a hefty sum as “donation” in addition to the 
usual fees. By the time she reached Standard X, Tamil Nadu government had 
abolished the common entrance test for admission to degree courses. The state, 
like some other states, patronizes only the state board and even limits its 
awards and incentives only to the state board schools. By this time, some 
schools had already discontinued admission of students to Standard XI under the 
CBSE stream. Seeing the bleak scenario in the state for CBSE students, the 
parents shifted the girl from the school where she started her schooling right 
from the Montessori to a state board school, much against her wish as the bond 
between her and the school was of some thirteen years and she had to leave many 
of her friends. That many of her friends had also left the school to join state 
board schools is a different issue.

The above  narrations are important for several reasons such as the 
arbitrariness of the schools, lack of mechanisms to ensure quality education 
and quality (and committed) teachers, lack of neighborhood schools, rigidity of 
the school system which prevents children from switching schools, use of 
private schools for commerce and greed, failure of the media to expose the 
imperfections, inadequacies, and even egregious lapses of the schools, 
government’s failure to treat the different streams alike because of regional 
and language politics; and at the same time failure to nurture even government 
schools.

Though only the poorest of the poor patronize government schools, given a 
chance even many of them would still prefer private schools despite all their 
limitations is a telltale of the poor state of school education. In other 
states it may not be any better.

On June 10, 2009, The Hindu reported the decision of the Chennai Corporation to 
merge its schools that lack patronage which led to the closure of 30 schools in 
various localities in the city. This must be happening in other places also.

Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu government had set up a committee headed by former 
Vice-Chancellor of Bharathidasan University S. Muthukumaran to examine the 
possibility of bringing in uniform syllabus standards. The government appointed 
retired IAS officer, M.P. Vijayakumar, – a person who when in service was known 
for his professional integrity and strong criticism of the school education 
system in the state – to study the recommendations and advise about the 
implementation.

The committee visited various states to study the syllabus and examination 
patterns. Based on its findings, Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi, told the 
Assembly on July 15, 2009, that the government has taken a policy decision to 
implement a uniform school education system in the state, but is adopting a 
cautious approach to avoid adverse consequences.  “When we usher in a mega 
change in the education system, we have to take into consideration the 
interests of lakhs of students to ensure that it does not affect any section,” 
he said.

Of the four streams in the high school system 82 per cent of the students are 
enrolled in schools that follow the state board syllabus; sixteen per cent are 
in matriculation stream; and the rest are in two other streams. As the state 
board has a uniform syllabus, the reference to uniformity is only in the 
context of integrating the remaining 18 per cent with the state board. One has 
to wait and see if the envisaged uniformity results in hegemonic homogenization 
of the BJP type.

Though Tamil Nadu is a relatively advanced state in education, the state has to 
do a lot more to ensure that the school education system – both public and 
private – is within easy access and affordability of students, efficient, 
flexible, corruption free, and does not cause trauma to students while seeking 
entry into the system at different levels and into higher education. For doing 
this the state has to establish many more schools at different levels, and 
colleges of different types, depoliticize the education system by, among other 
things, ensuring that institutions are not of politicians, by introducing 
regulatory and monitoring mechanisms, preferably by involving parents and 
former students, at primary, middle, secondary, and higher secondary levels, so 
that each segment sustains itself and prepares the students for the succeeding 
ones.

What is mentioned about Tamil Nadu is by way of illustration. As India’s 
education system has been in disarray and disrepair reforming it should be in 
its entirety, by identifying and correcting the fault lines at different 
levels, giving it impetus in keeping with the needs of democratization of 
access, equity, and excellence. As school education is still a state subject, 
how the Centre can reach out to the states is an important issue for debate.

Focusing on higher education (of which more later) without renovation and 
rejuvenation (the key words of the task of the Yashpal Committee), of that 
vital segment of the   system which  prepares students for higher education, 
namely school education, may not have the desired results. In this context, it 
is important to have adequate data on the school education system. The data 
available at any given time is like the data of the decennial censuses, say 
about ten years behind and often irrelevant.  Educational reform cannot make 
progress without relevant and meaningful data.

 The public-private partnership in education which Kapil Sibal has indicated is 
already there even for school education. As many private institutions exist 
mostly for commerce and greed the nation cannot afford to have any more of 
them, while the existing ones need to be brought under public scanner and 
subjected to regulatory mechanisms.

Though the Yashpal Committee report is on higher education, it is important to 
note its following observations:

We were struck by the fact that over the years we have followed policies of 
fragmenting our educational enterprise into cubicles. We have overlooked that 
new knowledge and new insights have often originated at the boundaries of 
disciplines. We have tended to imprison disciplinary studies in opaque walls. 
This has restricted flights of imagination and limited our creativity. This 
character of our education has restrained and restricted our young right from 
the school age (emphasis added) and continues that way into college and 
university stages.

The reference above to “right from the school age” is a pointer to Sibal and 
the MHRD, and the education ministries of various states to trace the malaise 
to its roots.

Reply via email to