|
That is a very pertinent question. Not that the question is new. What is new
is that for the first time, it is being asked by the person who matters.
India has more than forty secondary school education boards. Some states have
more than one. Each of them decides on its own syllabus. And they vary from each
other. Most of the time it is justified through the argument that local needs
are different in each of the states. And that is what Sibal rightly questions.
He acknowledges that there is a case for different curriculum in history,
geography, and literature as each region needs to teach its own to its students.
But what is the rational behind difference in science and maths education? Are
the formulas of coordinate geometry different for Kashmir and Tamil Nadu? In any
case, a closer look at the syllabus would reveal that the difference lies in
the different permutations and combinations by different boards which achieves
only two objectives: one, it justifies the existence of some committees who work
on this; and two, it creates unnecessary hassles for students who have to go
from one board to another or appear for the entrance examination to professional
courses in other states.
Interestingly, a common entrance examination for all professional courses is
something that Sibal suggests. That is a lofty goal. And has its merits and
demerits. While it can simplify things, it also means restriction of choice for
a student. For example, if some student misses the exam, for some reason, it is
loss of a full year. This and other challenges can be addressed, as they are
more to do with logistics. However, the minister should channelize his efforts
on the more fundamental issueand that is uniformity in course curriculum. As he
himself admits, that itself is a Herculian task. But it is a cause worth taking.
Very often, the external pressures on the HRD ministry is to focus on
short-term skills development and changes in higher education, which are
immediate needs of the industry and economy and need to be addressed. But
primary and secondary education is something that the nation must focus on.
For example, while all visiting heads of states and senior industry leaders
hail India for its traditional focus on maths education, that is getting diluted
of latethanks to the more modern (read Western) thoughts on education. One
necessary, though not sufficient approach, is to simplify things, as suggested
by the minister.
In the same breadth, he suggested another point: serious effort on teaching
all the three languages: mother tongue, Hindi, and English. For the long-term
impact of our progress on our overall economy, that is also a very necessary
step. Of late, mother tongue is suffering in most private schools while
politicians from time-to-time raise slogans against English. Both these are
widening the divide between urban rural India. This is not a new issue and has
been debated from time-to-time. But as we go more global and India transforms
itself to a knowledge hub, the need to integrate all its people together is of
extreme importance. And that cannot be done by ignoring local language.
The thoughts of the minister are extremely encouraging. The long-term future
of a countryand especially one with such a young populationdepends on how its
primary and secondary education are planned. Now, we need faster action.
Shyamanuja Das
The author is Editor of Dataquest.
shyamanujad@cybermedia.co.in
Page(s) 1
| 
Print
Comment
Email
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Twitter
