What Bhagwat Possibly Meant Was We Need a New Education Policy: TSR Subramanian

New Delhi: TSR Subramanian shot back into the limelight recently when RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat called for a re-look into the New Education Policy framed by a panel headed by him. A week after that, HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar took the first major decision on the new “no-detention” policy, one of the key recommendations in the panel report.

Subramanian spoke to News18’s Eram Agha on these topics. The former cabinet secretary defended his report, saying there was general acceptance. The key point of his report, he said, is that there should be enough inclusivity.

Here are the excerpts.

Q) Why do you think Mohan Bhagwat mentioned the New Education Policy at his Vijaydashami speech?

A) I was traveling at that time so don’t want to say much on this, but my impression is there is general acceptance of the report of the committee that came out in May-June this year. A number of people said that good suggestions were made in the report. What he possibly meant was, changes are required in the existing policy and new steps need to be taken. We have told them what is wrong in the system. What we say is that the RTE is well-intentioned but it is not working; how school education is in a disarray, where not only learning standards are low, but typically a student of class eight is not familiar with subject matter of class four. More than that the performance is coming down. The RTE gives right to education from 6 to 16 years of age. There is 67% population living in poverty; yet, in rural areas, people prefer going to private school than government school. On top of that there is no recognition. Generally, that education in India is in crisis. We think all is well as people are going to Harvard, IIT. People don’t understand how important is education in India. Our report emphasizes that we need drastic improvement – the key point is that there is not enough inclusivity, under law all are equal but there are huge gaps in the systems in place in school, college.There have to be changes to accommodate them, they cannot adapt but system needs to adopt them. I think what Bhagwat meant was ‘we need a new policy’.

Q) Your take on the need for Civics education in India?
A) You see, in school, unlike many other countries, the children do not have the backing of the family. With working mothers, poverty in rural areas, many children are first generation learners and their house does not give them the kind of basic knowledge. Under the Right to Education the age limit is 6-16 but we have said it should be 4-16. Two years of pre-school should be part of compulsory education, because at 4 the child is highly receptive. That is the age to learn arithmetic and language skills. The civics education is about character building, how to deal with people, about the basic truths of living with others and having a civic sense – these are important attributes to be developed.

For this, schools should have a module, which brings to them these things. Our schools are not just to teach Mathematics and English. They should give orientation, Indian-ness. Go to any school in any country, like in America, they say America is great. In India, we have to teach India is great. We have a culture, tradition, values, and they should be taught at all levels in schools.

Q) What do you have to say about the HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar and his predecessor Smriti Irani – considering the number of controversies she courted during her tenure?
A) I would like to answer this question differently. Today, the focus of education is on the ministers, secretaries, board, this must change and the focus should be directed to child, teachers, school, and principals. We have glorified officials, but it is children who should be glorified. Give them the opportunity, they will learn.

Q) The ASER Report said that there has been improvement with regard to access to education but it has not translated into learning. What is the most important step to enhance learning standards?
A) We have said that our pedagogy is highly rote-oriented. Our examination system is rote-oriented. This should change and make the children think, apply knowledge in practical manner, be original. This was talked about in 1968 but in all these times pedagogy and curriculum has not changed. We need a revamp.

Q) What has been the contribution of Right to Education Act?
A) RTE has done a lot of good. Don’t forget that at the time of Independence the rate of literacy was 11% and, now schooling is over 90%. In 1946, when United Nations was formed in New York, India was one of the signatories of free compulsory education but it took us fifty years for this. The good thing is 25% reservation for the economically backward children. There was opposition from private schools. But we need it – children from affluent families should mix with children from poor backward families. It is good for social cohesion and bring elitism down. We generally supported RTE but it excludes critical elements like focus on schools, teachers, and students. There is much talk about infrastructure but actual practice is not there. It talks about playground, laboratory but we have laboratories that are locked and have no chemicals and power supply.

Q) As per media reports, under Javadekar a new ‘no-detention’ policy will come in effect where students will be automatically promoted till Class V. Some have ruled in favour of its removal, while other stakeholders are opposed to that idea. What do you have to say about the policy?
A) We have strongly recommended that the ‘no-detention’ policy should go. In principle, it is good, but not in practice. The way it is adopted in India it is not practical for a variety of reasons: it adversely affects quality of education. We have said no detention up to class but after class V it should go. But before detention, the boy or girl has to be given chances, remedial coaching, we need to have systems where children who are lagging behind are allowed to make up. The government school system doesn’t care whether you do well or not. We need a system that can identify the bottom 25 children, and then be given opportunity. So when we say inclusivity, we mean to have human approach for those who are economically backward.

[Source:-News 18]