Education as history of half-hearted efforts
The other day, I was involved in a discussion with two friends regarding the ‘challenge of resources’ that children’s education in this country faces. In this conversation, ‘resources’ did not mean only money. While we can keep arguing about how much money is needed to provide all children with a decent education[1], we often overlook what other resources are needed for education to take place. Apart from money, we need to talk more and more about ideas, concepts, materials, thoughts, approaches, experiences, stories of success and so on. These are all ‘resources’ that actually make education happen. The adage ‘Money makes the world go around’, simply doesn’t apply to education. Only money is not enough, and more of it does not solve our problems. In fact, going by the amounts of money that are under spent in large education programs of the government, one can surely say that the problem lies elsewhere. How that money is spent ultimately makes a difference. This is where we are short on ideas.
Anyway, in discussions on education that I keep having every other day, there is this tendency to digress. Very soon, one gets into offering one’s theory about why this education system does not work -- almost any discussion seems to end with this theorising. Now, theories are not at all bad. They offer explanations of phenomena, and a useful theory can provide insights, goad us into action, and ultimately make a difference. Of course, one needs to examine any theory, any hunch, and any claim for that matter. We lose an opportunity if we move on otherwise.
At the end of this long winded conversation the other day, when one of my friends exclaimed, ‘So much has been done, but so little has been achieved…!’ I could relate to his statement. For those of us who have been at it for sometime now, the system seems to be moving at glacial pace. At times, it may even be moving backward. We are all impatient to achieve the ever receding goals of education in our own lifetimes. That is why it may seem as if little has been achieved.
I chose to examine the above statement and found myself questioning it. Have we really ‘done so much’? Let us take some of the more recent examples. The District Institutes for Education and Training (DIET) were established after the National Policy on Education (NPE) in 1986. Twenty years later, they are still considered by many as a ‘punishment posting.’ These institutions are by and large not working, and they are surely not delivering – vacancies abound, faculty are ill trained, motivation is low, and DIET faculty often wonder why they are there, and what they are meant to be doing! As a testimony to the ills plaguing the DIETs, large scale government programs like District Primary Education Program (DPEP) and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) have often bypassed them.
Next, take the example of the Block and Cluster Resource Centres (B/CRC). They were established in the mid nineties, ostensibly to bring teacher support ‘onsite’, in a continuous manner. Nearly a decade later, barring the exceptional cases, these teacher resource centres are anything but that – they are more known as information collection centres. Their faculty members mechanically run training modules, and keep collecting information to satisfy the insatiable needs of reporting and ‘showing results.’ One does not even know if these structures will exist after the SSA is over and done with. The point I make is this – we have created institutions and structures, but have not nurtured them. That is why they are stagnating. That is why I say our efforts have been half hearted.
Next, take training. Modules are prepared with the best of intentions. What happens after training? Supportive monitoring, the other side of the coin, simply does not exist. We do not bother to find out if training has made any difference. Such is the state of affairs that I have encountered teachers even in a state like Karnataka who say ‘Leave us alone. This training is of no use…’ That is why I say our efforts have been half hearted. I wonder what will happen to the NCF 2005 a few years later.
The educational system is simply not geared to ensure continuity of effort. Frequent transfers, and change in leadership often arrests promising ideas and innovations. The moment somebody in an important position starts making something happen (there are not many who do in any case…), he is transferred – success is a problem! Promising efforts die a premature death. Who is accountable to whom?
Perhaps, we have not ‘done so much’, as my friend exclaimed. Perhaps, on the other hand, we have not learnt to doggedly pursue our ideas over time. We have started something here and there, and have often moved on to something else without looking back. That is why I say our efforts have been half hearted. It’s a frustrating history.
Giri
May 1, 2007
Kargil, J & K
[1] Since the education that most children currently experience is not good, to say the least, we often have to qualify what kind of education we want. So, statements like ‘He is getting a bad education’, are superfluous, because education cannot be bad. In this case, bad education does not qualify to be any kind of education! Education is inherently good, and ‘goodness’ is built into its definition.
The other day, I was involved in a discussion with two friends regarding the ‘challenge of resources’ that children’s education in this country faces. In this conversation, ‘resources’ did not mean only money. While we can keep arguing about how much money is needed to provide all children with a decent education[1], we often overlook what other resources are needed for education to take place. Apart from money, we need to talk more and more about ideas, concepts, materials, thoughts, approaches, experiences, stories of success and so on. These are all ‘resources’ that actually make education happen. The adage ‘Money makes the world go around’, simply doesn’t apply to education. Only money is not enough, and more of it does not solve our problems. In fact, going by the amounts of money that are under spent in large education programs of the government, one can surely say that the problem lies elsewhere. How that money is spent ultimately makes a difference. This is where we are short on ideas.
Anyway, in discussions on education that I keep having every other day, there is this tendency to digress. Very soon, one gets into offering one’s theory about why this education system does not work -- almost any discussion seems to end with this theorising. Now, theories are not at all bad. They offer explanations of phenomena, and a useful theory can provide insights, goad us into action, and ultimately make a difference. Of course, one needs to examine any theory, any hunch, and any claim for that matter. We lose an opportunity if we move on otherwise.
At the end of this long winded conversation the other day, when one of my friends exclaimed, ‘So much has been done, but so little has been achieved…!’ I could relate to his statement. For those of us who have been at it for sometime now, the system seems to be moving at glacial pace. At times, it may even be moving backward. We are all impatient to achieve the ever receding goals of education in our own lifetimes. That is why it may seem as if little has been achieved.
I chose to examine the above statement and found myself questioning it. Have we really ‘done so much’? Let us take some of the more recent examples. The District Institutes for Education and Training (DIET) were established after the National Policy on Education (NPE) in 1986. Twenty years later, they are still considered by many as a ‘punishment posting.’ These institutions are by and large not working, and they are surely not delivering – vacancies abound, faculty are ill trained, motivation is low, and DIET faculty often wonder why they are there, and what they are meant to be doing! As a testimony to the ills plaguing the DIETs, large scale government programs like District Primary Education Program (DPEP) and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) have often bypassed them.
Next, take the example of the Block and Cluster Resource Centres (B/CRC). They were established in the mid nineties, ostensibly to bring teacher support ‘onsite’, in a continuous manner. Nearly a decade later, barring the exceptional cases, these teacher resource centres are anything but that – they are more known as information collection centres. Their faculty members mechanically run training modules, and keep collecting information to satisfy the insatiable needs of reporting and ‘showing results.’ One does not even know if these structures will exist after the SSA is over and done with. The point I make is this – we have created institutions and structures, but have not nurtured them. That is why they are stagnating. That is why I say our efforts have been half hearted.
Next, take training. Modules are prepared with the best of intentions. What happens after training? Supportive monitoring, the other side of the coin, simply does not exist. We do not bother to find out if training has made any difference. Such is the state of affairs that I have encountered teachers even in a state like Karnataka who say ‘Leave us alone. This training is of no use…’ That is why I say our efforts have been half hearted. I wonder what will happen to the NCF 2005 a few years later.
The educational system is simply not geared to ensure continuity of effort. Frequent transfers, and change in leadership often arrests promising ideas and innovations. The moment somebody in an important position starts making something happen (there are not many who do in any case…), he is transferred – success is a problem! Promising efforts die a premature death. Who is accountable to whom?
Perhaps, we have not ‘done so much’, as my friend exclaimed. Perhaps, on the other hand, we have not learnt to doggedly pursue our ideas over time. We have started something here and there, and have often moved on to something else without looking back. That is why I say our efforts have been half hearted. It’s a frustrating history.
Giri
May 1, 2007
Kargil, J & K
[1] Since the education that most children currently experience is not good, to say the least, we often have to qualify what kind of education we want. So, statements like ‘He is getting a bad education’, are superfluous, because education cannot be bad. In this case, bad education does not qualify to be any kind of education! Education is inherently good, and ‘goodness’ is built into its definition.
1 comment:
'Important positions' are not always held by men. They can be held by women as well. This is for the struggle for a more equitable society and if it does not get ingrained in our psyche it's difficult to realise them.
The issue of whether adequate efforts have been made or not so far not only in the domain of education remains a debatable question...and it requires a sense of detachment and objectivity to really get somewhere near that. So let's keep trying to respond to the difficult realities of life and reaching out to people...
Post a Comment