What is Worth teaching?

Krishna Kumar has written an interesting facts about Indian education system. linking the present scenario to historic events and shaping the present situation by our future aspiration. It talks about poor curriculum structure in our institute, division of public and private schools, examination system, intensive focus on text book based learning, reading and story telling in class room, negative impact of absents of co-education, centralized system and revisiting Gandhi concept of basic education. he also come down heavily on Pakistan and Indian history text book as both tries to interpret same history in their own conveniences.
The book “What is worth teaching?” is written to express the check point on Indian education system. Krishna Kumar in the introductory passage coined out two critics on Indian education system. First the approached of education embedded in a form of ‘received’ knowledge and equating certain information as knowledge. Second, agreed dissociation between the curriculum and the child’s immediate socio-cultural and physical environment and the zeal (very disappointing) with which principles of curriculum designing, teacher training etc. are demanded and applied. He highlighted the problem of curriculum by raising three fundamental. They are: What is worth teaching? How it should be taught? How are the opportunities for education distributed? In trying to determine the meaning of ‘worth’ two routes were considered. First, deciding the worth of what we want to teach in view of learner’s needs and abilities. Second, determining worth in terms of the intrinsic value of what we want to teach.

 If we were to take the first approached, every child is unique with distinct personalities, test, capacity and likes but education has to deal thousands of children and thus have to compromise with the generalization of children’s personalities and uniqueness. Another hindrance in the first route is the inability of an adult to completely submerge as a child and express child view. Further this route become complex as children are often interested in all forms of knowledge, their likings keeps on changing with ages and their inability to connect the worth of knowledge. Thus, this complexity disqualified the question of what is worth teaching on children point of view. But, another modest approached is thinking on ‘behalf of children’ rather than finding out the way they think, doing this a better meaning of worth come as, ‘it is worth teaching something that can be learnt’. Psychology and pedagogy contribute in learning process but only after determining what is worth teaching.

The second route tries to identify (inquiry) the ‘intrinsic value’ of the knowledge we want to impart on the condition which are learnable (as concluded from first route). Knowledge’s are classified in to real and false knowledge and thus delineate false knowledge from teaching. Economy, politics, and culture influenced on the education system and thus damage intrinsic value of knowledge by selection of knowledge rather than qualifying knowledge as possessing intrinsic value. Inequality in the distribution of education opportunity has built a culture of ignorance among literate about illiterate and vies versa. Mitigating the divide between the influential and the neglected through deliberate social dialogue will broaden the already narrowed curriculum. Inquiring the knowledge structure is lacking as the curriculum designing and pedagogical research are strictly control buy quasi-bureaucracy and state control institution. He has mentioned the short coming in NCF 2000 but failed to inculcate NCF 2005 which has taken a giant leap from other approached in revised edition.

Culture of text book has its root during colonial rule. Introduction of text book during this period was mainly due to the objective of education English ruler has set. Educating Indian was seen as a consumer to their literature, innovation, language, product (books, material, and methods) and knowledge as well as a produce (class) by acculturating the children an youths in western attitude and perception and giving them skill to occupy middle and lower rung in colonial administration. The indigenous knowledge creation capacity was intimidated by various colonial policy and procedure. Bureaucratic design of curriculum, common examination, specific text book subscription and low paid, low status has bind teachers to unmotivated and lack luster profession. British Text book publication house has set up business in India and influence in text book schooling policy formulation. Introduction of English as a subject and as a medium to learn all other subject made it impossible to learn without books but learning as a process of memorizing by heart and reproducing in the common examination. After the colonial rule nothing drastic changes are made on curriculum, text book, examination, teachers training but, continue with bureaucratic and institutionalized control over education system. Here, the author position is not clear as he critics like an outsider instead of his long association with the education system at significant capacity.

 The suspicion that in trying to attained quantity, quality will be diminished cannot be just ignored anymore. The drastic division in the state provided education and private education has become so violent. Children from the former institute without any facilities or resources have to seat for the same common public exam whit children form latter institute where almost everything needed is supplied. The concept of meritocracy in education has created elitism and exclusivity in education thereby further narrowing the educable children and educated population. The critics on elite institute is the pattern they are disconnecting themselves from the milieu they function and diminishing the approached to unity of human kind and equality of all men and inability to produced Excellency and world standard achievement. To do away with common public examination thus not serves the problem and the author didn’t try to explore any alternatives either besides being inveighs on the divided structure of our education. 

Drop-out rate during primary education is very high in India and many studies point on economic factor. Highest drop-out occurs at an early age and most of the drop-outs are fitted as cheap labor. The reading culture of foreign language in the class and curriculum strange to the milieu of the child has act as an agent for high drop out. Thus, children faced both pull and push factor. Child centered learning process can be an innovative means to control drop-out rate provided the govt. provided free education in real sense and check the banya class benefiting from cheap child labor. In quest to control elimination (drop-out) Krishna has proposed for story telling as daily activities in class. The positive side of storytelling helps to develop good listening skill, gives training in prediction, meaning to words, and extend world of imagination.

In the section growing up male he pointed out the negative side of separate school for girls and boys. He has included his personal experience how distaining himself from girls further undermine the value of women and look upon women more as an object. He minutely express the effect of separate schools for boys and girls but is too benign in criticizing the institution, culture, believes, religion attitude promoting distant between girls and boys. He clearly pointed out dichotomic approached of Gandhiji and Nehru on education.  Former approaches of basic education as not applicable as it would end up promoting child labor and the latter approaches as too mechanical, elitist and not in sync with the economy condition of India. Pedagogy in our education has never made an attempt to include a secular ideology but used education as a means to propagate secularism. The author has made a brave moved by openly denouncing the political party trying to divert the true essence of history and also educated class practicing double standard approached of religion on public life and private performance misleading the ignorant mass.

In sarcasm but in right note the author empathized the educated class of India and Pakistan who has perceived the same history interpreted in two contradicting version. Both the nation denied the intrinsic influence of communalism during the freedom struggle. Indian claims its independent as the establishment of secular nation and Pakistan as country shape in cultural vision. But, the problem is both the nation fails to acknowledges the existence even after more than 50 years of separate existence and a giant leap in history of freedom struggle where differences arouse under two nation theory. These make history incomprehensive and leave a bitter experience to children in both the countries.  

The mass respond to Anna (Gandhian) movement against corruption suffice the relevance of Gandhi’s philosophy in this globalized world. Gandhian approaches on basic education has fundamental element  of making school self-reliance, participative action, active learning which are all outweighed and rejected in the sense that it will promote child labor. But the present scenario shows that lakhs of schools are completely paralyzed due to lack of funds (in some region over funded but no takers of the benefits) and teacher completely bind to rules and regulation where any innovation in not accepted. Rediscovering Gandhi’s concept of education and making it relevant in present society, reformation should be preceded by creation of receptive socio-political milieu and flexibility and diversity of approached. Saying so, the author did not ignore the challenges line up per se. Gandhi’s rejection of text book centered learning was once again confirmed by Yashpal committee findings. To continue his (Gandhi) legacy and rejuvenate the present trodden education system following points can claim healing strategies. Treating child immediate milieu as learning resources, activity based learning, group work, extension of learning at school, home and environment, specialization and independent learning.

He reluctantly used the term quality in education. He also raises the question, if education devoid of quality is at all education? The two meaning of the term quality are the attribute one possess to be identified and the second meaning refers to the rank or superiority of one thing over the other. In case of India like other developing country dichotomization of access and quality guide policy on education. He critics on the effect of long term goal of education by trying to achieved short term goal.  He upholds that quality of education should not be compromised. The debate of quality of education is often broken down to a limited view of learning and therefore failed to retain the idea of quality as the characteristic of education. The author reproach Neoliberal approached in education which intensify state withdrawal and create more space for private as it emphasis choice as the goal for economic and educational reformation. The author rebuke by saying that choice is only limited to the thing already invented so thus not served the real purposed of education but also subdue the child inborn learning quality. He disproved using competition for determining talent. If talent selection from divers’ pool of human diversity is replace by narrow pool of talent then the selection process of talent become more incomplete so, he concluded that equality is an aspect of quality, not contradict to it. Gender inequality in school, home and society if not removed totally quality education cannot be expected. He clarify that universality does not means uniformity as every child is unique in her/his own way. Quality means learners should control of her own growth but not succumb to the detection, demands and orders from any one. With long and immense association in education system at highest level authority Krishna Kumar ideals interest on equality in education, peace education, and cultural affirmation is a million worth contribution on new perspective of education.