The government has passed the Right to Education Bill recently for reasons that should be obvious to most people. And being on the right side of my thinking, I am in no mood to argue against those reasons. The law provisions for compulsory and free education about class 8. Very good. However, some of the mandates laid down by the law are a little troublesome, to say the least.
Of the four important bits, let me get out of the way the non-tricky ones first. There is to be abolition of any selection criteria for granting admission to students. No interview for kids or their parents, no examination, nothing. Personally, I think this is a pretty good thing in theory, but of course, I also think and know that practitioners will find a way out. Since it is supposed to be random, you can choose who you want (based on inputs in the application forms, for instance) and ascribe it to randomness. Not too difficult. However, the law itself, I agree with.
Then there is the bit that reserves 25% seats in all schools, public or private or whatever, for children from underprivileged backgrounds. That is to say, 25% seats in all schools will cater to poor kids for free. Again, I agree with the law, especially since there is much lesser scope to weasel your way out of this one.
Now to flip the coin. The law further says that no student shall be failed, that is, retained in the same class for another year. Compulsory promotion to the daftest laziest stupidest along with the smartest brightest blah. Not that I am a fan of merit (if anything, I realise more everyday the falsity of the notion), but this blind promotion is going to only promote laziness and hence stupidity. Kids will have no reason to actually learn what they are taught.
And this last one... 75% of the managing committee of any school will have to be made up of either parents of students or appointed nominees. Again, I agree that parents should have some representation on the school's management, but 75%? What the hell will parents know about managing a school? Will they actually be able to always think beyond the conveniences (not needs) of their own child and actually think practically from the school's perspective too? You know, it will become a bit like an unwieldy democracy where too many of the 'masses' have too much control over how things are run. I wonder how existing schools will react to this one. I can think of only some more corruption.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
My concerned friend,
I haven't read the Bill you've written about but support the modern approach to primary education the government has chosen to incorporate in its provisions.
No student failed is a good thing... failing a student discourages and exposes the child to ridicule and stress. I see your reason, however, the intent of the law here is to encourage struggling students (those on the fringes…borderline cases). Further avoid punishment that is too harsh and leaves academic life in almost permanent ruin. Try a different point of view, where the focus is not on holding back "daftest laziest stupidest" students but to foster a sense a progress and responsibility amongst the students. We should also be conscious that this provision does not inhibit competition, which is one of the strongest driving forces behind academic excellence. This provision evaluated in isolation appears to be a blunder but combine it with a reformed framework of primary education - responsibility on students, accountability, and a sense of ownership of academic destiny - and we have an improvement.
About the managing committee “75% of the managing committee of any school will have to be made up of either parents of students or appointed nominees.” You agree that parents should have “SOME” say in their child’s education. It is naïve of us to assume that this “SOME” is a marginal influence on education. In fact, your interpretation here again is incomplete in my opinion. It is not the school’s management that parents should have a say in. The intent of this provisions that I interpret is that parents should have a majority and decisive role in the education that their children receive. Management still remains with school administrators. The parents are primary stakeholders in a child’s education and it is an increased role of stakeholders that this provision tries to promote.
Good policy direction in my opinion.
good policy direction, certainly. but i don't agree with no students being failed as being a good thing. ridicule and stress? dude, if you remember your own school years, even those who flunked got by well enough. why this sudden burst of increased sensitivity? also, you talk of fixing responsibility and having accountability but mention no actual mechanism to do it. plus, failure due to being lazy or stupid in class only prepares you for what lies ahead (unless you learn to cheat).
as for the managing committee, where does interpretation come in? the law says what it does, whatever the intent behind it may be. and what the law says is certainly not very practical.
My support didn't grow out of increased sensitivity but mostly being involved in education policy work over the last three years. The idea of punishing under-performers by failing is too harsh and the easiest of all actions. There are several approaches to fostering responsibility amongst students...and all of them require more mentor involvement and financial resources than does failing. I don't think I understand the primary education systems in India or other developing economies as well as one must to critique it. My personal experiences are just not sufficient to gauge a system as large and complicated. However, the most productive of frameworks is one that identifies students who are struggling and takes continuous corrective action so that over the academic year their level of learning is at least at par with the low score range of students who do not require additional assistance.
This methodology has been researched and found valid by peer group comparisons. Several states in the United States have invested in studies that try and tackle similar issues. Educationists and domain researchers agree on the need to find new methods of teaching that are more supportive to borderline struggling students or students who are likely to fail due to emotional or performance issues. What good can failing do to a student who has fear of examinations? One might argue that fear of performance is something the student needs to get over to succeed in academics and in life for which academics prepare. However, we must be conscious that an emotional/ personality disorder is not by choice and others must take a compassionate approach to helping such people perform and succeed.
When we talk of systems we need to shape policy with outliers in mind. We must attempt to be inclusive in the sense that we design a system that works for several groups of target population needs not just for the majority or the previously perceived normal. We must understand that students fail not because they are lazy but because they are struggling. I'm curious why you're taking such a hostile approach towards under-performers. You were a very successful student in your academic life, have your personal experiences led you to believe that only those who are lazy under-perform? Is it possible that those who struggle and fail feel disappointed in themselves and respond by rejecting their academic responsibilities, which is then perceived by super performers such as yourself as laziness and stupidity?
An example of student responsibility (you asked for it in your comment)... a monthly grading of student progress ensures that teachers and mentors expose struggling students to individualized teaching and innovative methods that stimulate learning (e.g. activity based, setting alteration...). It also puts students under the scanner and reduced chances of irregularity with assignments. A new framework of primary education requires teachers who are equipped with skills to teach normal students with special needs. It also requires that students have mentors in addition to teachers. So many requirements that it might almost appear inconcievable for developing economies to invest in such a public education infrastructure. This lack of resources necessitates the need for orthodox mechanisms such as punishing "lazy" students. They serve well when the goal is to educate as many as one can without investing too much in individual needs and outliers.
for one, i am talking about a india which is a developing economy, and hence meets the criteria for the exceptions you mention. for two, i am not basing my "hostile" approach on my own once-decent academic record, but rather on my theory that stupidity is a cause of mental laziness (unless you are retarded, in which case you qualify for special needs education). for three, are you saying that all or most students who fail do so because of emotional or personality issues, something i just won't believe?
and on a side note, may be there is a reason why so many americans have such a poor sense of geography and math, among other things. :P
Your blog...your reasoning. I'll give you three points to think about:
First, application of innovative teaching methods is not the same as special education. Further, not only retarded individuals require special education... individuals with speech, hearing, and social disorders need them as much. Special education is an applied field with several branches designed to cater to individuals with different special needs. You must read up on some education science related research. I am sure there is need for bright individuals such as yourself to meet the changing needs of education in India's inner cities.
Second, in my short and limited personal experience I haven't experienced lack of mathematical skills or knowledge of geography in the States but I am sure it is a regional phenomenon (Appalachians, Louisiana Bayous...). Like any large population there are the well educated and not so well educated. The emphasis must be on betterment of the framework so that education systems address the shortcomings that we find.
I don't think people are stupid by choice but as a result of events and circumstances that shape their lives. I also see that you have formed your opinion and passed your critical verdicts on provisions of the new bill (has the bill passed and signed into law?) without recourse to revision. There is a wealth of information related to education methods research and student development available on the internet and in some libraries I have access to. I can share some studies if you tell me your interest areas.
Third, I'm not saying that most who fail do so because of personality or emotional disorders. I am saying that the intent driving policy formulation should not be to punish the lazy but to benefit and help improve the genuine few who might suffer because of antiquated education techniques such as failing. Emphasis should be on doing everything throughout the year before the pass/ fail decision is made.
As I said in the beginning...your blog...your reasoning.
retardation is not necessarily mental...
don't know about regional phenomenon of bad education, i only know what i saw on youtube, american shows going out in the streets of various towns, finding americans on those streets and asking them to point out iraq on a world map. not much to base a strong opinion on, but hell, who gives a toss about americans anyway?
the bill has been passed in to a law, which is precisely what prompted this post in the first place.
anyway, as you said, my blog, my reasoning. :p
Post a Comment