“There are obviously two educators, one should tell us how to make a living and the other how to live”, summed up John Adams in 1930. This stands the test even today.
The New Education Policy 2020 has attempted to bring in this holistic element in education with an aim of introducing in the curriculum a ‘scientific temper’.
A change after a long wait of 34 years, after the last National Education Policy in 1986, is of course welcomed especially by educators as a hope for a better future for the nation.
Policy decisions on paper however need to filtrate to the masses, much more than the classes as it is this section that is the face of emerging India and whose contribution is important for the building of a stronger and self-reliant nation. The Kothari Education Commission of 1964-66 had then recommended that public investment in education needs to be 6% of GDP; however successive governments did not deem it fit to implement this important recommendation.
It is an irony that 54 years thereafter this Education Policy has also recommended the same!
The country has witnessed many attempts to streamline the education system right from the first University Education Commission (1948-48), to the Kothari Commission and then the first(1968)and second National Policy on Education(1986).
One cannot deny therefore that successive governments felt the need to remould and redesign this important aspect of our lives at regular intervals.
The vision of this new policy is well defined of creating an education system that contributes directly to transforming the country and providing higher quality education to all and most important making India a global knowledge super power. Now the new change recommends replacing the existing 10+2+3 system, with the 5+3+3+4 system.
The first 5 fundamental years however begin at 3 years instead of the earlier 6 years wherein the pre-primary years prior to that were not an integral part of the system.
This system now begins the ECCE (Early Child Care Education) in the Aganwadis, at the age of 3 years.
People in the field of education always believe that a 3-year-old child needs to enjoy childhood rather than being forced in a structured system of being forced to wake up early, complete toilet needs, dress up and then attend even a play school.
The teachers would believe they would be failing in their duty if they do not teach the alphabets or numbers to the child and even force the child to write when in fact these are the foundation years of the child’s when they need to enjoy education – learning by singing, dancing, hearing stories with moral values etc.
The age of entry at 3 years cannot be enforced at this tender age when the physical growth is not even complete, be it vocal, physical or mental development. 4 to 5 years is recommended internationally as the norm as it is not just a start in a system but a more mature start to life itself. Our children cannot be permitted to be within four walls.
They have to be their parents, grandparent’s siblings and neighbours. This helps to strengthen the emotional quotient of a child which will go a long way to develop healthy and secure relationships later in life–an integral component of the educational system itself. This policy somehow falters on this count.
Another issue of continuous debate is about the medium of instruction in the mother tongue.
We always had the 3 language formula, now this policy mandates that the medium of instruction up to the 5th grade to be in the mother-tongue, with vocational learning from class VI onwards. Let us give credit where it is due, despite the cacophony of demands for universalization of Hindi; this policy has respected the demands of the southern States.
It is no doubt recommended that a child learns best in the language that he or she understands best, however if we study each case on its merit this condition is fulfilled when the dialect spoken by the child is the same that is taught in the school, otherwise it is as much a foreign language as English. There seems a phobia terming English as an “Imperial Language” a legacy of the colonial past etc. However it is also a language of the stomach and a language of aspiration for the poor of this country and cannot be replaced by force with a ‘local language, regional language or mother- tongue’. There seems ambiguity in the very choice of language that is best for the medium of instruction.
The choice could be offered to the parents to decide. What happens in the case of Metropolitan towns and cities? There are cases where the parents shift from place to place.
Pictures of migrants struggling to reach their villages are still fresh in public memory. Which language should their children learn in a foreign land, somebody else’s mother tongue, local language or regional language? This is a large voiceless and faceless section of our citizenry that is mostly ignored.
The very people who speak on the public platform about the importance of the mother tongue send their own children and grandchildren to English medium private Schools, where the fees are much higher than what the common man can afford.
We in Goa must end this medium of instruction issue, by standing firm in our convictions but not imposing value judgements on others who think differently and end up being ‘poor’ victims.
There is no clarity whether this policy on the medium of Instruction will be applicable across the board. The policy if applied to all private schools with all forced to go for the regional medium and to all non-aided public schools including the international schools, then only would the vision of an inclusive and equitable education system aimed at by this policy become more meaningful.
It is believed that the policy may not be able to do away with the existing ‘elitist model’ schools that exist within the present system today. Setting common standards of learning in the public and the private schools is easier said than done. As education is a subject of the concurrent list, it would be more appropriate for States to decide but the fear is that States may consider political over pragmatic compulsions. The mind of young children is like a sponge, rather than denying the child the learning of a language; teachers can make primary education more meaningful by using the bi-lingual method. A compulsory regional language shall take care of all concerns. Language is just a channel of communication.
An early start with the global language shall make the world globally competitive. At a time when the world is going ‘virtual’, we also need to adapt ourselves with the language used by this ‘world’. Mother tongue-proponents need to accept that in a globally relevant world, our children; our State and our Nation should not be kept backward.
A Gender Inclusive Fund is a great addition. Exams will now examine only core competency subjects, with a second chance for improvement in a year, makes the once a year Boards, a less stressful experience.
The 10 bag less days wherein the students will be exposed to vocational choices of informal internship is the need of the hour. In fact these days ought to have been more. Another value addition is the decision to go global and permit foreign universities in India and vice-versa allow top Indian institutions to work abroad is welcome. It is sometimes more difficult to get admission in our own IIT’s and IIM’s, as compared to Oxford or Cambridge Universities.
We cannot create educational islands in a globalised world. The 4 year Multi-disciplinary Bachelors programme without differentiating between the Arts, Science and Commerce faculties with the facility to drop out and join back when able with the credits earned kept intact, is indeed a revolutionary positive change in our system.
The discontinuation of M.Phil and the introduction of the 4th year at the UG level dedicated to those who plan to pursue research make the system more responsive to choices. We have seen so many journalists, eminent lawyers etc. who graduated in Science, specializing in Chemistry and Physics and not using this knowledge in their chosen careers. The famous journalist of the Print’, Shekhar Gupta, had narrated his own example, being a science student himself.
On the whole the recommendations are a mixed bag. It has some innovative and progressive measures and show sincerity of purpose but the true test would be known only after the implementation by each State. Only history shall decide whether John Adams is still relevant today!
(The writer is an author, educationist and a senior faculty in history)
