IS EDUCATION CELEBRATION OF CREATIVE DIVERSITY OR COMPLIANCE TO ACADEMIC MONARCHY?

“Sir, our shoes will fit into legs of any size. The only thing you need to do is to cut your legs to fit into our shoes.” said the merchant.

The concept “one size doesn’t fit all” is one of the most accepted concepts in education by cognitive psychologists, brain scientists and pedagogues. “The brain is actually not designed for teaching.” It designs its own learning curve driven by several variables that impact the learning environment. Further the aptitude and the attitude of the learner also shapes the learning constructs. Hence all commissions of education have recommended providing an educational infrastructure that would facilitate pursuit of the individual uniqueness that ushers in confidence, self-respect, creative pursuits and progressive analytical thinking. The citizens of the country have a right to that education.

The recent paradigms in educational psychology which suggests celebration of multiple intelligences underlines the spectrum of learners even in each cohort. The focus on empowering ‘learning’ rather than ‘teaching’ is the most debated topic in global academic community. We visit in a beeline to the countries which claim, “freedom in learning” but fail to implement even basics of those principles in our environment.

Even the worst critics of the “Macaulay model” do agree that the ancient wisdom of Indian education provided limitless opportunities for the personal and social growth of all learners.  In India, we did take note of the above dynamics of global changes and challenges. The school education system started responding meaningfully

One of the major challenges in the Indian Education system was the focus on “Certification “rather than “Qualification” or “education.” This undue emphasis shaped the delivery models putting thrust on “coaching” and thus replacing “learning”. The introduction of CCE in compliance with the thought process of Kothari commission and as a follow up the National Policy on Education was indeed a positive move, though “change” in mindset of the stakeholders could not be successfully achieved. The strategies certainly needed reconsideration, however, the system of CCE was a sound pedagogical initiative.

It appears that we seem to be moving towards preparing “masses of children” who would follow a “structured linear orientation of assessment”. Administrative conveniences should never reset academic delights, however challenging they are.

When the entire world is moving towards “informalizing” learning and to empower “learning” liberating it from “time and space” any structural articulation that would promote “herd behavior” would be anti-educational and would be at the cost of a whole generation of people who will face the most complicated challenges of a world with a cutting-edge competition.

Our whole philosophy of governance appears to be based on ‘mistrust’ rather than ‘trust’. Active governance should go with vigil, mentoring, monitoring rather than presumed suspicions. “Inspection Raj” and ‘colonial’ thinking in education should give place to “democratic practices” with adequate safeguards.

Let us not shape our legs to fit the shoes. With the desire to wear the shoes, we should not lose the skills of walking, running, hopping, jumping… Let us ‘educate’, not simply ‘certify’.