Sri Lanka is the
only South Asian country to have a literacy rate of more than 90%. As much as I
believe in not resting in one’s laurels, I think this is cause for celebration.
But we’re missing something here. We have, for one thing, mis-defined
“literacy”. By that term, we tend to qualify those who can read and write in
the most essential sense. UNESCO, I think, comes closer at defining what it
really means: “the ability to identify, understand, interpret,
create, communicate and compute, using printed and written
materials associated with varying contexts”. There are six qualifiers (in
italics). It is based on this that literacy as we know it is measured.
Still, I
wouldn’t raise the cheer. Not yet. This isn’t the time to brag or to celebrate.
The thing is, we as a nation have (in a way) gone back in literacy. Statistics
may not prove this. That’s one demerit with them. We were avid readers once.
And avid writers. Some are of the view that 1956 (or, to be more specific,
1960) heralded a radically different education system which inhibited the
reading culture we (supposedly) had enjoyed till then. That’s rubbish.
Let’s take
India. In 1947, the year of independence, her literacy rate had just crawled
above 10%, notwithstanding the number of English schools which had mushroomed
during the colonial era. Same case with Sri Lanka. "Divide and rule" was the name
of the game, after all. Creating a comprador class to cater to the needs of the
colonial masters was the end-goal of the school system. Unlike Sri Lanka,
however, India managed to create its own education policy post-independence.
Here, on the other hand, not until 1956 was any serious attempt at
universalising education made. That’s cause enough for pride, considering how
we’ve gone past India today.
Going back to
what I started with, does this leave room for complacency? By no means. Let’s
forget the forces out there which tried (and try) to stifle our present-day
system. Even then, there is cause for alarm. We have gone from
multidisciplinary learning to rote specialisation. This has nothing to do with
1956. Rather, this has to do with institutionalised staticity and inertia in a
system that looks upon any form of innovation hostilely. I have been told by
another group of people, beneficiaries under Free Education themselves, that there is no reason for reform. I too subscribed to this notion, until I realised that
these same people would be the biggest losers should reform ever be attempted.
More on this a little later.
We stress on
reading. A lot. I can speak (limited as my experience is) only of English here.
Textbooks are filled with activities, supposedly relevant for day-to-day lives
(think “English as a Life Skill” here). Nothing wrong with that. I feel that we
are placing the emphasis in the wrong place, though. Reading and reciting there
are in plenty. Activities leaning on grammar and punctuation do motivate the
child and inculcate interest. Unfortunately, though, they’re almost always
results-based. Test-oriented. We live in a culture that shrugs off learning
after exams are done and dusted.
There’s another
problem. Assignments and group activities will, doubtless, go a long way. But
only to a point. The Ministry of Education-published Education Perspectives (Volume 2, No 1, January 2013) bears testament to this. In it, the research paper
entitled “Feasibility of School Projects of GCE (A/L) Curriculum (Science Stream):
A Study of Student Views and Constraints” has commented that “students get
involved in these projects only to fulfil the requirement for getting admission
to the aforesaid examination”. Not too different to what I have seen with
English. Notwithstanding the inevitable grammar mistakes (endemic to almost
every country, if I may add), the focus is all too often on activities which
have a bearing only on the exam. We’re missing something here. Something big.
There was a time
when writing was mandatory in school curricula, and not just pre-1956. From
what I have heard, this was the case even in the ’80s. I don’t see the point of
neglecting it. Reading is essential. No two words about that. It builds
vocabulary and adds to mark. But without converting what is read (and what is
thought) into word, where’s the capacity to observe? To argue? To analyse? To
conclude? These are the abilities which count in real life. Not emphasising
enough on writing while screaming at everyone to read and speak is pointless
and without benefit.
As I wrote
before, I can limit my experience to only English. Small things help. They go a
long way. Diary-writing, word-doodling, and crossword puzzles are ideal
starting points. Teachers whom I respect for their wisdom have advised their
students to do these things. In seven cases out of 10, it has worked. There’s
nothing wrong with memorising grammar rules (which, may I add, is relevant even
for the mother tongue), but beyond a point, they rarely help. As a footnote,
let me say here that I too tested this with a friend I was helping out. Again,
it worked. Encouraging the habit of reading, without respecting the child’s incapacity
to memorise new words, serves no purpose.
We once had a robust
writing culture. Half a century back, it would have been unimaginable that this
culture would wither away. Perhaps it was a case of complacency, or rather too
much thereof, but the truth is that we failed to move our language with the years. Siri Gunasinghe’s
attempt at bringing the Sinhala language closer to a colloquial idiom was
shrugged off. When a language, any language, faces a lacuna of this
sort, the result can only be degradation. This is what happened. From the
twilight world of Karunasena Jayalath to the world of cheap sentimental
novelettes, we can see this process of deterioration. Why? Not because (as is
claimed frequently) of Free Education. It is a question to which the answer
lies elsewhere. We still haven’t grasped it.
In the meantime,
though, there are things we can do. Writing, for instance. There’s still a long
way to go. I was lucky. I learnt at a school which inculcated the writing and
reading habit in us. No doubt popular schools around Colombo (and other main
cities in Sri Lanka) do the same. But that’s beside the point here. Roger
Ebert, in his review of Michael Moore’s Sicko, describes how well he was
treated at a Chicago hospital after a carotid artery burst in him. He is not
mincing in his praise of the care, the attention, and the kindness of those who
treated him. He then makes this (timeless) observation, relevant to what I’m
writing on: “Every American should be as fortunate as I have been”.
This is an era
of free markets, choice, and globalisation (all within apostrophes of course).
Those berating the efficiency-gap in our education system think that problems
will sprout wings and fly away with one thing: privatisation. Some stop shy of
this and mention another magic word: tuition. The truth, as always, lies
elsewhere.
Those who justify
tuition by the “needs-exist-to-be-satisfied” argument conveniently put aside
one simple truth: choice can be manufactured. Tuition-masters identify a gap going
by the name of “syllabus”. As we all know, the conventional 8-to-2 timetable
cannot cover this. Schoolchildren have no other choice: they flock to
after-school classes. And, no different to how foreign milk-powder
manufacturers continually keep on harping about how essential their products
are, so the tuition-mafia (there’s no other word for it) couches its
profit-motive with feel-easy words emphasising their necessary-ness.
Let’s look at
things a little more clearly here. Let’s connect some dots. Fact is, our
education system needs reform. Big-time. Publication after publication has
highlighted this. Writing, obviously, needs to be emphasised. In every subject.
Some dislike reform, though. Natural enough. I’ve mentioned this class of
people above. They’re beneficiaries of Free Education. The reason for their
opinion is this: should there be reform, they would be the biggest to lose. I
mentioned this as well. Why? Because those opposing reform are the tuition-masters.
Think about it. The
milk-powder industry subsists in this country for just one reason: the myth
that milk-powder is essential. That’s how the tobacco industry proliferated
once upon a time. Shatter that myth, and profits go down. Same thing with
tuition-classes. If we were to implement across-the-board, holistic reform,
tuition-class size would drastically reduce to the point where only those who
really don’t understand school-subject attend them.
Tuition-masters
are supposed to “deliver”. That’s their by-line. Forgotten in this is the fact
that profit-motive inhibits teacher-innovation. Let me elaborate here. I’ve
been to tuition classes, both as student and as witness. Again, this is limited
mainly to English, but I have been to classes teaching other subjects. It’s the
same story basically: school-syllabus is too big, school-tuition gap is too
big, and the filling-the-gap must be done adhering to the rote-based,
specialisation-based, text-based approach our education system runs according
to. “Delivery” presupposes “payment”, we’re being told. So we send our kids to
tuition-class after tuition-class, not realising that the solution isn’t
“after-school” but “within-home”. We think that money and education cohabit,
and we hold it indisputable that the one can solve the other’s ills.
Can it, though?
I know teachers who don’t think so. One of them doesn’t, as per principle,
conduct tuition-classes. I’m not for total abolishment of tuition, mind you.
But talking with this teacher, you tend to see her point: we have come to the
point where monetised education, in tuition-class or elsewhere, simply doesn’t translate
to hands-down, mark-guaranteeing innovation. That this isn’t a universal truth,
I know. But then again, I’m not just speaking about marks. I’m talking about “after-school”
and “real-life”. School education, as we all know, simply cannot be replicated
by tuition-class.
I’ve heard of
tuition teachers who’ve built swimming pools and bought houses through mass
classes. Forget the ethics involved here. One can (validly) argue that we’ve
brought ourselves to a point where we cannot do by without money and capital.
The problem lies elsewhere. These teachers stick with the inertia our education
system has institutionalised. Now compare that with the case of teachers doing
“for free”. This isn’t uncommon in Sri Lanka.
There are
schools, for instance, which “hire” past students to help out, either for free
or for a small fee. I know for a fact that these teachers put more zest,
effort, and motivation into what they teach. We as a nation aren’t grateful
enough to them. That’s sad, because we have at the same time angel-titled
tuition-masters by calling them “benevolent”. They are not. Where’s the “benevolent”
in people who under-perform at school and make up for deficit later on for
money? Where’s the “benevolent” in taking advantage of syllabus-gap by having
intense, late-night classes for outrageous by-the-hour bucks?
Let’s go to something
else: past papers. They are emphasised on. Rightly. But we don’t question
access to them. Why? We’ve come to a point where they can be accessed online.
Not every child in Sri Lanka has a computer. But almost every school does, not
to mention internet cafes island-wide. Why do we still have to rely on
third-party publications? Why does access to them remain the prerogative of
these publishers, who, if I may add, maintain an uneasy relationship with mass-class
tuition-masters at times? I’m not just blaming the publishers here. The
Ministry of Education, doubtless, has a role to play. A big one. Past papers
are not infallible indicators of final mark. But, at the end of the day,
practice goes a long way. Denying access to them is a mockery to the “free”
part in our education system.
But this isn’t too
surprising. After all, some people still have trouble identifying education as
a “free” thing in this country. Forget the fact that they themselves were
beneficiaries of a “free” system. Aren’t we all, at the end of the day,
together as one? And this is not Marxian “solidarity” I’m talking about here.
People harping for private education often forget how their own education was
“billed”: how someone had to indirectly pay for their schooling, their
uniforms, their teachers, and their higher education.
As I wrote
before, I’m not calling for total abolishment of tuition. There are and always
will be students who need that “extra help”. One can provide it, for money or
for nothing depending on context. I’ve had my share of tuition, both as student
and as teacher, and both for a very short time. I’ve come to realise that we’ve
looked at the student-teacher relationship (in recent years of course) a little
wrongly. Spoon-feeding has become a sort of sine qua non of teaching.
Those who cannot be taught this way, hence, are left behind. Regrettably.
There are other
ways. Better ways. Teaching the child self-help, for instance. It isn’t easy.
Patience is needed. But, at a certain point, teaching the student to “teach oneself”
works. I’m speaking from experience here. Teach him/her the foundation. The baby-steps.
The love for reading and for writing. The rest will come. Automatically. All
this depends on context, of course, and I don’t deny that. Some students take
time. Natural enough. That’s why I stress on patience. Our (school) teachers don’t
lack it. That’s the key strength with which we can all go forward. Reserve
tuition for the neediest. Tuition-masters will run out of business, true. But
that’s their problem. After all, if I may quip this here, that’s the way of the
“free market”. That’s “choice” for you.
Bottom line: read,
write, and practise. As the Buddha once said, “Atta hi attano natho” (You are
your own master). No truer guiding principle can be found for an education
system badly in need of reform. Like ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment