By TFL Mawlong
The editorial “HSSLC Results: Time to introspect” (ST, May 10, 2017) reflects the ground reality of Science education in Meghalaya. Let me add here that despite an impressive number of HSSLC top ten positions holder from just one school, the number of candidates that could secure useful ranks in high stakes competitive examinations like NEET from the same school used to be close to zero, and in IIT-JEE, it used to be nil. The malady in our science education is indeed real. And in my view what ails our science education, despite everybody’s desire for a good quality education, is, in some way, due to our inability to grasp the significance of “Newton’s Laws of motion”! Sir Isaac Newton described the three laws of motion in his book “The Principia: Mathematical principles of Natural Philosophy”. These three laws of motion laid the foundation for physics and science. But perhaps beyond the realm of Physics, Newton’s laws of Motion also reveal great insights and tell us pretty much everything we need to know about how to improve science education in Meghalaya.
The First Law of Motion says: “Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest, unless acted upon by an external force.” I am sure many individuals and the students are feeling so sick of the science education in Meghalaya, but being inactive for so long under the spell of complacency, it is hard for them to act or initiate any change in the absence of any kind of nudge. The government and civil societies should first recognize the need for reform, and should find a way to start the reform (at least in some small way). Once the need for reform is recognized, policy makers, tech executives, educators and parents will be nudged to getting into some constructive action towards reforming education. And once it starts, believe me, it gets easier to keep moving, thanks to Newton’s first law of motion!
The Second Law of Motion says: “Force (F) equals mass (m) times acceleration (a) (i.e. F=ma)”. Here Force, F, is a vector, it involves both magnitude (how much effort we are putting in) and direction (where the effort is focused). If we want things to accelerate in some direction, then the size of force we apply and the direction of that force will both matter. Thus it is not merely about how great our effort (magnitude),is but it is also about where the effort is focused (direction). Similarly in education reform, given the limited resources that we have, the amount of effort and where we focus matters. We need to properly strategize and plan what action to take and where to focus. So how should we start? Should one start by redesigning the curriculum, should we start by re-evaluating the quality of our academic manpower, or should we start by redesigning the nature and content of our school, board and college examination system! And where should we focus? Should we focus at the secondary school level, or higher secondary school level, or at the college level? If we focus simultaneously at all three levels and with all the above steps etc, then with what “relative intensity” should we direct our effort? Once we recognize the need for reform, we can see hundred crux points to start with. Intellectuals, educators, and policy makers should brainstorm for a most thoughtful and creative strategy.
Last but not the least, the Third Law of Motion says: “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” In much the same way, every effort for bringing changes in our education system is always balanced by an opposing force from the “no-changers”. So to bring changes we can either power through the barrier or better still remove the opposing forces. We should understand that it is very important to be goal-oriented, and remove any major obstacle. Thus, if political leaders show a lack of interest in education, people can choose to change them by denying them the votes. If teachers refuse or are unable to improve their teaching methods, or if they are proved unable to teach science effectively, or if they reject the effective learning technologies, then students and parents should lodge a complaint against such non-performing and inefficient teachers, and the authority can choose to counsel, guide, motivate, or relegate proven inefficient teachers to non- teaching posts in the institution, or even mercilessly retire them prematurely. We should understand that no amount of effort can improve our education system unless something is done to dis-incentivise laziness and inefficiency. And if we really believe the idea that no one has the moral authority to assess the performance of teachers, then as a society we remain the underdog in science education.
On carefully analyzing the situation one could see that there is nothing wrong with the students (in fact millennial kids are quite smart and are efficient learners), there’s nothing so wrong with the curriculum either (whatever be the curriculum, if academic manpower is of low quality, the curriculum remains not so effective), hence something must be so wrong with the school and college authorities, teachers, educational pedagogy and patterns of evaluation.
In conclusion, to reinvent Science education in Meghalaya we need to first recognize the need for reforms and plot ways to set the wheels of reform in motion, we need to strategize the efforts at reforming and in a mission mode we need to remove every major obstacle on the way. In my view the malady of our education today has its chief foundation in the low teaching standards. And finally, I implore to each one of us to come out of our comfort zones and let us reinvent our science education using Newton’s laws of Motion!
(The writer is an alumni of IIT Kharagpur)