This is the note I wrote for the 2015-16 Annual Report of Centre for Learning Resources as its Director. I hope you will find it interesting. (To see the full Annual Report, please click here).
The big education policy event of
2016 in India is the making of … well, the National Education Policy, 2016
(NEP). Or is it?
Governments the world over have
sought to control what passes for education in schools. Many have called
schools an institution for brain-washing young minds so that they subscribe to
some particular idea of a nation. Others, more charitably, call it an exercise
in nation-building, especially necessary for “young” nations to help build a
sense of togetherness. They usually mean the same thing.
One wouldn’t think that India, the
land with a civilizational footprint millennia long, would need to invent the idea
of its nationhood afresh. One would imagine that the rich cultural, spiritual
and intellectual legacy of this land would provide a sufficiently nuanced and
complex bed in which to seed a variety of ideas and positions without anyone
feeling threatened. One would believe that the dominant sentiment that would
arise in this country would be: “I contain multitudes”.
However, the on-going debates
around NEP suggest that one would be wrong.
Most of the voices, on either
side of the debate, have tended to operate from the “how to convert them young
through education policy” paradigm. Like their predecessors over decades, the
protagonists mistakenly believe that they will transform a whole generation or
more of citizens if they can only grab control of the school curriculum.
After independence, this was
perhaps inevitable as we chose the unfamiliar motif of a written constitution
to be the new object of our allegiance. Insecurity around the success of that
project, especially given the horrific violence that accompanied freedom, would
have been enough for a determined proselytisation effort. Unfortunately, as it
became the default, unquestioned objective, each successive generation of education
policy makers has sought to find ways in which to imprint their particular
notion of India on the young minds.
Such fond wishing flies in the
face of much evidence to the contrary. The truth is that children’s attitudes
and beliefs are moulded by a lot of different environmental factors. The
preachy way in which schooling tries to do so is among the least effective of
them all.
Regardless, the “catch them
young” approach continues to be replicated in the current formulation of, and
debate around, NEP. Over the years, that obsession has created an education
system that specialises in preaching and shoving information down the throats
of the children. It gives little regard to whether what they are taught
integrates with their lived experiences, little regard to whether it builds
skills that might be useful to live a full life, little regard to creating
attitudes for living peacefully together. Most damagingly, it ensures that
children never learn the art of questioning the stories they are told, of
enquiring into the true nature of things, of challenging prejudices
constructively and doing so with consideration, respect and the need to
understand. So even though few today buy into the notion that big dams are the
temples of modern India, they lack the resources or the skills to meaningfully
enquire into what might be actually worthy of such an appellation. And India’s
anointment as a plastic surgery pioneer may draw sniggers or applause, depending
upon the prejudice, but rarely a deeper look into the ontology of such claims.
As the ability to discern, to
parse, to evaluate disappears from the classrooms, it is possible to tell the
young any story, true, false or slanted, without fear of challenge. Those who
seek to plasticise the young minds in hopes of leaving them with their own
imprints forget, and are often dismayed to discover, that such minds are
putty-like in face of competing ideologies as well.
It takes only a little thought to
draw the line from poor development of these faculties to the pervasive fracturing
of our society today, the entrenched injustice and oppression, the ease with
which narratives of violence take hold and the lack of meaning our young
struggle with. A generation schooled to not
use reason in day to day engagements will not use reason when faced with
serious challenges of life. A school day
that doesn’t help children learn respect through experiencing it (as opposed to
being preached at) will create individuals who have trouble respecting others.
If schooling prepares children primarily
to serve as foot soldiers in the cause of advancing technology, as the draft
NEP seems weighed down by, they will fail to recognise, and act from, their
value to their communities when they grow up.
The current debates on the NEP
have largely failed to challenge it on the basis of how we really need to
change our education system. Today, we need a dialogue that rejects both the
tendency to dwell a thousand years in the past on the one hand and to craft an
unmoored identity by denying our traditions on the other. We need a policy that
privileges a curriculum fostering deep enquiry, creativity, engagement and respect. However, this can
only happen if we step back from the fruitless attempts of trying to mould our
children in our images.
Of course, we can just go on
doing what we have for the last 70 years and make the NEP a non-event.
Unfortunately, we probably will.
A really good read. I had some questions regarding breaking away from this traditional method of education. The majority of children in our country do not have the privilege to an education that allows you to question and explore concepts. So, is this form of education (or proselytism) an outcome of only the course structure which has been prescribed by the government? Also, if we look at kids today, versus youngsters in say, your generation, the amount that the latter have to digest is much more in quantity (probably not quality). A possible effect of this would be that the faculty would need to shove education down the throats of children in order to complete the prescribed curricula in the given time. Another aspect would be that a majority of the teachers, who teach today, have been subject to a similar (if not exactly the same) mode of education. Thus, for them to see outside the prescribed process, or inculcate a practice of discovery and questioning would be rather alien to them. So for this change to happen, the teachers would be need to be educated, or shown the fruits of questioning too. A possible bottle-neck that could occur, even if this process began, would be that people would have to move out of their comfort zone, something that people may not like. Thus, it is essential for the government to make this the new norm, prescribe it, but before that they have to understand it. From the government's perspective, it would mean for them going out of their comfort zone, something which seldom happens. Seems like a vicious cycle. How can we break out of this?
ReplyDeleteA very good read, and a nice way to begin the day, albeit in thought! What you are arguing for is a fundamental break from the way we do education...at the same time, we seem to be trapped in our own abilities to break free. Fostering enquiry and creative expression at all levels is a tall order. The ones who have power, authority and influence seem to be completely convinced about what they are doing. How does one engage with and challenge these entrenched notions?
ReplyDeleteDuring my fellowship I used to teach History to high school students and I was quite aware of the issue of indoctrination through text books.As i heard and seen on certain occasions, The text book till 8th clearly had religious/regional overtones, the result being extreme devotion towards Historical personalities and affiliation towards religious groups without understanding the context or even without inculcating the values of their role models. While it produced unprecedented pride in one community, the other suffered an identity crisis which sent them to seminaries to feel better. To some extent these issues were handled well within our school due to awareness and good intent of the school leadership. What worked well for us that we were given ample freedom to choose our topics and texts to provide as many perspectives as possible. However the limitation of this approach was that it was completely dependent on the resourcefulness and biases of the teacher and doesn't work all the time.In a broader system the curriculum will continue to serve as a guidepost to what is being taught in the class and it is highly imperative to see that the approach and the content leads to enquiry, creativity and respect for every religion, traditions,customs, worldviews and any kind of diversity.~Ãrjun
ReplyDeleteAn excellent analysis. I fully agree with what Shesh says. Unless we foster the spirit of enquiry and stimulate the intellectual faculties of students to question and analyse, the real purpose of education will remain unfulfilled. One can do no better than make the essays of Bertrand Russell, both on education and scepticism, compulsory reading for our policy makers.
ReplyDeleteIndeed a thought provoking read. In the recent times, the debates on definition of nationalism and patriotism and ways to practice them, have been flared up across the country. The above debates illustrate the most important aspect of vibrant democracy: the platform for dialogue. However, the sad thing is that no bridge to the polarized extremism seems visible and all that echoes is mere noise.
ReplyDeleteThe CJI T S Thakur said that religion cannot be allowed to enter the politics and for the largest democracy in the world, it is a very big step. Hopefully, the same should be extended to education system as well. To me, attempt to proselytisation is not a bigger threat; the bigger threat is the ignorance and indifference by our society to such an attempt.
As pointed out in the article, there are multiple environment factors which foster the child’s development and one such factor is the exposure to enquiring mode of learning instead of preaching mode. However, the responsibility to foster such an environment doesn’t rely entirely on schools. How often do we observe such a practice in our society, where we can question the viewpoints of elders, our supervisors in work places? It is also the lack of exposure to the enquiry mode of education that preaching mode of teaching is not questioned.
Our education system is a reflection of our society and we all as part of society need to take responsibility to foster the spirit of enquiry and to question with right intention in our families, our social circle, and our professional and political realm.