Formal System of Education in India --Thoughts on some basic changes needed.

C N Krishnan

(With inputs from members of the Journal Steering Committee)

Abstract

The formal system of education prevailing in India, from school to university, performs rather poorly on two key counts;(i) preparing the young to be responsible citizens with sound character (ii) enabling them to be productive and valuable members of the economy and society. This is mostly a consequence of its being poorly connected to the realities of our society and economy, both in terms of its content as well as organisation – something that is in turn clearly traceable to its wholly colonial origins. While that is a historical reality at the time of our independence, our present predicament is entirely because of our failure to alter the system in any fundamental sense as was needed for a newly independent nation with a rich tradition and history of its own in the field of knowledge and education. Some broad directions that must be pursued to rectify this fundamental flaw urgently are outlined here, with the hope of initiating some serious debates around them and allied themes.

Repeated failures in the conduct of common admission and recruitment tests at various levels, national as well as state, have attracted the ire of the youth, the phenomenon sometimes termed “Gen-Z Revolt”, and frantic efforts are being promised to fix the loopholes. While this issue should of course be attended to, the revolt of the youth is not just about the incompetence and corruption in the conduct of these examinations, but is essentially about the failure of our education system as such – a system that, in its most glaring form, leaves a large part of our university graduates unemployed, and most others under employed!

This note identifies some issues that lie at the root of the problem in our education sector, from schools to universities, and points out some critical areas that need urgent remedial action. This is not a comprehensive policy statement on Education, but only identifies some key points that need to be attended to while dealing with the totality of the problem.

There are nearly twenty five crores of school children and five crores of college students enrolled in the formal education system in our country that has two broad goals and purposes --

i. Inculcate values and practices in the young to become good citizens of the country and the world.

ii. Impart the knowledge and skills needed to make them useful and productive members of the society and the economy.

Inadequate attention to either or both of these can be disruptive to the society and the nation. The youth revolt being witnessed in our country points to this failure, especially the failure on the second count, (ii) above. This note deals mainly with this aspect, and aspect (i) has been dealt with separately by Suyash Saboo, Rajeev Sangal elsewhere in this issue of the Journal.

Leaving out vocational streams leading up to Certificates, Diplomas etc, formal education systems in our country generally have four distinct stages: School, UG degree, PG Degree and the Doctoral Degree.

Typically, only about one-fourth of school students on passing out go to college in our country as a whole, and only less than one-tenth of those passing out of the UG programs go on to do a PG program. Those entering the doctoral programs are numerically insignificant in relative terms.

I. Pertaining to the Content of Education.

A few ideas are listed below, to be expanded and elaborated later as per need.

1. Presently, each stage of study appears to have been designed with the primary goal of enabling the student to go to the next stage of study – from School to UG to PG to Doctoral stage! For example, even though nearly 3/4th of the school students on passing out end up taking up some remunerated work (including as self-employed), there is hardly anything specific in the study programs they have gone through that prepares them for it! Same with the UG stage, almost 90% of them after completion move out to start working, but very large number of them do not receive any specific exposure or training to join the work force after graduation. That is, there is a severe disconnect between the contents taught in the schools and colleges, and the occupations that most of them end up pursuing.

2. The most fundamental change to be brought into the education system is to treat each stage of study as being a terminal stage, viz. each stage prepares them to join the workforce at the end of that stage, with there being a provision that those who desire to move to the next stage of study have received enough exposure to enable them to do so. Thus the school system should have an idea of the kind of work their wards would be getting into (shown as Job-1 in the figure), and see that they are broadly equipped to do so while in school. Because much of Job-1 would be specific to the local region, perhaps a few surrounding districts, the education they receive should be connected to the social, industrial and economic conditions and context of this region. Meaning that the much of the content of school education would have to be local, and hence can by no means be decided at the national, or perhaps even at the state level. Same with Job-2 which would mostly be confined to the state itself, except perhaps in the case of metros and some professional courses, and therefore most of the contents of UG Education would also have to be connecting to the economy and society of the state concerned. (Re-orienting the study content of the schools and colleges in this manner would require that extensive data be collected on the occupations being pursued by students passing out at different levels over time.)

3. The idea of having a “Vocational Stream” in schools, running in parallel with the main “Academic Stream”, should be done away with. The entire school curriculum in all branches should have enough “vocational” content that all children go through so that they are equipped to become productive members when they pass out, with possibly some additional on-job training support. That is, even those who go on to higher education would have acquired an education with some “vocational” content.

4. As mentioned, the current youth revolt was triggered by the extreme incompetencies and corruption in the conduct of national and state level common exam systems. While efforts are being made to plug these holes, the lager issue of why these exams are being conducted at such scales should first be debated. As a rule, there should be no special admission tests, either nationally or at state levels, to admit students into any regular programs of study at the UG or PG levels in any disciplines. Performance of the students in the corresponding qualifying exams should be the basis on which the admissions are made to all branches of study. (Recruitment to various employment positions and posts may however be made through such exams if felt necessary). If the Central Govt. so wants, it can hold a common exam to admit students to the Central institutions, but the states should have full freedom to decide how to admit students to their institutions in all disciplines. Doing away with the gamut of “entrance examinations” and the associated “coaching centre” cultures would in itself constitute a significant reform of our education system – and service to our citizens and society. It is worth recalling here that Tamil Nadu had done away with its Common Entrance Tests to Engg Admission in 2006, and there have been no evidence of any decline in the standard of its engineering graduates compared to other states that are continuing with such entrance examinations. This in itself should break the myth of entrance exams being essential for ‘picking the best’!

5. There are several ways through which the connection of Education with the surrounding Economy and Society ( 2 above) can be brought out and strengthened, such as

a) At every stage of the Education process, from school to university, there would be courses in the curriculum describing the economy and society of the District, the State and the Nation.

b) Every educational institution, from schools to university departments, or clusters of them in nearby areas, should have a lively exhibition on a permanent basis, showcasing the industrial, economic and social life of the region around it (District, State, Nation), and bringing out how the education being imparted in the institution relates to this larger reality around.

c) The institution should continuously engage with the Artisans, Farmers, Industrialists, Businessmen, Artists, Philanthropists, Technologists , Academicians etc from the nearby region, and enrich the teaching-learning process in the institution.

d) Activities in the institution such as Students’ Projects and Theses, Doctoral dissertation, R&D Projects and Consulting, Seminars and Conferences etc should have, as far as possible, some clear connection with the economy and society of the surrounding areas.

e) Each Institution should generate a detailed and up to date repository of the human and material resources of its neighbourhood, and keep it updated continuously; tools like AI could be of great value in making this lively and engaging. This repository should be a key reference point for all activities of the institution. Etc.

Explicit budgetary provisions have to be made to enable the educational institutions to perform these functions on a continuing basis.

6. The States would ensure that, while the emphasis of the reformed education system at every level would remain preparing the students to play useful social and economic roles after passing out, those elements of knowledge that are somewhat universal and context-free would also be retained in the curriculum adequately so that our capacity as a nation to contribute to the global knowledge pool would not be adversely affected. This should be relatively easy to implement now given the abundance of web based and AI content dealing with the latter aspect. Adding relevant ‘local’ content is much harder than adding ‘universal’ content!

7. As far as the professional areas of education ( engineering, medicine, information technology, law, agriculture, paramedical, pharmaceutical, commerce and accounting etc) are concerned, linking the content of education to society and economy is relatively easier, and should be attempted first. (Some details of this have been chalked out for the repositioning and re-orienting of Engineering Education in a state, and a draft document on this can be shared on request) . Such however may not be the case with the School Education as well as bulk of the graduate level studies in fields such as Arts , Sciences, Humanities etc is concerned, and addressing this issue adequately is of critical importance while redesigning our education system to meet the needs of the society and its youth. A number of Working Groups etc would have to be set up in each state to engage in this large and critical task.

8. Failure to put the Economy and Society at the heart of the Education process at all levels has been chronic to our country in modern times, and is clearly traceable to its colonial origins, followed by our continued failure after independence to replace it with something indigenous that can serve our needs. (Some insight into the system of education, especially primary education, that existed in our country before the British rule is given by J K Bajaj elsewhere in this issue of the Journal). The only major exception to this was a short period of 30-40 years during our Independence Movement inspired by Mahatma Gandhi when the evolving concepts of education for the free nation had deep roots in its social and economic context and conditions – something that however got forgotten once we achieved independence. (A separate article by A Annamalai in this issue has more details on the educational initiatives taken up during our freedom struggle inspired and guided by Mahatma Gandhi – showing how linkages with Economy and Society were built into the very conception of Education.)

This failure to connect education organically with the economy and society seems to be shared across all major political ideologies and formations in the country, with minor variations here and there no doubt, or even between the Centre and the State Govt s. To illustrate, the NEP 2020 of the Centre, and the SEP 2025 of the T N State Govt.do not differ too much from each other on this score; despite having very many valuable ideas and suggestions, these documents limit the idea of “incorporating local content” into the curricula only to matters of language, culture, tradition, arts, ecology etc. This is where the crucial break is needed now.

II. Pertaining to the Organisation of Education

1. The flaws of the Education System can not be fixed only by making changes within the system itself, but should include attending to its linkages to the larger Society and Economy:

Most educational reforms, such as NEP 2020, attempt to make improvements mostly within the boundaries of the Education System only, and while these are required, they do not take into account the larger context and situation in which the system is operating. (The 22 “guiding principles” given as bullet points in pages 5-6 of NEP 2020 clearly bring out this inadequacy, despite many of them being quite relevant and meaningful).

2. As brought out in Part-I above, the context and content of education has to be predominantly local to the districts and states concerned for it to relate meaningfully to the economy and society around. What follows immediately from this is that the Central Govt. should not be controlling and managing Education, especially so with School Education; it would be decided predominantly by the states concerned. Rather than formulate a National Policy, the Centre should limit its role to laying down broad Guidelines or Framework that would ensure that the constitutional values and principles are upheld throughout the country while the States decide the Education Policies, Programs etc. This does not even require that Education be moved out of the Concurrent List of the constitution (though that is entirely desirable); if needed, it can stay as it is with an amendment that each party can take decisions within their domain entirely on their own after mutual consultations, without the Centre having an effective veto right in many matters as exists now, often in the name of “uniformity”.

3. What also follows irrevocably from the above is that the language of the State concerned would be the language in which education in the state is conducted, with some exceptions made as per need. This is critically needed if the content of education has to get connected to the society and economy of the neighbourhood regions.

4. The above steps are also essential to correct a key flaw of the present education system in the country, viz. that the well to do does not have any use for the institutions and provisions of the State System; from 1st standard to doctoral level and beyond, they take the route of the well endowed Central or Private institutions! This total bypassing of the State System by the elite is one of the key reasons for the poor condition of the state level system in all areas – in education, healthcare, public transport, hygiene etc. Education is the field where correctives to this gross distortion can be attempted at the earliest; suggestions in this article being intended for this purpose.

5. In the field of Higher Education and Research (HER), certain class and categories of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) could stay with the Central Govt, for historical reasons as well as for reasons of large infrastructure and funding needs, strategic roles at the national level etc. Other than that, there is no case in general for expanding the role of Centre in HEIs, as well as in School Education, any further. The same applies to the spread of Private education; at least in the field of School Education, there should be no further expansion of the private sector, and the governments should make the investments needed to enhance its quality and reach as per need. Also, steps should be taken to actively encourage and facilitate purely philanthropic initiatives in spreading quality school education in different localities. (The notion that Central institutions, both at school level as well as university level, serve the purpose of acting as “Model Institutions” for others to emulate, is absurd given the vast disparity in funds, resources and privileges between the two classes.)

6. Most existing Educational Policy statements by the Govt. of India lay out the national perspectives, goals and guidelines first, and then expect the regional, state and district level players to derive their plans and policies from this template as ‘special cases’. This does not give much scope for the local realities, requirements and priorities to get reflected adequately in the plans that get drawn up and implemented. What is needed is an inversion of this process where the local realities, requirements and priorities are first embedded into the planning process, followed by one or two iterations up and down the system to iron out any gaps and wrinkles.(SCERTs would have precedence over the NCERT in most matters, etc!). It follows equally from this that insistence on “uniformity” across the country is highly counterproductive in most levels of Education, particularly so at the School level.

III. Beyond correcting the Education System from inside.

Today’s youth unrest and the cry for reforms in education are the result primarily of the educated at all levels not finding adequate gainful employment opportunities consistent with the efforts and time they and their parents have put in. And any amount of tinkering within the education system alone can not fix it; significant steps would have to be taken by the government and private players to generate much more job opportunities. Two areas are listed below:

i. Governments, Central and States, have to significantly expand their functions of providing effective and quality governance and administration, as well as enhanced public service delivery of all essential services, especially for the poorer sections of our people. Large scale investments would have to be done to scale up the availability of human resources in the public sector needed for carrying out these functions.

ii. Economy, particularly the Industry and its MSME component, has to expand significantly,

providing jobs as well as quality goods and services to the people – something that again needs significant investments from both the public and the private sectors.

Unless the required allocations and investments are made on these two counts, reforms internal to the Educational System alone will not suffice. Also, such investments in the form of budgetary provisions should not merely end up further enriching and benefiting the 15 crores of people belonging to “India-1” as per Kishore Biyani; it has to be centred around , and aimed at, the 30 crores belonging to “India-2”, as well as the 100 crore belonging to “India-3”.

C N Krishnan had his Education in Electrical Engineering from IIT Madras and IIT Kanpur, and worked at the Madras Institute of Technology Campus of Anna University Chennai from 1977 till retirement. He had been associated with the PPST organisation from its inception in the early 1980s, and then with the DKS Journal from its beginning in 2023. He can be reached at cnkrish@gmail.com

Go Back