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.     

Clueless Stakeholder

         I would like to propagate that there is an Invisible hand in India’s education system like the one coined by Adam Smith in His books “The theory of moral sentiments” and “The wealth of the Nation”. It is just a metaphoric comparison between the two but has tempted me a lot to reach this point because of various reasons.  This comparison may lose its merits in many ways but I would like to use the term in my own perspective for rhetoric value.

         As per my exposure to schools in all the blocks of Sirohi district I will like to pursue the statement I made. India’s education system has structured from national level, state level, regional level, district level, block level, cluster/nodal level and school as a unit. Various norms for centralization (top-bottom) and decentralization (bottom-up) have been laid out. Head Teachers and teachers are in wonderland if they have to achieve targets given under SSA, RTE, and NCF-2005 etc. They often wonder in naive if they are doing what is ought to be done or not but still continues to do. They were highly demotivated by children and parents effort but they still push on consciously or unconsciously. Their accountability is under question but they overcome this sincerely or in witty ways. Many underperforming students still have a hope high never to be introspected if they are improving/learning in sync with their dreams. SMC has been instituted with an effort to decentralized schools but SMC members still wonder why they have to sign every document in the school.

        BO’s (block education officers) wonder if the system under them is under control but remain numb if ask what is contributing to the failure in learning teaching process. They attribute this to politics and lack of motivation and will for teachers to work where the service calls them. Every head teachers and teachers claim their wisdom and experience unless inquire why a child is unable to read or write?

       This entire galvanized situation lured me to conclude that financial sanction simply drag education institute as a show case institution and not a functioning institution. Like the invisible hand pulling almost all the children and comforting their parents on virtue on being in school building and not on basis of learning. Being in school as a child will not outcast from his/her peers, thus to overcome this fear/trauma whatever happens (except learning) in the school. My thoughts are extremely pessimistic in this page just because learning is not happening which should happen at any cost. I am highly uncomfortable with this scenario. But I am sure I will overcome from this pessimism to positive note very soon.        

A permanent tag “first generation learners”

Since the day I have been visiting schools in rural and remote villages of Sirohi district I often hear this introduction from the teachers about the children i.e. “First Generation Learners”.  But I come to realize some contrasting facts on this very statement. Let’s go back to the history of education policies and agencies in India.  National Policy on Education since 1968 and again promulgated in 1986 on elementary education has aspect of universal access and enrolment, universal retention of children up to 14 years of age, and a substantial improvement in the quality of education to enable all children to achieve elementary education, Articles in the constitution of India affirming primary education as state responsibility, India’s commitment on Millennium Development Goal (MDG), Right to education (RTE) a revival act in broken education system has been lunch at a massive scale. In addition to this entire acts and policy I was told that most of the schools in remote villages have been established past 15 to 20 years. Another interesting figure that supports my suspicion is that most of the Head Teacher had an experience of 20 to 25 years.
 

So my argument is, Are this children truly first generation learners? If so, why are their parents uneducated in spite of national policies and laws flouted way back in 1960’s? All the teachers tagging an experience of 20 to 25 years must have been in the service when the parents of these children are still at elementary level. According to the general trend a women get marriage in the age of 16 and above so a teachers who is currently teaching her son/daughter and has and experience of 20 to 25 years must have been a teacher in her childhood also. But, where thus this gap came from? Parents themselves pronounce that they are illiterate in spite of the school established years back. And comparing to the present scenario children are not able to read or write properly. They are not confident to stand before the fellow student and read. Their prospect of going to higher education is very low.  Teachers convenently credited their student weekness in studies to the tag First generation learners. Do they realy meant it or are they just making an excuss of their inability to teach the children inovatively in context of childrens socio-cultural life? Are they just passing on the buck to the being of children when all these children  spend more hours of the day with them and almost throught out the year then thier own parents? Elementary education and with the quality they receive will not make them confident enough to call themselves as literate so, once they get married and have children going to school the tag first generation learners will be still there and this will follow to the preceding generation like a permanent tag.

Between theory and practices

On the quotation “Practice what you preach” many says Preaching and practice are twins that often get separated and also If some of us practiced all we preach, we’d soon work our fool selves to death….

“Small family is a happy family” a catchy slogan to curb population explosion has its way to vanity. In reality which businessmen wants less customer, which doctor wants less patience in his/her clinic? Which educationist who passes on this massage wants less student in his/her school? Which politician wants less populace at his/her disposal? Bigger population size means power for politician, profit for businessmen, educationist, and doctor.

Citing these two debatable examples I would like to build my argument that there is ocean wide gap between theory and practice w.r.t educational institute and functionaries. This is purely my personal view based on little exposure so far.

RTE and NCF faced the most critics from the lower level school functionaries. RTE as a law and NCF as guidelines were laid out after intense research, consultation, dialogue and revision of existing law related to education. But, confusion still lies if an assumption, consideration, theories, philosophy and guide behind RTE and NCF are just phronesis or episteme. Phronesis refers to knowledge gained from an experiential, practical approach to practice and epistemic knowledge is that knowledge which is based on sets of propositions and has emerged from a theoretical base. The biggest question rises by teachers are that children should learn with fear of exam and punishment. Teachers are in the opinion that children are not natural learner. Teaching and learning cannot be done without all the required resources completely available. Thus many of the ground functionaries in education department directly contradict to the guidelines and law abiding them. Thus it is highly vulnerable that the aim and objective of education will not be achieved. If goals are to be achieved stakeholders should bind philosophically and emotionally to the guidelines abiding them or venture new and better strategies and recommendation for formalization, if not it is doom to failure as far as long term objective of education is concern. 

When though goes concern:

          If you think you can do it than obviously you gonna give a try on it. Never mind the adversity or the tide against you. You will never take a chance but give a shot. With high per-centum of uncertainty, we trod in fare but hope has its way in style. We try our best to articulate of what we wanted in life and what we are becoming of. Often we reflect and function to the action around us. Some stand their ground firm but at the cost of being mock to. But, for them “who cares” is the subtle holding them. Those like a waving flags on the comment of the wind are the one who fail to live life in sync with the value of life. Woo are all who glorify in contemporary not contemplating what lies in the future. In this Gen.Smart creating a name, fame, wealth and zeal has done much destruction to humanity than our lazy ancestors (?). Never like before we are feed with ideas, knowledge, wisdom, information, choice and flavor but ism, ignorance, arrogance, pollution and hunger has taken its tool but we conclude with the headlines “once again nature has played a cruel joke on us”. Have’s and have-not is your faith and your base line to start the journey of where you long for. Your joy is someone’s sorrow and your lost is a vantage to the citizens next to you. A child is design, defined and prefix with a profession tag but of parent choice. Too insured is the child that parents can finance their future to desk or road. Find underweight child in country side and will not missed to see obsessed child in urban.

          Kings are gone, Detectors/Authoritarian almost gone, but who can fixed these mess of democracy, the way of majority? “Let’s do business not war” is the giant MOU binding countries to artificial cease-fire. Be part of modern warfare or be the victim of cross-fire. How many have died with peace in battle ground? How many are prepared to be killed for no gain? But this we justify as “preparing for the worst”. Thinkers have more follower and critics than their thought(s). Physical connection of the world around has shrunk so as the tolerance has shrunk lately. Democracy also detects which cartoon has its place in our free society. We love the word freedom but hurt when see someone’s thoughts on free run. What can I do for someone with what I have is too odd as an approached rather fashionably replace as Hey Man what do you have for me?  If you demand the best, chances are you will be sideline as “idealistic”.

         Before we lay down in peace we got theories to learn, philosophy to believe, truth to reconcile, bitter pill to digest, fake hug to master and miles to conquer. But one day I hope to overcome this rough sketch of thought and smile wide before it’s too late. I have a small wish, a small role in this robust design for failure (?). I name myself as a “world citizen” rather than the small house I was born so, I pine for the better man of all as a citizen of this beautiful world.  

Review on Quality in education: competing concepts

       Paper by Krishna Kumar on “Quality in education: competing concepts” (review):

      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 for universalization of education. 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.

 Neoliberal approached in education intensify state withdrawal and more space for private as it emphasis choice as the goal for economic and educational reformation. Krishna Kumar 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 discussed the complexity of 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. Reservation in education will serve the desired goals in course of time. Gender inequality at 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.

"Broken Republic" by Arundhati Roy (review):

1.    

     The author project the gap between the have’s and have’s not in Indian society. The mania of development that create havoc to forest dwellers who inherit the natural resources and have lived for century in a sustainable way. All out displacement without any alternative arrangement by corporate miners has left no other option to the effect community but to take up weapon for their survival.

The uprising in Naxalbari has seed the ideology of Maoist movement with objective to overthrow Indian state with arm struggle. But whatever their objective the picture in the ground reality is killed or be killed i.e. totally a struggle to survive in their own land and protect their natural right over the forest. She has strongly criticized the nexus between the corporate house, corrupted politician, media, NGO, and police in Indian society. 

The author expressed the dilemma if Gandhian philosophy of peace will work in the battle ground zero fought in the once peaceful land of forest dwellers. People who have taken up weapon have faced sufficient discrimination and exploitation from the businessmen, police, forest department, middle men and land owners. She is so skeptical about the way the state brand anyone interested in the issue as Maoist or Maoist sympathizer. She shared here first-hand experience with comrades walking deep into Dandakaranya forest to witness grand celebration in the middle of war zone.

 The author expresses her reservation on the functioning of “People’s court”. The author is clueless about other means to survive other than taking up weapon as her view on this war as deliberately design to make corporate entry in to the deep forest to suck out all the natural resources. She never admires the success of red revolution due to its violent nature. Increasing GDP as the sole objective of the state has hurt the democratic and republic nature of our country. There is an ideological hatred of Maoists by the right wing middle class, CPI and CPM. Space for sincere dialogue has been totally wiped out from both the party.

The author has written the book with an activist mode but will it not serve the purposed better if she approached in an intervenist mode. With all out clash preparation from both the parties i.e. state and Maoist, a mere campaign would not serve to control the conflict. Remodeling of development pattern, trust building, equal share holding of any profit, humanitarian and justice should prevail to bring lasting peace within this broken republic