It is both difficult to narrate
or script the grand story of the colossal failure of Vocational Education at
the school level. The idea of vocational education has taken several AVATARS
during the last couple of decades. A
number of times it has been brewed in different tastes and packaged in new
bottles. But it did not attract the imagination of the market though its
essence was considered as a vital force for a layer of the social structure.
Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of
education which focused on meeting the indigenous needs of the society proposed
the idea of Basic Education – with a great thrust on local crafts, skills
and satiation of the rural market needs,
did have the core message of vocational approach to learning. But, given the
urbanization of education with excessive explosion of science and technology,
it did not meet with the success it conceptualized.
Kothari Commission Report
(1966-68) focused on the need and scope of developing skilled personnel to meet
the needs of ever-increasing “work force’ for a developing country.
However, the Commission focused the predominance of ‘core knowledge’ components
in curriculum, immaterial of the vocation to be pursued by the learners in
their future. It stressed on the need for providing ample opportunities for
acquisition of skills and hence proposed diversification of learning after the
secondary stage, by which time, the learners would have acquired the ‘core
knowledge’ essential for their life processes. The diversification of learners
at the secondary stage had both a positive and a negative implication.
It was positive in the sense it
provided an “undivided curriculum” to all to ensure equality of opportunities
and social justice. The negative implication was the conceptualization of
‘hands-on’ skills in SUPW/Work Experience, which was not a subject of external
assessment, and thus giving immense opportunities to schools to marginalize
this dimension of learning and offer thrust on subjects of external
examinations.
The deliverance of vocational
skills at the senior school stage (+2) failed to attract the imagination of the
general populace. The implied suggestion that the vocational subjects would be
learnt by those who will not be academically oriented, was indeed a death-blow
to the future of this scheme. It underlined the division between ‘white collar’
and the ‘blue-collar’ jobs, thus discouraging even an aspiring individual or a
family, not to become a part of lower social order. Unfortunately, the message
that went into the social psyche was ‘vocational’ skills lead to job
opportunities where one gets stuck, as against ‘professional’ skills where
there is possibility of both linear and cross-cultural job opportunities. No
efforts were done to remove the psychological blocks in the social psyche. Whatever
was done, was inadequate to bring about the desired changes.
The curricula designed for the
vocational courses never breathed a fresh air for several years and thus both
knowledge and competencies became non-relevant to the actual needs of markets;
and thus the industries and the market found the learners quite unemployable.
Enormous efforts made by educational administrators to bridge the
school-industry needs and help a handshake between them did not yield the
desired results.
The absence of qualified
teachers, lack of designated pedagogies and the failure of the educational
agencies to provide textual and technological scaffolds added to rob the charm
of these courses, if at all there was any. Thus, a real ‘step-motherly’
approach to the concept and management of vocational education discouraged the
learners to even consider choices, in spite of hundreds of crores of investment
in this area through budgetary provisions.
While the administration wanted
to add new flavors to some of these courses from time to time, the absence of
tools, instruments, appliances and laboratories resulted in teaching of the
courses more on a black-board rather than on workstations and fields. Efforts
were focused on proving the success of these courses, more through data rather
than its meaning and spirit.
Result: Most Boards of education
have not passed their examinations in vocational education.
So, be it.
The current effort by the National
Government to introduce ‘vocational education’ as a compulsory subject at the
secondary level has only made many to raise their eyebrows..
Let us start with a positive
note, by congratulating the powers that are, for their bold initiative; it is difficult
to say whether it is a master stroke or a master’s stroke!
But, what are the latent issues?
Possibly, this is an outcome of
the most important concern of the government on promotion of ‘skills’ and
empowering the ‘younger generation’ to a higher level of ‘fitness’ for their
‘employability’. It is indeed the most important requirement of the day and
hence a welcome step.
But the question raises, whether
the introduction of a ‘standalone’ vocational subject is good enough
– either
to promote a mindset for ‘skills’ or would at least provide the required
competencies in those subjects unless the ground realities as illustrated
earlier are met with?
Would it not be appropriate to
develop textual content and pedagogy in all disciplines of learning that encompasses
skills and promotes skill-empowered thinking? Would it be wiser to integrate
acquisition of skills in a trans-disciplinary manner?
One of the challenges in the
modern learning domains, is the speed of irrelevance of knowledge and skills.
In this background, what would be the life period and life-cycle of the skills
incorporated through these courses?
While I certainly do not want to
mistrust schools, how many schools would be serious to provide appropriate
skills and competencies? Or would this become another “pass-on” subject, as it
is left to the articulation of the schools?
Would schools have appropriate
learning environment and skillsets for effective implementation of these
courses?
While parents would certainly
love to see their wards with “hands-on” skills, how much time and space would
they give to their wards for these learnings as they stay focused on “NEET”s
and other
competitive platforms?
What would be the “inherent cost”
of replacement value of these subjects against those in “Core areas of
learning” as envisaged in NPE?
Questions galore. I know none of
us, including the government may not have answers ready.. but my objective is
to create a consciousness about the issues we are fighting with..
It has been customary for the
school community to say about learners “ I can take a horse to the pond, but
can’t make it drink ”; But in a transformed world of dynamic learning systems
it is important to note “ it is not necessary to take the horse to the pond,
but develop a thirst in the horse, so that it automatically goes to the pond to
drink water.”
It is important to create a
thirst for “skill-based learning.”
No comments:
Post a Comment