A
discussion on Curricular Load cannot be carried on in a vacuum. Any education
system has to be viewed in the societal and cultural network in which it functions
and the objectives which it is called upon to serve. It is only in that context
that the question of Curricular Load may be discussed.
Different
people mean different things by the term Curricular Load. Some imply more subjects,
others more subject content, and some others speak of more textbooks than an ideal
minimum or core prescribed by them. There are some who speak of limits of mental
ability of the learner. One viewpoint ascribes to life and another to bad teaching
not necessarily resulting in learning. In Sanskrit there is a saying - "yatha
kharascandana bhara vahi". 'As the donkey carries a load of sandal wood'. It is
in this sense that the latter two viewpoints are true. If one cannot enjoy the
fragrance of learning and benefited by the values imparted by education, then
one is bound to feel it as a load.
Indian
Educationists suffer from ignorance of the objective conditions on the one hand
and ambition not matched by the courage of conviction to work for it on the other.
For example, many do not seem to be aware of the parallel existence of State schemes
and Central schemes. Under the State scheme Logarithms and Trigonometry are taught
in the first year PUC and Calculus in the second year PUC whereas in the Central
scheme they are taught in the ninth and tenth standards respectively. And yet
the tenth standard of State scheme is considered equivalent to the tenth standard
of a Central scheme and so on and so forth.The Central and State syllabuses vie
with each other about increasing the number of subjects on the probable assumption
that this will increase the quantum of knowledge. If one compares the Central
Board of Secondary Education scheme for classes IX and X with the Karnataka State
scheme, one will find that the CBSE scheme with 11 papers, 45/periods and 825
marks (providing 2 additional papers with 75 marks each) is different in weightage
to subjects from the Karnataka scheme with 11 papers, 40 periods and 600 marks.
Institutionalized
education, which offers a number of fields of study at different levels must integrate
the two complementary notions, autonomy of disciplines and their common foundations
leading to integrated knowledge. Any deviation from this is bound to result in
an isolationist bias or an irksome heteronomy. One of the greatest drawbacks of
Curriculum Planning in India is that while subject Curriculum drawn up with meticulous
care and the highest expertise is brought to bear on it, little effort is made
to mesh them together and prepare an integrated curriculum for a specific level.
As a result the learner is confronted with repetition of ideas and information
in different subjects, and misses the interdisciplinary inter-dependence which
is so important in later life and in higher education. The curriculum containing
best products of best brains stands as a hybrid creature devoid of heart or brain.
Indian
schools do not teach a subject, they teach a textbook. Textbook becomes such a
dominating factor that neither teachers nor students have time to think of books.
These textbooks contain not only the present status of a subject but also the
history of the subject. They do not replace old facts and methods by new, but
add the new to the old. As a result the content and volume of textbooks grow notes
gain currency and selective preparation is resorted to. Textbook industry is a
gainful activity for many including teachers.
Some
people suggest that many languages add to the Curricular Load. They try to hide
behind the slogan to push some languages out of the curriculum. Such arguments
are the result of a lack of understanding of how language functions in the linguistic
and communicative network in a country. The multilingualism in India is not new.
In spite of the multilingualism there was so much communication among people that
today India is acknowledged as one linguistic area by scholars all over the world.
In ancient times Sanskrit was being written in the scripts of the dominant languages
used in different parts of the country. Even many Bengali books were written in
Oriya script books written in Bengali script to facilitate reading of a language
in different linguistic areas. This was true in other regions also. Only those
who take a static view of education and society could suggest a mono-language
model for a multi-lingual country like India. Even today in the English speaking
regions of the world a mono-model is discarded in favour of a multi-model. Therefore
to suggest exclusion of languages from the curriculum on the pretext of load is
fraught with great danger.
First
of all whether a language is taught as a subject or a medium, the main purpose
is communication. The communication may be from speaker to hearer or from writer
to reader. Therefore learning of a language is not like learning a content subject.
It is like learning a new universe of discourse. Learning a new language is acquiring
ability to perceive reality in a new way. For example, Hindi pani girta hE, Oriya
Megha barsuci/pakouci, Kannada Male bartaide, English It is raining, German es
regent give different ways of perceiving the same thing. Hindi lit. 'water is
falling', Oriya lit. 'cloud is raining', and Kannada lit. 'rain is coming'. Both
English it and German es are anaphoric without anaphora. Moreover, German, es
regent stands both for it rains and it is raining. Thus the same reality is perceived
and described variously by different languages and cultivation of many languages
is not only enriching but also a shield against ethnocentric prejudices. Secondly,
unless one is competent in various languages skills through which one has to acquire
knowledge, one cannot aspire to do well in content subjects. If language competence
is low than clarity of concepts is bound to be affected and consequently clarity
in expression would be equally defective. As the UNESCO Report on "Interactions
between Linguistics in mathematics is related to performance in language skills.
Most important of all, if the aim is to devise an education for the 88 out of
100 who do not get a chance to go beyond the school, then beginning from their
mother tongue they need to be provided with languages which could establish linkages
with other segments at different levels in the country and even abroad. It is
keeping in view all these considerations that the 3-language formula was suggested
as a strategy. Any reduction on the number of languages in the curriculum is bound
to affect education adversely.
Those who speak of core subjects for all and optionals for those who can take
it forget that the Education Commission strongly recommended an undifferentiated
course of general education for all, without any diversification of studies up
to class X. Moreover, how does one determine the core? In ancient and medieval
times when Philosophy had greater demand even over Science, if somebody could
understand and interpret the Bhagavata, his education was considered complete.
In the present context is Science the core or Philosophy? One can also raise questions
from a different angle. Would the core consist of Joan of Arc or Rani of Jhansi,
Martin Luther Kind or Mahatma Gandhi, Shakespeare, Eliot or their derivatives
in India? Those who would argue in favour of becoming international without being
national would probably opt for the first alternative as Rani of Jhansi, Mahatma
Gandhi and the Indian authors are region and language-bound for them.
Is core to be determined for all on the basis of the lowest common denominator?
If so, then would not the 88 out of every 100 who would be the core for the school.
If on the other hand, core is to be prescribed so as to retain the differences
which are perpetuated by the current education system by providing optionals for
the privileged, then is not the debate on Curricular Load merely a camouflage
to continue the elitist
orientation?
If the curriculum is a load, it is because of its irrelevance. The price in the
Indian past is systematically destroyed by labeling it medieval, religious and
anti-scientific. Such facts as fabricating and placing iron beams on high temples,
whose tensile strength per square inch was 25 tons when metallurgy even was not
known in Europe, are conveniently underplayed either because of ignorance or because
of regional jealousy. Even though in pre-Christian periods there were republics
such as Vaishali and Kalinga, our children are taught that democracy is a gift
of the British to India. While the residential address of the British Prime Minister
is of great interest to the Indian intellectuals, the address of the birth place
of the Father of the Nation is not. Even though Gandhi and Lohia cried hoarse
for manageable technology, the economists begin taking note of small and appropriate
technology only because Schumacher's Small is Beautiful is foreign. Having systematically
destroyed our pride in the past the students are told of the poverty, misery and
squalor of the present existence. They are told that the 70% illiterates are our
national shame; and our cultural diversity carries in it our national disintegration.
Our higher education which has grown six-fold during the last 30 years merely
stamps people drop-outs at successive stages and in the process destroys whatever
is left of their self esteem and self image. No wonder that such a system fails
to inspire confidence in harmonious growth and gives rise to an uncertain future.
Rather than promoting innovativeness and creativity it promotes uniformity and
mediocrity. Instead of learning it emphasizes teaching. Therefore, curriculum
instead of becoming a medium of creativity self expression and exploration, becomes
a symbol of irrelevant authoritarian imposition and therefore a load.
The
authors of this book, all members of the Faculty of the Institute, have studied
empirically the question of Language Load. Opinions of the students, their parents
and teachers have been ascertained on the various problems related to the issue
of Language Load. A comprehensive interpretation of the findings have been attempted.
It is hoped that this book, if not able to remove the misconception associated
with the problem, will at least stimulate further research.
The authors of this book, all members of the Faculty of the Institute, have studied
empirically the question of Language Load. Opinions of the students, their parents
and teachers have been ascertained on the various problems related to the issue
of Language Load. A comprehensive interpretation of the findings have been attempted.
It is hoped that this book, if not able to remove the misconception associated
with the problem, will at least stimulate further research.
(
D P PATTANAYAK)