Two unrelated events of the recent past have been the triggers for this editorial. The first is the grants announced by the Finance Minister in the recent budget, for setting up of various educational institutions across the country. The second was my experience at a traffic signal, one morning. With the traffic in full flow, two collegegoing youths on a bike crossed a red signal with gay abandon and laughed at an old man crossing the road, who was scared out of his wits. We have gone wrong somewhere, and it is a time to rethink.
I have touched upon four issues in this piece, the structure of the education pyramid, the efficacy and the reach of subsidies, the focus of education and its objective.
It appears to me that far greater attention is given to the post-graduation institutions, as compared to primary education. The quality and coverage of school education is abysmal. We still have a large population of the rural India which has very limited or no access to basic education. Primary schools have inadequate infrastructure, both in terms of physical facilities and human resources. So while we have single teacher schools with leaking roofs, we also boast of the state of the art IITs and IIMs which are temples of higher learning for students across the world. The education pyramid appears to be inverted, with an alarming scarcity of schools and a proliferation of higher education institutions where education is big business. This has to change. In a country where resources are scarce, there needs to be a rethink of priorities. The government must concentrate on funding primary and secondary education for the masses. These schools for the public survive on government support alone. For the time being development of higher education institutions can be left to public private partnerships or other modes of funding with the government acting as a regulator and facilitator.
While on resources, there also needs to be a revisit on whether the subsidies that the state gives are reaching those who deserve them. For example, in aided institutions, education for the girl child up to higher secondary level is virtually free. One wonders whether it is really necessary to provide such a universal subsidy. I fully support a subsidy to the deserving girl child to ensure that she does not drop out of school, but should this benefit the girl who visits McDonald’s after she walks out of school? Further, governments must also formulate consistent policies in funding. Today, there is a newspaper report stating that a State Government is contemplating commencing non-salary grants after a school runs for 10 years. If this stand is taken, how can schools survive for 10 years when there is restriction on fees which they can charge? The second aspect to consider is, whether our country gets the return it deserves when it subsidises education in certain higher education institutions. Take the case of a doctor or engineer who studies in a government-aided college, and having completed his education goes abroad for higher studies and subsequently migrates. While our country has borne the cost of his education, another will reap the benefits of his skills. Should the country not be compensated for this loss in some manner? I am deeply conscious that this is easier said than done, but maybe some thinking in this regard is called for.
Then, let us look at the focus of education. It is true that India has a very young population. If these young people are to be contributors in nation building, it is necessary for them to acquire skills sets. It is therefore right to have skill development as the focus. Having said that, I believe that if the country is to become an economic powerhouse and retain that status, then substantial attention has to be paid to fundamental research, something which has not happened in the past 4 to 5 decades. Skills are required to solve problems “for now”, while basic research will solve them permanently. One finds that state support to fundamental research is limited. When budgets are pruned, research institutions’ grants are immediately cut. Even industry support to basic research is not very encouraging. This is probably because governments have a “five year” perspective while industry is averse to investment in projects with long gestation periods and uncertainty of results. With the government investing in or subsidising higher education, the area of research is one which deserves the maximum attention.
It also needs to be considered as to what the objective of education is. The obvious objective of education is the acquisition of knowledge. But is the acquisition of knowledge which will enable one to make a better living the only object? Our education must endeavour to make students better human beings and fine citizens. It is in school that empathy and respect for the views for others, tolerance and morals can be imbibed. What needs to happen is a concentrated effort to inculcate values. This is undoubtedly a difficult task. If a child is taught values in school but they are trampled on at home, and in the society that he lives in, a child is likely to be confused. Even then it is necessary to make such an attempt. The endeavour of all of us is to leave material wealth for the next generation. Instead if our schools teach values and make our students good citizens, the world will be a better place to live in. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “the philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next”.
Anil.J.Sathe
Editor
