By Ananya S Guha
Provincial education is tautology. Education is intrinsically provincial and decentralization is eking out the best from it. Government ‘control’ is desirable even in private schools and colleges, so that there are uniform standards in terms of admission and recruitment of teachers. So, provincial education has to be seen in terms of diffusing ‘power’. The common school system or neighbourhood schools are cases in point, where the idea is to detach education from hierarchy or elitism. Thus the son or daughter of a bureaucrat may be admitted in the same school as the progeny of people who possess much lower incomes. In that manner education is egalitarian. What is provincial is a matter of question. Does it not already exist in terms of devolution of rank and power, or different schools maintaining allegiance to separate boards for conduct of examinations?
The point is that provincial education is not the solution, the solution lies in a more egalitarian system, by which there is more accessibility for the economically weaker sections of the society. This is the first step. The second is to then categorize education into different streams such as, vocational and general. Those having weak cognitive skills can be encouraged to strengthen practical skills and what is called: ‘ hands on training ‘. Simply targeting the government aided or deficit schools for what is called provincial, is exerting more control over them, in terms of controlling infrastructure, but not quality and accessibility.
Today in India, the biggest problem in education is making it accessible, right from school onwards to college and university. That is why distance and flexible education have become so popular, in terms of an equal opportunities. But the base and bedrock, still remains school education, where even if there is accessibility, the issues of drop outs must be addressed. For example we are informed that Meghalaya has one of the highest dropout rates at the primary levels, and North East India has the highest number of untrained primary school teachers.
Politicizing education in terms of government control is no solution. The exertion of control and dominance must come in terms of quality, recruiting the best teachers and ensure a minimum decent salary for school teachers. Infrastructure will follow. Equipping schools with say computers, libraries and spacious play fields must follow as corollaries. Private schools must be coerced into thinking that education is a social responsibility, and not only a ‘ business ‘. In that manner the privatization of education will have a meaning, a social responsibility and a commitment towards what is best for the teacher and the taught, in terms of learning and delivering services. There is nothing wrong in making education a ‘ market ‘, so long as it is for a larger cause and good. Many private institutions in the country have the best schools, but in the name of education and a marketing frenzy, education cannot to degenerate into talking shops!
So, what in actuality the government must do is to exert control over private schools and make the government run schools, more sustainable in terms of teaching, quality, accessibility and institutional mechanisms. This will also be a part of provincial control. School education is the apex of all education, it is the base and foundation, it is not a static archetype, it must continuously innovate, adapt and change. This is the inherent logic of all education, but it must start at school, for creating innovative spaces for the fledgling adult, or the child.
Next comes the investment in education. If the GDP in education cannot increase in the country, or remains stagnant, then education will not be given a fillip. Also issues such as teacher absenteeism, are crucial factors to measure the quality of education. What then would make up the larger canvas, of provincial education? Is it centralization, but further devolution, maintaining at the same time control or supervision? Is it asking those schools aided by the government to provide more infrastructures? Is education to be viewed only in infrastructural terms, buildings, equipments, etc. What is the larger space that the teacher and the student needs? What about respectable salaries for school teachers, which in turn gives them mental stamina and motivation? How do we ensure creativity of a child flowering in terms of reading books, having proper playgrounds, and learning to use computers in terms of e learning, and more innovative practices? How do we motivate teachers to extend the classroom in terms of innovation, counselling to students, and discovering talents? These call for a more integrated and holistic treatment of education. Recently I went to a local school in Shillong for girls, where there was an exhibition by students, displaying both humanities and science subjects. For example there was a depiction on the life and works of Shakespeare. This a delightful holistic way of looking at education. In whatever seminal manner, schools must be encouraged to take up such objectives.
When we talk only about provincial education, we miss holism and the wood for the trees!
Unless again there is one concerted policy adopted towards education, with premium on school education by the central and state governments the disorderliness will continue, with multiple boards conducting examinations and entry points to higher and technical education leading to disparate elements and subjectivity. With all the talk about skills and vocational education, more imagination must flow into this area, making a connection between school and college, as a distinct entity and stream of studies. ‘Soft’ skills and computer literacy may be integrated with vocational education, such as communication skills and personality development. Further vocational education must be viewed in perspectives of basic education. This will also give opportunities to students in rural areas, thus augmenting the need for a more concerted effort towards provincial education!