By Patricia Mukhim
The newspaper is a great platform for voicing dissent and dissatisfaction at the manner in which public institutions are run. And make no mistake; even a private school, college or university is a public institution. Yes, this city has spawned great institutions and many of us have profited immensely from them. However, it is also true that these institutions are today resting on their laurels. Not everything is going right within these educational institutions. Unfortunately we have all been brought up in a culture of secrecy and reverence for these institutions, thereby perpetuating the conspiracy of silence. Anyone who voices even a genuine concern or a different opinion is intellectually flogged. Hence to expect a parent-teacher-principal interface to be a completely free, neutral and an honest interaction is naive. Parents attend but will only stand up to say good things. That is how we are taught to behave. Nay-sayers are not tolerated because that is an uncomfortable zone. Besides, most parents are paranoid about reprisal against their wards by the school/college teacher concerned. And this is not an imaginary fear!
Most of these institutions started with a noble vision. Today their only claim to fame is that they produce the toppers and the crème de la crème of society. Even the letters we have published in these columns from students themselves (who seem besotted by their alma mater) all hint at the good results of the schools/colleges. You hear very little about the social skills exhibited by students walking out of these elite institutions. It’s as if the past glory of the institution is the only badge of honour they carry. This is so sad because it also reflects a blind loyalty that takes away the space for internal reflection.
There was a time when some of the missionary run schools were beyond the reach of the hoi-polloi. Only the affluent could afford them. At the time money was a hard-earned commodity. It came mostly through sweat and grind, rarely through inheritance. Today money comes from coal mines, the balding of forests and the killing of rivers. The affluent of my generation also carried with them good upbringing. Now with the advent of the noveau riche, money is never a problem. But easy money does not necessarily breed good conduct. Our institutions are today a hub of the moneyed that care a damn about decent behaviour.
Let’s look at the teachers. School teachers lack motivation to make teaching-learning an enjoyable experience. One parent wrote about the cruelty inflicted on a child-student. We might argue that in the past teachers spanked the hell out of us and that we turned out to be what we are because of them. Now on hindsight we know that corporal punishment is not the answer to any problem. And, that if you are beaten for not knowing your lesson, you’re more likely to forget everything and going blank. Besides, physical punishment desensitises the child. After a while children who are beaten black and blue get used to it and cease to respond. Not all kids learn at the same pace and nor do they perform equally adeptly after they have gone through a lesson. Each one has his/her own method of learning and experiencing a lesson discussed (not taught) in the classroom.
It is sad that after so many teachers’ refresher courses not much has changed in our teaching methods. In my time we learnt by rote because we could only score marks if we could vomit out what the teacher spoon-fed us. Over time we learnt the value of understanding and grasping what we are taught by processing it in our minds. And if a question is asked on what was discussed in the classroom we ought to be able to answer that, based on our own understanding. Since every child is different and the mental capacities too differ, each one could come up with a different answer. The answers could be correct but differently expressed. But will the teacher accept this? No way! The teacher knows best. So her questions and her answers are what will be accepted. I guess it’s too much hard work to allow free expression to every child. So school basically remains a place where creativity is suppressed, where the imagination is quashed and where inquisitiveness or curiosity is considered impolite impertinence. And then we wonder why students don’t ask questions, don’t investigate, are not curious when they reach college? How can they when teachers have killed every little spark, every germ of genius and intellectual freedom. No wonder most geniuses were misfits in school.
Now let me come to the point about a certain college whose principal it was alleged by some concerned parents remain an enigma. They just can’t meet her. A principal of a college has a larger then life role. She/he cannot play Jekyll and Hyde. The principal is as important as the institution she/he represents. Just because an institution has name and fame it does not mean that the principal is not obliged to meet parents who may have their own personal queries and might like to discuss their child’s learning or behavioural problems. These are times of rapid changes and as one Vice Chancellor of a renowned university in the region said, “We are dealing with an online generation. This can be both a problem and an opportunity.” Indeed students today spend much time engaging with a virtual world that their parents cannot fathom. The principal is expected to help parents grapple with this dilemma. The principal cannot hide behind the veil of “too much work” and avoid meeting parents or students.
And pray who are the vice principals to filter out who can and who cannot meet the principal? Why are the vice principals so defensive of their own positions and why should they have to defend the principal? If at all the principal feels she has been unnecessarily harangued, the least she can do is give a straight rejoinder. There was no need for teachers of the college to develop a bleeding heart and stand up like kids do to defend the leader of the pack. The most appropriate action would have been to get into an introspective session. But to even suggest this might be construed outrageous. When there is a staff meeting presided over (hopefully) by the principal of the college, would teachers ever have courage to speak out candidly about what’s wrong with the college administration? This is a ‘No Go’ area. So how does the college find out whether it is doing the right thing? I suppose everyone will say, “Isn’t the grand certification by the NAAC good enough to testify that we are doing great? Sorry, but NAAC does not know the internal dynamics of a college and will never know it because the yardstick for grading a college is based mostly on its academic performance and NAAC member’s interview with past pupils, teachers, students et al. Some of the elements that corrode the pillars of the institution may never be detected by NAAC. The first to sense that corrosion would be the sensible and sensitive teachers and the students. But not the teachers and students who go around with blinkers!
I found it rather curious that the teachers would suspect the parents of having ulterior motives for meeting the principal. Isn’t that being abnormally paranoid and judgmental? As a parent I may want to meet the principal for any number of reasons. In this day and age a principal has to also be available to the students. That is why a principal must have the calibre to take on that onerous task. Not anyone and everyone can handle the pressures that come with the territory. My personal feeling is that the post of principal has to be filled up by a competent person through open interview because it also involves leadership skills. In most missionary run institutions, principals are appointed through an internally orchestrated mechanism. An institution run by nuns will have a nun at the helm and one run by the priesthood will have a priest as principal. I am not sure that this is the best method of choosing a principal in a very challenging, dynamic and demanding environment where the principal is also the counsellor and friend of youth. I may be accused of spreading a different kind of sedition or of being a fifth columnist who is betraying my alma mater. But what has to be said must be said. Every college or school has to serve the interest of students. Period. The institution can never be bigger or more important than the learner. The loyalty of the teaching staff should also be to the students first and foremost.