LICENSING EDUCATION - NEED FOR PARADIGM SHIFTS

If the emerging global trends are any indicators, the challenges to the conventional edifices of education are so many, that would get the existing structures dismantled to give way to newer platforms of learning - both formal and informal. The scientific and technological tools that provide virtual repositioning of learning experiences, the floodgates of information highways wide opened, the increasing irrelevance of content and its power, the speed and frequency of newer knowledge structures and their concurrent skills – would require periodic revaluation and re-engineering of the existing structures – curricular, infrastructural, pedagogical and administrative. The learners and the learning providers cannot afford to wait and seek approvals in their service parameters conditioned by classical top down models – which are hierarchical and out of focus to the real time producers and consumers.

Nations globally have taken cognizance of the emerging challenges and have opened their board rooms for discussions and brainstorms on how these changes should be done – at what pace and at what cost. The learning providers at all levels will be under constant scrutiny for their services in the future. Their response systems have to be contextual – for social, cultural, geographical and economic sensitivities of the local groups. This would indeed mean structuring models of learning experiences which are likely to be deviant from prescribed models from their hierarchy.

All these indicate that the educational policies of the governments and the models of engagement of the education boards with their clients might require a periodic review – to be relevant not only for the current scenario but good enough to offer the freedom of operation and engagement by the clientele for at least one decade.

Some points of concern that might have to be addressed would be:

1. The existing pattern of licensing educational institutions have to be liberal, structured on trust, focusing on governance rather than being interventional.
2. The parameters of licensing would have to be non-restrictive, assessing the scope for performance, expansion and quality.
3. The periodicity of license would have to be case specific, to be decided on project designs of learning provider.
4. The financial structures should facilitate progress, quality assurance and upward mobility with built-in transparency.
5. The learning providers should be given the freedom for experimentation, enterprise and creativity both in content design and application which could be subjected to quality audit by independent agencies.
6. The learning spaces need to be defined not exclusively on physical parameters but on performance parameters subject to appraisal.
   
   
   All this would be possible only if adequate opportunities for private participation is given in education. However such interventions should be scanned for their commercial interests to a limiting value.
   
   
   The challenge lies in the organizations run by the government themselves to respond meaningfully to the emerging scenario. The education departments should not shy away from “third party audit” of the government schools periodically to restore them the respect they deserve. We cannot afford to continue to pat our back that “all is well” to hide our inadequacies.
   
   
   If the idea of licensing education is to be continued, it would certainly need a paradigm shift in its processes and procedures- just to ensure that  in future there is no beeline of such structures that need to be de-licensed because they are changing!