It is superfluous to debate whether there is anything that is more
important than Education aspect, that when overhauled would have a
more dramatic effect on the overall improvement to the society. Once
again the Author (Dr. Rajan) has taken a subject that is crucial and
is bang-on several of the points. As I read the article, which is
a subject that I had always felt very strongly about, I could not
resist the urge to record some of my thoughts here even though it
may not be just considering the fact that Author one more installment
to go. These are just thoughts, not attempting to be exhaustive and
are as such fragmented to supplement Dr. Rajan's very good effort
and even to kindle his responses.
While debating this subject, one automatically presumes that the
poor state of education is only a parallel manifestation of the inefficacy
surrounding all the other institutions. But the clear distinction
is that if this aspect is remedied properly, this could potentially
lead to solution for every other facet incorporating of the society.
On the deficiencies of the present education system, I am of the opinion
that it is not the system per se that is at fault. Yes, the education
system that declares two thirds as failures is reprehensible and if
there is benefit in change why not then completely overhaul it rather
than refine it? But knowing that radical changes are far more difficult
to implement, there could be some incentive in looking at a more pragmatic
approach. On the primary education especially, what was completely
lacking was something very fundamental. It did not communicate. I
mean, what was intended could not be implanted in the minds of the
pupils. When the poor boy learnt about his district in the geography
lesson in the class 5, he was not told how he could relate this to
his country and to world at large (That happened to me, building spatial
perception is vital and is key to learning). That his district is
called a "lake" district and its main produce was sugarcane did not
appeal in its significance. While the intent seems to have been to
firstly bring about awareness about his surrounding, it failed on
account of being unable to connect. In mathematics when he learnt
100cm equals 1 meter, he was not asked to visualise that quantity
in terms of his feet lengths or any other naturally perceivable thing.
The sadly only established education as an exercise that at best was
loading of information that need not necessarily have anything to
do with application of mind leave alone instigation of the same. From
a more idealistic view, it is not an extension of everyday awareness
that needs to be cultivated systematic manner.Like the Author rightly
pointed out the education became a burden both on student as well
as the teacher because it was an exercise for the sake of exercise.
(or for the sake of graduation degree) The teaching methods, the quality
of teachers were the prime suspects here, and deviation merely happened
by exception in elite schools not afforded by the masses.
In all of the above I am referring to only the development of aptitude
of the students and more or less in line with the article's rationale,
but I beg to differ with the Author (Dr. Rajan) on the contribution
of the education system on the attitude part. It is true that the
education system is capable of moulding the young minds to a great
extent on the morality, psychology and the spiritual areas as well.
But how good it can be in the environment of poverty and deprivation
that is widespread? I am not in the least suggesting that Author's
holistic view is flawed. But it does seem a little farfetched to be
able to address this in isolation of the other social factors. But
in my opinion there are other things that need to be considered as
part of the problem (or even solution).
Aside from the formal education, the masses are getting more information
through the ubiquitous Television. Even down to the remotest of the
rural areas satellites are beaming information and minds are being
influenced a great deal. Thanks to the hungry corporate monsters the
commercials are bringing about changes in the sensibilities, and they
are clever in spurring the audience in their quest for expansion of
the market. Without digressing, there is a big opportunity in the
new media. It is great because we can shape it the way we need it
because we are starting afresh; the reach is massive; it has greater
flexibility for changes unlike the formal education system. It cannot
replace the system, but can very effective as a support. I am not
talking about the present uninspiring programs on the air that warrant
quick change of channels. The Television taken to the classrooms,
that addresses even the lack of trained teachers. (The teachers can
learn in the process too about effective teaching methods). What can
be taught? Practically anything; with visual aids and interesting
animations. I am aware that this is not an idea that is brand new,
and probably there are programs in place already. But, to put it simply,
a lot can be done.
Dr. Rajan made a passing mention of the education to be in mother
tongue up to a certain stage. All I want to say is that this is critically
important, this is a must for retaining our values and sensibilities
without which simply all purpose would be lost. There is no getting
away from the fact that Information Technology will hold sway (i.e.,
if it already does not) in a big manner in the near future. The commercialisation
(and corporatisation) would bring in funds and incentives to make
them happen. The corporate have a vested interest in bringing up the
awareness levels to a certain extent, it is imperative for their own
promotion. Regulation and channeling will be key for taking advantage.
The formal education needs to be revamped, it needs to be powered,
it has to incorporate all the modern implements, but retaining the
values. Is it too much to ask for?